First of all, I know that I need another Scorsese late pass (and they'll continue this week, since I've rented Fritz Lang's M...I'll save the late pass-giving privileges for King Friday), but I just saw Taxi Driver today.

While completely engrossing and fascinating, I find myself unable to immediately voice a surefire opinion on the movie as a whole. It goes without saying that the acting, the music, and the camera work was really really terrific, which is why it's so easy to get sucked into. But something about the story left me hanging at the end, maybe because I feel like while the ending makes SENSE, it went one scene too long.

But I don't know...you ever watch a movie and feel like you need to watch it again in order to really get all of it into your system? That's how I feel right now about Taxi Driver. I feel like I don't understand all of Travis's actions, but then again, neither does he. All I know is the fact that the movie has got me thinking afterwards about it is a sign of how brilliantly the film is made, both in front of and behind the camera. The damn thing has wrapped itself around my brain and won't let go. But it's not the type of movie that immediately has me saying "I loved it" or "I need to go cop the DVD." It mostly has me saying "I need to see it again to get a better grasp on everything in Travis's mind."

Talk to me, people. What do y'all think? Genius film? Flawed film? A bit of both? Overhyped garbage?

same with Mean Streets

I'll definitely end up seeing it again at some point in the near future.

What about it stood out for you upon multiple viewings?

>What about it stood out for you upon multiple viewings?

I think for Mean Streets I went in with the intention of seeing an early version Goodfellas, and didn't really catch on to any themes of guilt or relate to Harvey's character. Guess I just wanted to see some gangsta shit at the time.

With Taxi Driver, I can't really pinpoint it but it's probably the same thing as far as how I approached it. I wasn't all that into character driven films at the time, and really knew nothing about the movie other than DeNiro saying "you talking...". The whole thing just caught me off guard. It was one of those movies i just wanted to see so I could say I saw it. I don't even know what made me want to see it again but when I did I was really into Travis' character. The fact that I related to him was kinda scary lol.

The guy with a snake on his face

i did it to get it out the way.
lol...

in a way i think it went too far at the end with the whole travis as hero thing
just kinda contrived. but at the same time, how would i have ended the movie differently? i'm not too sure

but my problem with the ending really isn't major. the movie is so good throughout that for me, its sort of minor that it didn't end the way i wanted. it didn't totally bitch up but i think it sort of compromised the build up

But the question to be asked was how much of a hero was he really? Of course it was good that he saved the girl but he saved somebody who didn't want to be saved, just like the campaign worker. And his act of heroism wasn't heroic in any sense of the word, and he wasn't any better than the people he killed.

>But I don't know...you ever watch a movie and feel like you
>need to watch it again in order to really get all of it into
>your system?

I felt the same way. You will end up watching it many times, and then really appreciating it more. The "There will be no more pills, no more bad food, no more destroyers of my body." rant is great, sometimes I feel that way.


Have you ever seen what a .44 Magnum will do to a woman's pussy? Now that you should see. What a .44 Magnum will do to a woman's pussy that you should see?

Jerk.

...and not to sound high-and-mighty, but I loved it upon first viewing. I thought DeNiro was unbelievable...one of the few films the actor sinks their teeth so deep into a role you forget that you are even watching that actor...they become the character...and the acting is just so raw, on another level. Visually, thematically, etc. it took a couple more viewings, but on first viewing I thought it was unbelievable and the acting left my jaw on the floor. Watch it again and we'll talk about if Travis actually died and the last however-or-so minutes of the film are his fantasy or some kind of fever dream.

>I've rented Fritz
>Lang's M...I'll save the late pass-giving privileges for King
>Friday),

I don't think I've ever given anyone a "late pass" before. At least not that I can remember.

>but I just saw Taxi Driver today.
>
>While completely engrossing and fascinating, I find myself
>unable to immediately voice a surefire opinion on the movie as
>a whole.

I see.

>It goes without saying that the acting, the music,
>and the camera work was really really terrific,

This part is true. . . more or less.

>But something about the story
>left me hanging at the end, maybe because I feel like while
>the ending makes SENSE, it went one scene too long.

The ending is definitely ambiguous.

>
>But I don't know...you ever watch a movie and feel like you
>need to watch it again in order to really get all of it into
>your system?

Yes.

>That's how I feel right now about Taxi Driver.

I've seen Taxi Driver several times myself trying to sort out my problems with it. I've given it a lot of chances. I've seen it more times than I've seen most movies I actually like.

>Talk to me, people. What do y'all think? Genius film? Flawed
>film? A bit of both? Overhyped garbage?

I don't like Taxi Driver. But I do think its subject. . . the story of a disturbed war veteran turned right wing vigilante assassin is a worthy one. . . it's a type we've seen spring up here and there in the real world in the past several decades.

But I'm not sure how much the film really has to say on the subject. I don't find it a particularly enlightening portrait of this character.

I also think the movie is a bit too fond of the character. Sometimes I even get the feeling he's speaking *for* the filmmakers. . . or at least for writer Paul Schrader. Perhaps not for Scorsese.

I've always had a problem with the part of the movie where Travis takes Cybil Shepard's character to the porn theater. I find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that Travis would have been so stupid as to take her there in the first place. Especially at that point in the story.

I also find it hard to believe that Cybil Shepard's character would have walked into the theater with him at all. It clearly wasn't playing a musical that night. And she definitely wasn't into porn.

The movie has lots of problems in my view.

Other films have treated characters who snap suddenly and kill people with greater understanding than this one. For example, there was "Why Does Herr R. Run Amok" directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder back in the early 70s. Or more recently there was "The Assassination Of Richard Nixon" which starred Sean Penn and was based on the true story of a man who plotted to kill Richard Nixon.

>I don't like Taxi Driver. But I do think its subject. . . the
>story of a disturbed war veteran turned right wing vigilante
>assassin is a worthy one. . . it's a type we've seen spring up
>here and there in the real world in the past several decades.
>
>
>But I'm not sure how much the film really has to say on the
>subject. I don't find it a particularly enlightening portrait
>of this character.

Yeah, it really doesn't let you know WHY Travis ticks, it just kind of shows those ticks.

>
>I also think the movie is a bit too fond of the character.
>Sometimes I even get the feeling he's speaking *for* the
>filmmakers. . . or at least for writer Paul Schrader. Perhaps
>not for Scorsese.

Y'know, it was the very last scene that made me feel a bit that way too. It was like "Now that he's gotten that killing out of his system, he can take steps towards getting over his girl problem." That last scene just struck me as a bit too neat and tidy. And granted, I understand that he still looks at her in the rearview as he drives away, leaving a bit of ambiguity. However, certainly some progression has been made, since earlier in the movie there's no way he would've even let her out of his sight, period.

>
>I've always had a problem with the part of the movie where
>Travis takes Cybil Shepard's character to the porn theater. I
>find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that
>Travis would have been so stupid as to take her there in the
>first place. Especially at that point in the story.
>
>I also find it hard to believe that Cybil Shepard's character
>would have walked into the theater with him at all. It
>clearly wasn't playing a musical that night. And she
>definitely wasn't into porn.
>
>The movie has lots of problems in my view.

Yeah... I hear ya. I thought that scene was one of my least favorite, with Cybill twitching in the movie theater melodramatically, as if each shot of perversion was physically torturing her...yeah.

>
>Other films have treated characters who snap suddenly and kill
>people with greater understanding than this one. For example,
>there was "Why Does Herr R. Run Amok" directed by Rainer
>Werner Fassbinder back in the early 70s. Or more recently
>there was "The Assassination Of Richard Nixon" which starred
>Sean Penn and was based on the true story of a man who plotted
>to kill Richard Nixon.

That last one in particular I really wanted to see, since I think Sam Byck is a REALLY fascinating man.

>>Other films have treated characters who snap suddenly and
>kill
>>people with greater understanding than this one. For
>example,
>>there was "Why Does Herr R. Run Amok" directed by Rainer
>>Werner Fassbinder back in the early 70s. Or more recently
>>there was "The Assassination Of Richard Nixon" which starred
>>Sean Penn and was based on the true story of a man who
>plotted
>>to kill Richard Nixon.
>
>That last one in particular I really wanted to see, since I
>think Sam Byck is a REALLY fascinating man.

Tis a good flick. Sorta tough 2 watch @ times but still good overall. However American Psycho might be my favorite of this genre. I still havent seen Taxi Driver in its entirity. I always lose interest after awhile.

>I've always had a problem with the part of the movie where
>Travis takes Cybil Shepard's character to the porn theater. I
>find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that
>Travis would have been so stupid as to take her there in the
>first place. Especially at that point in the story.

Those places were more common back then for couples. it wasn't 'the norm' but much more common. we're talking about the 70s here. Its the first time porn was out in the open to the public. there were no VCRs or anything so that's where you had to go. Travis was obviously socially clueless. he had no frame of reference, no friends, no internet to seek out information. all he knows is that he's seen other couples come to the theater.

>I also find it hard to believe that Cybil Shepard's character
>would have walked into the theater with him at all. It
>clearly wasn't playing a musical that night. And she
>definitely wasn't into porn.

She was young and semi-curious. she didn't know what to expect. She went out with Travis because he was different (plus they emphasize in the script that Travis is a pretty good looking guy). Travis introduced her to part of his world and it was all she needed. That was the moment she made the distinction between different and creepy. Given the results, it was an important scene.

>I also think the movie is a bit too fond of the character.
>Sometimes I even get the feeling he's speaking *for* the
>filmmakers. . . or at least for writer Paul Schrader. Perhaps
>not for Scorsese.

if it was too fond of its character, why would they think their character is 'stupid enough' to take his date to a porn theater? ;)

>I've always had a problem with the part of the movie where
>Travis takes Cybil Shepard's character to the porn theater. I
>find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that
>Travis would have been so stupid as to take her there in the
>first place. Especially at that point in the story.

in some commentary i've seen on that scene, i think schrader said it travis's attempt to "dirty" her, having been drawn to her by that kind of sweeping angelic light he sees her in, but at the same time his mix of fascination and self righteous repulsion with the grime of the city made him feel like he had to do something like that to get her on his level (it was always a scene that bothered me as well, but that's the best explanation i remember of it)

>I've seen Taxi Driver several times myself trying to sort out
>my problems with it. I've given it a lot of chances. I've
>seen it more times than I've seen most movies I actually
>like.
>
>>Talk to me, people. What do y'all think? Genius film? Flawed
>>film? A bit of both? Overhyped garbage?
>
>I don't like Taxi Driver. But I do think its subject. . . the
>story of a disturbed war veteran turned right wing vigilante
>assassin is a worthy one. . . it's a type we've seen spring up
>here and there in the real world in the past several decades.
>
>
>But I'm not sure how much the film really has to say on the
>subject. I don't find it a particularly enlightening portrait
>of this character.
>
>I also think the movie is a bit too fond of the character.
>Sometimes I even get the feeling he's speaking *for* the
>filmmakers. . . or at least for writer Paul Schrader. Perhaps
>not for Scorsese.
>
>I've always had a problem with the part of the movie where
>Travis takes Cybil Shepard's character to the porn theater. I
>find it hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that
>Travis would have been so stupid as to take her there in the
>first place. Especially at that point in the story.
>
>I also find it hard to believe that Cybil Shepard's character
>would have walked into the theater with him at all. It
>clearly wasn't playing a musical that night. And she
>definitely wasn't into porn.
>

Travis Bickle has so many layers.

At the end, you don't know for sure if he's a hero or not.

Brilliant.

..., but a hero regardless. The ambiguity is ripe througout the film but is removed in the final scenes.

Mech

nm

Both story and technique-wise. I mean, really: it's just a bunch of set-pieces sewn up to tell a story; there's a fair amount of disjointedness between the different parts of the film... but I suppose that's how "madness" was portrayed effectively.

Now, do I like it? Yes, it's think it's very, very damn good... at times brilliant. But it's that ending that throws me. It ends like a hopeful action flick to me, and it feels like it has nothing to do with the dread and psychosis of what we were originally watching. Wrapped up so neatly and all.

But overall, a great example of the "director's films" of the 70's.

--Maurice

Back in '96 my roommate was a film major and I hadn't yet seen Taxi Driver so he made me sit down and watch it. At first I was like "Yeah it's good but I don't know if it deserved all that hype" But it's the kind of film that sticks in your head and you think about for a while.

Then I rewatched it a week later just to try and get it out of my head and it clicked more.

You seen The King of Comedy? Another great Scorcese/Dinero team up.
That film is just as relevant now as when it came out if not more so.

--Maurice

It felt more complete to me, and its **SPOILER** ending wasn't so eyebrow-raisingly hopeful in light of its subject matter.

To be fair, though, it's been quite some time since I've seen Taxi Driver. And I will say that no scene in King of Comedy ever comes close to the strongest scenes in Taxi Driver.

King of Comedy was just strong throughout.

--Maurice

"and its **SPOILER** ending wasn't so eyebrow-raisingly hopeful in light of its subject matter."

Mech

This is something I didn't consider until I read it in an essay; I had already seen the fiml twice. I understand the argument, but I was never fully convinced that the film portrays Bickle as a biggot.

Mech

What essay was this?

--Maurice

When I get it from storage with the rest of my shit I'll try to remember to post a citation. There are similar theories about John Ford in The Searchers.

Mech

Travis's racism seems to be something that's awlays talked about even though we don't see too much of it in the movie. but apparently in the original draft, Keitel's character, and everyone Travis kills in the end were all black

Meaning, they're used to emphasize Travis's focus on people of color in NYC. I can't imagine what it would have meant if the final scene was him slaughtering a bunch of black people.

Mech

It would've basically made the movie entirely about race

>I can't imagine what it would have meant if
>the final scene was him slaughtering a bunch of black people.
>
>Mech

Nothing completely concrete that I can remember...

He associates blacks with the scum of the city. They're the ones who egg his car, who rob the stores, who stand in the bad parts of town and menace people. Whenever a black person walks by, he stares at them. He always seems uncomfortable with the black guy who sits with the Wizard and them. AND the passenger in the cab who seems to inspire him is disgusted that his wife is up there with a "n*gger", and Travis seems to be sympathetic to a degree.

I definitely thought he was a racist, because he associated black people with the scum in the city that he wanted washed away.

To me, the film always seemed misplaced in the context of the story; but, I assumed that it was meant to demonstrate the oddity a NYC cabby experiences. It felt like it was originally meant to cap off a montage . I've never read the script so I don't if that was the intention or not. Also, I wondered if it was meant to help introduce violence and depraity into the film.

Mech

You can see in the scene afterward that he's deeply affected by it, distracted from his surroundings by his thoughts focused on what had occurred.

Also, almost immediately following that scene is Travis's obsession with guns. They have to be connected.

The passenger was going on about the 44 magnum right?

Mech

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

kurly's Super-Duper Awesome DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

It comes from the Searchers too.

What's he watching when he kicks his TV over? Who's the first guy he shoots? Who does he focus on in the diner?

If Travis is clearly a racist, as a believe he is, then what does affording him a happy ending mean?

Mech

Meaning he died from the first time he was shot and everything else is his fantasy/concept of heaven. The fantasy being, he saves the girl, recieves national praise and gets a hot girlfriend; basically, he finally recieves the recognition he deserves. I think it's an intersting theory, even if it seems mildly trite today, and explains the oddly sappy final scenes. If this was the intention of the screewriter, it makes for interesting commentary on America's idea of celebrity. Personally, I don't think anything in the film actually supports this theory but if it did I would feel the film is a lot tighter, has a stronger theme and would be far more satisfying in its discussion of American masculinity being intertwined percieved reality.

Mech

One of the things that let me support it for myself is that the final shot only shows the woman in the rear view mirror, if I remember right. It just seems like a dream or a fantasy, not something real or tangible because we never really see the woman.

Still, that ending has always been so ridiculous and unreal that I've always just assumed it was a dying fantasy. I only really liked the movie once I decided that was a dying fantasy, because otherwise I found it too pessimistic and black-hearted to really enjoy. I mean, the woman getting in the taxi? That was just ridiculous.

--Maurice

I liked the soundtrack though.

Mech

i never knew about taxi driver.

i always knew about the "you talkin' to me" phrase

never knew where it came from, until i saw this for the 1st time.

anyway, i was up late one night and was able to catch it on cable.

i found it to be very strange, especially the ending. the ending was rather awkward to me.

maybe around that time, that was groundbreaking.

it wasn't wack,but...i just don't see the greatness in it.

the whole thing about travis being racist, i never got that from the movie because the story wasn't strong enough or deep enough to me to actually care if that was the case.

the story didn't make me care, i guess.

i just don't understand the hype about it.

like with goodfellas, i can understand the hype. great movie by scorsese.

but taxi driver? i don't know, i think its kind of an empty movie.

You didn't dig the movie as much as others do, and that's fine, but I always feel some kind of way about posts where people say things like, "why is ______ so hyped up to be so great? Explain it to me..." because chances are, no matter how much is typed about it, the person asking the question won't be persuaded... and so the post becomes both a thinly-veiled attack on "the critical intellgensia" and a pointless series of board-cysing posts about people's likes and dislikes... not saying this was your intent specifically, but, yeah...

________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

the movie has much critical acclaim, and i'm confused as to why it is

what is in the movie, that i don't get.

like i said, i don't think its wack.

at the same time, i don't think its riveting or brilliant.

i just think its awkward and strange.

if others like it thats fine.

i'll check out what others have posted in this thread

just to see how other people see it and what they got from the movie.

look at this character, this borderline-psychotic cat who looks at the world around him, thinks that it sucks, and decides that the only way to "wash everything away" is to try to assassinate a politician and then personally "save" a young girl from depravity... in other words, he thinks he can affect change in the world by committing acts of violence... now, it has been suggested by both Scorsese and Schrader that Bickle is a Vietnam war veteran...

The way he relates (or fails to relate) to women in this movie is also quite fascinating to me, and became even more fascinating when I read that Paul Schrader wrote this movie after a serious bout of depression after breaking up with a girlfriend and losing his apartment...

I'm also fascinated with (the alluring grit of) 1970's New York, which also, in a way, a character in the movie, like all good 70's movies set in NYC were (stuff like Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, The French Connection, etc)...
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

It is strange, well shot and well acted but definately agree on strange. I liked it better the second time I watched it and did have the same reaction as you did tho the first time. Its not one of my favorites but I enjoy it now. Probably 3-5 Scorcese/Deniro films I like more tho.

"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous


The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha

because it shows you this Bickle character, who is a piece of shit, and then proceeds to show you a bunch of other pieces of shit that make you think Bickle isn't so bad anymore. And it's actually believable.

My college professor has this on Laserdisc (remember those...) and it has a commentary with Marty saying that the ending is real and that Travis will slip back into another violent rage only next time he won't be a hero.


Also De Niro has been talking to Marty about a sequel about an old Travis

I heard that one too. I also heard the dream sequence theory. Both fit, depending on what you want to believe

The line Travis walks on is the one between him being a hero and a villain. The only reason he "saved" Iris is because he couldn't get close enough to kill Pallentine. If he had done that, he would have been a villain. He had planned on dying after he killed Pallentine and that's why he put the money in the envelope for Iris to go away, but didn't quite pull that part off. Maybe he was going to kill Pallentine and then go save Iris, but I know he expected to die.

So, Travis was a hero because he killed a pimp and some other criminals, but the next time he snapped, he'd probably kill an innocent person and be considered a villain. That part of the ending makes the movie even more interesting because of how tenuous the whole situation really was.

On the racism front, Travis was no more racist than the average white person in New York in the 70s, but Scorsese changed Sport's race to avert the inevitable controversy that would have come if he was black. His discomfort with his black co-worker was more a case of his complete social awkwardness with everyone than a racial hangup.

<----My debut album cover


Finally...The Blog of the Sith: http://shef1556.blogspot.com/

Put me in a classroom where we sit and break it down and I will get right in and chop it up with the best of them.
Other than that,
I have little use for it.