I feel where Ebert's coming from. I was baffled when I first saw it. After viewing again and again, it grew on me. It was unique in it's time, and very prescient of today's culture (2022)
Two very brilliant critics having an interesting discussion - a lost art, it seems. I'm so glad I was able to watch this on tv when I was in high school. I learned a lot from this show - and not just about the movies.
Ebert was so far off the mark. Good lord. He doesn't seem understand that the film is a tragedy. This man, Pupkin, has denied himself life in order to please those who don't really care about him. This shot says everything. images.app.goo.gl/PLHbp7iK57KbQyjj6
one cannot be "wrong" in their opinion. unless, of course, that opinion is a positive one about _Star Wars: The Last Jedi._ that's the ONLY time one's appreciation of a thing can actually be deemed factually "incorrect."
They often had that kind of reaction to Scorsese. Siskel at first hated Taxi Driver, Ebert loved it; Siskel loved King of Comedy, Ebert didn't; Siskel loved The Last Temptation of Christ, Ebert didn''t; and Ebert loved Casino, and Siskel didn't. The ones they both agreed were masterworks right off the bat were Raging Bull and Goodfellas. But in almost every case, they would both eventually wind up changing their minds later about disliking a Scorsese film, and would re-evaluate it and love it later. A lot of great films require time to digest. Many people hated Vertigo by Hitchcock when it first came out, and many Kubrick films, too, for instance. Then they all became classics later.
saw it 3x at the theater in 1983 my film buff geek friends and I were anticipating it so much, I mean, Jerry Lewis at his schmalzy peak, DeNiro still in his prime and Scorsese all-in-one
Ebert's reaction to the film is interesting to see unfold. His original print review gave it 3 of 4 stars, which is a thumbs up from him. But his expression about the aversion he felt showed that, in a bizarre way, "The King of Comedy" and its sheer unpleasantness was what made the moviegoing experience worthwhile. This is a bit of a pickle; even in films about unpleasant subjects or characters, there is usually some semblance of satisfaction that one expects to feel about a movie, assuming that they like it. So when a film reviles you, despite the fact that you find the revulsion is unsatisfying, yet a part of what makes it so lasting an experience, how do you communicate that to people? How do you convince them that a film like that is worth seeing? I think what he said at one point actually solved that problem: when he said that the film wouldn't leave his mind, I don't think there are many compliments about a film that can compare.
Spot on. King of Comedy is, at its core, deeply disturbing. The character of Rupert could be diagnosed with any number of DSM diagnoses. His love of Jerry and unambiguous belief in his own bottomless well of talent isn't cute or endearing. Rupert's shocking obliviousness to reality and obsessions are cringe inducing but still kind of funny. But that's only at the surface level. Bubbling just underneath is not only disturbing but also quite frightening in a way. It's a barely contained fury over a lifetime of rejection and utter failure. So King of Comedy is indeed a hard sell lol.A lot of people can't handle a movie whose main character is repellant. They want cuddly Kevin James playing an oafish but lovable mall cop. But for a person with the right sensibilities, KOC is absolute dynamite.
@@BULL.173 Scorsese made this film to respond to John Hinckley's assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. Hinckley was inspired by Taxi Driver. Inspiration for Taxi Driver came from the 1972 assassination attempt on George Wallace. We have art imitating life and life imitating art. Some people will do extreme things to be famous
I can’t even imagine what it must’ve been like on the set of this movie - Lewis had to play two different characters: the Langford that hated Rupert and Rupert’s fantasy-image of Langford, who becomes his best buddy.
Jerry Lewis was spectacular in this film. But Robert De Niro became my favorite actor between this and midnight run. I loved them both. Even though they were De Niro's least known great films.
Good observ. It does have that way over-the-top feel about it. Highly conceptual. I would only disagree on one point with S&E in that the acting is so good that the characters are all very likable. They have a kind naivete and innocence that does allow you to like them. REAL comedy or social satire is very hard in that it's a thin line between love and hate.
“The talkshow as our favorite medium of dialog.” That line is VERY prophetic: since the year 2000 we’ve overdosed, died and overdosed again on “reality” TV, and now we have a “reality” TV star as president.
I was one of the relatively few who saw it in the theater, without knowing what to expect. The people I went with didn't get it. I thought, and still think, it was brilliant. Way ahead of its time. Jerry Lewis was brilliant - because I think he was playing the real him! And the ending is ambiguous..
Thematically - Scorsese's most complete film Scorsese movies are often thematically confused, often stuck somewhere between affection and contempt. I mean as great as Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Goodfellers were, I'm confused about their ultimate meaning. They seem to be savagely subverting classic genre types - such as Rocky, Death Wish, the Godfather - but at other times they seem to pay homage to Hollywood. There's nothing equivocal about King of Comedy, thematically it hits the bulls eye. Basically a savage indictment of celebrity culture. Not only the deluded wannabes - but television's clubbable, backslapping phoniness that feeds them, .
That’s right. Nothing equivocal at all. And I think the most honest character. In a lot of his other films, he can only go halfway or maybe a little further with the insanity or lack of irredeemable qualities his characters have. He has a soft spot for them, and just can’t quite shut the door on their humanity. It’s obvious, as Siskel & Ebert said, Scorsese hates this guy. So he has no problem showing his complete dissent into utter madness. Rupert has no connection to the real world, so invents his own, and plays only by his rules. Definitely his best film, and a film he would never make again.
I don't know about that. You seem to misunderstand a lot of Scorsese's films. The man likes exploring characters as products of their environments/cultures, examining how their surroundings, from the values/attitudes of the people around them to the media they consume, can shape who they become. In that light, King of Comedy actually falls right in line with all five of the other films you listed. It just makes a more apparent commentary by virtue of being outright satire.
@@nobodyspecial675 Schrader criticized Scorsese for changing the Raging Bull screenplay. In Schrader's original screenplay, there's no redemption for Jake LaMotta. No biblical quotations about seeing the light. In Taxi Driver, he made the pimps white - because he didn't want Travis Bickle to appear too racist. Such changes screw with the original meaning. They send out mixed messages. Wherein you're confused about the film's ultimate meaning. As in, are we supposed to hate these characters or like them? For that reason, I don't see Scorsese as a genuine artist in the New Wave tradition. He seems to lack the courage of his convictions. What you might see as nuance, is really just a confused meaning. Which I think holds back Scorsese in terms of being up there with the likes of Kubrick and Lynch, Ultimately great directors are philosophers as well as great technicians.
@@JAMAICADOCK "Are we supposed to like these characters or hate them?" I think the point is for you to consider that on your own. The philosophy Scorsese is trying to convey is that both LaMota and Bickle are ultimately products of a corrupting environment. How you feel about them is up to you, but simply because they're despicable in many regards doesn't mean they can't be understood. Same goes for Pupkin, Henry Hill and Jordan Beflort. I don't see how making it more black and white makes it a truer artistic statement. If anything, it's only more thoughtful to emphasise the humanity of these dark characters. I don't even think he's taking that hard a stance on Pupkin. Jerry Langford hates the character and rightfully so, and Siskel and Ebert clearly interpret Scorsese's intent as aggressive, but you can also easily see the character as a pathetic mentally ill man desperately trying to compensate for a dark childhood. In fact, considering his only crimes are being unbearable, having no sense of boundaries, threatening a man with a toy gun and trolling a TV station into giving him airtime, I'd say Pupkin is easily one of Scorsese's most pleasant protagonists.
@@nobodyspecial675 People being products of their environment, that's hardly a profound insight. The point is, what is his view on the environment? What is creating the environment? Poverty, toxic masculinity, racism, the endless chase for dollars? For instance, Scorsese claims to hate fight movies, so why does he make Raging Bull? Obviously as an anti-fight movie, like boxers are not all lovable thickos outside the ring - e.g. Rocky. Many of them are violent and dysfunctional. But then Scorsese seems to pull his punches, he takes it light on LaMotta - who let's face it, was a pretty odious character. And his apparent redemption doesn't seem to merit Biblical quotations. I mean it's not like the guy, became a saint. He just stopped hitting people For me, a great director has to have a world view, like a great author or artist. I don't understand what Scorsese's world view is. Stylistically h'e's obviously brilliant, but intellectually, I don't see him as a great director.
if you can derive entertainment from cringe, this is a great movie. ebert and siskel couldn't stand the delusional loser that is de niro's character, but he and shelley duvall have so many great, uncomfortable, insane scenes. i loved the king of comedy
He was always in silly comedies that didn't show his talent as an actor of dramatic parts. Even other actors like Eddie Murphy who didn't get the respect as an "actor" until Dreamgirls fell under the same cloud. It's a shame that comedic actors aren't given the credit they're due.
Roger's reaction was similar to mine with "Fanny and Alexander." Edit: also, Scorsese has ruined so many otherwise solid movies with loudly mixed soundtracks of shitty oldies that I'd settle for musak in this one.
I agree that it's a hard film to like, but some of Scorsese's films are unsatisfying. Even though I didn't like this one, part of his appeal is that he hasn't been afraid to take risks.
I loved this movie the first time I watched it...which was the only time I watched it! It is not an easy film to watch, but I learned a lot from it: it really changed the way I perceived fame and the need for adulation.
yeah, it really was a different time back when this movie was made: there were a lot of people desperate to become stars, and a lot of those people became really sick and did strange, fucked-up things to try and BECOME famous . . . or failing that, _infamous._ it was a much more conceited, celebrity-obsessed time; a whole bunch of untalented idiots were given careers simply because they became famous for being famous. people made sex tapes, even. it was disgusting. things are much better now. society isn't nearly so ridiculous and embarrassing - you'll find people are much more chill, relaxed and happy with who they are and with their lot in life. not nearly so much social discordance. 2020 is a glorious time to be an American.
I've never made a list of my favourite Martin Scorcese films but King of Comedy would be in the top ten. Those that deviate from his gangster films are gems that often don't get great critical acclaim or a wide audience are ones that I warm to. The King Comedy is a film that almost dares you to watch it. It really has no likeable characters and, like Taxi Driver, it has a main character who is mentally unstable and is liable to explode at any time. Rupert Pupkin is not Travis Bickle but just as uncomfortable to watch as he pursues his dream of the being a comedian. Perhaps it is because DeNiro is not known for his comedic skills that makes him the best casting choice. His scenes (fantasy and reality) with Jerry Lewis are by far the best moments in the film, especially when one bleeds over into the other and create these cringe inducing moments. I've read that the ending might be a fantasy in Rupert's mind. I've never seen it this way. In the culture of instant fame it is not at all improbable that he would find this kind of fame, fleeting as it might be. "Better to be a king for a night than a schmuck for life."
This film certainly isn't for everybody. I wasn't alive to see how it was promoted, but i can understand people being led astray believing it's a comedy. There are times for laughter in it, but it's more cringe inducing laughter
That's funny--different strokes, I guess. Usually I can't stand Scorsese because his films are so heavily dubbed with loud, shitty oldies. I liked Shutter Island quite a bit. (Just saw it on Amazon Prime.)
