If so, then who the hell needs a movie about toxic masculinity. Aren't three Godfathers, a Goodfellas and a Scarface enough for one generation looking to get their social cues from creeps?
"Toxic masculinity" is a silly, overused expression. Raging Bull is a good film, with an all-time great performance. I can't call myself a boxing fan either (although I love the Rocky series), but the boxing scenes in it are pretty short and rare.
I think the bigger question is whether you like seeing a character melt down, lose everything and most of it is a long ways from a boxing ring. Not fun or easy to watch. I would also take issue with the assertion that the boxing scenes are well shot. Looks fake as hell and between the black and white, prosthetic nose, odd angles and tight camerawork, you can plainly see that no one is being hit. Even Cinderella Man has better fight sequences. I used to love Raging Bull, but at a certain point you just have to acknowledge it's a big downer. De Niro got really into the role and so if you like him, you'll like the movie.
no, i don't mind that. it's always interesting to see how actors express their selves in MS and FF Coppola films- the 'higher' up the food chain they go the less they need to express themselves through swearing. can you imagine brando f'ing as the godfather? it would completely destroy the illusion of his power!
i think he's an excellent actor. as to your question, the 'melt down' has its purpose in narrative, boxing, in general, for me seems pointless, part of an impotent toxic culture. which from the comments above seems to be the purpose of the film, i.e. the boxing as metaphor
in answer to your question; YES! watch it it is fabulous and sadly true...the transformation of Bobby is worth the price of admission alone! and we get the rest of the wonderful cast...it's not all about boxing it's more about the crazy man behind it...
Film critic Pauline Kael was a huge Scorsese fan before Raging Bull, but she didn't much like this one--nor much of his later '80s work, for that matter.
In a news article I once read about police detectives who investigate the mob, the journalist mentioned that most cops doing this kind of work love Goodfellas but don't take The Godfather seriously (at least in terms of realism). Reason being, the former is how mobsters really act; the latter was a fantasy about how the mobsters saw themselves.
yes, the godfather is an idealised form. when making the film, the mafia 'advisors' wanted brando to be more flamboyant etc. i think the power of brando's performance comes in its self restraint, something many find hard to do. it's also probably fair to say brando is smarter than your average mobster!
I would think it's also at least partially about the cop character in Godfather, McCluskey, being corrupt and assassinated.
i watched it. i thought it was ok but i kept thinking this 'story' has been told more effectively in 'on the waterfront', the film elia kazan made to make himself seem like a hero for naming names at the mccarthy hearings, and then they start quoting the film! in terms of the cinematography, i thought the black and white, slow motion was better used in the opening scene of antichrist- which is disturbing hence the spoiler thingy for the video! Spoiler: antichrist Antichrist Prologue i thought the film was good, i'm glad i finally saw it, thanks for the info above! but i probably won't watch it again
Raging Bull is about boxers, it isn't really about boxing. Think Rocky, but without the climactic match at the end.
Well said. I'd rather rewatch almost any Scorsese movie than RB or Taxi Driver because they're just painful to watch and often cringeworthy. That's taking nothing away from the filmmaking, direction and acting, which were often masterful and intense. What I loved best about Raging Bull was the poetic thesis right from the start: "...so give me a stage where this bull here can rage, and though I can fight I'd much rather recite: that's entertainment." It was interesting to how Lamotta came to see himself as an entertainer, whether he was in a boxing ring or a sleezy comedy bar. But I believe King of Comedy is a parallel story to both RB and Taxi Driver, and it's a lot easier to rewatch because the intensity is dialed way down and the humor is dialed way up. Same reason I like Wolf of Wall Street.
It is not an easy movie to watch as it is pretty brutal- not just the blood and violence but the heavy drama. You have to be in a certain mood for it- at least I do. If you are in the mood and can get through it, the acting, directing and cinematography will reward you with a true work of art.
Not to derail the thread, and I am by no means a fan of or very knowledgeable about boxing. But from having read a little about it, it is very much a sport. There is a lot of strategy involved, with approaching how to respond to an opponent with different physical capabilities, a different style, and handling endurance and fatigue. It’s not simply two men bashing each other; I don’t think it would have endured long as a popular sport if it was just that. You might be surprised and reconsider your opinion of the sport if you read a little about how it works. People who are knowledgeable about it are seeing things that you (and I) miss while watching it. As far as it being pointless and toxic, keep in mind that there are sports that require a large financial investment in equipment and training in order to become successful in, and thus are prohibitive to people who grow up with limited means. Boxing is not one, as far as I’m aware. It can provide a healthy outlet and source of ambition for people who may otherwise consider themselves as having few opportunities in life.
To be sure, ' Raging Bull' is not for everyone. It's a heavy drama with a repugnant lead and many unsavoury characters. When it was released we went with this other couple to see it. Neither of the women liked it but my friend and I thought it was great and went to see it again the following week and enjoyed it even more. I've seen it about 20 times now and always get something new out of it when I watch it again.
I think boxing is really the only similarities between Rocky and Raging Bull. A big one, perhaps, but the two films are pretty dissimilar. For one, the main character in Raging Bull is pretty unlikable (unless "you" dig guys connected to the mafia who beat up their wives), while Rocky is probably still one of the most likable characters in the history of cinema. "you" = the general you
yes, i am aware of what you say, it's just a personal opinion. the intricacies of it, in my opinion, could be used more constructively to create some healthier community, for example, the health and nutritional aspects could be promoted in schools, for example, than the notion that one must dominate another. there are interesting sociological studies on the culture that created it, but this isn't the place to go into it!
