How you interpret Taxi Driver's ending?
Well said NIGHTSHIFT.
@GREGX “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.”
Anyone prepared for a Taxi Driver remake (or any film of the same subject)?
What’s the larger picture?
Off topic, but here’s a larger picture, son: at this very moment tens of thousands of young folks (the OTHER 1%) are returning from the war (just like Bickle), tired, wounded and highly medicated, wracked with zombie-like sleeping disorders, disillussioned, frustrated, angry and bitter, broke, disconnected and invisible… just like Bickle. They are returning to a bad economy, a public obsessed with political division and vulgarity, a society who is totally insulated from what’s been happening in the last ten years and would prefer to remain that way. It’s an inconvenient fact, but I’d say those lads can identify with Bickle easily.
@Deft
Greg said, 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.
Oh, Travis surviving and being championed by the press aren’t positive indicators for society, but suppose the audience views the end as a positive thing? Doesn’t this happen all the time with action films or rom-coms? If we analyzed the the films that the general audiences flock to—films that they enjoy and embrace—I expect the results would be troubling. But, obviously, that’s not a good defense for a positive reading of the ending.
@Night
What is this obsession about the positive ending? This seems like a typical liberal reaction to vigelanteism on film (like Death Wish or Dirty Harry). Would it be more convenient to have Bickle die in the end along with the rest of society’s scum, swept under the rug out of the picture so the civilized society can sleep better?
FWIW, I’ve responded to this several times, and I don’t feel up to reiterating my points right now, but maybe later (if you’re too lazy to read my posts. ;)
It’s a long shot, but not entirely impossible for someone like Bickle to rehabilitate and have a changed outlook in life, especially after a near-death experience like that.
Stranger things have happened in real life, I guess, but within the framework of the film, I think this reading would really push (and probably break) the limits of my believability. If we’re supposed to believe that Travis is transformed in the way you and Deft suggest, it would really diminish the film for me.
Jazz, that’s just my reaction (not an actual question for anyone to response to)- I actually read all yours and everybody’s post and the usual goin’-round in circles before posting. This is not the first Mubi thread about Taxi Driver that deals with the ending, but that’s all good with me.
@Night
OK, cool.
I’m a little surprised at the self-life of this issue. I just wish we had more conversations like this.
Dunno why, but Vigilante films tend to excite everyone on the forum he-he!
When I see mentions of films like Clockwork Orange and Dirty Harry brought into this discussion of Taxi Driver, it makes me think of Fight Club. In Fight Club, the main character played by Edward Norton is an insomniac just like Travis Bickle. I find him and his dual character, Tyler Durden, wanting to do something similar to society, i.e. such as the blowing up of the skyscrapers at the end of the film so that the credit amount or the dollar amount goes down to zero. Both Tyler Durden and Travis Bickle want to change their societies and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. Perhaps, with the ending of Fight Club, even though the economy will be changed and that will start a different world, Marla Singer helps the Edward Norton character get focused on caring for another person by holding his hand. Of course, at the same time, we see a few frames of a naked man at the end of the film, which might suggest that the Edward Norton character is letting himself open up to the Marla Singer character. I do agree with some posters on here, that at the end of Taxi Driver, when Travis looks into his rear view mirror at the end of the film, there is still a chance that he could become psychopathic again. In Fight Club, the Edward Norton character manages to defeat his alter ego, Tyler Durden, and become a normal person. In Taxi Driver, this probably will not be the case though.
^^The ticking time bomb- he still can/ or appear to be ‘normal’ (quiet existance, job, even a relationship), but can also explode at any moment.
@JazzOK, but what is the film really about then?
Well..for me Bickle was not a tangible character and central focus of the film like the guy in say Falling Down was. That film also demonstrates a man pushed to act but we know who he is, we are given a construct and it feels – first and foremost – about him, his personal drama and his mental disintegration even though it also has things to say about society. Taxi Driver feels much more to me about the latter but more than just society and how it runs, also the broad sweep of the human condition (dissociation, isolation, loneliness) as well as human nature (manipulation, greed, projection).
These things are so strongly present that to me anyway they totally transcend the narrative of Bickle’s downward spiral into a deepening psychosis. His growing alienation, deteriorating state and building urgency to act are all compelling and fascinating to watch… what is this freak up to? what is he going to do next?…but that is the surface skim of the film compared to what it observes and conveys, the inferences it invites, through Bickle, the vehicle, the eye of god observer who appeared out of the mist and doesn’t seem to be quite of this world. As someone said on another thread the other day, great films are always about much more, or other things, outside and beyond “the story” which is why Falling Down is an ok film and TD a stand out classic.
I can’t really fathom the differing views expressed by people on the ending around positive/negative associations, there seemed no ambiguity to me whatsoever that the film is telling you unequivocally that Travis has started ticking again, and Scorsese himself has made no secret that it was his full intention to convey that he is not “cured” and is moving forward in similar vein.
can’t really fathom the differing views expressed by people on the ending around positive/negative associations
They’ve entered the narrative through the character and can not let go of a primitive ‘me’/‘not me’ perspective.
he’s still crazy.
@Jazz. First off, I, like you have a problem with the ending, the first time I saw it (just under two years ago would you believe) I thought it was disconnected with the rest of the film and it did not sit with me well.
However, where we disagree (big time) is on how it should have ended and the reasons for that. You seem to think that a tragic, nihilistic ending with all the players dead is the only suitable ending that “is true to the core of the film”.
With all due respect, I think you’re focus is too narrow on what that core is, you see a through line that has to lead to that bloodbath finish as you feel that the movie is about some sort of a disconnected psychopath. In addition, for you, that people who like the fact that he “saved” Iris are just fans of the “vigilante” fantasy. That storyline was much more then about a violent vigilantism against “the scum of the earth”, there is that social/cultural/political commentary all the way through not just tacked on to the end as you say).
In all honesty, it is much more “satisfying” for the “vigilante fantasy” that he does die in the deliberately over the top bloodbath, like those “heroic bloodshed” movies. However ending it on such a note would diminish all the other dimensions of the film, and just reduce it to revenge against the scum movie (off course it won’t really do that, that’s just the impact that ending would have on us, rather then letting us digest everything else the film has to offer).
I think you are right to say the film doesn’t earn the theory of the ending (self-affirmation) that I mentioned, but that’s more to do with how little we actually see of Travis during and after the recovery, rather then because spending all that time in a coma wouldn’t give him time to have this dramatic transformation. Trust me, surviving a car accident can change your life; what he went through, along with the knowledge that his actions have saved Iris and the letters from her parents giving him hope for the future (taking pride of place on his wall, just to show the importance of these to his personal self) would do it. I think you’re being a bit too literal about the “spurning” of Betsy, in the end, the fact that he feels comfortable letting her go, is showing major progress compared to his pretending that she was his girl to his parents (in the card he sent to them just before his vigilante actions). It is clearly not designed (or acted) to be a cool, narcissistic moment of victory (no matter how similar you may think it is to “action films or rom-coms”). I doubt anybody had a euphoric feeling after that ending in the same vain of any of those genre films, this film clearly has more to it then that.
@Meg
That film also demonstrates a man pushed to act but we know who he is, we are given a construct and it feels – first and foremost – about him, his personal drama and his mental disintegration even though it also has things to say about society. Taxi Driver feels much more to me about the latter but more than just society and how it runs, also the broad sweep of the human condition (dissociation, isolation, loneliness) as well as human nature (manipulation, greed, projection).
This doesn’t really sound much different from my take on the film. (I probably haven’t been communicating my ideas very well.)
His growing alienation, deteriorating state and building urgency to act are all compelling and fascinating to watch… what is this freak up to? what is he going to do next?…
FWIW, I’m not saying the film is really about the arc of his deterioriation. I also don’t value the film because of the titilation of watching this “freak.” I sympathize greatly with Travis—and I feel that there’s a part of me in him. He’s mentally unstable, and we definitely see him deteriorate, but this deterioration and the “thrill” in seeing this is not what I think the movie is really about.
I can’t really fathom the differing views expressed by people on the ending around positive/negative associations, there seemed no ambiguity to me whatsoever that the film is telling you unequivocally that Travis has started ticking again,…
But are you saying that every viewer is going to read the film this way? I think many viewers will find satisfaction in the ending, in the same way they find satisfaction at the end of revenge films when the bad guy gets blown away and the girl is saved. Moreover, the fact that Travis is a ticking time bomb has a hip edginess that might appeal to some. (Think of the ending of Henry: Potrait of a Serial Killer, as an example.)
Now, when I say the film should have ended at the street scene, this doesn’t mean I think the film is only about his deterioration. Moreover, the actual ending is much more problematic, imo, because it a) seems improbable (his suriviving and then meeting Betsy); b) feels rushed he becomes a hero with a quick pan of the newspaper clippings; c) feels tacked on (the commentary about the twisted ways society and press make someone a hero).
well you said. “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”
Travis Bickle – his frustrations, alienation, discontent and the ways he eventually takes matters into his own hands and plunges into madness – is not central to the film for me and I’ve tried to explain why.
The ending with the enigmatic last shot always seemed to be a “Lets make this deeper than it actually is” kind of very artsy 70s thing. “Like 2001.man! Out there”
Ruby, just to clarify about: “he’s the embodiment of the frustrations and neuroses of the average male in the 70s.”
Are you saying Travis embodies the frustrations and neuroses of a frustrated and neurotic male of that era,
or are you saying that the average 70s male was frustrated and neurotic?
A few thoughts:
No matter what Scorsese or Schrader say, I have always seen that final sequence with Betsy
as a figment of Travis’ imagination, not necessarily a dream.
The most referenced scene in the picture, after all,
has Travis speaking to a mirror, and to someone who is not there.
I thought it was a clever recall by the filmmakers. A brilliant one, as a matter of fact.
Travis’ actions are a combination of the mentally disturbed vigilante’s revenge ploys and
the right thing to do. That’s what makes him a complex character with whom we can somewhat sympathize.
I despise him in that army jacket making a fool of himself with that plot to assassinate the candidate,
even if we are supposed to take into account his mental illness.
He’s wildly unlikable there.
But in that convenience store shooting, he’s nothing more or less than Johnny on the spot.
He’s actually apologetic about the matter, although he did the 100 percent right thing.
I didn’t get too worked up when he took out the pimp/child molester either.
well, the 70s (which i don’t actually remember) was certainly a time of massive upheaval in society – civil rights, women’s lib, gay rights, etc, all threatening the status quo, so no doubt the average white male was gonna be disturbed by these things. of course travis is an extreme example, and likely also suffering from ptsd
They’ve entered the narrative through the character and can not let go of a primitive ‘me’/‘not me’ perspective
..oh wait, someone said that already
I thought it was a clever recall by the filmmakers
you’ll have to let them know about that, MS and PS have discussed at length all this stuff and do not appear aware of it:)
Travis is a hero
“The most referenced scene in the picture, after all,
has Travis speaking to a mirror, and to someone who is not there.”
A friend of mine insists that the Scorsese passenger character is a hallucination because:
1) Travis only looks at him in the via the rearview mirror in the cab, and
2) Scorsese has the unrelated cameo earlier in the film
@ Jazz
One more “gun” for you:
@Meg
I’m having trouble seeing the difference between what I said and what you said here: That film also demonstrates a man pushed to act but we know who he is, we are given a construct and it feels – first and foremost – about him, his personal drama and his mental disintegration even though it also has things to say about society. Taxi Driver feels much more to me about the latter but more than just society and how it runs, also the broad sweep of the human condition (dissociation, isolation, loneliness) as well as human nature (manipulation, greed, projection). (I assume the latter refers to the first sentence in the quote.)
@Deft
With all due respect, I think you’re focus is too narrow on what that core is, you see a through line that has to lead to that bloodbath finish as you feel that the movie is about some sort of a disconnected psychopath.
Before I say anything else, I should say that I’m struggling to articulate what I think this film is about—but I didn’t think it was about hero/father-daughter dynamic (although I now think this is more important idea than I first though), nor a critique of the media (i.e., elevating a psychopath into a hero—this idea feels tacked on, imo). And I wouldn’t say the film is about a “disconnected psychopath.”
I think the film is more about the alienation, discontent and frustration—at the failure of government and the American Dream and the erosion of society—and the way one person tries to address these feelings, partly by becoming mentally unhinged.
In addition, for you, that people who like the fact that he “saved” Iris are just fans of the “vigilante” fantasy.
That’s not quite what I’m saying. I’m saying that some people will read the ending in that way.
In all honesty, it is much more “satisfying” for the “vigilante fantasy” that he does die in the deliberately over the top bloodbath, like those “heroic bloodshed” movies.
(Are there really a lot of vigilante fantasies where the hero dies at the end?) But do you really think viewers would be more “satisfied” and “enjoy” the film more if he dies and the film ends at the street scene? When I saw the film, I thought that was the end of the film, and I felt a combination of feelings—but disturbed was a prominent one, and I certainly didn’t feel satisfied.
The reason he went after Palantine first (in Betsy’s presence), is the combination of his personal/social and political frustration.
Agreed.
I think you are right to say the film doesn’t earn the theory of the ending (self-affirmation) that I mentioned, but that’s more to do with how little we actually see of Travis during and after the recovery…
But that’s not a trivial omission, imo. The change you’re suggesting is radical. Is it possible? Sure, but you’d need almost another movie to show made this transformation. I’m not a psychologist, but Travis isn’t just a regular guy who is lonely, alienated and frustrated. He’s a war veteran who seems to have much deeper psychological issue, and I have a hard time believing his getting shot and going into a coma would allow him to overcome those issues.
I think you’re being a bit too literal about the “spurning” of Betsy, in the end, the fact that he feels comfortable letting her go, is showing major progress compared to his pretending that she was his girl to his parents…
But now she’s showing interest in him. Why would he not return the interest—unless the filmmakers wanted to create this “spurning” effect?
@Jazz,
“But now she’s showing interest in him. Why would he not return the interest—unless the filmmakers wanted to create this “spurning” effect?”
I have pretty much answered that in other posts by saying that:
“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”)…
“It is clearly not designed (or acted) to be a cool, narcissistic moment of victory (no matter how similar you may think it is to “action films or rom-coms”). I doubt anybody had a euphoric feeling after that ending in the same vain of any of those genre films”
You can’t simply look at it as spurning because of the much deeper personal/social context of the film and of his charachter at the time that he dedicated all his energy into trying to be with her.
As I say in my latest post “he wanted to save himself from obsolescence, to connect somehow into society, to escape the “loneliness that has followed him all his life” (third person paraphrasing). He is missing that personal, human connection, showing his (very esoteric) romantic side which he strives for in Betsy well after their “bad date”, the result of which brings him back to that latent hate for society and his isolation from it, “she’s just like the others, cold and distant, and many people are like that”. This re-enforcement of that disconnect eventually leads him to give up on connecting that way and rather wage a self-righteous war against “the scum”…”.
It is after the assumed catharsis of his post recovery state that has that “self-affirmation”, thereby not feeling that desperate need to do all that he can to connect and escape his previous loneliness, as he has now found some small measure of peace, he is just closing that previous chapter of his life then, by not wanting to get involved with her at the end.
@Jazz well you keep cutting off the first bit ♥ :):)
moi said “Bickle was not a tangible character and central focus of the film like the guy in say Falling Down was. That film [insert Falling Down ] also demonstrates a man [insert William Foster ] pushed to act but we know who he is, we are given a construct and it feels – first and foremost – about him, his personal drama and his mental disintegration even though it also has things to say about society. Taxi Driver feels much more to me about the latter but more than just society and how it runs, also the broad sweep of the human condition (dissociation, isolation, loneliness) as well as human nature (manipulation, greed, projection).”
So it’s different because TD seems to be for you primarily about TB’s personal drama and the film seems to be about him for you while it’s about for me primarily what he Travis is observing (whereas in Falling Down which is apropos to nothing except as an example of my differeing experience, the balance was for me way more on what the character was feeling and experiencing). Travis never felt like a “real person” to me for the want of a better term, coming at us out of the mists, no tangible backstory (unlike William Foster) eg I didn’t get caught up in any emotional response to his experience at all (which I’m a real easy sucker for) so TD transcended as I said, the Bickle narrative, and was pretty much wholly thematically focused for me.
so I think there is just a big difference in our connecting to these two major aspects of the film – inside Bickle/outside Bickle if you like…re Betsy, I notice you said you felt it was unrealistic that he saw her, but didn’t you think she deliberately came to find him because of the hero thing? That seemed like a very natural thing for her to do and in line with her persona as presented,.
@Matt
A friend of mine insists that the Scorsese passenger character is a hallucination because:
That’s an interesting theory. I do recall feeling like the scene felt a little weird or implausible, but I can’t remember the scene very well.
One more “gun” for you:
Nothing beats the one ceiling shot with Travis “gun” between his legs.
@Meg
OK, I think I got it now. What TD says about society and human condition is what the film is about for you.
So it’s different because TD seems to be for you primarily about TB’s personal drama and the film seems to be about him…
Right, but his personal drama—what he’s frustrated about; his loneliness and alienation—are things that resonated with me; imo, Travis’ reading of the things before him and his feelings about these things and the way he struggles is what resonates with me—and I think a lot of other people, too. I identified with this part of him. It’s similar to Howard Beale’s jeremiads—they articulated what many people felt; Bickle dramatizes the feelings and thoughts that many people feel, imo.
Travis never felt like a “real person” to me for the want of a better term, coming at us out of the mists, no tangible backstory (unlike William Foster) eg I didn’t get caught up in any emotional response to his experience at all (which I’m a real easy sucker for) so TD transcended as I said, the Bickle narrative, and was pretty much wholly thematically focused for me. so I think there is just a big difference in our connecting to these two major aspects of the film – inside Bickle/outside Bickle if you like…
Oh yeah, this is a big difference in our reaction to the film. Bickle resonated with me in a very similar way that Holden Caufield resonated with me. At the same time, the psychotic elements made this identification uncomfortable. Basically, it doesn’t sound like you connected to this film emotionally. To me, this is a very emotional and visceral film.
I notice you said you felt it was unrealistic that he saw her, but didn’t you think she deliberately came to find him because of the hero thing? That seemed like a very natural thing for her to do and in line with her persona as presented.
She might have wanted to find him, but the fact that she does—and seemingly so quickly—seems really implausible. How many minutes was it from the newspaper clippings to the end of the film? It seems like a really short time—say, five or ten minutes, if not less. To me, they cram too much in there.
“She might have wanted to find him, but the fact that she does—and seemingly so quickly—seems really implausible.”
Not really, she’s still working for the campaign, and he’s still driving for the same cab company, so if they wanted to find each other (but still make it look casual), it would be fairly easy to do so.
“Nothing beats the one ceiling shot with Travis “gun” between his legs.”
I was going to suggest some significance in that he starts off with the very tumescent .44 Magnum and works his way down to emptying the clip in a much smaller caliber, but I thought that might be pushing the metaphor too far. :)
Not really, she’s still working for the campaign, and he’s still driving for the same cab company, so if they wanted to find each other (but still make it look casual), it would be fairly easy to do so.
I guess if you really thought about it, it’s possible, but it feels contrived.
I was going to suggest some significance in that he starts off with the very tumescent .44 Magnum and works his way down to emptying the clip in a much smaller caliber, but I thought that might be pushing the metaphor too far. :)
No, that is brilliant! LOL!
“A friend of mine insists that the Scorsese passenger character is a hallucination because:”
If it would be a hallucination scene, I’d be disappointed because it’s a beautiful one.
NIGHTSHIFT
What is this obsession about the positive ending?
This seems like a typical liberal reaction to vigelanteism on film (like Death Wish or Dirty Harry). Would it be more convenient to have Bickle die in the end along with the rest of society’s scum, swept under the rug out of the picture so the civilized society can sleep better? It’s a long shot, but not entirely impossible for someone like Bickle to rehabilitate and have a changed outlook in life, especially after a near-death experience like that.