Raging Bull is a significant film for many reasons, a few of which this blog has touched upon, including its use of black and white and being one of the top sports films of all time. Another element of significance however is the teaming of director Martin Scorsese and star Robert DeNiro, since Raging Bull is one of several films they worked on together, and that many would argue it was their best film together. In fact, Raging Bull would not have been made if not for the persistence of DeNiro urging Scorsese to make the film about boxer Jake LaMotta. Scorsese had all but quit making films, but DeNiro talked him into believing only the two of them could properly bring this story to the screen. And his words ended up ringing true.

Clearly, DeNiro had developed a rapport with Scorsese, to the point where the two were truly collaborators in bringing Raging Bull to the screen. The two obviously continued to work together out of a deep respect and admiration of the other’s talent, and the energy they fed one another in their director / actor relationship. It was a collaboration that brought us Raging Bull, along with Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas (among others).

The tendency of a director and actor working on several films together is not uncommon however (but few others have such a track record as DeNiro and Scorsese). Scorsese himself has moved on to another muse, Leonardo DiCaprio. Alfred Hitchcock worked with Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant on several films. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, John Huston and Humphrey Bogart, Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder; the list goes on and on, but those are perhaps some of the most successful examples.

What is your favorite director / actor team? Which ones have made the best films together, and what films were they? What do you think makes a director and an actor work particularly well together? When a director gets fixated with casting the same people like Scorsese with DiCaprio and Woody Allen with Scarlet Johannson, is it necessarily a bad or good thing? Why do you think Scorsese and DeNiro work so well together?

Nearly a year ago to the day, the American Film Institute, as part of their “100 Years…” series, honored ten of the greatest American films in ten classic film genres. Sport Films was one of the classic genres showcased, and the AFI honored Raging Bull as the number one sports film (see the full list here). All the more reason the Philadelphia Film Society has chosen it as the first film to be shown in the filmadelphiaCLASSICS (Wednesday, June 24th, at the Ritz East): it really exemplifies a true classic, as well as a staple of a very American film genre. But what is it about sports films that make them such a beloved mainstay in American film?

Even the most unathletic, sports-hating person has a favorite sports film. Why are they so universally appealing? For most, the answer is their ability to inspire. In most sports films, the audience already knows that the team or player will ultimately win, or succeed in some manner. But it is their journey to that point that we find compelling, that they overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Sports create fascinating drama by nature, because they pit men and women against one another; its translation onto film merely turns the one team or player into a protagonist, with all the odds stacked against it serving as the antagonist. Sometimes the protagonist doesn’t even win, but merely overcomes the obstacles that stood in its way. Such is the case with Philadelphia’s trademark sports film, Rocky (number 2 on AFI’s Sports Films list). Rocky doesn’t actually beat Apollo Creed, but he is such an underdog, a nobody plucked out of obscurity, that it is amazing that he is merely able to survive his fight with Apollo, let alone stand toe to toe with him.

This underdog theme is consistent with most sports films, yet Raging Bull is a strange exception. It is Rocky’s polar opposite: a boxing film about a character that does not succeed, that starts off with a great career that slowly dwindles away into obscurity. Raging Bull and Rocky are both character studies, but Jake LaMotta is a tragic figure (and perhaps more true to life, as the story is based on the real-life story of boxer Jake LaMotta). Yet we find value in both of these films. Even those who think boxing is a grotesque sport find themselves engaged by these stories, because they are involving characters with interesting stories. True, many sports films are alike in that they tell a similar story of an underdog overcoming all odds. But it is our interest in the characters and their story that keeps us involved, not the genre, or the sport they’re playing. Rocky and Raging Bull exemplify two very different types of films within the same genre. But they are both held in high regard because of their ability to engage the viewer, regardless of their genre.

What do you think makes a good sports film? What are your favorite ones? Least favorite? Are there any real-life sports stories that you think would make a particularly good film? Which sport lends itself most to film? Which sports haven’t quite yet been given proper treatment on film? Once again, to get the discussion going, anyone who responds to the topic here in the comments below will automatically be placed in a raffle to win free tickets to the Raging Bull screening!

Posted by John Anthony

As many of you already know, on Wednesday, June 24^th, at the Ritz East, we will be showing our first film in the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series, Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull (1980). Leading up to the screening, we encourage you to contribute to the discussions on this blog.  These discussions will hopefully get you thinking about the film and generate some conversation that will continue on at our post-screening get-together at the Triumph Brewery and Restaurant on 2nd and Chestnut (with PFS members receiving discount drink specials). To get the discussion going, anyone who responds to the topic here in the comments below will automatically be placed in a raffle to win free tickets to the screening!

Anyone watching Raging Bull will immediately recognize that it differs from other films released in that time in that it was shot in black and white. For the first four decades of its existence as an art form, filmmaking was relegated to black and white film simply because the technology to make color films did not exist or was unaffordable (hence the birth of the term the “silver screen”). But since the advent of color film technology, the standard began to switch from black and white to color as color film techniques became more and more affordable and popular with the public. By the 60’s, two decades before Raging Bull was released, nearly every film released was in color. This begs the question why Scorcese or any director of modern-day filmmaking would opt to film in black and white over color.

Perhaps it is apropos that the first film we show in the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series is a relatively modern film shot in black and white. The black and white look evokes a feeling of something classic to us; we immediately associate it with older films since they were all shot that way. No one but Scorsese knows the exact reasons why he chose to shoot Raging Bull in black and white, but an effort to immediately make his film seem classical could be one. Indeed, it has gone on to become a classic.

Raging Bull also centers on the true-life story of Jake LaMotta, a man who lived in that era when films were transitioning from black and white to color. The use of black and white is appropriate in that in the film LaMotta’s career transitions from good to bad; the film thereby sticks to the look LaMotta himself would want: the look of films when he was in his boxing prime. Indeed, much of the actual boxing footage of LaMotta’s career is in black and white, so Scorsese seems to want to transport us back to that time and make Raging Bull almost more of a documentary of the life and times of LaMotta rather than a fictionalized retelling.

Scorsese made this decision consciously, with the art of telling his story in mind. And we the audience are affected by it. We see LaMotta’s world as he sees it, in stark blacks and whites. There is a simplified beauty to it. And it doesn’t feel cheap or uninspired. Other directors of modern-day continue to go back to use black and white, and for many different reasons. Whether it is to replicate the look of its source material (Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City (2005)), recreate the look of the era (George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)), save money (Kevin Smith’s Clerks. (1994)), or mitigate some of the violence to achieve an ‘R’ rating (Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)) each director will continue to use black and white to his or her own purpose.

What are your thoughts on black and white films? Do you feel a certain way about black and white films versus color films? Do you think there is a prejudice among the general film-going public against black and white film? When do you think black and white is warranted or unwarranted? Does Raging Bull use it to good effect? What are some of your favorite black and white films that were made once color films became popular?  

Posted by John Anthony

On Wednesday, June 24th, the Philadelphia Film Society will be rolling out the red carpet for the first of many screenings in our filmadelphiaCLASSICS series at the Ritz East. We’ll be showing Raging Bull, Martin Scorcese’s stark look at the life of boxer Jake LaMotta as portrayed by Robert DeNiro (a role that won him his second Best Actor Oscar). After the film, attendees will be encouraged to join us at the Triumph Brewery and Restaurant on 2nd and Chestnut for some drinks and discussion of the film (with PFS members receiving discount drink specials).

This event will mark the first screening of the Film Society’s filmadelphiaCLASSICS, a series designed to give members and film lovers alike a chance to see classic films in the way they were originally intended to be seen: projected on a big screen in a theater full of other film lovers.  But filmadelphiaCLASSICS isn’t just about seeing great films in their original format; it’s also about sharing your passion for these great films with other appreciators of film… which is why we will be hosting free discussions following each of the screenings, along with encouraging you to contribute to a variety of discussion topics on this blog pertaining to the films showing in the series.

It is our intention to get you talking about these films in a fun and topical way, posing questions such as: what aspects of film appeal to you? Why do certain films succeed over others? What makes a classic?

Of course, we don’t want to make all your decisions for you; that’s why we’ve put it out to you to decide what other films we should show in the series. If you haven’t already, check out the poll on the homepage and vote for what film you would most like us to show next as part of the filmadelphiaCLASSICS series.  At its best, we will be able to pull our upcoming screening list from the results of these conversations, but print availability sometimes makes this impossible—at the least, this poll will help us to evaluate what sort of films are desired of the series, so that we can best tailor it to the interests of our community.

Don’t see anything you like? Have a strong inclination towards a selection we haven’t listed? Then let us know in the comments below what titles you would like us to pursue, or convince us why your choice was the right choice!