Pants

Spoilers for those who havn't seen it:

At the end of the Scorsese/DeNiro flick King of Comedy, DeNiro's character finnally gets his chance to be on TV and do his monologue. Scorsese pulls back and doesn't show us his monologue untill some minutes later on a TV at a bar. When we finnally see it I found it to be only mildly funny. Now my question is, what is Scorsese's intention here? Is this monologue funny or not? Was it REALLY funny in 1983? Am I just jaded by more modern comedy? I tend to think "No, I'm not jaded, his monologue sucked", and that Scorsese was trying to show how pathetic this character is and how he never had a chance at fame, but gets it because of his illegal stunt starts a sensation. YetI question my conclusion because the audience in the film find his monologue hillarious. What gives?

Matt925

I don't find the monologue to be very funny, but I think it was intended to be just because of the audience's reaction. It would have been much more painful if there was total silence during it, and they easily could have done that.

It sets up the ending where you can never be sure if we are seeing Rupert's fantasy or we are seeing reality.

The Antipodean

I think it's funnier than we've been led to believe Pupkin is -- it's kind of interesting how the whole movie is about an aspiring comedian and only at the very end do we see his comedy act. I think it's 'up to the standards' of the dubious 1983 or so "Tonight Show" comedian type entertainment, nothing hugely special but certainly passable enough. I chuckled a little just because he was so much more confident and energetic than his character had led us to expect he'd be ... the question about the ending is a good one, though, is it real or is it Memorex? I'd never seen "King" until now and thought it was much better than I'd heard it'd be, one of Scorsese's more interesting experiments. Jerry Lewis was excellent, too. (I never thought I'd type that sentence.)

Matt925

That's the point, are we seeing what we think we are seeing? (Although he shows that confidence in his basement...)

Quote:

I'd never seen "King" until now and thought it was much better than I'd heard it'd be, one of Scorsese's more interesting experiments.

I would say this is far and away one of Scorsese's best films, and one of the most underated ever. Very subtle in the right places, very Pound You In The Face where that fits in. Brilliant film.

Pants

I didn't see any ambiguity here. He is pretty clearly watching the broadcast on TV in the bar. Others in the bar are watching it too. The old drunk even comments on it.

Here's something from a user review over at IMDb The question remains: Is this material made deliberately unfunny by the filmmakers or is it badly writen? Is it simply unfunny to todays sophisticated audiences or is it just plain bad or is it intentionally bad? If it is inteintionally bad than why was the (on screen) audience's reaction so positive?

joelgee

I don't know that there are any, or that there have to be any, absolute answers to these questions. Just the fact that you're left with questions after you've seen this puts King of Comedy on a higher level than other films.
A good movie should give you something to think about other than the piece of popcorn stuck between your teeth.
J

CitizenKaneRBud

You know what, I thought his stand-up routine was very clever and funny. I thought he was definately funnier than what we were lead to believe. It was also a great insight into his bullied childhood, and a nice subtle way to do that.

If anyone has a transcript to the routine, I'd love to read it.

thecrazydude

I say the material deliberately unfunny by the filmmakers.

JonTurner

I seriously doubt that's the "ending" he was referring to... he means how Rupert gets out of jail after 2+ years, gets the million dollar book deal, and is hosting his very own show at the end. That's the ambiguous stuff... although I found this to be real (not part of Rupert's fantasies) as I felt that best worked for Scorsese's satirical purposes.

I just watched this tonight for the first time, and while I liked it in the end, it was almost painful to watch for the first hour.

I also felt that the monologue Rupert gives was funny (in it's own way, and especially as unexpected as it was). I felt that the film took a very good turn for the better by making it funny instead of the expected failure as this emphasizes Scorsese's intentions in portraying Rupert's only desire to be to get on TV and achieve instant celebrity status. If the act had not been funny, it would perhaps have meant that Rupert could never have made it in the clubs and never had a shot at stardom. But by making it funny, it shows that perhaps Rupert could've survived in the clubs, made a name for himself, and eventually gotten on TV, but because of his celebrity-obsession, he had to do it the way he did it... instant fame without the hard work.

I hope that made since... I'm too tired to try to make it clearer.