music friday: billie eilish
trilogy of terror (dan curtis, 1975)

revisiting raging bull (martin scorsese, 1980)

I decided to give Raging Bull another chance. It's almost universally admired, one of (if not the) best movies from arguably our greatest living director. I've never understood that. I can think of at least 8 Scorsese movies I like better, and next to classics like Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and The Last Waltz, well, it doesn't belong in their company. But I couldn't escape the feeling that I was being unfair to the film, so I watched it this time with something resembling an open mind.

Start with Robert De Niro. He is great, no doubt. The fat transformation does some of the work for him, but in Jake's leaner days (which make up most of the movie), De Niro exudes a barely-contained violence against the world, and his face tells us this man thinks he is misunderstood. So yes, it's a great performance, worthy of the Oscar he won. And it's not really a biopic, which is nice.

But it's not really anything else, either. Why was this movie made? I don't mean why did Scorsese make it, what did it mean to him personally, I mean, as a viewer, do we ever get a feeling for why Scorsese made it, for why it needed to be made? I admit, I don't think so. The real-life Jake LaMotta is peripherally interesting and no more, and the movie Jake doesn't have levels. He's elemental, he just is, kinda like the movie itself. The boxing scenes are impressionistic, and putting the camera inside the ring with the fighters is effective, but you have to suspend disbelief because even though the structure generally follows the actual fights, they are completely unreal as presented.

Raging Bull is #25 on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They list of the top 1000 films of all time, one place ahead of The Godfather, Part II, which is complete nonsense.

My favorite trivia item from the IMDB: "Robert De Niro kept a copy of Pauline Kael's scathing review of the film with his penned in retorts such as, 'So?', 'That's the point!'" The funny thing is, it's nowhere near as scathing as Kael can be. Metacritic read it and assigned it rating of 70/100, below the average of critics in general, but 70 for Metacritic is a positive review. Apparently, though, for De Niro and I imagine for the film's many fans, 70/100 for Raging Bull is insulting.



I loved reading this because all the questions you ask resonate with me, even though I couldn't have verbalized it until I read your post. I always thought of it as style--Scorsese making a movie like the European directors he admired from 20 years before. (I'm sure I got that from somewhere.) Thing is, he uses (pays homage?) those cinematic art skills just for one purpose: very manly violence. If that ain't American...

Steven Rubio

Good point. I'm not sure why I'm unimpressed by the manly violence here when it didn't seem to bother me in Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. But I don't find anything appealing in Raging Bull.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)