MovieChat Forums > The King of Comedy (1982) Discussion > Is Rupert Pupkin supposed to be funny?

Is Rupert Pupkin supposed to be funny?

posted 15 years ago by KenanP
46 replies | jump to latest

I can't figure it out.

During most of the movie he never attempts to say anything funny and when he rehearsed and recorded the tape the sound muted as he was about to start his bit. I assumed that it was simply because he didn't have anything funny to say and that he was as delusional about his stand up talent as everything else.

The we finally get to see his stand up at the end and I didn't find it funny at all. The only decent line to me was "after a while the school worked it into the curriculum.".
Sure the audience laughed a lot, but live audiences will laugh at anything.

So, is the stand up scene supposed to be funny (and simply not my style of humor), or is it supposed to show that his talent only exists in his head?

--------------------------------
Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin on you

[–] gribfritz2 8 years ago

So many threads asking the same thing. Obviously, he was supposed to be funny because the act didn't bomb. He didn't tell a joke and then have no laughter or the sound of crickets chirping. The audience laughed appropriately at the jokes, showing that his material was good. His delivery was a bit stiff and a little too much talking about puke for my taste, but 2% blood in her alcohol, now that's gold, Jerry. Gold!

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

The audience laughed appropriately at the jokes, showing that his material was good.

Studio audiences laugh on cue, or at least in those moments where they think that they're "supposed" to laugh. There was also the factor that Pupkin was appearing on what was the highest-rated comedy show on TV, so people assumed that he was "supposed" to be funny. Usually, if people are told something is good, they convince themselves to believe it's good.

I agree that Pupkin's act wasn't completely incompetent, but it wasn't the kind of material that would have gotten him into prime time.

[–] Ricardo-36 8 years ago

Well, on the other hand he wasn't nervous, he didn't fumble any of his lines, he had a decent timing and confidence - specially for someone who had never performed before an audience. So at least they got that part covered for Pupkin's character. He is not incompetent.

It might be the case they got a material that was borderline funny so we are confused if he is talented or not. But it's much harder today to come up with that conclusion, as comedy has changed drastically since 1981 when this was filmed. It's impossible now to look at that scene with an early 80s point of view.

I wonder what Scorsese has to say about this.

"You keep him in here, and make sure HE doesn't leave!"

[–] Shiva_Skunk 8 years ago

Yeah, stand up comedy was generally very differend back then. Typical stand up in the late 70s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2IJBiW8_cw

I think jokes about abusing alcoholic parents were considered very obscene back then. But then again, he appeared very confident in front of an audience and his jokes were, althought maybe a bit bad taste, not that bad. He definitely had some talent in him.

[–] MikeNewYork 8 years ago

Finally a comment I agree with. I think the act is actually pretty great, and deliberately so. I've seen far worse routines by well-known comedians. The audience's laughter sounds honest and spontaneous, not forced. I even think it would have kind of ruined the ending if the act had been as bad as most viewers probably expected. I think it's also supposed to show that there are many funny people out there who never make it into the spotlight.

In fact, until I was 13 I thought throwing up was a sign of maturity. While the other kids were off in the woods sneaking cigarettes... I was hiding behind the house with my fingers down my throat.

There was this one kid, poor kid... he was afraid of me. I used to tell him..."Hit me, hit me. What's the matter with you? Don't you want to graduate?"

Pure gold!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

True.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Given how dangerously insane he was I was surprised how decent his act actually was. Sure, they’re cookie-cutter gags and he delivers them in his phoney overblown way, but it’s not far off a lot of mediocre stand-up.

I was further surprised when, instead of exploding with rage like Travis Bickle, he actually became the celebrity he always wanted to be, although more as a freak-show.

I think Scorsese is looking at the sin of vanity here. Pupkin wanted the recognition without any of the effort. A damaged, desperate soul who will probably have his mental breakdown when the spotlights have finally switched off and he is alone with himself, with no idea who he actually is.

[–] Fluffyudders (119) 5 years ago

The comedy was only ok, middle of the road stuff, but there are a few additional points to make.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that the comedy was really just him talking about his terrible upbringing, which is what made his story all the more tragic. His coping mechanism for his shitty childhood was in trying to turn it into a giant joke, but the further he went into his monologue the more uncomfortable it became, which leads me into the second point...

...do we know for sure that the audience were laughing? I think it's deliberate that we never actually see their reactions, we only hear their laughter much like an earlier scene in which he is rehearsing his routine in his basement. As there are multiple other 'fantasy' scenes played out from his imagination, how much can we really be sure happened? The laughter, and his fame and fortune afterwards, could all just be more of his fantasy. That's open to interpretation.

Lastly though, I find it somewhat ironic that his uncomfortable brand of comedy is something that was quite ahead of its time. The highly personal almost self-offensive brand of comedy he utilises doesn't at all match the kind of comedy a show of that nature would have and I can't imagine it would have come across as funny, either on the fictional Jerry Langford show or to the audiences watching this movie upon release. However it is a style of dark comedy that became quite a bit more popular 10-15 years later. The reason I say I find this ironic is that he instructs his introduction to include the line "the future of comedy", which in a strange way was almost prophetic.

[–] Towelie_Towel (1717) 4 years ago

I believe he is supposed to be medium funny.
Not terrible, not great. Just OK.

Jerry's secretary herself says he has good things, has good timing, but some of the things were not great.
This seemed like a genuine opinion.