Taxi Driver

[joshg 207]

11 minutes ago, DanEngler said:

I have to confess that I don't get the praise heaped upon Taxi Driver at all. It's a story about an isolated and psychologically unwell man who, in his alienation, becomes increasingly angry about his lot in life/the perceived failings of women and minorities/the state of the world until he concludes that the only way he can make his mark and right society's wrongs is through violence. And (overlooking Paul's alternate interpretation of the ending) Bickle is ultimately vindicated: he murders a bunch of "filth" to "rescue" an innocent, is hailed as a hero in the press, and even gains the grudging respect of the woman who once rejected him. Viewed for the first time in 2018, it reads more like Elliot Rodger apologia than a critique of misogyny.

What am I missing? I am genuinely fucking perplexed.

To try to dissect your argument, I'm reading two complaints: an unsympathetic protagonist, and a narrative that doesn't serve him a just fate.

People might have different views about how "unsympathetic" Bickle is. He is definitely a pathetic/tragic/unlikeable figure, but as to whether we can relate to his mindset at all (as the Uber driver could) depends on whether we detest/criticize society even more than we detest/criticize the protagonist. Are we like Bickle, looking out from behind glass, throwing spitballs at the world from a distant remove, or are we an active part of that dirty, pornographic, politically phony society? The first complaint is answered by not how much we like Bickle, but how interesting we find him. Raskolnikoff, Macbeth, Holden Caulfield, were all S.O.B.s. None of us would want to hang out with any of them, but we are fascinated by them. Patrick Bateman from "American Psycho" is kind of an 80's Travis Bickle.  He is also completely absolved at the end, which is a critique of 80s Reaganism as much as Taxi Driver was a critique of its own era. So the "happy ending" is really anything but.

I wanted to respond to this because I actually felt the same way about Raging Bull upon first viewing.  I did not give a shit about Jake LaMotta, and didn't care for the film as a result. I must have seen something relatable, if not sympathetic, about Bickle that I couldn't about LaMotta.

[joshg 207]

17 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Finding out Tarantino loves this movie is not a surprise at all. When I watched it again this week, the scene with Martin Scorsese cameo made me think this of Tarantino because it's a director giving himself a cameo so he can use racist language and fetishize misogynist violence.

Of the three Scorsese/De Niro movies, I'd definitely keep this on here. If I had to choose one to remove, I might remove Goodfellas.

I love when directors don't just do a cameo for the sake of doing a cameo, but decide that they are going to play the most sadistic fuck in their own movie.  The other classic example is Roman Polanski in Chinatown, who slices Jack Nicholson's nose. And not exactly sadistic, but it's disturbing when Spike Lee himself (as Mookie) throws the trash can through the window that sets off the riot in Do The Right Thing. 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

11 hours ago, CameronH said:

Eve.

Harrington.

How dare you sir. Dr Pepper has never had to lie it's way into anything. If anything it's the Margot Channing of cokes and the minute it ran across the stage naked at 4 years old we all knew that was THE coke.

[AlmostAGhost 2718]

I do not believe he's vindicated at the end at all.  He did all those things by accident, basically.  Then society hails him as a hero, but that's an indictment of society, not a "see, he's awesome!" move.  How does the film apologize for him?  They show him failing at just about everything he attempts, from women, to assassination, to suicide.  I am just as perplexed how anyone watches this and comes away with the idea that he's a hero to be idolized.

I also think the very ending implies that he's going to go through this whole cycle again (and again).  Maybe he'll feel 'normal' for a bit, but something else will distract him and turn him into a monster.

 

 

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

31 minutes ago, taylorannephoto said:

How dare you sir. Dr Pepper has never had to lie it's way into anything. If anything it's the Margot Channing of cokes and the minute it ran across the stage naked at 4 years old we all knew that was THE coke.

Eve Harrington is the failed "New Coke," obviously,

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

18 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

I do not believe he's vindicated at the end at all.  He did all those things by accident, basically.  Then society hails him as a hero, but that's an indictment of society, not a "see, he's awesome!" move.  How does the film apologize for him?  They show him failing at just about everything he attempts, from women, to assassination, to suicide.  I am just as perplexed how anyone watches this and comes away with the idea that he's a hero to be idolized.

I also think the very ending implies that he's going to go through this whole cycle again (and again).  Maybe he'll feel 'normal' for a bit, but something else will distract him and turn him into a monster.

 

 

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.

[grudlian. 4725]

30 minutes ago, 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.

I don't think Travis is dead. Paul Schrader has talked about the woman who attempted to kill Gerald Ford was on the cover of Newsweek. I think he meant the ending to be a critique of American values. There was an episode of Inside The Actors Studio with either Scorsese or DeNiro where they mentioned discussions of a sequel at one point (that I assume never left the idea stage). Can't do a sequel if he's dead.

I might believe Travis died except the very last shot of him reacting to something in the rearview mirror. If the movie ended with nothing but praise, I might go with it. But that reaction to whatever Travis saw implies to me that even though he "accomplished" what he wanted, he's still unwell. He's not fixed. Whether that means he kills again, I don't know.

[JoeApel 2]

Regarding Amy's question if Martin Scorsese and DeNiro having three collaborations on the AFI Top 100 is a bit much, I'm wondering if it's just AFI rewarding Scorsese for being such a huge supporter of AFI?

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

3 hours ago, grudlian. said:

I don't think Travis is dead. Paul Schrader has talked about the woman who attempted to kill Gerald Ford was on the cover of Newsweek. I think he meant the ending to be a critique of American values. There was an episode of Inside The Actors Studio with either Scorsese or DeNiro where they mentioned discussions of a sequel at one point (that I assume never left the idea stage). Can't do a sequel if he's dead.

I might believe Travis died except the very last shot of him reacting to something in the rearview mirror. If the movie ended with nothing but praise, I might go with it. But that reaction to whatever Travis saw implies to me that even though he "accomplished" what he wanted, he's still unwell. He's not fixed. Whether that means he kills again, I don't know.

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.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

13 hours ago, DanEngler said:

I have to confess that I don't get the praise heaped upon Taxi Driver at all. It's a story about an isolated and psychologically unwell man who, in his alienation, becomes increasingly angry about his lot in life/the perceived failings of women and minorities/the state of the world until he concludes that the only way he can make his mark and right society's wrongs is through violence. And (overlooking Paul's alternate interpretation of the ending) Bickle is ultimately vindicated: he murders a bunch of "filth" to "rescue" an innocent, is hailed as a hero in the press, and even gains the grudging respect of the woman who once rejected him. Viewed for the first time in 2018, it reads more like Elliot Rodger apologia than a critique of misogyny.

What am I missing? I am genuinely perplexed.

I'll answer as to why this movie affects me deeply. To me it's a brilliant depiction of a lonely, stunted guy. I was never as extreme as Travis, but on some level I understand this kind of seething anger underneath the loneliness. There was a time in my life when I felt similar things (again, not to that extreme, but along those lines). The highly subjective presentation of this individual’s psyche has never been done so well, IMO. I find it mesmerizing.

What I also love about the film is that I don’t think it lets you off the hook for that: it shows how that mindset can lead to extreme violence, how ugly it can be. I know, not everyone takes the right message from this. Some people think it's practically an instruction manual. I can only describe what it says to me. I think the film shows SOCIETY vindicating Travis for his actions. I don't think the FILM itself endorses that vindication.

I absolutely agree that in 2018 it feels like "Incel: The Movie" (someone on the Facebook group posted that). But to me that is just further proof of how sensitive and prescient it was to this particular kind of social disease.

[grudlian. 4725]

31 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I'll answer as to why this movie affects me deeply. To me it's a brilliant depiction of a lonely, stunted guy. I was never as extreme as Travis, but on some level I understand this kind of seething anger underneath the loneliness. There was a time in my life when I felt similar things (again, not to that extreme, but along those lines). The highly subjective presentation of this individual’s psyche has never been done so well, IMO. I find it mesmerizing.

What I also love about the film is that I don’t think it lets you off the hook for that: it shows how that mindset can lead to extreme violence, how ugly it can be. I know, not everyone takes the right message from this. Some people think it's practically an instruction manual. I can only describe what it says to me. I think the film shows SOCIETY vindicating Travis for his actions. I don't think the FILM itself endorses that vindication.

I absolutely agree that in 2018 it feels like "Incel: The Movie" (someone on the Facebook group posted that). But to me that is just further proof of how sensitive and prescient it was to this particular kind of social disease.

I can understand not liking the character of Travis Bickle. He's unlikable. And it's uncomfortable to watch him and his actions. That's totally fair.

I think the big thing that makes this watchable is the movie never really sides with Travis. He clearly makes people uncomfortable. He's clearly unhinged. The movie is sympathetic with him to a point but the movie still portrays him negatively. Even though he is a hero at the end, I think the movie is criticizing society the over lauding Travis. If the movie did side with him or his actions, I'd probably not care much for the movie.

[Cameron H. 23786]

On 9/7/2018 at 4:03 PM, sycasey 2.0 said:

I'll answer as to why this movie affects me deeply. To me it's a brilliant depiction of a lonely, stunted guy. I was never as extreme as Travis, but on some level I understand this kind of seething anger underneath the loneliness. There was a time in my life when I felt similar things (again, not to that extreme, but along those lines). The highly subjective presentation of this individual’s psyche has never been done so well, IMO. I find it mesmerizing.

What I also love about the film is that I don’t think it lets you off the hook for that: it shows how that mindset can lead to extreme violence, how ugly it can be. I know, not everyone takes the right message from this. Some people think it's practically an instruction manual. I can only describe what it says to me. I think the film shows SOCIETY vindicating Travis for his actions. I don't think the FILM itself endorses that vindication.

I absolutely agree that in 2018 it feels like "Incel: The Movie" (someone on the Facebook group posted that). But to me that is just further proof of how sensitive and prescient it was to this particular kind of social disease.

I was going to say something similar. It's why I think this movie specifically speaks to adolescents - a period in which most people feel an acute sense of "otherness." It's a time when people feel like the world is out to get them or think they're a freak or whatever. And while I'd like to say we grow out of this phase, I think that feeling always remains - if only to a lesser degree. I mean, think about how many times you're in traffic and you think about how dumb all the other drivers are. How often do we quietly judge people for the things they do or don't do ("You didn't hold the door open for me, you jerk!" "You stole my parking spot, asshole." "Ugh! I can't believe you drink RC Cola! Troglodyte...") Even the divisiveness in America can be attributed to "I'm right and everyone who doesn't think like me is wrong (i.e. evil)." I think that's why this movie resonates a little more than Raging Bull. I can't really relate to an idiot boxer, but I can relate to Bickle's misanthropy and feelings of being an outsider. This isn't an endorsement of him at all, but I think it's the crack in the window that lets us peer into his world.

Also, my Letterboxd review was "Incel: The Movie!" Now I think the Facebook group is stalking me and stealing my bits. (Look at me not so quietly judging them  )  

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

50 minutes ago, CameronH said:

I think that's why this movie resonates a little more than Raging Bull. I can't really relate to an idiot boxer, but I can relate to Bickle's misanthropy and feelings of being an outsider. This isn't an endorsement of him, at all. But I think it's the crack in the window that lets us peer into his world.

I'll need to do a rewatch of Raging Bull to see where I might find ways to identify with the protagonist (it will come up on the podcast eventually!). But yeah, for now I think Taxi Driver speaks to me more. It's probably my favorite Scorsese.

[Cameron H. 23786]

2 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I'll need to do a rewatch of Raging Bull to see where I might find ways to identify with the protagonist (it will come up on the podcast eventually!). But yeah, for now I think Taxi Driver speaks to me more. It's probably my favorite Scorsese.

I watched Raging Bull for the first time earlier this year. I...was not a fan. As I said in my review, it's not even the best boxing movie on the AFI list. 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

3 hours ago, JoeApel said:

Regarding Amy's question if Martin Scorsese and DeNiro having three collaborations on the AFI Top 100 is a bit much, I'm wondering if it's just AFI rewarding Scorsese for being such a huge supporter of AFI?

Spielberg must have really done a lot for them, then.

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

3 hours ago, 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 get this. I didn't think he was dead either until Paul's interpretation of it made me revisit the idea on my second watch. If we're to believe the ending on its face, I feel like it's a disconnect from the rest of the movie. Everything else in the movie and its plot is very believable, but the hero's welcome is a stretch of the imagination. There's nothing else that in the two hours before that, that leads one to believe this is how the media would see him. That said, if he's not dead, he's definitely going to look for the next person to save, or the next schmuck to clean off the streets. 

Still liked this one a lot! 

 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

14 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

I get this. I didn't think he was dead either until Paul's interpretation of it made me revisit the idea on my second watch. If we're to believe the ending on its face, I feel like it's a disconnect from the rest of the movie. Everything else in the movie and its plot is very believable, but the hero's welcome is a stretch of the imagination. There's nothing else that in the two hours before that, that leads one to believe this is how the media would see him. That said, if he's not dead, he's definitely going to look for the next person to save, or the next schmuck to clean off the streets. 

Still liked this one a lot! 

 

I'd say it doesn't "fit" with the rest of the movie because we've spent so much time just with Travis and people who come into his orbit. It's safe to assume that the reporters and Iris' parents never actually met him. They don't know he was planning on killing the Senator. They only know him as the guy who killed a bunch of criminals and bad guys and rescued a young girl.

If the media turning such a person into a hero seems far-fetched . . . it probably does now, but for the era? Let me introduce you to Bernie Goetz.

[Cameron H. 23786]

Alive or dead, here's something about the ending that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Iris' father's voice over is done in this really halting and folksy way. Of course, there's no way Travis would know what Iris' father actually sounds like, so we have to assume that the voice we are hearing is the voice Travis is hearing when he reads it (does that make sense?). Anyway, there's one line in that letter where the father writes: "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again." In the tone that it's read, it sounds innocent enough, but in another inflection, that line is awfully sinister. I mean, we don't really know why Iris ran away from home in the first place. Has Travis just sent her to a place where she's just going to suffer further abuse?

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

18 minutes ago, CameronH said:

Alive or dead, here's something about the ending that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Iris' father's voice over is done in this really halting and folksy way. Of course, there's no way Travis would know what Iris' father actually sounds like, so we have to assume that the voice we are hearing is the voice Travis is hearing when he reads it (does that make sense?). Anyway, there's one line in that letter where the father writes: "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again." In the tone that it's read, it sounds innocent enough, but in another inflection, that line is awfully sinister. I mean, we don't really know why Iris ran away from home in the first place. Has Travis just sent her to a place where she's just going to suffer further abuse?

Yeah. I don't think the movie ever stops trying to unsettle you.

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

29 minutes ago, CameronH said:

Alive or dead, here's something about the ending that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Iris' father's voice over is done in this really halting and folksy way. Of course, there's no way Travis would know what Iris' father actually sounds like, so we have to assume that the voice we are hearing is the voice Travis is hearing when he reads it (does that make sense?). Anyway, there's one line in that letter where the father writes: "But we have taken steps to see she has never cause to run away again." In the tone that it's read, it sounds innocent enough, but in another inflection, that line is awfully sinister. I mean, we don't really know why Iris ran away from home in the first place. Has Travis just sent her to a place where she's just going to suffer further abuse?

That bothered me as well! 

[WatchOutForSnakes 807]

30 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

I'd say it doesn't "fit" with the rest of the movie because we've spent so much time just with Travis and people who come into his orbit. It's safe to assume that the reporters and Iris' parents never actually met him. They don't know he was planning on killing the Senator. They only know him as the guy who killed a bunch of criminals and bad guys and rescued a young girl.

If the media turning such a person into a hero seems far-fetched . . . it probably does now, but for the era? Let me introduce you to Bernie Goetz.

Good point! And great read. Glad Goetz actually faced some repercussions for the shooting while also being lauded with praise. I guess I can see how the community (particularly a filthy '70s NYC) could hold up someone as a hero for bringing down a prostitution ring. 

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

32 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

Good point! And great read. Glad Goetz actually faced some repercussions for the shooting while also being lauded with praise. I guess I can see how the community (particularly a filthy '70s NYC) could hold up someone as a hero for bringing down a prostitution ring. 

Yup. I do think it's telling that Goetz's harshest consequences came much later, in 1996. This was well after New York City had started to come back from what it had been in the 70s and crime had declined. He wasn't as much of a folk hero then.

[FictionIsntReal 79]

De Niro hung out with some soldiers from the Midwest because he thought Travis should sound like them, in keeping with Amy's thoughts that he wasn't from New York. Your theory that he wasn't a veteran at all made me think of De Palma's "Hi, Mom!" (which I've seen and don't recommend), which ends with the deranged Jon Rubin (De Niro) arriving at the aftermath of one of his own actions and complaining that he fought in Vietnam and then has to come home to this, even though the character's previous film (which I admittedly haven't seen) was all about avoiding the draft.

This was the first Scorsese film I ever saw, after I'd watched the Godfather and heard Scorsese compared to Coppola. I was disappointed at the time, but came to respect the film more when I took it for what it was rather than what I'd come in expecting. Speaking of which, I think if one Scorsese film should be removed, it's Goodfellas. I think that's a good movie, but the Godfather can represent all the mafia movies, while Taxi Driver is something else and distinctively Schrader.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

This was the first Scorsese film I ever saw, after I'd watched the Godfather and heard Scorsese compared to Coppola. I was disappointed at the time, but came to respect thefilm more when I took it for what it was rather than what I'd come in expecting. Speaking of which, I think if one Scorsese film should be removed, it's Goodfellas. I think that's a good movie, but the Godfather can represent all the mafia movies, while Taxi Driver is something else and distinctively Schrader.

I think Goodfellas is pretty great, but I agree. If I have to remove one, that's the one.

[Samwell27 1]

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.