Louie (Louis C.K.'s show on FX)

killer post

the tig notaro thing that louis has been promoting points to louis being interested in uncomfortable situations rather than self-flagellation, it's just that self-flagellation is a means to get there?

The self-deprecation helps deflate criticism that the show, or Louie (or Lena Dunham [or Louie Dunham]) is narcissistic, self-absorbed and too self-conscious. It's a way of saying "I'm aware that I have a problem...now if you'll excuse me," and then doing what you want to do without criticism. You control the debate by pointing out your own flaws, getting that out of the way, and maybe you can distract from other weaknesses by harping on your own smaller ones again and again.

Also many comedians base their entire careers on self-depreciation.

I've known egomaniacs who manipulate people by shrinking, and being coy, and being self-deprecating whenever they think someone might call them out on selfish behavior. It's like a possum playing dead.

*haven't seen Girls or more than one episode of Louie btw, but self-deprecation can be a device hiding wickedness so you all know. xpost

Rodney Dangerfield to thread

charges of narcissism, egomania etc... is a weird criticism to defend against considering the show is named louie.

self deprecation so not what girls is about (cf how louie and lena deal w/ body image), in girls the jokes about hannah's irresponsiblity, fecklessness, narcissism, and spoiled nature are more the wisdom a twentysomething has about a slightly younger twentysomething, usual commenting on personality traits that frankly are the common defining characteristics of a young adult, esp a young adult who fancies him/herself creative. no more self deprecating than (HEY MORDY WATCH THIS) joyce's portrait of the artist as a young man.

like i don't think TNG was motivated to go for human drama because they were defensive about space laser criticism

has anyone seen the tig notaro thing btw? it's been built up so much i'm scared to see it now, feel like i won't be open to it and w/ comedy you usually have to be willing to meet it halfway for it to work.

your parenthetical got me all excited and then 'portrait of the artist?" finnegan's wake or go home.

charges of narcissism, egomania etc... is a weird criticism to defend against considering the show is named louie.

well a little bit of self-awareness goes a long way. you can't call the show, or him, out on self-absorption because the warning label was right there. "You knew this was coming."

There's just that Woody Allen dishonesty, of writing characters as obvious stand-ins but also as satires, depending on whether or not he's being praised or criticized

half of the tig notaro thing is this week's This American Life. It's pretty good. There's an interview with Tig on Fresh AIr about it, and weirdly they interview Louie for about 15 minutes about it as well.

cunga what are you talking about? provide examples

i think there's an episode where louie does a woody allen homage if you're looking for louie/woody comparisons, but this whole "I'm openly putting my identity on this show to pre-empt criticisms of the show being centered around me" is some "I'm dressing like napoleon so people won't think I'm crazy" level of bonkers.

cunga what are you talking about? provide examples

If Woody Allen doing this? Annie Hall or Manhattan but a couple of others. The audience is never sure what to make of the character. If their aspirations and beliefs are a send-up or reflective of the author in a profound way. And the auteurs are intentionally ambivalent about that because it's convenient.

no of louie doing it. woody allen doing it is pretty much standard jewish comedy defense 101.

balls otm w/epic season recap above.

still think the 2nd half of the ep was a dream and confused why anyone thinks otherwise?

The pacing of events point to that but there weren't any clues surreal or otherwise to make it as obvious as you suggest.

The audience is never sure what to make of the character.

I am sure that Woody Allen is playing a character, just like Rodney Dangerfield.

yo clover it is literally only you who thinks that
everyone else is confused why you have invented this perspective

lol srsly. i can believe that there's an interpretation that it was a dream, but such a compelling interpretation that you literally are confused that anyone thinks otherwise??

oh boy china! that's where louis is a viking

Maybe ducks are his totem

that makes sence, louis learned the lesson that you dont have to take your duck with you everywhere, you just have to trust that when you get where you're going in life ppl there already have ducks and you'll be ok.

For some of us, our ducks are our selves.

yeah, it's a conceptual duck.

He does a bit in standup about wild ponys looking cute but biting his daughter. There's certainly some kind of cute animal=hope/expectations/fluffy land where you can finally be happy but it's just out of reach. (in both duck episodes, he ends the episode with no duck, unless that was some tasty chinese duck in plum sauce)

i'll watch it again. but the interp it is a dream is based on the fact that he is feverish and clearly dreaming early on, and then increasingly surreal things happen with a very strange flow of time, all of which are things that would be invented from a feverish unconscious sleeping fitfully. like seriously who goes to china and then just asks random ppl how to find a river? this does not happen. there are maps, and books, and people who speak english about.

basically all the cinematic cues I saw were "we're filming a dream" cues as well, in terms of exactly how the cuts are done, how the sound is mixed, etc.

a quick google reveals lots of people saying "it couldn't have all been a dream" because he didn't wake up at the end, which is so totally literalist to me. like why can't it end still in a dream? it feels allegorical and dreamlike, so that's what it is. the "text" is just the way he cut those images together -- it's not like we need to play inception here or something.

I don't feel like it was a dream because I don't feel like that interpretation fits with the themes of the season. It's a reasonable analysis of the episode taken on its own, but not of the larger arcs of the narrative imo.

Figuring out whether something was real or a dream sequence seems like an awfully frustrating exercise when considering a pretty surreal show that's unconcerned with continuity.

i bought the tig notaro standup. it was worth five bucks.

xpost, yeah, i'm not so strong on it had to be a dream, but i am strong on "i don't think we should read this literally" because something like "whether louie's preference to spend the holidays w/ strangers who speak a language he doesn't over spending time w/ his family is healthy or represents real growth is very debatable" is v. weird to me. you just have strange things happening and unhappening in this show all the time with more or less realism and then we're going to drag in this extremely realistic notion about "growth" as a person or character? i guess the fact that there were some longer arcs this season encourages this sort of approach.

you just have strange things happening and unhappening in this show all the time with more or less realism and then we're going to drag in this extremely realistic notion about "growth" as a person or character?

totally agree about this. this show is not about continuity or character or narrative arcs imho.

I haven't even seen the last ep fwiw, waiting for it to show up on demand

man i am meant to be working & i can just feel the overbearing cautionary tale of that lexical simpsons argument thread staring at me from site new answers but: like:

- to say that it shares the language of the previous dream sequence is wrong: that one made evident Louie's inability to flesh out other characters, in subjecting them to the limits of what he knew & his limited imagination, which the rest of the episode didn't (like, to get 'logical', I guess they wouldn't have been speaking in actual-Chinese, for example), & was also peppered with things like a disembodied rabbits head & a woozy cinematic style

- what is the consequence of it being a dream sequence: that in a year season four opens & it turns out he didn't go to China. that he actually went to his sister's place.

- like seriously who goes to china and then just asks random ppl how to find a river? this does not happen. - I just can't- like, the point is that he goes & it is a remarkable manifestation of how unmoored & tenuous & whimsical he is, all things consistent with the family situation we see in the episode & speaking to the entire character of louie as Divorced Dad Invested In Now Absent Kids. it doesn't disprove itself by virtue of its unlikeliness, it speaks to the entire condition & mindset & circumstance of louie. that we actually see him in deliberation mode (i'm actually pretty sure we see him fucking wake up at the airport if that's a smoking gun), & that china is the spontaneous, reckless alternative to going to his sister's house - like i don't get how we are still in surreal dream territory here.

- it's not like we need to play inception here or something. - dude this is what you are doing!!!!!! 'why can't it end in a dream' is so not the question: its why would it end in a dream?

sorry some of my non-related, simultaneously felt frustration at using microsoft word 2010 is kind of coming through in that post

In dreams you just suddenly show up in China. You don't go the airport to take a plane to visit relatives, fall asleep and maybe miss your flight, then stare at a board of destinations considering where you might go. That's what I think.

Figuring out whether something was real or a dream sequence seems like an awfully frustrating exercise when considering a pretty surreal show that's unconcerned with continuity.

― Sadly, 99.99 percent of sheeple will never wake up (I DIED), Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:32 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ booiiiiing

one of the best things about this show is how unconcerned it is with the fact that it is a work of fiction

you would think that would be a thing more comedians would try to swing. it's not like they're not used to saying things that are not true but not 'pretend'.

Well, except that it's a fuckton of work.

Saw him tonight, his new material is really great

:D

my only concern is that it's the same as the stuff he does on the show... any of that?

how much of his new material is real vs. dream sequences?

that's the thing, you can't tell yet because he doesn't wake up at the end of the show

I think there's one small bit that he did on the show, but it's like a thirty second portion of a larger bit, otherwise it's all new stuff