Sorry/Not Sorry

Somehow this film was meant to be damning. Someone as so "prominent" in the comedy field, arts and film seemed to rub off people the wrong way?

Like that pun? If not you would like this film. Perhaps.

I don't get his damnation. I get it a perverted. I get that he's got a weird sex fetish.

Don't like that but I like his comedy.

I think this film is trying too hard to get us thinking he is not worthy of his art. The people answer their own questions. But they don't answer their statement. NY Times is a rag.

I do see why people are upset. Why they wouldn't like him BECAUSE of this. There are other people who don't like his looks. Don't like his comedy. Just don't like him and this is why they don't.

It's fine. But it's not mandatory to dislike him BECAUSE of his perversion. That's up to you and the women who "were paralysed" when he started (how the hell does he start unless you don't say anything?).

Comedy ain't everything and neither is this film. It's ok for voicing the women's objection to his perversion - why not? He deserves that. But that's it as far as I'm concerned.

This is a very funny documentary, even though unintentionally.

We all knew before even showing this, that this is picture is paid to via a platinum victim card, with a bunch of attention seekers seeking attention, but what surprised me is the fact that when they were showing clips of Louis CK, it was like a nice montage of Louis CK compilations, and Dave Chappelle bits were he was making fun of them was even funnier, and the funniest thing was when they were showing their face instantly after that, priceless.

Unfortunately, this doesn't last long, they come back to nag on your head, that's why I can't give them the full points.

Greetings again from the darkness. In the twisted nature of many humans, there is a need for heroes and a corresponding sense of satisfaction as those heroes are knocked from their pedestal of idolization. Louis C. K. may not have been a hero, but as a comedy genius, he had reached the pinnacle of his profession while building a massive fan base. It may seem that five brave women knocked him from the proverbial pedestal, but the truth is ... his own arrogance and behavior did so.

The purpose of this documentary from co-directors Cara Mones and Caroline Shu is not to re-hash the sordid details of Louis's actions, but rather to ask ... what now? Fellow comedian Michael Ian Black eloquently presents his considered thoughts on this, as do others who were more directly involved. The film draws heavily from the November 2017 New York Times article written by Melena Ryzik, Cara Buckley, and Jodi Kantor, each of whom share their view here. There are also interviews with others, including Jen Kirkman and Megan Koester. I believe Abby Schachner is the only one of the original four who were named to appear in the film, however it seems quite clear that Louis C. K.'s tendencies were as well-known throughout the industry as those of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. And yes, his defenders make the argument that his actions were nowhere near the level of those two figures of the #MeToo movement.

As has been pointed out many times in these cases, the sexual predator aspect is not the only issue. The abuse of power is every bit as crucial. The film is divided into seven "parts": Louis, Jen, Open Secret, These Stories are True, Abby, Comeback, and Cancelled. In contrast to Weinstein and Cosby and so many others, when publicly confronted with the accusations, Louis C. K. stated, "These stories are true." Much of the fallout was from his fans who went after the accusers on social media. Louis C. K. disappeared from public life for about 9 months before beginning his comeback ... using his history as fodder for joke-telling.

Louis C. K. being 'cancelled' ended when he won a Grammy for his comedy album. He hasn't yet been welcomed back to mainstream Television or Film, but his stand-up tours remain popular. The film serves to ignite dialogue and debate on a tough topic, and we find ourselves admiring those who stepped up to shine the light. Although it cost her a career, respect goes to Megan Koester who states, "I don't want to work with those who blindly ignore morality." It's a statement on which too few of us seem to stand with her. We must each answer for ourselves ... What now?

In theaters beginning July 12, 2024.

I have been a huge Louis CK fan for several years. He's the only comic that never fails to make me laugh. When I first heard that Louie was "cancelled" back in 2017, I was of the opinion that #MeToo went way too far. I continued to watch his specials & movies, and I hoped that this "awkward mishap" would be forgotten.

I'm still inclined to agree with that sentiment. Yet now that I hear the testimonies of the women, his special "Sorry" seems so messed up. I agree that he 100% should have used that special to say something truthful & meaningful. Yet instead, Louie just briefly joked about it, grossly mischaracterized what actually happened (assuming the women never consented), and then he moved on to make millions.

I only give 7/10 because, while the documentary was incredibly thought provoking, it doesn't seem to put Louie on the hook to give an actual apology. I would have given this documentary 10 stars if it pleaded Louie to do precisely that. What Louie did can & should be forgiven, in my opinion. I think many of the victims could forgive him too if he properly apologized. But Louie may never actually apologize if people continue to relentlessly attack him.

Don't get me wrong; I feel sorry for all the women that were also attacked for trying to talk about Louie's behavior. The women got it SO much worse, and I'm glad that the documentary gives recognition to that. This documentary seemed like it was just about to bridge the gap; to allow a proper discussion on this polarizing issue. But sadly, it seemed to end on a persecution campaign instead... And yet, I suppose that's Louie's fault because he refused to participate in this documentary... and yet I understand why he may be hesitant to do so because if he says the wrong thing, it could forever end the career that he has left.

The most frustrating thing of all of this is that I KNOW Louie is genius enough to find a way to talk about these difficult issues AND make us cry laughing while doing it. I hope that Louie watched this documentary and doesn't take it the wrong way. I believe that if he knew how the women feel, that he can find a way to properly make amends while making us cry laughing about it. If nothing else, this documentary showed me what a lousy job Louie did on making amends. Louie could be a legend if he would use his craft to navigate this cultural divide instead of hiding behind his jokes & trying to forget it happened. I was glad that he was back, but he can do better than his lousy special. Now, I don't know what to think of Louie if he won't use his comedic genius to make properly make amends.

This is a technically-competent documentary but its problem is thematic, in that it doesn't know what it's trying to achieve.

First of all, Louis CK is someone who did appalling, inexcusable things but he's not Harvey Weinstein. Invoking such an iconic monster as Weinstein detracts from CK's lesser, albeit vile, behaviour. But that's not the main flaw in this film. The main flaw is that it doesn't know what question it's asking.

If it's asking why Louis CK still has a great career, we already know the answer - because he's a great comedian. That raises the question; should someone who did something reprehensible be allowed to make a living? And if so, should they only be allowed to make a living in certain professions? (And if so, why? Etc etc) If it's asking whether or not Louis CK is genuinely sorry, the only valid answer is: 'We don't know.' We can't possibly know anyone's genuine emotions - as opposed to what they choose to tell us - unless we've known that person very well and for long enough that we can trust them to be honest with us. We certainly can't know the private thoughts of a person whom most of us have never even met.

Rightly or wrongly, Louis CK's not required to be sorry; he's only required to abide by the law and not repeat his past behaviour. He could of course make it obvious that he's really sorry, but that might be performative, so would it mean anything, anyway?

A much more insightful question would have been; Can you separate the art from the artist? That's up to the individual - there's no generic response but it's a fascinating question that could have driven a much more interesting film.

Personally I love Louis CK's comedy - he's one my favourites. Do I love the man himself? Definitely not - I don't even know him and I have zero desire to meet him. Having met a few of my creative heroes, I have no problem separating art from artist. Whether anyone else feels the same is entirely up to them. That's the subjective nature of any art and how individuals respond to it.