'Custody' doesn’t skimp on the ordeal of the child in a custody battle

( Unrated ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

Xavier Legrand’s intense debut feature, 'Custody,' at times presents people more as symbols than as individuals.

Courtesy of Kino Lorber
Thomas Gioria stars in 'Custody.'

Xavier Legrand’s intense debut feature, “Custody,” takes place a few years after the events depicted in his Oscar-nominated 29-minute short film “Just Before Losing Everything,” which featured a physically abusive marriage. Since few people, including myself, have seen that film, “Custody” will seem like fresh territory to most audiences, and Legrand assumes as much. In the custody hearing that opens the film, Miriam (Léa Drucker) and her ex-husband, Antoine (Denis Ménochet), flanked by their lawyers, square off before a judge. Legrand plays out the “he said, she said” scenario without tipping his hand. Who is telling the truth? 

The burly, working-class Antoine claims he changed jobs and residences to be near his 11-year-old son, Julien (Thomas Gioria), of whom he seeks joint custody. Julien, however, as is demonstrated at the hearing, is fearful of his father. So is his sister, Josephine (Mathilde Auneveux), who will legally be an adult soon and therefore beyond her father’s control. When, shortly after this scene, Antoine is unexpectedly granted joint custody of Julien, it is the boy who is caught in the middle of all this toxicity. But we still don’t know what’s going on: Has his mother, in vengeance, poisoned his relationship with the father who is only trying to do right by his son, or is the bearish Antoine anything but a teddy bear?

Legrand began his movie career as an actor – he was one of the boys in Louis Malle’s great 1987 autobiographical Holocaust drama “Au Revoir les Enfants” – so it makes sense that much of this movie is focused on the actors’ faces and on how their bodies contort in moments of high duress. “Custody” is structured as a suspense film that incrementally morphs into a kind of horror film, but I was too fixated on what the characters were going through to think much about genre mechanics. (Legrand claims his movie’s three big influences are “Kramer vs. Kramer,” “The Night of the Hunter,” and “The Shining,” which pretty much cover the waterfront.) 

What rescues the film from melodrama is that Legrand drew on extensive interviews with psychologists, emergency police personnel, female victims, and batterers. The bone-deep chill of real, observed experience cuts through this film and gives it a verity that at times reminded me of Frederick Wiseman’s harrowing documentary “Domestic Violence.” 

The drawback to Legrand’s approach is that at times the people are presented more as symbols than as individuals. Miriam, Antoine, and, to a lesser extent, Julien resemble stand-ins for all those who have preceded them in the domestic violence arena. They don’t quite have the fullness of characterization that would lift this film into a richer realm where the emphasis is not so much on whodunit as whydunit.

There are still moments that sear, many of them centered on Julien. We can see how his need for a father is severely complicated by his love for his mother and his desire to protect her. When Antoine pressures the boy into revealing, against the court’s ruling, where Miriam is living, he is crestfallen (and too scared to show it). As in all good movies of this kind, the ordeal of the children is not skimped. They bear the brunt, and the legacy, of the anguish. Grade: B+ (This movie is not rated.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Custody' doesn’t skimp on the ordeal of the child in a custody battle
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today