It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
HitchcockLang wrote:
It does seem like the ugliest form of auteurism to cancel an entire film because of the director’s personal transgressions as if this is solely his work and he is the only one who stands to be punished by it. I feel bad for all the other people who collaborated on the project whose work may never see public exposure.


This might be the case if people would still go and see the movie if/when released but as the movie stands today, it's hard not to think like the distributors that releasing it might end up with only a very small amount of people would go and see it anyway, and that considering the current social events and the awful timing for releasing a movie with such a scenario, no exposure might be better than bad publicity.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
I too see this and the reshoots on the Ridley Scott movie as primarily a business decision rather than a moral one. The release of a film involves more expense and due to the bad publicity either film is bound to be a failure, so it’s an understandable decision for the studio to cut their losses. Unlike with All the Money in the World there is nothing that can be done to salvage I Love You, Daddy, the title alone reads like a troll.


Last edited by Lost Highway on Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
I totally agree – but the infuriating thing is that it's being read like a moral decision, and indeed people are increasingly likely to demand that other companies do the same thing in such circumstances (or if an actor turns out to be a racist, or online troll, or guilty of domestic violence, or ... ). The perplexing thing is this: if we're cancelling films because of a director or star being an insufficiently virtuous person, does that mean that we actually have a de facto expectation that the people we see on screen (and the artists behind it) are wholly admirable, unimpeachable citizens? Like, is the public understanding of human nature that absurd?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
furbicide wrote:
I totally agree – but the infuriating thing is that it's being read like a moral decision, and indeed people are increasingly likely to demand that other companies do the same thing in such circumstances (or if an actor turns out to be a racist, or online troll, or guilty of domestic violence, or ... ). The perplexing thing is this: if we're cancelling films because of a director or star being an insufficiently virtuous person, does that mean that we actually have a de facto expectation that the people we see on screen (and the artists behind it) are wholly admirable, unimpeachable citizens? Like, is the public understanding of human nature that absurd?


I’m not going to burn my Blu-rays of Chinatown or The Birds anytime soon.

Louis CK is the first of the post-Weinstein rape and harassment allegations I’ve been genuinely shocked and disappointed by, considering his work. I only recently became aware of rumors around him. I would have problems enjoying his comedy now, because he so successfully dealt with contentious issues around sexuality and consent. He brilliantly walked it right to the edge and then turned it around and to see him not turning it around in his life feels like a betrayal of what he had to say. Now I can’t help looking at his material in a different light and for the laughter to get stuck in my throat. I don’t expect every artist I admire to be a role model, but in his case his work and what came to light is too intertwined.

Just before the scandal broke I was scratching my head at the I Love You, Daddy trailer, because the film looked terrible and maybe this really isn’t the time for a homage to all things Woody Allen. I was hoping the film itself would turn it around. Now it doesn’t seem like much of a loss if I’ll never find out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
I'm wondering if people really believe these decisions to be moral and not only a marketing strategy to try and salvage / save as much money as possible.
It's to me all the more obvious in All The Money In The World which has a higher budget and a higher profile and is still seemingly trying to be in the course of the Oscars. So I'm wondering how many people don't read through that.

Lost Highway wrote:
I’m not going to burn my Blu-rays of Chinatown or The Birds anytime soon.

I'll buy Twin Peaks Season 3 despite Tom Sizemore, I saw twice Crystal Castles live and have pics from Ethan Kath, I have many Polanski movies on BD and a few books about him, lots of stuff about Hitchcock, the first 2 seasons of Louie (and I went to Comedy Cellar mostly because I knew the place through CK), etc etc.
But it's still sometimes weird to me, come to think about all this. Especially with Crystal Castles.

But in the case of I Love You Daddy, the reviews were already reflecting on CK's rumors BEFORE the whole thing went down, I can't even imagine what would happen now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Jesus, Tom Sizemore was always known as a colossal creep. He beat the shit out of his girlfriend and went to jail for that on charges of assault and battery. He's continued to have problems with the law, including a domestic violence charge. (He pleaded guilty and did community service to avoid another jail sentence.) I think Twin Peaks: The Return is the only thing I've seen him in after his release, and while I doubt his personality will ever change, it never occurred to me to stop watching the show (or anything he did before like Heat) because he played a supporting character. Doing so would feel like a ridiculous bit of sanctimoniousness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
hearthesilence wrote:
Jesus, Tom Sizemore was always known as a colossal creep...

The fact that he primarily plays creeps on film/TV makes it easier to suspend disbelief when watching something he's in. Louis C.K., on the other hand, is usually playing a role the viewer is meant to identify with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:25 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:48 am
I've read several accounts that say that screener DVDs of this film were sent to critics in the last week of October, before the news broke.

I hope to god one of those screeners gets leaked to bit torrent, so CK can NEVER make the money back he put into this film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
We should also get to loot his house.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Roger Ryan wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:
Jesus, Tom Sizemore was always known as a colossal creep...

The fact that he primarily plays creeps on film/TV makes it easier to suspend disbelief when watching something he's in. Louis C.K., on the other hand, is usually playing a role the viewer is meant to identify with.

I stopped watching after season 3 (due to lack of time), but weren't there red flags with the show around that time? Even if you didn't know about the rumors or allegations, I heard there was some questionable stuff going on, like an episode where he tries to rape Pamela, and because he's so inept and clumsy at it, it's easily dismissed by her character.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
swo17 wrote:
We should also get to loot his house.

Burn his neighborhood down. Any damage inflicted on anyone else is a collateral necessity to justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
hearthesilence wrote:
swo17 wrote:
We should also get to loot his house.

Burn his neighborhood down. Any damage inflicted on anyone else is a collateral necessity to justice.

But not his DVD of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. That's sacred.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Matt Stoller Zeitz has seen it. He gave it half a star out of a possible four. I imagine this will come out or leak at some point and won't become the new The Day the Clown Cried.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
hearthesilence wrote:
Roger Ryan wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:
Jesus, Tom Sizemore was always known as a colossal creep...

The fact that he primarily plays creeps on film/TV makes it easier to suspend disbelief when watching something he's in. Louis C.K., on the other hand, is usually playing a role the viewer is meant to identify with.

I stopped watching after season 3 (due to lack of time), but weren't there red flags with the show around that time? Even if you didn't know about the rumors or allegations, I heard there was some questionable stuff going on, like an episode where he tries to rape Pamela, and because he's so inept and clumsy at it, it's easily dismissed by her character.

Certainly, Louis C.K. was pushing the envelope by having his character behave inappropriately, but, as others have pointed out, the situations could be viewed as commentary on issues like sexual harassment. "Louie" the character could still be seen as separate from Louis C.K. the writer/director/performer. The allegations that he has admitted are true demonstrate that Louis C.K. suffers from a pathological compulsion that goes beyond the way the "Louie" character has behaved on the show - this is what sours the comedy/perceived commentary and makes the "Louie" character difficult to identify with in the same way as before the allegations came out.

Two episode back on Pamela Aldon's show Better Things (a series I continue to enjoy), a friend of Pamela's character suggests she would have more amorous feelings for him if she could just see his penis. Pamela's immediate shut-down of the idea produces a good laugh. Now, Louis C.K. co-wrote the script for this episode (in fact, he has received a writing/co-writing credit on virtually every episode of the two seasons thus far), so my perception of the humorous exchange has altered somewhat over the past week. Part of me is also sorry that Louis C.K. has been blacklisted since last week's episode (solely written by him) was a quite lovely rumination on family secrets and dysfunction that had nothing to do with sex or exposing oneself. If we get any more of those scripts in the future by the man, I suspect they will be credited under a pseudonym.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
There are FYC copies for sale right now on eBay, here and here, and probably more to follow. I Love You, Daddy will eventually exist in the backchannels even if it never sees an official release (which I think it will, but that may be a long time from now).

In addition to the performances, the film is being highly praised in even the most negative reviews for the cinematography and score. There is a pretty good article online about the cinematography. From the trailer, it definitely has a beautiful and striking "Woody Allen" look (but - from the trailer's images - I would personally compare it to Sven Nykvist's work on Celebrity, it doesn't really look like Manhattan to me). And the score is, by all accounts, a Golden Age homage that's composed and arranged in the style of a 1940s score.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:29 pm 

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Public service announcement: Searching "I Love You, Daddy" on any of the public torrent sites will yield many ... ahem ... unusual results.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:28 pm 

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm
So I guess this found a distributor after all? I was searching upcoming movie showtimes and found that this opens at one of the more popular Regal "arthouse" theaters in Charlotte on Friday.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Could be that it's just old information. The Orchard is not releasing it. I'm not sure if the shows that C.K. was pre-selling tickets for on his website are in conjunction with The Orchard though, so maybe some of those are still happening? Feels like the super weird release of The Interview a few years back...

Perkins Cobb wrote:
Public service announcement: Searching "I Love You, Daddy" on any of the public torrent sites will yield many ... ahem ... unusual results.

I saw someone (who would not have gone on eBay and spent hundreds of dollars for one, mind you) screencapture an awards screener on Twitter yesterday so I kind of peeked around curiously and I am absolutely certain I am now on a government watchlist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:41 pm 

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm
mfunk9786 wrote:
Could be that it's just old information. The Orchard is not releasing it. I'm not sure if the shows that C.K. was pre-selling tickets for on his website are in conjunction with The Orchard though, so maybe some of those are still happening? Feels like the super weird release of The Interview a few years back...


You may be right, on Google, it shows specific showtimes (four of them) for the film, but if you click on one and navigate to Fandango to buy tickets, it says there's no info for that movie at that theater. We'll see...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I wouldn’t trust those theatre showtimes. Even on Louis CK’s website before the release was cancelled, some of the dates and locations were wrong. For instance, in my hometown of Halifax, the movie was scheduled to be shown at the Oxford, a theatre that was shut down at the end of August.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:35 pm
There's algorithm-based aspects to all the smaller theater chains and Google. I'm confident that though showtimes were scheduled (and are still incidentally being promoted) they won't come to light.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Quote:
the movie was scheduled to be shown at the Oxford, a theatre that was shut down at the end of August.

that's poetic. an unreleased film showing at a nonexistent theater.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:42 am 

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 pm
You guys were definitely right as it is Friday now and that theater is no longer showing I Love You Daddy as an available movie as of today. Just old info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
Given what has happened, am I the only one who looks at the title and constantly picturing Louis C.K. pressuring some unlucky woman into saying that to him?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
I just watched a screener of this and am relieved to report that it is nowhere near a masterpiece, and you aren't missing much.

It isn't quite the movie I thought it was going to be. I did not feel it was or was trying to be an apologia for perviness, though one character gives voice to an argument along those lines. What it really feels like is an indictment of the Louis CK character as a father. It is a character that has completely failed to prepare his daughter for life, has refused to truly raise her or teach her, and then, when she finds a different father figure (one who is also, in a way, an idealized father figure for the Louis character), the Louis character freaks out. Multiple characters call him out for this in the course of the story, and he ultimately comes to understand himself as a fraud as both an artist and a father.

Regardless of all that, which actually could be interesting, on an actual execution level, it's very shaky. The black-and-white and music evokes Manhattan, but this is both unfortunate and misleading, as it's really going for something different, and it doesn't look good -- Gordon Willis would rather have gouged his eyes out than shot any scene from the first half of this movie. The decoupage is frequently amateurish; the editing within scenes is completely disjointed, with random cut-ins to meaningless close-ups that I assume only exist to shorten the scenes, as they aren't there for emphasis or for line readings. Louis CK edits his own stuff and really could have used a real editor on this. This isn't merely a technical criticism, as I think these choices wreak havoc with the film's flow, which it really could have used to smooth over the odd tone it's going for. The music in the context of the rest of this comes across as overwrought and tonally confused as well.

On a plot level, I think it rather overstays its welcome, becoming repetitive. It doesn't help that many of the characters are designed to be performed at a rather high pitch, so it's a high-strung experience. The Malkovich character is the exception here, which is likely intentional so that he can serve as a contrast.

Now, there are a lot of talented people here, so there are good moments and a few good scenes. Malkovich is quite entertaining. There are some funny lines.

And I do admit it was difficult to separate everything that's going on now from the movie and its making. But I don't think I would have liked it any better absent all this, because so many of its flaws are real and significant. I don't really relish the idea of work being eliminated or hidden, but this is nowhere near the best work of anyone involved. (For context, I was a huge fan of Louis' FX show and of his standup.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection