What makes you think that this movie is so good?
It raises interesting issues in a powerful way, but without taking sides. A Neo-Nazi skinhead and a left-wing hipster may both like the film, but they look at the plot from different angles.
Most importantly, the film shows the appeal of fascism and the judgement of the right-wing silent majority. Is the ordinary white man moral and powerful, the rightful backbone of society? Or is he disempowered and marginal, fooled by politicians? Are ‘we the people’ actually really bad and violent, and it is nice that there are corrupt politicians shielding ‘the scum’? It’s the modern reiteration of the conflict between the Federalist and the Democrat ideologies: John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson.
Travis desperately affirms his power and claims his dignity, like an early colonist rebelling against the government for his right to take Indian land. He is ready to sacrifice his life rather than suffer dishonour. Travis is a one-man lynch mob: if he succeeds, he is a hero. If he fails, he is a pathetic psycho. Is he childish, or is he doing what he must, even if it appears silly to some?
Is this a warning against the right, or is Travis legitimate in his concerns? The film dwells intensely on this theme, with many interesting small caveats. Is this struggle for power somehow intertwined with sexuality? Is it just an outlet for someone who cannot find a place in life? Is it better to find a place in life and settle, or to ‘do something great’?
The film also strokes people’s egos because it references a lot of Dostoyevsky.
Besides, the film has atmospheric visuals that go well with the theme.
Travis is a wonderful paradox. He despises the scum of the city, yet he deliberately surrounds himself with it. It’s as though he desperately needs his worst beliefs about humanity confirmed. He goes on an exercise regimen but eats junk. He sabotages his own efforts at every turn. He takes Betsy on a completely inappropriate date, and when she rebuffs him, he convinces himself that saving a young prostitute (who is arguably more self-sufficient than he is) will make it right.
His attitudes reflect a man who came home from the war and is still looking for a battle to fight, but he’s so deranged that he doesn’t know what’s worth fighting and what isn’t. He’s a loose cannon, but completely “lucks out” in the end. Had he killed the senator, he would have been scorned, but he because he killed some thugs, he wins him the admiration of society, and his behaviour is validated. There’s every reason to believe at the end that he will kill again, seeking that validation. Will he luck out a second time?
The movie shows in a very graphic and intense way how our environment shapes who we are and what we do – and it does this better than perhaps any other movie. See Wizard’s explanation of this to Travis outside the coffee shop.
The movie also shows in the most vivid way possible how an individual can be isolated and lonely in a city teaming with millions of people.
The movie has a compelling plot about an individual we know will do something very violent and antisocial, but we do not know when he will do it. We can see his steady degeneration as a human being as the movie progresses, and his condition reflects the society around him in a way more complete and stark than in any other film.
The movie shows clearly our society’s hypocrisy toward violence and our misplaced hero worship.
The movie has beautiful cinematography of very ugly scenes. The original score is brilliant. The ominous, impressionistic chords reflect our impressions of the scenery, and the playful saxaphone mocks the sleazy features of the New York through which Travis moves each day.
don’t see how the film was balanced or ambiguous; the pimp was a bad guy but it seems the clear intention of the filmmakers, accepted by many or most viewers, that it was just chance that Travis turned his violence against him rather than a middle-of-the-road politician, Travis is a bad and dangerous guy and it’s just irony that he did one good thing and becomes considered by the press to be a hero.
The film somewhat respects that Travis is fed up with all the “filth” in his society, that it does exist, but seems to portray him as hypocritical and misogynistic in probably liking porn but hating women. The film seems pretty firmly negative in its portrayal of him despite a little understanding or sympathy of him.
As with some of Stanley Kubrick’s highly acclaimed films (not Dr. Strangelove, which is truly brilliant), I did not find Taxi Driver “great,” but I would consider it “very good.” The film is, perhaps, flawed, and some of director Martin Scorsese’s choices can be debated. But Scorsese combines operatic stylization and gritty location shooting in a memorable (if at times uneasy) manner, and Robert DeNiro gives a fascinating and relatable performance as a man on the edge—not as relatable, genuine, and unfettered as Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, I agree, but that standard is awfully high. And I concur that On the Waterfront is the better film—it is “art” because the director, Elia Kazan, was not straining for “Art,” the way that Scorsese arguably does in Taxi Driver. Yet ultimately, Scorsese and DeNiro combine to create a very visceral character study of a wholly unattractive man who one can nonetheless relate to and share a sense of experience with. Many of us (men, at least) have “been there” with Travis Bickle in at least some aspects of his feelings and travails.
And one could not easily imagine a film such as Taxi Driver coming out of Hollywood these days.
xxxxxxxxx
Why Kill Palatine?
Attempting to kill Palantine was (at least subconsciously) a way for Travis to get attention from Betsy. While (probably) not involved with Palantine personally in any way, the fact that Betsy admired and respected Palantine must have grated on Travis’ ego. Killing Palantine would have been his way of getting back at Betsy for the rejection.
Also, Travis probably resented Palantine’s condescending conversation in the taxi, and (rightly) saw him as an opportunistic politician who doesn’t really care about him or his troubles but who humors him for the sake of another vote.
Re: LOVED the movie, BUT…
image for user jsm-33292
by jsm-33292
» Sat Apr 23 2016 16:00:45 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2015
Possible reasons (some mentioned already):
1) Jealousy, because Betsy admired Palantine, but rejected Travis.
2) A belief that Palantine is dangerous because:
(a) his influence has made Betsy (in the mind of Travis)’cold’ and destined for hell; and/or
(b) T has been reading P’s political views (off camera) and finds them objectionable.
3) T is psychotic, so his motivations and rationalisations evade our best efforts to understand them.
Re: LOVED the movie, BUT…
image for user DracTarashV
by DracTarashV
» Mon Apr 25 2016 19:57:40 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2009
I basically agree with what’s been said. I mean for someone as mentally unbalanced as Travis, it would make sense to get back at Betsy by “taking care” of the guy she admired so much. Now whether Travis was jealous or disgusted with Palantine, in the end there’s a good chance he blamed Palantine for Betsy’s rejection.
You want something corny? You got it!
Re: LOVED the movie, BUT…
image for user seahawk3133
by seahawk3133
» Mon May 2 2016 08:37:49 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2007
I felt that he wanted to kill the politician because he became convinced in his warped mind that he wasn’t going to improve the cesspool.
It seemed like he wanted to make the area better but was confused on the way to go about it..
Re: LOVED the movie, BUT…
image for user KeiraVatt
by KeiraVatt
» Mon May 16 2016 18:56:18 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2004
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! At best, Travis wanted to get back at Betsy. The look on the face of Palantine’s assistant during his autocrat’s cabbie-banter with Bickle is priceless! It’s also amazing what a guy any guy will do for a gal.
My take on it is that Travis was upset that Betsy rejected him and saw Palantine as a father figure to her. Therefore, Travis saw Palantine as responsible for the way Betsy was. When that failed he then turned his anger on Sport who was also a sort of guardian to Iris and was bad for her.
Ignore the people who think it was a political move. He didn’t disagree with Pellantine at all. In fact I think he actually agreed with his policies. He did because he wanted to impress Betsy. Its apparent that he’s mentally ill. So he thought killing the future president (who Betsy works for) would impress her and she’d, I guess fall in love with him.
Notagreatplan!
Personally, (but hey, who am I,) I interpreted it as the following:
-Palantine was in Travis’ cab earlier in the film, and although he expressed sympathy towards Travis because he is of course a potential voter, Palantine seemed disturbed by Travis’ ideas. (Debatable is however if Travis noticed this.)
-Betsy was very fond of Palantine and his ideas, and after she refused Travis he even came to the “Palantine headquarters” to confront her. But he quickly left as Betsy’s coworkers threatened to call the police. This particular occasion and Betsy’s refusal of Travis and obsession with Palantine was probably a lot of reason for Travis to start to hate Palantine.
-Travis often spoke of wanted to do “something big”. Whatever this was, especially when he began to became to be dangerously unstable this was probably something violent. And murdering a big icon of society would gain him a lot of attention. Even though it would mean his own death. Keep in mind that Travis didn’t know a lot of famous people. He didn’t know any mainstream movies, didn’t know anything about music and was not interested in politics.
I think this is what made him target Palantine. But of course he was far too wel protected and Travis’ plan failed in an early stage. Turning Travis to the only other logical target: Matthew ‘Sport’.
Travis was not trying to impress Betsy. He was trying to get revenge on her by taking away the thing that she cared about. She took herself away from Travis, so he was going to take away Palantine from her.
Travis’s plan was to kill Palantine to get even with Betsy, then kill Sport to free Iris, and then kill himself. He didn’t expect to be around at the end of it.
In most movies the protagonist is not insane, audiences are not used to dealing with getting to know such a character. We tend to try to sympathize with him/her, then when s/he does something clearly unacceptable we wonder. The reason Travis decides that his purpose in life is to assassinate Pallantine is basically that Bickle is insane. By this time in the movie we’ve come to accept Travis as a person, so we are taken aback, we experience a paradigm shift which reinforces a diabolical direction already undertaken in the movie which we only now realize is as bad as it is. Travis is clueless to the fact that he has chosen Pallantine because of Betsy’s rejection of Travis. Travis is delusional, imagining himself someone he is not, someone on a kind of righteous mission. He doesn’t realize that his plans are not good but evil. He cannot tell right from wrong; in other words, he’s crazy.
Xxxxxxxxx
So what exactly is the plot of the movie?
It’s really just a series of events involving Travis’s attempts to develop human connections and showing how their results affect him as a person. It’s the ultimate character study as opposed to straightforward story; it’s centered less on events than on how one person changes and how the development (or regression) of Travis’s character could happen to anyone given the same circumstances. I’m not sure if this directly answers your question, but it is how I view the overall point of the film.
A lonely taxi driver meets a young woman and teen girl. Becomes obsessed with them and believes he has to save them from the oppressive father figures in each of their lives.
Xxxxxxxxx
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/board/flat/249731679?p=1
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/board/flat/253145948?p=1
xxxxxxxxx
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/board/flat/254121388?p=1
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Why do people like this blatantly stupid character?
This was, in my opinion, an incredibly bad attempt at trying to interpret a Dostoevskyan character on screen. While he has the fluctuations of mind, and the irrationality of man, in him, he lacks even a slight bit of contempt towards his own thoughts, as if he enjoys living his life in Complete ignorance, believing his thoughts to be absolute truths.
I do not understand this character, neither do I care to understand, because what I see in this character is (mostly caused by bad writing) a character that would never happen in real life, for no person can live in Complete ignorance, without any repentance, the way this character lives. The goal of the writer and director should be to create a character that is, while complex and sometimes completely irrational in his decisions, believeable. This is completely thrown out of the window, and is instead exchanged With some kind of poke by the writer telling us that we just have to go With it, despite its obvious flaws.
Perhapps I am wrong in my assumptions about the character, that still does not mean that this Movie could not have been done much better, if they had a more competent writer. Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground” is a Perfect example of a character study done right, and it is obvious that the writer has taken inspiration from his writings, yet fails to create a character that is half as well realized than the characters of Dostoevsky, and this includes Raskolnikov in “Crime and Punishment” which is the character that has probably inspired him the most.
Dostoevsky’s anti-heroes (the narrator of Notes from the Underground), Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, etc. are all intellectual bookworms. That is what leads to their alienation from society, because they live in a world of intellectual abstraction removed from reality.
The only thing Travis has in common with Dostoevsky’s anti-heroes is that he too is alienated from society, but his alienation is purely emotion. It’s not due to his having studied and adopted some abstract ideology or worldview. Travis is much more a man driven by instinct and a man of action – any rationalizing he does is after the fact.
A Dostoevskian character in a modern setting would be some disgruntled college kid or academic (perhaps something like the Unabomber). Travis is someone completely different – the fact that his behavior doesn’t match your template simply means that the writer didn’t have your template for a character in mind.
Travis isn’t necessarily likeable, but he is somewhat sympathetic and relatable at times, like most anti-heroes.
I think the OP misses the point entirely. Travis is a sad and scary character. He is not a likable person. On the other hand, he is fascinating, and the gradual revealing of his story is spellbinding.
There are traits that Travis has that make him SOMEWHAT of a sympathetic character but only slightly. It’s a twist on what was posted. He’s unintelligent and purposely so. His views on the World, Politics, Music, Cinema, Women etc are zero. While he tries to fit in, we feel for him… But, as his isolation continues to build(Which is self-inflicted), we lose any smpathy we MIGHT have had because of the actions he takes. I don’t think anyone sees his date with Betsy to the Porno Theater as “Normal” and these moments are what make the film completely different than the Classical Anti-hero Narrative. We don’t need to like Travis. In fact, the film works better IMO because he’s NOT likable. It makes us turn on him just as everyone else has.
Yes, I agree with you, kmags, that Travis can at time elicit audience sympathy, and at times “normal” people can even identify with him. I, too, have felt the alienation Travis feeels. But as I think is implicit in your comment, that’s not the same as “liking” Travis.
think that Scorsese recognized those moments, as well. They are the moments when you hear the soulful saxophone playing.
Re: Why do people like this blatantly stupid character?
image for user sgtpowers
by sgtpowers
» Sun Oct 30 2016 13:28:39 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since April 2016
I “like” Travis because he is portrayed as a real person, not that typical handsome, superhero guy you want to be. I understand his problems/loneliness.
Re: Why do people like this blatantly stupid character?
image for user RobbieCalifornia
by RobbieCalifornia
» Fri Nov 18 2016 13:05:06 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since December 2007
I didn’t dislike him. Thought he was an interesting character. I didn’t attempt to analyze him, he’s a guy in a movie. It’s a story, it was fascinating.
And Robert DeNiro was brilliant.
Re: Why do people like this blatantly stupid character?
image for user crakatoot
by crakatoot
» Mon Nov 28 2016 15:22:20 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since February 2012
Travis was bad ass.
i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now
Re: Why do people like this blatantly stupid character?
image for user chas437
by chas437
» Fri Dec 9 2016 09:25:28 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2010
Post Edited: Fri Dec 9 2016 09:26:58
Wow, you missed the point completely.
Travis Bickle wasn’t an attempt at Dostoyevsky, he’s uniquely American.
Like so many films of the early to mid 70s, Taxi Driver holds a mirror up to America.
Xxxxxxxxx