愤怒的公牛

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.

說來湊巧，1977年的奧斯卡頒獎典禮，由羅拔•查托夫和艾文•溫克勒監製的《洛奇》，擊敗了包括《的士司機》在內的四部作品，獲得了當年的「最佳電影」獎項；而三年之後，由馬田•史高西斯和羅拔•迪尼路再度合作的《狂牛》，在同是羅拔•查托夫與艾文•溫克勒的監製下，一起地製作了另一部拳擊電影經典。只不過，跟積極向上、以大團圓結局收尾的《洛奇》不同，《狂牛》是往相反的方向，向下墮落，它的黑白風格，抹去了一般體育電影的勵志色彩，令人看完之後，非但沒有感到雀躍鼓舞，甚至會覺得有點壓抑和傷感。

影片《狂牛》（Raging Bull），根據前世界中量級拳王傑克•拉莫塔（Jake LaMotta）的真實經歷改編，這位中量級拳王與挑戰者Sugar Ray Robinson的對決，曾是二十世紀四五十年代的一段傳奇。「狂牛」傑克•拉莫塔通過自身的努力和故意輸掉比賽的「換取」，既一步步向著拳王寶座逼近，也同時一步步邁向了崩潰的邊緣，他在擂台上被打至傷痕累累，其敏感的內心亦因多疑和猜忌，不斷地飽受著煎熬與創傷。

飾演傑克第二任妻子的凱西•莫拉提(Cathy Moriarty)，雖在當時只有19歲之齡，卻把Vikki此角色表演得成熟老道，亦深諳世事，令她顯得不願意受控於丈夫之下，或變成一個無自主意識的「花瓶」，擺設在傑克身旁。疏離又冷艷的Vikki，跟暴躁的「狂牛」形成對比，她自幼便「混跡江湖」，和黑手黨人物相熟，這難怪傑克總對她放心不下，整天疑慮著妻子會否在外面發生外遇關係。因此，Vikki的成長背景或其漂亮的面孔，更進一步刺激到神經緊張的傑克走入精神的深淵，他對女人的不信任之心態，逐漸轉變為一種既愛又恨，並想在其面前逞強的複雜心理；而此心理，亦使到傑克視Vikki為自己的一個競爭對手，他要在生活的擂台上贏取的勝利，正是對其想擺脫人控制的妻子之絕對佔有。

傑克•拉莫塔於比賽場上的驅動力，很可能和這佔有慾有關，當他揮動雙拳，令到一位連Vikki都稱讚道長得不錯的拳擊手「毀容」之後（其實Vikki亦應該只是隨口說說而已），傑克像個凱旋歸來的船長望了其妻子一眼，似乎在暗示妳不要再向這位帥哥抱有任何的幻想。導演馬田•史高西斯對女性角色的安排，往往讓她們處在一個「下方」的位置，被拳擊手般的男性進行語言之壓迫和暴力之蹂躪，像比賽中的四溢鮮血，濺落到女性觀眾的臉龐，或傑克•拉莫塔隨手打翻的飲料，倒落在來訪政客妻子的衣服上，都暗示出女性的弱勢地位。可諷刺的是，總希望自己凌駕女方之上的傑克•拉莫塔，最終仍是被女人施以了「還擊」，他經歷的妻離子散，也因被未成年少女的成熟外貌所騙（以為她夠年齡能進行色情服務），而進入了監獄。此時的傑克•拉莫塔，像個被擊敗的拳手，他在陰影籠罩下的牢房內，自殘式地對著厚墻打出憤怒快拳的一幕，看到人快要心碎。

作為本片的最核心演員——羅拔•迪尼路，若不是他極力將傑克•拉莫塔的自傳推薦給馬田•史高西斯，也不會有這部《狂牛》的出現；而電影取得的成功，亦在很大程度上得力於迪尼路的完全忘我、傑出之表演；他為了融入到這角色，不但和傑克•拉莫塔本人學了一年的拳擊（學到連傑克•拉莫塔也很難擊敗他），甚至不顧自己的健康，在四十天內增肥六十磅，成為了繼馬龍白蘭度之後的又一位方法演技派代表（迪尼路於片中也模仿了《碼頭風雲》內的白蘭度）。不斷攀上高峰的傑克•拉莫塔，也不斷喪失自我，影片的前七場重要的比賽，可能寓意著「七宗罪」（包括嫉妒、憤怒、傲慢、暴食等「罪狀」，都在主角的身上有所體現），然於第八場的對決中，傑克雖被殘酷的對手（好比殘酷的生活）所擊敗，但未被擊倒，仿佛又暗示著他將會獲得心靈上之救贖。傑克•拉莫塔的這場和Sugar Ray Robinson的再次交鋒，以一段令人深刻的慢鏡洗禮，象徵著他對自身罪孽的清洗，而其於最後被Robinson的猛烈強攻，又把自己內心的痛苦「外化」出來，帶著「贖罪」或解脫的意味。

飾演傑克之兄弟的祖•柏斯（Joe Pesci），因在電影《The Death Collector》中的表現引起了迪尼路的注意，並且獲得這角色的試鏡機會，而Joe Pesci的「滑頭」表演風格，又和硬朗、橫蠻的主角，形成了一種既帶著對立，也帶著互補的關係（值得留意的是，當弟弟離開了主角之後，經營夜總會的傑克•拉莫塔亦變得「油腔滑調」起來）。導演史高西斯重點落墨的這段兄弟情誼，猶如反襯了傑克•拉莫塔和Vikki劍弩拔張般的感情狀況，他對女人總懷有戒心，但跟兄弟的情感卻顯得更加之親密。不過，在電影裡面走向崩潰的傑克，慢慢對自己的弟弟也開始抱著懷疑的態度，他一邊調整著家中的電視天線，一邊卻指責著弟弟Joey和Vikki有染，這幕從暴風雨前的平靜到雷電交加的轉變，用了頗長的對話鋪排來更突出後面刺痛人心的暴力情節，瘋狂的傑克•拉莫塔，此時已喪失理智、完全地迷失，他跟弟弟Joey的關係瓦解，代表著他跌入到最黑暗的深淵；然而影片將近結尾，年老的傑克於停車場內跟Joey進行冰释前嫌的深情擁抱，又如一些評論所講，他最終還是因為弟弟的出現，而真正地獲得了救贖。

血汗混雜的《狂牛》，據說是由於史高西斯為了避過對血淋淋的畫面審查，和不想自己的作品底片在未來褪色走樣，才決定將它拍成一部黑白電影。它的少量彩色鏡頭，由一名貨車司機來掌機，目的是要達到真正的「業餘」效果，令其更似真實的家庭錄像；而這段表達傑克一生中最幸福時刻的彩色錄像，洋溢著溫暖，跟本片以黑白攝影所呈現出的冷酷基調（既在賽場上也在主角墮落的生活上），形成著極大的反差。影片《狂牛》，多次地運用了調慢速度的鏡頭（特別是當傑克注視Vikki的時候），來吸引觀眾之注意力，它的近距離在擂台上對著拳手拍攝的畫面、以及大膽地將背景拉遠的做法、和利用耀眼閃光燈泡營造的朦朧虛幻感，都打破以往拳擊電影的局限，形成著一股很直接的衝擊力量。

負責本片剪接的Thelma Schoonmaker，自《狂牛》這電影之後，便正式成為馬田•史高西斯的「御用」剪接師，她的出眾技巧，已經能夠直接用來當作範例或教材，令到不少電影學院的學生受益匪淺，像第八場拳賽的尾聲，她用快速、凌亂的剪接手法，來表現傑克被Robinson痛擊到意識快模糊的狀態，還有片中有時喧囂、躁動的畫面，跟人物細緻特寫的流暢接合，都顯出了Schoonmaker的深厚功底。電影《狂牛》的其中一個特別之處，是在聲軌上混合了人群雜音、動物的嚎叫，和閃光燈刺耳的爆破聲……這些特殊的音效，無疑更強化了拳賽的激烈或慘烈之狀況，使觀眾除了在視覺之外（近距離拍攝），亦可以於聽覺上，獲取到置身其中的現場感。

黑白風格的《狂牛》，跟以往的拳擊電影所不同的地方是，當主角在擂台上愈來愈顯得春風得意之時候，他的內心就愈顯墮落；當他的人生愈來愈趨往「一敗塗地」的時候，這位主角反倒在精神上得到了拯救。增肥之後的傑克•拉莫塔，雖因被捕入獄，而流露出令人憐憫的絕望痛苦，但他在監獄裡面卻獲得了反省的機會、獲得了生命重啟的機會，如影片最後引用的《The New English Bible, John IX》所說：「我只知道有一度我是瞎子，可現在我能看得見周圍了」。

曾執導過《的士司機》的馬田•史高西斯，因為遭遇了音樂劇《紐約，紐約》的滑鐵盧，和受到了婚姻挫敗的影響，而陷入到創作和人生的危機中，他在病床上讀完了傑克•拉莫塔的傳記之後，仿佛身同感受，尋到了共鳴，通過製作《狂牛》這部電影，史高西斯逐漸擺脫了毒癮的纏繞，也開啟了自己的靈感之門（上世紀八、九十年代是馬田•史高西斯的黃金創作期），他真正明白到什麼叫「浴火重生」，就像被無情、兇狠的拳頭重創，仍然屹立不倒在擂台上的傑克•拉莫塔一樣。