Hi Sup Forums,
I watched Taxi Driver a few days ago and I must admit I didn't quite understand what the director wanted me to think of it.
I expected him to die on that couch at the end. As in: You wasted your life so you could kill 3 lowlives.
But it didn't. He just survived it all and people thought he was a hero. What to think of this? That people are hypocrits for thinking he is a hero but actually he is still the same autistic guy?
Call me an idiot, but I didn't quite get the message.
Other urls found in this thread:
There are two main theories about the ending. 1. That he did die in the shootout and everything that follows is him dreaming how he was received by the public as a hero, fulfilling his deepest desire, to do something important and be admired and desired for it.
2. That he did survive the shootout, and that he did actually receive the praise and positive press coverage as a result. And yet despite this, his dream seemingly fulfilled, he still feels empty and unfulfilled, and is still uneasy and restless with his life. Achieving what he desired didn't actually solve all of the deeper problems in his life, like his ability to connect to others on an emotional and meaningful level. Hence why the final shot is him looking uneasily/paranoid back into his rear view mirror.
I used to lean toward the first theory but the more I think about it the second one makes more sense.
Also, Zizek analyses the film here in relation to Bickle's motivations. And the idea that Travis' main fantasy is to be desired by others.
youtube.com
>That's the point. It's supposed to be a shitty anticlimax.
This guy is a monumental psychotic fuckup, so it pisses you off when everyone treats him like a hero.
He is just a lonely young man confused by society extremes trying to find relevance somewhere, he either will shoot a politician or a pimp, he attempts both but fail at one, getting in the news, getting noticed by society for once for being extreme.
He just want acknowledgement for once and he got it ... that was it.
I like this second theorie as well
But why does the movie want to make you feel pissed? Thats like showing a scene of Aragorn having an aneurysm after the ring got destroyed.
Travis was the bad guy.
thats what I'm saying, that's why the ending was weird.
But already explained that in a satisfactory way.
I don't feel like he did it for recognition, he did it because he's a twisted fuck he wouldnt be seen as a hero had he killed palpatine. and in the end the music becomes dark again which hints that hes still a maniac
Because modern society is fucked. Travis Bickle is just a symptom. That's what the movie is trying to tell you.
>I don't feel like he did it for recognition, he did it because he's a twisted fuck he wouldnt be seen as a hero had he killed palpatine
Killing Palantine would have given him recognition, it wouldn't be positive press but it would be something that would make people stop and acknowledge him as a doer. He falls back on killing the pimp and rescuing the girl because he feels that will also be a "meaningful" action that will give him recognition.
Remember the convenience store shooting scene: De Niro contemplates what happens in the brain just before death = foreshadowing for possible dream ending.
>De Niro contemplates what happens in the brain just before death
I don't remember this at all. Is this something from a voice over after that incident?
it's not rocket science - just listen to the last "outro" part from "Mexico" song from "That Handsome Devil"
Why the fuck did he think going to a porno theater was a good idea for a first date? Seemed a little too contrived and absurd of a reason for her to dump him 2bh.
>Killing Palantine would have given him recognition
I don't think he tried to kill Palataine for recognition. I saw it as Travis wanting to free Betsy from Palantine, similar to how he wanted to free Jodie Foster's character from her pimps.
He had a warped idea of what constitutes romance. He only ever really went to porno theaters and probably heard of people going on dates to movie theaters; so, put two and two together.
The movie would have been more interesting if they kept the pimp black as originally intended.
Why?
Because it would be more true to life in 1970s NYC.
It didn't bother me.
it was rare for a pimp to be white but they existed. this just made him more special and keitel did a great job playing him
then it would've been basically nigger-hate: the movie
True, it's heavily implied that Travis hates and distrusts blacks in the movie anyway.
the movie is from the point of view of a racist so it wouldn't change much. people did think taxi driver is racist because travis is a racist
It would actually serve as an anti-racist propaganda, since he's portrayed as a borderline schizoid loner who doesn't fit in society, therefore people would correlate racists = crazy loners
it would've also consistently displayed criminals as black; pimp, holdup guy, etc.
before starting this thread I was actually afraid that Sup Forums would praise him for this, not even recognizing that he's a nutcase.
This. Even 4chin autists know better than that.
Which is accurate
What kind of haircut is that?
Mohawk.
>Movie is named Taxi Driver
>MC actually drives a taxi
Bravo, Scorcese!