Writes Lili Loofbourow, in "What Louis C.K. Has Really Lost" (Slate), about Louis C.K.'s new special "Sorry" (which you can pay $25 to watch at his website). [Only $10 to watch the one special.]
This is a very well written essay, and it shows that Louis C.K. has a new foundation for humor. Loofbourow notes that before the scandal, he was having difficulty playing the part of the "loser," which had been his original comedy persona: "by no longer being an underdog, he’d lost something he needed to really make his act work. Well, he has again what he was missing then. Abjection is Louis C.K.’s medium; it suits him, and he thrives in it."
We're seeing how he works from this new position — without the ability to retreat to the safe place of being the loser. He'd already lost loserdom before the scandal, so what has he "really lost"? He's gained! I think the headline writer didn't understand the essay... or the editorial position of Slate is that you've got to perpetually kick Louis C.K. around.
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
I don’t see that in Louis CK at all. Despite the creepy stuff he said, his real humour was everyman stuff. I laughed loudest when he talked about his children. Where in playdates, they picked their friends by size or when, as a parent volunteer in the schoolyard, he terrorized a bully who picked on his daughter. Some of his language was unnecessarily crude and vulgar, I could have done without that, but he was fully within the “funny because it’s true” vein of comedy.
But then, I think his “me too” downfall was bullshit. He has a creepy fetish where he asked women if he could jerk off in front of them. If they said yes, then he did, The scandal is that he was supposed to anticipate that some of the women who said yes really didn’t want to. God forbid he treat women like adults with agency and the ability to take responsibility for their own decisions. We can’t have that. Because equity.
$25!
I’m intrigued by the assumption that the personal life of a comedian is the critical platform for the humor. I suppose a comedian could present himself that way, but I don’t think it’s necessary. How many articles have we seen over the years about the “real life” of famous comedians?
I've become a lot less condemnatory over the decades about personal behavioral choices in others, and simultaneously a lot more certain I need not have anything to do with people exhibiting behaviors I might not condemn, but still find vile.
or the editorial position of Slate is that you've got to perpetually kick Louis C.K. around.
Well,..... he is a White splooge stooge after all.
The scandal is that he was supposed to anticipate that some of the women who said yes really didn’t want to. God forbid he treat women like adults with agency and the ability to take responsibility for their own decisions. We can’t have that. Because equity.
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
“ No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.”
Things that scream loser
Loofbourow? Is that German for highbrow?
No, actually, Google Translate tells me it's "hohe Stirn."
No joke, I'm not kidding, not hyperbole. Actually.
Things that scream loser
Nice ad hominen.
Exactly what I would expect with a Leftwing activist unable to respond reasonably and logically.
Just for the record, when it comes to reproductive rights and institutional racism and sexism, I am a loser, because I am a White splooge stooge.
But you're fine with that.
Louis went from being rich in Mexico to poor in America, unclear about whether he was American or Mexican, Catholic or Jewish, Irish or Hungarian. That made him kind of an urban everyman. One of his early TV series had him basically reenacting the unlucky little man role that Jackie Gleason used to play, the everyday zhlub in a lousy apartment, struggling to make it from one day to the next.
Getting money gave him a new identity, and brought him full circle, back to the top of the social heap. That's not a good place for a comedian to be. Compare his early series with the scenes of him with F. Murray Abraham as his wealthy Mexican father in his last series. Louie's not the same guy, or at least he doesn't have the same meaning for the audience.
It’s 10 bucks, not 25.
He always seemed angry and dark to me.
Empathy based humour is not something I ever saw in Louis CK. His persona is more akin to a Gentile George Costanza, with added vulgarity. You're laughing because he IS a horrible person and you CAN'T identify.
Sorry only costs $10, a bundle of all his specials, including Sorry is $25.
We're seeing how he works from this new position — without the ability to retreat to the safe place of being the loser. He'd already lost loserdom before the scandal, so what has he "really lost"? He's gained! I think the headline writer didn't understand the essay... or the editorial position of Slate is that you've got to perpetually kick Louis C.K. around.
What we are seeing is that women with power act just as degenerate as men with power.
There is a certain type of woman that likes to see men humiliated and defenestrated emotionally. Louis C.K. is better now that he has knelt and humiliated himself. He lost his dignity and self-respect. Some women see this as a good thing.
Men use fists. Women use emotions.
Gahrie said...
or the editorial position of Slate is that you've got to perpetually kick Louis C.K. around.
Well,..... he is a White splooge stooge after all.
The goal of the media propaganda is to divide men and women and break down the social fabric that allows us to live together despite our differences.
Louis C.K. is a useful tool for this because they can use it as a weapon to lash out at all men.
The left has lifted a certain type of woman to prominence that take joy in humiliating men so that they can continue to destroy healthy happy relationship. They give these women prominent roles writing articles like this.
They also created the HR movement in corporate america to give these women power over as many men as possible and gave them tools like sexual harassment and critical race theory.
These women are acting sadistically with these weapons and being as corrosive as you would expect.
But the left also put a rapist males in charge of their institutions as well.
It is all being done with calculated malice.
Ann is unwitting for the most part.
WTF do you expect, Achilles? Men have been having their way dominating women since forever. Of course there is going to be an overreacting period of adjustments. Be a man and deal with it. Pick your spots and chip away. Blaming some amorphous cabal of conspirators is weak ass crybaby shit.
Imagine you were Louis CK and had to explain to your daughters what he got called out for. Imagine how much that would hurt them and destroy your relationship with them.
Most females would feel the same. He's a scummy POS who happens to be very talented. He royally fucked up and has to pay for that.
Personal responsibility.
There are some public figures who are victims of abusive self abuse. Toobin, Weiner, Louis CK: I don't think any women suffered any real harm from the wish of these men to rub one out, but their own careers and reputations suffered irreparable harm.....There should be some sort of a name for a scandal whose only real victim is the star player in the scandal....I wouldn't think Toobin could ever opine on weighty matters in a ponderous way on broadcast television, but there he is. Gravitas personified. I suppose he's suffered sufficient punishment for his transgression, but how can you be a pundit and that stupid....Louis CK is definitely creepy. Creepy sex and humor are strange bedfellows but it's not an absolute deal breaker. I listened to his album. It's funny. So was his discussion of how he landed in his predicament. He's a ridiculous figure, and that's not a bad place to be for a comedian--as opposed to a pundit..... I don't know if there is any large moral lesson to be gleaned from his situation or any large moral purpose that is achieved by his continued punishment.
"a genuinely good guy troubled by demons but with a compassionate and decent core—has functioned as an authorizing alibi of sorts for the special’s boundary-violating experiments...."
Can people just be honest for once? If this guy was so oddball who exposed himself to woman on the street, I'd feel some sort of pity for him. But he didn't. He whipped out his dick and beat off in front of women WHO WERE WORKING FOR HIM. that's the definition of workplace sexual harrassment.
Of course, he asked for their "permission" knowing full well that they'd be cowed into saying OK. As for Toobin is supposed to be some great lawyer giving his opinions on a News network around the world. Couldn't CNN find one lawyer would gives good legal analysis and does NOT jerk off in front of his co-workers? Guess not.
Comics usually have to tone things down and clean up their act when they get a sitcom, so the Louis you know from stand-up and the one I know from his sitcoms may not have much in common.
Louis may have been waiting for the day when "asks women if they want to watch him masturbate" is officially recognized as a legitimate gender or sexual preference. That's the day when Harvey "Wanna watch me shower?" Weinstein gets parole.
High cultural criticism now is Fili Felafelburger blogging about Westworld and Succession, and Louis CK. I don't know what to think about that.
When I asked my boss if it was OK to jerk off in front of her she didn't think it was funny. No sense of humor.
When I asked my boss if it was OK to jerk off in front of her she didn't think it was funny. No sense of humor.
Was she in your dressing room after work when you asked?
'cause no one has ever heard of groupies before....
He whipped out his dick and beat off in front of women WHO WERE WORKING FOR HIM. that's the definition of workplace sexual harrassment.
They weren't working for him. They were other comedians. In fact in at least one case, it was exactly the other way around: he was working for the woman, in that he was appearing on her show.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा