What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx
Raging Bull is on the following AFI lists:
The Original Top 100 (#24)
100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#51)
The Revised Top 100 (#4)
10 Top 10's (#1 Sports)
Netflix helped me out with Raging Bull, which I've wanted to see for a long time, or at least as long as my interest in Marty Scorsese has been piqued. I've seen some of his films but only a few, comparatively speaking, and since this is considered one of his finest, I was feeling the yearn - even though it's a boxing movie. I'm going to qualify again that I'm not a huge fan of sports movies, at least not boxing movies, because I'm just not a fan of boxing. It's a violent, bloody sport that seems utterly pointless to me. I am of the female persuasion, and since female fans of the sport are definitely a minority, this should come as no shock. So, I didn't really love this film, because it was particularly violent and bloody, as Marty never compromises. I'm going to talk more from the perspective of the filmmaking, as that's where the money is in this picture. That's what I really loved and why my rating indicates that I loved this picture, even if I don't love its subject.
Raging Bull was the nickname of prizefighter Jake LaMotta (Robert DeNiro), who wrote an autobiography of sorts on which the screenplay is based. The film follows his career from up-and-comer middleweight champion in the 40s to his post-career appearances as a nightclub/lounge comedy act in the 60s, yet the movie is really a character study of the man in general. He is self-destructive, filled with rage and passion, and can only seem to address his woes through violence. Yet, the man himself is painfully aware of his own tendencies and seems powerless to curb them, causing more anger and fits of rage, and a vicious cycle that eventually destroys his marriage to his second wife Vickie (Cathy Moriarty) and permanently damages his relationship with his former manager and brother Joey (Joe Pesci). The film depicts LaMotta's fights inside and outside of the ring, including his yearn to be champion while simultaneously battling the demands of the mob, who have backed him financially and try to set him up to take a dive at the midstages of his career as well as his constant suspicions of his wife's cheating tendencies (though he married her after adulterously wooing her).
I can see why people think Raging Bull is a bona fide classic, and I can sort of see why the film shuttled up 20 spots on the Revised Greatest list. I'll start with Marty's sublime direction. Gosh, that guy's got style. Scorsese really knows how to solidify and amplify emotion and mood through visual artistry, and this may be one of his best films to demonstrate that skill. He uses slow motion, smoke, sweat, silhouettes, and other techniques to add a realism to this picture that's unparalleled even today and especially for 1980. His choice to film the movie in black and white created a documentary feel to it, but I also loved the "home movie" scenes, when the cinematography took on that grainy, semi-sepia tone that characterizes old reel-to-reel films. Also, no one - and I mean, no one - can match Marty on use of music to enhance the tonal atmosphere of his films. I can't think of one director who does it better. He's such a music lover, his knowledge is so great, and his tastes are so spot-on, that soundtracks and scores to his films are often otherwordly in how good they are. I loved the instrumental score, which was comprised largely of old 40s standards without the vocal tracks, but I also loved the soundtrack, picking period songs that seemed to drive plot as much as enhance it. Marty was robbed for the Oscar for this film by Bob Redford - did you know that losing for this film is what caused his bad-luck losing streak? Well, thankfully there's The Departed to have snapped him out of it.
Now let's talk about Bobby. Gosh, that guy's a good actor. This performance is simply divine, and Bobby's what kept me watching even though this is a boxing movie with a lot of boxing in it. His performance ran the gamut of emotions from tender to fitful to tears of frustration to sensual to blood-vessel popping mad. He managed to portray nuances and give this man so much texture, it's no wonder he actually won the Oscar for this flick. Let's face it, Bobby can act his way through anything, but this film and this performance was mesmerizing.
And, frankly, I was just as impressed with Joe Pesci. I thought the Joey character was equally refined in its emotional range and purity through Pesci's performance. These two are simply great fun to watch together, so it's no wonder they kept cropping up in films together (thanks largely to Marty).
I didn't see any flaws with the filmmaking aspect of this film. Every technical piece was filmed and added with care and artistry. The art direction: in the scene when Jake is reciting the "On the Waterfront" Brando speech, which is supposed to take place in 1964, I saw a period Kleenex box and just thought, "wow." Marty directed that for people like me who notice things like that - impressive. The sound was magnificent, particularly in the more visually stylized fights. The costuming was also really good: evidence: Cathy Moriarty's various outfits. Everything was just really good.
It was just hard for me to love a boxing movie. It's violent and visceral and hard to watch, and Marty never softpedals. Yet, the filmmaking here is unparalleled. Now, did it deserve to jump 20 spots to #4? Is it really the fourth greatest film of all time? I find that hard to say. I'm finding it hard to rate this movie. It's kind of a masterpiece, but I wasn't perfectly entertained. Yet, I see no flaws to this picture other than my own bias against violent boxing films. I think I'll do what I did with The Departed: rate it a 9.5. Is that fair, since the 0.5 is probably more closely connected to my own bias? Would I have been one of those Oscar voters that thought Ordinary People should get Best Picture because Raging Bull was too violent and profane? No, I don't think so (I haven't seen Ordinary People, but I don't think so). I also still have to be entertained - and I was engaged, just not really entertained. I had more time to notice all of the filmmaking techniques because I wasn't as entertained. This is a long-winded explanation for me saying I'm being as fair as I can be in rating this film, and maybe it deserves to be top 10 on the greatest list but not #4.
Yet, Raging Bull does not pass the test. I'm glad I watched it, but I couldn't watch it again. I think we all know why. Still, it's one of the most perfect character studies in the history of film. Very Citizen Kane-esque actually. So, maybe it does deserve to be #4. What do I know? Forget about it.