When I was a kid, I tried to option "What Makes Sammy Run" a project that old Hollywood lusted after, but was not done. I did get to meet with Budd Schulberg and "pitched" the project. I forget who accompanied him; he had one agent for a long time. Whatsisname- Norman Mailer was a neighbor in Brooklyn Heights, used to see him regularly at a tucked away restaurant that only the hood rats knew. Never said anything to him. Some of those old stories are good ones.
to keep this thread on-topic ( i derailed it) and to continue this interesting discussion... gangster films: do you like them/which are the best?
Just watched this again. It's definitely a classic and deservedly so. But I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is squeamish about violence or hates boxing. It's very intense. I'm sure it's too much for some people. I'm not sure why someone who hates boxing or uses the term "toxic masculinity" would even watch it or Goodfellas or Taxi Driver. Except maybe to virtue signal their disdain for it. All three are classic movies to me but all brutal and violent. I would think everyone would know that going into the movie. It's not a surprise.
Hey, this is not to start an argument, sincerely. (Happy Thanksgiving!) It may fall on some deaf ears but I did want to note, I am one of those people who doesn't like boxing, and may also use the term "toxic masculinity." And I love these films, they are masterpieces. I don't see those views as mutually exclusive, and I'm not alone. I think these films are excellent representations of that controversial term. Toxic masculinity doesn't need to condemn all men or "traditional"/healthy male behaviors. It refers to the extreme societal/peer pressures some men may feel to behave in more extreme ways that are actually harmful to themselves and others, and refers to those behaviors. It is a "traditional" masculine idea, for example, of being "tough" - being strong (physically), being under control emotionally, and also perhaps being competitive in order to succeed. These are stereotypes but they are not "toxic". But take that idea of being "toughness" and the pressure to be so tough to an extreme, and you have Jake LaMotta. "Toxic" is an unfortunate term perhaps, but is there any better word for LaMotta's behavior? He destroys all the relationships in his life, with that rage of the film's title. In Goodfellas, the extreme need for power and respect poisons the lives of everyone involved. Again, I love these films, but if anyone is going to describe the behaviors of LaMotta, Tommy in Goodfellas, or Travis Bickle as "normal" or "just being regular masculine" then I guess there's nothing to say. The three characters I mention have no healthy emotions, and indulge in extreme violence. To call their behavior "toxic" is not just to simply blame them, it's an attempt to not just describe but explain their behavior. To explain why they act as they do, with abusive and/or murderous violence. Travis Bickle is an extremely emotionally repressed person. At first, he only has casual emotions of disappointment and disgust with the world around him. He is unable to, and has no recourse to, being able to connect with other people. He recognizes that alienation from others, and we see hints of the racism and sexual frustration he is suppressing, but instead of being vulnerable about all that and seeking/finding help, he adopts a very cold emotional attitude, speaking in a monotone to himself, a sense of pride in his alienation seeking some kind of physical perfection (burning himself on the stove intentionally, "every muscle must be tight...") And having no healthy way to communicate, he methodically transforms himself into a killing machine. Unfortunately we continue to have Travis Bickles in the real world. Travis Bickle is - another controversial term - what might be called today an "involuntary celibate." He becomes unhinged and violent after he is rejected by a woman. Bickle is fascinated by the extreme sexuality of the seedy world around him, but he becomes angry and disgusted by it because of his unacknowledged sexual frustration. In Goodfellas, we see various toxic behaviors but a key difference with the other films there is the aspects of "power" and "respect." It is normal behavior for men to feel the need for these things to some extent, but Goodfellas is about a toxic environment where the seeking of power and respect leads to extreme violence and criminal acts. With all this in mind, I see these three great films as masterpieces about toxic masculinity. I watch because the actions of the characters are exciting and bold, as are the worlds they live in. They are also masterpieces in the arts of directing, acting, etc. But I don't see the films as glorifying their behaviors, I utterly condemn the behavior personally, while I admire the three films' ability to show behaviors that are, thankfully, alien to me. I found this somewhere, maybe it says it all better than I can, likely: If that doesn't describe the characters in these three Scorsese films to a tee, I don't know what does. I think some men get angry because the phrase seems to be blaming men for everything. But if one appreciates these films, well, one may notice that men are indeed to blame for everything bad that happens in them. The only woman in these three films who might share any of that blame is the wife in Goodfellas, but she doesn't indulge in extreme violence; she is some sense another victim of toxic masculinity, in that she finds Henry to be sexually exciting, due to his violent behavior and connections to power, his relative "ultra-masculinity." Goodfellas certainly shows how well these extreme behaviors ultimately work out. TL;DR: One can, as I do, hail these Scorsese films as masterpieces, at the same time describing them all as being about toxic masculinity in their core.
For 'toxic masculinity' you could also watch MODERN PROBLEMS (1981). Chevy Chase gets doused by nuclear waste, turns 'glowing green' and then does 'stuff' with his newfound powers! TOXIC!
Scorsese's quote about great movies is that you learn something about yourself by watching them. Hopefully that's not the case with Raging Bull, which I consider hugely overrated. I disagree about your ideas of "toxic masculinity" because too many other factors play a role. Most of us come from different worlds than the characters in these films. Spend some time in a poor neighborhood and "toxic masculinity" may be the difference between you being bullied or beat up mercilessly and being the bully or aggressor yourself. As standards improve and quality of life increases, people become more evolved. But a generation ago in poor, crime-ridden areas of the New York metro area, most people conducted themselves not unlike the characters in Scorsese films. Raging Bull ultimately fails for me because I like stories of how people can rise above the game set by other players who have an advantage, rewrite the rules and win. That is the story of my life, and I guess it's the story of Jake LaMotta's life to some extent. But in the film he was cast as such a hateful character that "punching above his weight" was lost due to his lack of morality the other things he punched, including his wives and his brother. I hope Scorsese can do a more mature film in this genre someday. Manny Pacquiao might be a better subject, and it would force Scorsese out of his "mean streets" in and arround the burroughs where he can get too bogged down in cliches. Pacquiao was a far more gifted boxer, came from even humbler origins, and his flaws were more palatable.
I recall a 1972 boxingthemed movie titled 'FAT CITY'. With Stacy Keach, Jeff Bridges, Susan Tyrrell. Directed by John Huston.
I have zero interest in boxing - and I hate sports in general - but Raging Bull is a great movie, essential viewing.
I grew up in NYC in the 1970's; the idea that "most people conducted themselves not unlike the characters in Scorsese films" is absurd, because I was specifically talking about Jake LaMotta, Tommy from Goodfellas, and Travis Bickle. I'm not sure who you or your friends and family were, but no, my experience was that most people did not conduct themselves in those ways. Your proud identification with and justification of the specific behaviors I was discussing speaks volumes, nothing more to say (or hear) here.
I was born in the Bronx in the '60s. But you failed when you read and quoted my post. Go back, read it and try again. My post specified people in certain neighborhoods and economic strata where our system fails, people are left to fend for themselves, and might often makes right, unfortunately. The film doesn't show this, but Jake's father forced him to fight other boys to entertain neighborhood adults, who threw pocket change into the ring. LaMotta's father collected the money and used it to help pay the rent. Do you not understand what this can do to a kid? I'm not justifying what he did as an adult, but I'm saying people can be a product of their environment. Some neighborhoods in the NY tristate area include Short Hills, NJ with an average income over $125,000. Just a few miles away in Newark the average income is only $24,000. There are pockets of society where things are dire. You may be thankful on this day you didn't have to live in such neighborhoods. The point in my previous post was that this "might makes right" behavior often depends on your neighborhood or your family situation. The point wasn't for you to attack "you or your friends and family" or to pretend this kind of behavior exists in a vacuum.
That is a great movie! Keach, Tyrell and Bridges all give outstanding performances- one of Huston's best late career films.
You're proving my point to a tee. People are indeed a product of their environment. Toxic masculinity and its associated behaviors are a symptom of those negative environments, that's exactly what that is. You show signs of it yourself here in all your defensive posturing and apologies for people acting like violent obnoxious assholes and psychopaths. I'm not surprised though. Happy Thanksgiving. Don't worry about what I'm thankful for.
Of course it's a classic, BUT.....if you HATE Boxing you shouldn't see it, or any other movie depicting Boxing for that matter. Reading what I just wrote I came to the realization....boy, there's SO many great movies about Boxing!!!
Physician, heal thyself. I didn't think it was possible to take anything I said personally but you somehow managed to, and lashed out while trying to demonize those who lash out. Strange. Anyway, I do hope Scorsese can revisit this genre with a steadier hand someday. The boxing scenes in particular are not standing the test of time for me, beyond the criticisms I levied earlier.
Here's a nugget of self-restraint: If I get aggravated I try to be sophisticated about the whole thing. Instead of telling someone to "Eat Sh!t and Die!" I kindly say "Eat Excrement and Perish". I'm in to 'Toxic Politeness' these days.
