Lucky Louie (and now Louie)

Started by Ravi, June 09, 2006, 12:42:41 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alethia

I actually don't disagree with some of this - never thought I'd say that about something outta the National Review, but there it is...

Thoughts? Retorts?

They're Lying about Louis C.K.

'Transgressive' is good, except when the Left gets offended

Is there any precedent for the outpouring of loathing and contempt from former admirers and peers that landed on Louis C.K. as 2018 ticked to a close? Fellow comics and comedy writers broke an unwritten rule and attacked one of their own, joining the usual Twitterati and culture cops in a rage-fueled online stoning. A bit C.K. had performed at a Long Island night club on December 16, with no intention that a national audience hear it, and that leaked online without his permission, was mentioned on the front page of the New York Post and New York Times.

"You're not interesting because you went to a high school where kids got shot," C.K. said. "Why does that mean I have to listen to you? Why does that make you interesting? You didn't get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way and now I've got to listen to you talking?" C.K. also made fun of hypersensitive, scoldy, uptight young people and their pronoun posturing.

The response from Andy Richter, Judd Apatow, and other comedy pros was to label this routine "hacky," "lazy," "shallow," "easy," and "fishing in a barrel." (I think that last one is supposed to be "shooting fish in a barrel," Andy, it's important not to mangle the clichés you use.)

But what C.K. said isn't hacky. A hack does a bit on how the Starbucks menu is too confusing or how women gain weight after marriage. And anyway, a hacky routine isn't worth mentioning, much less getting upset about. "Parts of a comedy routine performed in an obscure club two weeks ago bombed" is not news. To mock the Parkland kids in even so mild a way as to suggest they have no expertise on gun control is to venture into a high-voltage area. It's the opposite of "hacky." It is in fact "edgy." The edge in question is the frontier where "things that can be said" meets "things that cannot be said." It's where "funny" meets "offensive." It's where the audience will laugh while thinking, "I can't believe he said that." It's where most of the top comics have wanted to live ever since Lenny Bruce inspired outrage for "mocking Jackie Kennedy." (Actually the bit in question suggested that Mrs. Kennedy was guilty merely of being human, of trying to flee the limousine where her husband had been shot, rather than bravely seeking help. This was an edgy thing to say in 1964 but hit home because it was likely true.)

C.K.'s comments on youth weren't hacky and trite either, because their premise wasn't a kids-these-days cliché but something close to the opposite. He was pointing out that (first time in recorded history!) kids these days aren't adventurous enough, aren't frivolous enough, aren't freewheeling enough. Somehow every kid these days wants to clamp down on others, aspires to be a cultural vice principal or a language Niedermeyer. That's funny.

C.K. was not "punching down." The Parkland kids are national heroes. They have been on the covers of magazines and dominated the conversation for weeks. They led a nationwide march. They logged countless hours of adulatory coverage on the television shows. They starred in a CBS documentary, 39 Days, and in a longish segment in the latest Michael Moore movie. Their views on matters unrelated to having been present at a school shooting are eagerly sought. Their youth isn't a source of vulnerability but is central to their power in a youth-worshipping culture (that doesn't much revere dumpy, balding, middle-aged white guys).

David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez have 2.5 million Twitter followers between them. Many of the Parkland kids were invited to sing "Seasons of Love" on the Tonys. C.K. wasn't. They aren't as rich or as famous as he is, but culturally speaking, they are lions and he is a masturbating rodent. C.K. is so loathed that the occasion of his venturing out of his apartment once to speak at a comedy club for 15 minutes inspired this New York Times headline: "Louis C.K. Slithers Back." The attached column labeled him a "malignancy" and suggested he should work in a Gap rather than comedy.

The tone of Andy Richter and Judd Apatow's tweets was not that they were disappointed that C.K. had done a bit that wasn't funny at a show neither of them had attended. No, Richter and Apatow are outraged. And outrage is a double-edged sword, isn't it? Comics don't want to admit they're outraged. Because outrage traditionally makes you a butt of jokes, a bit like the teenaged pearl-clutching brigade C.K. mocked.

What is driving this episode of cultural citizens' arrest is that the Parkland kids are untouchable. They can't be made fun of. They are . . . icons. Comics can't say that because labeling the Parkland kids sacred cows would acknowledge the existence of sacred cows. And they want to reserve the right to barbecue everybody else's sacred cows. Jesus Christ is worshipped by even more people than Emma Gonzalez, but no comic wants to abandon the right to mock his story. (And if attacking a dead guy who was crucified at age 33 for speaking his mind isn't "punching down," what is?) Louis C.K. went after icons. That makes him iconoclastic. And iconoclastic was a great compliment. Still is. Mocking the Parkland kids is taboo. And taboo-busting was a great compliment. Still is. C.K. was being transgressive. And transgressive was a great compliment. Still is. One almost begins to entertain a rumor of a hint of a suspicion that the culture cops don't approve of transgression per se, but only of the transgression of boundaries cherished by people they don't like.

The prototypical C.K. routine will be shocking (in that it ventures without euphemism into an area we don't like to talk about), subversive (in that he stakes out a contrarian position), and funny (because its premise is nevertheless true, or at least true-ish). If you don't agree with the premises, you're not going to find them funny. But the premise of his Parkland bit is that surviving a school shooting doesn't make you an expert on any public-policy question. This is not only true, it's obvious. C.K. is doing the same kinds of bits he has always done.


Whether or not you personally found the material funny, and it's totally fine if you didn't, I think this article makes some fair points.

Jeremy Blackman

Nah, that article's pretty gross in my opinion. It's just another right-winger crying about SJWs and obsessed with this idea of cultural capital and frustrated that they don't have more of it.

As a 53-year old, this writer's POV is nothing new. He's panicking that his generation is losing influence:

QuoteTheir views on matters unrelated to having been present at a school shooting are eagerly sought. Their youth isn't a source of vulnerability but is central to their power in a youth-worshipping culture (that doesn't much revere dumpy, balding, middle-aged white guys).

I don't have strong opinions on Louis CK's set, but I do have strong opinions on this article. This trend of people being so upset that others are offended is pretty much the dumbest thing. I will applaud the writer branching out from "snowflake" and "social justice warrior" — "the teenaged pearl-clutching brigade" does at least sound different. But it's more of the same.

As John Cleese recently said: "Snowflake is a word used by sociopaths in an attempt to discredit the notion of empathy."

And all the talk about free speech is probably their weakest argument. When your free speech is taken away by the government, I think we can all agree that's an unacceptable infringement of rights. When your speech becomes less relevant and influential because your ideas and beliefs are bad, that's called progress.

Jeremy Blackman

To add onto that a bit:

Part of Louis CK's set does perfectly reflect Kyle Smith's point of view, and they are squarely in the same generation. You really get a sense from Louis that he's exhausted by cultural changes. And yes — losing privilege and power and relevance is not meant to be a pleasant thing. But it's inevitable.

wilberfan

Quote from: eward on January 06, 2019, 11:20:01 AM

Whether or not you personally found the material funny, and it's totally fine if you didn't, I think this article makes some fair points.


I think I agree with you, here.   I listened to the bit, and while I didn't find all of it hysterically funny, I could see what Louis was doing and appreciated the edginess and where's-the-line testing.   

Thought the article cleverly written, too. 

Alethia

What I agree with overall is that the material is nothing particularly new from Louie, but I also say that as someone who has consumed not only all of his stand-up material, late night appearances, tv shows, what have you, but also every last hour he recorded over the years on Opie and Anthony and various other outlets, which typically found him far more relaxed, subversive, dark, non-pc and beyond controversial, not to mention consistently hilarious. So none of it is really shocking to me. I also don't believe that just because he's taking a particular stance against something for the sake of a joke, whether you find it funny or not, necessarily implies that he holds those views in private, or that he doesn't have empathy for the victims of Parkland, or the struggles of the trans community.  I am one of these people that considers everything par for the course, if the joke is strong enough. These arguably weren't, that's absolutely fair. But I find the moral grandstanding hard to track sometimes. (To be clear, I'm a lefty! Hillary voter and all! Well, Bernie first, but I fell in line and oh god what happened  :shock:)

wilberfan

Quote from: eward on January 06, 2019, 12:28:14 PMI also don't believe that just because he's taking a particular stance against something for the sake of a joke, whether you find it funny or not, necessarily implies that he holds those views in private, or that he doesn't have empathy for the victims of Parkland, or the struggles of the trans community.


Precisely what what was in my head listening to the bit.  I heard a comedian working a joke and not (necessarily) ranting about a personal point of view.

Jeremy Blackman

Fair points.

And I will agree, a lot of moral grandstanding and watchdogging (on Twitter especially) is in fact unbearable. I have definitely unfollowed a person or two to avoid it.

In general, most of the obsession with cultural politics is a distraction anyway. Which makes it a little more frustrating that the Parkland students' very straightforward call to action on POLICY is being transformed into a cultural issue by people such as this National Review guy.

Drenk

It's very complicated to have this conversation when SJW is a word that exists, created by the alt-right. I'm not at ease with my generation. But I hope that the ugliness is temporary and necessary.

In a way, the reaction isn't surprising: C.K did better versions of those jokes, he was just going through the motions, and the set does reek of wounded privileged ego. The takes come from bad faith and passion. Seriously. The same ones could have been written with different quotes. An old set could have been released as a new one. But the way the articles present the quotes as if they're from a rally is...I get that it's an industry and that it works but...

When reality is complex but is presentedas a manichean circus nobody gains anything but likes.
Ascension.

wilberfan

Quote from: Drenk on January 06, 2019, 12:37:10 PM
manichean circus


[Whistles]  I know a little about a lot of stuff--and I've been around a lot longer than most of you whippersnappers--but I'll admit never encountering this word before today.   Props, sir!

wilder


Alethia

I watched it. I laughed. A lot.

polkablues

I'm sure I would enjoy the special, but not more than I would still like him to fuck off forever.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Drenk

I was surprised to like the special because I had read a New Yorker article about the hour and most of the quotes were embarrassing, but the jokes work in context and the best parts were left off. Ultimately, there's a certain routine. But he digs into some of his compulsions—the pleasure of "uneccessary" offending jokes—in interesting ways.

I did find the experience of watching it uncomfortable, though. I felt complicit. He acknowledge what he did wrong, but still mostly talks about the "trouble", even kind of reduces it to a "thing". I don't believe that he was simply unaware that a "yes" for many women in the workplace were genuine "yes"; like, yeah, men are dumb about consent, apparently, but that was obviously a very controlled behavior on C.K's part, and he never mentions the power he had over these women.
Ascension.


wilder

Louis CK, cinephile

(from his latest email)

Quote from: Louis CKFor those of you still reading I'd like to offer you some recommendations for some great movies you could watch with your free time.

First, three films by a great director from back in the 30s and 40s named Frank Borzage. This guy was way ahead of his time. He had a rare sense of human dialogue especially for the era and he picked terrific stories to tell. 

Three Comrades

Flight Command (Amazing air combat sequences considering the time they were filmed)

Strange Cargo (There does not exist a bad movie with Joan Crawford in it. She was a great judge of scripts and used her star power to champion the careers of directors she believed in. And I can't believe Clark Gable actually existed)

Sticking with Clark Gable for a moment there is

Boomtown

Mutiny on the Bounty

(Also with an incredible performance by Charles Laughton.)

Staying in old black and white, there is nothing like the great "Pre-code era" films. For those of you unaware these were movies made in the 1930s, before the "Hayes Code" (WHICH IS WHAT decided what was OK and not OK or right and wrong to put in a movie.) There was this little window where it hadn't occurred to anyone to put restrictions on FILMS. They were like books or plays. And then somebody figured out what a massive influence they were so they locked it all down. But before that happened there were some astonishing films made. These films did not have a moral code.  So they were able to explore some tantalizing extremes in story and character but also they were able to make films just about people being people acting like people.

Baby Face

Barbara Stanwyck is amazing in this brutal and dark  and sometimes hilarious story of a woman who was handed a terrible life and responds to it by going out into the world with a brutal and exhilarating mission of perfect self interest.

Dinner at Eight

This is a wonderful movie to watch now because it's about a bunch of people living at the precipice of a world that is about to fall apart ( the Great Depression) It's a very funny movie. My favorite "pre-code" moment in the movie is a scene where a doctor is caught by his wife philandering with another woman. She confronts him and he admits it and they have a real dialogue about how to move forward  in their marriage which is not resolved and incredibly relatable. You couldn't have a dialogue like this after the Hayes Code, because anyone who did something wrong in a movie had to be cast as an absolute villain, and no one "good" could make a mistake unless that mistake was perfectly corrected and the character completely reformed by the end of the movie. Which is not real and not human. 

Dinner at 8 offers no judgement or solutions. It just lays bare the flaws in all its human characters for the audience to identify with and laugh at. 

The Hayes Code made that impossible and began a trend that lasted for decades dividing human souls and behavior into "good" and "bad".

None of that moral polarization leaves room for understanding human beings or creating characters in fiction that allow the audience to see themselves in the story and to feel less alone, instead of heroes and villains that make them feel small and ashamed. 

That's not to say that great films weren't made in those decades. And of course in the 1970s there was this crazy resurgence of honest filmmaking. Which brings me to:

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore directed by Martin Scorsese

Starring Ellen Burstyn (one of my favorite actors of all time) and Kris Kristofferson (I would also like to recommend that you listen to his song "Sunday morning coming down" before you watch the movie)

After you watch this film, look for an interview with Ellen Burstyn where she tells an amazing story of how the ending came about. She developed this movie herself and is really responsible for how great it is.

Gloria

Gena Rowlands

A great low-budget action movie by John Cassavetes. I could certainly go on about John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands

A Woman Under the Influence

Opening Night etc

But there is one movie they brought them together that a lot of people haven't seen:

A Child is Waiting

Also with Burt Lancaster and Judy Garland. This is a very very fucking sad movie man. It's intense.

Oh. Burt Lancaster. Please tell me that you haven't seen

Elmer Gantry

Sweet Smell of Success

Also with Tony Curtis, who made some goofy movies but also some great ones like

The Defiant Ones

And The Boston Strangler, which is a really strange movie. The second half of the movie, which is basically a dialogue between the great Henry Fonda and Tony Curtis as a mass murderer, is some great acting and filmmaking. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else.

Speaking of completely enigmatic movies there is the Brazilian film

City of God

Hanging on Brazil for one more there is

Black Orpheus

Holy shit that's a beautiful movie.

If you want a couple of incredibly sad but beautiful movies there is

I Remember Mama  (best death scene in any movie ever)

Miracle in the Rain  (Jane Wyman, Ronald Reagan's first wife, is heartbreaking in this and also the next one)

All that Heaven Allows

One of my favorite filmmakers is very little known and I'm not sure where you can find his movies but his name is Michael Roemer. He made two movies

Nothing But a Man 

And

The Plot Against Harry 

If you want to movie that's just a really feel good fun movie there is

Breaking Away

And the number one movie but I recommend to anyone who has not seen it is Alfonso Cuaron's masterpiece.

Children of Men 

OK I'm gonna stop there. I did not intend to make such a long list. It was really just gonna be three or four movies. But that was fun. I'll do it again sometime.