TV « In Which You Begin To Grasp His Unique Pain »
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 11:00AM 
The Great White Male
by ALEX CARNEVALE
creator Louis C.K.
It's hard to be a white man. Pale skin glittering in the sun, your garden variety of white man is twice as susceptible to skin cancer as his peers. If he walks into someone's grotto, he's expected to know what a grotto is and remark, "What a lovely grotto!" He can't enjoy the comedy of Tyler Perry and anytime Will Ferrell cries, he's expected to laugh.
This is the basic premise of Louis CK's new show, Louie. Victimhood never know its name until it met the comedian, whose divorced life as a New York City stand-up is the inspiration for the show. CK's live-studio audience HBO sitcom Lucky Louie was canceled a few years ago despite being the first convincing television show about people below the poverty line since Friends went off the air.
Lucky Louie was half-Roseanne and half a desire to put something on television that hadn't been there in decades or more. Louie and his nurse wife (writer and comedian Pamela Adlon) lived in a two-room apartment with their daughter and had regular problems. CK and Adlon's most famous bit was a ten minute essai on the perils of anal intercourse. What made Lucky Louie such a mindtrip was that something about it was transparently false, just as most of it was frighteningly real:
Lucky Louie was canceled after one season just as it had begun to find a real audience. Ultimately HBO higher-ups felt the working class vibe of nowhere, Massachusetts didn't fit into their Entourage profile, and that's a shame because the show's language was so explicit it could never have survived on any other network.
CK turned down other offers to make the Louie pilot for $200,000 because FX gave him full control. As he recalled:
I went [to Hollywood] and I had other networks offering me a lot of money to do a pilot, and I got this call from FX and they said 'Well, we can't offer you a lot of money, but if you do the show for us, you can have a lot of fun.' He was offering me $200,000 as the budget for the whole pilot and I was like 'So what do I get paid?' and he was like 'No, that's the whole thing, $200,000...' I said 'Look, the only way I'm doing this is if you give me the $200,000 - wire it to me in New York - and I'll give you a show. But I'm not pitching it, and I'm not writing a script and sending it to you first.'
The end product Louie is likely to become the success that Lucky Louie wasn't. Although the comedian's childhood in Massachusetts under less than ideal circumstances was cinéma vérité enough, that isn't the person he's become. CK is more comfortable as an asshole, not because he really is one but because he finds it the only reaction to the world that subjugates and humiliates him whenever it can. If you can understand how a popular comedian with a television series can feel discriminated against, you're about halfway to describing how infectious the political mood in this country is right now.
Fame changes people, and CK is no exception. The difference is that he believes he's a nice guy. The show's placid opening tells all — in the show's title sequence, he emerges from the subway like a regular guy, eats a slice of pizza before his show like a normie, and goes to his job. There's a pretension of drudgery that he loves associating with stand-up comedy, and in a recent episode he addresses how humiliating he finds being a comedian. "All these guys, their lives suck," he tells a heckler after his set, indicating a group of white male comedians. "The fifteen minutes they spend on stage are the only time they get to be in charge, and you took that away from them."
As in Larry David's comedy, minorities are CK's favorite foil. After awhile, you discern that it has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with him. He thinks he's one of them — that he knows what it's like to be black, or hispanic, or a woman. And then he sets out to convince you that there is something in common, until he totally undermines that perspective. One of the show's funniest moments had CK chaperoning a bunch of students and getting stuck on a bus in Harlem. His first act was to tell all the black students to take the window seats. "That's horrible," his co-chaperone tells him. "I know," he says.
Once political correctness held a lot of sway in this country's day-to-day affairs. This is no longer precisely true, but for the white comedian it is the most serious form of opprobrium. And yet, when CK has fellow comedian Nick DiPaolo insult Barack Obama, Louie almost gets in a fistfight defending the honor of the president. This was his way of making sure we knew that he is a liberal. Otherwise, his jokes about homosexuals doing it wrong and black people not tipping enough don't seem as enlightened.
If he could, Louis CK would himself be a minority. He has a long writing relationship with the comedian Chris Rock, and his 2001 directorial debut Pootie Tang was a bizarre satire of blaxploitation films, which always seemed like a strange contrast to the reality of his stand-up. Of the incredibly weird end result, Roger Ebert wrote, "This film is not in releasable condition." In his new show, he turns away from what he believes himself to be, and focuses on what he is: a divorced father of two who only becomes older, fatter, and more repulsive to friends and family by the moment.
Above all, Louie's main concern is his own physical appearance. Half his comedy revolves around convincing the audience how disgusting he is. One vignette had him approached by an attractive young women who fetishized just how old he was. As she had sex with him, she continually cried out, "You're so old" until the point of orgasm. Until last year, Louie was married to New York artist Alix Bailey. His stand-up has never been very complimentary towards his now ex-wife, who he seemed to regard as an extension of his own self-loathing.
All the authority figures in Louie are older men, who he regards with a mix of suspicion and disgust. Besides his agent, Louie also takes advice from his senior therapist (David Patrick Kelly), who has the advantage of being even more misguided than he is. Like astral projections, these figures seem to taunt Louie into believing that they are an entity he might someday become. The idea that he will be a wrinkled old bigot like all the older men he knows is a strong reminder to himself to stay engaged with the present, lest he become stuck in past time like his crone of a mother.
While Louis CK's early comedy was largely observational, that's not the most accurate term when what you're observing is your real life, your existence with a wife and two daughters. Last week's Louie revolved around the hatred of his own mother (the transcendent Mary Louise Wilson). His daughter asks him, "Why do you love her?" and he finds he can't think of an answer. (So far his ex-wife has been politely excluded from the show, a strange move from someone who gets a lot of mileage onstage from executing sacred cows.)
Still, it seems that Louis CK does enjoy something about the one part of his life not entirely consumed with self-analysis: his time with his two kids. When a PTA-acquaintance (Adlon) and her son visit his New York apartment for a playdate, the two parents discuss what the most horrible thing they've ever thought about doing to their kids is. Louie can barely think of anything. In fact, his daughters are the only people on the show he has a nice word for. Everyone else is terribly misguided or judging him so harshly that he puts his gee-shucks look on his face and pouts through the rest of the episode.
The comedian's recent stand-up special Hilarious is the first film of that kind to be accepted at Sundance. Yet Louie feels that if he thinks of himself as successful, he'll lose the sharp edge of his comedy. It's true what he tells his heckler, though. Onstage is where CK has all the power. You can see how comfortable he is there; his shoulders are wide and proud, and he's never apologizing there, only seeking to explain something he can never tell the other people in his life. He is hurt, simply by being who he is.
It was inevitable that white people would start thinking of themselves as victims at some point. In four American commonwealths they are already a minority, and no amount of immigration reform or restriction of birthright citizenship is likely to change that. And so what if they feel persecuted because of the color of their skin? For everything there is a season.
The political movement that has sprung out of this feeling has itself little to do with race — the race of the president or the race of the whites fleeing from his bandwagon. The last president to make white people feel powerful was, of course, Ronald Reagan. Unlike the current talk of hard choices and important sacrifices, Reagan's great insight was that he'd be reelected if he stressed that America would be fine.
Louis CK doesn't feel it's going to be okay. Half the time he indicates how powerless his surroundings make him feel. Even when he's powerful, the attitude is pervasive. After his ancient Jewish agent tells him he's secured him a part in Matthew Broderick's all-Jew remake of The Godfather, CK politely refuses the part, sending the man into a fatal heart attack. Instead of being amazed by his own power, he shuffles out of the emergency room, the victim of another humiliation. Like the mass of white male voters, he doesn't realize he's the one in control.
It is almost impossible for one person's comedy to continue to break new ground, but there has never been anything on television like Louie and it's doubtful there ever will be again. At its best moments Louis CK's comedy has no fear at all in depicting people and situations perilously true to reality but never before brought to living rooms. The day-to-day sufferings of wealthy white males are thankfully never without voice. Then again, there's something a little comforting in knowing that he too suffers.
Alex Carnevale is the editor of This Recording. He tumbls here.
"A Bit of Glue" - The Tellers (mp3)
"Hugo" - The Tellers (mp3)
"Second Category" - The Tellers (mp3)
Reader Comments (31)
I don't understand why you think Louis CK creating a show about his personal suffering is necessarily a show about the suffering of a white man and how hard it is to be white in America. It seems disingenuous to accuse someone of stroking identify politics the wrong way when the writer does not really engage identity politics on any serious level. Are you claiming a sin of omission?
Is Two and a Half Men about how hard it is to be a white male? Is Dexter about how hard it is to be a white male? I think it's a tired critical convention to attack a show for having a white male as the main character and then play the "but white males have it so great, why are you whining" card. That is admittedly not a very catchy name for a card.
I think these Louis CK shows are about social realist characters more than Brechtian archetypes. I didn't watch Lucky Louie as a show about being below the poverty line, I watched it as a kitchen sink dark comedy. Similarly I don't watch Louie and look for the day to day sufferings of rich white males, I look for comedy and character driven surrealism.
^^^^^ a bunch of white dudes
@Molly
So, does being a white male makes me unable to think critically or express an informed opinion? I would guess that's why you feel the need to assume I'm a white male and point it out to other readers. Would it be possible for you to explain why you think that's a relevant response to my comment?
(While your'e at it, explain why the other negative comments on this post were deleted.)
About twenty percent of his stand-up is about being white or whiteness. It's not much of a stretch, Rewr.
Lucky Louie, meanwhile, was constantly concerned with race, so I'm not sure what your point there was.
Maybe I can offer some broader reasoning of why I think this kind of critique leads to a dead end. Television is an exaggerated reflection of conditions in reality. Writers, artists and directors portray the way life is from their perspective.
Depicting a certain perception is not an implicit praise of that perception. With Louie, we see things from an exaggerated version of Louis CK's life. He is a successful comedian who lives relatively comfortably but suffers from social anxieties.
Offering this character's perception is not an embrace of the social structure that leads to inequality and allows white males to have unfair advantageous. Even if the character was an unjust capitalist misogynist (see This Recording's favorite show Mad Men), running a narrative around this character does not imply that his lifestyle and the social structure surrounding him are correct, it is simply depicting that reality.
In fact with Mad Men, it criticizes that setting in a sometimes subtle, sometimes overt way. I don't see how one could watch Louis CK's shows and not see a similar critique if one was looking for it. Louie is at the top of the capitalist ladder as a creative urban liberal professional and he hates himself, his life and those around him. The problem is never minority populations keeping the white man down, it's always Louis who keeps himself down with his indulgence and self-loathing.
Yet, these shows are not focused on critiquing modern capitalist inequality.
In Mad Men and Louie we see counter examples to the central character who thrive in their unjust environment. We're not just watching a stale critique of the contradictions of culture, we're watching how characters we relate to (gasp, often white males in positions of power) react to each other and to that environment. That's what makes these shows interesting, the interaction of characters and personalities, not social criticism.
If we look to television as a means of critiquing serious problems we should probably look to the world of documentary which deals with our reality and not the subjective reality of imagined characters.
This problem with Louie isn't a problem with the show, it's a problem with the burden this critic has placed on fiction.
Who said Louie was praising his lifestyle? He hates his lifestyle, and being a white male.
If you think that any artistic product can't be analyzed at to whether it represents the views of the artist, you've lost your grip. Much of Louis CK's art is about the society he lives in. How it could be otherwise?
First of all, It's not reality, it's a depiction. Maybe you didn't read my post or the review, but I was responding to the critique that Louie advocates pity for rich white males. I believe it doesn't and that's not the intention of the writer or the result of the show's depiction.
I never claimed to have detailed knowledge of the views of the artists, that's your invention. However, since you mention it, the reviewer did. ("If he could, Louis CK would himself be a minority.")
So let me get this straight - you don't think it's OK to analyze fiction for what it says about the real world, but you then argue about what the show says about the real world?
I don't think you can have it both ways.
If you think Louis CK isn't critiquing his society, I can't help you. The guy's been a social critic for the past twenty-five years, but suddenly his new show has nothing to do with it?
No, I'm saying that compelling television shows don't serve as bland social critique, they focus on characters. But my main point is that I disagree with the reviewer who argues that Louie advocates pity for rich white males. My main issue with this view is that he is placing a higher priority on evaluation of characters by their age, race than on characterization.
I argued what you could read into the show as a social critique if you were looking to do that, but I don't advocate it. The point of offering my reading was to illustrate the problems with the reviewer's reading, but I went on to say that the show does not function as a stale social critique, it functions as a character-driven fiction.
I do think Louis CK is a social critic, but I don't think the point of the show is to express how difficult it is to be white and male. I don't think the show is meant to serve as racial/sexual analysis and if you were to look to it for that, I think the show still doesn't express the view the reviewer is claiming it expresses.
The reviewer does not like that show is from a white male character's perspective and doesn't seem to bother with the social critiques that are actually in the show and instead substitutes his own vision of what the show advocates.
So, to make it clear: I think the process of review is wrong, I think the execution of that process was wrong.
For the record, Louis is a minority. He's a quarter Mexican. Also, your interpretation of the scene with Nick DiPaolo is way off. In his interview with Terry Gross he actually discusses what the motives for that scene are, as well as what it's like not really being white. I'd recommend giving it a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128343426
he is indeed half mexican jew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C.K.
and I am baffled by Rewr's critique, as the show is clearly very much about race
His cultural identity is white. If you want to debate that, it's a long and lonely road. The show (and much of his comedy) is about being white. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I thought I was writing a rave! Little did I know...
The show is about race because it was mentioned in passing in a few episodes? Lucky Louie, maybe you have a point, but Louie is not an overt social parable. As compromise, I'll admit the show is about characters who exist in an imperfect world.
To be honest maybe I spent too much time arguing this point and argued myself in circles, but it's pretty enraging to have your race and sex thrown at you as reasons for why your argument is irrelevant. That and I was having a shitty day. Bed bugs, unemployment, family issues, debt collections. Maybe it can be hard being a white male. Still, I live in a first world country with good plumbing and I have internet access.
dude nobody's saying it's not hard to be a white male, but admitting other people might be worse off than straight white guys for reasons entirely out of their control is not the end of the world. Here is a great post about the racial politics of Louie by Katrina Richardson, the lead line is "Louis C.K. makes race easier for America to swallow. He makes race more easily palatable to white America"
As I'm not a kentucky teabagger, I'm aware of that, but thank you for taking me to school. Where would you like me to admit that other people have it worse? I could possibly scream it into a bucket.
why don't you just read Katrina's post? in general white men could benefit most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change. as privilege is invisible, they may not even realize their voices are constantly privileged over those of minorities and women and other oppressed groups. the number one way to educate yourself is to listen to the things people in those groups have to say without interrupting or trying to discredit them.
I read Katrina's post and it was alright, but I didn't find it very insightful. To be honest, she seems like someone who doesn't really spend time interacting with people outside her social circle. I thought it was a well written set of anecdotes and she made some good observations, but I didn't really find them mind blowing and to be honest.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to discredit or interrupt Katrina, but I have the responsibility as a reader to interpret and critique as I read instead of just listening. I read her post and agreed and enjoyed some of her points, but didn't find it particularly moving or insightful. As I read any argument–or really anything– I evaluate it, I understand it, I pick out things I disagree with and things I think are worthwhile.
I assume that's what the writers here at This Recording do as well as this is an entertainment critique site. I also assume those writers are will to have exchanges about their articles. I expected that we could argue about these issues passionately but civilly, after all, isn't critique really a method of inquiry and understanding?
This is why I was sort of taken aback when the first response to my counter argument was an ad hominem attack, and at that a racist and sexist one. An arrow from the editor calling me a white man.
That's not racial slur racist, but the implication is clear. "Of course that's the kind of argument you would make as a white man. Typical white men always wanting to sweep race and sex under the rug."
I'm not offended by that as a white male. I'm offended by that as someone who doesn't decide the value of speech based on the race, sex or sexual orientation of who is speaking. I'm offended at that as a person who hopes arguments are judged on their merits.
I'll be the first to admit that I didn't make a perfect argument, but neither did Alex Carnevale. I still stand by most of what I wrote, but I'm willing to have a conversation and change my mind in the face of a good argument. A good argument does not include calling someone a white man, making assumptions about their behavior, beliefs and background. I don't understand why you think it's alright to dismiss my argument or weigh it less because of who I am.
I also don't understand why you think it's okay to say, "in general white men could benefit most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change." Thank you for the modifier "in general", but it doesn't really soften my cringe reflex as someone who is a strong believer in egalitarianism. As an experiment, let's substitute in some other social groups and see if we can make a non prejudice sentence with that start.
"in general Jewish women could benefit the most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change."
"in general lesbians could benefit the most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change."
"in general Black guys could benefit the most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change."
"in general Swiss plate spinners could benefit the most by just shutting the fuck up and listening to somebody else for a change."
It's not the group that makes the statement prejudice, it's the construction that any group of people "in general" needs to do something collectively because most members of that group are flawed and act a certain way. People are individuals and their thoughts are their own.
I take issue with the assumptions made about my beliefs based on assumptions made about my race and sex. I don't believe "other people might be worse off than straight white guys for reasons entirely out of their control is not the end of the world." I take issue with the insinuation that I am unwilling to "educate [my]self [by] listen[ing] to the things [minorities and women and other oppressed groups] have to say without interrupting or trying to discredit them." At no point did I interrupt what anyone was trying to say, at no point did I attempt to discredit anyone saying those things. Some white men at some point have done that.
That doesn't give you the right to lecture me because I belong to that group. While that's a good way to shout someone down, it's not a good way to have a conversation.
Studs Terkel said, "Don't overestimate people's knowledge, don't underestimate people's intelligence." If you're willing to engage with someone on a level as a person and not as a stereotype, the results are going to be positive even if they embody all the negative qualities of that stereotype. People are surprisingly understanding and if there's a perspective they don't grasp it is always possible to explain that perspective. That's the beauty of language, that's the beauty of discourse, that's the beauty of writing.
I like this blog. That's why I'm here. I agree with a lot of what is said, but I hope there's room for disagreement regardless of my cultural identity.
I have a big correction that should be made quickly.
"I don't believe "other people might be worse off than straight white guys for reasons entirely out of their control is not the end of the world." "
The phrasing of this is wrong and the intended meaning is that I do believe "other people" might be and often are worse off than straight white guys for reasons entirely out of their control. I don't believe that this is the end of the world.
I'm sorry. you're an idiot.
It's good to know that reasoned debate is alive and well.
Molly, as an editor what exactly have you added to this conversation?
"You're a white man, you're a racist, you're an idiot."
At This Recording, Is it possible to talk about the merits of an argument without resorting to name calling and false assumptions? If not, what exactly is the point of your comment section? Do I foresee a moment in the near future In Which We Delete Fucking Ever Part of This Conversation?
I didn't delete anything, and I'm sorry you're so combative. Louie is a show that brings up a lot of uncomfortable conversations about race, gender, and sexuality. That is what makes it good. I am sorry these questions make you so uncomfortable but you should think about why that is.
Not true or, if you prefer, a lie.
You deleted two posts after mine that were also critical of the article. Which is why you wrote "^^^^^ a bunch of white dudes" instead of "^^^^^ a white dude". To be fair they weren't insightful comments, but you did delete them. In my experience when someone is uncomfortable with arguments being challenged they resort to name calling and comment deleting, which if I'm not mistaken was the problem here.
I actually like talking about media criticism as I've explained above, but please by all means continue to attribute beliefs and ideas to me that I haven't demonstrated based on your assumptions. I also like watching Louie, its humor and its uncomfortable situations and I would have been happy to talk about that about ten comments ago, but instead you chose your unique brand of condescension mixed with selective reading and selective observation. Wonderful fun.
Alex deleted them. I had nothing to do with their deletion. Why he deleted them, I have no idea, but you can feel free to ask him yourself. I personally found the tone of your comments combative, condescending, and dismissive of the points in Alex's piece, but I don't delete comments because I find them distasteful. I like having discussions about media and media criticism, just don't expect me to go "oh okay" when you start spouting off about how white men like yourself are not the problem while you are simultaneously proving my point in the comments by trying to dominate the discussion and make it all about your personal experiences.
Guess what? You brought up me as an object of debate. When you started this conversation you're supposedly so eager to have, you chose an entry point of prejudice dismissal. It's easy to dominate a conversation when the responses you get are small minded and short, but obviously that has more to do with my race again because...? It's good to know that you're actualizing your prejudice though.
I never said white men were not a problem, that is a belief you attributed to me and have consistently argued I held. If you go back and read my posts there's no basis for this belief.
And what have you proven in your interactions? That you are disingenuous, discriminating, anecdotal and bullying. A bullshitter supreme who responds to criticism by attacking the criticizer. How confident you must be in your beliefs.
There is no purpose interacting with writers who are unwilling to read or move their minds, so exit stage left. Evil white dominator supremacist signing out.
you're missing the point. the article is satire!
I think when you dissect comedy it just comes across as less funny. It's a rule. Especially when you do it in a well thought out way, which is what's done here I think. My hunch is Alex likes the show but is trying to put it in a proper context.
Full disclosure, I'm black (a male, flesh & blood) and I really like the show, and I like that angle of comedy when it's done right. That angle being white people tackling issues of race. CK, Larry David, and Tina Fey do it the best.
In fairness, to critique CK's show firstly as "1st world white person's problems" feels disjointed to me. That aspect of the show never entered my mind when I watched it. That doesn't mean it's not fair to point it out, but I don't think it grasps the whole of the show. Also, the idea of comedy is very much to be laughed at so how else does the white guy comedian depict himself other than to be set upon? If that is seen as entitled then what happens when a black comedian does the same thing? Is that then overly morose?
I just never got any creeping feeling of entitlement when I watched the show. It just felt like stories told from his very self-aware perspective, and yeah he's white but if that's what stops me from enjoying something then I'd ONLY have Tyler Perry movies at this point. My race radar never went "ding, ding: this is some bullshit and who cares" while watching him tackle his issues.
I can tell you too that sometimes it does go "ding, ding" with a mighty roar. In those cases I can barely tolerate the thing I am watching. Like the way it went "Ding mothafucka Ding!" when I tried and failed to care about the people in IT'S COMPLICATED or that movie AN EDUCATION. No thanks white people. Nice try though.
Ps, I skimmed the other comments but this isn't really a response, defense of, or protest against any of those. Copyright. Ubu Productions. (good dog)