Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 07:22:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Louis CK returns to comedy after wankbeast shenanigans [split topic]

Started by up_the_hampipe, August 28, 2018, 08:41:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

colacentral

Quote from: BeardFaceMan on October 05, 2018, 08:49:09 AM
Not really, he was just asked a single question about what he would do if CK turned up at one of his clubs, he didn't have to say either of those things, you're saying it like he was forced to make a choice between those two options and nothing else. And again, missing the point entirely, no one is talking about vetting people or background checks, they are talking about someone with very public and known issues. They are talking about letting someone who sexually abused women at a comedy club perform at a comedy club, with minimal signs of guilt, apology or remorse. It's trying to extrapolate the argument to a fictional future to try and make a point about something that isnt currently happening.  And a reappearance of The Bateman Defence too, "if you take people who have issues out of comedy there'll be no comedians left, because art!" Theres a difference between 'having issues' as you adoringly put it and being a unremorseful sex offender.

The point is that the consent was taken away from the audience, they didnt get to decide. And as has been discussed, getting up and leaving in that atmosphere is intimidating and not easy.

The problem is that he didn't undergo a criminal sentence so people feel he hasn't received any kind of punishment, he just had a "little break", as Louis himself put it. Thats why people want him banned forever (which is silly and unworkable). If he was seen to be punished, or at least seen to be apologetic, then there wouldnt be such a backlash over his return. As it is, he's just trying to carry on where he left off, pretending like it never happened and things havent changed. And from the audience reactions he's getting, hes probably right.

This is the actual interview:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/jimmy-kimmel-interview-vegas-comedy-club-abc-future-louis-ck-1148962

And this is the actual question:

QuoteThe Comedy Cellar has been in the news a lot lately for playing host to Louis C.K.'s surprise appearances, for which it incurred some backlash. At your club, how are you going to approach who comes through and how they're vetted, if they need to be vetted, and revealed to audiences?

If we get into the business of sanitizing every comedian and doing a thorough background check before they walk through the door, it's going to be a very empty stage. (Laughs.) I think people tend to focus on the one or two people who walk out of a situation like that. Ultimately, the audience decides whether someone is welcomed back.

I might reply to the rest of your post when I've got over your cunty "adoringly" crack.

If you want to give the audience the power to decide, as Kimmel is advocating, advertise the set. Let people make a conscientious choice to go see him and judge for themselves.

But he won't do that because he knows full well that he might attract people who'll picket outside and boo and heckle inside and cause a massive media furore and derail his comeback before it's even started. He can't afford to give the audience the power to decide because they might say no. He has to control the narrative so he takes away their ability to consent to what's happening to them.

Sound familiar?

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: Crabwalk on August 30, 2018, 09:22:32 AM
Or some sort of custard gun.

I'm afraid I laughed.

man can't keep from getting it out in front of people who don't want him to, he needs treatment, & at very least to say he's getting treatment, before reappearing in public.
I think he's a cheeky twat, & the people who put him on unannounced in a tiny club with no escape for the audience should be shut the fuck down.

but yes, in a climate where POTUS is a sex-pest too, we've (ahem) lost our grip.

Quote from: Huxleys Babkins on October 05, 2018, 09:54:36 AM
If you want to give the audience the power to decide, as Kimmel is advocating, advertise the set. Let people make a conscientious choice to go see him and judge for themselves.

But he won't do that because he knows full well that he might attract people who'll picket outside and boo and heckle inside and cause a massive media furore and derail his comeback before it's even started. He can't afford to give the audience the power to decide because they might say no. He has to control the narrative so he takes away their ability to consent to what's happening to them.

Sound familiar?
Do you think he's going to do these unannounced drop in gigs for the rest of his career? He's working on a new set, and for a lot of comedians these spots are the way they test new material. Eventually he's going to tour it as a headliner, people can choose to go or not (or protest/heckle or not). To frame these surprise sets as him forcing himself on an audience is bizarre to say the least.
(And I say the above as a former Louis fan who will probably never watch another special of his again, but ffs).

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: Carpool Dragon on October 05, 2018, 12:50:28 PM
To frame these surprise sets as him forcing himself on an audience is bizarre to say the least.

that's the very definition of 'disingenuous'.

Sin Agog

Maybe it's healthy to see unsavoury types you disapprove of?  That one Black Mirror episode proved that when you start blurring out anything unpleasant, you end up decking your mother with ipads.  And that's just a waste of both money and labour.

jobotic

I fully support Louis' right to pursue a diploma in political science.

Distance learning though so no one has to sit next to the cunt.

alan nagsworth

I wonder how many times people in this thread are going to say "he's just testing new material" or "those women could have just walked out" before we get some prevailing common sense? It's really not hard to read what others have said in the last three pages and understand the very basic facts of why this whole thing is shitty.

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: alan nagsworth on October 05, 2018, 01:28:25 PM
I wonder how many times people in this thread are going to say "he's just testing new material" or "those women could have just walked out" before we get some prevailing common sense? It's really not hard to read what others have said in the last three pages and understand the very basic facts of why this whole thing is shitty.

We're just testing new arguments. You could have just left the thread.

BeardFaceMan

Quote from: colacentral on October 05, 2018, 08:54:48 AM
This is the actual interview:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/live-feed/jimmy-kimmel-interview-vegas-comedy-club-abc-future-louis-ck-1148962

And this is the actual question:

I might reply to the rest of your post when I've got over your cunty "adoringly" crack.

Fair enough, that wasnt the question asked in the interview linked that I saw. Thats not the question that should be being asked because that isnt what is going on.

And I only made a cunty crack because I think it's a pretty cunty view to ignore shitty people's shitty behaviour because theyre artists.

alan nagsworth

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on October 05, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
We're just testing new arguments. You could have just left the thread.

Imagining you as your avatar is not helping me right now

colacentral

Quote from: BeardFaceMan on October 05, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
And I only made a cunty crack because I think it's a pretty cunty view to ignore shitty people's shitty behaviour because theyre artists.

Then you're ignoring the context of what I said, which is the idea of vetting people before they go on stage. It's not a job interview, open mics will let literally anyone up, as they should, unless the person gets reported or is infamous enough to be known already (e.g. like Louis CK), then they obviously should be barred. I've criticised the Comedy Cellar multiple times.

BeardFaceMan

Quote from: colacentral on October 05, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
Then you're ignoring the context of what I said, which is the idea of vetting people before they go on stage. It's not a job interview, open mics will let literally anyone up, as they should, unless the person gets reported or is infamous enough to be known already (e.g. like Louis CK), then they obviously should be barred. I've criticised the Comedy Cellar multiple times.

Which is basically what I said, CK isnt being vetted, his problems are very public. I agree, the idea of doing a CBR check on everyone before they set foot on stage is silly and unworkable, as I've said. That isn't whats happening though so it shouldn't be the question being asked. The bit I take issue with is Kimmel saying if you got rid of the unsavoury people then, it would be an empty stage, which echoes a lot of what I see here and elsewhere. "He hasnt done anything to me  personally and I like his comedy so I dont care what hes done." Thats the attitude that allows him and others to get away with what they do for so long. And allows them to come back after a little break.

VaginaSimpson

Are we assuming that he didn't get help? In any case, it's still a problem for female comics who might be on tour with him but otherwise if he's doing a random night I don't care. I don't think he's going to sprack his meat in people's faces now after this whole thing has happened as he'll know that's it for him and if he does then it's a serious humiliation/self loathing issue he struggles to control and will have to get proper help for. I don't mean to gaslight with "he's the real victim in all of this" but that is essentially the stance a therapist would take. I'm sure his daughters completely destroyed him for this shit anyway. One of them is a radical Feminist.

I guess he's not on my radar much because I have never found him funny. At all. The most I get from his comedy is 'yeh good point'.


alan nagsworth

everything about that video and article bums me the fuck out

jobotic

Watched The Secret Life of Pets yesterday with my son. He loved it. Didn't realise until afterwards that the lead character was a wankbeast.


Brundle-Fly


Hadley Freeman Guardian piece from last year after the death of Chuck Berry.

When Chuck Berry died last weekend the obituaries spoke as one – he was an extraordinary talent who had lived an extraordinary life – and everyone from Barack Obama to Mick Jagger rushed to tweet their unqualified admiration. Yet one detail was notably muted in the many articles about him: that he was a multiple sex offender.

In 1959 Berry was arrested for taking a 14-year-old girl, Janice Escalanti, across state lines for "immoral purposes", a crime for which he eventually served two years in prison. But that was almost 60 years ago, some might say: different time, different morals! Well, kinda. That he was then accused of installing a video camera in the ladies' toilet of his Missouri restaurant is less easy to jazz hands away, given that it happened in the not wildly distant year of 1989. After tapes from this camera were found in Berry's home, he was given a suspended sentence and settled a class action with 59 women.

I am not someone who thinks an artist's personal flaws – for want of a better phrase – damn their professional output. My eyes roll hard when I hear someone say they "just can't watch Woody Allen movies any more", because I believe it is perfectly possible to separate the artist and the art. But I am always intrigued about which artists get a free pass about this stuff, and who doesn't.

Woody Allen is now 81, and when he dies his various sex scandals – leaving his partner for her adopted daughter, being accused by another daughter of sexually molesting her – will be mentioned, if not in the first line, then certainly in the first paragraph of his obituaries. Allen was never charged, let alone jailed, and has always denied the allegations; but it is impossible to imagine politicians tweeting such unhesitant praise when he goes. Similarly, Roman Polanski's entire life has been shaped by his decision in 1977 to sexually assault 13-year-old Samantha Gailey; this, too, will be acknowledged early on in the tributes. The New York Times obituary of Berry, by contrast, didn't mention the Escalanti case until the 23rd paragraph; the so-called "potty camera" scandal was entirely absent. Instead, the news coverage of his death leaned on soothingly euphemistic terms like "legal troubles" and "colourful life".

While everyone knows Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin, no sensible soul today says people shouldn't listen to Great Balls Of Fire – not in the way that Gary Glitter or even Michael Jackson's music has been deemed problematic in liberal circles. Had Operation Yewtree decided to investigate every high-profile musician accused of sleeping with underage girls, including (Britain, you are not going to thank me for this) David Bowie, they would have run out of police officers by the end of day one. Allegations that John Peel had sex with an underage girl have in no way impeded his status as one of Britain's great late national heroes.

This is not about celebrities from the past getting away with more. Actors Fatty Arbuckle in the 1920s and Errol Flynn in the 1940s saw their careers destroyed when they were accused – and acquitted – of rape. Rather, it's more about what the celebrity represents, and whether the infraction contradicts that. Part of the reason Allen got such a swift and merciless kicking was that he epitomised, to both his fans and his critics, an intellectual Manhattan elitism, and shacking up with your stepdaughter doesn't really fit.

Berry had no such pretensions. With a few exceptions, musicians get more of a free pass because of that ol' rock'n'roll lifestyle – although it is debatable whether Berry's habit of watching women on toilets is really living the dream. Musicians also tend to have each other's backs, which helps: before 24-hour news and minute-by-minute social media, the easiest way for the public to gauge how bad something was would be to watch how those close to them reacted. So while OJ Simpson remained a pariah after being acquitted of double murder, Keith Richards and Bob Dylan have always happily sung Berry's praises. Another crucial factor is who the victims were: Janice Escalanti was a Native American; the first woman to accuse Berry of filming her was Hosana Huck, a 48-year-old former cook at his restaurant. They were not young white women, still the only important kind of victim in the eyes of too many.

Celebrity coverage of all kinds tends to flatten people into extremes: someone is a hero, or they are a monster, which is frankly childish. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge a person's monstrous past within a celebration of their heroic work, instead of squeamishly papering over it. Berry might have been incapable of moderating his own extremes, but the rest of us should be better at conveying the shades of grey.

Dr Rock

Quote from: Brundle-Fly on October 07, 2018, 07:59:26 PM
Hadley Freeman Guardian piece from last year after the death of Chuck Berry.

When Chuck Berry died last weekend the obituaries spoke as one – he was an extraordinary talent who had lived an extraordinary life – and everyone from Barack Obama to Mick Jagger rushed to tweet their unqualified admiration. Yet one detail was notably muted in the many articles about him: that he was a multiple sex offender.

In 1959 Berry was arrested for taking a 14-year-old girl, Janice Escalanti, across state lines for "immoral purposes", a crime for which he eventually served two years in prison. But that was almost 60 years ago, some might say: different time, different morals! Well, kinda. That he was then accused of installing a video camera in the ladies' toilet of his Missouri restaurant is less easy to jazz hands away, given that it happened in the not wildly distant year of 1989. After tapes from this camera were found in Berry's home, he was given a suspended sentence and settled a class action with 59 women.

I am not someone who thinks an artist's personal flaws – for want of a better phrase – damn their professional output. My eyes roll hard when I hear someone say they "just can't watch Woody Allen movies any more", because I believe it is perfectly possible to separate the artist and the art. But I am always intrigued about which artists get a free pass about this stuff, and who doesn't.

Woody Allen is now 81, and when he dies his various sex scandals – leaving his partner for her adopted daughter, being accused by another daughter of sexually molesting her – will be mentioned, if not in the first line, then certainly in the first paragraph of his obituaries. Allen was never charged, let alone jailed, and has always denied the allegations; but it is impossible to imagine politicians tweeting such unhesitant praise when he goes. Similarly, Roman Polanski's entire life has been shaped by his decision in 1977 to sexually assault 13-year-old Samantha Gailey; this, too, will be acknowledged early on in the tributes. The New York Times obituary of Berry, by contrast, didn't mention the Escalanti case until the 23rd paragraph; the so-called "potty camera" scandal was entirely absent. Instead, the news coverage of his death leaned on soothingly euphemistic terms like "legal troubles" and "colourful life".

Without checking I bet in the CAB 'RIP Chuck Berry' thread the fact he installed video cameras in the womens bathrooms was mentioned in the first three posts. No, the first.

Shaky

Quote from: Dr Rock on October 08, 2018, 12:47:08 AM
Without checking I bet in the CAB 'RIP Chuck Berry' thread the fact he installed video cameras in the womens bathrooms was mentioned in the first three posts. No, the first.

There's also the famous footage of a naked Chuck pissing and farting on a prostitute. Arguably not illegal but, at the very least, a difficult image to separate from the man and his music.

a duncandisorderly

I'm not in any great hurry to rush to chuck berry's defence here, but even to a casual observer, the nature of the offences is very different. escalante may very well have been perfectly happy to shag her boss; it's not noted anywhere, but there's no mention of rape, statutory or otherwise. & the voyeurism of his hidden cameras is, again, very different from what mr ck is accused of doing.

I'm not saying berry's crimes were victimless, but his actions are a world away from, say, savile's, or gary glitter's.

so I'm not sure what the point is of dragging his obit into the discussion.

[edit- I think we should go after jimmy page, though.]

ajsmith2

Don't agree with much of what that Chuck Berry articles says but it's food for thought. The 'creeps who are respected musicians get away with stuff that unrespected ones/creeps of other professions don't' has more than a ring of truth to it. I'm still not exactly sure why that is, but I don't find the arguments given in the article particularly convincing.

Comparitvely quantifying sexual offences is a fools pursuit that will end in no good for anyone of course, but Berry's toilet voyeurism has I've always been treated unfairly lightly because of it's 'hilarious' scatological nature. It's like the victims are robbed of even the dignity of their moment of calling him out cos it's all about pooping lol. Just some grown up prankery at the end of the day really, that's how it's always presented. Another cheeky off-colour jape from the man who brought you 'My Ding A Ling'. It's fucking double misery: exploited in your most private moments for the debased pleasure of some old cunt and then when he's found out it's all a big 'colourful reputation'-burnishing joke which you're just the nameless victim of.

Bleak.

kngen

Quote from: ajsmith2 on October 08, 2018, 10:41:16 AM
The 'creeps who are respected musicians get away with stuff that unrespected ones/creeps of other professions don't' has more than a ring of truth to it. I'm still not exactly sure why that is, but I don't find the arguments given in the article particularly convincing.


I've thought about this a lot since Operation Yewtree/Saville et al, and I think it just comes down to the snobbery/envy of music fans in regards to groupies: the fact that these young women can gain access to their idols with an ease that they couldn't possibly imagine (and they probably don't even know who guested on the B-side of the third single. Pfft.). Rather than focus on Bowie, Jimmy Page or whoever exploiting the nascent sexuality of a teenage girl who probably only realises that they're way out of their depth when it's far too late, the fan's attitude is: 'Well, what did you expect, you daft cow?', clinging to a very male, 20th-century perspective of rape that, you would hope, most of society has since moved on from. In a way, I guess it speaks to the small 'c' conservatism that is at the heart of 'proper' rock music.

It's a theory, anyway.

Brundle-Fly

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on October 08, 2018, 09:42:21 AM


so I'm not sure what the point is of dragging his obit into the discussion

I didn't drag any obituary into the discussion. I just thought it was an interesting take on the nature of selective outrage.

up_the_hampipe

On something more relevant, some reviews of Aziz Ansari's recent performances (including a secret show in London last night) are saying that he's taking a different position on "woke culture" in comparison to his pre-scandal work.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/aziz-ansaris-new-standup-tour-is-a-cry-against-extreme-wokeness
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/oct/08/aziz-ansari-surprise-standup-gig

It's all fun to pile on until it comes for you.

Z

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on October 08, 2018, 05:53:00 PM
On something more relevant, some reviews of Aziz Ansari's recent performances (including a secret show in London last night) are saying that he's taking a different position on "woke culture" in comparison to his pre-scandal work.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/aziz-ansaris-new-standup-tour-is-a-cry-against-extreme-wokeness
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/oct/08/aziz-ansari-surprise-standup-gig

It's all fun to pile on until it comes for you.
Really just evidence that he's a bit of a fool that conned himself as much as anyone else. He was in a position that someone with a capacity for self reflection could easily double down into a pretty significant voice in this whole thing. Like, not remorseful but confused and a bit disappointed in themselves... tbh just lifting directly from the Louie character in Louis CK's show.

If that article is accurate, how on earth does he take that stance without directly addressing how much of his shtick has been that he is one of those people?

Quote from: Small Man Big Horse on August 29, 2018, 05:43:09 PM
Given his crimes and that he deliberately fucked up the careers of others, I don't think he should be able to return quite frankly. If this was someone like Boris Johnson you'd all be claiming he should be locked up for years and never allowed to return to politics, it's pretty fucking sickening to see people think CK should be able to return.

What jobs are acceptable for him to do? how would you like to ensure he doesn't do jobs you don't want him doing?

absolute fucking state of this argument

"crimes" ffs


Terryfuckwit

Quote from: Paulie Walnuts on October 11, 2018, 10:23:25 PM
What jobs are acceptable for him to do? how would you like to ensure he doesn't do jobs you don't want him doing?

absolute fucking state of this argument

"crimes" ffs

Innit