What am I supposed to get out of watching a two dimensional stereotype?

Rating: 2/10 (14 May 2010)

I've returned to Raging Bull a number of times over the last 30 years, but unlike other movies I've come to enjoy (after initially disliking them) I never find anything more in it than the meager merits found in the first viewing. I like many movies that Scorcese likes, but I find his own work pretty feeble and desperate.
Raging Bull is structurally facile. It starts nowhere & goes nowhere. There is nothing for a viewer to discover, because Scorcese doesn't trust you to find it. He presents this movies symbol set overtly, so that none of that pesky 'searching' or individualized viewing is required. ("Ooh there's a religious image in the bg of the sex scene. I found the meaning!") Scorcese is either enamored of these brutes or repulsed, but either of those viewpoints offers slim pickings for a viewer. When all is said and done a movie needs to offer more than a catalog of scenes depicting and embroidering a stereotype.
Movies can either deliver ideas or sensations. But viewers are now too ignorant to even figure out when ideas have been offered. Better to give them something showy; outbursts, near-constant violence, acting with a capital A, real human fat and 'pretty,' conspicuous camera work. These isolated conceits have become the traditional way of persuading lazy, inarticulate viewers they've seen a 'masterpiece!' There is nothing to pore over or to cogitate about when watching this movie. It accepts no meaning except that concerning violence.
In the insect world, this movies equivalent would be to force bugs to watch people step on roaches for two hours. This movie is for thoughtless viewers who can think of no better purpose for a movie than delivering sensation. Raging Bull is barren.