Your top 5 favorite films. - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

It's been a while since I saw Raging Bull, so I don't want to comment on how female characters were depicted there, but the "tortured men" thing kinda threw me. I mean, I might be interpreting that word and the way you used it wrong, but everything La Motta does is clearly self inflicted, the whole film is a character study, a portrayal of somebody who manages to destroy his life and everyone else's around him, like watching a train wreck happen. You guys make it sound like he's depicted as this struggling boxer whose wife is one of the obstacles on his road to success and happiness, so we, the viewers cheer for him every time he beats the shit out of her.

satiemaniac

I was using tortured in probably the sense you're thinking, but that didn't necessarily mean tortured by external forces. I don't think Scorsese portrays the women as villains so much as creates empty shells of female characters to foil (not as in thwart, for clarity) the actions of his protagonists.

19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

Yeah I think I got you now, and I should definitely rewatch these movies to be able to argue with it. I still have a problem with the "foil" part. I mean I can agree that the female characters aren't really that well developed, but I think this is because the attention is on the central character and the world he's created for himself and he's living in. It's really from his perspective that you see these women (and he is, as I said, this self destructive person, whose idea of what he's "supposed to be like" seems to be based on chauvinism or (machism I guess)), and that's why I guess I never had a problem with how they were depicted.

Anyway, on topic, I just made this:
http://letterboxd.com/ohnoitsjure/list/...avourites/

Still have my old list on imdb, and I'll still be updating it, but probably not as frequently. I decided to make my letterboxd one more "current", without any old favourites that I haven't seen in years.

Kool Keith Sweat

satiemaniac wrote:

I was always kinda put off of early Scorsese by his depiction of women as alternately hurdles, motivators, and stepping stones for tortured men. In Raging Bull particularly, the incredibly present and foregrounded interactions between the protagonist and his second (? i can't quite remember, having not seen it for about a year) wife really bugged me. What am I missing? Seems like there can't just be an entire world of people ignoring that for no reason.

If you're applying a feminist interpretation to Raging Bull, I agree that Vicky is presented as weak and oppressed and Jake sweats and bleeds machismo, but that's the point; it's used to vilify and 'animalize' Jake, and his views and actions towards women typically align with Italian and catholic stereotypes, the latter of which is used to humanize and then further vilify Jake in the film (explained further below) and the former of which is simply a fixation of early Scorsese. I'd also be weary of using such a topical feminist filter to a film that doesn't address feminism, because the film's cuts, shots, structure, and other mechanics (everything outside the story) are not intentionally supplementing that interpretation, which can lead to dubious interpretations. I think applying a feminist filter to something like The Tracey Fragments, in which the mechanics and story both intentionally provide a feminist commentary, would be more rewarding.

If you're making a commentary on Scorsese recycling tropes among his films, I'd agree that he might, but I'd disagree that the merit of an individual film is determined by the other works of a director. It's fun and natural to rank a director's films, and compare films within a filmography, but I think discounting the merit of a film because it's 'not original enough' is dubious, particularly when the tropes recycled are so vague that they remain malleable.

And some reasons why I think it's the best film I've seen...

As mentioned above, catholicism, particularly catholic guilt, play a large role in the film. The scene in which this is most obvious is when he brings Vicky into his apartment to cheat on his first wife with her. There's a catholic image in every scene, from the scene painting in the kitchen to the virgin Mary in his living room to the cross above the bed to the crucifix hanging over the picture of Jake and his brother to which the camera zooms when the sex (presumably) starts. When he takes her puttputting before hand, the theme of the hole they're on is even a church. Once Jake becomes enwrapt with himself and more fully, topically vilified in the film, the catholic imagery disappears completely. That Jake is at least guilty of his actions humanizes him, but once that guilt is gone, once the catholic imagery is gone, I think it further vilifies him.

Playing off of that last statement, the primary motif vilifying Jake is his metaphorical dehumanization into an animal. His name is 'Raging Bull.' His boxing robe is leopard print. In the "you botherin' me about a steak?!" scene, his neighbor calls him an animal, to which he takes great offense. His brother says he eats like an animal when he begins gaining weight. When he is jailed, he screams to himself "I'm not an animal!" trying to deny what he's become. Several of the shots intentionally evoke a caged Jake, from the boxing ring ropes to the fence around the pool. When Jake comes back in his fights, the sound used is literally screaming monkeys, roaring lions, trumpeting elephants, falling horses, and other animals. It's simply a pervasive, subtle-enough motif to further dehumanize Jake beyond his violent actions.

On top of those cage shots, there's simply several handfuls of aesthetically superb shots throughout the film, from the zoom in to his wife's displeased face while she's cooking his steak (like the Taxi Driver alkaseltzer scene) to the long shot before a match (forget, but likely Marcel or Robinson's fight) that follows him from the locker room all the way to above the ring to the boxing ring microphone dropping down through a black shot to the blood dripping off the ropes after the last Robinson fight to the many snapshots during the boxing matches to the close up of the creaking chair as he beats his brother in front of his family. The way candles are used to create a smoke and heat haze evoking hell in the ring is amazing. The home video scene was shot by amateur crewmen to achieve its amateur feel, and was then cut, scratched, burned, etc. by Scorsese to produce an old, worn effect. The boxing ring physically is different sizes in each fight, according to the psychological state Jake is in. This film also has, hands down, the best sound in a film I've seen, from the aforementioned animal sounds used during matches to original match recordings to the camera flashes. This film simply has some of the best mechanics I've seen in a film and it remains incredibly accessible. I think that latter part is particularly important; it's masterful while not coming across as highbrow, self-conscious, art film.

I remember I had something about the opening and closing speeches, but I forgot about that for now... but that's generally why I enjoy the film.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Kool Keith Sweat wrote:

If you're applying a feminist interpretation to Raging Bull, I agree that Vicky is presented as weak and oppressed and Jake sweats and bleeds machismo, but that's the point; it's used to vilify and 'animalize' Jake, and his views and actions towards women typically align with Italian and catholic stereotypes, the latter of which is used to humanize and then further vilify Jake in the film (explained further below) and the former of which is simply a fixation of early Scorsese. I'd also be weary of using such a topical feminist filter to a film that doesn't address feminism, because the film's cuts, shots, structure, and other mechanics (everything outside the story) are not intentionally supplementing that interpretation, which can lead to dubious interpretations. I think applying a feminist filter to something like The Tracey Fragments, in which the mechanics and story both intentionally provide a feminist commentary, would be more rewarding.

If you're making a commentary on Scorsese recycling tropes among his films, I'd agree that he might, but I'd disagree that the merit of an individual film is determined by the other works of a director. It's fun and natural to rank a director's films, and compare films within a filmography, but I think discounting the merit of a film because it's 'not original enough' is dubious, particularly when the tropes recycled are so vague that they remain malleable.

And some reasons why I think it's the best film I've seen...

As mentioned above, catholicism, particularly catholic guilt, play a large role in the film. The scene in which this is most obvious is when he brings Vicky into his apartment to cheat on his first wife with her. There's a catholic image in every scene, from the scene painting in the kitchen to the virgin Mary in his living room to the cross above the bed to the crucifix hanging over the picture of Jake and his brother to which the camera zooms when the sex (presumably) starts. When he takes her puttputting before hand, the theme of the hole they're on is even a church. Once Jake becomes enwrapt with himself and more fully, topically vilified in the film, the catholic imagery disappears completely. That Jake is at least guilty of his actions humanizes him, but once that guilt is gone, once the catholic imagery is gone, I think it further vilifies him.

Playing off of that last statement, the primary motif vilifying Jake is his metaphorical dehumanization into an animal. His name is 'Raging Bull.' His boxing robe is leopard print. In the "you botherin' me about a steak?!" scene, his neighbor calls him an animal, to which he takes great offense. His brother says he eats like an animal when he begins gaining weight. When he is jailed, he screams to himself "I'm not an animal!" trying to deny what he's become. Several of the shots intentionally evoke a caged Jake, from the boxing ring ropes to the fence around the pool. When Jake comes back in his fights, the sound used is literally screaming monkeys, roaring lions, trumpeting elephants, falling horses, and other animals. It's simply a pervasive, subtle-enough motif to further dehumanize Jake beyond his violent actions.

On top of those cage shots, there's simply several handfuls of aesthetically superb shots throughout the film, from the zoom in to his wife's displeased face while she's cooking his steak (like the Taxi Driver alkaseltzer scene) to the long shot before a match (forget, but likely Marcel or Robinson's fight) that follows him from the locker room all the way to above the ring to the boxing ring microphone dropping down through a black shot to the blood dripping off the ropes after the last Robinson fight to the many snapshots during the boxing matches to the close up of the creaking chair as he beats his brother in front of his family. The way candles are used to create a smoke and heat haze evoking hell in the ring is amazing. The home video scene was shot by amateur crewmen to achieve its amateur feel, and was then cut, scratched, burned, etc. by Scorsese to produce an old, worn effect. The boxing ring physically is different sizes in each fight, according to the psychological state Jake is in. This film also has, hands down, the best sound in a film I've seen, from the aforementioned animal sounds used during matches to original match recordings to the camera flashes. This film simply has some of the best mechanics I've seen in a film and it remains incredibly accessible. I think that latter part is particularly important; it's masterful while not coming across as highbrow, self-conscious, art film.

I remember I had something about the opening and closing speeches, but I forgot about that for now... but that's generally why I enjoy the film.

Wow, reading that almost convinced me Raging Bull doesn't suck.

Almost.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

satiemaniac

Kool Keith Sweat wrote:

fantastic reply

The only response I have for your explanation of why you like the film is that I'll probably watch it again just because of them. I rarely see such a thorough and convincing reply when I ask what I'm missing, and it looks like I'm either underrating or missing a lot. So thanks for that. Applause

Now, while I agree other lenses are superior for evaluating the film as a whole, I think it is important to take early Scorsese as someone who has a lot of utility (a key word to my argument) for women. They serve, as I said, as functionaries for male character arcs. I take issue with the depiction of women along this line as weak and oppressed, as you put it, but that isn't my main problem. The young prostitute at the end of Taxi Driver could have been portrayed as a very powerful female figure who just finds herself in over her head in the final scenes (and maybe she was? again, it's been years since I've seen that one) and that wouldn't change a goddamn thing about the fact that the only reason her character exists is to bring into focus the troubles of a man. I think you understand that that's my point, though, so I won't labor it too much and agree to disagree. Essentially, I see the rampant use of this trope not as bad just because it's recycled but mainly because it's a childish portrayal of women that isn't necessary to get his points across. I think it would be much more fascinating for the women to be humanized and fleshed out, making his male characters' reactions to them more despicable than they are now, but I think in his heart of hearts, Scorsese sympathizes and wants us to sympathize with his flawed male characters at the expense of women turning into simple plot devices.

Sorry for any repetition that came up in that paragraph. Reading back through it, I know it's a bit needlessly verbose but I can't really figure out what to cut. So blah.

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

Kool Keith Sweat wrote:

If you're applying a feminist interpretation to Raging Bull, I agree that Vicky is presented as weak and oppressed and Jake sweats and bleeds machismo, but that's the point; it's used to vilify and 'animalize' Jake, and his views and actions towards women typically align with Italian and catholic stereotypes,

Totally this

satiemaniac

Norman Bates wrote:

Totally this

The problem here is he is not a vignette of a macho Italian catholic. He is a complex character who is dominated by these stereotypes but not defined by them. Even if you're arguing that Scorsese is intentionally making a film relying on stereotypes for atmosphere and flavor, there's no reason not to make the women layered, even if they aren't super duper complicated/revolutionary/etc. Do the Right Thing is kind of a bad example, maybe, as I'm making the comparison off the top of my head, but the women in that film, while surely possessing qualities stereotypical of their gender/class/race identities in order to add flavor, are still "real" human beings who aren't exclusively positioned in relation to men. I'm not asking that women be portrayed unrealistically in a world where they are conditioned to be unequal to men, but I am asking that they not be turned into devices and mechanisms for male directors to tell stories of male characters to predominately male audiences.

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

satiemaniac wrote:

The problem here is he is not a vignette of a macho Italian catholic. He is a complex character who is dominated by these stereotypes but not defined by them. Even if you're arguing that Scorsese is intentionally making a film relying on stereotypes for atmosphere and flavor, there's no reason not to make the women layered, even if they aren't super duper complicated/revolutionary/etc.

Okay, but what if the original material isn't like this at all? After all, it is an adaptation.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

satiemaniac wrote:

The problem here is he is not a vignette of a macho Italian catholic. He is a complex character who is dominated by these stereotypes but not defined by them. Even if you're arguing that Scorsese is intentionally making a film relying on stereotypes for atmosphere and flavor, there's no reason not to make the women layered, even if they aren't super duper complicated/revolutionary/etc. Do the Right Thing is kind of a bad example, maybe, as I'm making the comparison off the top of my head, but the women in that film, while surely possessing qualities stereotypical of their gender/class/race identities in order to add flavor, are still "real" human beings who aren't exclusively positioned in relation to men. I'm not asking that women be portrayed unrealistically in a world where they are conditioned to be unequal to men, but I am asking that they not be turned into devices and mechanisms for male directors to tell stories of male characters to predominately male audiences.

I'm going to go ahead and side with Keith on this - I feel that layering the female characters any further in this film would detract from how much they seem oppressed and subjected in this film. We see them the way Jake sees them, it expounds on his objectifying nature.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/