MovieChat Forums > The King of Comedy (1982) Discussion > "Comedy is subjective, Murray. Isn’t tha...

"Comedy is subjective, Murray. Isn’t that what they say?"

posted 4 years ago by KD637 (488)
4 replies | jump to latest

"All of you, the system that knows so much, you decide what’s right or wrong. The same way that you decide what’s funny or not."

I didn't entirely understand The King of Comedy until I came on this board and realized a lot of people didn't find Pupkin's stand-up show funny. To me, Pupkin's act was just as funny as your average comedian on, say, Comedy Central, if not better. But isn't that the whole point? That deep down you feel as if you're NOT supposed to laugh at a mentally ill guy who just kidnapped a person? Now imagine being an 80's person sitting on a couch watching a comedy show one evening and seeing Pupkin along with a hall full of people laughing out loud at his jokes...for a perspective.

[–] Redsfan001 (6006) 4 years ago

An 1980s person can realise that he has no talent,most young people today cannot. Pupkin is no David Letterman or Johnny Carson.

Calling him mentally ill is a kind of a stretch. People do crazy things today for internet fame.

The story is about a guy who craves fame but has no talent.

The funny thing about him is he doesn't realize this, being incapable of self evaluation.

Back in the 1980's there were gatekeepers that kept the talentless off prime time. Today no gatekeepers, the talented and the talentless all have equal access on YouTube.

Rupert Pupkin would have no doubt his own channel on YouTube or at least a podcast... probably with a thousand subscribers who never really watch the show on a regular basis, giving Pupkin a false sense of himself and his abilities.

New technology had deluted the audiences ability to tell the difference, there are so many choices now..in the 1980s you had fierce competition for talk show hosts.. Johnny Carson was so good, that most channels just put on a late night movie.

[–] Adam60z (3750) 4 years ago

Actually the so-called gatekeepers determined who got seen and who didn't, you're right about that. But talent wasn't necessarily the primary criterion. If was more about connections, insiders, and playing the game, not rocking the boat. The '80s was the time when corporatism in entertainment began to dominate at the expense of quality.
In any case you're right that Pupkin has no talent, just like that guy who did The Room. But he was driven by ego; he thought he deserved to be famous and therefore did the whole kidnaping scheme and his goal succeeded. But primarily this film was a satire and one that worked I thought.
By the way I could never stand Letterman. Loved Carson though.

[–] KD637 (488) 4 years ago

You know, your post inspired me to actually look up some Letterman's stand up on youtube. And I'm still holding to my opinion. Because, yeah, Letterman is just so cool when gets up on the stage, all handsome and nonchalantly thows that punchline "so we was fixin' some buttons on your car radion when suddenly, for no reason, your whole engine exploded!" *HAHAHAHA*

But look at Pupkin, isn't he kind of funny looking? I mean, not the kind that makes you laugh, but the opposite. So he gets into his gags about how he was bullied in school and so on... I mean, what's up with that? That's not relatable! But you know what is? That "Don't put dishes into the toilet" warning sign Letterman saw on the plane to Vegas!

[–] Redsfan001 (6006) 4 years ago

I was mainly thinking about talk show host skills, how underappreciated they can be. Look up a Magic Johnson show, he was a great bball player, but just a horrible host. Johnson had a talk show in the late 1990's that was lambasted, Pupkin could probably do better.

I think Letterman was only a average comedian, but he had serious skills as a talk show host, which is what Pupkin really wanted to be.