I Love You, Daddy

I hope this movie is looked back upon in a very unique way in film history. It was essentially blacklisted, justified or not, for it's creator abusing his privilege and gender, which is exactly what the film was about. It's clearly somewhat autobiographical, I think some part of him knew his career was over and wanted to get this film out just in time. He was two weeks late. The themes of obscured sexual morals, patriarchy, privilege, male dominance is the core of the film, toxic masculinity. It would have actually done a lot to add to the dialog at the time around the "me too" movement, as a man who was admitting to doing these things growing and coming to terms with it, instead of silencing him. I understand why it was buried but I think that was a mistake and adds to the idea that the current culture is not an open forum. There are many ways this film could be interpreted to make him look worse or better, but we are all adults, we should be able to see it. You can find it online if you know how. It's excellent, a bit sloppy here and there, (blocking errors/script supervision, Pamela Aldon being too similar to her role in Louis takes you out of it a bit) but it's a self funded independent debut feature shot on black and white film by a stand up comedian and a television crew in 2017 and it's beautiful and heartfelt and that's a amazing. It is actually an extremely important film and should be seen no matter how you feel about the social issues surrounding it. Also comparing it to woody Allen is lazy and not at all accurate, it's much closer to 40's/50's American drama romances, Douglas Sirk, Howard hawks, George cukor, Preston sturges. Kubrick's Lolita is obviously a HUGE influence. Chloe grace moretz is basically playing a version of sue Lyons' Lolita and looks and acts much like her. There are moments in the film that are clear homages to that film.

When I saw the rating before seeing the movie, I got a bit defensive. It is so low because of the people's inability to distinguish between the person and the art. American puritanism is at play again here.

Then I saw the movie. It was weird. From the very beginning there were some obvious inadequacies in the editing and the acting. This might be taken as something charming, something unpolished on purpose, may be a stylistic decision. At times the movie feels like a movie from the 40s (the scenes from the birthday party and just afterwards with John Malkovich); at other times it nods to Woody Allen. But what makes it hard to watch it in isolation from the current events, is the fact that the movie is so much in a dialog with them. Mindfuckingly so. It examines the grey areas when it comes to consent, signals people give in the flirting game, what is objectively appropriate (if there is such a thing) and what is acceptable from society. The latter is as divided as its members.

As for Louis CK's acting, the confused expression worked better in the context of the series Louis, but it could hardly carry a whole movie.

Overall, it is an interesting film to watch. I am still a fan and a supporter and wish to have the opportunity to review many future Louis CK's projects.

I'm a big fan of his show and stand-up, but this movie just misses somehow... i know it seems ridiculous cuz it's his movie, but, even w/the glasses, he seems miscast. art is hit or miss, and this just doesn't click for me. scenes and dialogue seem a bit forced, performances are a bit odd/off. I love the subject matter but it's an homage to better (obviously woody allen, for instance) films, and does not measure up in comparison. manhattan, for instance, is 50 X better than this movie.

Deals with all of the creepiness of Woody's stuff, issues of parenting, how men treat women, letting go, growing up, and more. A really great movie even though Charlie Day was a tad unnecessary and a couple of the deep focus shots were obvious process compositions. Don't dismiss it because C.K. is a creepy, this is solid stuff.

If you like CK's "Louis" tv show then you will also like this, as it actually works pretty much like an extended episode of that series (I mean even Pamela Adlon didn't bother to act slightly different). If you haven't seen the tv show the movie will probably play out as some sort of watered-down version of Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry or similar. There are some weird shots and editing (probably due to the movie not being publicly released when it had to) which along with the grayscale tint makes for an interesting visual style.

As for the story itself, and without spoiling anything, CK uses the topic of bad parenting as the driver to preach about the issue of preconceived notions, wrong assumptions and poor judgments that we usually hold against people. Charlie Day character's over the top jokes and raunchy language (typical of CK) sort of embodies us, the audience, in that disparaging way of criticizing someone else's life.

Chloe Moretz wasn't really appropriate for her role but is competent enough. John Malkovich should certainly provide a few laughs with the brutal honesty of his character, delivered in the most exquisite passive-aggressive style.

Overall a fun film to watch if you like the aforementioned type of comedy.