公牛

        “我不想变成环境的产物，我想要环境成为我的产物。”

        在我最初喜欢上看电影的年代，我记得《无间道风云》是对我影响至深的一部电影，我被电影里刻画出的两个卧底在痛苦和绝望中挣扎，却无力挣脱命运的咏叹调深深吸引了，这句开场白，对斯科塞斯电影的人物命运似乎也具有某种概括性，在他最重要的那些作品中，主角和环境的相互作用往往是影片较深层次的内容，在这些角色的身上，通常具有浓烈的反抗精神而不断被环境所围困。从影片叙述的故事出发作延伸，便可使观众对导演的世界观作一些有根据的推断了。

        这里所讲的“环境”，包括历史和社会的方方面面。比如爱尔兰移民黑帮的美利坚沉浮往事可以一直从《纽约黑帮》讲到《无间道风云》；飞行大亨霍华德•休斯所处的年代，好莱坞一派纸醉金迷。《出租车司机》Travis Bickle则在一片颓废的现代大都市生活背景中，被孤独与无望吞没。当然最常见的一个要素还要数意大利裔社区(《穷街陋巷》《好家伙》)，同为意大利裔移民后代的斯科塞斯，在早年的生活中对这些环境因素保存着至今详尽而不失客观的记忆。

        《愤怒的公牛》里的故事便发生在这样一个社区里。杰克•拉莫塔是一位蛮牛一般的拳手，性格里满是偏执，具有不屈服的内在。在一个黑帮根系庞大的社会里，这样一名暴烈的拳手也不得不向帮会低头，打上一场令其伤心痛苦的放水赛。落寞英雄有一天也会落到上酒馆讲几个粗俗的笑话还没人捧场的境地。本片基于拉莫塔的自传，却没有花很多的笔墨来描写角色在职业上的成长，也不像同时期科波拉的影片那样具有明显的心理主义，而是把他放入一个详细的背景中，让他“随着历史车轮滚动”。斯科塞斯在谈到关于影片主题的时候说：“我认为这里的杰克是个曾经辉煌，但自作自受落得如今潦倒下场的人，但这时的他反而得到了心灵的平静。而最终他对着镜中的自己自言自语，告诉自己要轻松面对人生和生命中的其他人。这就是我们拍摄本片的目的。”杰克•拉莫塔的悲剧在于试图以一己之蛮力打通自己的人生而最终头破血流，当他的力量因为与环境愈发脱离而变得具有破坏性时，自我毁灭便不可避免。影片末尾，拉莫塔对着镜子感怀了一下人生，这时候他内在的不屈服已经带有深深的无力感，也许这种平静是个稍许令人宽慰的精神状态——但仍然令我唏嘘不已。

        在拉莫塔个人生活的呈现方式上，斯科塞斯一如既往地现实主义；大部分镜头采用深焦摄影，来自平常的视角并持续相对较长的时间，以一种充满纪实性的方式剪辑。按照巴赞的理论，这种较少人为控制的方式能够为观众保留更多现实复杂性；而在拳击场景中，则更多地偏向具有强烈表现风格的技巧，以尽可能有效地向观众传递关键信息。在70年代以前，大部分拳击赛的镜头来自观众席视角，而斯科塞斯决定要让这些场景更真实化——或者说更具表现力——这里并不矛盾——而让摄影机贴近演员，并采用拳手的主观视角。两种拍摄风格的对比是本片的一大成就。举个例子，在与Janiro比赛之前，Jake的妻子评论Janiro“长得帅又受欢迎”搞得Jake大为光火，在这段表现生活琐碎的场景中，Jake的怒火在积蓄，并在随后的拳击赛中残暴地痛扁了Janiro，这个仅有1分钟的一片段充满对观众感受的剪辑操控：
(……这时拉莫塔已经把Janiro打爆并逼到场边围栏)
a, 略仰角度拍摄，La Motta继续猛击Janiro；
b, 升格镜头下La Motta的手套接触对手鼻子并停留、将其打歪；
c, 极短暂的切回La Motta凶残的表情；
d, 升格镜头，鲜血从Janiro脸上迸出；
e, Janiro主观视角，对手正甩开膀子，积蓄最强大的能量把左拳向自己抡来；
f, 重新回到a视角，Janiro踉跄着躲避对手蛮牛般的进攻，摄影机随之转为La Motta的PoV视角；
g, 再次给Janiro的PoV，对手又来一波；
h, 画面高光失焦，Janiro被这一拳打昏了头……
I, 而La Motta似乎余怒未消，j. 不过他的对手已经失去意识，摄影机随着他倒下的动作而一起转了个90度。
——一个破坏力极强与暴力失控的La Motta便这样通过两种风格的画面组合而呈现出来。

        “斯科塞斯善用美国流行摇滚音乐宝藏来为电影镜头下的世界与人物作批注的独到品味，算是其电影作品中众多的注册标记之一，在他的影片中出现的每一首歌曲都会跟着影像与情节作一次深刻的搭配演出”。即使是一个对斯科塞斯不甚了解的观众来说，《愤怒的公牛》一片开场和结束的《乡村骑士间奏曲》也能够为影片的情绪定下完美的基调：它提醒观众这不是一部励志片，德尼罗在升格镜头下，独自在拳击场热身，配合这段乐曲，颇有一种尘埃落定和往昔已逝的感慨。

        ——于是我们不禁想问：是什么造成了拉莫塔的自我毁灭？直接的原因是他对妻子和兄弟的不信任，这种不安全感促生了他对暴力的失控，所谓“恐惧导致攻击”。而更深层次的原因，我认为则是狭隘的家庭观念和人生见解。这一定与他所在的环境有所关联，或者缺乏文化见识，或者是是意大利裔社区积久成疾的黑帮势力所造成的性格扭曲，所以拉莫塔的悲剧，无疑也是一个社会的缩影。

        我无意强调斯科塞斯的电影里，环境因素/宿命元素是单调的主题。对作者电影单一式的论断往往面临落入窠臼的危险，但很明显地，这是斯科塞斯有别于同时期其他导演的一个显著特征，这也许就是人们称他为“电影社会学家”的原因之一吧。

前段时间印度电影《摔跤吧！爸爸》大火，印度国宝级男演员阿米尔·汗在影片里的精彩演出也是最值得称道的地方。其中阿米尔·汗先分别完成了角色19岁以及55岁的戏份，两者之间体重相差28公斤。不过类似的情况其实著名演员罗伯特·德尼罗早在1980年的《愤怒的公牛》中就经历过，影片中罗伯特·德尼罗为了更好的扮演老年的杰克·拉莫塔特意创记录性地增重60磅。而片中罗伯特·德尼罗极为精彩的演出不仅为电影增色不少也为他获得了一个小金人。

该片根据前世界中量级拳王杰克·拉莫塔的真实经历改编。讲述的是一代拳王杰克·拉莫塔一生中从成功到失败的过程。当时的导演马丁·斯科赛斯因为前一部电影《纽约，纽约》的失败而饱受疾病和毒品的困扰，罗伯特·德尼罗去病房看望他时把杰克·拉莫塔的传记扔在病床上说我们应该拍这个。斯科赛斯由于被杰克·拉莫塔的故事打动最终决定开拍，事实证明这部经典的作品也完成了马丁·斯科赛斯自我的救赎。随后更是不断拍出了《好家伙》、《华尔街之狼》、《无间行者》、《纽约黑帮》等一系列卖座又好看的作品。然而我觉得《愤怒的公牛》依旧是他最好的作品，这和电影的受欢迎以及票房没有关系，有点像中国导演陈凯歌的《霸王别姬》、张艺谋的《活着》，只是在后续作品的创作上马丁·斯科赛斯似乎更出色些。

很多人把这部电影看做是一部关于拳击的电影。尤其是年轻些的观众很有可能是看过《洛奇》、《百万美元宝贝》、《拳王阿里》等非常优秀的拳击电影之后听说有一部叫做《愤怒的公牛》也很经典便去看看，结果很有可能会有点失望，因为这部电影既没有大量的拳击打斗场面也没有激励人心的励志。准确的说其实《愤怒的公牛》不是一部拳击电影，只是运用拳击这一题材表现一个在生活里极度缺乏安全感的男人寻求惩罚和救赎的故事。

把眼光放在电影关于拳击的场景上是不能完全感受导演想要表达的东西的，尽管在当时影片对于拳击打斗场面的拍摄在当时是极其出色的。大约只有10分钟左右的拳击镜头斯科赛斯原本打算花2周拍完，而实际上花了将近10周。斯科赛斯只用了一个摄像机拍摄，而且在擂台上近距离拍摄，让观众可以近距离看到激烈的打斗，他还在这些镜头里加入了大量特效和和各种人群的嘈杂声、动物的叫声、闪光灯爆破的声音，最后修恩梅克进行了出色的剪辑。最关键的是片中展现的血腥也是当时前所未有的，影片之所以选择拍成黑白片，除了因为拳击手套颜色会让影片底片将来会褪色以外，用彩色会过于展现血腥的场面也是一部分原因。

这些技术在当时都算是最顶尖的技巧，然而对于30几年之后我们来说确实有些过时。然而评价一部电影必须考虑考时代的背景，否则诸如像豆瓣里排名非常靠前的一个关于这部电影的评价“拳击戏太假了，演了些什么鸡巴东西，隔着20厘米呢就装被打脸了，剧组不给报医药费那俩逼钱还是咋地？你们就这态度还拍鸡毛电影呢？”。可能在30年后我们在《阿凡达》底下也能看到类似的评论：“这电影用的什么烂技术啊，当时剧组没钱了么，假的还不如在家看电视呢，那时候的人是不是不会看电影啊，不然怎么可能让这部电影在电影票房第一名呆这么久。“然而我想现在应该没有人会这么评价《阿凡达》吧。

电影其实注重描述了杰克的生活，而拳击场上发生的一切更像是他对生活里遭遇的发泄。电影上映之前斯科赛斯甚至担心电影能不能顺利播出，他担心的自然不是因为电影过于血腥，而是电影真正想要表达的内容，尽管他已经十分隐晦了。

导演马丁·斯科赛斯作为虔诚的意大利裔天主教徒，在他的电影作品里几乎都透露着宗教以及意大利裔文化对他的影响。影片里的杰克对女人其实有一种非常矛盾的心态，弗洛伊德把这种心态叫做”圣母妓女情结“。在杰克眼里没有失身的女子是完美的女性，而和他发生关系之后就变成了怀疑的对象。所以在整部电影里可以看到导演用了大量杰克怀疑妻子不忠的镜头表现这种心态，其中在影片开头杰克对前任妻子所说的牛排烤老了就失去了意义其实就十分明显的告诉我们主人公有这种奇怪的心态。

导演并没有打算把杰克塑造成一个英勇的拳击手，而是像塑造一个自卑，害怕以及性无能的男人。性无能的问题可能很多观众没有看出来，其实一开始我也没注意到。但后来在罗杰的影评以及一些影评资料里发觉了这一点（可能由于审查等原因导演没有明显交代相关背景，就算是杰克有这种心态也是隐晦的表达）。童年悲惨的遭遇使得杰克拥有了病态的心态，而杰克处理问题的办法就是使用暴力。

拳击就是杰克使用暴力最好的舞台。影片中杰克的妻子提到了他的一个对手挺帅的，杰克便勃然大怒，不仅对维琪大发脾气，在拳击场上也把对手的脸打了个稀巴烂。打完比赛后，杰克没有第一时间看对手和观众，而是看向了他的妻子。这里就很好的体现了杰克如何用拳击对抗自己的生活的。

影片里的杰克没有办法信任女人，即使是他深爱的妻子。他对妻子强烈的占有欲以及自己对性的恐惧让他变得不可理喻，无法沟通，而拳击便成为他唯一发泄的途径。童年遭遇产生的病态心理、不可理喻的家庭暴力、令人心寒的嫉妒。这些或许才是影片通过杰克的行为真正想试图传达的东西。如果你读过《奥赛罗》或许更加可以理解这种嫉妒情绪有多么可怕。对这里不太明白这些背景的观众可能会对杰克的行为感到奇怪，甚至觉得电影讲的故事没什么逻辑，这其实和当时话题的敏感不无关系。

杰克作为暴力的施行者却也是一个受害者，我们从他在拳击场上好几次被动的接受对手的殴打却怎么都不愿意倒下便可以感受的出来他有多么的痛苦。影片最后也对杰克进行了救赎，在街道上拥抱自己的弟弟祈求原谅是一种救赎，在化妆间对着镜子背诵《码头风云》里是台词也是一种救赎。杰克开始意识到自己的问题，但这些问题只有自己明白，所以只有自己才能实现救赎。

"我只知道：我曾经眼瞎，现在，我重见光明；不安与无畏、冷淡与狂热混合的矛盾体，任命运风生水起或急转直下，他永远只是一头愤怒的公牛。"

到底，我们都得遵从这个世界的规则，学会说客套话，做自己鄙夷的事。
有实力不是全部。
人的一个性格缺陷，就注定了他一生的命运。虽然明明知道，却无力改变。或者是像揭克那样，失去所有，穷困潦倒之后，才不得不改变自己。

摘自《Scorsese on Scorsese》一书中，Scorsese对这部电影的回顾。
Scorsese began working on a new script with Jay Cocks entitled Night Life, about a fraternal rivalry. But by the end of 1978 his marriage had broken up, he was in poor health and in a severe state depression. It was at this jucture that Raging Bull, the life story of former boxing champion Jake La Motta, offered a way out of his crime and personal impasse. It became, as Scorsese later acknowledged, a means of redemption.

When I was doing Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, De Niro gave me the book Raging Bull.... In this book, they tried to give a reason for everything Jake did in his life, for his guilt and for his violence. It was very bad,

Right after New York, New York, during those two-and-a-half years from 1976 yo 1978, I went through a lot of problems. The film was not successful, and I was very depressed. I finally came out of it when I was in hospital on Labor Day weekend 1978, and De Niro came to visit me and he said, 'You know, we can make this picture.' There were three or four scripts which had been written in the meantime, and they had all been rejected. I didn't like any of them and didn't pay much attention, because I was in pretty bad shape. And Bob said, 'Listen, we could really do a great job on this film. Do you want to make it?' I found myself saying, 'Yeah.' I understood then what Jake was, but only after having gone through a similar experience. I was just lucky that there happened to be a project there ready for me to express this. The decision to make the film was made then.

I was fascinated by the self-destructive side of Jake La Motta's character, his very basic emotions. What could be more basic than making a living by hitting another person on the head until one of you falls or stops?

I put everything I knew and felt into that film and I thought it would be the end of my career. It was what I call kamikaze way of making movies: Pour everything in, then forget all about it and go find another way of life.

…So on this island Bob and I were looking at each other, and he said that On the Waterfront was our iconography, not Shakespeare, so why don’t we use it?

I pointed out that this would mean De Niro playing Jake La Motta playing Marlon Brando Playing Terry Malone! The only way to do it was to make it so cold that you concentrate on the words and you feel him finally coming to some sort of peace with himself in front of that mirror. And that’s the way we did it, in nineteen takes. Sometimes Jake himself would really act it out in a very strong way which was quite heartbreaking, and Bobby did it that way three times. It was the last day of shooting, and I think used take 13 in the end. One reviewer in America wrote that it’s the most violent scene in the film. When he says in the mirror, ‘It was you, Charlie,’ is he playing his brother, or putting the blame on himself? It’s certainly very disturbing for me.

Bob got to know Jake well and he worked with him a great deal just to be with him. I think he actually took care of Jake. When we shot the boxing scenes we had Jake there for ten weeks. After they completed, Bob looked at him and Jake said, ‘Yeah, I know, goodbye.’ Bob said, ‘That’s right.’ The dramatic scenes bear little attention to what actually happened.

I always find the antagonist more interesting than the protagonist in the drama, the villain more interesting than the good guy. Then there’s what I guess is a decidedly Christian point of view: ‘Who are we to judge, to point out the speck in our brother’s eye, while we have a beam in our own eye?’ Jake La Motta acted much tougher in real life than he appeared in the film. The script originally showed much worse things about him, but I found it impossible to show them – you could over twenty years, but in the space of two hours there is a risk of forcing them out of context. Nevertheless, I find these characters fascinating. Obviously, I find elements of myself in them and I hope people in the audience do too, and can maybe learn from them and find some sort of peace.

… I was never a fight fan. I saw two fights at Madison Square Gardens for research and the first image I drew was the bloody sponge. Then the second time I went, I was in the fifth row from the front, and I saw the blood coming off the rope. As the next bout was announced, no one took any notice of it.

I felt that Jake used everybody to punish himself, especially in the ring. When he fights ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson, why does he really take that beating for fifteen rounds? Jake himself said that he was playing possum. Well, that may be Jake in reality, but Jake on the screen is something else. He takes the punishment for what he feels he’s done wrong. And then he’s thrown in jail, he’s just faced with a wall, and so with the real enemy for the first time – himself. Jonathan Demme gave me a portrait of Jake made by a folk artist and around the edge of this piece of slate war carved, ‘Jake fought like he didn’t deserve to live.’ Exactly. I made a whole movie and this guy did it in one picture.

Bob is a very generous actor and he will be even stronger when the other guy’s in close-up. Often I steal lines from the speeches we film over his shoulder, because some of them are so good. And he really gets other actors to act to his scenes. For example, when Jake asks Joey, ‘Did you fuck my wife?’ I had written a seven-page scene, the only full-length dialogue scene in the film. When he asks the question, you see Joey asking him back, ‘What, how could you say that?’ I told Bob I wasn’t getting enough reaction from Joe Pesci. He told me to roll the camera again, and then said, ‘Did you fuck your mother?’ When you see the film again, look at Joe’s reaction! I like that kind of help. You have to throw your ego out of the door: you can’t take it into the rehearsal room and you can’t take it on the set.

…De Niro’s not really a student of any particular method of acting.

   If we intend to list the top 10 directors in the 60s in states, I guess no one would vote for nay to Martin Scorsese. This short man with 1/4 Italian descent constantly presented some glorious creations during the 60s and 70s. People always scorn that he is the uncrowned king with no title from the affection of the academy in his golden times, but who cares; he got the affirmation from the massive film fans. Martin is a productive and versatile director if you try to take a peak of his works. However, martin’s motif and style is simple as hell, the could be concluded as the autobiography of rock music, mafia and gang hustle, Hemingway’s hero, and marginalized population. We all knew that martin has two particularly favored actors, the former one is Robert De Niro, the latter one is Leonardo Dicaprio. The two guys witnessed the ups and downs of his career and also, they mutually inspired each other in artistic level. With some sort of coincidence, the two actors nearly monopolized 70% of the marginalized characters in martin’s film. I saw Taxi Driver, Shutter Island, I saw The Age of Innocence and The Departed. I called my self the firm supporter of martin. I love De Niro for sure, however with some weird resistance without cause, I just reject to watch The Raging Bull.(probably as a female, Im just not into any film in the theme of the fighting), until recently, an imp of impulse pushed me to see The Raging Bull in 3th May, 2015. and once again, im completely overwhelmed by the vibe of the movie and De Niro’s amazing acting. I mean, sometimes martin’s film is so unique that is impossible to be imitate, his heroes even gave the similarity with Hemingway’s characters whom is rebellious and destined to be doomed in life , fight with the reality without purpose, fight in an even perverse way with the fate, but at the same time, they have some kind of inner strength in mind nevertheless it is not ranked as aspiration or belief. In literature, we call Jake a round character, an anti-hero, which means he or she is mixed in personality and action, who could be a evil & good, savior and sinner, black and white at the same time. Jake is paranoid, violent, suspicious, and chauvinistic, we hate all of it. But equally, he has a gentle and soft side, he never lose his dignity and pride, he fight to the last minute. We saw a man who lives in the dumps at the late years, it is the tragedy of personality, and also it is a self- choice. Are you feeling sorry for him? Maybe the majority of us would say no, because we see a man who can be crushed but cannot be defeated.