How you interpret Taxi Driver's ending?
I’ve been involved in several discussions about the ending. What is your take on the ending?
It cannot be any positive in the classical way. The only ending what would be true to the story’s nature (and the character’s nature) would be his final thoughts about his other possibilities. His reaction when he meets with Betsy in the final scene – is unnatural to the character. Considering Iris’ finding the right way – also something which would be sentimental. However, the films realist style denies my way of interpretation, which is not unique at all – been doing a little research for a while and found out that some people also think the same.
So you didn’t like the ending? You thought the scene with Betsy was false? Also, you thought Iris being saved was too sappy? I agree with you, if so.
I don’t like the ending if it shows the “reality”. The film itself is so strict in a good way that my theory would ruin the films structure but also, would be more fitting.
What do you mean by the film showing the “reality?” Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the film being “so strict,” and I’m not sure what your theory is.
I don’t believe Taxi Driver has anything like a happy ending. As indicated by the look in the mirror and the discordant note, Travis remains a ticking time bomb. Betsy buying into what she read in the papers has put her very much at risk. Travis’ next episode, left to our imaginations, will not allow for any kind of “hero” interpretation.
I meant, reality of the story. If it actually happened, I don’t like it.
The film is strict in a good, disciplined way, it sticks to a certain style, and almost never (2 scenes being exceptions) gives up following the main characters point of view.
My theory is that after the shootout he’s just thinking about “his” favorable outcome of his “heroic” feat.
I’ve heard that interpretation and it just doesn’t work for me. There’s nothing in the film previous that allows me to buy its final minutes as a fantasy sequence.
Brad S., I agree, that’s the more logical way and possibly the one what Scorsese, and more importantly, Schrader believe in. That’s why I don’t like the ending.
it’s funny how drive mirrors this scene
a real hero and a real human being
@Brad
But the ending is “happier” than if the film had ended with the police taking the bodies out into the street, right? To me, this is where I wanted the film to end—but I think this would have been too disturbing. Even though the actual ending isn’t happy, it does let the audience off the hook. (Plus, it tacks on another issue—namely, the twisted way the media and culture turn people into heroes; it’s improbable in that Travis survives becomes a hero and also meets and gets to spurn the woman of his dreams. It plays out like a nerd fantasy, imo.)
@Llawrence
The film is strict in a good, disciplined way, it sticks to a certain style, and almost never (2 scenes being exceptions) gives up following the main characters point of view.
OK, I understand. (I agree with this, too, btw, at least if we’re thinking of the same scenes.)
Travis survived, but he’s still the same person.
Travis is clearly a psychopath. There is no “positive” in the film.
Jazz, I’m not sure the ending is happier your way. If we leave Travis bloody in the whorehouse we can imagine him going to jail or catatonic or something. What we have instead, as The Dude alludes to, is a return to the vicious circle that is Travis’ illness. The warning signs were ignored and we know that Travis is one breakdown away from doing God knows what. This looming threat is far darker than a Travis “finished” by his killing spree.
Travis wasn’t taken in by the police, but I do believe that some of the ending (namely Betsy’s reaction to him) could just have been a projection of his delusions.
Am I the only one who thinks Taxi Driver is sometimes funny?
@Brad
I’m saying the ending in the film is “happier” than if the film ended right after the shooting (with the camera pulling back from the street)—which is the ending I prefer. It is much bleaker and more disturbing ending—imo—or at least the impact is “purer” and more immediate. It’s truer to the core of the film, imo.
To me, the fault of the ending is not in Travis’s recovery as covered by the media and the “saving” of Iris. That’s pretty good, cathartic even, without being unrealistic (despite what the cynics might say). What bugs be is when they show Travis in the flesh again (unclear as to the time time since his release from the hospital), with his friends, the scenes that follow are the ones that feel disconnected and leave you feeling cold.
Maybe it was Scorsese’s intention to show a conversation that made it seem like everything is back to “normal”. but the exchange of words with Betsy in the final scene, though understandable, weren’t enough to gauge where Travis’s character is at the end of film, and therefore not enough insight on any change that has occurred. It’s interesting that there is no voice-over, even 20 seconds of it would have sufficed maybe, anyone know what Scorsese says about the ending in the audio commentary?On the Laserdisc audio commentary, Scorsese acknowledged several critics’ interpretation on the film’s ending being Bickle’s dying dream. He admits that the last scene of Bickle glancing at an unseen object implies that he might fall into rage and recklessness in the future, and he is like “a ticking time bomb.” Writer Paul Schrader confirms this in his commentary on the 30th anniversary DVD, stating that Travis “is not cured by the movie’s end,” and that, “he’s not going to be a hero next time.” —wikipedia
i remember him being pretty cagey about it. it’s for the audience to interpret
also wanted to say there are definitely moments of black comedy in the film. betsy and travis’ ‘date’ at the porno theater, his conversations with iris, harvey keitel, a lot of stuff. his watching ‘american bandstand’, talking to himself in the mirror, it’s disturbing but it’s also funny
also the bit at the end where he ‘glances at an unseen object’ is mirrored exactly in drive. the ending is absolutely ominous and much darker then just ending at the shootout, where it could be interpreted as everyone getting what they deserved
@Jazz
I typed it backwards in my last post. What I meant was that I thought the actual ending of the film was bleaker than if it had ended at the shooting – for the reasons I gave earlier.
@Brad
But the ending has some positive features to it. Travis survives and becomes a “hero;” he also gets to exact a kind of revenge on Betsy. The fact that he’s a “ticking time bomb” is definitely negative in a chilling way, but as Ruby mentions, the ending is open to interpretation; your reading isn’t definite.
On the other hand, if the film ends after the shootout, there is very little room for a positive take. At the same time, I think this ending preserves the tragic quality of the film—which the actual ending negates. Ruby mentioned the way film evokes both disturbing feelings and more positive ones (like comedy—I don’t completely agree with her, on this), and if the film ends after the shootout, I think we can feel some sympathy for Travis, as well as be disturbed and shaken.
Why do I feel this way? I think many people can identify with a lot of Travis’ frustrations—frustrations at crime and decay, as well as the government’s inability or unwillingness to make things better; the frustration of not getting the “girl”, or being marginalized; of being a nobody. Similarly, I think many people have fantasized about doing something these problems—taking matters into their own hands (the same fantasy drives films like Dirty Harry and Death Wish); getting revenge on the popular girls in high school that spurned you. I think this is what makes the film and Travis resonate with so many people.
But then Travis descends into madness and explodes—but at that time, we’re pulled into the character, so seeing all this is a disturbing finale. It puts a dark spin on our identifying with him and the fantasies we may have held.
But in the film’s ending, I think we’re relieved of that darker ending, mainly because we stop identifying with Travis when we learn that he survived, becomes a hero and meets Betsy again—who fawns over him, while he gets to reject her. This revives a more positive direction of the earlier fantasies—and while the darker reading is there, I could easily see a lot of viewers ignoring this element, too.
i don’t agree. the ending is far darker for the society that has misinterpreted his actions so seriously. instead of dying in a shoot out he lives to wreak more havoc, being encouraged by media attention at his ‘heroics’. it’s a very bitter and cynical ending. if a lot of viewers choose to ignore it, they’re misinterpreting the film
also i wouldn’t call black humor a positive thing, exactly. it’s a very cynical kind of gallows humor
when i said it’s open to interpretation i meant if people choose to believe it’s a dream sequence they’re free to, i used to believe this myself. but i don’t think it’s what was intended
@Ruby
But people may or may not interpret the ending in that way. I think some can brush this aside or not even notice it, and just see the ending in a more positive way—not unlike Dirty Harry blowing away the bad guy at the end of a film.
As for society misinterpreting his actions, I think that detracts from what the film was about—this frustrated individual who took some action, albeit losing his mind in the process. This commentary on society and the media just feels tacked on, imo.
Personally, I think Hollywood executives wouldn’t be able to live with the ending I’m advocating—primarily because there’s no wiggle room for positive take on it—whereas the actual ending does have this wiggle room.
@Deft
To me, the fault of the ending is not in Travis’s recovery as covered by the media and the “saving” of Iris. That’s pretty good, cathartic even, without being unrealistic (despite what the cynics might say).
Why is it cynical to believe he didn’t survive—getting shot multiple times, I believe, including in the neck? Can people survive that? I guess, but in the context of this film it seems a stretch. (Now, if this were an action or horror film, that might happen.)
no, the film you’re advocating is black and white. travis pays for his actions. the film we’re given is shades of gray. it is the inverse of dirty harry in a way. scorsese and schrader analyze the mindset that made films like death wish and dirty harry so popular. it’s because the audience identifies with travis that the film is powerful and at the same time, deeper than those films. he’s the embodiment of the frustrations and neuroses of the average male in the 70s, the age of vietnam, gay rights, women’s lib & racial equality. can u see that?
All the animals come out at night—whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday, a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets
you’re not bothered by the obvious racism and homophobia of his character? travis is judge, jury and executioner. the fact that he gets away with it is the most chilling thing of all to me. the irony is that he had planned an assassination but because he executed a pimp (who was originally intended to be black) instead he’s suddenly hailed as a hero. this is society’s hypocrisy. anyway it’s a complicated film that can be viewed on multiple levels
when the film first ran on television, the ending was so controversial that stations posted warnings that they did not consider bickle a hero. scorsese purposely made it vague so that it could be interpreted as a dream sequence. i feel sorry for travis and i don’t think there are any real heroes or villains in the film
oh one more thing, jazz: the origin of travis’ catchphrase
Shane: You speaking to me?
Chris Calloway: I don’t see nobody else standing there.
>>the ending is open to interpretation; your reading isn’t definite<<
Yes we are all trafficking in opinion, but I will continue to defend my reading as I believe Taxi Driver is among the greatest films ever made and have given it quite a bit of thought.
>>Travis survives and becomes a “hero;” he also gets to exact a kind of revenge on Betsy.<<
These are hollow victories at best. Travis as hero is a fraud. Betsy is attracted to a Travis that doesn’t exist and it’s possible Travis senses that. I’d suggest that the potential misreading by some viewers matches Betsy (and others) dangerously buying into the Travis as hero fraud.
>>I think many people can identify with a lot of Travis’ frustrations<<
Yes! Yes! Yes! This is Taxi Driver’s secret weapon. Travis has many universally identifiable traits. Loneliness being the prime one. And yes, most of us have thought, “Why can’t they clean up the damn city of all these criminals?” By FORCING us to identify with Travis, we then have to question our own allegiances when he becomes disturbed, ugly and finally homicidal. Achieving this duality is just about the most impressive thing I’ve ever seen a film accomplish and Deniro deserves much of the credit.
>>This commentary on society and the media just feels tacked on, imo.<<
I disagree. It’s a core theme. The first thing we see is the city as Hell. Yes, we are delving into Travis’ psychology – what made him that way. We can guess what might happen to a lonely small town boy sent off to Viet Nam and left to deal with his post traumatic stress in a crime ridden city. We only see the result. Just as Kubrick does in A Clockwork Orange, Scorsese allows us to contemplate whether a “solution” to societal ills is not worse than the original problems themselves.
no, the film you’re advocating is black and white. travis pays for his actions.
That’s not the conclusion I would have. As I wrote above, viewers sympathize and identify with Travis and he acts out the fantasy that some viewers may have of “making things right,” saving the girl, etc. That’s the same bit in Dirty Harry, but if he goes crazy and dies, that ruins the whole vigilante fantasy.
If by “black and white,” you mean there’s no room for a positive reading, I agree with you—that’s why I think it’s a much bleaker ending.
it’s because the audience identifies with travis that the film is powerful and at the same time, deeper than those films. he’s the embodiment of the frustrations and neuroses of the average male in the 70s, the age of vietnam, gay rights, women’s lib & racial equality. can u see that?
Yeah, that’s basically what I said—“I think many people can identify with a lot of Travis’ frustrations—frustrations at crime and decay, as well as the government’s inability or unwillingness to make things better; the frustration of not getting the “girl”, or being marginalized; of being a nobody.”
you’re not bothered by the obvious racism and homophobia of his character? travis is judge, jury and executioner. the fact that he gets away with it is the most chilling thing of all to me. anyway it’s a complicated film that can be viewed on multiple levels
Oh, there are many aspects of Travis that I find disturbing—but he’s a very complex character. There are parts of him that I sympathize with and parts of him that I don’t—some of these parts are disturbing and repellant. But the combination of these conflicting qualities is what makes him fascinating and compelling.
And while Travis serves as judge, jury and executioner, that’s no different from films like Dirty Harry and Death Wish—and to me the film’s ending has a similar vibe as those other films. I’d bet this is the part that appeals to many viewers. The more disturbing part of the ending is the way the press turns Travis—a person who is mentally unstable and maybe crazy—into a hero—and that he will probably do the same thing again. (To me, this last part isn’t really as definitive as some are claiming—although I do think it’s a possibility.)
Llawrence
There might be a couple of convos here and there in some of the threads though, I guess but I just want to see what others think about it. Rewatched it after a few years and discovered new levels of interpretation. Discussed it with a friend who goes with the complete opposite of my version.