Sorry/Not Sorry

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.

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.

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.