How you interpret Taxi Driver's ending?

“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.”

But it’s then same people, mind you, that perceive Travis as a hero because of the newspaper stories written about him who are going to vote for Charles Palantine.

Venus de Milo at the porno theater concession stand ?:

ok i have to go but i agree with brad and matt ^ i hope they can convince u, jazz ;)

@Matt

But it’s then same people, mind you, that perceive Travis as a hero because of the newspaper stories written about him who are going to vote for Charles Palantine.

Wait, I’m confused. Do we find that Palantine wins? (My memory of Palantine and the race is fuzzy now.) In any event, are you saying that the social commentary and media critique was a big part of the film prior to the newspapers making Travis into a hero?

“are you saying that the social commentary and media critique was a big part of the film prior to the newspapers making Travis into a hero?”

Yeah . . . the Palantine campaign makes a phony hero/father figure out of Palantine . . . Sport is to Iris as Palantine is to Betsy . . . killing Sport et al makes a phony hero/father figure out of Travis. Betsy has a thing for hero/father figure types (Schrader’s screenplay describes her as a “star fucker”).

@Ruby

ok i have to go but i agree with brad and matt ^ i hope they can convince u, jazz ;)

Well, looks like I’m going to have to shave my head into a mohawk. ;)

@Matt

Yeah . . . the Palantine campaign makes a phony hero/father figure out of Palantine . . . Sport is to Iris as Palantine is to Betsy . . . killing Sport et al makes a phony hero/father figure out of Travis. Betsy has a thing for hero/father figure types (Schrader’s screenplay describes her as a “star fucker”).

Well, that’s interesting; I never noticed these connections. For me, though, the film immerses you in Travis’ world—we get in his mind and see things from his perspective—which doesn’t really include this more sophisticated type of symbolism. There’s so little we know and see of Palantine and his relationship to Betsy, too. Still, your reading makes me want to watch the film again to see how well it fits the film.

Btw, how does the still in the porno theater foreshadow the ending?

@Brad 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.

yes….

Betsy comes after him, she was always susceptible, she was given that “I’d like to flirt with danger” edge but for obvious reasons backs off…when she reads about him she’s curious and I believed the last scene to be meant literally, not as a projection of any fantasy, his eyes have not changed, they are just as they are at the very beginning one of the first things we see only seconds into the film…his watchful malevolence and in that final scene he sees something, we don’t know what, and he starts/jumps to attention and is riveted by something that his psychotic mind will develop into god knows what….Betsy let him down, she was his angel in white and became in his mind, his – and she rejected him, he does the burning ritual with the flowers that were returned from her and rids himself of any lingering idealising of her. The clear implication at the end is she is in danger.

Palantine gives Bickle, in his mind, carte blanche to rise up in rebellion, after he sees him on TV giving his speech about the people rising up, on the coattails of Bickle’s (to his mind) significant exchange with Palantine in the taxi where he has given him the benefit of his advice to rid the city of scum…after he sees that TV speech (which is straight after he tells the bald driver guy he is having bad thoughts) he goes and writes in his diary, reflecting that the days are blurring into each other, all the same except suddenly….there is change and the very next scene is with the gun dealer (isn’t that a little honey…loved that scene, so smoothly done) I saw this a few months back and was surprised to hear that guy mention crystal meth I didn’t know it was around back then.

Of course he has not the slightest regard for Palantine and decides to make his statement around killing himbut gets headed off by security.

I assessed the whole Palantine thing as just part of the background landscape of Bickle’s world, providing material to develop and accelerate his growing psychopathic state. I liked the parallels Matt drew between Sport & Iris, and Betsy & Palantine but this is not something of course, that Bickle has contemplated.

The scene when he is standing around with his taxi driver mates and it’s all business as usual, the implication seemed to me was that perhaps he had some sort of mental health support after the trauma or whatever, and the viewer is wondering, is he “normal” now…but clearly from those last scenes he is not changed at all.

I don’t think we find out Palantine wins, I think Betsy says something about he’s got a good chance.

That dance with Sport and Iris was such a skin crawler:)

I also think there is a certain degree of latent homosexuality in the main character. He is afraid of women, can’t communicate with them, also his strong homophobia suggest me to think about it.

I don’t know about homosexuality, but certainly some sort of sexual dissociative disorder is suggested, there is never a hint of his sexual arousal or what is going on for him sexually, he goes into the seedy cinemas seeming quite detached from the sexual content and … exactly why did he think it was ok to take her there? because he just does not get sex? he doesn’t know anything about the “rules of engagement”? he is shown to be quite childlike sometimes, almost like an alien in this loathesome city-scape .

The two women he connects with …Betsy is as some sort of idealised woman and Iris as a thing to be rescued from herself, both scenarios are designed to show Bickle as very controlling and wanting to impose his way of how things must be on them.

there’s also a theory that the orgy of violence was an orgasm for him, which is why he rejects betsy at the end

>>I liked the parallels Matt drew between Sport & Iris, and Betsy & Palantine.<<

This point made by Matt and Meg is key to the film. It’s also an embodiment of the Madonna/Whore Syndrome that Travis falls prey to, which the same creative team explored further in Raging Bull.

" never noticed these connections. For me, though, the film immerses you in Travis’ world—we get in his mind and see things from his perspective—which doesn’t really include this more sophisticated type of symbolism. "

Well, right, Travis isn’t really self-aware enough for these things to be clear to him. But the dynamic is clear is you look at it in those terms, it’s clearly Oedipal. And if you look at the other male “authority figures” in the film (people from whom Travis receives “advice”), they’re either lunatics (Scorsese cameo as the passenger who’s watching his wife) or numbskulls (the nearly incoherent advice Wizard gives him: “Look at it this way. A man takes a job, you know? And that job – I mean, like that – That becomes what he is. You know, like – You do a thing and that’s what you are. Like I’ve been a cabbie for thirteen years. Ten years at night. I still don’t own my own cab. You know why? Because I don’t want to. That must be what I want. To be on the night shift drivin’ somebody else’s cab. You understand? I mean, you become – You get a job, you become the job. One guy lives in Brooklyn. One guy lives in Sutton Place. You got a lawyer. Another guy’s a doctor. Another guy dies. Another guy gets well. People are born, y’know? I envy you, your youth. Go on, get laid, get drunk. Do anything. You got no choice, anyway. I mean, we’re all fucked. More or less, ya know.”).

It’s a pretty pessimistic vision of masculinity.

“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.)”

I already answered that point Jazz in your previous thread "Also, about Taxi Driver, i think people are being a bit too literal minded in this case. Him having no scars and being fully recovered etc at the end, doesn’t make it a dream, let’s not be overly fastidious and trivialize film debate.

The idea that the end is tonally so different that it could be a dream doesn’t go with me, as most movies have in the final scenes a completely different tone then the rest, also characters tend to change or as Jazzaloha says “triumph”. Though i understand why you might feel it’s tacked on in this case, as the contrast is so sharp and the catharsis not very strong, as a result of his whole recovery being off-screen or via the newspaper cuttings and voice-over, compared to the stark violence we saw visually just before.

I think it’s unfortunate that often times we are compelled to use our logic and rational to try and justify in a quantifiable way,events in a film, by saying the director has used certain narrative devices rather then look deeper then the literal events and their assumed verisimilitude."

Also, this insistence on not wanting any “positive” in the ending is unfortunate, it’s more of a challenge and more rewarding, ending things in a three-dimensional perspective (social/cultural/political that Scorsese attempts) instead of giving us the easy nihilistic, “it ends with the police taking the bodies out into the street”.

Another theory to the ending (from when we first see him, after his recovery) could be that Travis is more at ease with himself when it comes to his connectedness to society i.e. “to be a person like other people” etc, hence the more relaxed, casual demeanour (which is at odds with how he was up to that point).

His encounter with Betsy is showing a cool, yet respectful, even humble (not fatuous or “nerd fantasy” spurning) self-affirmation, to leave that part of his life before the incident (also the lack of voice-over re-affirming his connectedness by not internalising any frustrations, no “morbid self-attention”).

The final turning of the mirror along with the sharp jolting sound, is to show the renewed focus he has now, quickly moving on from meeting her, back to his life. Afterwards, the camera takes us through the streets angled upwards at the bright lights and boards, in contrast to the cameras focus earlier in the film on the “animals that come out at night”, showing his new perspective.

@Brad

This point made by Matt and Meg is key to the film.

See, that’s not my feeling. To me, what is central to the film is Travis Bickle—his frustrations, alienation, discontent and the ways he eventually takes matters into his own hands and plunges into madness—and the way the film allows us to experience Travis’ world, by getting inside his head. I see a lot a strong parallel between TD and something like Catcher in the Rye. Both works allows us to get inside the characters’ heads; both characters are alienated and frustrated, and I think viewers respond to them because their share the same concerns and frustrations. The difference is that Bickle is more mentally unstable (You could see Holden going crazy in different circumstances, too.); he’s like a Holden Caufield of the 70s. (Btw, Bickle takes on a more twisted version of the “catcher in the rye”—the person who prevents kids from falling off the “cliff.”)

Anyway, imo, the hero/father figure dynamic between some of the male-female characters is secondary theme—but again, it makes me want to watch the film again.

Matt said It’s a pretty pessimistic vision of masculinity.

But are you saying the film is making a statement about masculinity? I don’t read the film that way. I just think these characters show the world that Travis lives in—that he doesn’t have very good social support system, which seems appropriate and believable for people like Travis.

@deft"His encounter with Betsy is showing a cool, yet respectful, even humble (not fatuous or “nerd fantasy” spurning) self-affirmation, to leave that part of his life before the incident"

I just dug this out & had another look at that, this is his face as she is getting out of the cab, she can’t see him, it appears to be purely for the benefit of the viewer….he doesn’t seem detached from her

“The final turning of mirror along with sharp jolting sound, is to show the renewed focus he has now, quickly moving on from meeting her, back to his life.”

yes it does look like that, he’s still forming and evolving, it’s like he just appeared out of the steam at the beginning unformed, from the netherworld…

@Jazz

“To me, what is central to the film is Travis Bickle—his frustrations, alienation, discontent and the ways he eventually takes matters into his own hands and plunges into madness”

this is only ostensibly what the film is about though

“I just dug this out & had another look at that, this is his face as she is getting out of the cab, she can’t see him, it appears to be purely for the benefit of the viewer…I hope no one ever feels this respectful and humble about me:)”

lol. Well, this is to show a hint that he isn’t a robot after all, he has that moment of pain that he feels about their relationship, what could of been etc, however as i said, afterwards he seems more at peace. So, despite maybe some regret, he has moved on with his life.

sorry I edited ♥ yeah well, there’s a lot to be read into it all, and thought about – possibilities and threads

@Meg

this is only ostensibly what the film is about though

OK, but what is the film really about then?

@Deft

Will respond to your recent posts later.

@All

Great discussion!

Thank you all for the interesting opinions.

Looking forward to it Jazz :)

“But are you saying the film is making a statement about masculinity?”

Partially, yes. It doesn’t have to be about only one thing though . . . it’s not a fortune cookie. Think about it in relation to some of Schrader’s later films (esp. Affliction and Auto Focus).

“by getting inside his head. I see a lot a strong parallel between TD and something like Catcher in the Rye. "

Yeah, and remember Holden’s biggest complaint? That people are “phonies.” Isn’t Palantine and “we are the people” a kind of phony solution to people’s problems (“Someday a real rain will come . . .”)?

yeah i still don’t see this ‘positive’ ending. the guy’s a psychopath. he isn’t going to get better
also agree the male-female dynamic is key to the film. he’s a homophobic, misogynistic racist psychopath.
and we’d all be better off if he had died at the end. it’s maybe why scorsese tried to soften the blow with the quasi-dream ending

@Deft

I already answered that point Jazz in your previous thread "Also, about Taxi Driver, i think people are being a bit too literal minded in this case. Him having no scars and being fully recovered etc at the end, doesn’t make it a dream, let’s not be overly fastidious and trivialize film debate.

Basically, Travis surviving makes suspension of disbelief difficult—if not impossible. Are you saying this isn’t a valid point—that I’m being too technical or hard on the film?

Here’s another thing to consider: why does the film allow Travis to survive? What purpose does it serve? Personally, it feels like sparing the viewers—because ending after the shootout is too bleak. The actual ending allows viewers to feel a little better—1) Bickle survives, while killing the “scum;” 2) he becomes a hero; 3) he spurns Betsy.

Though i understand why you might feel it’s tacked on in this case, as the contrast is so sharp and the catharsis not very strong, as a result of his whole recovery being off-screen or via the newspaper cuttings and voice-over, compared to the stark violence we saw visually just before.

Honestly, I’m not trying to insult anyone here, but the ending really feels like something that was rushed and pushed on the filmmakers by the executives. It’s like the executives weren’t happy with ending it after the shootout or the filmmakers knew that there was no one the executives would allow this. So the filmmakers scramble to find another way that will be palatable to both viewers and the executives. I must say that even Scorsese’s and Schrader’s “ticking time bomb” explanation sounds like rationalization. Maybe I’m going too far here—and I actually I have no strong conviction that they’re not being honest—but if I’m completely candid, this is the vibe I get.

While we’re on this topic, I wanted to comment on Brad’s remark that “Travis’ next episode, left to our imaginations, will not allow for any kind of “hero” interpretation.” I want to mention that the point at which a film ends often implies that the events that occur afterward (that occur off screen) are not that important and/or the filmmakers wants the ending to be last “note” or feeling left with the audience. And the ending has—or can easily be interpreted as a triumphant moment—Travis kills the pimp, he’s a hero, the girl of his dreams comes back, and he rides off into the sunset. Yes, if we speculate about Travis’ future, and we could reasonably conclude that Travis is going to be a danger to himself and others. But I’m not sure that is fair or appropriate.

Also, this insistence on not wanting any “positive” in the ending is unfortunate,…

First of all, some context. Llawrence seemed to complain that the ending was too sappy, too “happy.” Brad claimed that it wasn’t happy. I responded by saying that the actual ending is much “happier” than if the film ended right after the shootout.

Now, I prefer ending the film at the street scene because it a) seems truer and more fitting; b) the actual ending seems false and inappropriate, unbelievable and offers a convenient “happy” ending for the audience. In a way, it feels like a bad Hollywood ending. So, I have nothing against a happy ending, if it’s appropriate and earned. I also don’t think much of bleak endings that stem primarily from hip nihilism. Ending the film at the street scene is bleak, but I don’t think it’s pointlessly nihilistic. I mentioned reasons why I think the ending fits—saying that it makes Travis a tragic figure (which the actual ending nullifies, imo)—and it leaves the audience with an appropriate level of unease, I think.

Why is it appropriate? For one thing, Travis is mentally unhinged and violence is a consequence of that. So the audience should feel unease and a negative feeling. Also, remember that Travis, imo, acts out fantasies and ideas that many viewers probably have had themselves, and this draws us to Travis and the sucks us into the film—and we’re looking for a climax where Travis can not only kick ass, but also come out OK—like many other vigilante/revenge fantasy films; we don’t want the climax to be tarnished by negative feelings. However, tarnishing the ending would, in some ways, be more responsible, even if kills the fun.

Finally, I think ending at the street scene allows us to fully absorb the Travis’ frustrations and alienation. The film gives voice to these feelings—feelings that probably many Americans feel, especially at that time—and brings them to the surface, making them palpable. I think we should be left with this sensation—rather than have a diversion or outlet from them, which is what the actual ending does, imo (even if it’s not unambivalently positive)—not because I believe it’s cool to leave viewers with such a bad feeling, but I think these are feelings we should confront and deal with. I’m struggling to articulate what I mean here, but I feel like leaving the audience with these feelings so raw and palpable might have a more positive impact on individual and the society—perhaps because it might lead people to do something positive about it, and not just sweep it under the rug. The revenge fantasy films like Death Wish and Dirty Harry also tap into real frustrations, but the Hollywood endings make the film escapist fantasies that make audiences feel good, without really helping them or spurring them on to seriously deal with the issues. Had the film ended in the street scene, my feeling is that this would disturb audiences—partly because it was tragic—and maybe provide impetus to deal with the issue in a serious way. (Btw, the “ticking time tomb” reading is closer to a hip nihilism, imo.)

Another theory to the ending (from when we first see him, after his recovery) could be that Travis is more at ease with himself when it comes to his connectedness to society i.e. “to be a person like other people” etc, hence the more relaxed, casual demeanour (which is at odds with how he was up to that point).

Some viewers could come away with this interpretation, which is precisely what makes the ending problematic to me. Having said that, I would have a hard time buying this reading—as the film doesn’t earn this ending at all. What makes Travis more at ease with himself and more connected to society? The fact that the newspapers make him a hero? Showing a few newspaper clippings seems a rather thin basis for Travis dramatic transformation, especially given all the time the film spent on depicting Travis’ problems (including those involving mental instability).

His encounter with Betsy is showing a cool, yet respectful, even humble (not fatuous or “nerd fantasy” spurning).

Travis does not dramatically spurn her interest in him—but for all intents and purposes that’s what happens. Indeed, a more effective “nerd fantasy” would be the hero acting just as you say—but nevertheless showing a lack of interest—which is essentially rejects the woman.

Missed some posts.

Ruby said, 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.

Oh, good one! (I’m ashamed that a person who hates Shane had to point that out to me. :)

@Brad

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.

FWIW, I didn’t mean to disparage your interpretation. My point was that the ending has more room for a more positive interpretation than your own—while the ending at the street scene does not.

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.

But viewers often look for these type of victories—i.e., the good guy killing the bad guy and getting the girl (or spurning her, if she deserves it). We could argue that Dirty Harry or the protag in Death Wish aren’t heroes, either, but we, as viewers, often don’t care about that—as long as the villains get what they deserve, and the “good guys” triumph. TD’s ending allows room for this reading.

Achieving this duality is just about the most impressive thing I’ve ever seen a film accomplish and Deniro deserves much of the credit.

The character is really complex and De Niro does deserve a lot of credit for this.

I disagree. It’s a core theme. The first thing we see is the city as Hell.

Sure, but the film isn’t offering any insightful critique or commentary about the city or society. It’s basically creating the setting for the character—and not really saying too much about it. (Compare this to something like the way Nashville comments on America or even The Wire commenting on the urban environments. TD is a different film from those films—and I don’t just mean in terms of depth, but in terms of focus.)

@Matt

Partially, yes. It doesn’t have to be about only one thing though . . . it’s not a fortune cookie

Sure, but not all themes and issues are equally important, right? Imo, the father-daughter dichotomy is a secondary issue.

Think about it in relation to some of Schrader’s later films (esp. Affliction and Auto Focus).

Haven’t seen those two. (Schrader is probably interested in ideas about masculinity, though.)

Yeah, and remember Holden’s biggest complaint? That people are “phonies.” Isn’t Palantine and “we are the people” a kind of phony solution to people’s problems (“Someday a real rain will come . . .”)?

Yeah, that’s another connection. I think Travis is frustrated and disgusted by the hypocrisy, too.

@Ruby

yeah i still don’t see this ‘positive’ ending. the guy’s a psychopath. he isn’t going to get better

Travis kills the pimp—in a very Eastwood-esque way*—and “saves” Iris (who returns to her parents); Travis lives and is made a hero; he gets to reject Betsy. Now, I’m not saying the film’s ending is positive, but these are aspects that some will see as positive.

(*Btw, I never saw TD when it first came out because I was too young. But I do remember the film because I heard my cousins talking about the spring-action derringer—which I thought was so cool.)

In this case, positive for the character doesn’t necessarily equate with a positive for the society, so one’s outlook on the ending will hinge on identification with Travis, and given that, I might suggest that anyone identifying too closely with him without seeing the larger picture just might have some issues they need to work on.

“but not all themes and issues are equally important, right? Imo, the father-daughter dichotomy is a secondary issue”

Well, the reason I mention it is that it speaks to dramatic structure and to psychological motivation. The events of the film are not random, and their’s a sort of symmetry between the dynamic of the Betsy plot and the dynamic of the Iris plot. Psychologically, Travis tries to link up with Betsy and Palantine, fails, then targets Palantine, fails, then he displaces the “bad ideas” from Betsy/Palantine to Iris/Sport and “succeeds” because Sport doesn’t have the same caliber of security and because he’s portrayed as a hero because people who read the newspaper stories don’t know the context of these actions.

The a whole creepy thing in the film about the guns being used to express repressed sexual urges. It’s starts as someone else’s violent voyeuristic fantasy:

becomes a fantasy gun being pointed at a theater screen:

(and I’d say this is a sort of alternate version of that sort of media “commentary”)

and goes from there:

. . . until it becomes a sort of self-confrontation/self-annihilation thing (something that was already hinted at with the whole “you talkin’ to me?” scene in front of the mirror).

@Matt

…their’s a sort of symmetry between the dynamic of the Betsy plot and the dynamic of the Iris plot. Psychologically, Travis tries to link up with Betsy and Palantine, fails, then targets Palantine, fails, then he displaces the “bad ideas” from Betsy/Palantine to Iris/Sport and “succeeds” because Sport doesn’t have the same caliber of security and because he’s portrayed as a hero because people who read the newspaper stories don’t know the context of these actions.

Dang, those are good points—and I seeing what you’re saying. You’ve definitely made me reconsider the importance of the father/hero-daughter dynamic. It does seem more important than I first thought. (Man, I really don’t want to watch this again, as I have too many other films I want to get to, but you’re pushing me in that direction.)

Oh, and I loved the observations on the the use of gun and the stills you used! Super-cool.

(I really wish we had more conversations like this on the site.)

Oh, and here’s one more . . .

(note positioning of pistol)

So, anyhow, back to the ending, I think ^this scene is almost a sort of ironically inverted transubstantiation where the nature of the character hasn’t changed at all, but he takes on an entirely new “look” in the public eye.

How about hand for, Matt, the Freudian par excellence! :)

Very well said GREG X. What do you think of that Jazz?