MovieChat Forums > Raging Bull (1980) Discussion > I think the movie lacks subtext.

I think the movie lacks subtext.

posted 12 years ago by AkermanC
22 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this movie yesterday at a local cinema and found it really... normal.
I didn't dislike it but certainly I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece.

I found some things interesting: I liked how he shot some fight scenes, for example the last one with Sugar Ray was really really good. Or some ideas, like the scene that mixes pictures of the fights and super 8mm's of his life. I also disliked certain things that mostly have to do with DeNiro's acting.

Even in most of my favourite films there are something I dislike, it's difficult for yourself to find a perfect movie. But the great problem I find with this is... there is nothing to tell.

And I'm not refering to story or things happening but to what makes a movie complete: a big idea from the director that is behind every plot point, every shot, every line... This film doesn't have it.

I think most people don't care about this, they tell you a story and it's shot... ok, and you like it. Nowadays in filmmaking that happens a lot you necessarily don't have something to tell but the story.
When the story is judgemental, and ends saying what is right and what's not, even if you haven't something to tell, the story does. But if the story is not judgemental and you haven't got anything to tell this is where it all ends up: a beutifully shot film.

Said that, I enjoyed the film, but I don't think is a great film.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

After the second viewing, this movie really clicked with me. Is it overrated though? Yes, it's probably overrated as Hell by 'casual movie-goers' and critics, and the film isn't for everyone. It's 2 hours of the biggest loser in the world acting like a jerk. But it's so beautifully and tragically told that I couldn't help but be drawn in. This is Martin Scorsese at the height of his powers we're talking about. One of the most revolutionary American filmmakers of all time. And Robert DeNiro.

Anyway, what did I like about this film? I loved the atmosphere and little details in everything. This is a recreation of the neighborhood that Scorsese grew up in (idk if it was the Bronx or not) during the 40s and 50s. It depicted the italian american people very accurately, and the whole thing remains fresh over 30 years later. The role of the mob in the neighborhood, how men treated women, and the violence, uncouth humour, and music/culture of the era. It was all perfect.

But the film is a character study of a troubled guy. He seems to me to be mentally ill, and it is genuinely frightening watching him slowly breakdown from the pressure in the ring, his paranoia of his wife and family. The old mob boss said it best, "Jake don't have respect for anybody." We watch the first half of the film as he's on his way up, developing a relationship with Vicky, him and his brother winning fight after fight. And then he throws it all away because he couldn't handle life inside or outside the ring. He was too selfish.

To me, this film is the epitome of failed 'celebrity' who has completely lost it and continues to hang on to fame. But it evoked sympathy in me because he is human. Yes he was a foul person, but it's heartbreaking to see what *could* have been. By the end of the film, as he recites On the Waterfront, the irony is lost on him. Even as he destroys his title belt for a few thousand dollars. He is so single minded that reality completely escapes him. This is the most realistic film about boxing/sport there is. So many of these people destroyed themselves.

Anyway, the film is another entry in Scorsese's "Italian American Odyssey". Between Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas, all starring DeNiro.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

yep. great mood.

Veneration of Mark Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate

[–] BB-15 11 years ago

by Degree7;

"We watch the first half of the film as he's on his way up, developing a relationship with Vicky, him and his brother winning fight after fight. And then he throws it all away because he couldn't handle life inside or outside the ring...

To me, this film is the epitome of failed 'celebrity' who has completely lost it and continues to hang on to fame."

Very good summary. And you have found a "big idea" or subtext in Raging Bull.
Most top athletes are broke after a few years. Many lottery winners go broke.

A person can have fame, fortune, companionship and then throw it all away.
Why? How can this happen?

Raging Bull explores that. While it is set in the context of Italian American culture (in an accurate way), the universal issues of obsession, over confidence, greed, power, paranoia, anger, and lack of self control are all shown in this film.

BB ;-)

it's just in my opinion - imo -

[–] mackjay2 10 years ago

BB-15 explains it pretty well. I have always had a problem with this film--seen it at least 3 times--I never see a point to it. People are arguing about 'big ideas' but really, there has to be a reason why anyone makes a film. Scorsese must be trying to say something with this film. So the comment from BB-15 makes sense to me, but I never thought of what he/she says when I watched: all I see is a horrible guy never getting any better and then the movie is over. Sure it's brilliantly executed but that's not enough for me to watch this awful person for 2 hours.

[–] njiuma 9 years ago

I do feel that it is somehow brilliant and requires repeated viewings to understand, otherwise it just isn't very good and everyone thinks it is anyway i.e. overrated.

Perhaps it's just a very personal expression of its Director, Martin Scorsese, who at the end provides the bible quote: John 9:24-26 "A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. 'Give glory to God by telling the truth,' they said. 'We know this man is a sinner.' He replied, 'Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!' Then they asked him, 'What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?'”

The implicit or metaphorical meaning, i.e. the subtext or "Big Idea", could be the irony that the Raging Bull's eyes never open, as did the man who discovered faith in Jesus - a faith realized by seeing Jesus heal a physically blind man. Now, the spiritual eyes are opened after witnessing the physical healing of eyesight.

Not so with De Niro's character: he remains blind regardless of the multiple opportunities to see the light.

If I am right about this interpretation, that fact alone reveals the film to be quite brilliant: "on the nose" on the surface, but actually rich with a "Big Idea" and subtext abounding.

However, I am not certain that my interpretation is accurate, and I likewise had trouble enjoying the picture. Perhaps I'm too simple-minded, but I prefer "Rocky" to "Raging Bull". The "Big Idea" in "Rocky": "go the distance whether you win or lose" is inspiring to me - it is fantastic to me that Rocky did not win the fight - but instead by losing after going the full fifteen rounds he won the battle of self-depreciation vs a higher ideal to attain genuine self-worth. He overcame self-doubt and discovered that he can overcome some of his issues and ultimately live with his limitations. This theme was explored again in "Rocky III".

Perhaps the point was to make an "anti-Rocky" picture, wherein the Protagonist doesn't arc to greater self-discovery and growth, but instead fails to realize his shortcomings and overcome them - thus he remains "blind". Sad, but a part of reality, and an artistically potent message.

"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"