MovieChat Forums > Louie (2010) Discussion > Jane's phone texting and her enjoyment o...

Jane's phone texting and her enjoyment of the play ...


Uh, OK, surprise, at the end Louie's daughter Jane seems so involved with the play and happy she saw it ... so why did she not clap once? That was a cheap ploy that didn't make sense, like most of these Louie episodes. Does he think about these episodes at all?

Not only that but this is a half-hour series that is really 25 minutes ... but last night's episodes when you remove the ads was barely over 20 minutes .... that is like cutting out 30% of what they are selling us.

Louie these days seem to be more about showing up how brilliant and funny he COULD be, but he does not deliver on it really. I would not be watching if I did not think Louie CK was funny and innovative, that is not the question, the point is that there is a lack of professionalism and followthrough, at least in this season. What he lacks in professionalism he is trying to make up with by touching on sensitive subjects and sexing it up ... cheap theatrics.






1) UnWatchable 2)Watchable,ButBad 3)Decent,SeeOnce 4)Good,Repeat&Recommend 5)Great,Classic

reply

She is clapping.

reply

Just watched it ... she is not, and she certainly does not look happy or enthusiastic either.

reply

I dunno how you rewatch it specifically to see if she's clapping and miss it, because she is clapping. Her hands are not in the shot but you can tell by her arms and shoulders.

She has a completely placid face the entire time, that's part of it. She tells her dad later "It was beautiful and sad but I didn't cry about it because I'm not a baby like you."

reply

no, you really cannot tell she is clapping ... you are assuming she was clapping, and she was giving her dad a weird look for clapping.

you say she was placid, but when louie has to take an emergency dump she is running all over the street with her sister,

reply

You need to watch it again and look closely at the bottom of the frame. She is clapping, we can see the top of her hands moving.

reply

I don't need to watch it again ... if she was clapping the subsequent scene would be unnecessary. Yeah, she might be touching her hands together in her lap, but that is not clapping, and it is not demostrative that she thought the play was good. Hands moving does not equal clapping, and lack-luster clapping does not equal enjoyment or appreciation.

reply

she's clapping tho

reply

You're just assuming that. You do not know that, and you cannot see it, I've watched it many times. Anyway, welcome to ignore.



reply

I've just watched the scene. It's played very well, actually, because certainly her clapping is not at all overtly displayed. But if you watch carefully, you can see, just before the cut, how her hands are making a motion which is quite plausibly interpreted as clapping. In my view, it is the most plausible interpretation.

Is it a slam dunk? No, it's a little too subtle for that. But, you said:

so why did she not clap once? That was a cheap ploy that didn't make sense, like most of these Louie episodes. Does he think about these episodes at all?


In other words, here you are quite positive that there was no clapping, and that therefore Louis CK had to have made some kind of amateurish bone-headed error (as he does most of the time, according to you), followed by a harangue about lack of professionalism and "cheap theatrics".

I note that later, you seem slightly less positive ("no, you really cannot tell she is clapping"), and still later you seem to allow even a little more room for the possibility that she could have been clapping ("and lack-luster clapping does not equal enjoyment or appreciation"). So you seem to have retreated a little from your attitude of absolute certainty in your opening post.

I suggest you try watching the scene again, this time with a mind open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Louis CK knows a thing or two about crafting a show and creating continuity between scenes. In particular, the fact that her applause wasn't totally obvious in that scene lends itself to the ambiguity that he was after. (Obviously if she were shown applauding enthusiastically, that wouldn't have jibed with the next scene in which he lectures her.) If you watch the scene again (with hindsight), you might see that Lilly's expression is consonant with being her actually being fully engaged with the play, and it is a tribute to his craftsmanship and direction that none of this is obvious at first glance.

(Or, you could put your head in the sand and put me on "Ignore", as some other brave internet warriors on this board are wont to do when confronted with a POV in conflict with their own.)

reply

You can actually see her hands moving, so she's either clapping or just waving her hands around freely in the air. I think it's fair to assume she's clapping.

The look she gives him is because he gives her a disgusted look first and shakes his head, so her look is a response to that.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks, always good to have an easy post that tells me who to ignore.

reply

[deleted]

if she was clapping the subsequent scene would be unnecessary

Not at all. Even though she clapped he still didn't think she had been paying attention. People clap when they haven't paid attention or hadn't liked a show. When I was a little kid, there were things that I didn't pay attention to, but then when it ended and everyone clapped I'd clap too. And how many comedies have we seen when a character actually falls asleep during something, and then wakes up and starts clapping along with everyone else? Does that mean that they were paying attention and thus any subsequent scene of someone claiming they were sleeping wouldn't make sense?

To Love and win is the best thing. To Love and lose, the next best.

reply

[deleted]

>> It was likely obscured in the editing process so we'd be more surprised by her passionate defense of the play, but she was.

My point ... but even so, when someone claps like that, it is like an obligatory clap, because everyone else is clapping and you do not want to be rude ... so, in my book, that is not really clapping. I don't know why I am getting so many idiotic comments saying that she is clapping when it is apparent that even if she is clapping she is doing the absolute minimum, and then later pretends she thought the play was really great. This is a cheap device ... like in "Walking Dead" when someone is walking along quietly and then a zombie appears right next to them, as if they would not hear the zombie or see them in a 360 free view.

The point people want to make is that it doesn't matter to them, not that she was clapping, but they don't think they can say that so they have to lie and exaggerate. That was not a clap.

reply

[deleted]

Well said. But of course that larger point was made explicit in the show already. (Not faulting you for repeating it -- just strange that it has to be repeated at all.)

reply

[deleted]

Obviously no worries! Your thoughts seem to me the most elevated ones of the entire thread (such as it is).

Despite the fact that Lilly defended herself ably and articulately, there is more to Louie's side of the argument than he chose to pursue at that moment. Certainly he seemed more fully receptive to (even if less factually informed about) the play, the artistry of the presentation and expression occurring moment to moment, etc. This is a recurring theme in his stand-up as well, of course: how people are so busy with their devices (be they recording devices, or internet service to look things up or to tweet) that they do not attend to what is happening directly in front of them. "Be Here Now" is a cliché, but he often seems to embody that ethos, as when he advises his audience to put down their cell phones and live their lives and enjoy the show.

C.S. Lewis wrote a brilliant little book on literary criticism (An Experiment in Criticism) where a basic point is that books might be evaluated not so much in terms of being "good art" or "bad art", but in terms of what sorts of reading they promote and sustain -- and that the first task of a reader, before drawing any kind of conclusion about the possible artistic merits, is to "empty one's self" as it were and enter into a kind of disciplined receptivity, carefully attending to what is in front of one. The basic principle applies more widely of course, and from that perspective, one cannot find out what is essential about a performance of a play by googling it, even if this might be an enhancement on a different level. That's how I took Louie's point of view in the debate, even if it remained largely unexpressed. It's an interesting conversation.

reply

Oh my ... so interesting to see my own comments 8 years ago.
I wonder how many comments here are by people who are now dead?

reply