The Attempted Rape in “Louie”

Louie and Amia

Amia (Eszter Balint) doesn’t speak any English. She’s shy, so she demurs at first. Then she gives in to Louie. Her resistance is meant to be hard for us to gauge. She keeps saying, “Bye.” It’s later made clear that she has deep feelings for Louie and her initial resistance is out of fear of the heartbreak connecting with him would bring. She’s days away from going back to Hungary, after all. Is “Bye” a repetition of resistance or is it the kind of broken record Amia’s echoed in so many of their other conversations? Certainly, Louie himself stutters his way across half the episode, so impenetrable is the language barrier between the two. His repeated word is “I,” symbolic of his self-centered habits and of his inability to complete his thoughts, even if they’re just for himself.

Does Louie do something wrong by pressing the moment when communication is completely taken away? From a narrative perspective, the later revelation of her feelings takes the bite out of Louie’s actions. A successful emotional result lends us the belief that Louie pressing the moment and following his heart was the right thing to do.

That was “Elevator: Part 6,” the conclusion to Amia’s story arc in the TV show Louie. Its final scene, involving an impromptu interpreter, sparks the kind of melancholy uplift usually reserved for the Wes Andersons of the world. Their story is tragically romantic, even if we’re not meant to understand its nuances along the way.

But Louis C.K. is a comedian. He’s only setting us up for the punchline.

In the next episode, “Pamela part 1,” Amia has returned to Hungary. Louie is heartbroken. He does what many of us do to cushion the impact of a breakup – he looks for a rebound. Re-enter old flame Pamela (Pamela Adlon), who Louie shot down when things were looking up with Amia. Now, Pamela’s no longer interested in pursuing something. She has a habit of emasculating and embarrassing Louie to boot. When his ex-wife can’t watch his kids, however, and Louie has two gigs he has to make it to, it’s Pamela who offers to watch them.

We see one of the gigs Louie’s booked. In his performance, he rails against the idea that we have a piece of clothing we refer to as a wife beater, and questions why men control the world. It’s because they’re afraid of women, he reasons. I wouldn’t agree with that answer, and I suspect Louis C.K. the actor may not either, but this understanding of the world is crucial to what follows.

On his way home on the train, Louie sits opposite a man and a woman as they talk. The man is complaining, while the woman looks alternately disinterested and wary. At the next stop, she books it – it’s suddenly apparent the two didn’t actually know each other. The man is just one of those crazies who rides the New York subway around talking to thin air. As the train starts up again, Louie crosses the aisle and sits down next to the crazy man. Louie listens, nods understanding, and reacts to what the man says. Louie does his best to be the single person in this man’s journey who takes the time to notice him and treat what he has to say as something worth hearing. It’s touching, and it reminds us Louie is an empathetic and generous human being who goes out of his way for others. It makes what happens next all the more poignant.

When Louie arrives home, Pamela is asleep on his couch (much as Amia was asleep on her aunt’s couch when those two were first introduced). It’s late. Pamela wakes as Louie enters. She’s still too tired to be in charge of her faculties. The kids were fine, she says.

The basic instinct to copy what was successful in one relationship in the next one is a feeling we’ve all had. So is the instinct to copy moments we miss from a former relationship – imitating them makes us feel like our strongest emotions still belong to us, that they weren’t “taken away.” So Louie tries to repeat with Pamela the moment he eventually had with Amia.

Pamela resists. She repeats “Bye” in the effort to get the message across. It reminds us of Amia’s repeated “Bye,” but there’s no language barrier here. Pamela expresses exactly what she feels – that she does not want to have sex with Louie. “Bye” gives way to “no.” Louie insists that she wanted to be physical with him once before; why not now? The struggle takes shades of violence we don’t expect from Louie – he tries pulling Pamela’s shirt off; she drags a piece of furniture when Louie tries to pull her back into his living room. She makes it to the door, but Louie won’t let her leave without kissing him. She’s cornered; he towers over her. Throughout this all, both Pamela and the audience retain that feeling that’s key to the character of Louie and the whole show – that he’s essentially toothless. “You can’t even rape well,” she yells at him as they struggle. Yet that toothlessness is the entire point. Why do men run the world, Louie asked earlier. Because they’re afraid of women. No matter how inaccurate that answer is, it’s truthful in Louie’s eyes. It’s an excuse in many men’s eyes. Louie feels wronged by women; this is repeated in countless scenes in which his ex-wife is given – sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly – the benefit of the doubt when it comes to decisions about their children.

Cowed by Louie, Pamela grudgingly lets Louie kiss her. This buys her escape, and Louie fist pumps the air after she leaves. It’s a ridiculous moment – he feels the glee and pride of a first kiss, of that feeling you get when you realize someone likes you the way you like them. Except she doesn’t. It’s a moment of absurdism – there’s no way any human could consider this the beginning of a relationship. And yet it’s starkly representative of the goal-oriented culture of sex. First base, second base, all that crap. In his head, Louie’s laid some claim to Pamela by kissing her.

What’s laid bare in Louie’s attempted rape of Pamela is that a true danger in rape and sexual assault is how easy it is to justify in the moment. It can be justified in someone’s head by past action – if Louie did something before and it was acceptable and successful, then that means it’s always acceptable and successful. It’s easy to believe that if a woman wanted to have sex in the past, then that urge must always be there and she just has to be pushed harder to realize it. One of the key beliefs in fundamentalist Male Rights culture is that women inherently seek to emasculate men, and sexual assault is the natural way for a man to reassert his masculinity. Pamela emasculates Louie, so according to this belief, not only does she deserve assault, it’s the only way for Louie to regain his masculinity. These are the ideas that drive Louie, an otherwise meek and humble person, to attempt a rape.

You’d think that would be the “punchline,” the whole point of Louis C.K.’s long lead-up, but the very next scene provides us an even more haunting idea. Louie is riding with his daughters on the New York public bus to school. “Do you know where we are?” he asks the elder. “Soon you’ll be riding this on your own. What will you do if the bus breaks down?” This protectiveness of his own daughter shows just how hypocritical and deaf to his own transgression Louie is. “Is Pamela your girlfriend now?” his younger daughter asks. Louie’s response is “No,” not because he has any grasp of the reality of the situation, but rather because he doesn’t want his ex-wife to know. It’s so ingrained in Louie’s head that he deserves Pamela for all his pain, loneliness, and heartbreak that he’s unable to comprehend what he’s done and Pamela’s disgust for it. Yet he’ll yell at a passenger for spitting on the bus. After all, that goes against what’s socially accepted. Trying to rape a woman…well, in his mind that’s justifiable.

It’s a bold move on Louis C.K.’s part, but it’s not his first time tackling the subject. In an episode from season 3, “Telling Jokes/Set Up,” the expected gender dynamic is reversed – Louie is beaten and threatened with more violence by blind date Laurie (Melissa Leo) unless he’ll perform oral sex on her. He is raped.

For all the show’s Jim Jarmusch surrealist flourishes and growing Samuel Beckett absurdism, the conscious decision was made long ago to entwine the character Louie and the actor Louis C.K. so closely that it’s very difficult to separate the two. It’s what allows C.K. to make such effective and personal commentaries, but it’s also incredibly risky. Fans and show diehards may not know what to do with these moments. I dearly hope they get it, because C.K. hits the nail on the head. “Telling Jokes/Set Up” was meant to make men feel uncomfortable with the pressure they put on women to have sex. “Pamela part 1” is a demonstration of how easy it is for a rapist to justify his actions as something far more innocuous.

“Pamela part 1” is not brutal or manipulative or overbearing. It just exists; it’s chilling because every act in it is so disappointingly normal. Rape isn’t exceptional or obvious. Its details have become banal; it doesn’t catch our attention. Its hallmarks have become ordinary, expected. Just like the character Louie, we’ve developed a certain comfort level about its existence. That’s the most frightening comment C.K. makes in all of this: as a society, rape doesn’t stand out to us anymore. Its most dangerous trait is how easily it’s excused.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Attempted Rape in “Louie””

  1. oh my goodness. I need to digest this one a bit. It may be intentional on your part (or I am just missing it) but do you feel this is a conscious statement on the show’s part to show our cultural ambivalence or an accidental side effect?

    Like

  2. I think it’s both, Roy. The show’s telegraphed this moment the whole season, from meeting Amia on her aunt’s couch to the one-sided professional help Louie and his ex-wife get. As a character, Louie is clearly incapable of understanding what he’s done, but within the framework of the episode and the season, it’s pretty clear that Louis C.K. has these messages in mind. It’s worth noting, too, that these episodes don’t get made without Pamela Adlon – she has a great deal of creative input on the show now as a producer.

    Like

  3. The scene brought to my mind the Gawker blind item from a couple of years ago which included a lot of heavy hinting that the alleged perpetrator was Louis C.K. However, the fact that one of alleged victims said that the story had been misreported perhaps makes this not simply a case of believing the accusation because one should always believe the victim. It really should be followed up though.

    http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off

    Like

    1. Hey, CageWisdom, I appreciate the comment and I love the philosophy behind your name. I do have a few problems with that Gawker article from a journalistic standpoint.

      First off, it’s anonymously written. For a site like Gawker, which often borders on a gossip mag and publishes community submissions without fact-checking, that’s a major red flag. Secondly, there are no named sources. The victim they do contact tells them that their facts are wrong. Thirdly, they don’t even name the comic.

      It’s anonymously written, using an anonymous source (who tells them they’re wrong), about an anonymous person. Any one of those things could be overlooked, even for a site like Gawker…but all three in one brief article is too much of a stretch for me. From a journalistic standpoint, that places it squarely in the range of gossip.

      It also asks us to conjecture who the victims are and who the perpetrator is (that’s 5 conjectures in a row now). Jerry Seinfeld? Chris Rock? Louis CK? There’s no reason given for or against any of them, but it sure does tempt readers to click and post.

      I’m not saying that the Gawker story isn’t true. I’m not saying that it isn’t about Louis CK. I don’t have enough information to say either one. But it seems they don’t either. Without more information, without knowing if it’s a community-generated article or the reliability of the writer, and without having a source who does anything but deny the story, it’s very difficult for me to look at that piece as anything but a see-what-sticks gossip article that never would’ve seen the light of day at more traditionally journalistic sites or print publications.

      I used to be a reporter, so things like these really do matter to me a lot – if they didn’t, you could just post whatever you want about whomsoever you want…which a lot of people do now, I guess. But I think those old rules do have a purpose, and our getting away from them has damaged our news coverage an incredible amount.

      Wow, sorry, that was going to be a short comment at first! Guess the subject got me going.

      Like

      1. Thanks for the interesting and well-informed reply! I do think that such blind items are quite of ethically dubious, especially when it comes to serious allegations. Seinfeld, Larry David or Chris Rock were the only other American ‘sitcom auteurs’ that I could think of, though I feel that the odd use of ‘lucky’ swings it towards being Louis.

        I do, however, believe in trusting how a victim frames an experience and one of the alleged victims clearly feels that the story was mis-represented.

        I wish it had been followed up in a journalistically rigorous manner though.

        I think my concern is partly due to the fact that I am a big reader of autobiographical graphic novels and I have been disturbed by how many artists basically use the tool of the ‘comedy confession’ to cop to genuinely awful and sometimes illegal behaviour but in a weirdly minimizing and non-accountable way. For instance, Joe Matt giving his girlfriend Trish a black eye; Chester Brown quite probably sleeped with an underaged trafficked prostitute; David Heatley being just relentlessly awful – part of me respects the honesty and it’s not that I think custodial sentences are always the answer, but the idea of artists revictimizing people they’ve hurt through their art or else sending out a message that is directly at odds with their abusive behaviour (David Foster Wallace is articularly guilty of this, I think) really bothers me.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s