Sorry/Not Sorry

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.

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.

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" covers legendary comedian Louis CK's downfall to his return in recent years. This rating sits in the middle because the documentary does well in how it presents the narrative, great soundtrack, great filmography and organization of the story in parts.

Unfortunately, it does bother me how the Louis CK's gatekeeping of the female comedians into the industry somehow transfers to "all men are evil" narrative. The documentary poses great philosophical questions like "where do we draw the line?", "is there no room for redemption?" but unfortunately leads the audience towards the more pessimistic conclusions about Louis CK. It even goes as far as picking out 10 to 15 second clips of him in various out-of-context podcasts and stand-up specials to portray him in an irredeemable light.

What Louis CK did was bad, and we must forever feel for the victims, but to pair it up with a life-traumatizing event like the actual Weinstein cases is weird. As for these female comedians being "gate-kept", the market makes the industry, not your feelings. It's clear as day how Louis CK's continued success even after these accusations, that his art is valued by the world. Altogether, this was an unfair documentary made by people with a clear agenda against Louis CK, but at-least it was thought provoking.

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.