Louis C.K. documentary producer says multiple accusers didn’t want to participate in film: “A sobering reality”
Sorry/Not Sorry, which documents the allegations against and return of the "canceled" comedian, premiered at TIFF over the weekend
Aux News Louis C.K.
In 2017, five women went on the record accusing Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct in a report by The New York Times. Now, the once-disgraced comedian is back on top of the world with a sold-out show at Madison Square Garden and a Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album to his name. But it isn’t just a knock to victims that C.K. has been allowed to return to the world of standup, according to documentary producer Kathleen Lingo; this new environment has made it challenging for the women who once spoke out against him to repeat their allegations.
Lingo, who produced the upcoming doc Sorry/Not Sorry about C.K.’s downfall and subsequent return, said at its TIFF premiere Sunday that “every single famous comedian” the team approached to speak about the allegations did not want to be involved in the project, per Entertainment Weekly.
“I think the thing that really stands out in my mind having been super involved with the outreach, is how many women who had spoken out around 2017, when we reapproached them 2020-2021 declined, which is sort of a sobering reality and it also just goes to show the bravery of the women who are in the film,” Lingo said.
Comedians Abby Schachner (who was named in the NYT article) and Jen Kirkman, as well as other comedy personalities like Michael Ian Black and Aida Rodriguez all went on record for the documentary. Per a note at the end of the film, C.K. did not respond to the filmmaker’s requests for comment or participation in the project.
“I think, as we’re sort of looking back at the #MeToo movement now in the rearview mirror and everyone’s always asking, ‘Are things better? Are things worse?’” Lingo continued. “It’s really hard to have a blanket sort of assessment, but just the fact that the women, who at that moment felt this sense of promise, to now not feel that anymore I think is quite dark.”
141 Comments
It’s not remotely surprising. Aside from Marc Maron, virtually every stand-up went radio silent when Louis C.K. admitted he’s an abuser, but they all of course had plenty to say about his right to return to the stage less than a year later.
No they didn’t. Stop talking.
Shut up
Small victory, but I feel like older mainstream comedians may have forgiven him. But younger or more alt comedians and podcasters and writers still insult him. The kind of people who influence the next generation more.
A lot of older comics may have similar (but maybe not quite as vile) skeletons in their closets from their own drunken early days.
young people suck, them not liking him is not a bad sign. Louis CK’s already made his mark and is still doing fine, he doesnt need them.
Young people aren’t big fans of people who force women to watch them masturbating, but you do you boomer.
And they don’t need him either… except as a cautionary tale!
That’s a victory?
I’ve seen Pete Davidson’s bit about Louis CK trying to get him fired from SNL, then making fun of him for being a predator. I’m sure there’s more out there, and I admit my perspective may be skewed because I’ve just been so disappointed in how many comedians have either chosen to stay silent or outright support CK.
What did Maron think of it?
He basically called out CK for lying to him about the allegations. It’s on his preamble on episode 845, with Kim Deal from the Pixies.
He said he was disappointed in him, because he asked him if these stories were true and Louie said they weren’t, so Maron chose to believe his friend. He devoted a big part of his podcast that week to it.
Well, former friend. I mean they used to be really close (I think even living together) but had some big falling out decades ago and basically hated each other until a few years before the allegations came out and they kinda hashed their shit out and were more or less neutral from what I can tell.
Yes, I meant that at the time that Maron confronted CK (which was after they’d reconciled over their earlier falling out), he considered him a friend. I don’t think he does anymore. He said recently that CK is no longer speaking to him, and he seems fine with that.
Ah could be. I only catch about every other episode of his. So many pods, so little time…
Literally none of this is true.
“but they all of course had plenty to say about his right to return to the stage less than a year later.”
One piece of evidence to support this, please. Just one.
Neal Brennan has discussed it at length. So has Sarah Silverman.
This morning on Cracked (too lazy to fix Kinja links, I’m sure a search engine could get you there), a pair of article headlines back to back:‘Every Single Famous Comedian’ Refused to Participate in New Louis C.K. DocumentaryEvery Comedian Who Defended Martin Short After ‘Slate’s Dumb TakedownMade the Louis CK piece look even worse after the orgy of love shown to Short. It’s a beautiful thing
I hadn’t heard about the Short piece, so I had to look it up. What a weird article. It’s literally just a long editorial about how this one writer doesn’t think that Martin Short is funny. I’m not surprised that everyone leapt to his defense. It’s the most random hit piece I’ve ever read. But yeah, you make a good point about the support ratios.
I’ve never read anything that made me hate a previously unknown writer faster and with more fury than that Martin Short hit piece by my new enemy-for-life Dan Kois. Martin Short is the funniest person EVVVVAAAAHHHH
Wow. You must shit taste like most woketards
I don’t think Martin Short is that funny, but I would never waste anyone’s time lambasting him. I certainly wouldn’t publicly do so in long form if I was a writer for a reasonably well known media company, even if I was completely out of ideas for what to write about. Not only would it be boring and unnecessary, it’s an open invite for a dogpile. I guess some people still think notoriety is as good as publicity.
I’ll say this. I never thought of him as unfunny so much as funny in small doses, which like most comedians. They need editing more than most entertainers given how spontaneous their craft can be. And I think his style was particularly suited to Only Murders in the Building. Honestly, he’s the strongest in the trio when he’s getting to be snarky and dramatic contrasted against Steve’s neurotic mensch and Selena’s jaded millennial. It’s been a nice late bow from him.
I never had any real strong feelings about Martin Short until we saw him and Steve Martin together live several years ago. I 100% went to the show excited to see Steve Martin and he did not disappoint, But Martin Short legit stole the show. Since then I’ve paid a lot more attention, and one of the over riding things everyone says about him is just what a wonderful person he is. His episode of the “Smartless” podcast is a great interview if you have any interest
My parents love Steve Martin but basically hate Martin Short, but find him tolerable in OMITB. I like both a lot in the show, I completely fell for every dip-related joke in seasons 1 and 2, even though it seems like they’re trying to pull them back this season.
I mean, we’re talking about it.
I don’t think the Martin Short article is a hit piece at all, because it makes no objectionable claims about him. Since when is it offensive to say that a certain comedian isn’t funny?Personally I thought it was a good essay about an utterly baffling phenomenon.
It just seemed arbitrary and mean-spirited, I guess. I mean, it’s fine for some entertainer to rub you the wrong way, but maybe you’re not the person to write a 2000 word profile on them especially if you don’t have any specific reason beyond their humor not appealing to your personal taste.
I have to say, when I first saw that Martin Short article, I thought “What the F is this idiot talking about!?” Then I actually started to think “Wait, do I really like Martin Short? Do I just like him because I loved Ed Grimley and The Three Amigos when I was 8 years old?” So, i guess, sort of a fair question the article asks? But then I thought “Why the F would anyone put any time into questioning the popularity of Martin Short?” It’d be like writing 5000 words on why people like banana bread. Some people do, some people don’t! End of story!
So, you just don’t understand what a hit piece is?
It’s literally just a long editorial about how this one writer doesn’t think that Martin Short is funny.
Yeah, that was just weird. Is there ANY comic or comic actor that EVERYONE thinks is funny? Jeez.For the record I think Martin Short is hilarious, and smart. Seriously – check out some of his Jiminy Glick interviews. That’s some fucking hilarious snark. Zach Galifianakis was paying attention, I’d bet… And yeah, sure, Glick is probably considered a problematic portrayal nowadays. But… I guess so would Chico Marx be.Sorry, off track. What I meant to say was, if I thought anyone was unfunny. I don’t think I would write that long an article about it. And about a guy that, frankly, most people in the comedy world seem to love and respect? that’s odd, and probably has something to do with click bait.But I’m not the one to ask. I’ve been a Martin Short fan since the short-lived sitcom The Associates.
He’s on a very popular show that’s currently releasing new episodes, so it’s not *entirely* random.
I felt like the article was less negative about Short and more using a (typical of slate) hyperbolic headline to then describe his career of playing obnoxious cads.
Honestly I could enjoy a mean-spirited, catty and completely unfair takedown if it’s funny, but this wasn’t even that. I’d said it’s a weird piece but it seems obvious it was published to get precisely the viral reaction it did.
Having seen the piece in Slate before the backlash to it began and having warm feelings towards Martin Short, myself, I remember thinking that the headline (“Why We Keep Putting Up with Martin Short”) seemed odd. It seemed even more so after I read the piece. Dan Kois wrote it. He’s been at Slate for a long, long time (he has over 1,000 articles with his byline), and he’s helped cultivate the magazine’s contrarian house style (look up “Slatepitch” if you’re unfamiliar). That style has waned a bit at the magazine in recent years, to the point where prestigious former writers for Slate like Matthew Yglesias are writing eulogies for it (the style, not the magazine, itself). I say all of this by way of making an observation that Kois’s piece on Martin Short reads more like a contemporary Slate piece, one that reflects the magazine’s larger struggle with its identity.I don’t think Kois meant for it to be a takedown at all. To me it reads like a stream-of-consciousness piece that needed 1) a clearer thesis 2) at least one more round of editing, and 3) a much better headline, one that frames its premise in more palpable—and truer—terms. I think Kois intended for it to be about how, despite often finding much of Short’s earlier comedy to be unfunny (which put him at odds with lots of people, he admits), he still likes Short, is rooting for him (more or less), and begrudgingly now finds him to be funny. Take this quote from towards the very end of the piece:“My natural tendency, no matter what difficult period I’m going through or have been through, is to be happy,” [Short] writes in his memoir. Martin Short actually seems incredibly healthy; one friend calls him the only comedian in the business who’s laughing on the inside. His job is to entertain, and he loves his job—maybe a little too much, sometimes, but may any of us have such problems.To me there’s a nuance and an ambivalence there that are both circulating throughout the entire piece. It’s like Kois had in mind a very specific audience—one that, like him, finds Short to be sometimes annoying, sometimes funny (he didn’t like Ed Grimley and Clifford, he did like Nathan Thurm and Lawrence Orbach), and is trying to figure out why. That would be a very niche audience, to be sure, but that’s my guess.
That would be me. Sometimes I find him to be a little much, but other times I really enjoy him. And his work in Only Murders in the Building has been fantastic.
I almost mentioned that while Kois seems to enjoy Only Murders, specifically, even there he still takes a shot or two at Short. Again, the ambivalence is on full display. This is how Kois ends the piece:Oliver Putnam, the director and occasional podcaster he plays on Only Murders in the Building, only occasionally displays the traditional Shortian desperation to please. He’s a sendup of washed-up artists, who tend to share with Short’s comedy persona a certain self-regard. But he’s also, despite his foibles, a good friend to Charles and Mabel. And as he slowly falls for Meryl Streep’s flibbertigibbet actress character Loretta, we see how badly he wants to connect to someone else who cares as much as he does. That the thing he cares about is a very bad musical called Death Rattle Dazzle—well, he’s still Martin Short. Only Murders in the Building may have the Emmys’ blessing, the prestige-TV imprimatur, and the New Yorker font, but Martin Short will still do anything, anything, for a laugh. After all: Isn’t that what we’re trying to achieve here?
I stopped reading Slate many years ago because of that contrarian for the sake of it attitude. I almost felt dirty after reading some of their smarmy, high schoolish articles. Not all, there was writing on there I liked, but not enough to sift through the garbage. As for Short, loved him back in the 80’s and early 90’s, I guess I haven’t seen any of his recent stuff, but the guy is a legend, so an article like that on Slate seems on brand for them.
I used to hateread Slate’s dumb “but good thing is bad, actually” articles, but then one day they asked me to pay real, actual money that I earned at my job to read them. And that was that.
Slate invented the “You’re Doing It Wrong!” article, and that contrarianism just seemed to seep into everything they wrote after that. The website became an electronic version of that annoying kid we all knew in high school who thought he was cool and smart for having a contrary opinion about everything, but was really just an insufferable POS.
The hit piece on Short was really dumb. Personally, I’m not a big fan of Short’s brand of comedy, I think it gets cringey really quick and I find a few of his well known characters to be damn annoying. But you won’t see me claiming that he’s not funny, because he’s obviously a hilarious performer. He’s just not everyone’s cup of tea.
It was probably planned by the studio to drum up publicity for the third season of Only Murders In The Building, since the buzz seems to not be there for the third season
Short is not funny. He just isnt. But ive never heard anyone say a bad thing about him.
My mom hates him
Short is hilarious. To me. And any friend of Conan is a friend of mine. Comedy is subjective, yo.
“Short is not funny. He just isnt.”
Way to get the point, Dan Koi, you fucking knob.
I have always thought that the performing moment that came closest to Martin Short’s true persona was in Three Amigos! when Ned Nederlander is talking to the village children about his run-in with Dorothy Gish’s sister Lillian. The pleasant performer craving an audience and letting fly with a humblebrag or two, who as he ages relies more heavily on old routines than new material.And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. I like Marty and Ed Grimley and Ned Nederlander and Oliver Putnam and all the other characters who are so clearly “Martin Short characters” (good drinking game: watch every Short performance and look for the moment where he hunches over, pins his knees together, and raises his arms out like vulture wings while turning his head over his right shoulder).I just feel like the Slate author needed to fill column space and figured a nice clickbaity headline and hit piece would pay his bills.
What does “canceled” really mean for an independent contractor like a comedian? CK has basically been doing sets at the Chuckle Hut and self-publishing internet CDs since his revelations came out. Things no one can really be prevented from. No more primetime on FX.
At night, the Chuckle Hut becomes the Laugh Factory.
chuckle hut is seriously a great name for a comedy club though.
he’s still doing MSG, thats a little bigger than the “chuckle hut.”
He’s never going to be on TV (or streaming) again. If he were to put together another show, it would be pretty well ignored and be hosted on his own website. Other actors would refuse to work with him. Yes, he can still perform live, and some people will pay to see him. But I doubt it’s the same people who were buying tickets 10 years ago. Like Trump, he’s now stuck with the audience he has for eternity, whether he likes them or identifies with them or not.
his self-released ‘fourth of july’ last year was $15 on his website and noone seemed to care.
I wonder if his self-releasing of specials and Horace and Pete was just preparing for what he must have known was his inevitable cancelation. What seemed like a clever business decision at the time now seems like he was preparing for when he no longer had a mainstream distributor.
hes still what most regular people would consider famous and rich. So maybe now he cant be infinitely more famous and rich, big deal, its not much of a punishment, his life is still great. I wish the worst problem i had was people demonizing me on the internet.
no kidding…
Enough with this Louis C.K. stuff, the man has obviously done his penance and been forgiven by everyone he allegedly hurt, all of who have unbelievable stories anyway (notice how they’re all “women” so take whatever they say with a grain of salt).
I am disappointed in this site for continually accusing a man who has done nothing wrong. Now if you will excuse me, I have to write a 10,000-word screed excoriating Kathy Griffin and wondering why she hasn’t been publicly executed yet.
(massive /s for anyone who’s dumb)
Unfunny.
Anybody that needs to throw in a “sarcasm” tag is basically admitting they’re not very good at jokes.
Thank you for announcing yourself sir, but this is an Arby’s.
Don’t feed it. Just ignore it
Holy shit you’re next level unfunny.
why is “women” in quotes?-never mind, i didnt see the sarcasm tag and now i cant delete the comment.
Because its transphobic to assume
Die
Fuck off transphobe
“accusing a man who has done nothing wrong.” Um, he admitted to doing it so there’s no accusations at this point. It’s not even really a matter of right or wrong, the dude did something fucking weird and we’re allowed to laugh at him and call him fucking weird, the man can continue to have a successful career as a comedian and writer but every time he does something we’re allowed to credit him as famous comedian/writer/masturbator.
“(massive /s for anyone who’s dumb)“
What is the point of you?
“They didn’t want to speak to us, so I’ve decided to put words in their mouth. Look how brave I am.”
why would you need to do what when his other accusers gave interviews?
Shut the fuck up, incel.
Eat a brick
Your mom eat my log!
There’s something I just love about Jen Kirkman.If he abused her, he should be sent straight to hell.
He didn’t “abuse” anybody.
i really cant imagine her taking any shit from him.
She told the story in one of her books, which apparently I’m the only person who ever read because nobody quoted it after she wasn’t interested in going into detail about the allegations.The story in her book is of a time when she was offered a gig as the opening act for a prominent, unnamed comedian about to go on tour. The comedian took her out to what she thought was a working lunch, and out of nowhere asks “Do you think it would be cheating on my wife if I asked you to watch me masturbate?” I can’t imagine anyone but CK fitting so perfectly into that story. The way the question isn’t even about how she would feel watching him beat off, but how she thinks that would reflect on his relationship with his wife, just a chef’s kiss of a very specific kind of shitty.Anyway, she got rescued from the awkwardness by the sudden appearance of the man she’d later go on to marry, and she turned down the opening gig.
Yup, she only took his cum
She told the story in one of her books, which apparently I’m the only person who ever read because nobody quoted it after she wasn’t interested in going into detail about the allegations.The story in her book is of a time when she was offered a gig as the opening act for a prominent, unnamed comedian about to go on tour. The comedian took her out to what she thought was a working lunch, and out of nowhere asks “Do you think it would be cheating on my wife if I asked you to watch me masturbate?” I can’t imagine anyone but CK fitting so perfectly into that story. The way the question isn’t even about how she would feel watching him beat off, but how she thinks that would reflect on his relationship with his wife, just a chef’s kiss of a very specific kind of shitty.Anyway, she got rescued from the awkwardness by the sudden appearance of the man she’d later go on to marry, and she turned down the opening gig.
For no reason I looked up the guy she married, saw they divorced after two years, and then that he died in 2021. Sad times.
Oh, I didn’t know that. That’s very sad.
Yeah it’s weird. I don’t find her stand up particularly funny, but there’s just something about her personality I love.
Southie!
The “sobering reality” is that nobody’s interested in participating in a documentary that’s mostly just beating a dead horse at this point, and doesn’t offer any kind of unique perspective that would make it worthwhile.
So you’ve seen it? Or read a review? Or spoken to someone who did see it and they told you it doesn’t offer any kind of unique perspective?
I have not watched it, and am certainly not in any rush to change that. I have read a few reviews though, which have been rather tepid, and specifically point out that the movie fails to say anything new that hasn’t already been said in the past six years since this story first broke.
Oh, well that’s OK then. To be honest, I was unaware that it had been reviewed anywhere yet.
“Oh, well that’s OK then.”
Nice apology for being a condescending cunt, Louis.
You’re reaching.
Literally NOBODY needs to see the movie to know that it’s about a thing that came out six years ago and NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED, so why would anyone want to dredge that up again, knowing that NOTHING’S GOING TO FUCKING HAPPEN?
CK got in trouble for beating a dead snake
Yeah, and when it comes to “problematic” comedians, it all is going to boil down to the work. Louis CK is still putting out specials that are funny as hell and winning awards. Chappelle has not been putting out anything funny, Chris Rock’s last one was hyped, but mediocre.Louis CK is still one of the funniest comedians alive and I think that bothers a lot of people. He is going to keep winning awards because his material is consistently brilliant. Maybe that’s why no one really had anything else to add to this weird documentary.
What a weird series of statements…
“how many women who had spoken out around 2017, when we reapproached them
2020-2021 declined, which is sort of a sobering reality and it also
just goes to show the bravery of the women who are in the film,”Does this imply that the women who decided not to participate in the film were not brave enough?“every single famous comedian” the team approached to speak about the allegations did not want to be involved in the project” and then
“Comedians Abby Schachner (who was named in the NYT article) and
Jen Kirkman, as well as other comedy personalities like Michael Ian
Black and Aida Rodriguez all went on record for the documentary.”Tough beat for Michael Ian Black and Abby Schachner. “Thanks guys, we couldn’t get anyone more famous!”
3<80
I had the same thought and I also can kind of understand why no one wanted to work with this producer if she’s out here taking shots at people because they didn’t spend time to make her documentary better.
“I also can kind of understand why no one wanted to work with this producer if she’s out here taking shots at people because they didn’t spend time to make her documentary better.”
So, do you think the filmmakers told these people they’d be taking pot shots when the film went to festivals? Is that why people didn’t participate? You think they knew what would happen in the future?
Literally and seriously, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?
It’s also possible the people they asked either a) have said all they had to say about the matter and don’t want to discuss it again and/or b) had no idea who this producer was and decided they didn’t want to be involved in their documentary. Like when I was in film school and was doing a documentary on Hollywood and not a single A List actor agreed to be in it. Really says something about the bravery of my random mate who did appear in it.
yeah I mean there’s a million mundane reasons a person might not want to do any particular interview
If there’s one thing Michael Ian Black’s IMDB shows, it’s that he will literally appear in ANTHING.
Hey, I loved The State and Michael Ian Black’s Twitter never disappoints.
He REALLY LOVED the 70s…80s…90s…
I knew the Me Too thing would blow over. Thats how the media is, they pick up a cause thats hot for a minute, then they forget about it.
I wouldn’t blame the media on this one. Sexual assault is so old that it predates the human species. The number of assault victims must be in the billions by now. This is just a part of human nature. If it couldn’t be addressed at any point in the last 250,000 years, then it wasn’t going to be solved during one month in 2018. It’s like trying to solve racism or end genocide — just not going to happen. We can mitigate the impacts, and we can try to impose punishments/justice, but what really were you expecting? I’d say that you’re too optimistic.
The media, yes. Everyone else, no. Duck off, nazi trump lover,
Why do you say duck instead of fuck?
Because he’s a brainless woketard
Die
you are clearly a moron.
there was not a single thing in my comment that indicated any kind of support for trump, or even mentioned his name-youre just one of those judgemental morons thats itching for the slightest excuse (or none) to pounce on somebody for something. You need to learn how to read and calm the fuck down.
And i was specifically referring to the media, dumbshit. JFC you are dumb, and trigger happy.
Woketards only whine about things when they’re hot. Moment it aint trendin they drop it
Yeah, I guess when there’s modern day Nazi’s trying to overthrow the government, and not a insignificant amount of Americans willing to go along with it, stories like this take a backseat. Doesn’t mean it’s not important, but I suppose the country being in danger of becoming giant version of North Korea is more important.
We can be worried about more than one thing at a time (trust me on that, hooo boy)
thats true.
All his “victims” had to do was cover their eyes.
Then what would be the point?
Die
Like your sex life?
So is this like if I said jimmy fallon is unfunny? He is also a douchebag but who cares if I think he is unfunny? Martin short has his moments, but I never thought he was particularly funny. I do not think he is a douchebag though. Why do they need to defend him? He is either funny or not, and that comes down to people’s opinions. Thoroughly baffled. His work should speak for itself, just like every one else. Now Cosby …
Victims don’t want to relive their trauma unnecessarily, especially when there will be no legal consequences for the accused. News at 11.
Great news. Another guy who offends woketards with jokes. Keep ‘em comin!
No one is gonna miss you
Your mom disagrees. Now quiet in the basement
Imagine how offended off you gonna be by CK! Does it get you rock hard, shitstain ?
Woketard alert!
It’s hilarious how most of the standups make fun of conservatives, but you only need one joke about a protected species for the Woketard Taliban to cancel you.
What does woketard mean?
You’ll know ’em when you see ‘em. Just look at Marge Madness self-identifying as a woketard for example.
lol. Woketard Hobbo Bobbo got offended by that!
The article headline says that “multiple ACCUSERS didn’t want to participate in the film”, but then the article says that COMEDIANS are the ones that didn’t want to be involved. Sooo…. gonna fix that AV Club?
“Been allowed to return?”
Someone call the comedy police, how did Louis CK get back in the business?!?
Did someone leave the door open again! DAMMIT SHERYL
i think, as things have solidified culturally, being ‘canceled’ is really just the difference between what type of fans you have. it seems trite laid out, but if you’ve successfully fostered a ‘personal’ relationship with your fanbase (even by accident in the case of someone like johnny depp), you will be never truly be canceled.someone like armie hammer never actually had any real fans, so even though he didn’t really do anything (even though they were particularly horny texts, i don’t think horny texts is anything evil) he’s toast forever.
Zactly. Last time I checked, Chris D’Elia was close to selling out a large hall in Seattle generally earmarked for classical music concerts.
If he’s toast forever, maybe he’ll try to eat himself.
When nobody wants to talk to you for your Louis CK comeback movie, maybe that’s a sign you shouldn’t make a Louis CK comeback movie.
Are they gonna put ‘Louis’ show back on FX? I never got to see some of the last season’s episodes. This was a pretty good show.
“every single famous comedian” the team approached to speak about the allegations did not want to be involved in the projectEvery single comedian that did want to be involved with the project right now: