KOC SUMMARY

************這篇影評可能有雷************


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The King of Comedy is one of the films that remains the most overlooked, misunderstood and under-appreciated film in the collaboration of 馬丁 Scorsese and Robert De Niro, while has now become increasingly well regarded by critics.
In this age of American dream and commercial publicity , The King of Comedy- 馬丁 Scorsese’s prescient examination of the modern age’s obsession with fame- is more relevant than it ever has been.

- CULTURAL CONSTRUCTIONS (RIPPLES) IN THE FILM
The film depicts debased cultural values and aesthetic tastes thatcouldturna man into a star for breaking the law for no other reason than to achieve that stardom:
Rupert’s routine is vapid, yet the audience lap it up. It is thereby suggested that Rupert’s act doesn』t necessarily come off as much worse than the standard hackneyed TV standup routine, and the public will watch and laugh at the 「new」 anything.

- CONTEMPORARY CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION ABOUT EVENTS DEPICTED
It is now an age of Paris Hilton, Kevin Ferderline, KIM KARDASHIAN, television wannabes and quick fix celebs. We all have a little bit of Rupert Pupkin inside us, and with the increasing narcissism and self-concern, we are getting more and more like him.
(http://hopelies.com/2011/06/29/bickles-got-talent-the-king-of-comedy/)

- WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FILM?
Questions the significance of fame and glory:
傑瑞 as a public star is alienated from the crowd, anxiously living in an empty apartment, afraid of being watched and stalked (which unfortunately comes true and goes beyond).
Criticizes modern cultural values:
The ending has been the subject of some debate: whether it represents a continuation of Pupkin’s delusional fantasies, or whether he actually achieves his dream and becomes famous. The concluding shot is carried on long past any semblance of reality, with Rupert simply nodding and soaking in the adulation, while the audience continues to cheer, and the announcer continues to repeat his introductions. Its dreamy style might suggests that the sequence is indeed his imagination. However, thefilm is rendered more powerful if we consider that Pupkin does actually achieve his dream, for the film thus becomes less of a condemnation ofthe character– who, after all, appears to be anunwitting dupe of the culture rather than a vain, ruthless individual– and more of a condemnation of modern society: this potential star has crazed need to announce to the world about his existence, but has little talent and luck; his performance is not a bunch of lame jokes or stuff that was obviously sexist or racist, but more pathetically, a mediocre routine. However he successes by these middling punchlines- the public are primed to laugh on any kind of cue.
Scorsese said in interviews that Rupert and 傑瑞 were close to him: the ambitious outsider who will stop at nothing to achieve his goal, and the successful celebrity who despite the admiration is essentially lonely and vulnerable (his own marriage to Isabella Rossellini had ended). This makes me think of how Scorsese projected himself on Johnny Boy and Charlie in Mean Streets.
(http://robertod.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/kill-the-american-dream-the-king-of-comedy-review/)
(http://moviesandsongs365.blogspot.com/2011/10/movie-of-week-king-of-comedy-1983.html)

- UTOPIAS VS. VERITA' EFFETTUALE (utopias/grand narratives vs. the truth of things are they really are. Typically, this should be a conflict between the two perspectives of reality in the film.
Scorsese presents us a dystopian narrative, which demythologizes the world of fame and people's obsession with it.
There is time when there were idealistic heroes and heroines in movies, a time when there was the promise of sexual fulfillment. While The King of Comedy demythologized all of them. It is not devoid of idealism, but simply that the ideals of its hero to kidnap the talk show host and take his place on the air are base. As for sexual fulfillment, it's there in the person of the hero's equally deranged female accomplice. But it's a sexuality that's clearly more threat than promise.
(http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/koc.html)
Although Scorsese's films (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, 紐約 紐約, The King of Comedy) share similarities as "painful, wounded" movies about "lonely, angry people" (Ebert), one thing differentiates The King of Comedy from Scorsese's previous films and makes it more dystopian is its lack of the sense of release/entertainment. Raging Bull for example, features expressive fight scenes that provide a catharsis for the audience; while Taxi Driver climaxes with Travis' violent shootout. These arrangements allow us for an emotional release. But in The King of Comedy there are only unbearable embarrassing situations (embarrassment had been used by Scorsese before, i.e. in Taxi Driver when Scorsese moves his camera away from Travis, unwilling to watch the humiliation as Travis is getting rejected on the phone).
(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Too+smart,+too+soon%3A+The+King+of+Comedy+and+American+Independent...-a0220469269)

- ALLEGORICAL:
The alienated condition of modern society: the emotionless bourgeois settings with a seemingly purpose of intimidating potential interlopers that; for instances the airless offices and the enormous, glassy waiting-room.
Failed allegory of love: Rupert wants to play the savior role, rescues Rita from her barmaid's life. Rita after a dinner with Rupert actually offers him to go upstairs, but Rupert refuses. Rita later steals a trinket from the mantelpiece in 傑瑞's apartment- not a conventional Madonna figure.
Modern film concept about fantasy is real, reality is jokes: Rupert cannot differentiate between his fantasies and reality. In Scorsese's words, 「it was a clear decision for there to be no difference between fantasy and reality, the fantasy is real." While Rupert's successful routine comes from the real "awful, terrible things" in his life. Moreover, his gig that receives the most applause is when he talks about what he had to do to get on the show: 「Now, a lot of you are probably wondering why 傑瑞 isn』t with us tonight. Well, I』ll tell you. The fact is he’s tied up. I』m the one who tied him.」
Fame as double-edged weapon --

- MYTHICAL:
The King of Comedy appears to present fewer problems than Raging Bull, 紐約, 紐約 and Taxi Driver. There's no bloodshed nor physical violence. Yet this relative outward calm belies an inner turmoil neither resolved nor fully explained. Rupert's toothpick arms, loud polyester suits and simpering voice suggest a state of almost transcendental nerd. But the specifics of his personal make-up remain largely submerged and mythical, for the film constantly omits payoffs and cause-and-effect relationships. We notice that Rupert desires approval from his high-school principal, but the reason is left ambiguous; we learn that he lives with his (unseen) mother and works for a delivery service, but these seem not enough to turn him into a celebrity-crazed, success-obsessed megalomaniac.
(http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/koc.html)
Occasionally Rupert displays bizarre, honest reactions. For instances 「I think that its I look at my whole life and I see the awful, terrible things in my life and turn it into something funny.」 "It wasn't that hard...a few minutes of your time to listen to something that I worked on my whole life" (see variants) This increases Rupert's mythical characteristic, and might be the director's auto-biographical expressions.

- MORAL:
It is about a man desperately wants to get to the top of comedy, that he is willing to sacrifice morality, common sense and freedom for it. Rupert's idolization of 傑瑞 is actually a process of objectifying 傑瑞, in which he and Marsha treat their god as a Barbie doll. What's more, it seems that 傑瑞's brutality and anger towards 傑瑞 is reasonable under an unreasonable circumstance where his only chance to succeed is to go crazy.

- ANTI-ANAGOGICAL:
Demythologization of the creation of star by the media and public tastes.
Demythologization of idolatry.
Demythologization of allegory of love- in this case Rupert's love towards 傑瑞 and Rita.

- THE FILMMAKERS』 CONCEPTUAL NUCLEUS:
Destroy the American dream of becoming a star by showing how hard it is to get a chance to display one's talent (Rupert's experience), how hard it is to be a celebrity (傑瑞's experience), and more importantly, how hard it is to rationally recognize oneself.

- PROBLEMS:
When Rupert is waiting by the payphone, the other phones are hanging down. But in the next shot one of them is in its right place again.
When Rupert shows 傑瑞 a picture of his pride and joy he holds it with his index finger over the top, but in the next shot it is his thumb over the top. This is repeated when Rupert then tells 傑瑞 to take the card.
In a wide shot Masha takes the tape off 傑瑞's mouth with her left hand, but in a close-up her right hand is pulling off the tape.
Camera/cameraman reflected in the closing glass door when the security guard escorts Pupkin out of the office.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085794/)