How accurate was De Niro's portrayal of LaMotta in Raging Bull?

lol complaining about Italian-American afros in the 1940's. I had to grease up my
hair with Vaseline to get in any where close to straight....in the 40's everyone
used hair grease (I'm talking 50's-60's personally). In the ring their hair was normal curly and thick. We're talking Southern Italian-Sicilian here not Tyrolean blondes.

I grew up not far from Pelham Parkway.

 

Thank you. I know it's a small quibble but every time it's talked about how authentic the costume and fashions are from Raging Bull I am reminded of how silly it is that they have Joey and Jake with their "Ring appearance" hair dos whilst sitting in the copacabana club. Like you say everyone slicked their hair in those days. Especially Mediterranean men. Formally men's hair was well groomed. I guess mr Scorsese had a unisex hairdresser do the hair for the film and she was a big fan of the natural fro.

 

OFFS!You'd have to make a movie 6 hours long! All books are edited for the screen ,eg huge chunks were taken out of The Godfather,Great Expectations,Oliver Twist, and hundreds more !

 

Yes but Klomptons himself even said that the dispute between joey and Jake "to do with Vickie" was not like it was in the film. The court hearings against the mob were not in it - and that was a big part of Lamottas story isn't it? He threw a fight and later admitted to it. When MSG famously paid tribute to Robinson retirement they invited all of the champions Ray beat for a ceremony except Lamotta, they included Randy Turpin from England but not jake even though jake just lived blocks away from the Garden. That's how big a stink it was that jake testified. And tha hearing is not in the film.

 

The film made it clear he took a dive that's enough,why would you need to sit through a courtroom scene?

 

Last name is Rainey. Not sure that he ever had a pro fight. He was in the Navy at the time and stationed in that area and on weekends he would go to fight in 'smokers.' Said he joined the base boxing team because he had a little background in boxing and the buliding where they trained was well heated ... it was a way to escape the harsh winter cold.

It was a brief conversation but my boss said his dad said that Jake was the best he ever boxed with, was tough as nails and got the better of it every time they sparred (he was able to pick up a few bucks for this, apparently, like meal money) but was a complete p.r.i.c.k to everyone around him.

 

Thats because the movie ends with Jake and Joey reconnecting which took place before the hearing and long before Robinsons retirement. The argument about Vikki was changed for obvious reasons. It went from being an argument about Joey accusing Vikki of cheating to Jakes insane jealousy to avoid a slander suit. That should be obvious. Its a relatively minor change that didnt change the point of the scene or the narrative or detract from the arc of jakes life.

 

Well that's not a minor change is it, in the movie Jake stomps on his own brother because of his own jealousy where as the truth might not include this scene at all. This scene is one of the most powerful events depicted in the film and your alternative might not include this! There is some difference between brothers not talking because one cannot accept his wife cheated on him to one brother attacking the other in his own home over a paranoid unsubstantiated jealousy. This is another matter entirely. Especially since you say Joey had signed away his right to dispute it.

It then becomes a scene Only put in to show what type of person Jake was rather using something that did happen like throwing Capriano down the stairs.

This means the scene from the movie of Jake stomping his own brother becomes something he might do "if only it were true" rather than something he might not have done.

If you think that it still is okay to use that scene (rather than another that you agree did happen) in order to make a film shorter or to demonstrate something faster whether it happened or not then it is up to you.

Personally I think the chosen scene is pivotal in presenting the over all picture of Jake to the viewer. And I prefer that it would be more of an accurate film if another of the many other distasteful examples were used rather than that one.

 

I never said Joey signed over his right to dispute the story. Thats something you incorrectly inferred from my saying he signed a release to use his name and likeness in the film/book. Its a minor deviation whether you care to admit it or not. The brothers quarreled over vikki, that is depicted in the film. The argument became physical. That is depicted in the film. It lead to a lengthy rift which is also depicted in the film. The slight deviation occurs where the argument starts not because joey accuses vikki of having an affair but because jake accuses vikki of having an affair. Its a slight deviation because it still expresses the nature of jakes possessiveness, insecurity, and paranoia. It also took the blame for action out of vikkis hands saving the producers a potential lawsuit and placed the blame on Jake which given his reaction to either situation is a fair assessment.

 

When Jake LaMotta was watching Raging Bull, he whispered to his ex-wife "I wasn't this bad was I?" to which she replied "no, you were worse".

I think the the biggest thing Jake had a problem with in the film was that it depicted him goading SRR. LaMotta said he never would have done that, he respected him too much.

 

So did him and Joey sort things out

 

To degree. A friend of mine just sent me the last pic of them together taken earlier this year. In his words: "Jakes an ******* but Joey loves him."

 

what joey is stll alive? good that they sorted things out