The ‘Sorry/Not Sorry’ documentary is a riveting exploration of the personal and professional fallout of the comedian Louis C.K.’s sexual assault scandal.
By Sarah G. Vincent/Boston Movie News
“Sorry/Not Sorry” (2023) chronicles the trajectory of Louis C.K’.s career in relation to his sexual assault offenses, which he confirmed in a statement, “These Stories Are True.” In that statement, he wrote, “I will now step back and take a long time to listen.” That long time was about nine months.
The New York Times produced the feature, and this documentary adapts reporters Melena Ryzik, Cara Buckley, and Jodi Kantor’s November 19, 2017, article “Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct.” The reporters appear in the documentary, and Kantor’s name may sound familiar after her work exposing Harvey Weinstein was fictionalized in “She Said” (2022). Directors Cara Mones and Caroline Suh use the Louis C.K. incident to explore whether cancel culture exists (spoiler alert: it does not) and capture the predictable cycle of how the media treats famous perpetrators.
Typically, watching documentaries about events that contemporary audiences lived through is a huge turnoff, but that issue is compounded when the issue is a big downer, like sexual harassment in the workplace. “Sorry/Not Sorry” is not that kind of documentary. It is the third documentary feature from Korean American Suh, a self-professed fan of the perv comedian, and Mones’s first feature directorial debut. A 90-minute run time can feel like an excruciating eternity in the wrong hands, but Mones and Suh divide their film into seven parts and keep it punchy and entertaining. It helps that everyone involved in the controversy on both sides is famous and/or funny. There is no narrator, but many interviews were conducted with comedians and journalists, two groups characterized as riveting raconteurs, specifically for this documentary. It feels less like droning, know-it-all-talking heads but a product you would pay to see. They also liberally use clips from stand-up acts, late-night talk shows, glossy magazine montages, television series, notable podcasts, and news archives.
The best part of this format is having a treasure trove of comments from the same people, such as Joe Rogan and Jon Stewart, and seeing how their response changes depending on the audience and date of the broadcast. Rogan, a guy who got his start encouraging people to eat vermin on NBC, does not have an image he needs to protect, so when he goes from calling Louis “pathetic” to fanboying when Louis appears on his show, he will probably be safe from any adverse repercussions. Someone like Stewart, who has made a career of being the voice of comedic reason, will not fare as well as he feigns ignorance of the rampant rumors and punches down when a student, Dan Ackerman, questions him at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and interrupts him incessantly. Is this your king? “Sorry/Not Sorry” shows that Stewart’s acting skills are amazing in a subsequent appearance as he shifts the tone of his voice to feign concern over not doing enough for women. After everything came out, Stewart confessed to Howard Stern, “I didn’t know, but what if I did?” He already answered himself by ridiculing concern and refusing to even entertain it when confronted, then when it becomes undeniable, acts concerned. By watching these clips, Mones and Suh depict the cycle of how famous perpetrators can preserve their reputations. It is also surreal to witness Charlie Rose interview Louis C.K. or Matt Lauer cover the story, considering each has their own accusations of sexual harassment, especially Lauer, who allegedly locked women in his office, which is more egregious.
“Sorry/Not Sorry” never feels didactic but illustrates how the goalpost constantly moves. Pretend the rumors are unfounded even though everyone knows about them. Deny as long as possible to make the guilt period as short as possible. Even explicitly address rumors in fiction or your act, either as an act of defiance or a way to deflect by seeming to directly address it without doing so in a straight way. Once corroborated, express concern for the victims, then immediately explain why it is not as serious as the worst, most famous contemporary sexual violent act or liken it to a completely different act like drug addiction so the perpetrator can continue working or receive sympathy. Then, the perpetrator resumes working and is reframed as a working stiff who deserves a job and has suffered enough. The established facts then get distorted. The women talking about sexual misconduct become framed as guilty for being too precious and defined by something that happened to them, while the perpetrator is defended against that same treatment since it is too reductive and unfair to define him by his worst act. The perpetrator is just fine, and the women deal with the consequences. Rinse, repeat.
It also helps if you can support talented, funny women, which is not a risk but an insurance policy: Pamela Adlon and Tig Nataro, the latter refusing to be complicit and using her craft and public persona to distance herself. Only women bear the responsibility to hold the line against a comeback. Noam Dworman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar, faced harsh words but framed his choice to host Louis C.K.’s return as a private property/business rights issue. In contrast, Aida Rodriguez, a woman of color comedian who performs at that club, faced backlash for not boycotting the venue. Sexual misconduct is treated as women’s responsibility, while men dance right out of responsibility regardless of their role in the matter. Instead, they frame it as a right to entertainment or earning the maximum amount of money possible. The true suffering is losing $35 million while still being incredibly successful despite not working for nine months without becoming homeless and getting a Grammy. The other victims are the fans who cannot see their favorite comedian without the possibility of getting a smidge of judgment from others.
While the number of women Louis C.K. harassed is unknown, only five went on the record, and only two appear in “Sorry/Not Sorry”: Jen Kirkman and Abby Schachner. The latter got the bonus of Dave Chappelle piling on the bandwagon to ridicule victims but was probably the most generous in her desire for redemption for her alleged assaulter and sympathizing with her harasser as a human being. Kirkman does a great job of providing context because she was one of the guys and did not feel victimized because sexual harassment was a normal part of the business, but as she felt backlash for using bawdy humor about consensual sex, she became outraged and spoke up. People forget that comedians are used to inhospitable atmospheres as an inherent part of the job description. Kirkman also makes the excellent point that it is only as women get older they begin to question what is considered acceptable conduct and push back, which is probably why she is the most outspoken and uncompromising while also admitting that it was not psychologically traumatizing. Though not subjectively damaging, an action can be objectively wrong and should still be punished.
“Sorry/Not Sorry” also reveals a comedic double standard that women are supposed to take anything that comes their way to get into the business, including sexual misconduct, but men should be protected in whatever way they request, even against the truth; otherwise it is the equivalent of an assassination attempt. Megan Koester, a comedian who decided to do a journalistic bit on Louis C.K. before the New York Times article came out, was collateral damage for openly asking the right questions. So, women have to roll with any type of behavior, but when a female comedian like Koester functions as the truth-teller that Stewart gets credited with being, the men are suddenly the precious doilies who deserve protection from words. Koester’s male counterparts are just joke tellers.
If “Sorry/Not Sorry” has a flaw, it lets too many comments slide that Louis C.K. did not really do anything too wrong. Note that none of the women who were subject to Louis C.K.’s nonconsensual conduct ever requested a criminal penalty. The documentary never addresses whether any state considered criminally prosecuting him. The state has the power to prosecute crimes such as indecent exposure, which includes masturbation, without the victim requesting it. Louis C.K.’s confessed acts are misdemeanor offenses punishable by a fine and/or a year in jail. The state also has discretion regarding which cases to pursue. Even though Louis C.K. confessed, is famous, and appears to be an easy win, it appears that no state considered pursuing criminal charges. It is disturbing that there are no legal consequences in a case with no factual dispute, so what about the more ambiguous cases?
Also, “Sorry/Not Sorry” should have devoted more time to how Louis C.K. managed to keep himself financially afloat and did not need mainstream support to be successful. While people may think of him as a comedic genius, he may be a business guru who insulated himself through entrepreneurship and having his own platform. He seems to be savvier than more notable and famous bad men, but the talking heads take it for granted that he did not do so deliberately without explaining where his innovation falls in this now-documented cycle of potentially criminal behavior.
“Sorry/Not Sorry” is a surprisingly easy and entertaining watch for addressing such disturbing and potentially violent behavior. Especially during another Presidential election year, it is important that those who scoff at supporters of Presidon’t, a man whose supporters do not mind if he grabs them by the pussy, confront their own hypocrisy in how they support bad actors while pretending to be better or more educated than the opposition. Who knew that sexual misconduct is a nonpartisan issue in the worst way possible?
‘Sorry/Not Sorry’
Rating: NR
Director: Cara Mones and Caroline Suh
Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes
Where to watch: Apple TV, Fandango At Home, Google Play, Prime Video, YouTube
Grade: A-
Sarah G. Vincent is a freelance film writer who writes for AwardsWatch , In Between Drafts, and sarahgvincentviews.com, her blog. She regularly contributes to WGBH News’ Morning Edition and has made guest appearances on NECN/NBC 10 Boston. She is a Tomato-approved critic and a Boston Society of Film Critics member. She is originally from NYC and was introduced to repertory cinema while working at the Harvard Film Archives. Sarah holds an A.B. in a special concentration, History and Film Studies, at Harvard University and a J.D. at Harvard Law School. She was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 2001 and is an active member.
Boston Movie News