Release the Louis C.K. Film

>This Friday was to have brought the release of Louis C.K.’s soul-searching new film I Love You, Daddy. Instead, after C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct, its distribution company, The Orchard, said it was dropping the film, for which it paid $5 million in September at the Toronto Film Festival.

>That’s unfortunate, because I Love You Daddy deserves to be seen. As its subject is sexual misbehavior, it’s particularly relevant to the cultural moment and would have attracted a sizeable and engaged audience. Instead, because few have seen it, it’s being misrepresented as excuse-making, notably in the same New York Times story that reported C.K. had committed lewd acts in front of five women.

>This interpretation is rubbish. I Love You, Daddy is a nauseated moan of remorse for the way Hollywood elites treat women. In no way is it an “excuse.” It’s much more of an indictment and, in an oblique sense, a mea culpa.

>Shot in a lush black and white suggesting Golden Age Hollywood, the film is about a disillusioned but hugely successful creator of TV shows, played by C.K., whose cinematic idol, 68-year-old Leslie Dixon (John Malkovich), is modeled on Woody Allen: He’s an eminent but loathsome director previously accused of child molestation who toys with women half a century younger. Though C.K. has described Allen as one of his avatars and once acted for Allen (in Blue Jasmine), he is in essence using the form of an Allen movie (Manhattan and Stardust Memories) to bash Allen on moral grounds. This is something of a breakthrough: As we have been reminded lately, famous Hollywood people are extremely averse to calling attention to one another’s moral failings as long as they fear consequences. C.K. should get credit for being one of the first major show-business figures to point the finger inside the charmed circle.

nationalreview.com/article/453692/louis-ck-i-love-you-daddy-release

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>C.K.’s character, Glen Topher, is living in a New York City apartment the size of an airport terminal. Lounging in the background is his 17-year-old daughter, China (Chloë Grace Moretz), who is presented in such overtly sexual terms — she flounces around in a tiny bikini — that C.K. is sending up via exaggeration the way young women are today hypersexualized, especially in Hollywood. China might as well be wearing a label reading, “USDA Prime,” or maybe “Lolita 2017.”

>The ironic use of a romantic, 1940s-style orchestral score highlights by its incongruity the sordid nature of Daddy’s milieu, and in keeping with its anti-rom-com feel, when Glen and China meet the illustrious Goodwin (Malkovich’s look suggests Ho Chi Minh visiting the Playboy Mansion), the filmmaker immediately starts hitting on the girl, who is one-fourth his age. Glen thinks (like everyone in Hollywood, going back forever) that great artists’ personal foibles are their own business and shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with our judgment about their art. But he has given a hostage to fortune. He soon learns how easy it is to suffer from anything-goes sexual mores, even in cases where no crime has been committed.

>In a scene that’s so reptilian it recalls Kaa the snake hypnotizing Mowgli in The Jungle Book, Leslie puts a kind of spell on the helpless girl with a pseudo-intellectual lecture about the various subcategories of feminism. It’s exactly the way such a man would attract the interest of a young beauty: by asserting his authority and preying on her insecurity about her own lack of depth. Malkovich and Moretz play the scene impeccably; you practically want to shout at her to get away from the old lecher. Pretty soon Glen actually is shouting: “This is wrong,” he insists, and he angrily confronts Goodwin, who simply dismisses the complaint.

The whole piece is very good. I really wish they would release the film and let people judge it for themselves. It's also really absurd that HBO has removed his work from their service, when they haven't done this for any other celebrity, including ones who have done far worse things than Louis.

Will this movie ever get released? Even straight to streaming? I really want to see it.

>Fifty-one years ago, enraged Christians and the Ku Klux Klan gathered to publicly burn piles of Beatles records after John Lennon said the group was more popular than Jesus Christ. Digitally burning Louis C.K.’s work to signal one’s adherence to the current moral dogma is just as silly as that was.

I really wish more people would realize this

What is Chloe's character's age in the film?

those people that bought the rights are fucking retarded for not showing it so many people would watch just because of the controversy.

yeah, if they released it, it probably would make way more than if nothing had ever happened

Woody Alen never did anything wrong though, why should I praise Louis CK for harassing him?

Admit it cinema is dying. It has more supplies than demand. People are going to pick their movies like cherries. They don't need it and they would drop it when they see the tiniest spot on it.
The whole Weinstein effect thing is a weeding process

Her character is 17.

She plays a 17 year old pro bodybuilder

>Woody Allen never did anything wrong
>Louis CK did

What I want to know is why HBO is doing this with Louis, but not with literally anybody else, including Mel Gibson and Christian Slater, who have actually physically harmed women.

What I want to know is why you took the central point of the article and repeated it as if you just thought of it.

The guy singled out one point, and I mentioned another that also interested me.

mel gibson was only alleged to have hit his gf in divorce proceedings which are notorious for being filled with lies to get extra bucks.
also he isn't alleged to have abused his position of power over someone in the industry

Mel yelled at a woman on the phone who he was dating, you mong.

Christian Slater is irrelevant

i even saw a poster of it in my local theater im sure they have a copy of it. it was being released soon right???

>Rape apologists value a shitty movie over women.
Sup Forums and /r9k/'s misogyny knows no bounds.

I'm legit interested to see any movie made by a compulsive masturbator.

Your Hitler dubs betray you. The 60's revolution was a mistake, and one of its figurehead's, Lennon, an enemy to all mankind.

Friday

t. Ben Shapiro

>national review
>tfw thought this was an Armond White piece

When will we get the inevitable Jim Norton biopic?

>be Louis
>make kino
>lol sorry, career over

LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD

How the fuck do you just call up a woman that you work with and then fap to her voice why not first call a sex worker.

And it's wrong to want to fuck a 17 year old?

Why does such an out and proud faggot write for such a conservative publication?

All the liberals ones blacklisted him for being too red pilled.

Because it's a shtick to make conservatives feel better about themselves.

I'm sure it's exactly that.

It is you fucking doorman and garbageman. Go to rebbit you cocksucker.

>The movies are dying meme

Mel nearly hit a pedestrian and almost assault a cop because he thought he was a Jew, after he totaled his car against a fucking pole. Are you retarded?

>teehee rebbit ;)
If you unironically use the term "redpilled" you should just end it.

>nearly
>almost

@90211466
If you post on Sup Forums you should. But you won't keep whiteknighting for niggers here.

I feel really bad for Louis. I hope he doesn't an hero.

Money.

CK is being fucked because he tried to do things his own way and produce and control his content and make all the money. He is against the system. The system wants money. Its why Bill Cosby stayed doing shows. They could still make money. CK was selling tickets and producing his own shows. They hate that shit. That means they don't get to make money and sell it and do their advertising exposure.

Im not trying to say Louie CK is innocent and we should forgive him, but he did not RAPE anyone. A fucking rapist continued to work. No one asks why cause their feelings are more important than looking at the truth. It's always about money, follow the money, theirs your answers.

Right I guess DUIs don't count if you "almost" hit human beings. I guess the pole doesn't count as an accident either....

Fucking clod.

>If you post on Sup Forums you should
No, just kill yourself.

Nobody called it rape but sexual assault is still a crime, kiddo. Whipping your dick out on people who don't want to see it, is assault, which he admitted to.

I want to weigh in but first i'd have to know if he was grunting and sticking his tongue out.

>went back to his hotel room
>asked if he could
>none of them said no
>they all sat on these stories till he was famous

that's not assault, quit marginalizing actual sexual assault victims.

@90211634
kys and tell every rebbit fag to do the same

>none of them said no

Did any of them say yes?

It's just as bad as rape. There's no reason to put any woman through that. This would never happen to a man.

Yes all the women he wanted in front of. Except the woman on the phone. He just wanted to her voice which is a pretty big compliment.

But they didn't say yes, this doesn't even matter since he fucking admitted to it. I don't know how else you want to spin this in order to be an apologist. He admitted it...

The left-right paradigm is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of faggots who believe in a laissez-faire approach to government.

The problem stems from having a "first past the post" voting system which basically means you will you only ever have two parties and the media wanting to be able to craft simple narratives of "us vs them."

Fucking this.

Why is it I never hear Canada bitching about this voting system? You really want a European one where 5-6 parties are all in coalition and nothing gets done ever?

Im saying its not assault. It's gross and awful and fucking dumb. It's not assault. To classify it as sexual assault diminishes the term. You are categorizing victims into the same place as those that were raped and molested. He physically harmed no one. I don't know why everyone calls it assault. Call it harassment, or exposure or a more accurate term. Their emotions were hurt, their bodies were not.

user, under the law, it is considered sexual assault. Trying to get women to touch or engage with your voyuerism against their will is literally an assault on their person, sexually. Are you in a third world? Or just retarded?

>He physically harmed no one. I don't know why everyone calls it assault.
Because emotional damage is literally a thing you can sue over. Do you think Depression is fake too?

Show me the law which says that. Because every paper has called it misconduct.

So please, show me the law that says what he did with their permission mind you, is assault.

Why are they punishing the people who want to actually see his work? Are these publishers retarded or something?

>Against their will

Then why did they agree? And why did all of these women accept his apologies?

No it isn't. It is a completely separate category from sexual assault. Quit making shit up to fit your argument. Indecent exposure and sexual misconducting are NOT assault.

If you want to see his work that's just like going to abuse suffering women who just want a no fault abortion.

Who are you trying to fool here? Do you think you're convincing at all?

Assault is a legal term. It means you made someone feel like they were in imminent danger of unwanted physical contact. Battery is the legal term for the actual unwanted contract.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)

Not sure why the film wouldn't be released considering nothing ever stopped Polanski.

Don't give me Wikipedia links. You can look up all the laws you need. Show me the law that defines what Louis did as sexual assault.

Come on. Get them. You are so sure it's sexual assault so it should be really really easy to find. Just show me. Use any state you want.

Because it’s the current year

>you made me depressed
>Im suing you

does this really happen?

>sexual misconduct

But I've read every single piece on this and not once did the women say they felt threatened or in danger. Shocked yes disgusted sure. One woman said she felt angry. Did the woman who heard him masturbating on the phone think she was in a real sense of danger? She didn't say that.

Yes and it's why you can now call up the company you work for and claim mental health days.

You can get sued for any thing. These women could sue Louis. I'm sure Lisa bloom would take the case.

They didn't agree...that's the point. Accepting their apology doesn't make it less of an assault, after the fact.

See:

>being a woman

>Don't give me Wikipedia links. You can look up all the laws you need.
Oh, fuck off you dumb cunt. The laws are literally cited there.

>In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.

So he didn't assault them then.

Locking the door and trying to get women to touch your dick is attempt at offensive contact, you painfully stupid child.

why couldn't they have complained after the film released. god dammit

Yeah man, there’s good money in it too. Depending on the jurisdiction you might need a physical harm to bring the emotional harm claim. But if you get into a car accident or whatever you might as well throw in the emotional claim too.

You keep saying they didn't agree. The two comics claim he asked and then started masturbating immediately. They were still fully dressed wearing winter clothing. So they just sat down waited while Louis who must have also been wearing winter clothing they were in Aspen after all got fully naked and then shrieked and laughed while also too paralysed to move until he finished when they suddenly remembered they could leave. Wow. He must have had magnificent speed to undress and masturbate so quickly.

Okay what about the phone call? I agree she didn't agree. She was also in the phone. And didn't hang up. Again too paralysed with fear to act right.

The woman who he asked and said no? She must have been too frozen with fear to say yes.

The woman who Louis pestered until she agreed to watch him, then watched him, then wouldnt even name herself in the article? Well that must have been quite the assault.

So much assault. So many laws broken. Very much a big evil man abusing his unfathomable power as a stand up comedian back in 2003. I mean he just wrote pootie tang he must have been on the same power level as Chris rock. I can't believe this monster got away with this for so long.

And please tell me which woman said he attempted that. Quote the article please it's in there right. You did read the article right?

First of all, they were not locked in the room. You don't lock a door behind you? Housekeeping can just walk in unless you lock it. He didn't lock it and pocket a key. It's a door lock, like a light switch you can flip it. If women don't know how locks work Louis CK is the least of our problems. They could have unlocked it and walked out. You're trying to spin that, stop.

Second, he never tried to get them touch it. You just straight made that up.

I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories and da joos but this actually makes sense. The NYT just happens to have this extremely vetted, researched story ready to go the instant Weinstein et al get exposed? The rumors have been going for a while, so it's not far-fetched to think someone could have pieced all this together over time, but if so, why sit on the story?

That is NOT assault. Jesus Christ.

Then post them here. And tell me exactly what assault he committed.

Because none of the women oh I'm sorry none of the victims called it sexual assault. None of the wo-vitctims called it sexual battery. The journalists didn't. It's only called sexual misconduct. Why none of these women mention a single hand being laid on them not so much a hand on a knee. Why the only hand was his on his penis according to everyone interviewed.

Excuse the cross-post, but if you haven't heard this story, it's pretty big....

>kiddo
>pulling out your dick after asking if they would be OK with it is assault

Why are people responding to this bait?

Just post the story link

OK, the cross link didn't work.

Bottom line... Actor Tom Sizemore accused of molesting an 11 year old.

Lol that nigga did that shit

It all happens after the toronto film festival too. People have seen this movie. It was bought by The orchard who is very much against the normal hollywood release ideas of today. Go figure.

Isn't there an allegation that he forced a woman into a closet? There's also the rumor that he did this in front of Garfunkel and Oates and blocked the door so they couldn't leave.

Forget the rhetoric. These are acts of aggression, whether categorically rape or not.

I've been a big fan of this guy for years. Paid to see his stand up multiple times.

He;s a flawed guy and a human, of course. He probably has a lot of reconciling to do about his foibles but he visited his internal anguish on people who looked on him with admiration. Why is that alright and why does it make him any more of a sympathetic figure than those upon whom he visited with these acts?

Impact. That or someone really hates that fucking movie.

Assuming this isn't bait I'm sorry to break it to you sweetheart but Indescent exposure is not rape. Its nasty and very unsettling but its a far cry from molestation/forced intercourse.

Indecent exposure is a dumb arbitrary law but that's for another thread. Either way what Louis did wasn't against any actual law, all the ones that watched him agreed to do so.

No there are no such allegations or are we just going of rumor and hearsay now. If we are I heard Glenn beck raped and killed a girl in 1990.

It is sexual assault, yes.

How do you still not know what constitutes a sexual assault?

Wew, lad...

The problem with stuff like this is, it's ok till someone says its not. Sex laws are tricky. Two people can spend an evening together have consensual sex. Then hours later start to have consensual sex again. If one says no during the sex act and wants to stop and the other person does not stop it becomes rape. The previous completed consensual sex act does not matter. In many peoples eyes it does, it gets confusing. Louis CK seemingly played with that very confusion. People laughed at the idea of him getting his dick out, then he did it. Whether he broke a law or not is for a court, with all the evidence, to decide. Though we can see that the law isn't going to necessarily do a good enough job. Maybe it wasn't illegal, but what he did was pretty fucking funny.