Taxi Driver

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

My take is that Amy is not just a hater, but I reckon she's not drawn to "machismo" which is legit.  Nothing wrong with that, especially nowadays, in 2018 as people have been realizing its toxicity.   

I think finding 'negative' reviews is massively entertaining too, especially for a series about movies which are considered the best.  Did critics or society miss the mark by a wide margin on release?  It's like the inverse of Paul doing Second Opinions on HDTGM. 

These movies are already raised up as high as they could be.  We are watching the best movies of all-time. Nothing wrong with looking at where they're flawed or dated or whatever. 

Like I said earlier, I think on this ep, she focused on things outside the actual film more than she should, but I certainly don't think she's just hating on things people like (or liking things people hate).  I loved how on this episode Paul & Amy started a certain distance apart, but by the end had more or less met at a midpoint.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

5 hours ago, Samwell27 said:

First time posting, but I must ask, is Amy just a hater? It seems like every episode I've listened to (besides Titanic), she knocks the film and believes it is too "machismo." It is getting to the point where Paul is having to pull some positive notes out of her each and every episode. It is exhausting. Even when she finds an outside critic, she attempts to find the negative one? Why? Why always challenge and put down a film instead of raise it up? Yes, I believe in criticism but not when it constantly comes off as jaded. 

Let me know what you all think. 

Still love the show. 

I think she's deliberately looking for the negative reviews so that we can get a sense of the fact that while a film may become regarded as an unassailable classic over time, very rarely were they universally loved upon release. It's interesting to get that snapshot in time. If a movie is on the AFI list, it's obviously survived whatever negative criticism was thrown at it.

I think Amy does tend to have skepticism towards films that are super "macho," but I don't get the sense that Paul has to pull positive comments out of her week after week. She's been largely positive about the movies they've discussed.

[bleary 333]

On 9/8/2018 at 4:42 PM, Samwell27 said:

First time posting, but I must ask, is Amy just a hater? It seems like every episode I've listened to (besides Titanic), she knocks the film and believes it is too "machismo." It is getting to the point where Paul is having to pull some positive notes out of her each and every episode. It is exhausting. Even when she finds an outside critic, she attempts to find the negative one? Why? Why always challenge and put down a film instead of raise it up? Yes, I believe in criticism but not when it constantly comes off as jaded. 

Let me know what you all think. 

Still love the show. 

I think she's been positive on more films than she's been negative on.  She's been pro on Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, 2001, Bonnie and Clyde, King Kong, Titanic, All About Eve, Singin' In The Rain, and Double Indemnity, and she was more positive than Paul on The General.  A relatively common criticism of her views has been that occasionally she will let a reasonably small detail completely sour her opinion of a film, but I haven't found any of that in Unspooled.  One thing I love about the podcast is that both Paul and Amy are eager to point out both the good and the bad in a movie, regardless of their ultimate feelings about it.

Of course, I could be biased, since I agree with Amy about 90% of the time.

[bleary 333]

On 9/7/2018 at 10:40 AM, WatchOutForSnakes said:

He is 100 percent dead at the end.

First of all, the dialogue as the camera scrolls past the news clips at the end is all voice over. That's the only time any VO is by someone other than Bickle's, so it leads me to believe that it's all in his head, and it's his story/fantasy the way we hear his thoughts as he writes. It's like the lies he writes to his parents about who he wishes he were instead of who he is.

Second, all the clips are purely his fantasy of how he wants to be seen. It's the voice of Iris's dad profusely thanking him for returning his daughter and how great she's doing now that she's back at home. One of the news clips reiterates how grateful his parents are for finding their daughter. No way that happened. Now, regarding him being hailed as a hero by law enforcement - he straight up murdered people (you don't get leniency for them being "bad guys") carrying multiple unlicensed firearms, not to mention attempted political assassination. I just don't buy that any of the info we get in the VO or by the news clips on his wall were anything other than his own fantasies.

 

On 9/7/2018 at 2:30 PM, sycasey 2.0 said:

I'm pretty sure Schrader and/or Scorsese have confirmed that they did not intend for the end to convey Travis' death. Yeah yeah, death of the author and all that. People can interpret it as they like. But personally I also don't think it plays as a dream sequence. I think the film is taking yet another turn and challenging the audience who would hero-worship Bickle, showing how his "heroism" is basically made-up and not actually a fix for what ails him.

I had never thought of the possibility that Travis is dead at the end until Paul mentioned it, at which point I realized, "Holy shit, that would actually make the ending good."  WatchOutForSnakes spells out all the evidence for the theory well, and sycasey 2.0 points out rightly that it was 100% not the filmmakers' intention.  Thus, I'll focus on the ending they intended, where Travis lives.

So people critical of the ending seem to be pointing out that it appears to vindicate Travis, and the supporters of the ending feel that it is criticizing the audience/media/world at large for easy hero worship.  (For the record, that easy hero worship is not even farfetched in today's world, though the speed of social media would likely quickly reveal Bickle as a milkshake duck.)  But I think that's mostly irrelevant, because Travis's actions in the climax all had positive outcomes.  (Unless you're of the mind that murder is always wrong regardless of the circumstances, in which case I applaud you for feeling that way while still very mildly disagreeing.)  The people Travis killed were hurting and exploiting people, and as a result of their deaths, it would seem that fewer people in the world will be hurt and exploited for a time.  Iris made it back to her parents and went back to school, which I would say is definitively a better situation for a 12-year-old that to be a prostitute in New York.  (As far as the line "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again" goes, I think the word choice of "has cause to" diminishes the likelihood that this is supposed to be read or heard as menacing.)

So with this ending, what's bad about Travis?  He thought about killing someone reasonably innocent, but he didn't, and killed guilty people instead.  It's not that people are wrong to view him as a hero that is the problem with the ending, it's that they're absolutely right to view him as a hero.  And if that's what the filmmakers intended, then it's boring to me.  The chasm between moralities from different points of view is what made so much of the film interesting, and I find it hard not to read the ending as "But then everyone's moralities aligned in the end, and the good guys won and the bad guys lost. The End."

I also have a lot to say about Scorsese and Fincher and Verhoeven and Harry Potter with regards to whether a writer/director bears any responsibility when people take the diametrically opposed message from the intended message in a piece of work, but I'll save that for another post.

[bleary 333]

I should add, I do really like Taxi Driver as a whole.  I hate the ending, but it doesn't ruin the whole film for me.  If I had to kick out a Scorsese, it's definitely Goodfellas.

[Cameron H. 23786]

On 9/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, bleary said:

(As far as the line "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again" goes, I think the word choice of "has cause to" diminishes the likelihood that this is supposed to be read or heard as menacing.)

Yes, but if she “had cause to” that means she had reason for running away, and that reason is never given or discussed in the movie. My point is, she doesn’t want to go back home, and since one of the leading reasons for children to actually run away (and not just threaten to) is abuse at home, I think it’s a valid concern. Also, if the parents had to take “steps” so she doesn’t have “cause” to run away, then this further suggests that her reason(s) for leaving were not only external, but something that her parents were doing and had to take active measures to stop.

For me, it’s also telling that when Bickle initially tries to help her, she doesn’t want to go home; however, she is open to the idea of going to a commune. This admits that she doesn’t really like where she is currently, but the alternative of going home isn’t even an option that she’s willing to entertain.

Now, could this just be that her father is saying, “We need to show her more affection” or something? Possibly. But I think that’s the whole point of the ending.  It’s open to interpretation. It’s a happy ending if you want it to be. However, as that final shot in the rear view mirror suggests, even though things seem to have worked out for the best, they really haven’t. Why should we believe that everything has worked out well for Iris when Scorsese is literally looking us in the eye and telling us that this “happily ever after” is just a veneer?

[bleary 333]

43 minutes ago, CameronH said:

Yes, but if she “had cause to” that means she had reason for running away, and that reason is never given or discussed in the movie. My point is, she doesn’t want to go back home, and since one of the leading reasons for children to actually run away (and not just threaten to) is abuse at home, I think it’s a valid concern. Also, if the parents had to take “steps” so she doesn’t have “cause” to run away, then this further suggests that her reason(s) for leaving were not only external, but something that her parents were doing and had to take active measures to stop.

For me, it’s also telling that when Bickle initially tries to help her, she doesn’t want to go home; however, she is open to the idea of going to a commune. This admits that she doesn’t really like where she is currently, but the alternative of going home isn’t even an option that she’s willing to entertain.

Now, could this just be that her father is saying, “We need to show her more affection” or something? Possibly. But I think that’s the whole point of the ending.  It’s open to interpretation. It’s a happy ending if you want it to be. However, as that final shot in the rear view mirror suggests, even though things seem to have worked out for the best, they really haven’t. Why should we believe that everything has worked out well for Iris when Scorsese is literally looking us in the eye and telling us that this “happily ever after” is just a vaneer?

I wouldn't go so far as to say Iris will live happily ever after, given what she's witnessed and gone through.  But again, I don't understand how anyone could say that her being back in school is a worse situation for a 12-year-girl than being a drug-abusing prostitute in New York.  If her parents were monsters in some way, there would have been a clue of that dropped by Iris in one of her conversations with Travis.  And even if her parents were abusive in any way, they are now more high-profile because of this story, so I have more trust in Child Protective Services to have their eye on this family housing a psychologically damaged former runaway than I would have had trust in any authorities to look out for a child sex-worker.

So you can infuse darkness if you'd like by reading something sinister into her home situation, but even so, my point stands unless you're going to tell me that forced sex work was a better life.

[Cameron H. 23786]

3 hours ago, bleary said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say Iris will live happily ever after, given what she's witnessed and gone through.  But again, I don't understand how anyone could say that her being back in school is a worse situation for a 12-year-girl than being a drug-abusing prostitute in New York.  If her parents were monsters in some way, there would have been a clue of that dropped by Iris in one of her conversations with Travis.  And even if her parents were abusive in any way, they are now more high-profile because of this story, so I have more trust in Child Protective Services to have their eye on this family housing a psychologically damaged former runaway than I would have had trust in any authorities to look out for a child sex-worker.

So you can infuse darkness if you'd like by reading something sinister into her home situation, but even so, my point stands unless you're going to tell me that forced sex work was a better life.

Just to clarify my position, two things:

One, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm saying the movie leaves a lot open to interpretation. That line stuck out to me, that's all. You can take it or leave it. I'm not trying to "infuse" anything. I'm just trying to look deeper than the text and not just trust everything I'm seeing and hearing. 

Two, I never once said that going back home and going to school was worse than forced prostitution. That's putting words in my mouth and absolutely ridiculous. I only ever wondered if there was the possibility that she might be being forced to trade one form of abuse for another. We really don't know one way or the other, but I'm thinking about what could be going on in a 12-year-old's life that would make her actually run away, and abuse is at the top of that list. I think that's far more likely than "Mom wouldn't give me an extra scoop of ice cream for dessert so I'm running away forever and I'm never coming back! (Even if I'm given the chance, I want to, and it's clear that I'm in an unhealthy situation)."  

The thing is, Travis never even stops to consider Iris' needs and desires. He tells her what's best for her. He doesn't allow her a shred of agency. You're right, there's never a "clue" or a line where she explicitly says, "My father was molesting me," but there's also not a line where she says ,"I miss my parents, it was a real mistake to leave. I want to go home." And there's a reason why these lines aren't there: because Travis never asks! He literally knows nothing about her or her past. He never makes the effort. He never asks, "Why would you rather go live on a commune than live with your parents?"  I know this isn't your intention, but you almost seem to be saying, "Yeah, she might still be getting abused, but at least she's going to school." It's not like there aren't alternatives. For example, she could go into Foster Care. Maybe that's a better solution. But it's never even brought up. Beyond the fact that it's what Travis thinks is best for her, why is going home to her parents considered the "best" possible solution? 

Again, we honestly don't know one way or another. However, the whole movie is from Travis' POV, and he is unreliable as fuck. He's narcissistic and toxic. Given his mentality throughout the movie, what's more likely: that - despite everything else in the movie suggesting otherwise - in this one situation he was able to read between the lines, fully connect with another person, and intuit the best course of action for their lives, or that he saw and heard only what he wanted to in order satisfy his own malignant ego and skewed fairy tale logic (i.e. Storming the castle and saving the princess)? If the movie was about redemption, I would probably agree with the former, but since the movie seems to be about a never ending cycle of violence, than I'm leaning toward other interpretations. I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm also not willing to just completely accept the movie at face value.  

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

2 hours ago, CameronH said:

For me, it’s also telling that when Bickle initially tries to help her, she doesn’t want to go home

I think this was key to me.  That makes her ending not a happy one, right?  She may have been saved out of sex work, but she did run away for a reason.  That's not something we should ignore in the outcome either.  And it's another flag to me that Bickle is indeed not a hero here.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

13 hours ago, bleary said:

So with this ending, what's bad about Travis?  He thought about killing someone reasonably innocent, but he didn't, and killed guilty people instead.  It's not that people are wrong to view him as a hero that is the problem with the ending, it's that they're absolutely right to view him as a hero.  And if that's what the filmmakers intended, then it's boring to me.  The chasm between moralities from different points of view is what made so much of the film interesting, and I find it hard not to read the ending as "But then everyone's moralities aligned in the end, and the good guys won and the bad guys lost. The End."

So when you say "people," I assume you mean "people within the movie's fictional world." I think those people are "correct" (in a sense) to view Travis as a hero, because they don't know anything more about his mental state or what else he was planning to do. If "people" includes "people in the audience," then I'd argue the movie has some interesting complexity here. We who have watched the movie know exactly what Travis was planning. We know that he only failed to shoot the Senator because he was stopped, not because he had a change of heart. We know that within his world "bad guys" are not limited to pimps and drug dealers.

Another thing that I think can cause disagreements in interpretation is the difference between (1) what literally happens on screen and (2) how it's presented emotionally (this happens a lot with Scorsese, and I think the divergence between literal plot and audio/visual presentation is a common feature with him). It's true, what literally happens is that Travis rescues a young girl and only kills bad guys to do it, then is recognized as a hero. But in presentation? I would argue that Scorsese presents Travis' "rescue mission" about as dark and disturbing as possible. The music also goes "full dark" in this section, with none of the jazzy theme used as counterpoint earlier in the movie. We even see that Travis also wanted to kill himself and was unable to because he ran out of bullets. Because of that, to me the "happy ending" reads as ironic and not literal.

But I have no logic or plot-based argument for that. What happens at the end is exactly as you say. Visual presentation can be harder to argue, but I can only speak to how it makes me feel about the ending. It does not make me happy.

[bleary 333]

6 hours ago, CameronH said:

Two, I never once said that going back home and going to school was worse than forced prostitution. That's putting words in my mouth and absolutely ridiculous. I only ever wondered if there was the possibility that she might be being forced to trade one form of abuse for another. We really don't know one way or the other, but I'm thinking about what could be going on in a 12-year-old's life that would make her actually run away, and abuse is at the top of that list. I think that's far more likely than "Mom wouldn't give me an extra scoop of ice cream for dessert so I'm running away forever and I'm never coming back! (Even if I'm given the chance, I want to, and it's clear that I'm in an unhealthy situation)."  

Sure, and I apologize if I came off as flippant about that, or if it seemed like I was mischaracterizing your position.  You're right that there is a possibility that Iris is taken from one bad situation to another.  I had trouble this morning properly arguing why my view on the ending still aligns with that possibility, and I think the reason I had trouble is that I ultimately just don't believe it's the case.

So while admitting that there is a possibility that Iris's home life is a terrible situation, here are the reasons I don't think it is.
1. Iris ends up back with her parents in the first place.  If Iris actually has something legitimately terrible to fear from returning to her parents, I don't think that would have happened.  First, she could have fled from the scene and gone somewhere else.  Presumably, she instead waited for the police, either on purpose or because she was too scared/traumatized to move.  If she did not want to be returned to her parents, that would trigger some red flags.  The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was signed in 1974, so it would have been brand new at that time, and I have to believe that if she had objections to returning to her parents, Child Protective Services would take those objections quite seriously.  And under that view, the line "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again" reads to me like formerly neglectful parents who have been allowed by CPS to keep their child provided that they meet certain conditions.
2. As pointed out, much of the movie is from Travis's point of view, and he's unreliable.  However, the scenes with Betsy and Tom inside the campaign office are not from Travis's point of view, and they exist to show the disconnect between Travis's point of view and reality.  Given that the film already established its willingness to break away from Travis's point of view, and given that the letter is read in the father's voice and not in Travis's voice, I see the letter as being read in the manner it was written rather than specifically the manner in which Travis interpreted it.  And as CameronH said, in the tone that it's read, it sounds innocent.  This could be an eye of the beholder thing, but I found nothing troublesome in the father's reciting of the letter.
3. No real evidence whatsoever for this point, but I feel like her not wanting to go home when Travis tries to help her initially could easily be more out of fear from Sport catching her escaping than out of fear of her parents.  It could also easily be because Sport has manipulated her into thinking that her parents would kill her if they found out what she had become (which is not an uncommon tactic for child traffickers).  Moreover, unless I missed a line somewhere, we never find out just how long ago it was that she left, so as impressionable and manipulatable her 12-year-old mind is, it would have been even worse at a younger age.
 

Of course, as pointed out, she had to run away for a reason.  So there had to be something serious enough to force her to leave and still not serious enough to prevent authorities from returning her to her home.  The seemingly paradoxical nature of this is why the "dead at the end" theory is so much better, since Iris having a happy reunion with her parents seems more likely to be Travis's fantasy than the truth!

[Cameron H. 23786]

13 hours ago, bleary said:

Sure, and I apologize if I came off as flippant about that, or if it seemed like I was mischaracterizing your position.  You're right that there is a possibility that Iris is taken from one bad situation to another.  I had trouble this morning properly arguing why my view on the ending still aligns with that possibility, and I think the reason I had trouble is that I ultimately just don't believe it's the case.

No problem  

For what it's worth, I'm sure yours is the intended take. I think we are supposed to walk away from the movie feeling conflicted, "He's a bad guy, but he did a good thing. If a person does something good, does it matter how they did it?" Unfortunately, that's not really a take I'm interested in as it seems to imply (as discussed here and on the episode) that it is possible for good to result from this kind of mentality. It excuses it by suggesting that the ends justify the means. If this movie is supposed to be an indictment of toxic masculinity, than I don't like the idea that everything (more or less) works out in the end. It's the kind of thinking that allows dude-bros to hero worship Bickle ("Sometimes you've just got to take matter into your own hands, bro. People might resist, but it's for their own good. They'll thank you in the end.")

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting, considering what we know of Bickle, that he might be doing something that was totally not in Iris' best interest.  It wouldn't surprise me at all. It was just a thread I just wanted to pull. 

[Cam Bert 8145]

There was talk about Scorsese having three of this movies on the list and all three starring Robert Di Nero but what I also find interesting is he is not alone. Director John Huston also has three films in the AFI top 100 and all three star Humphrey Bogart.  Oddly enough Frank Capra has three and Jimmy Stewart in two of them and Hitchcock has four and Stewart is in two of those as well. Jack Lemmon is also in two of the four Billy Wilder ones as is Fred MacMurray. All of this to say I don't think this a bad thing. Movie making is often a very organic thing and when creative people are feeding off the energy and inspiration of like minded people around them you get good end results. So I guess given all these combos, in your opinion who do you think is the greatest actor/director combo?

[Cameron H. 23786]

It’s not their best (not even the best song on this album), but here’s Rancid’s “Travis Bickle:”

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

15 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

There was talk about Scorsese having three of this movies on the list and all three starring Robert Di Nero but what I also find interesting is he is not alone. Director John Huston also has three films in the AFI top 100 and all three star Humphrey Bogart.  Oddly enough Frank Capra has three and Jimmy Stewart in two of them and Hitchcock has four and Stewart is in two of those as well. Jack Lemmon is also in two of the four Billy Wilder ones as is Fred MacMurray. All of this to say I don't think this a bad thing. Movie making is often a very organic thing and when creative people are feeding off the energy and inspiration of like minded people around them you get good end results. So I guess given all these combos, in your opinion who do you think is the greatest actor/director combo?

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer for this just yet (except anything with Jimmy Stewart is going to be tops in my book).

That being said, I've been giving it some thought, and while my gut reaction was "No, let's free up the list for new blood," I've come around. What made me change my mind is I thought about the greatest songs of the 20th Century and a lot of them are done by collaborators. If I were looking at a list of the top 100 songs of the 20th Century and five of them were Lennon/McCartney, compositions, I wouldn't be calling for one of them to be removed. I would be like, "That's all?" 

So, yeah, I agree. If two people find themselves to be effective collaborators and bring out the best in each other, then absolutely let them stay on the list. My only caveat would be if the movies/songs were too alike. Then I would say lump them all together like Star Wars and LotR. However, I think Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas are dissimilar enough that that's not really an issue here. 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

12 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

in your opinion who do you think is the greatest actor/director combo?

John Goodman and the Coen Brothers. Always a welcome addition!

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

12 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

who do you think is the greatest actor/director combo?

Wes Anderson / Bill Murray

[grudlian. 4725]

22 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

So I guess given all these combos, in your opinion who do you think is the greatest actor/director combo?

Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune

[FictionIsntReal 79]

11 hours ago, CameronH said:

It’s not their best (not even the best song on this album), but here’s Rancid’s “Travis Bickle:”

 

I'll see and raise you a cover of "Runnin' Riot" by a Spanish band named Travis Bickle. Poor recording quality, but punk is more about enthusiasm anyway.

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

25 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I'll see and raise you a cover of "Runnin' Riot" by a Spanish band named Travis Bickle. Poor recording quality, but punk is more about enthusiasm anyway.

 

I like that

Here's The Curtain Thieves doing their song "Travis Bickle:"

 

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

Okay, down the rabbit hole we go. Here is the fabulous Travis Bickle Band... 

 

 

[grudlian. 4725]

18 minutes ago, CameronH said:

Okay, down the rabbit hole we go. Here is the fabulous Travis Bickle Band... 

 

 

If you heard there was a band called Travis Bickle Band, there is zero percent chance this is what you imagined them sounding like.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

1 hour ago, grudlian. said:

Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune

Best answer.

[Cameron H. 23786]

31 minutes ago, grudlian. said:

If you heard there was a band called Travis Bickle Band, there is zero percent chance this is what you imagined them sounding like.

I know! Lol! That's what I thought too. I found another band called Travis Bickle and it was like soft, indie pop. So weird.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

Yea I’m not watching any band named after Bickle. I love the film a lot but screw that hero worship, ironic or otherwise.