Sorry/Not Sorry

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.

This documentary is pushing an agenda that Louis CK's behavior was an open industry secret. This is entirely one sided and at ignores any evidence that this may not be the case.

Instead it spends the first hour talking about what Louis CK did and attempts to cast it as an open secret in the industry. I was actually more convinced before watching this than after.

There are multiple times where scenes are shown where others are asked about Louis CK's behavior and are confused by the question, denying any knowledge.

The documentary presents this as all part of the cover up. This is the first hour of the documentary.

The last half hour is then how he's clearly not sorry enough. How they don't approve of his act and how he doesn't bring sexual misconduct into their act.

It feels like they are demanding he make their trauma part of his comedy routine and it's hard to imagine they wouldn't be complaining if he had.

The only interviews that the documentary crew produced are unabashedly aligned with the agenda of documentary. They didn't attempt to present any counter opinion by anyone in the industry, just various footage clips that were narrated around.

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.

Disclosure: I'm a fan of Louis CK.

If Jean Valjean received death penalty after stealing some breads, most people'd be very shocked. Likewise, if a murderer received a very light sentence, most people'd be very shocked as well.

This Louis CK incident in 2017 is a tricky case because opinions of practically all of those permutations exist. And I believe it's hard to determine the exact answer to describe this Louis CK incident. Masturbating in front of coworker, whom usually looked up to him until that moment so was not likely in a position to say NO, could be closer to a murder (or rape) case for some people while it might sound a bit lighter for some people. Likewise, sudden fall from the status of being comic genius after almost 30 years of obscurity could be closer to a death sentence for some people while some people find it is too light considering he eventually started doing comedy agains and eventually ended up on Madison Square.

This documentary is trying to highlight the people who think what Louis CK did is "closer" to stealing breads (or something lighter) than murdering (or something heavier), while highlighting the people who think what he received is "closer" to a death sentence than what he deserved to receive.

This documentary is likely to have hard time finding right audiences because the people who think like Dave Chappelle ("Louis CK incident is closer to stealing breads while he received something closer to a death sentence"), will not get the argument of this documentary anyway, while (in my opinion) there are just not many people who's paying closer attention to Louis CK's activity after 2017 besides of his fans.

American entertainment market is very large. Being on Madison Square seems like he didn't receive any heavy sentence and came back to where he were, but it's probably just because of American market size. It's probably just because, in American market, because it's very large, even though you are kinda dead from mainstream already, as long as you have "some" demographics of people who still like you, you can probably fill up the Madison Square. Well we can still argue "if you really feel sorry, you shouldn't fill up Madison Square even if you can," and yes it's within the range of possible arguments, but it's also within the range of possible arguments the otherwise (I personally think).

One thing I kinda agree with this documentary is highlighting Louis CK's sudden appearance on regular standup venues (because some people indeed feel uncomfortable seeing him), but without that, this documentary is just highlighting some particular opinions out of all possible opinions with subtle criticism on those people... and that's about it.

Sorry, Not Sorry is excellent and incredibly frustrating. After detailing how Louis CK is a straight up sex pest at best and a sexual predator at worst, it ends with a bunch of people justifying how it's okay to force women to engage in your sexual activities. None of those women said, "yes". None of those women gave consent. The documentary hammers home the reality that Louis CK used his status to force women to watch him masturbate on a regular basis, yet there are so many people justifying his behavior in this documentary. It's frustrating to see anyone willing to welcome a sexual predator back into the warm arms of fame.