Louis C.K. has a new movie coming out. Or so I have read. Something about a guy returning to his horrible family, such that uncomfortable family awfuness/comedy ensues. Haven’t seen that one before. Reading this, I was reminded that Louis C.K. wrote/directed/edited and starred in a movie way back in 2017, one that premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, was bought for 5 million, and was moments away from being released when Louis C.K. found himself in some rather well-publicized trouble.
His movie, I Love You, Daddy, was quickly dumped, the rights bought back by Louis C.K., and has never been released. Reviews like this one suggest why.
At the time, hearing about this new, arty movie he’d made, I was kinda miffed. Just because yet another artist turns out to be a creep, I can’t watch his movie? It’s not like he’s Harvey Weinstein, I found myself thinking. It’s not like watching his comedy over the years anyone could possibly be surprised the guy has some sexual hang-ups, and a deep need to tell us about them. But pulling his, um, nonsense on, effectively, co-workers, and screwing with their careers? Well… fuck that guy, I concluded.
And I forgot about his movie. Until reading about the new one. And I thought, surely this buried flick has to be out there somewhere. This is the age of information! You can’t hide an entire movie!
Indeed, you cannot. It’s out there to be torrented. So I grabbed it. And I watched it. And I’ve been trying to lift my jaw off the floor ever since.
I Love You, Daddy may be the most artistically and morally monstrous movie I have ever seen. And I’ve seen Turner & Hooch. It’s a nightmare from the first scene. For the first hour, I simply couldn’t believe this movie had been made, let alone screened, let alone bought, let alone released (almost!) to the public. If I had seen this prior to Louis’s downfall, and he’d asked me (we are supposing the existence of an alternate universe where such a conversation would take place), I would have said, “Release this movie and your career will be over. My advice? Take the negative and bury it under 100 feet of cement.”
This advice still stands.
Truly, it is a moral monstrosity, made by a man so drunk on ego, and so scared of women, that, whatever I once thought of Louis C.K. as an artist, my estimation of him as both an artist and a human being has plummeted to someplace well below zero. It makes Pootie Tang look like Citizen Kane (and I actually kinda enjoyed Pootie Tang! Go figure.)
I know, I know—don’t sugarcoat it, Butch, tell them how you really feel. What can I say? This movie made me mad.
First there’s the artistic angle, which is so baffling I’m at a loss. The movie is shot on 35mm black and white film, and is designed to resemble in look, feel, style, character, music, and story the work of Woody Allen, specifically Manhattan, with a dash of Stardust Memories. People have some opinions about Woody Allen these days, but one thing is certain: Those two movies, among a handful of others he made, are cinematic masterpieces. Why would someone like Louis C.K., in his first film as writer/director/star, ape another filmmaker? Why would he do it so shamelessly? And so very terribly? It’s the most blatant theft of Woody Allen’s work I’ve ever seen, and since Allen reinvented the romantic comedy with Annie Hall, he’s been ripped off by everybody. Yet nobody has ever had the gall to rip him off so—I don’t even know how to put it—obnoxiously, pretentiously, insultingly. This movie looks like a shitty sitcom dreamed it was High Art.
It plays as though Louis, concluding that he must be the greatest comedian and cinematic artist of the century, decided to say, “Hey, you think Woody Allen was so great? Hell, I could make a Woody Allen film just as good as Woody Allen.” Which, why on earth would you do that? How delusional would you have to be?
And that’s not even the worst of it.
The plot is astounding. Louis plays Glen, an asshole TV writer with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The women in his life, who are his ex-wife and his producer, shriek at him for being a complete asshole, and his one male friend is an over-the-top sexist monster. But, ya know, he’s a comedy TV actor, so it’s cool. Glen’s daughter, China (Chloë Grace Moretz), 17, is beautiful and, Glen tells us over and over again, a child who knows nothing and only wants to party. He lets her do whatever she wants, having no ability or interest in being a father.
It is then that famous, and old, movie director Leslie Goodwin (John Malkovich) shows up. Glen reveres him, yet it’s rumored that Leslie is a child molester who obsesses over teenage girls. He meets China, creepily explains that, indeed, he’s obsessed with teenage girls, and invites her to France to hang out on his yacht. Glen thinks they might be screwing, and flips out.
Unbelievably, Louis C.K. actually sent this piece of shit script to Woody Allen asking him to play the Leslie Goodwin role. Allen said no. Although one must imagine what he actually said was, “Are you out of your fucking mind? NO!” What kind of twisted nutjob would offer this part to Woody Allen and, on top of that, tell him it would be good for his image? Who would make a blatant rip-off of an Allen movie, featuring a character meant to at least suggest Allen himself, which character is written as exactly the over-the-top sleazoid the most ardent Allen haters view him as?
Louis C.K. is both stealing Allen’s, well, everything, and at the same time stabbing him in the back, all the while imagining he’s doing Allen some kind of favor.
And doing so in a movie the point of which seems to have something to do with allowing Louis C.K. to flailingly attempt to excuse any of his own “rumored” improprieties by painting his female characters as either harpies or dummies, and lingering at length on Moretz’s bikini-clad body. Who but an idiot 17-year-old would even consider dating a man like Leslie Goodwin, Louis asks? When an accomplished actress (Rose Byrne) tries to explain the reality of women being unique individuals with unique needs and desires, and tells him she, at 17, had an affair with a much older man, Louis insists to her that she was raped.
Louis plays Glen as just a regular everyman with the same simple concerns as everybody, which worked well enough in his TV show Louie, where he’s presented as a sort of loveable schlub who’s just trying to make sense of a crazy world, but here he forgets to give us even a single reason to like Glen. Instead he assumes we’ll see Glen as he assumes we see Louis himself—a humble, loveable schlub. But what we see on screen is an oblivious asshole.
It’s impossible to watch this movie and not see the man behind the camera the same way.
So, Louis, if, god forbid, you’re reading this, you’ve so far made the right choice in shelving this movie. But just to be sure, I recommend, for the good of humankind, that you bury the negative under a 100 feet of cement. You’re welcome.
“I got to say na nay no.”– Pootie Tang
Exactly my point.
” (we are supposing the existence of an alternate universe where such a conversation would take place) ” – that sounds a lot like a world that lives on the edge of reality
I just watched it. Had never heard of it before but reading your Pootie Tang review led me to this. I love Pootie Tang btw but let’s get to it shall we?
1) Very fair comparisons to Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories and Manhattan.
2) Excellent score and cinematography
3) Good performances all around BUT by far the single most annoying and by FAR reprehensible character is Charlie Day’s Ralph. I wanted to fast forward his scenes but didn’t because that would have been unfair to the entire movie, since apparently the entire world and you Blogman, have been unfair to it. Also, Day’s character was supposed to be an annoying douchebag so he nailed it there.
4) End credits with the classic main characters standing alongside their name and character: good stuff, loved it.
No matter what anyone thinks of this movie, its characters, the actors that played them, the grip boy that might have jerked it on the morning of the 16th day of shooting, the valet that made it a point to scratch Louis CK’s car…. it’s a technically well made movie all around. I don’t know budget involved and I don’t care since none of it was my money, but it looks rather expensive or at least it plays like that. Considering the story it wanted to tell about its characters it looked good.
Another comparison to Woody Allen; Allen started off making goofball movies-Take the Money and Run, Bananas, Sleeper and others. Very silly, goofy stuff that are some of the funniest things committed to film. Then he does Annie Hall and gone are the goofy movies from that point onwards. You could also compare Louis CK’s very short directing career (so far) in the same light. Pootie Tang: extremely goofy, silly stuff, funny as hell. This movie: extremely mature, tackles heavy questions of life, morality, burden of sin, and other unfunny adult subject matter. It’s like Louis encapsulated Allen’s entire career in two movies. Btw has he only done 2 movies? Not sure but I don’t think he’s come close to directing as many movies as Woody Allen.
Ok so, I liked the movie. I have no fucking clue why this blogger recommends burying it under cement. Maybe they were a former Mafia hitman that dealt in the “construction industry”, I dunno. Maybe what this movie should be buried in is a fresher understanding of how morally reprehensible we all are as humans and if a guy makes a movie questioning that fact as well as putting his sex under microscope he shouldn’t be condemned for it. I honestly don’t recall whatever accusations were thrown his way around the time this movie was being made or about to be released. The only thing I can glean from this blog is that Louis came under fire for some inappropriate shit. I didn’t make it a point to Google anything else before I watched the movie, and to be honest I think I enjoyed the movie moreso as a result.
Does the movie seem to want to apologize for the main character played by the guy that also directed the movie for being a terrible father to his 17 year old daughter? Yes. Does it sometimes dwell on certain perversities that come thru the movie as if to say “I did some bad shit and I apologize, but check out my 17 year old daughter in her bathing suit”? Yes. If I had a 17 year old daughter would I want her to see this movie? Yes.
Louis if you’re reading this- fuck these folks and the studio that came with it. In 100 years or so, when they rediscover your works hopefully they’ll view this movie not in the lense of the weirdness that is our current times. But in the only true sense anyone should view any movie by any one; as a movie. Not the fucking subject of everyone involved in the movie and what they were doing other than what they see during the course of the movie.
Get it? It’s a fucking movie, folks. You wanna play tabloid reporter and dig into people’s lives and find out what time they masturbated get a fucking job at the National Enquirer(is that even still around?). Capice?
Lastly, for the purpose of full disclosure and I really felt compelled to include this because anyone reading this might think “this guy is a huge Louis CK fan” etc. Not at fucking all. Never seen his show, watched two of his movies so far(and he only directed Pootie). So I would not consider myself even a fan of Louis CK, but I’m getting there.
Are we done?
Cement. I got your cement for you right here you fucking fascist son of a bitch.