Raging Bull: brutality, boxing - - and what else?

[Amnesiac]

...

[Rowland]

I respect the clarity of this movie's vision and its exemplary execution on cinematic and actorly terms, and yet I've never liked it much. *shrug*

[Grouchy]

I think Kyle Smith is answering his own criticisms. His character analysis is spot-on, particularly when he mentions that the On the Waterfront quote proves that LaMotta only acknowledges the Billy Fox fight as his big mistake, and that he doesn't fully understand his own potential for great things.

But it's the negatives he finds that are kind of puzzling. He says a movie about boredom shouldn't be dull, yet, objectively, movies about boredom (L'Avventura) are superficially "boring". Movies about violence should be violent. He says Scorsese goes too far in not showing the motivations of LaMotta's behavior, yet a few paragraphs later he mentions his upbringing and macho Italian surroundings, which are in the movie, yet they're clearly not simplified as the only cause of his brutality.

Then he quotes from the book LaMotta wrote in order to show that he was... what? More literate than his movie persona? A good movie about a violent man and about violence in general is not going to show non-violent parts, because, like a memorable quote says, "it defeats its own purpose". Besides, he's consciously avoiding the fact that sport memories are usually ghost-written. I think everything he says in order to criticize the film are the exact reasons why it works - because that's one movie critic who ended up feeling uncomfortable in front of the screen. Most cinema simply doesn't have that kind of power.

[Noisotika]

Simplification coming through...

Jake might have been okay if he had found an island for him and Vickie. Who wants to see that movie?

[transmogrifier]

Never been that huge on Raging Bull. Scorsese has done much better.

[MadMan]

While I think that Raging Bull is utterly fantastic, and a truly great film, I find Goodfellas to be the better film.

[Qrazy]

Raging Bull is Scorsese's best and one of the great American films. That is all.

[Dead & Messed Up]

For all that I disagreed with in Smith's write-up, I too found myself acknowledging the validity of this point. The On The Waterfront speech cements LaMotta as a character who seems incapable of proper introspection. Prioritizing the victories, embarrassments, sensibilities and principles of the ring seemed to be his primary flaw ... and the ending is tragic because it shows that he hasn't really grown from this. That mind-state still has him by the throat and he's failed to interrogate his deeper shames and downfalls.

It's a question of capability. La Motta is a sad sack of a man who's at a tragic threshold, unable to cross. He knows enough to know that he has enormous problems psychologically. He doesn't know enough to understand or deal with them in a mature way. Your suggestion that his tastes of violence in the ring direct his actions outside are fascinating. It points toward the overall theme of the picture: La Motta's only gift is his capacity for violence, but it's a destructive gift by its very nature.

As for Kyle Smith's comments...they're a valid reaction to the film, and I understand his reaction. Raging Bull is not a pleasurable film to watch. It's not an easy film to digest. It doesn't seem made with an intent to relieve the audience. Scorsese wanted to tell a story about a reprehensible person. He succeeded as well as anybody could ever hope to.

[Boner M]

by Kyle Smith
Stopped here.

[baby doll]

Raging Bull is Scorsese's best and one of the great American films. That is all.First of all, I'm going to go ahead and read way too much into the phrase "one of the great American films." And compared to most multiplex fare, Raging Bull might seem like a great film. But I'd feel pretty silly placing it in the same company as independent films like Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man, John Cassavetes' A Woman Under the Influence or Hollis Frampton's Zorns Lemma--to say nothing of Bresson, Mizoguchi, Rivette et al. Robert DeNiro's willingness to play such an unflattering role might seem daring next to Jimmy Stewart, but really, so what? He beats his wife! He curses a blue streak! He gets fat! Big deal. Michael Chapman's cinematography is in black and white, which automatically sets it apart from ninety-nine percent of Hollywood product, but it hardly rivals Sacha Vierny's work on L'Année dernière Ã* Marienbad. It's certainly not a terrible film, but it is perversely overrated.

[Boner M]

Robert DeNiro's willingness to play such an unflattering role might seem daring next to Jimmy Stewart, but really, so what? He beats his wife! He curses a blue streak! He gets fat! Big deal.
You could easily reduce A Woman Under the Influence to something along these lines as well, y'know.

[Qrazy]

First of all, I'm going to go ahead and read way too much into the phrase "one of the great American films." And compared to most multiplex fare, Raging Bull might seem like a great film. But I'd feel pretty silly placing it in the same company as independent films like Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man, John Cassavetes' A Woman Under the Influence or Hollis Frampton's Zorns Lemma--to say nothing of Bresson, Mizoguchi, Rivette et al. Robert DeNiro's willingness to play such an unflattering role might seem daring next to Jimmy Stewart, but really, so what? He beats his wife! He curses a blue streak! He gets fat! Big deal. Michael Chapman's cinematography is in black and white, which automatically sets it apart from ninety-nine percent of Hollywood product, but it hardly rivals Sacha Vierny's work on L'Année dernière Ã* Marienbad. It's certainly not a terrible film, but it is perversely overrated.

You're right it's significantly better than Dead Man or A Woman Under the Influence and the rest aren't American so why are we talking about them?

Furthermore Rivette can suck my dick.

I haven't seen Zorn's Lemma so you may well be right about that one.

[transmogrifier]

Dead Man is so much better than Raging Bull, it hurts.

[balmakboor]

Honestly, I thought the film was an ugly, shapeless mess until I read Robin Wood's analysis. Then I watched it again and realized that it is a work of fucking genius.

[Teh Sausage]

Honestly, I thought the film was an ugly, shapeless mess until I read Robin Wood's analysis. Then I watched it again and realized that it is a work of fucking genius.

I'd like to read that. Is that the analysis which interpreted Jake as a repressed homosexual or something? Apparently Scorsese read it and said it was spot-on.


There are quite a few Scorsese films which I prefer to Raging Bull - such as Goodfellas, Casino and the strangely underrated After Hours, which might be my personal favourite of his - but I've always felt that Raging Bull is 'objectively' his greatest work, and will be acknowledged as the pinnacle of his career after he dies. I'm not entirely sure why I feel so certain about this, but I am.

[Qrazy]

Dead Man is so much better than Raging Bull, it hurts.

Jarmusch isn't fit to be Scorsese's waterboy.

[Grouchy]

Dead Man is so much better than Raging Bull, it hurts.
Hahah! Hahahah!

No.

[balmakboor]

Jarmusch isn't fit to be Scorsese's waterboy.

I disagree. But the two are so different that I found the comparison absurd to begin with.

[balmakboor]

I'd like to read that. Is that the analysis which interpreted Jake as a repressed homosexual or something? Apparently Scorsese read it and said it was spot-on.

It's not quite as black and white as Jake being a repressed homosexual, but, yes, that's the piece. And yes, Scorsese read it and agreed with it.

[DavidSeven]

I like Dead Man, but it's not even in the same stratosphere as Raging Bull in terms of vision and cinematic acheivment.

[baby doll]

I like Dead Man, but it's not even in the same stratosphere as Raging Bull in terms of vision and cinematic acheivment.I guess that depends on what you mean by vision and cinematic achievement. If by vision you mean a film's scope, the subject of Jarmusch's film is the destruction of the American landscape and its indiginous people by European capitalism. Scorsese's film is about how Jake LaMotta's sexual insecurities manifest themselves in his professional and private life. And if by cinematic achievement, you mean their sounds and images, I find Scorsese's Peckinpah-derived slow motion stylization of violence less impressive than the slow, medidative rhythms, dreamlike camera movements (particularly in two scenes towards the beginning and end of the film that are made to rhyme: Johnny Depp walking through the town of Machine and being carried through a Native American village) and electric guitar music in Jarmusch's film. Dead Man has more resonance and it's more beautiful.

[transmogrifier]

I like Dead Man, but it's not even in the same stratosphere as Raging Bull in terms of vision and cinematic acheivment.

Cinematic acheivement is subjective, so I'll let that slide, but on the subject of vision, I'd venture that you are fundamentally, objectively wrong.

[Ezee E]

People are comparing Dead Man and Raging Bull?

Might as well throw in The 39 Steps then. That's B&W too you know.

[Yxklyx]

Raging Bull > Fred Ott's Sneeze

[baby doll]

People are comparing Dead Man and Raging Bull?

Might as well throw in The 39 Steps then. That's B&W too you know.I simply meant to contrast a nominally challenging mainstream feature with several independent ones, one of which happened to be Dead Man.