Review: The King of Comedy

Robert De Niro stars as thirtyish loser Rupert Pupkin, whose dream is to become a great TV comedian like his idol, late-night talk show host Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis). He acts out his sad little fantasies in the basement of the house he still shares with his shrill mother. His repeated attempts to get Jerry to listen to his material and get a gig on his show fall on deaf ears. Mostly because there are appropriate channels for aspiring comedians to go through, and Pupkin lets that information fall on deaf ears himself. Fed up and frankly deranged, he and his equally nuts partner in crime Masha (Sandra Bernhard) decide to take desperate measures and kidnap their idol, demanding that Pupkin get a spot on Jerry’s show. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Diahnne Abbott plays a bartender who probably has a bit more time and patience with Pupkin than she should, Shelley Hack plays Langford’s personal secretary who tries to shoo away Pupkin in the nicest way she possibly can. Ed Herlihy plays the film’s version of Ed McMahon, but conveniently named Ed Herlihy (apparently Herlihy indeed played the sidekick on “The Tonight Show” but not with Johnny Carson), and Tony Randall appears as himself, basically, in a cameo.

“Taxi Driver” was a memorable, if unpleasant insight into the mind of an increasingly unhinged man, that by the film’s end, appeared to be presented as some kind of ironic vigilante hero, and nearly ruined all of the previous interesting, if unsavoury work (Some say this interpretation is wrong, but it’s how I saw it). In 1983, that film’s director, Martin Scorsese (“Raging Bull”, “Goodfellas”) once again made a film about a nutbar set for infamy, in this supposed dark satire of the celebrity culture and stalkers. And once again, there’s the possibility that Scorsese is seeing his central nutbag as a hero of sorts. This time, though, the rest of the film isn’t good enough to excuse such an ill-advised glorification of a sick mind.

More importantly, Rupert Pupkin is a much less interesting character than Travis Bickle, and Robert De Niro’s performance is not one of his finest. Travis was nuts, but he seemed kinda real. Rupert Pupkin is a performance, a cartoon (like one of the supposedly comical “Idol” rejects- of which, I get tired of after a couple of minutes waiting for the real auditions), and De Niro fails to really ground the character. Just because the guy’s world view is completely warped doesn’t mean an actor and filmmaker can neglect to ground the character in some kind of reality, but that’s what happens here. At no point did I believe in Rupert Pupkin, I didn’t believe in the character nor take him as a serious enough threat that the final third was able to work for me. It was just De Niro (a bit too old for the part) giving a performance of a guy who is always performing, albeit a mediocre performer. Therefore I didn’t think he was smart enough to even do the dumb arse thing he and his far more unsettling accomplice (Sandra Bernhard...really something) do in the final stages of the film. It’s also not fun to watch because Pupkin is frankly not a very interesting character. He’s every bit as sad and pathetic as Travis Bickle, but a lot less interesting (largely, once again because I didn’t believe in him as a character). What’s interesting about watching a supposedly talentless hack fail repeatedly to get the hint that he’s a creepy stalker who needs to wise up? Well, in this film, there’s very little interesting about it. In fact, it’s almost entirely off-putting. And if any of this was meant to be comical, well aside from Bernhard’s performance it wasn’t.

 

***** POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING ***** I also think Scorsese, even moreso than in “Taxi Driver” leaves a little too much open for interpretation so that at the end, not only does one feel like Pupkin has been turned into a hero of some kind, we’re not sure of exactly what we’re seeing. Hell, one could argue that the entire film’s POV is shaky. Are we sharing in Pupkin’s delusions? Was he genuinely as capable a comedian as he appeared near the end? It would seem so, and yet there’s nothing at all to suggest this was remotely possible given his entire personality throughout the rest of the film. It’s kind of a mess, really. I mean, was the mother real or a figment of his imagination? A second personality, ala Mrs. Bates perhaps? We never find out. Maybe if things were portrayed a little more realistically, the finale (and the film in general) would’ve worked a bit better. ***** END SPOILER *****

 

Scripted by Paul D. Zimmerman, the black comedy tone is wrong for me too. Say what you will about the ultimate message of “Taxi Driver”, but at least it wasn’t trying to make the sick subject matter funny. By the way, did Reagan get shot before this movie was made? If so, Scorsese is a freakin’ idiot for covering this subject matter again, given the deranged reason the guy who did it gave for shooting Reagan (He did it for “Taxi Driver” actress Jodie Foster, apparently). I guess you could argue the film is prophetic in its view of idiots gaining celebrity in some ways, but I was mostly thinking about the Pupkin/Bickle/Hinckley dangerous side of things.

Jerry Lewis is pretty good and definitely believable in his Johnny Carson/Steve Allen-esque role. You could definitely see him as a late night comedic talk show host. He has the most effective scene in the film as he walks the streets, occasionally recognising celebrity-spotters, often ignoring them, occasionally disturbed by them. It’s the only truly realistic scene in the whole damn film. Along with Bernhard he makes the film mostly bearable, if nothing more.

 

This is seriously minor league stuff for someone as talented as Scorsese. I didn’t get much out of it at all, but the film has plenty of admirers. It’s not a total travesty, but still one of Scorsese’s weakest films.

 

Rating: C