Sure, you can vilify him completely and thoroughly from now until the end of time if that’s your choice. Not like he ever meant anything to you anyway, so all you see is the bad. That’s cool.
But those of you who think he just tells jokes for laughs are simply not understanding what he does, either on stage or as a writer/director. It’s unfairly reductive not just for him but for the art of stand up in general.
So, I’d ask that you please trust those of us who are familiar with his work when we say that he does drama and truth as much as he does comedy. I could point to numerous episodes of Louie that deal with subjects like war, death, loneliness, suicide, etc, or the entirety of Horace and Pete which was a straight up tragedy.
That’s why I keep saying that of all the men embroiled in the #metoo allegations, he stands by far the best chance to turn it into genuine healing and something ultimately positive. I wouldn’t blame you if you were skeptical and, as I’ve said, my heart may be over-reaching on this. It might not pan out that way. But on the most basic level, there’s a point where you should realize the distinction between knowing his work vs not knowing it.
Again, you’re asking his victims to participate in his rehabilitation and asking them to help him profit from what he did. Maybe you should rethink that idea?
The reason I can’t trust your judgement is you have personalized it. You’ve even called him “your guy.” It’s like you’re taking his criticism and general disgust with him as a personal attack. I have a whole list of people I respected and grew up with and thought were good people going down the toilet as their horrific true natures are revealed with these movements. The rot in the entertainment industry is just, it’s extraordinary really, and I get the added bonus of not only finding out how sexist and misogynst a lot of these entertainers are but there’s another list of people who apparently hate non-whites. You’re not alone in disappointment here, but I don’t call any of them my guy or gal for that matter.
It is not appropriate for him to take what he did and turn it into more paid content for his routines. I cannot imagine why he would think that would do anything for anyone except to continue to enrich himself. The fact that he’s trying to come back this soon just suggests that only thing he cares about is getting back on the gravy train as soon as possible, and he is not alone with that approach.
The question is, after someone is outed, so to speak, and it’s determined that the crimes are either not punishable by the law or the chances of going through the courts and actually achieving anything is too low to try… what is the next step? Let’s also keep in mind breaking the law is the low bar not the high.
I am disappointed in Hoffman, for example. It seems unlikely that he will face any sort of jail or prison time. I’m fine with his his career in the public space being over, for forever. He can take his money and just quietly exit. I see no reason why any of these people should be entitled to to some sort of return with the graces of their victims or the public. That’s something earned, not promised, and it’s perfectly all right to say… no.
does it count if I’m sitting across from a senior manager who is telling me that Joe Arpaio was right and his posse is getting to the bottom of Obama’s birth certificate? I just nod and try to change the subject!
For what little it may be worth, as someone who was a casual-to-moderate fan of CK’s work but may not return after this all came to light, I would say that @rrmorton 's characterization of his work above is pretty accurate. It’s quite funny, but often sad and moving in equal measure, as well. It’s more like listening in on a one-sided therapy session than what you might think of as regular “stand-up comedy.”
I haven’t said this because I didn’t think it was relevant, but I’m familiar with his work. I just don’t see what bearing it has on how to view him in light of his actions.
I understand how that calls some of my judgement into question and I’ve repeatedly said as much. But I’m not asking you to trust my judgement. Hell, I can’t trust it either! I’m asking that you trust my knowledge of Louis CK and his work.
Both you and Scott have attempted to reduce him to jokes or laughs. Then maybe you add profit to a hypothetical scenario and now he looks greedy too. You’re right, that would be bad form.
I don’t think that’s likely. I can envision hypothetical scenarios where he handles it well. Profits to relevant charities, insights that might help future victims, stories that incorporate healthy perspectives on the subject, etc. I think he’s a pervert who committed indecent acts but I also think he has a good sense of fairness and right and wrong. As long as his boner isn’t clouding his judgement, I think we’ll see positive steps.
No, not really. I’m happy to accept that he’s some kind of mystical teller of truth. I don’t care. I don’t care if he writes War and Peace or composes Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. He’s a creep. His work is immaterial to the effect of his particular kind of creepiness. He’s a predator, and his particular talent doesn’t change that.
I’m a fan of Louis CK, or at least I appreciate/enjoy his past work. But I don’t see how this is relevant.
It seems like you’re getting wrapped up in how you HOPE he will address the situation, rather than seeing him as the fucked up human being he has been revealed to be. It’s all just fantasy at this point. I have no reason to believe he will handle it the way I’d like him to. I don’t know even know if he’s redeemable at all. Time will tell if he is allowed to rebuild his career, or what price he will need to pay. Other than that we’re just projecting.
Argh, this kind of sarcasm is increasingly tiresome. Doin’ my best to discuss this openly and in good faith. I have acknowledged that I care much more deeply than the average person about film/tv storytelling. I understand that you don’t care at that level.
As for the rest of your post, it’s just the traditional ‘separate the art from the artist?’ debate which is a personal choice.
He’s a comedian. I don’t know why your’e not happy we keep referring to him as a comedian. Cosby was a comedian too. It doesn’t really matter how good or bad he is at his craft. If he was a shitty one you didn’t care about, my response would not be different, I would just wind up arguing less with you. I don’t care if he cured cancer, or a form of cancer last year. That has nothing to do with his sexual violence.
I was saying that in an attempt to correct Nesrie’s mis-characterization of my point. I think knowledge of him is relevant in attempting to predict what he might do next.
Sure am! I have a lot invested in this guy and I’d rather salvage something good than cast him out completely. Naive, perhaps, but that’s how I feel.
And I’m doing that in response to hypothetical scenarios that paint him in the worst possible light. So I’m offering hypotheticals that feel plausible based in knowledge of him as an artist in order to try and balance that out. Chances are the truth will land somewhere in between.
And maybe it’s silly, but folks spend gobs of time engaged in hypothetical discussions about baseball or politics or Star Wars films or whatever. I think it’s a really interesting conversation! It’s a passion of mine.
I have always seen him as the fucked up human being that he has always revealed himself to be. Turned out there was some even-more, much-too fucked up stuff in there, goddamn it. That’s why he’s uniquely poised to work that personal material into his craft.
Perhaps its time to invest less in him and more into yourself? Break free from the burden of defending him. I am sure he can use his millions of dollars to defend himself.
As far as the crime, indecent exposure or sexual assault depending on what a prosecutor thought they could prove.
True, though it was over a decade since the last incident as far as we know. It’s entirely possible any changes happened during that time, though I do find that fairly unlikely.
