It is a bittersweet pleasure to see DeNiro give such a fine performance in a fine film... two decades ago. It's also fun to see Scorsese stretch his muscles with a comedy. Will Tarantino ever make a comedy? I loved the performances in this film, from DeNiro's pathetic, endearing, misguided Rupert to Jerry Lewis' mature, subdued role, to the receptionist at Langford's office and the bouncer at the door when Rupert sneaks into the studio as 'The King.' I laughed very often, and never felt guilty about it - exactly the response a comedy should elicit. I especially enjoyed Rupert's daydreams, in which he is rich and successful but still his immature, confident self.
I enjoy a film that 'preaches' a message that challenges traditional values. In The King of Comedy, kidnapping is rewarded with fame and wealth at the slight cost of a short stay in prison. And, the immature, pathetic failure prevails over mature, reasoned adults through his confidence and will.
I did think, however, that the film was a bit too obvious. Given the overall plot, one might easily guess every development. But the characters, the comedy, and the performances overwhelm this small shortcoming. I loved it. And somehow, I can't imagine any Movie Clubbers not loving this film, and that makes me worry.
I've never actually understood other peoples enjoyment watching The King Of Comedy. Varacious, dark humour can be a wonderful thing (Scorcese managed to do wonders with the very same tone 3 years later in After Hours), but this movie fails to ellicit any response other than repulsion with a side order of bad taste. I personally never slow down to see car accidents but I am supposing that is the allure of this tripe crap.
Rupert Pupkin isn't funny...ever...in kind not a single moment of this film is funny (other than Sandra Bernhard). The fact that the audience finds him funny (I may be spoiling ending) is apparently Martin's wink at the viewer, saying that funny is all about expectations, or introduction, or some other idiotic rhetoric. Rupert is awful, that sound isn't laughing it's people running for the exits. Yet he's not alone, Jerry Langford (Lewis) isn't funny either, just astonishingly dull, which is no suprise since Jerry Lewis was never funny in any of his other films...ever. I suppose this could be a nasty Scorsese injoke about the suck the Lewis pervaded year after year but I somehow doubt that to be true.
With no humour comes the inevitable deeper meaning portion of the conversation. Something like: Egomaniacal criminal makes good even though he's about as funny as roadkill, or you don't need humour to succeed in show business just look at Jerry Lewis, or everybody loves infantile men who talk about their abhorent childhood, or true humour is all about delivery. Whatever Marty was trying to say went over my head (more probably under my feet) about the speed of light leaving a arduous 140 minutes and some Sandra. Yick.
Ha! I guess I had no cause to worry! Where there's comedy, there are some who laugh and some who don't. I can't tell you that Rupert Pupkin is funny and should therefore win your laughter. I should clarify that Rupert isn't funny in a 'laugh with him' way, but a 'laugh at him' way - so I didn't see Martin winking.
I don't slow down just to look at car accidents, but I go to the movies to watch them. I'll admit that a real life Rupert Pupkin might make me chuckle in real life, but then I'd realize that a wounded human life is at stake, and compassion would kick in. But in the movies, I can laugh at Rupert Pupkin because he's a puppet that dances for my pleasure, as is Monty Python, as are Hitchcock/Christie/Shyamalan twists, as is massive-scale destruction on the movie screen.
I haven't seen enough of Lewis' earlier work (only impressions of it) to know if he was ever funny, but I didn't think Lewis was supposed to be funny in The King of Comedy. He played it straight (yes, dull), which makes those around him (Pupkin and Masha) funnier.
I've never understood the whole laught-at-the-weirdo portion of cinema, it seems tactless and rude, although I have been known to guffaw at Dumb And Dumber a few times myself.
Comedy that berates a central character is only comedic in the sense that the people enjoying this stuff are actually beneath the character being mocked.
There's a certain amount of self flagulation is The King Of Comedy, but I've never really wanted to flay myself, or even pick out an eyebrow. My enjoyment comes through other, more traditionally oriented entertainments, like cheesy love stories and insightful comedies.
I generally thought Rupert was a character who inflicted his self-torture in some self-agrandized martyr-meets talk-show host almalgum.
I think it has less to do with Jerry's straigtness and Sandra amazing comedic skills that she's the shining point of this film.
Rupert Pupkin is a joke who Scorsese can both feel for and beat upon with equal parts skilled filmmaking and bourgeoisie stortelling.
To be fare I hardly ever enjoy these schlocky character assassination cum revelative statement manifestos.
What did you think of Forrest Gump or Being There?
"Comedy that berates a central character is only comedic in the sense that the people enjoying this stuff are actually beneath the character being mocked." I do not understand this. 'Beneath' on what scale?
I think it's just as fair - indeed, perhaps even more generous - for a film to laugh at a character's foibles as to condemn them. And remember, the 'most faulted' person in this film triumphed! It's only the characters who are presented as without fault that I find disengenuous.
Rupert Pupkin is a joke Scorsese can feel for and beat upon. This is the comedy of Chaplin and Lloyd and even Keaton, and I still enjoy it when it's done well.
Well, I love Being There (because it's the opposite of this film, and Ashby always makes his bizarre characters far more loveable than Scorsese) and I enjoy Forrest Gump on a purely entertainment level. It wants to suck the emotions out of you and gets the job done (even though the chocolates scene makes me cringe). But to compare these films to King Of Comedy can't really be done, first: both charcters are mentally challenged, second: Both characters fall into their situations rather than attaining them through bad deeds, Third: Peter Sellers walks on water!
To laugh at a film of this nature is to neglect a simple principle of humanity, empathy. Putting yourself in the place of Rupert Pupkin and see how confused, lonely and just plain bewildered his character seems to be. I just can't laugh at the guy while Scorsese cuts him to pieces, indeed letting him win at the end is a king-sized booby prize that made the entire film seem like a pointless exercise in character assassination, albeit an invented one.
You do realize that this entire debate hinges on whether or not the film is actually intended as comedy -- which, at least in my eyes, is incredibly debatable. I think the film is a brilliant and uncomfortable examination of the lure of fame and the deep yearning need we as humans all have to be accepted; can't say I laughed much at Rupert.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong; in the words of famed cartoonist Al Capp, "All humor is based in cruelty." Or it could just be that Scorsese's idea of The Funny is much, much weirder than most other people's -- note that he followed this film with "After Hours", an even darker shot of the strong stuff.
It's interesting to whether Scrocese meant the film as a comedy or something else, but I experienced it as a comedy, and I like it that way. Were I to put myself in the shoes of Pupkin, I'm sure the movie would become a tragedy with a happy ending (oxy-moron? You know what I mean...). I could put myself in the shoes of Buster Keaton in The General and I'd be exasperated by the events of the film - or I can laugh at Keaton and enjoy myself. I usually go for the latter.
True, but that is how it made sense to me. I suppose it could be an american tragedy about fame, which would not correct most of the flaws of the film.
I'm not a huge fan of Scorcese for this exact reason, he seems determined to flog his characters until their basest instincts take over. Trying to uncover the true essense of the characters in the movie I suppose. Such a grim view of humanity doesn't appeal to me.
I haven't watched The King Of Comedy in 6 years, which diminishes my abilities to debate the film with more depth. I remember feeling incredibly drained and utterly disappointed by the entire film. After Hours however is a much better film, coming from the long lineage of comedies about a hero battling insurmountable, almost unearthly forces to attain his goal which is home instead of a girl.
Pretty good film, especially since I was dreading it just a little -- it was my impression that it would be full of excruciatingly embarrassing moments, something I have a tough time watching, but Pupkin's got nothing on Larry David or Ricky Gervais. (It probably helps that Pupkin himself is immune to embarrassment.) It's really a movie of its time, though, in that I can't imagine a remake. I don't think Leno or Letterman "breaks" a comedic career the way Carson used to, and with the advent of the Internet and reality TV, Pupkin's fantasies of fame are more attainable and criminal intentions are easily dispersed. (Nowadays, he'd have a livejournal, or www.rupertpupkin.com.)
And this leads to the best part of the movie, for me: the ending. No, not the epilogue, with the magazine covers, books, show, etc. -- that's kinda dumb, and Scorsese once again blunders his ironic ending like he does with Taxi Driver. No, I'm talking about the actual routine. I was expecting a bunch of terribly lame, suitable-for-3-year-olds set of jokes, or stuff that was obviously sexist or racist. But it turns out that his routine is merely mediocre, and more importantly, it's the story of his (horrible) life. He actually says at one point in the film that he wants to turn his terrible experiences into comedy, but I honestly didn't realize at the time how literally he means this, and how absolutely necessary it is for him to do it. So the performance on Langford's show is ultimately about Pupkin's need for love (which he confuses with fame -- think of Langford coming home to his empty apartment) and the need to announce to the world that a schlub like him, hidden from the eyes of TV, exists. Pupkin is a lot of things (primarily, annoying beyond belief), but it's this moment that I most respond to, that makes him human to me.
Yet, I thought De Niro was just okay here. It's kind of a paradox: I thought he relied too much on his De Niroisms (I never forget that I'm watching De Niro) and another actor might've created a more interesting, more well-rounded Pupkin. But it's his very De Niroisms (mostly, the undercurrent of potential violence) that give the character the energy that let him believably do the things he does. Kind of a no-win, there.
Jerry Lewis and Sandra Bernhardt are amazing, though. I like Bernhardt, but I've never seen her display this kind of vulnerability before; her dinner table monologue is a knockout. And Lewis shoulda been nominated. He communicates more though one look (when Pupkin and his gf go to his house) than all of his dialogue. He's pissed, but he's beyond pissed. He's pissed that Pupkin is there, that he's underestimated Pupkin, that he and Pupkin are playing different games, and most importantly, that he's responsible for this encounter in the first place. It's a great scene.
Okay, that's enough for now. I have some other thoughts, but I'll post them later. Good choice, Luke!
You bastard, you got to the point about Pupkin's monologue before I could! Grrr...
I'd just like to add to that, if I could: What I think is truly extraordinary about the monologue is, indeed, that it's a window into Pupkin's true inner life. He's a complete milquetoast, but when he starts his routine, you can hear the anger pouring out of him. It's his only release. But then, it's also more complex than that, I think -- seeing it a second time allowed me to pick up on at least one thing I missed. Pupkin jokes about his mother being dead for seven years... which, since we hear her hollering at him during the course of the film, is patently untrue. So is Rupert just venting, or is he gaining symbolic revenge on those he feels have wronged him?
(Also, good call on Pupkin's inability to be embarrassed. I remember reading a review somewhere that pointed that out in the opening paragraph and then made the case for the film as textbook tragedy.)
I rather like a good 'ironic' (does that word mean anything, anymore?) ending, as long as they're not done too often. What kind of ending would you prefer (as if there's a type of ending that hasn't been done that often, excepting that of Eclipse)?
What I was trying to get at was, with the end of Taxi Driver, you're supposed to see Travis Bickle as a messed-up human being, despite being hailed as a hero; but, IIRC, a lot of people walked away thinking that a) he was a hero or b) Scorsese wanted us to take him as a hero. And I kind of saw the same thing here, with Scorsese being really ambiguous about whether the end is real or not, and I know at the very least Danny Peary took the ending straight. It isn't often that I want an unambiguous ending, but here's an exception.
Almost same thing with New York, New York actually; it's my understanding (Peary again -- I should be this guy's PR flack) that we're supposed to come to the conclusion that Liza Minelli's the villain, not De Niro; but the way Scorsese directs the thing, trying to stand back and let the characters do their thing without judgment, there's absolutely no way I can sympathize with De Niro at all, even if the facts of the situation favor him. I guess what I'm saying is, in these movies Scorsese tries so hard for subtlety that it go past ambiguity and into the obscure.
A point I'd like to bring up: Seems nobobdy thus far has gone gaga for Scorsese's ending, which pushes the film's concept to its absurd, black apex. But then, does he? Rupert, as we see, has one hell of an active fantasy life. Could it be possible that everything after his arrest is just another fantasy?
Yes! Or at least, I think it's completely possible. This was something I wanted to bring up in my original comments. That last shot in the studio is just too weird to me to be literal, especially the way the announcer keeps repeating his introduction (like three times, IIRC). And then Rupert, for the only time in the movie, doesn't say anything. Not completely sure what to make of it, and certainly most people, it seems, take the ending at face value. Maybe because as undeserving as Rupert is, it's still seems possible that he'd win out in the end?
Ah! I hadn't even considered that, but it certainly makes sense. It could've just been a Pupkin fantasy.
I bought the ending because it seemed more likely (indeed, inevitable) than any other ending of which I could concieve. In a way, this is William Hung (though I agree his act was mediocre, not terrible) + John Wilkes Booth notoriety. How could that not turn into a million-dollar book deal and all that follows? The ridiculous introduction to his own show does make one wonder, though...
Here's a question: Did anyone else notice the guy behind De Niro in the restaurant, when he's showing the woman his autograph books? The guy who looked a little like Ricky Jay? The hell?
Since this is wrapping up, and no one knew what I was talking about (or simply didn't care :-P), during De Niro's autograph book scenew with Diahnne Abbot, there's a guy that walks past them, then takes a seat at a table some distance behind De Niro. As De Niro talks about the book and gets excited, the guy in the back begins to mimic all of De Niro's gestures, for about a minute or so. Then, he gets up and goes to payphone and dials. I was expecting this character to be on the payroll of Lewis, or something. But it just turned out to be an odd, anomalous moment.
Good question. I haven't been able to post much this past week, but I've enjoyed reading everyone else's ideas.
Just wanted to add that I had remembered this movie as being really funny, but when I saw it again recently, I realized it was just Sandra Bernhard's monologue I was thinking of (which would have been even better if it had just been one long take, I think).
I can't help but wonder if it is any accident that this film came out in the early 80s, when people were starting to become aware that you could become famous out of desperation rather than talent.
Nothing is set in stone, but we'll probably start choosing the next film soon since discussion on The King of Comedy seems to have wound down. We'll give people a week or two to watch that next film and start talking about it on March 1st.
Okay, I think we can start choosing next month's Movie Club film choice. Did we like the approach of each suggesting a film and then voting, or shall we try something different?
I'll again nominate the method of a selected person naming, say, five titles, and the rest of the group voting from that list. And, of course, we can always try a different method next time as well.
I was tempted to just make myself the first 'selected' person to nominate 5 films for voting, simply to move the process along. I made a list of 5 films I thought would be great candidates for debate, and then discovered that only one of them was available on Netflix!
Sure, why not - at least then there's some logic to it, however arbitrary. Despite your nudgwinkfacing, Kza, the discussion timestamps seem to put the order like so: 1922, Kza, Cosgrove, AJDaGreat, Penny (and some, like stooky, never really 'signed up'). However, I realize that people like 1922 and AJDaGreat signed up as 'tentative members' due to their Netflix*-impairedness, so I hope they won't mind if we let Kza go first, then Cosgrove, then Penny. Perhaps I'll jump in somewhere and take my belated turn when I can come up with some good selections that are more available. Right now I'd just like to get rollin'!
New rule: nominated films must be available on Netflix. Why? If a title is available on Netflix, it is likely to be available through other DVD-by-mail services, including those outside the U.S., and it is more likely to be available through other means as well than if it is not available on Netflix. So we'll use Netflix's catalog as a guiding hand.
You're up, Kza!
* and clones, duh. Can we start using 'Netflix' like 'Kleenex'? The words, I mean :-)
1922 beat me? Curse that Christopher Lee-loving listologist!
But hey, I get to go, so I shouldn't bellyache :-)
Okee doke -- I like the Netflix rule; makes sense to me. I'll be back soon with my five choices. (I'm applying my own personal criteria to the choices as well, but I'll reveal that when I come up with the titles.)
So, my criteria: I wanted one movie that I truly loved but hadn't seen in awhile, one movie that I really hate but everyone else seems to like, one that I thought was obscure, one that I had never seen before, and one that had something to do with my birthday, because I was really running out of ideas.
I just say Discreet Charm like 2 days ago, so I'm voting for Jacob's Ladder. But I really screwed up my first viewing of Heavenly Creatures, and I've always wanted to see Melvin and Howard, so I'm excited about any of these choices because I imagine they're all amply debatable. Good choices, Kza!
If you're curious, my doomed 5 ideas were Eclipse (1962), Moonfleet (1955), Goto, Island of Love (1953), Hedgehog in the Fog (1975), and Mishima (1985) - the only Netflixable one.
Yeah, Eclipse's unavailability really killed me. Criterion will save us all, eventually.
Is anyone still debating what the best 'collection' or 'series' of DVDs is? Seriously, Criterion crushes everything else, and each year their releases get better.
I'll vote for Heavenly Creatures, I've wanted to see that for a while.
BTW, I thought I could participate in King of Comedy because I thought my library had it, but it turns out it only has the VHS copy, and I don't have a VCR in my room. I think it's possible to watch a tape at the library, but that is obviously more inconvenient, and I never got around to it. Sorry. But I checked - Heavenly Creatures is definitely there in DVD format.
By the way, just in case you find my commentary on movies interesting for some reason, and my absence might influence your decision, I will add that unfortunately Heavenly Creatures is the only one of the five that my library stocks. I've seen Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie though, so I might be able to comment on that, though it won't be fresh in my mind.
When you first mentioned this, I was tempted to switch my vote to 'Heavenly Creatures.' But I didn't want to confuse things. Now that you bring it up again, I think I'll just switch my vote to 'Heavenly Creatures' since we haven't made any rules about switching votes :-)
I'd like to see "Jacob's Ladder" (never have, though I already know how it ends). And, since I believe Peter Jackson is the greatest working director in the entire freakin' world, I'd relish a chance to see "Heavenly Creatures" again.
But Bunuel is my favorite director ever. Period. And I think "Discreet Charm" would offer the most discussion fodder. So I'm casting my vote for The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie .
I agree that Bunuel's film (too lazy to find that 'enyay' character) is probably the most ripe for discussion. At the moment, though, after changed votes, it appears that Heavenly Creatures is leading with an impregnable 3-1-0-0-0 score.
So, our next film is Heavenly Creatures! Try to find a copy and watch it before (but close to) the end of the month, everyone. Discussion begins March 1st!
Thanks again to everyone who is participating, regularily or irregularily. I hope you're all having as much fun as I am.
Mine's still on its way. Worse than that, I just found out that I may have to leave town for a week or more, and so my contributions to this month's Movie Club will be delayed or possibly nonexistent. Frustrating, of course, since this was "my" movie.
Update: As per usual when it comes to my life, everything has flip-flopped. I got Heavenly Creatures in the mail today, and I won't be leaving town as soon as I thought. (Although that could change at a moment's notice.) Point is, I plan on watching it and having comments within the next, say, 36 hours.
hi Luke. I was just curious to whether this was still going? i just got King of comedy and i am planning on watching it very soon. is it ok if i post my views on it here? if this is no longer open then thats cool.
It is a bittersweet pleasure to see DeNiro give such a fine performance in a fine film... two decades ago. It's also fun to see Scorsese stretch his muscles with a comedy. Will Tarantino ever make a comedy? I loved the performances in this film, from DeNiro's pathetic, endearing, misguided Rupert to Jerry Lewis' mature, subdued role, to the receptionist at Langford's office and the bouncer at the door when Rupert sneaks into the studio as 'The King.' I laughed very often, and never felt guilty about it - exactly the response a comedy should elicit. I especially enjoyed Rupert's daydreams, in which he is rich and successful but still his immature, confident self.
I enjoy a film that 'preaches' a message that challenges traditional values. In The King of Comedy, kidnapping is rewarded with fame and wealth at the slight cost of a short stay in prison. And, the immature, pathetic failure prevails over mature, reasoned adults through his confidence and will.
I did think, however, that the film was a bit too obvious. Given the overall plot, one might easily guess every development. But the characters, the comedy, and the performances overwhelm this small shortcoming. I loved it. And somehow, I can't imagine any Movie Clubbers not loving this film, and that makes me worry.
I've never actually understood other peoples enjoyment watching The King Of Comedy. Varacious, dark humour can be a wonderful thing (Scorcese managed to do wonders with the very same tone 3 years later in After Hours), but this movie fails to ellicit any response other than repulsion with a side order of bad taste. I personally never slow down to see car accidents but I am supposing that is the allure of this tripe crap.
Rupert Pupkin isn't funny...ever...in kind not a single moment of this film is funny (other than Sandra Bernhard). The fact that the audience finds him funny (I may be spoiling ending) is apparently Martin's wink at the viewer, saying that funny is all about expectations, or introduction, or some other idiotic rhetoric. Rupert is awful, that sound isn't laughing it's people running for the exits. Yet he's not alone, Jerry Langford (Lewis) isn't funny either, just astonishingly dull, which is no suprise since Jerry Lewis was never funny in any of his other films...ever. I suppose this could be a nasty Scorsese injoke about the suck the Lewis pervaded year after year but I somehow doubt that to be true.
With no humour comes the inevitable deeper meaning portion of the conversation. Something like: Egomaniacal criminal makes good even though he's about as funny as roadkill, or you don't need humour to succeed in show business just look at Jerry Lewis, or everybody loves infantile men who talk about their abhorent childhood, or true humour is all about delivery. Whatever Marty was trying to say went over my head (more probably under my feet) about the speed of light leaving a arduous 140 minutes and some Sandra. Yick.
:?)
Ha! I guess I had no cause to worry! Where there's comedy, there are some who laugh and some who don't. I can't tell you that Rupert Pupkin is funny and should therefore win your laughter. I should clarify that Rupert isn't funny in a 'laugh with him' way, but a 'laugh at him' way - so I didn't see Martin winking.
I don't slow down just to look at car accidents, but I go to the movies to watch them. I'll admit that a real life Rupert Pupkin might make me chuckle in real life, but then I'd realize that a wounded human life is at stake, and compassion would kick in. But in the movies, I can laugh at Rupert Pupkin because he's a puppet that dances for my pleasure, as is Monty Python, as are Hitchcock/Christie/Shyamalan twists, as is massive-scale destruction on the movie screen.
I haven't seen enough of Lewis' earlier work (only impressions of it) to know if he was ever funny, but I didn't think Lewis was supposed to be funny in The King of Comedy. He played it straight (yes, dull), which makes those around him (Pupkin and Masha) funnier.
I've never understood the whole laught-at-the-weirdo portion of cinema, it seems tactless and rude, although I have been known to guffaw at Dumb And Dumber a few times myself.
Comedy that berates a central character is only comedic in the sense that the people enjoying this stuff are actually beneath the character being mocked.
There's a certain amount of self flagulation is The King Of Comedy, but I've never really wanted to flay myself, or even pick out an eyebrow. My enjoyment comes through other, more traditionally oriented entertainments, like cheesy love stories and insightful comedies.
I generally thought Rupert was a character who inflicted his self-torture in some self-agrandized martyr-meets talk-show host almalgum.
I think it has less to do with Jerry's straigtness and Sandra amazing comedic skills that she's the shining point of this film.
Rupert Pupkin is a joke who Scorsese can both feel for and beat upon with equal parts skilled filmmaking and bourgeoisie stortelling.
To be fare I hardly ever enjoy these schlocky character assassination cum revelative statement manifestos.
:?)
What did you think of Forrest Gump or Being There?
"Comedy that berates a central character is only comedic in the sense that the people enjoying this stuff are actually beneath the character being mocked." I do not understand this. 'Beneath' on what scale?
I think it's just as fair - indeed, perhaps even more generous - for a film to laugh at a character's foibles as to condemn them. And remember, the 'most faulted' person in this film triumphed! It's only the characters who are presented as without fault that I find disengenuous.
Rupert Pupkin is a joke Scorsese can feel for and beat upon. This is the comedy of Chaplin and Lloyd and even Keaton, and I still enjoy it when it's done well.
Well, I love Being There (because it's the opposite of this film, and Ashby always makes his bizarre characters far more loveable than Scorsese) and I enjoy Forrest Gump on a purely entertainment level. It wants to suck the emotions out of you and gets the job done (even though the chocolates scene makes me cringe). But to compare these films to King Of Comedy can't really be done, first: both charcters are mentally challenged, second: Both characters fall into their situations rather than attaining them through bad deeds, Third: Peter Sellers walks on water!
To laugh at a film of this nature is to neglect a simple principle of humanity, empathy. Putting yourself in the place of Rupert Pupkin and see how confused, lonely and just plain bewildered his character seems to be. I just can't laugh at the guy while Scorsese cuts him to pieces, indeed letting him win at the end is a king-sized booby prize that made the entire film seem like a pointless exercise in character assassination, albeit an invented one.
:?)
You do realize that this entire debate hinges on whether or not the film is actually intended as comedy -- which, at least in my eyes, is incredibly debatable. I think the film is a brilliant and uncomfortable examination of the lure of fame and the deep yearning need we as humans all have to be accepted; can't say I laughed much at Rupert.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong; in the words of famed cartoonist Al Capp, "All humor is based in cruelty." Or it could just be that Scorsese's idea of The Funny is much, much weirder than most other people's -- note that he followed this film with "After Hours", an even darker shot of the strong stuff.
It's interesting to whether Scrocese meant the film as a comedy or something else, but I experienced it as a comedy, and I like it that way. Were I to put myself in the shoes of Pupkin, I'm sure the movie would become a tragedy with a happy ending (oxy-moron? You know what I mean...). I could put myself in the shoes of Buster Keaton in The General and I'd be exasperated by the events of the film - or I can laugh at Keaton and enjoy myself. I usually go for the latter.
True, but that is how it made sense to me. I suppose it could be an american tragedy about fame, which would not correct most of the flaws of the film.
I'm not a huge fan of Scorcese for this exact reason, he seems determined to flog his characters until their basest instincts take over. Trying to uncover the true essense of the characters in the movie I suppose. Such a grim view of humanity doesn't appeal to me.
I haven't watched The King Of Comedy in 6 years, which diminishes my abilities to debate the film with more depth. I remember feeling incredibly drained and utterly disappointed by the entire film. After Hours however is a much better film, coming from the long lineage of comedies about a hero battling insurmountable, almost unearthly forces to attain his goal which is home instead of a girl.
:?)
That's your Before Sunset romanticism taking over. :-)
Hey, what is a cynic but a wounded romantic?
Well, a cynic's gotta be something else at least some of the time, because I've never been romantic or wounded.
Very true, I'm all mushy now that I've found my inner bon vivant and Martin Scorsese can go suck eggs with all that negativity. :?)
cool, i'm about to get this on my queue so i'll be able to join in soon!
hop in, as soon as you can! :-)
Pretty good film, especially since I was dreading it just a little -- it was my impression that it would be full of excruciatingly embarrassing moments, something I have a tough time watching, but Pupkin's got nothing on Larry David or Ricky Gervais. (It probably helps that Pupkin himself is immune to embarrassment.) It's really a movie of its time, though, in that I can't imagine a remake. I don't think Leno or Letterman "breaks" a comedic career the way Carson used to, and with the advent of the Internet and reality TV, Pupkin's fantasies of fame are more attainable and criminal intentions are easily dispersed. (Nowadays, he'd have a livejournal, or www.rupertpupkin.com.)
And this leads to the best part of the movie, for me: the ending. No, not the epilogue, with the magazine covers, books, show, etc. -- that's kinda dumb, and Scorsese once again blunders his ironic ending like he does with Taxi Driver. No, I'm talking about the actual routine. I was expecting a bunch of terribly lame, suitable-for-3-year-olds set of jokes, or stuff that was obviously sexist or racist. But it turns out that his routine is merely mediocre, and more importantly, it's the story of his (horrible) life. He actually says at one point in the film that he wants to turn his terrible experiences into comedy, but I honestly didn't realize at the time how literally he means this, and how absolutely necessary it is for him to do it. So the performance on Langford's show is ultimately about Pupkin's need for love (which he confuses with fame -- think of Langford coming home to his empty apartment) and the need to announce to the world that a schlub like him, hidden from the eyes of TV, exists. Pupkin is a lot of things (primarily, annoying beyond belief), but it's this moment that I most respond to, that makes him human to me.
Yet, I thought De Niro was just okay here. It's kind of a paradox: I thought he relied too much on his De Niroisms (I never forget that I'm watching De Niro) and another actor might've created a more interesting, more well-rounded Pupkin. But it's his very De Niroisms (mostly, the undercurrent of potential violence) that give the character the energy that let him believably do the things he does. Kind of a no-win, there.
Jerry Lewis and Sandra Bernhardt are amazing, though. I like Bernhardt, but I've never seen her display this kind of vulnerability before; her dinner table monologue is a knockout. And Lewis shoulda been nominated. He communicates more though one look (when Pupkin and his gf go to his house) than all of his dialogue. He's pissed, but he's beyond pissed. He's pissed that Pupkin is there, that he's underestimated Pupkin, that he and Pupkin are playing different games, and most importantly, that he's responsible for this encounter in the first place. It's a great scene.
Okay, that's enough for now. I have some other thoughts, but I'll post them later. Good choice, Luke!
You bastard, you got to the point about Pupkin's monologue before I could! Grrr...
I'd just like to add to that, if I could: What I think is truly extraordinary about the monologue is, indeed, that it's a window into Pupkin's true inner life. He's a complete milquetoast, but when he starts his routine, you can hear the anger pouring out of him. It's his only release. But then, it's also more complex than that, I think -- seeing it a second time allowed me to pick up on at least one thing I missed. Pupkin jokes about his mother being dead for seven years... which, since we hear her hollering at him during the course of the film, is patently untrue. So is Rupert just venting, or is he gaining symbolic revenge on those he feels have wronged him?
(Also, good call on Pupkin's inability to be embarrassed. I remember reading a review somewhere that pointed that out in the opening paragraph and then made the case for the film as textbook tragedy.)
I rather like a good 'ironic' (does that word mean anything, anymore?) ending, as long as they're not done too often. What kind of ending would you prefer (as if there's a type of ending that hasn't been done that often, excepting that of Eclipse)?
What I was trying to get at was, with the end of Taxi Driver, you're supposed to see Travis Bickle as a messed-up human being, despite being hailed as a hero; but, IIRC, a lot of people walked away thinking that a) he was a hero or b) Scorsese wanted us to take him as a hero. And I kind of saw the same thing here, with Scorsese being really ambiguous about whether the end is real or not, and I know at the very least Danny Peary took the ending straight. It isn't often that I want an unambiguous ending, but here's an exception.
Almost same thing with New York, New York actually; it's my understanding (Peary again -- I should be this guy's PR flack) that we're supposed to come to the conclusion that Liza Minelli's the villain, not De Niro; but the way Scorsese directs the thing, trying to stand back and let the characters do their thing without judgment, there's absolutely no way I can sympathize with De Niro at all, even if the facts of the situation favor him. I guess what I'm saying is, in these movies Scorsese tries so hard for subtlety that it go past ambiguity and into the obscure.
A point I'd like to bring up: Seems nobobdy thus far has gone gaga for Scorsese's ending, which pushes the film's concept to its absurd, black apex. But then, does he? Rupert, as we see, has one hell of an active fantasy life. Could it be possible that everything after his arrest is just another fantasy?
Yes! Or at least, I think it's completely possible. This was something I wanted to bring up in my original comments. That last shot in the studio is just too weird to me to be literal, especially the way the announcer keeps repeating his introduction (like three times, IIRC). And then Rupert, for the only time in the movie, doesn't say anything. Not completely sure what to make of it, and certainly most people, it seems, take the ending at face value. Maybe because as undeserving as Rupert is, it's still seems possible that he'd win out in the end?
Ah! I hadn't even considered that, but it certainly makes sense. It could've just been a Pupkin fantasy.
I bought the ending because it seemed more likely (indeed, inevitable) than any other ending of which I could concieve. In a way, this is William Hung (though I agree his act was mediocre, not terrible) + John Wilkes Booth notoriety. How could that not turn into a million-dollar book deal and all that follows? The ridiculous introduction to his own show does make one wonder, though...
Here's a question: Did anyone else notice the guy behind De Niro in the restaurant, when he's showing the woman his autograph books? The guy who looked a little like Ricky Jay? The hell?
sorry, didn't notice him, and don't even know who Ricky Jay is, anyway :-)
It's okay if you didn't notice the guy, but to not know who Ricky Jay is? Blasphemy! :-)
(Thing is, you probably do know who he is.)
Oh yeah, that guy! I know him best for his role in Mystery Men! :-)
That's a shame!
Since this is wrapping up, and no one knew what I was talking about (or simply didn't care :-P), during De Niro's autograph book scenew with Diahnne Abbot, there's a guy that walks past them, then takes a seat at a table some distance behind De Niro. As De Niro talks about the book and gets excited, the guy in the back begins to mimic all of De Niro's gestures, for about a minute or so. Then, he gets up and goes to payphone and dials. I was expecting this character to be on the payroll of Lewis, or something. But it just turned out to be an odd, anomalous moment.
Had i not already returned the DVD to Netflix when you brought it up, I'd have looked for it.
This is a great idea...how long do I have to wait for the next film in the movie club?
:?)
Good question. I haven't been able to post much this past week, but I've enjoyed reading everyone else's ideas.
Just wanted to add that I had remembered this movie as being really funny, but when I saw it again recently, I realized it was just Sandra Bernhard's monologue I was thinking of (which would have been even better if it had just been one long take, I think).
I can't help but wonder if it is any accident that this film came out in the early 80s, when people were starting to become aware that you could become famous out of desperation rather than talent.
Nothing is set in stone, but we'll probably start choosing the next film soon since discussion on The King of Comedy seems to have wound down. We'll give people a week or two to watch that next film and start talking about it on March 1st.
Okay, I think we can start choosing next month's Movie Club film choice. Did we like the approach of each suggesting a film and then voting, or shall we try something different?
I'll again nominate the method of a selected person naming, say, five titles, and the rest of the group voting from that list. And, of course, we can always try a different method next time as well.
Last time we had each person nominate one film. It might be interesting to have one person nominating 5 films. What do the rest of ya'll think?
That's a good idea!
Sounds like a plan.
Fine by me.
I was tempted to just make myself the first 'selected' person to nominate 5 films for voting, simply to move the process along. I made a list of 5 films I thought would be great candidates for debate, and then discovered that only one of them was available on Netflix!
So, who wants to go first? :-)
How 'bout we go in the order we "signed up"? Not counting Luke, of course, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, smiley face, smiley face.
Sure, why not - at least then there's some logic to it, however arbitrary. Despite your nudgwinkfacing, Kza, the discussion timestamps seem to put the order like so: 1922, Kza, Cosgrove, AJDaGreat, Penny (and some, like stooky, never really 'signed up'). However, I realize that people like 1922 and AJDaGreat signed up as 'tentative members' due to their Netflix*-impairedness, so I hope they won't mind if we let Kza go first, then Cosgrove, then Penny. Perhaps I'll jump in somewhere and take my belated turn when I can come up with some good selections that are more available. Right now I'd just like to get rollin'!
New rule: nominated films must be available on Netflix. Why? If a title is available on Netflix, it is likely to be available through other DVD-by-mail services, including those outside the U.S., and it is more likely to be available through other means as well than if it is not available on Netflix. So we'll use Netflix's catalog as a guiding hand.
You're up, Kza!
* and clones, duh. Can we start using 'Netflix' like 'Kleenex'? The words, I mean :-)
1922 beat me? Curse that Christopher Lee-loving listologist!
But hey, I get to go, so I shouldn't bellyache :-)
Okee doke -- I like the Netflix rule; makes sense to me. I'll be back soon with my five choices. (I'm applying my own personal criteria to the choices as well, but I'll reveal that when I come up with the titles.)
So, my criteria: I wanted one movie that I truly loved but hadn't seen in awhile, one movie that I really hate but everyone else seems to like, one that I thought was obscure, one that I had never seen before, and one that had something to do with my birthday, because I was really running out of ideas.
Anyway, the nominees are, in alphabetical order:
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972, Luis Buñuel)
Heavenly Creatures (1994, Peter Jackson)
Jacob's Ladder (1990, Adrian Lyne)
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=752686&trkid=148413
">Melvin and Howard (1980, Jonathan Demme)
Three O'Clock High (1987, Phil Joanou)
I just say Discreet Charm like 2 days ago, so I'm voting for Jacob's Ladder. But I really screwed up my first viewing of Heavenly Creatures, and I've always wanted to see Melvin and Howard, so I'm excited about any of these choices because I imagine they're all amply debatable. Good choices, Kza!
If you're curious, my doomed 5 ideas were Eclipse (1962), Moonfleet (1955), Goto, Island of Love (1953), Hedgehog in the Fog (1975), and Mishima (1985) - the only Netflixable one.
For those who missed it, I vote for:
Jacob's Ladder
Wow, Luke, those would've been some hardcore choices. I've never even heard of Goto or Hedgehog.
Eclipse isn't Netflixable? A shame, that.
Yeah, Eclipse's unavailability really killed me. Criterion will save us all, eventually.
Is anyone still debating what the best 'collection' or 'series' of DVDs is? Seriously, Criterion crushes everything else, and each year their releases get better.
I'm assuming that you made this statement in full awareness that a Criterion DVD of "L'eclisse" arrives sometime in March... :-)
Holy crap, I for one didn't know that. Maybe they'll get around to Zabriskie Point as well...
I did not! Hurray!
I'll vote for Heavenly Creatures, I've wanted to see that for a while.
BTW, I thought I could participate in King of Comedy because I thought my library had it, but it turns out it only has the VHS copy, and I don't have a VCR in my room. I think it's possible to watch a tape at the library, but that is obviously more inconvenient, and I never got around to it. Sorry. But I checked - Heavenly Creatures is definitely there in DVD format.
By the way, just in case you find my commentary on movies interesting for some reason, and my absence might influence your decision, I will add that unfortunately Heavenly Creatures is the only one of the five that my library stocks. I've seen Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie though, so I might be able to comment on that, though it won't be fresh in my mind.
When you first mentioned this, I was tempted to switch my vote to 'Heavenly Creatures.' But I didn't want to confuse things. Now that you bring it up again, I think I'll just switch my vote to 'Heavenly Creatures' since we haven't made any rules about switching votes :-)
Normally I don't like movies about war or veterans (unless you're talking about a fantasy movie like LOTR), but Jacob's Ladder sounds interesting.
I'd like to see "Jacob's Ladder" (never have, though I already know how it ends). And, since I believe Peter Jackson is the greatest working director in the entire freakin' world, I'd relish a chance to see "Heavenly Creatures" again.
But Bunuel is my favorite director ever. Period. And I think "Discreet Charm" would offer the most discussion fodder. So I'm casting my vote for The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie .
If it means that everyone will get to play, I could certainly watch Heavenly Creatures again.
I agree that Bunuel's film (too lazy to find that 'enyay' character) is probably the most ripe for discussion. At the moment, though, after changed votes, it appears that Heavenly Creatures is leading with an impregnable 3-1-0-0-0 score.
So, our next film is Heavenly Creatures! Try to find a copy and watch it before (but close to) the end of the month, everyone. Discussion begins March 1st!
Thanks again to everyone who is participating, regularily or irregularily. I hope you're all having as much fun as I am.
Everybody getting/got a copy of Heavenly Creatures?
Mine's still on its way. Worse than that, I just found out that I may have to leave town for a week or more, and so my contributions to this month's Movie Club will be delayed or possibly nonexistent. Frustrating, of course, since this was "my" movie.
Well, thank you for letting us know what the deal was. I still look forward to your comments when you have time to watch the film.
Update: As per usual when it comes to my life, everything has flip-flopped. I got Heavenly Creatures in the mail today, and I won't be leaving town as soon as I thought. (Although that could change at a moment's notice.) Point is, I plan on watching it and having comments within the next, say, 36 hours.
hi Luke. I was just curious to whether this was still going? i just got King of comedy and i am planning on watching it very soon. is it ok if i post my views on it here? if this is no longer open then thats cool.
just wanted to know.
These are never closed. We welcome your thoughts!