"Taxi Driver"and Meaning

Let me start by saying, UNEXPECTEDLY AMAZING. I would have never thought that Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” was going to become part of my favorite films. It was genius, he had us thinking so many endings and part of it was as expected, but then the ending made a 180º turn and took us by surprise. These are the types of movies, I love, the ones that deceive you.

If we see the movie, there are lots of different ideas running around and being presented without us, the viewer, actually grasping this ideas as something important. This movie presents a taxi driver that, by the way he acts, we assume he is a psychopathic maniac. We deduce that Travis is disturbed by knowing a little bit about his past, listening to his thoughts and watching how he acts on his daily life. This idea is implicit by the script and the actor’s performance. For example, if we take the seen in which Travis goes to Palantine’s headquarters and starts yelling and demanding an explanation from Betsy, we see a crazy man. If we witness that behavior in our work place or if we were in Betsy’s shoes we would think he is a psycho. Lets be real, they only went out in two dates, they were not friends before that and she turned him down, so they have nothing to talk about, but any character did not say this idea, we deduced it as the movie went on. In the other hand if we take Martin Scorsese’s scene, when he was going to kill his wife for being unfaithful with a black man, we can see that his character is racist by the way he expressed himself. When he was talking to Travis he said: “Do you know who lives there?”… “A nigger lives there”. At that moment, the character is telling us explicitly that he is racist. Yes, I know he is mad, his wife is being unfaithful but if it would have been a white man he probably would have said: “Do you know who lives there?”… “Her lover lives there.”, because this character feels that a black man is less of man than he is. That is why he is being offensive.

Now, if we analyze the ending of this movie, we would have many different opinions. The whole movie had been preparing the viewer for this moment. Prejudices were created and expectations rose. Ideologically speaking what Travis did was an act of violence and to believe that we can take justice with our own hands is just not practical. As long as I know to kill, someone because you think that he is not worth it to live is a crime. We are not allowed t go and beat someone just because we feel like it. Martin Scorsese is just mocking the system and society, because we see and believe what we want. Even though it might not be the right thing to do, we let the media decided for us.

Martin Scorsese's film "Mean Streets" vs Stanley Kubrick

Mean Streets is a great movie. If we see it as, it is, Martin Scorsese’s first movie and analyze it cinematographically we would categorize it as a very realistic movie. When comparing Stanley Kubrick’s and Scosese’s styles they are night and day. With Stanley Kubrick we saw perfection in every single detail. From the lights to the makeup, everything had a place, a moment, a way. With Martin Scorsese, we see and hear the world as it is through his eyes, but still reality. Even though Scorsese things through every shot, he does not “mess” around with it nor manipulates it as Kubrick did. To me Scorsese’s “eye” has no resemblance to Kubrick’s method of creation. Kubrick always expressed a group of ideas, represented each by a specific character. In the other hand, Martin Scorsese uses every character, special effect, setting and light to serve one idea, one purpose. It is very refreshing to see a different director at work, molding ideas, expressing through cinematographic tools or simply channeling his point of view.
To conclude I believe that when we looking at a certain director, we should not try to find someone else’s characteristics. Every artist produces at the bit of there own drum. We should just let them express themselves and enjoy it for what it is. Do not confuse my words, I don’t think there is anything wrong with speculation nor criticism, but as viewers we should give the artist some space to be true to their vision.