I Love You, Daddy

People unable to separate the work of art from the private life of the author boycott this film only to their own detriment. Maybe "I Love You, Daddy" is not a masterpiece of the seventh art, but it is certainly a film worth watching, an intelligent and brave story that makes you think and refuses to bow to puritanism and the modern version of the witch hunt.

A successful television scriptwriter (Louis C. K.) is a spineless divorced man who has turned his daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) into a spoiled manipulator. But when his seventeen-year-old princess begins to fall for his idol, a seventy-year-old filmmaker with a reputation as a pedophile (John Malkovich), he realizes he has to tighten the reins.

Parenthood, growing up (both daughter and father), diverse male-female relationships and bridging generational gaps, drawing the line between conservative prejudices and common sense, an obvious thematic homage to Woody Allen (who was offered the role, which luckily was eventually played by Malkovich), and a stylistic and acting homage to the golden age of Hollywood, all of this is very nicely packed into an atmospheric and somewhat philosophical film, which many criticized for not having a clear point and message. But I think that this is precisely where its strength lies, because life itself does not have a clear point and message, and this film portrays it very honestly and without restraint.

Old-fashioned and modern at the same time, this is a movie you'll love if you loved Woody Allen, or maybe the TV series "Californication," with which it also shares actress Pamela Adlon. I watched the movie primarily because of Chloe and, although I have no major complaints about her performance, I was much more impressed by John Malkovich and Rose Byrne, and Louis himself in roles of screenwriter, director, and lead actor. Warm recommendation.

7/10.

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.

It is a shame this film was not properly released. I mostly enjoyed it. Louis seemed to have a clear idea of what he wanted stylistically. The settings are elite parts of New York and one scene in Paris. It is all shot in black and white. The whole film seems like Louis C K is trying to make a Woody Allen film and it mostly works.

The cast is great and they all do a great job. Rose Byrne plays a charming love interest. Louis character gets bullied and harassed by pretty much every female character, but, the following three are the most domineering. His ex wife played by Helen Hunt is by far the most outright abusive. His business partner played by Edie Falco is always nagging him to do things. At times she is in the right, but, it doesn't make her any less annoying. His ex girlfriend is played by Pamela Adlon. This character is kind of obnoxious and not nearly as charming as she thinks she is. The actresses might all be nice people, but I found their characters very annoying. Louis' character is okay, at times I sympathised with him and at other times I wanted to shake some sense into him. He is okay at acting, but, his delivery is nowhere near as good as his stand up. I'm sure if he keeps working at it he will get better. Charlie Day really is a scene stealer. He has some of the best lines in the film and biggest laughs. I thought John Malkovich and Chloe Grace Mortez were the best. Their scenes together were my favourites. He has to be one of the most charming actors in the business and she is already one of the best actresses of her generation. They were able to take what could have been a very creepy dynamic and actually make it charming and believable.

My main issues are with the plot. There were a lot of times I wanted Louis' character to stand up for himself more. I also think the ending could have been better. The film was entertaining enough, but, it didn't really express any clear message.

For his first proper film, Louis did well. I don't know if he will ever be back after his scandal, but if he is given another chance, he has the potential to make some great films.

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.

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.