There’s something sneakily warm, humane, and even a little
moving at the center of Delivery Man,
a cluttered, sickly sweet, and not particularly funny comedy that’s almost
impossible to recommend without piling on caveats and disclaimers. It stars
Vince Vaughn as one of his usual responsibility-resistant motormouths, this
time a guy who is nearly fired by his father from the family business, crushed
under a debt of thousands he owes some shady characters, and all-but-dumped by
his exasperated girlfriend. On top of all this, he’s tracked down by an
attorney who tells him the sperm bank to which he donated over 600 times over
20 years ago mistakenly overworked his samples and now 533 young people would
like him to drop his anonymity and meet them. In fact, they’re suing him to do
so. What a predicament. With such a strained comic premise, the film has to
work hard to back into its gooey sentimentality, but earns some unexpected
charm along the way.
What I liked best about the film was the diversity of
children Vaughn’s character suddenly discovers he fathered in scenes that play well with what the characters know or don't know about the situation. We find out about
the kids as he does, impulsively picking them one by one out of a case file his
lawyer (likably played by Parks &
Recreation’s Chris Pratt) advises him not to open. If he didn’t want him to
open it, why does he give him a copy? But I digress. Vaughn approaches them one
at a time, acting only as a stranger to them. He discovers his secret children
are a varied bunch: a struggling actor, a professional basketball player, an
amiable drunk college kid, a busker, a drug addict, a historical reenactor, a
special needs child, and more. These young people in their teens and twenties
have only their unknown father in common. Some he’s immediately proud of.
Others he feels the need to help. Still others, he’s disappointed when
confronted with their life situations. But the sneakily humane and moving part
is the way he’s instantly and totally struck with deep fatherly love for them,
proud of them simply for existing.
Andrew Solomon’s recent extraordinary book Far from the Tree powerfully explores
the concept of parents truly, deeply, fully loving children who are not what
they would expect or have hoped for in a variety of difficult situations. I
never would’ve guessed that an otherwise silly and misshapen trifle like Delivery Man would rub up against the
same nerve as this great book, but so it does. When Vaughn tells his lawyer
that he wants to be their guardian angel, it’s sweet. The concept may be wildly
impractical – who could possibly be a real present father to over 500 kids,
most of whom are already legally adults? – but the core sentiment rings with
some degree of authenticity about finding and accepting one’s family and all
the diversity of experiences that can encompass.
Would that the film devoted less time to financial thugs who
show up precisely twice to threaten Vaughn to pay up. Who are they? Where do
they come from? Why did they lend him money? Who knows? The movie cares not a
bit about the answer, failing to characterize the threat even a token amount.
Similarly, there’s an unfortunate detour involving one of Vaughn’s mystery kids
who learns his father’s identity and attempts to extort some father-son bonding
time. These two malnourished subplots load down the film with unnecessary
clutter, distracting from the emotional journey that Vaughn would go through
far more convincingly and poignantly without such contrivances.
In addition to the unfocused plotting, supporting roles are
universally anemic, especially poor Cobie Smulders in the thankless girlfriend
role that’s only around for the super schmaltzy but kind of effective emotional
climax. Such problems come with the material, which Canadian writer-director
Ken Scott is recycling from his own 2011 French-language film Starbuck. It’s too bad the process of remaking
his own film didn’t allow him to clear away the tangle of distracting subplots
that gathers up around the nice emotional center or write in some better jokes.
The film is sweet and soft. But what makes it such a nagging disappointment is
the missed opportunities. Instead of devoting time to that debt or extortion
sidetracks, why not nod to the mothers of all these children, who are
conspicuously missing entirely from the equation. What do they have to say
about all this? In the end, it’s so focused on ending with a feel-good group
hug of an ending, it’s hard not to feel at least a little cheated by how
sloppily we got there.
No comments:
Post a Comment