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.

"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.

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.

This documentary reveals that Louies' "apology" was a sham, given that his story now is that the women he accosted were, well, just confused. But with the additional details this film surfaces, it's clear CK knew from the very beginning his conduct was abusive. What he calls just his "kink" or his "thing" ("All of you have a thing too!" -- aw shucks!) is a physiological disorder he should have known to get therapeutic treatment for as a grown-*ss man. But because he was shielded by the industry at large, this abuse went on for the better part of two decades. Now he thrives with his new audience of dopey bros, while the women he demeaned are being re-victimized. The film leaves the audience to contemplate what this all means for our society, especially 7 years after Weinstein.