TAXI DRIVER

[Guest Chaney]

Taxi Driver may be my very favorite movie but I've always been mystified by the end. I don't mean the ending but the VERY end, after Travis has has his violent, orgasmic release, is proclaimed a hero, is out of the hospital and back on the streets.

He picks up Betsy as a fare, has a bit of small talk, drops her off, smilingly refuses to charge her for the ride and drives away. (Betsy again drawn to Travis?)

We see Betsy in his rear-view mirror and, LAST SHOT, the eyes of Travis in the rear-view mirror as he - with menace? - readjusts his mirror (to follow (?) the movement of Betsy as she is about to enter her apartment?).

We then go to the closing credits.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN!

Opinions... PLEASE!

[Bright Moments]

are you talkin' to me?

[patricia]

I think that the ending was deliberately ambiguous, much as life is. Scorsese left the aftermath to our imaginations. I must say that the malevelant eyes in the review mirror gave me the idea that Bickle's obsession with Betsy was taking on new life. I remember thinking that she was in some potential danger, although the movie was made before all the well-publicized stalkings filled the papers almost daily.

The ending was interesting to me, in much the same way that the ending of "The Pledge" was. Both left loose ends, which made the rest of the plot one in which we all can identify. Life isn't neatly wrapped up, which which is why it continues to facinate.

I think that "Taxi Driver" and "This Boy's Life" are two of de Niro's finest films, although he has done a lot of amazing characterizations. Taking over the Mitchum role in "Cape Fear", I think, was a risky move, but one that paid off. His Max Cady was astounding and didn't, in any way, try to imitate the earlier portrayal by the very scary Robert Mitchum, who had a cameo in the re-make.

Edited January 12, 2004 by patricia

[The Mule]

Yes, I believe it was deliberately ambiguous, and I think Scorsese has said that he wanted to leave doubt in the viewer's mind that Travis was somehow "okay" now. There's also that little musical sting on the soundtrack when it cuts to the shot of Travis catching his own reflection in the rear-view mirror. My read of that moment was always that this was a guy who still had a hair-trigger and could go off again at any moment....

I've got the old Criterion laser-disc with Scorsese and writer Paul Schrader doing a commentary. I'll listen to what they say about that scene and report back...

[sal]

Do you notice during the scene where he kills all the people, the film type that Scorsese used for that scene is different? Almost like he reduced the milimeter size of the film that he used....just for that scene? If you watch, particularly on the DVD, you'll notice that the screen gets somewhat "grainy" during that scene.

Well, if you watch the ending again, notice at the sequence when you hear the loud noise and it moves to his image in the rear view mirror, the scene becomes "grainy" again, just like it was when he went on his killing rampage. Given that, my conclusion is that even in the end of the movie, after he's proclaimed a hero and his life seems to revert back to normal....he still has that streak of insanity within him. That is what Scorsese was alluding to by using the same techniques in that scene as he was during the murder rampage scene. Similar to what Mule said, what Travis felt while he was killing all the people in the whore house, is still inside of him. At least that's how I always interpreted it.

Edited January 12, 2004 by sal

[The Mule]

That change in "grain" as you call it is actually a red filter over the shootout scene which was imposed on Scorsese by the MPAA. They ratings board wanted to give the film and "X" because of the violence in that scene. Since Scorsese really couldn't cut it in a way that would please the censors or himself, they struck a compromise to make the blood "less red" by printing the scene with a red-colored filter on it so that it would seem less bloody somehow.

Ironically, what it really does is add an even more disturbing tone to the already disturbing scene...

[Guest Chaney]

Isn't there also a point in the film in which a character (Iris, I believe) suggests that Travis look into his own eyes before judging others? Could Travis at that point finally be doing just that? Looking into his eyes and perhaps seeing either his suppresssed (?) or disguised / non-apparent (?) madness? A madness which may soon return?

[Guest Chaney]

That change in "grain" as you call it is actually a red filter over the shootout scene which was imposed on Scorsese by the MPAA. They ratings board wanted to give the film and "X" because of the violence in that scene. Since Scorsese really couldn't cut it in a way that would please the censors or himself, they struck a compromise to make the blood "less red" by printing the scene with a red-colored filter on it so that it would seem less bloody somehow.

Ironically, what it really does is add an even more disturbing tone to the already disturbing scene...

Fascinating. Didn't know that. Thanks!

[sal]

That change in "grain" as you call it is actually a red filter over the shootout scene which was imposed on Scorsese by the MPAA. They ratings board wanted to give the film and "X" because of the violence in that scene. Since Scorsese really couldn't cut it in a way that would please the censors or himself, they struck a compromise to make the blood "less red" by printing the scene with a red-colored filter on it so that it would seem less bloody somehow.

Ironically, what it really does is add an even more disturbing tone to the already disturbing scene...

That is very interesting indeed.

Did you notice it in the very end as well? Right at the scene that is the topic of this thread. I wonder what that's all about.

[The Mule]

Did you notice it in the very end as well?  Right at the scene that is the topic of this thread.  I wonder what that's all about.

Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about and have wondered myself. To my eyes--and I don't know if I'm right--it looks like the grain in that shot may be due to the fact that it's been optically zoomed-in (to emphasize his eyes) from a wider shot.

If anyone is interested you should pick up this book:

Which is a book-length essay on the film and pretty interesting.

Here's the Amazon link.

[patricia]

Thanks Mule. I'll look for the book.

Scorcese also seemed to see the same quality that I did, when he used Leonardo di Caprio, opposite de Niro in "This Boy's Life". That seemed risky at the time, since di Caprio was the main character and had to play alongside de Niro and hold his own.

I guess di Caprio passed the test, since Scorsese used him again, in "Gangs of New York", opposite Daniel Day Lewis. I do think though, in this case, that Day Lewis' character, "Bill the Butcher" was so flamboyant that the more subtle role which was assigned to di Caprio was over-shadowed. The story was the di Caprio character's biography, but the Butcher role turned out to be the most memorable. Unfortunate, because I believe that Scorsese was right in seeing the talent in di Caprio. I think that de Niro is a little more generous in sharing the light with his fellow actors, including di Caprio, who was a young teenager when they played opposite each other. de Niro also had a small role in "Basketball Diaries", again, opposite di Caprio, who in this instance was brilliant, IMO, this time directed by Scott Calvert.

[The Mule]

I actually think the problem with Di Caprio in GANGS is that his part simply isn't written very well. I don't think that Leo had anywhere near the great amount of stuff to play as an actor as Daniel Day Lewis did. Bill The Butcher was a much more complex and colorful character on the page and, frankly, the movie is about him.

Leo's character, unfortunately, is pretty much just a plot device to hang the narrative on.

I also suspect Mirimax pushed Scorsese to give more screen time to the "romance" between Leo and Cameron Diaz because they somehow thought Leo's TITANIC fans would be disappointed if he didn't get to fall in love with somebody...

[The Mule]

One more thing about the coda to TAXI DRIVER---One thing you musn't forget is that Travis Bickle was all set to assassinate a presidential candidate and was thwarted. He then focused his rage on a more "socially acceptable" target and became a hero. If he had succeeded the first time, he'd be villified and notorious. Instead he's a hero and people like Betsy suddenly look upon him more favorably. Problem is, he's still the same guy who almost killed a presidential candidate. His rage was indiscriminate. He just happened to shoot the right people....

[The Mule]

So I just watched the last 10 minutes of TAXI DRIVER on the old Criterion laser disc with the commentary by Scorsese and Schrader.

I was a little off on the technique used to make the film "grainy" during the shootout. Scorsese did, indeed, go for a more grainy look for these scenes by printing this part from the interpositive which made the image more contrasty. In addition he desaturated the color from shot-to-shot to apppease the MPAA and made the blood less "candy colored" (as he put it). Depending on the shot, it could have been 70% color and 30% b&w; 50-50 and so-on. It's a technique pioneered by John Huston in MOBY DICK and used more recently by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MINORITY REPORT. Scorsese had considered doing the entire film this way--to make it look more like the tabloid newspaper images of violence he remembered from his youth--but since these things were all done as time-consuming opticals in those days it was prohibitively expensive. Scorsese also said that when using Eastmancolor film one had to choose between a green base or a brown base for the image and he usually chose brown which gave those scenes that sepia-tone feel.

As to the coda of the film, it was pretty much what I said previously. Scorsese refers to Travis as a ticking time bomb that could go off again at any time. Travis is calm now, but he can't stay that way for long.

Looking at the film again, there are those two shots where he catches his own eyes in the rear-view mirror and quickly adjusts it so he can no longer see himself. These two shots look like they were also processed in a manner similar to that described above.

One more interesting note. At the moment where Travis sees himself in the mirror, there's this startling musical "sting" to punctuate the moment. Scorsese told composer Bernard Herrmann he wanted a little something there. Hermann played him a short riff on a vibraphone and Scorsese said, "No, no, I don't like it. It's not quite right." Herrmann simply told him, "Play it backward," and walked out. Scorsese did and Herrmann was right...

[Jazzmoose]

Wow. I must admit that I read the ending far differently than I see here. Mind you, I've only seen it twice, and that just in the last couple of weeks. However, I took the entire ending (after the "finger aimed at the head" shot as more of an internal fantasy of Travis. Maybe I'm just being simplistic here, but it just seemed a little too neat to be real, after what he'd gone through and experienced. The "oddness" of the final scene to me was just a cue to the viewer (in my uninformed opinion) of just how far gone he was: even in his idealized "perfect world", things weren't going to go right. Even his fantasy wasn't "normal"...

[The Mule]

Wow. I must admit that I read the ending far differently than I see here. Mind you, I've only seen it twice, and that just in the last couple of weeks. However, I took the entire ending (after the "finger aimed at the head" shot as more of an internal fantasy of Travis. Maybe I'm just being simplistic here, but it just seemed a little too neat to be real, after what he'd gone through and experienced. The "oddness" of the final scene to me was just a cue to the viewer (in my uninformed opinion) of just how far gone he was: even in his idealized "perfect world", things weren't going to go right. Even his fantasy wasn't "normal"...

I can certainly see how one could come to that conclusion given that nearly the entire movie is told through Travis' point-of-view and Scorsese and Schrader do a masterful job of taking you inside a diseased mind.

The end of the film has been controversial since the day it was released. Not just because of different interpretations (how much is real and how much was in Travis' head?), but also as to what it all really means. Some critics of its day assumed the film endorsed violence as a cathartic release--which was certainly not the intention of the filmmakers.

Based on having read the screenplay and various interviews with Scorsese and Schrader, I believe that it was all intended to be "real" and Travis actually is seen as a hero at the end--which is meant to be deeply ironic and a comment on the nature of violence in America. As I said above--it's not that you kill, it's who you kill.

[Jazzmoose]

Makes sense. I think the point that led me to my interpretation was the hair. It doesn't seem that it occurs that much later than the previous scene, as the news is still fresh, at least in Cybill Shepard's mind, yet his hair is the same as before the mohawk. My thinking was that, in his minds eye, he still saw himself as he had been for years, rather than as he now looks, making this a fantasy rather than reality.

[Guest Chaney]

Thanks Mule for the fascinating comments!

The hair thing is something else that I believe is misinterpreted over the years.

When Travis first meets Sport (the pimp), Sport refers to Travis as "(So you're) a real cowboy?" When Travis reappears later in the film with the Mohawk haircut, Sport tells him to go bact to his tribe.

For years I played the cowboy (good guy) and Indian (bad guy) cards only to learn somewhat recently that Marines -- Travis being a former Marine -- at some point(s) in their history (still?) would shave their heads in that Mohawk manner prior to going into battle.

Can anyone verify this?

[king ubu]

Very interesing discussion here! It's been several years since my first and only viewing of this great film, so I cannot jump in the discussion.

Thanks for all that info re the "grainy" parts etc!

ubu

[king ubu]

Thanks Mule for the fascinating comments!

The hair thing is something else that I believe is misinterpreted over the years.

When Travis first meets Sport (the pimp), Sport refers to Travis as "(So you're) a real cowboy?" When Travis reappears later in the film with the Mohawk haircut, Sport tells him to go bact to his tribe.

For years I played the cowboy (good guy) and Indian (bad guy) cards only to learn somewhat recently that Marines -- Travis being a former Marine -- at some point(s) in their history (still?) would shave their heads in that Mohawk manner prior to going into battle.

Can anyone verify this?

Yup, the single swiss poster can. I read a story yesterday about that marine, don't remember his name, who was in the first gulf war and wrote a book about it later.

He refers to the marines cutting their hair so they only have some on their scalps or something. I can't remember his exact words, but the idea I got was what you describe, Chaney.

ubu

[The Mule]

For years I played the cowboy (good guy) and Indian (bad guy) cards only to learn somewhat recently that Marines -- Travis being a former Marine -- at some point(s) in their history (still?) would shave their heads in that Mohawk manner prior to going into battle.

Can anyone verify this?

Yes, I think that's true and I do believe it factored into TAXI DRIVER. I'll check the screenplay to see if that detail is in the script.

[brownie]

I have seen newsreels films of Marines sporting shaved Mohawk hairstyle when Eisenhower paid them a visit on the eve of the June 6, 1944 D-Day landing.

[Guest Chaney]

I have seen newsreels films of Marines sporting shaved Mohawk hairstyle when Eisenhower paid them a visit on the eve of the June 6, 1944 D-Day landing.

Fascinating! (Been using that word alot in this thread.)

Here's another observation made by a friend of mine when we saw Taxi Driver upon its release: when Travis is in his cab, parked at the curd and listening to Palantine give a speach and the cop tells Travis to move along, as Travis drives away, some people in the crowd turn to face the cab, raise one arm and point in a gun like manner - index finger pointing and thumb up.

I was really impressed with my friend spotting that until I saw the film again (on video) and noted that he was wrong. All you get are the usual dolts who can't resist looking into the camera.

A nice extra on a Taxi Driver DVD release would be Scorsese's documentary American Boy: a Profile of Steven Prince - Prince having been a childhood (?) friend to Scorsese and having played the gun dealer in Taxi Driver.

[The Mule]

I just checked the screenplay and Schrader DOES NOT have Travis sporting a mohawk. He says his hair is "cropped short."

Now that I'm thinking about it again, I might have read or heard in an interview that the mohawk was DeNiro's idea. He'd seen pictures of Marines sporting mohawks somewhere--maybe Vietnam.

You young-uns really don't understand how visually shocking that mohawk was. Nothing like it had ever been seen on a major American actor before. The film was shot in 1975 and that was before the whole punk thing really took hold, so people weren't very used to seeing mohawks unless they were watching old westerns.

I also remember the mohawk causing all sorts of speculation amongst critics. Since Schrader cited John Ford's THE SEARCHERS as a major influence, several critics tried to make connections between the Travis' mohawk and native Americans or that the filmmakers were making some kind of political statement. Most of the theories were hogwash.

Here's another bit of trivia: Paul Schrader wrote the screenplay in about ten days. He was at a very low-ebb of his life--practically homeless and abusing a lot of substances--and he cranked it out in one big burst to purge himself of these horrible feelings he was having.

[sal]

A couple more tidbits on this masterpiece:

When Betsy first appears "like an angel", do any of you notice who is sitting on the stoop on the side of the sidewalk? As she walks by in slow motion, he looks up and follows her with his eyes. Its our friend, Marty Scorsese. I didn't notice that until probably my 10th time watching it.

I also heard that Paul Schrader's screenplay was modified from how he originally conceived it. From what I understand, in its original conception, it contained many racial slurs, especially in the parts when Travis' voice is narrating the "all the animals come out at night....pimps, junkies, etc." Other somewhat racist remarks, particularly against African Americans, were said to have appeared throughout the film, but were axed to order to not segregate the viewing audience.

Edited January 13, 2004 by sal