It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Louis C.K. secretly filmed a movie with himself, Chloe Moretz, John Malkovich, Rose Byrne, Charlie Day, Helen Hunt, and Pamela Adlon, and it's premiering at TIFF

According to this Variety article, it's in black and white 35mm.

That title is rough.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Hollywood Reporter review-- sounds exactly like a 2+ hour episode of Louie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:13 am 

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
I'm surprised that Vernon Chatman co-wrote this with C.K., as it doesn't really seem to be in the former's more surreal/prankish wheelhouse. I realized that C.K. wrote the introduction to his collection of outlandish essay mill responses, Mindsploitation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Sounds as if it depicts an older director with a very questionable sexual reputation without much light to shed on the subject aside from an iffy defense of staying out of others' "personal lives" - his own being possibly checkered, this seems particularly convenient in an almost hilariously oblivious way

There are a whole lot of people who could've made this movie and not been seen as trying to protect their own reputation in doing so, but C.K. is not that person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:18 am
Location: Orlando, FL
Trailer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Premiere cancelled in advance of an as yet unpublished New York Times story on C.K.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I was shocked to discover this film is still being given a semi-wide expansion over the late November period as of this week, something that I don't even think it really could have done well in if the movie were any good and/or CK hadn't become totally toxic to many


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Not knowing the specifics (aside from rumors to this point) of what this NYT story is going to delve into, I'll fess to having really liked C.K. for years now, since first seeing his HBO special Shameless years ago. I find it particularly unfortunate that so many people are conflating his complicated, occasionally difficult comedy with whatever this story will prove to reveal, as if anyone who is a particularly dirty comedian must be so because of their capacity to do something terrible.

All of the above being said, I also think people take stand up comedy way way way way way too seriously in recent years (all the most popular podcasts seem to involve stand up comedians talking to other stand up comedians about how important stand up comedy is, and much of the alt right sanctimony we enjoy today was in its infancy around perceived slights to the freedom of speech of some losers trying to say the n-word or make a rape joke in some dingy comedy club). So the idea of perhaps the biggest name in that industry at this point being exposed for abusing that notoriety is something that will be a welcome change of pace, and be the catalyst for yet another male-dominated field doing some serious housecleaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
I thought the story already broke (see here for example) but nobody cared because it was pre-Weinstein.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
mfunk9786 wrote:
All of the above being said, I also think people take stand up comedy way way way way way too seriously in recent years (all the most popular podcasts seem to involve stand up comedians talking to other stand up comedians about how important stand up comedy is, and much of the alt right sanctimony we enjoy today was in its infancy around perceived slights to the freedom of speech of some losers trying to say the n-word or make a rape joke in some dingy comedy club).


Thank you thank you thank you for putting into words what I've been struggling with, with regards to stand-up nowadays. I actually enjoy some of those podcasts but that culture of self-righteousness has almost ruined comedy for me. Someone like Bill Burr, who just comes off like your dad who espouses on and on about things he only has half a clue about, is emblematic of this problem. I had a discussion about him with someone else who is a fan and used the line that just because he laughs he doesn't agree. I used a Carlin bit to demonstrate the difference between that and laughing, not agreeing but considering the point being made in a way you might not have expected. That was his genius, and it seems like most stand-ups now Burr included, aren't up to par in that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
swo17 wrote:
I thought the story already broke (see here for example) but nobody cared because it was pre-Weinstein.

Well, that's more than a little murky, plus we don't know what's going to be in the Times tomorrow morning. Could go a lot further than what's implied in this article, but then again could just start to put names and dates to the suppositions that've been made in blind items in the last few years. The New York Times isn't really in the blind item business, though. Something tells me it'll be pretty incendiary.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:
All of the above being said, I also think people take stand up comedy way way way way way too seriously in recent years (all the most popular podcasts seem to involve stand up comedians talking to other stand up comedians about how important stand up comedy is, and much of the alt right sanctimony we enjoy today was in its infancy around perceived slights to the freedom of speech of some losers trying to say the n-word or make a rape joke in some dingy comedy club).


Thank you thank you thank you for putting into words what I've been struggling with, with regards to stand-up nowadays. I actually enjoy some of those podcasts but that culture of self-righteousness has almost ruined comedy for me. Someone like Bill Burr, who just comes off like your dad who espouses on and on about things he only has half a clue about, is emblematic of this problem. I had a discussion about him with someone else who is a fan and used the line that just because he laughs he doesn't agree. I used a Carlin bit to demonstrate the difference between that and laughing, not agreeing but considering the point being made in a way you might not have expected. That was his genius, and it seems like most stand-ups now Burr included, aren't up to par in that way.

I can't say I specifically know what you mean re: Burr, but I do think that the popularity of radio shows like Opie & Anthony (which had its moments many years ago) and the glorification of dirty stand up comics, coupled with the smothering of television and film with progressive stand up comics (to varying results of success), tripled with almost forensic-level discussion of it and improv in the form of podcasts and the like, has resulted in just far too much reverence for what was always sort of its own weird thing.

That was a pop cultural bleed-in that already has fully completed its hemorrhaging with comic book culture, and that I sense is just beginning with professional wrestling of all things. It's very hard for anything to be niche anymore, and not to be over-saturated to the point of an overload of puritanical obsessiveness from people who are deepest ensconced in its fandom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
The New York Times story is up: Louis C.K. Crossed a Line Into Sexual Misconduct, 5 Women Say


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
This doesn't really differ much from what I'd heard certain individuals start speaking about around the time the Weinstein story broke and some time before. How much he suffers remains to be seen but the open secret nature of this story is what bothers me the most.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
There's been a longstanding back and forth with other women in comedy- Jen Kirkman and Garfunkle and Oates in particular- where it was at one point reasonably clear that this had happened to them, and then they backed off (or left it at an amorphous and pointed thing without actually making a specific accusation.). I think what this says to me is that backing off is often conditioned by pressure and not by what actually happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
matrixschmatrix wrote:
Garfunkle and Oates

I think this NYT story clears up once and for all that who everyone assumed was them in blind items, etc were actually, in the words of the story, "a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov"

All there is to really say to this is that depending on what else comes out, C.K. was not a gigantic name during this time period (or anywhere close to that), and that in recent years his biggest transgression has been refusing to say a word about this stuff. Regardless, even if this is where the accusations stop, his behavior during that time was reprehensible, and this will surely have a deserved impact on him (and one would have to guess his manager, Dave Becky, as well).

I have tremendously little sympathy for people who, upon considering their options for an outlet for their sexual frustration (of which, busy family life or not, there are many), choose to involve someone that is entirely (either romantically or even financially) non-consenting in their own personal activities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm
It must be a sexual humiliation thing, to jerk off in front of women who are totally unnerved by it, but damn, it's weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
The most frightening (and perhaps telling) part of the Times' story:

Quote:
When he phoned her, he said he was sorry for shoving her into a bathroom. Ms. Corry replied that he had never done that, but had instead asked to masturbate in front of her.

Hm.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Transylvania
The story is up. Looks like I’ll be putting my Louie discs in the trash when I get home from work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
The part I found most chilling was that Tig Notaro based the masturbating radio station executive from the (great) second season of One Mississippi on Louie C.K. - a show C.K. is listed as an executive producer on. Adding the fact that C.K. ripped off Notaro's Clown Service short when he last appeared on Saturday Night Live demonstrates how they must feel about each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
mfunk9786 wrote:
That was a pop cultural bleed-in that already has fully completed its hemorrhaging with comic book culture, and that I sense is just beginning with professional wrestling of all things.

While it's certainly surprising to some degree, looking in hindsight it almost felt eventual. The WWF's biggest audience in the 80's were kids. And now a lot of them have grown up, some into high positions in the entertainment world. Even in the sports world, to the point that ESPN and Sports Illustrated (who at times during the boom of the 80's and 90's, spoke of pro wrestling with a barely-disguised disdain) are covering wrestling news now. And ESPN themselves had some of the highest ratings so far this week with their 30 For 30 on Ric Flair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Remarkable that even with all the money in the world people like this don't seek treatment. Pondering if he'll "seek treatment" like Spacey or Weinstein.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Jesus, until the string of scandals rolling out this past month, I never heard of people who were serial exhibitionist masturbators, if that's an accurate term. A forthcoming statement to "seek treatment" may be met with a great deal of cynicism (and rightfully so), but regardless of what happens, these people really are sick and probably need some kind of psychiatric treatment. Having no background in psychiatry, I have no idea what that would be - medication? Therapy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
It varies. Certain individuals who exhibit these characteristics, alongside psychopathic behavior (Like Weinstein) have different treatments than others. I can give more information in PM if necessary if anyone really wants it. For clarification the reason I know this is because I've had to go to therapy because of actually being hurt by someone in this capacity. It's not a particularly fun topic to discuss but the power structure in the industry fosters bad behavior and also covers it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm
Big Ben wrote:
It varies. Certain individuals who exhibit these characteristics, alongside psychopathic behavior (Like Weinstein) have different treatments than others. I can give more information in PM if necessary if anyone really wants it. For clarification the reason I know this is because I've had to go to therapy because of actually being hurt by someone in this capacity. It's not a particularly fun topic to discuss but the power structure in the industry fosters bad behavior and also covers it up.

Please tell me to piss off and tell me it’s none of my business if you like, but I’m curious if the past experiences you allude to have coloured your ability to view the works of these people. (I’m carrying this discussion over from the Weinstein thread and the topic of separating art from artist.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fdm


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection