- Some, including Roger Ebert, have called this one of the finest movies ever made. Others, like The Guardian, say it is Director Martin Scorcese’s most perfect film.
- Do I agree? Not quite.
- Artistically, Raging Bull is masterful.
- Some of the boxing sequences are so well choreographed that they’re almost like watching dancing; others are so brutal as to make us feel Jake LaMotta’s (Robert De Niro) rage.
- Furthermore, very few movies use point of view shots as well as Raging Bull.
- Indeed, every filmmaking element works to immerse us in Jake’s worldview, to make us understand him better than he understands himself.
- The performances help as well. De Niro won an Oscar for Raging Bull, and he deserved it. Forget the physical transformation. Consider instead all of his first-rate acting.
- Plus, Joe Pesci is scene-stealing as Joey, and Moriarty is equally great.
- For all of that, Raging Bull is imperfect. First, it frequently leaps forward in time so awkwardly that events are hard to track, as when LaMotta is banned from boxing. Yes, such temporal leaps help communicate LaMotta’s psyche, but they are still overdone.
- More importantly, female characters are undefined, even Vicki. I know Raging Bull is about men who do not understand women, which gives the filmmakers reason to under-develop feminine characters, but Scorcese and his writers go too far. It is fine that Jake has no concept of Vicki’s personality, but it is not fine that the we don’t either. Why does she agree to sleep with a married man? Why does she marry him? Why does she forgive him when he beats her? Why does she finally, after so much abuse, divorce him? We don’t know, because Scorcese doesn’t show us.
- Likewise, LaMotta’s first wife disappears from the picture, without explanation or conflict. This too is a flaw.
- In the end, there is a lot to like about Raging Bull, much more than there is to dislike. But one of the best movies ever? Even Scorcese’s finest? No.
- Final Grade: B
Interesting point about the underdeveloped female characters – it is something that Scorsese has been criticised about again recently with The Wolf Of Wall St in cinemas. It’s a long time since I watched Raging Bull, and despite its qualities I rarely feel in the mood for it.
I doubt I ever watch it again.
And I was one of the people who criticized underdeveloped women in Wolf, actually. I think it less problematic in that one, though, mostly because Margot Robbie’s character has some definition, albeit the unflattering kind.
I never understood why Vicki took him back after he beat her. The whole having sex with him while he was married made sense, because affairs do happen. I like the look of the movie and the acting but yeah its not the greatest boxing movie.
I might call it one of the greatest BOXING movies, actually. It’s up there with Rocky and . . . well . . . what? But one of the greatest MOVIES ever, the way so many have lauded it? No. It isn’t even the best film of 1980, much less the decade.
As to the affair . . . it makes sense from La Motta’s perspective, but I’d contend we do not understand Vicki’s motivation. We don’t know what she sees in the man, much less what trait causes such promiscuity in a time and culture wherein female wantonness killed social status and ruined marital/financial prospects. This is especially striking when considering Joey’s insistence that Vicki once refused all of his overtures.
Masterfully made for sure and the performances are sublime. I’m can’t quite go with the grade B, though. This is one of my favourite films and definitely Scorsese’s finest in my eyes. DeNiro also gives one of cinemas finest and most committed shows. I love it.
Our reactions to Raging Bull are definitely a bit different, then. I like it, but I certainly don’t love it, and, in my opinion, it isn’t anywhere near Scorcese’s finest. I’d say Taxi Driver is a touch better. Goodfellas and Casino are superior. Probably Wolf of Wall Street and The Departed, as well. Maybe even Bringing Out the Dead. Of those I’ve seen, the only ones I know I like less are The Aviator and Shutter Island.
I do agree on De Niro as Jake La Motta, though. I think he’s even better as Travis Bickle, but there’s no way to criticize him here. Honestly, he should have two Oscars, one for each movie.
So many Scorsese flicks to choose from and so many DeNiro performances. I still think it’s criminal that throughout his résumé, he’s only been awarded the Oscar twice. He could have won it at least another three or four times comfortably. I thought Awakenings, Cape Fear, The Deer Hunter and The King of comedy were also Oscar worthy.
I haven’t seen any of those. (Hides head in shame.)
Wh… wait a minute… What?
You have much work to do sir! 😉 And many pleasures awaiting you…
great review Jjames.
I totally agree with you here on the fact that this is a good movie, but not the best ever.
I haven’t seen it in years and it’s on my list of movies to re-watch soon, but I can’t say I’m really looking forward to those 2 hours
I wouldn’t be either. I doubt I ever see this a second time.
Yep, but I think I need to see it again regardless in order to see what 40 yr old me thinks of this
Excellent review. To be honest I don’t remember much about this movie. I do remember it was long and a little slow paced for my liking.
Thank you. The pace didn’t really bother me, but it is definitely slow.
I agree with you on these two, I would also like to add Godfather to three films I like but don’t love, I would watch Rocky any day over Raging Bull, Collateral over Taxi Driver and Goodfellas over The Godfather, I don’t deny the classics have style and broke new ground, but they also fall into the boring side of art, where as with the Rocky, Goodfellas and Collateral, they all have something within them that make you smile and in turn you never get tired of seeing them.
I don’t love The Godfather either. I like and appreciate it, but I also think it flawed.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Raging Bull, Taxi Driver or Godfather boring, though. They are slowly paced, no doubt, but the pacing doesn’t bother me in any of the three.
Maybe boring is the wrong word, they are not on my must see’s again list though.
Nope. Definitely not. I might someday see the first Godfather again (only for context for the second, which I think terrific). But I doubt I ever see Taxi Driver or Raging Bull a second time.
Pingback: The Friday Spew (31st January 2014) « The Verbal Spew Review
This is a superb analysis dude. Truly.
Thank you very much!
Your point about the female characters is very true. I’d probably only notice that more if I saw it a second time. I did cover it a little here http://alexraphael.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/gr8-robert-de-niro/
Once again, you’ve exposed holes in my older movie viewing experience with that link. 🙂
Development of feminine characters is something for which I’m always looking from male writers. I cannot call a screenplay great if the writer doesn’t bother to develop characters from the opposite gender. And Raging Bull most definitely doesn’t bother.
Any filmmakers that you think regularly do?
The Coen brothers usually do. Ryan Coogler did in Fruitvale Station, but as it was his first feature, it’s too early to tell if the trend will continue.
Alphonso Cuaron is skilled at developing women, typically. Wes Anderson, too. Ditto that for Paul Thomas Anderson.
The best, though, might be Lars Von Trier. His pictures often have other flaws, but development of females is usually their greatest strength.
I’d agree with you totally on the Coens. Fargo and Intolerable Cruelty spring to mind. The other ones i guess i’d agree to, though their not ones I would immediately have thought of.
Von Trier’s comments were out of order. Oliver Stone too.
They didn’t immediately spring to mind for me either. I had to think about that question, even went to IMDB to see how I wanted to answer it. 🙂
What do you mean about Von Trier’s comments?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/sep/20/lars-von-trier-retracts-apology-nazi
Definitely not a smart thing to say.
That’s one way of putting it. You have to wonder what goes on in his head, and his soul.
Some of the those problems seem quite severe. Glaring plot holes severe. I still have yet to watch this, which is kind of embarrassing to admit. Not in any sort of rush though, mostly after reading this.
Not developing a single feminine character is significant, I think. But the movie mostly overcomes it through powerhouse performances, strong development of male characters and some spectacularly artistic direction. Seriously, the way this one uses point of view shots is possibly worth viewing on its own. Scorcese uses them to make see the world and feel emotions the way La Motta does.
All of which is to say . . . Raging Bull is good. I doubt I see it a second time, though.
That is fair, but I do agree that the flaws sound like they held something down that otherwise could have been perfect. I was planning to watch this recently, but then watched Grudge match. I know they are incredibly different, but an other boxing movie so soon after that junk? Just could not do it.
Those highlights you pointed out are catching my interest though.
Actually, De Niro plays a very similar character in Grudge Match. Just with an alternate history.
And that is what makes it even worst. Left such a sour taste in my mouth…
*holds breath for nearly a minute* GRUDGE MATCH!!!!
🙂
Great movie and again I haven’t seen it in ages, I can give it all the acclaim it deserves, but it is not one I want to watch over and over again. Goodfellas, omg I can watch that all day on a loop, same for Casino. Shutter Island I hated! I just didn’t like it as much as other people did. Aviator was fun to watch, but nothing great. Anyways I am totally rambling, good review, I like reading these yester year reviews!!!
Thank you!
I totally agree on Shutter Island and Aviator. I think the first borderline bad and the second just … Okay.
Raging Bull is good, but not something I’m interested in seeing again.