"The stories are true." With this simple admission, Louis C.K. has whirled left America past week. For years, comedian has been surrounded by rumors: he onaniere in front of women without ir permission, especially younger and implicitly dependent comedians fell prey to him. Since similar accusations have been made against Harvey Weinstein after similarly long latency in media, it was only a matter of time before allegations against Louis C.K. (with bourgeois name Louis Székely) were also on subject. Last Thursday, New York Times finally brought a meticulous search to allegations, to which Louis C.K. himself had always been silent. His station and his colleagues were at a distance, in end he gave everything.
In Germany, too, news made rounds. However, it was always necessary to explain who Louis C.K. actually is: that his stand-up comedy is legendary and that he has produced and written several television programmes that have changed American Comedylandschaft in long term. This fame, however, only partly explains reaction to C. K. S admission. In public radio, comparison with Richard Wagner and his work was made, given question of wher or not to appreciate work of C. K. S. The comparison can be held in several respects. But above all, he limps because Louis C. K. s comedy tracks exactly those questions of escape and self-censorship, in which he seems to have failed so miserably.
He was made aware of his confession that he wanted to do everything right: admit without frills and Deuteleien, without self-pity or self-adulation; Not speak for women, but simply confirm ir history. Paradoxically, this also corresponds to his kind of comedy: Louis C.K. always wanted to be seen as he built shit, but did it right at end. His confession was now also aimed at: he set himself in scene, wanted to make Weinstein, Moore, and all ors who could do it.
Suddenly suspicious moments of self-reflectionTowards end of his appearance oh my God, Louis C.K. has built up a broad joke that brings his humor to point of no or. He sometimes has contradictory thoughts he "of course not! ... But maybe "call it. Of course, we don't want a child to get hurt because of his peanut allergy, he says in such jokes. That would be really sad, and peanuts are almost everywhere. Break. But perhaps it is case that a child who can be killed by a single peanut is more evolutionary than a wooden way?
To be somehow politically incorrect belongs to an American comedian. Also Louis C.K. has always had a fun out of it, just to snub audience. This is not a distinction trait – but remorse that was seen in each of his zotigen jokes. At? Or to look at? Or should look at? It was those moments that made his comedy so interesting, and which now all became suspicious. Yes, since allegations stood in room for a long time until current Sexismusdebatte flushed m up with renewed force, se moments were already abundantly suspect.
C.K. just did not celebrate anarchic impulse of "but perhaps". He has different versions of his dialectic of "of course not! But perhaps "given for best. One went like this: "Of course, slavery was a bad thing." And while crowd n stops breath and before he dissolves joke, C.K. in between, that it is strange that all trousers now have full. In case of children killed by peanuts, y would finally have all cheerfully tenderly.
The joke exposes drama of self-censorship and at end is actually on side of this self-censorship. The comedian is not only courageous one who dares to pronounce what we have always thought secretly, he also reminds us why we would never utter it, outside state of emergency of a comedy show. "Laughter is an affect from sudden transformation of a tense expectation into nothing," Kant wrote in Critique of judgement. The comedy of Louis C.K. lives from frustrated impulse, from never-dissolved tension. From intuition that suspense can have something good.
Date Of Update: 14 November 2017, 12:03
