criterionforum.org

bdsweeney wrote:

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.)

Big Ben asked that questions like that be directed to him via PM (and it is truly none of any of our business unless he deems it so), so I would suggest that you not try to shake that answer out within the thread itself.

Also, it is rather off topic and a hell of a lot to ask of another user in general.

mfunk9786 wrote:

bdsweeney wrote:

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.)

Big Ben asked that questions like that be directed to him via PM (and it is truly none of any of our business unless he deems it so), so I would suggest that you not try to shake that answer out within the thread itself.

Also, it is rather off topic and a hell of a lot to ask of another user in general.

Fair call. My apologies to you, Big Ben.

I laughed so hard at that scene when I first watched it. Now it’s unwatchable.

It's funny, I keep wanting to threadsplit this, but the content of the (apparently not worth much discussion anyway) film is so intertwined with these accusations and the timing of all of this that it somehow keeps making more sense to just leave it all glued together.

Just so long as you're sure that's glue.

To the surprise of no one, Orchard won't be releasing this film anymore.

Also, Netflix has apparently cancelled its second planned Louis CK comedy special (the first of a two special deal came out earlier this year; if you do want to watch it, you should probably do so soon).

I'll pass.

Orchard should do the right thing and give every slot originally allotted for I Love You, Daddy to Thelma!

And now CK has issued a statement admitting to the allegations.

Better late (and under the threat of losing everything) than never I suppose. I hope he is able to recover from this.

The first part of this apology just sounds gross. The word predicament seems like a poorly chosen no pun intended. I wonder if any of the ones brought down will recover.

Yeah, "the power I had over these women is that they admired me" part stuck out to me.

Yeah I noticed that too. Still condescending and demeaning.

And no explanation as to why he squashed this for so many years, while coming so dangerously close to touching the flame so many times in his usually smugly written material, most of all this film. Scummy “apology” as far as I’m concerned.

Louis has now been dropped but just about everyone. FX, Universal, His Management and Publicist.

Here. And here.

This apology is too little too late, but I will defend two things that I’m seeing held against it. 1) quite a few people are denouncing the statement for not saying the exact words “sorry” or “I apologize” which means he’s not apologizing. The whole statement is an admission of guilt, how this is all true, how he violated people’s trust, how what he did was clearly wrong and how it is hurtful to everyone, and it’s all his fault and he feels bad about it. That’s pretty much an apology. 2) with regards to the “power” over the women, that term is creepy out of context but this follows weeks of countless editorials of how people like Weinstein and Spacey used either their authority or the admiration young actors had for them (in the case of Spacey) to take advantage of some victims. This seems more like Louis C.K. addressing that aspect of this problem and admitting it plays a significant part.

Anything written AFTER a revelation will always be perceived as too little too late, but IIRC, CK is the very first person to acknowledge so frontally that the victims are saying the truth, and it's very hard not to wonder how the current debate over sexual harassment and abuse would look like if every person rightly accused of such misconducts would have done such a frontal acknowledgment instead of going the usual auto-pilot route of downplaying this as "inappropriate behavior" or just denying the whole thing.

So sure, there certainly are wrong words and sentences poorly chosen, but such a direct recognition of the victims telling the truth without downplaying the actions (and the try to run away from them) looks like a sad premiere and it's actually sadly "refreshing".

hearthesilence wrote:This apology is too little too late, but I will defend two things that I’m seeing held against it. 1) quite a few people are denouncing the statement for not saying the exact words “sorry” or “I apologize” which means he’s not apologizing. The whole statement is an admission of guilt, how this is all true, how he violated people’s trust, how what he did was clearly wrong and how it is hurtful to everyone, and it’s all his fault and he feels bad about it. That’s pretty much an apology. 2) with regards to the “power” over the women, that term is creepy out of context but this follows weeks of countless editorials of how people like Weinstein and Spacey used either their authority or the admiration young actors had for them (in the case of Spacey) to take advantage of some victims. This seems more like Louis C.K. addressing that aspect of this problem and admitting it plays a significant part.

Was he really that famous at the time? It seemed to me like he's just assuming those women looked up to him, so he did the dirtbag move. What you and tenia are saying definitely applies to Spacey and Weinstein, but as it was also said in another post there are degrees of seriousness to the allegations and what they're charged with is worse.

He wasn’t a public figure like he is now but he was a pretty big deal in comedy. He was a key writer for high profile comedy shows, professionally that’s pretty lofty.

He was eviscerated on one of them last night.

Overseas distributors drop out, but the statement from ARP Séléction suggests it may see a release in France in the (presumably distant) future.

I wonder if this ever sees the light of day through any legitimate channel. Luckily it never sounded all that appealing, but I've heard that the performances (outside of CK's, since he's just doing his same old shtick and was never a particularly good actor) are pretty excellent, particularly Rose Byrne's.

Perhaps this is perverse, but I think I'm more interested in seeing this now than I otherwise would have been. Call it the Streisand effect, I guess.

It does seem like the ugliest form of auteurism to cancel an entire film because of the director’s personal transgressions as if this is solely his work and he is the only one who stands to be punished by it. I feel bad for all the other people who collaborated on the project whose work may never see public exposure.