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.

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.

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.

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.