Night Moves

By Other Voices voices@moviecitynews.com

Sundance Review: Daddy Longlegs

By Kim Voynar

Daddy Longlegs, written and directed by Josh Safdie and Benny Safdie, and ostensibly from memories of their own experiences with their father when they were growing up, reminded me a lot of another Sundance film from a couple years ago, Azazel Jacobs’ simultaneously irritating and enchantingMomma’s Man.

Both movies are filmed in a verite style that slams the viewer directly into the experience of the protagonists, and both films feature men who haven’t quite grown up. Consequently, the main characters in both films annoyed the hell out of me,and yet I found the stories around them compelling and fascinating. InMomma’s Man, Mikey (Matt Boren) has come home to his parents’ loft in New York for visit intended to last a few days, which ends up stretching into weeks as he reverts to a weird sort of late-life adolescence, avoiding returning home to the grown-up responsibilities of his wife and infant.

The man-child in question in Daddy Longlegs is Lenny (Ronald Bronstein, who hits every discordant note perfectly), a perpetually distracted, hyperactive, boy in a man’s body who nonetheless has occasional responsibility for the well-being and safety of his two young sons. I have no idea just how autobiographical the screenplay really is, but obviously, the Safdie brothers did manage to survive the time they spent with their dad when they were growing up. As I was cringing through much of the film, though, I began to suspect that if there is such a thing as guardian angels, they most have been working overtime protecting these kids from their father’s endless string of poor decision-making.

What’s most interesting about Daddy Longlegs is the question it posits: What makes a good parent? Is it enough to be fun, to be creative, to make your kids laugh, to play with them as if you are one of them? That can be fine and dandy, sure, but it can also be disastrous, and the Safdies show both sides of being a child dependent on a child-like, irresponsible parent. On the other hand, it could be argued that their time with their dad, so different from the structured, regimented routine of their regular life with their more responsible mother, directly influenced and informed the adults they grew to be. Perhaps they are able to tap wells of creativity and energy that otherwise would have remained dormant without the off-the-wall unpredictability and craziness of their time with their father.

And perhaps the film exaggerates those memories, and it wasn’t quite as insane as what we see onscreen. Lenny, as written for the film, is completely clueless as a parent, however much it’s obvious he adores his sons and loves spending time with them. This is the kind of dad who perhaps would have been more suited to only having to be responsible for the life and safety of young children two evenings a week for a few hours, not two weeks at a time.

This is an inconsistency in the setup of the story that bugged me: the parents obviously live in close enough proximity that they can both make it to their sons’ school, so why wouldn’t they have a more reasonable custody arrangement that would give their dad regular time with his sons without him having to be responsible for them completely for two weeks at a time? And why would the boys’ mother, who’s otherwise portrayed as a responsible, structured parent, allow her sons to be put into such a dangerous, uncontrolled predicament for two weeks at a stretch, apparently without even checking on their well-being?

Because I’m not talking your average questionable decision-making here, I’m talking about a man who can barely take care of himself, much less two young kids, a man who makes a series of questionable parenting choices that finally culminate in a decision that borders on criminal, with a consequence that could be tragic. Lenny drove me so insane that I wanted to turn the film off at times, and I found myself talking to the movie as I watched it, interjecting comments like, “Are you kidding me?” and “Where the hell is their mother while this is going on?” (One of the advantages of watching a Sundance film on screener is that you don’t bother anyone but yourself when you get irritated and start talking to the film while you’re watching it.)

And yet, for all that I couldn’t stand Lenny as a character, I quite liked this film. Sage Ranaldo and Frey Ranaldo, as the two innocents caught in their father’s hurricane of instability, deliver remarkably solid performances (but boy, would I love to see some of the outtakes that didn’t make it onscreen). The film raises thoughtful questions about what it means to be a parent and about the nature of parent-child relationships. Lenny, for all that I viewed him as a dangerously incompetent parent, has his moments of likability and, more to the point, moments of deep connection to his sons; those moments, bookended though they were by the moments of sheer stupidity, showed the value of the father-son relationship, in spite of its flaws and foibles. Can a person be both a good parent and a bad one at the same time? InDaddy Longlegs, the answer is, unequivocally, “yes.”

(Daddy Longlegs is one of three “Sundance Selects” films chosen this year to be a part of a collaborative effort with the Sundance Institute, which made the films available through video-on-demand the same day they premiered at the fest.)

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“By the time the sounds of the Von Trapp children warbling ‘Silent Night’ drift through The Giver, you may find yourself wondering what fresh movie hell this is. In truth, the enervating hash of dystopian dread, vague religiosity and commercial advertising-style uplift is nothing if not stale. Adapted from Lois Lowry’s book for young readers, the story involves an isolated society that, with its cubistic dwellings, mindless smiles, monochromatic environs and nebulous communitarianism, seem modeled on a Scandinavian country or an old Mentos commercial.”
~ Manohla Dargis’ Deadly Lede For Review Of The Giver

“It’s possible that in the coming days or, God forbid, weeks, the president could have something more specific to say about the freighted decades-long history of political imbalance at work, in this case between a mostly black working-class town and its majority white government and police force. But this is a black man who must choose his words about race, governance, and law enforcement even more carefully than a white politician would. And this is the third summer in which, as president, he would have to do so…

“Until this point in the turmoil, the absence of the crucial second face in the incident seemed to heighten the distance between police and the people they serve. It grants them both an anonymity and autonomy that matches the bizarre transformation, in Ferguson and elsewhere, of police into troops. The riot gear turns 2014 into a dot on a Jim Crow–era timeline. Since the officer’s name wasn’t made public more immediately, it should have seemed urgent for the police to lose the riot attire and take steps to minimize distrust, to dispel the contagious assumption that silence equates racism…

“What is so affecting isn’t just that 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed when he was barely a man. It’s other things as well. One was how many reports of the incident that first day mentioned that he was about to start college. That’s a rite that’s universally emotional. But for a black male from a poor family, the first day of college is a freighted day that usually requires the sacrifice of more than one person. Black people know the odds of getting to and graduating from college, and that they’re low. That Brown seemed to be on the right path compounded the parental, local, and national outrage over his being wiped from it.”

~ Wesley Morris On Let’s Be Cops, The Shooting In Ferguson, Obama…