"Raging Bull": A Pile of Boring Bull ...

For the last few weeks, I have found time to watch movies that everyone says are so good. In fact, before that I was watching Old "Siskel and Ebert" episodes on YouTube, specifically the times when they talked about the best movies of the year, and their reviews really got me interested in watching all those movies.

Of course, there's a long list of Academy Award winning films out there that have not seen, and now I have the time to check them out!

Some of the Academy Award winners were really not that great. At first, I was reluctant to share my opinion openly. Film critics like Siskel and Ebert are not the final arbiters of anything, although as time passes, I tend to agree more with Gene Siskel than Roger Ebert. Still, I might have more to learn about appreciate good movies that just have a more acquired taste.

When I realized that I could appreciate what some critics shared positively about some of these movies, but still decide that I did not care for them, then I felt comfortable sharing my views fully.

One of the Academy Award winning films where I disagree with major critics and reviewers is Raging Bull. I have been hearing about this movie for a long time, and there are so many rave reviews about Robert DeNiro's performance in this movie. In fact, "Raging Bull" is the last time that DeNiro won an Academy Award for best actor--we are talk about forty-four years ago!

It's a long movie, all in the dark, occluded film noir style. Yes, there is stellar purpose of presenting films in black and white as opposed to color, and directors show insight and merit by muting the ostentatious color display in favor of shades, forms, and movement. Film tells better stories in black and white, causing us to focus on the characters, the movements, the images themselves, rather than getting all caught up in the glamor of color.

However, the black and white veneer does not help Raging Bull. In fact, the film comes off as lifeless, boring, insipid.

I did not like the main character, Jake LaMotta, at all. His boxing career is neither impressive nor interesting. I didn't care about his domestic squabbles, or his wretched treatment of his others, including his own brother and wife. I didn't care about his fallen reputation and fall from glory in his later years, either.

Yes, the cut scenes with LaMotta fighting one boxer after another were pretty compelling, and the slow-motion choreography style really catches the audience's attention the first time. But to see this same kind of fight over and over, with the spinning, the lights, the noise, the same noise and froth of the roaring crowds, it also just turns into empty affectation.

I did not like "Raging Bull." It was like a pile of "bull ...," if you know what I mean.

I cannot remember the last time I watched a movie, and I was looking at the clock, wondering when it was going to be over. I can't stress this enough: this movie was boring!

Sure, it was some hot biopic to critics. Sure, Robert DeNiro really threw himself into the role, even gaining 50 lbs. so he could look like a fat slob.

And ... I did not care.

I started wondering if there was something wrong with me, if I was missing the deeper, more subtle, interesting elements somewhere hidden in the background of this movie. After watching it, I Googled "overrated Raging Bull," and I found this really interesting article:

5 Reasons Why "Raging Bull" is Overrated

I agreed with every one of the reasons, and her assertions resonated with my sense of the flick. I will quote most of the article in bold type, then offer my own reflections on the reason in italics. 

1. The Old Neighborhood Had Plenty of “Jakes”

Yeah, the Bronx was chock full of them. Boxers who were on their way up or down the money ladder ... The world of Raging Bull is novel to those who grew up on a farm in Kansas, but to city dwellers, he was anything but a hero, and nothing new.

A really good point here. There is nothing in this film that really makes Jake LaMotta spectacular or special. Why should I care about some thuggish lout who is really good at hitting people, inside and outside of the ring?

Not One Really Likable Character

I know it’s comparing fiction to reality, but when Rocky goes into the ring, we, along with Adrian are rooting for him Rocky Balboa is the fighter with a heart. All of the characters in Raging Bull are one dimensional, except for perhaps Joe Pesci as Joey, who we can commiserate with as having to put up with having that creep for a brother. 

This is a serious criticism. Other reviewers have pointed out that likability in a character is essential, and that likability can come into play for a character, even if the main character in a story is supposed to be a bad guy.

According to critic and author Eric Edson, there are nine traits which a reader or viewer can attach to a character, and that character needs to have five of them in order to be likeable. The YouTube channel @_Magnify references these traits in Eric Edson's book The Story Solution.

Comparing the nine traits to Jake LaMotta, let's see how well he does:

1.  COURAGE.  For Edison, this trait is non-negotiable. We are not going to find any character likable, let alone interesting, if that character has no courage. When I watched Jake LaMotta’s fights, one after another, in the movie, he didn't appear to work up any kind of courage to step into the ring. His exploits in the ring did not strike me as courageous. All that “ballet dancing” foot-fighting was not rivetting at all.

2.  UNFAIR INJURY.  LaMotta suffers one major "injury": weight gain, and that is all his fault. Nothing to feel compassion for there. For the greater part of the movie, when LaMotta gets hurt, he deserves it, and you are glad he gets hurt.

3.  SKILL.  Sure, he’s a skillful fighter. I would give the Jake LaMotta character that.

4.  FUNNY.  Not one bit of humor in this guy. He doesn’t make us laugh, and there’s nothing in this film that is remotely humorous. Raging Bull is not supposed to be a comedy anyway.

5.  JUST PLAIN NICE.  Nope. Not one bit. This guy beats his wife, his brother, friends, colleagues. He is a jerk. A total louse, lout, and ultimately a has-been loser.

6.  IN DANGER.  We never really sense any danger imposing on him. Even when he opens up his own club, and he ends up getting busted for selling drinks to a minor, we don’t get a sense that he’s really in trouble. It’s just one more sad outcome for a stale athlete.

7.  LOVED BY FRIENDS AND FAMILY.  See above. Nope.

8.  HARD WORKING.  We never see Jake LaMotta as a hard trainer. We never see him overcoming physical challenges to become a better boxer, to be any kind of a winner.

9.  OBSESSED. Yes, he is clearly obsessed with the sport, and his fame, and his ego. That could not be clearer.

Based on this list of assessments, LaMotta has only two "likable" character traits. He does not have a minimum of five likable traits, and that goes for the rest of the characters, too. I didn't care about any of the characters, and I didn't care for them.

The Cinematography was Masterful But Too Much

Yes, Raging Bull contained exquisite shots and as it was filmed in black and white there it looks like a period piece. But too much of a good thing is too much, and all of that slow motion blood spray and bone crunching was over the top. Yeah, we get it–fighting is brutal and violent. The artistry made up for lack of characterization and no real surprises.

I wanted to share the full commentary on this point here. I did NOT think that the cinematography was all that. It was affectation, kind of like a ten-year old showing off his skills, rather than a master craftsman depicting a poignant scene with exquisite skill. Good cinematography should draw people's attention to the story, not to itself.

Overhyped

When Raging Bull first came out, everyone was talking about how Robert De Niro ate his way up to a dangerous body weight to play Jake as an older guy. He was one of the first actors to engage in this type of serious “method” acting. If any other actor would have played Jake, or if Di Nero would have opted for a fat suit, it would not have been such a hit. 

This criticism nails it. Yes, there was hype in 1980 for this movie. This film has outlived that hype, and therefore cannot live up to the hype.

Been Done Before

Marlon Brando already did that “Coulda Been a Contender” movie with On the Waterfront, and 1976 had already given us Rocky. So what if Raging Bull was “true”? Raging Bull is a great movie for what it is, with all the gritty realism and fabulous camera work, but many feel it does not deserve its place in the All-time Best Ever category.

This reference to Marlon Brando is telling, since in the movie, Jake LaMotta literally quotes that line "I could have been a contender" from On the Waterfront. Now there's a movie worth watching! Brando played Terry Malloy, another has-been boxer, but one who has some heart, who has to show some real courage, who takes a stand for what is right and fights against an evil boss. That's a main character whom I really liked! He IS a likable character. I remembered thinking, after I shut off Raging Bull, how much more I preferred On the Waterfront to the overhyped, overrated drivel of Robert DeNiro and his boxing bull ...

You know that things are bad for a movie when its failure as a film reminds you of another film that is so much better.

Final Comment

Raging Bull is not a great movie in my view. It's incidental, unimportant. It disappoints for how great it could have been. There's no real flow or narrative worth following, and there's no sense from the movie--whether the scenes, the characters, or the narrative--that any of this stuff really matters. Now, Martin Scorcese is an excellent director, and I have enjoyed most of his movies. Raging Bull was my chance to watch one of his most critically acclaimed pictures, and I found that it doesn't live up to the acclaim at all. More like Ranging or Meandering Bull, Raging Bull is a hollow picture, with nothing appealing or really compelling about it. Not Oscar material by any stretch.