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

[–] everydayboredom1980 12 years ago

I think he's supposed to be mediocre, and the crowd just laughs at anything (probably there's a sign that tells them to laugh).

And in being mediocre, it shows that he at least had some shred of comedic talent, and could have worked his way up to be much better, but he was obsessed with being famous.

[–] tinoynk 12 years ago

Some of the jokes were pretty OK, the whole thing was pretty much just average at best. If I saw his act in a club I wouldn't think "oh my god this guy is atrocious what the hell were they thinking giving this guy a spot," but I also wouldn't really take notice.

_____________________________________________________________

Live and learn. At least we lived.

[–] Ricardo-36 11 years ago

Well he was low-average for a night club, I've seen acts like these. Besides, remember this was the early 80s, comedy was different back then, less edgy, more about timing.

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

[–] trymyproduct11 12 years ago

I can't figure out how you got through this entire movie and didn't realize that Rupert is supposed to be delusional.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

This is the "twist" of the movie: he is delusional, but he's not a bad comic.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] fathersonholygore 12 years ago

Rupert is a hack, and always will be a hack. That's why he's so troubled, as far as I'm concerned because he's caught in between that rock-and-hard place of what he wants to be versus what he can be in reality. I may be wrong, that's just my two cents. Of course many criminals and killers do what they do because of that same unnerving feeling, and let's face it- Pupkin is pretty much psychotic. So that's what I feel: Rupert is not funny, even thought he wants to be. It's just all he knows. I think you're right in saying "his talent only exists in his head". Someone would have given him the time of day if he was funny, or even personable, but Pupkin is so whacked out in his own world that he can't even be a normal, charming individual. Even his personality is rotten, just like his act.

I love this movie, and I loved the character of Rupert Pupkin the way he was played by De Niro.

[–] KobiyashiMauru 12 years ago

No and yes. In my mind, the comedy of this is a person who's not funny trying to get on a comedy show. It's funny in a backhanded way, to me.

[–] fwsauerteig 11 years ago

I think we can take what his assistant said at face value, when she said some of his jokes were good, but other portions of his material, "particularly some of [his] one-line punchlines, are not very strong."

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

I think we can take what his assistant said at face value, when she said some of his jokes were good, but other portions of his material, "particularly some of [his] one-line punchlines, are not very strong."

We don't need the assistant's opinion when we get to see and hear Rupert's act for ourselves.

Opinions of his comedy act run the gamut from terrible to very good, but the consensus seems to be that Rupert's performance was passable but basically mediocre, certainly not the comic genius that he considers himself to be (especially when you consider the fact that he's been working on this material for years, and it's probably all that he has to show for it).

[–] fwsauerteig 11 years ago

I don't think Scorsese puts things infor no reason. The ending pretty much validates what she said I also don't see how what you wrote substantialy differs from what I wrote. "Not very strong' is a nice diplomatic way of saying 'mediocre.'

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KobiyashiMauru 11 years ago

His bad comedy was so GOOD! Loved it. The scene with Pupkin and the secretary is pure comedy GOLD!

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

Rupert Pupkin is somebody you are supposed to laugh AT as opposed to laugh WITH. His attempts at humor are not funny, his attempts to succeed socially or career-wise are funny.

[–] Quicksilver1900 11 years ago

His timing was really pretty good, and he was very confident. If he had better jokes written by a skilled writer, he could have been very successful.

[–] KenanP 11 years ago

Last weekend I watched this movie for the first time since I made this thread. This time I watched it in a cinema. I was curious how the audience would respond to the stand up routine.

They were on board for most of the movie and laughing at the various parts where they're supposed to. However, once we got to Rupert's stand up near the end, it was dead quiet. I chuckled at the "after a while the school worked it into the curriculum." line, but other than that there was complete silence. I didn't really expect it to be so one sided.

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

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

n reality that act would have bombed on TV. A lot of the time TV audiences are not good (to the contrary of what most people think). My professional opinion of Pupkin's act is it was written over a short period and nothing was edited. In other words, it wasn't like he wrote 20 or 25 minutes and edited it to the best 10. I think he wrote 10 minutes and thought it was good. It wasn't. I'm positive it was never actually tried in front of a real audience. The laughs in the movie are prompted laughs.

The film implies that Pupkin worked on this act for years, and that even with all that prep time it was the best that he could come up with. He obviously didn't try it in front of live audiences or anywhere else outside of his cardboard cut-out "studio."

I think that the reaction of many people watching this film to Pupkin's act is that they were expecting complete incompetence rather than just mediocrity. Mediocrity seems relatively good when you expect something terrible, and it seems terrible when you expect something truly great.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

It's funny, just not your style.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250