Showing posts with label Taxi Driver. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxi Driver. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Notes on the Review of THE SEARCHERS(directed by John Ford) in Counter-Currents

https://counter-currents.com/2021/04/the-searchers/

I think The Searchers is absurdly overrated, for it is far from flawless. But it is still a great work of art that plumbs deep themes and stirs deep feelings.

Its high esteem owes to several reasons. Auteur Theory, mainly established in America by Andrew Sarris who regarded John Ford very highly. Ford has been a pantheon among auteurs. Also, John Ford and the Western are considered quintessentially American, and the Western genre defined Classic Hollywood. Though Ford made several fine Westerns, THE SEARCHERS gets extra-nods for its high energy and darker themes. It is at once a Classic Western and something of an Alt-Western more in line with those of Anthony Mann. Then, there's the French Influence. Jean-Luc Godard claims to have wept at the ending of THE SEARCHERS. Of course, the Auteur Theory(or Policy) originated in France, long an influential hub of cinephilia. Then, there was the Movie Brat influence. The American filmmakers who came of prominence in the 1970s got hooked on THE SEARCHERS. Why that one than other Ford Westerns? It was old-fashioned and revisionist. As such, it had double or triple meanings open to post-modern interpretation. It was as if Ford was channeling something of Sam Fuller & Elia Kazan in slight but significant deviation from his formula, much like Alfred Hitchcock with his batch of movies such as REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO.
THE SEARCHERS offered the nostalgia of Old Hollywood but also a bit of edginess to keep it relevant in the turmoil of the 60s and 70s. THE SEARCHERS, like VERTIGO, has been prized as a bridge between the old and the new, and also an indication of what Ford(and Hitchcock) might have been capable of with greater artistic freedom, available to later filmmakers like Sam Peckinpah and Robert Altman. THE SEARCHERS and VERTIGO represent the dawn of something new in American Cinema and yet also represent what was lost with the new freedoms(that could just as easily lead to indulgence as inspiration).
If Scorsese wandered into the darker regions of Fordom, Spielberg remained in the lighter spaces, as in THE WAR HORSE. So, when film critics, film scholars, and filmmakers vote for THE SEARCHERS, they aren't necessarily saying it is really one of the top ten greatest movies. Rather, they are voting for what it represents in terms of genre, theme, and significance. It also explains why RASHOMON rates so highly in polls. Though Akira Kurosawa made several greater films, its cultural significance cannot be overstated. Its effect was electric at the time and introduced the world to Japanese cinema.

Although The Searchers is set in Texas in 1868, Ford’s treatment goes beyond the historical to the mythic and epic.

The Western genre is innately mythic, but THE SEARCHERS isn't really big on myth. It's more folkloric and picaresque. Ford generally wasn't interested in Western genre conventions of the classic gunfighter and the final showdown that served as the basis of the myth. His Westerns were more about a group of men(and good deal of womenfolks) than about the Man. SHANE has mythic overtones. Pauline Kael derided the hero as Kid Galahad on horseback. And of course, Sergio Leone pushed the Western myth to the stratosphere with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, which is really about giants than men.
Also, THE SEARCHERS doesn't feel like an epic. It spans several years over large territory, but the treatment is usually intimate and episodic than grandiose and sprawling. Much of the movie is a like a road movie or buddy comedy with Ethan & Marty and furthermore takes place in interiors. The movies doesn't try to be Large in the style of THE BIG TRAIL or THE BIG COUNTRY, let alone THE GIANT, a modern Western. There's no air of Importance to the story-telling. The obvious use of studio sets in some scenes further undermines the sense of the epic. Also, Ethan's brooding quality reminds us that he is more an embodiment of personal rage than a symbol of Western Expansion and Progress. He is an outlier.

The silhouette of a woman appears in the doorway... It is like watching a specter, a shade, taking on an embodied form. It has the feel of a creation myth. But what is being created? The answer seems to be civilization...

Ford didn't think in such big terms. That was the folkish Irish in him. She represents family, at most community. That's what Ford really loved and felt at home in. Civilization is a big concept with highfalutin ideas and monumental architecture. Ford had no real feeling for that. Even his modern movies, like THE LAST HURRAH, are more about community and a culture. In this, Ford felt sort of Indian-ish. After all, the Anglos often characterized the Irish as brutish, tribal, kin-oriented, and backward. Irish were more about pride than principles. So, even as Ford romanticized the coming of community to the West, he sort of lamented the coming of Civilization that would do away with manly roles and womanly roles in a close-knit community.


A rider approaches across the desert. This is a lawless land, where every stranger is regarded with apprehension.

Yes and No. There are Indian hostiles about for sure, and you never know when they might form a war party. But homestead is also part of an intimate community. Because there aren't as yet many people in the area, it seems all the white folks know each other by name. They are awful neighborly and supportive of one another, unlike city folks who are mostly strangers unto one another. So, unless there's Indian smoke and war drums, a figure on the horizon would likely be a familiar face and be welcomed into the house for coffee or broth.

Ethan clearly aims to stop fighting and make a home there... But Ethan’s attempt to reenter society and enjoy the fruits of peace does not last a single day, for there’s trouble afoot.

Ethan still can't get over the fact that the South lost. He has some of that Jesse James rage. If the Civil War were still on, he'd be in the fight as warring comes naturally to him. But by the time he reaches the home of his brother, he's come to bitterly accept that the North won and there's no way of turning back history. But deep down inside, he's smoldering over the defeat. He will fight with the Yankees against the Indians, but his Southern folks have been defeated by the Yankees, much like the Indians are being beaten by the cowboys. Also, he sides with white folks against the Red Man, but he probably feels bitter that the Yankee North waged war to free the semi-savage ni**ers against white Southern folks. The Yankees wage race war against the Red Man but also waged war on Southern White Man to free the black man who, being stronger and donger, could whup the white man.

In one way, the Indians disrupt his chance for peace and stability. In another way, the crisis saves him from a life of slow dissolution as just another farmer or rancher(like Eastwood character in the beginning of UNFORGIVEN before he embarks on a quest). He has reason to be a man of action once again, and he truly feels at home on the move. It's like the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., while genuinely enraged over his partner's death, uses the opportunity to get his nihilist kicks. War is tragic, but peace is tragic for the man of action. It's like what Douglas MacArthur said about old soldiers just fading away. And the men in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, while glad to be back home, feel so humdrum. In war, they were heroes. And the military guy in WORLD TRADE CENTER(by Oliver Stone), though saddened by the terrorist attack, also welcomes it as godsend. He can finally do what his kind is meant for: To fight and destroy.

Who is Ethan Edwards? He is a warrior and a wanderer in wild spaces: the space between warring civilizations and the space between civilization and savagery. He lives in the state of nature, not civil society.

Ethan is functional in both. Unlike Travis Bickle who is a bundle of neuroticism, Ethan is an all-around personality who fits equally well in civil society and war zone. He can be sociable and chummy as well as fearsome and aggressive. He's in his environment as a wandering 'cowboy', but people of the community feel comfortable when he's around. He gets along with everyone while simultaneously standing his ground. In other words, Ethan is very much a John Wayne character. He's sort of like Pat Buchanan. Pugnacious and always relishing a fight but also amiable and sociable with people of all stripes.

Once the Confederacy was defeated, he fought for the Emperor Maximilian for money. But war is a young man’s game. Ethan is getting too old for it.

Age isn't really a factor in the movie. Sure, Ethan isn't a strapping young man anymore, but he's still younger than some others in the community. And his reason for 'coming home' was the bitter acceptance of the lost Southern cause. He stopped fighting because the Southern defeat was total. It seems that, for a time, in Jesse-James fashion, he took part in revenge violence against Yankees and Carpetbagger types. But it became pointless as the South was lost. It was a bitter pill to swallow but swallow he did.

On two occasions, the Ranger Captain Clayton chooses to ignore Ethan’s possible crimes because they need his help. They sense that Ethan is like them: a guardian of peace and family life...

It's mainly because Ethan is a tough guardian of self. It won't be easy to force one's will on a man like Ethan. While he's useful as another white man against the Indians, there's just enough outlaw in him to intimidate even a proud and tough man like Captain Clayton. Clayton knows Ethan will not come peaceably if he tries to arrest him. And other men would also think twice about arresting him. Besides, as fellow Texans who share the bitterness of the Southern defeat, they sort of empathize with Ethan's vengeful feelings and actions against the Yankees. It's like even law-abiding Southerners who didn't take part in Jesse James' criminality looked the other way because "it was for Dixie and nothing else".

For instance, when a fight breaks out at a wedding at the Jorgenson home, Ethan shoos Mrs. Jorgenson inside because he doesn’t think a woman should see such things.

I think he was just clowning, a way for him to say, "You womenfolk pretend to be for home and hearth but love to see a good fight like anyone else." So, his action was sarcastic than moralistic. It's like when Laurie pleads with Ethan to stop the fight, he tells SHE started it, and soon enough she's reveling in the sight of two men whupping each other over her.

When Ethan finds the bodies of Martha and Lucy, both of whom were presumably raped, he spares others the sight. He has peered into the abyss so that others don’t have to.

That was more personal than anything else. He loved Martha and feels that Marty setting his eyes on her ravaged naked body would be more violation of her dignity. As for Lucy's body, he kept that secret so that young Jorgenson wouldn't lose his head. Just as he predicted, once Jorgenson hears what really happened, he burns with rage and rides off into an Indian camp and gets killed. In a way, Ethan despairs what happened but also understands Jorgenson died a manly death.

Ethan doesn't try to protect Marty from the horrors of the world. He was certainly about to kill Debbie right in Marty's presence. And when he shot the eyes out of the dead Indian, Marty was there as witness.

Mrs. Jorgenson says, “A Texican’s nothin’ but a human man out on a limb . . . This year and next and maybe for a hundred more. But I don’t think it’ll be forever. Someday this country will be a fine good place to be . . . Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come . . .”

She was a school teacher, you know.

Texas is a pagan land that demands human sacrifices before it becomes a decent place to live. This is why Ethan interrupts the Christian burial of his family to begin the search for the killers. Texas is not yet ready for such niceties. It needs more blood and bones, and Ethan is ready to lay down his own.

This is over-interpreting Ethan's motives. He's just impatient for action. He is not a high concept person who thinks in terms of history, meaning, and significance. He lives for what is his, whom he knows and cares for. The only larger loyalty he had was to the South and only because of the Civil War that divided the US into North vs South. Even if Ethan lived in a civilized setting without red savages, he would always be impatient and a bit impulsive, like the Burt Reynolds character in DELIVERANCE who is eager to reach the river. (Why? Because it's there.) Or the Stampers of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Ethan isn't acting for civilization or even for Texas. The school teacher may see her life as part of something bigger, but Ethan lives for himself. Even his rescue mission for Debbie is really about his feelings, his sense of revenge, his personal vendetta.

Ethan is a man in a hurry. The proximate reason for haste is that with each passing minute, the girls are closer to rape, torture, and death. The deeper cause is that he’s over the hill, so his time is short.

With Lucy, that's true. She is a young woman, therefore a sexual target for the Indians. But even as victim of rape and murder, she would still be a white woman who resisted and understood the horror of what had happened. But it's different with Debbie. She wouldn't be raped. She would be turned Indian. She would be accepted into the very fabric of Indian life, and her loyalties would be with the Indians. She wouldn't be sexually violated but sexually initiated into Indian life to produce braves whom she would love as her own sons. In some ways, this is worse. It's like turning Greek boys into Janissary who genuinely accepted Islam and fought for Allah against Christendom.

It's like a white race-ist being killed by terrible Negroes is less tragic than white kids being turned into 'woke' enemies of their own race, essentially tools of vile Jewish Supremacists and ghastly Negroes.

He is cold and ruthless, using Martin as bait to trap and kill the treacherous merchant Futterman.

Actually, cold-and-ruthless would have been less unnerving. What's truly unsettling about the scene is Ethan's casual camaraderie with Marty. He uses Marty as bait but treats him like a long-lost little brother. Of course, one could say Ethan was just playacting, but his fondness for Marty(by that time) seems as genuine as the ploy is calculating. Thus, Ethan has the odd combination of warmth and ruthlessness(which could be said of Ford himself, a real son of a bitch but not without a heart). And the crazy-funny thing is Ford did it with comic touch. It's almost as if Marty passed the test of manhood with Ethan, much like Paulie saying, "You broke your cherry" to Henry in GOODFELLAS. It's the warrior's code. Warriors are a band of brothers but also expendable. It's just the name of the game. Ford made a movie called THEY WERE EXPENDABLE. So, the more Marty comes to accept his expendability, the more he becomes valuable to Ethan who lives his life like it's expendable.

He is also increasingly savage... He even slaughters buffalo simply to starve the Indians.

Modern times make us wonder what is and isn't savage. During World War I, the entire German civilian population was targeted for starvation with naval blockades. In the 1990s, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, both products of elite institutions, implemented ruthless sanctions on Iraq that killed countless lives of children. And the US uses food-and-medicine as weapons in its Jewish-Supremacist war on Syria. So, Ethan's 'savagery' was pure amateur stuff compared to what civilizations do.
In a way, the dichotomy of civilization vs savagery misses the mark. American Indians were more 'war-like' because there were many competing tribes. But there was peace within the tribe. So, if Indians fought more, it wasn't because they were naturally more warlike or savage but because the sphere of peace was smaller for them. They belonged to a tribe surrounded by other tribes. Civilization has much wider sphere of peace but only because more peoples have been conquered and forced into the sphere. But when we ponder America's war-making on nations and entities that remain outside, independent of, or hostile to the Globalist Empire, it's utterly 'savage' and ruthless. Just ask the Syrians. Just ask the Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass. Just ask the Palestinians hated by the Jewish supremacist masters of America. We speak of civilization conquering savagery in the American West, but civilization itself is an amalgam of conquered peoples. The Irish who collaborated under the Anglos to conquer the West had themselves been forced into Pax Anglo. Same with Negroes. 20% of cowboys were Negroes, and they too warred with Indians. They too had been forced into Pax Anglo. So, spread of civilization is often about the conquered conquering the 'savages' yet to be conquered.

Ethan’s search for Debbie quickly takes on the quality of an obsession.

She is kin, the child of his brother. Also, she's the child of Martha, the woman Ethan loved. He lost Martha to Aaron, his own brother, and he's not about to lose the child of Martha to the Indians. Because she was abducted when young, the real problem is she can be raised to love the Indians. With Lucy, the Indians had to force their lust on her. But with Debbie, she could put out to some brave out of love. That would be the greatest betrayal.

There’s a lot to dislike about Ethan Edwards, but he’s the only man who could have rescued Debbie.

But the rescue is purely accidental, and her survival owes more to Marty. Despite all those years of wandering and searching, Ethan failed to rescue Debbie. He came close to killing her at one point, but Marty stood in his way.
The final raid on the Indian Camp wasn't about Debbie. The cavalry was going to attack anyway, and she just happened to be there. And she could have easily gotten killed if the cavalry charged in. After all, plenty of Indian women and children were mowed down by the US cavalry. This is why Marty asks to sneak into the camp prior to the charge. And it is he who kills Scar. It wasn't Ethan's plan, but by this time, he's gained enough respect for Marty, who'd grown into full manhood, to let him have his way.

The central hangup of most critical writing about The Searchers is that Ethan is a “racist,” even a “virulent” one.

There is a virulent quality about Ethan, but what is impassioned among whites is usually called 'rabid' and 'virulent' by Jews. Of course, when Jews exhibit similar passions, those are noble and inspiring.
Anyway, calling Ethan a 'racist' in the context of THE SEARCHERS seems pointless. I mean, who isn't a 'racist' in that setting? The movie features a race war between whites and Indians. Every white person in THE SEARCHERS is for the eradication of Indian savages to make way for white communities. Even the North, which abolished slavery in the South, was totally committed to Westward Expansion and the 'genocide' of the Indians. Whether Mr. Futterman the merchant is Jewish or not, plenty of Jewish merchants sold rifles and ammo to cowboys to go kill Indians with. Perhaps, the difference is other whites just do it as a necessary evil whereas Ethan really feels the 'racism' as a kind of all-consuming obsession.

A racist, in the words of Jim Goad, means “a vicious loser who hates people with different continental ancestry . . . merely to compensate for being an inadequate psychopath and to avoid taking responsibility for his own problems.”

There are people like that. Some white supremacist types are indeed the biggest losers. They aren't smart or strong. Their 'racism' is a crutch. They inflate their own egos and put down others to feel better about themselves. But this is true of all groups. Black supremacists tend to exaggerate 'we wuz kangz' BS to compensate for their loserdom in many fields.
Now, if 'racism' was meant in this way, it wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is 'racism' now applies to ANY expression of white desire for self-preservation. So, any European nation that doesn't want to be swamped by the Third World is 'far right' and 'white supremacist'. Of course, Jews push this invective, but then, they demand that whites, who must forsake their own blood-and-territorial inheritance, totally support Jewish right of identity, pride, nationhood, and even hegemony over others.

It used to be 'racist' meant a nasty hateful jerk who hated just to hate. Now, a 'racist' is any white person who won't totally grovel before Jews and Negroes. And even if they do grovel, they would still be charged of 'white fragility' or some nonsense. But the fact that so many whites fall for this goes to show they are idiots. It seems white greatness owed to great white elites leading the white masses. Most white people are only good for following like sheeple. Once white elites abandoned their roles as proudly race-ist white rulers/leaders, the white masses just turned to the new Jewish elites for answers, and it's been ever increasing levels of cuckery.

Ethan clearly isn’t a racist in this sense. First of all, he is not ignorant of the Comanches. He knows their language and their myths. He respects them as enemies. He clearly hates them. But he doesn’t hate them because they are merely “different” or because he is a “loser.” He hates them because of their treachery, violence, and cruelty. They butchered his family after raping the women, something they did to countless other white families.

Comanches are a fearsome bunch, but whites are invading Comanche territories. Comanches fight back like the Germanic barbarians did against the Romans. So, even though whites are understandably horrified by Comanche brutality, it's hardly surprising that Comanches would react this way to white encroachment on their ancestral hunting and burial grounds.
The thing about Ethan is he's a natural tribalist(though always wandering off into the turfs of other tribes). He feels most comfortable with us-versus-them view of the world. He even feels this way about whites. He surely killed lots of whites in the Civil War and even after the war. As a Southerner, he resented the North telling his kind what they can and can't do. As a white man, he's at war with Indians. As the brother of Aaron, he takes the massacre personally. If the Comanches had spared Aaron and Martha's family and gone after the Jorgensons, Ethan's anger wouldn't have been sufficient to become a 'searcher'. With Ethan, the personal is political and vice versa. The fact that he even fought in Mexico goes to show his main loyalty isn't to country or principles. It's about what feels right to him at the moment.

Critics are also exercised over the fact that Ethan would rather kill Debbie than allow her to stay with the Indians. Surely this is an expression of irrational “racism” and “hate.” But is it?

This is understandable. After all, Marty himself is shocked that Ethan would even dream of such thing. And Ford as storyteller is with Marty though privy to Ethan's motives.
It's a variation of 'better dead than red'. It's been a common theme for people to prefer death with dignity than defeat with humiliation. In STAGECOACH, a southern gentleman saves the last bullet for the white woman lest she be taken by the Indians. Indeed, this rule applied to men as well. Better to save the last bullet for yourself than be taken hostage by Indians who might torture you in the most horrible way. In MASADA, the Zealots choose to end their lives than surrender to the Romans. In DOWNFALL, the Goebbels' wife would rather kill her kids than have them grow up as 'slaves' in defeated Germany. Many Japanese committed suicide than accept defeat in the Pacific War. A woman in13TH WARRIOR instructs another to kill the children than have them be taken as captives by the invaders if the defenses were to fail. The black woman in Toni Morrison's BELOVED killed her child than have her grow up as a slave. If white men had abducted an Indian child and raised him to fight on the side of whites against Indians, the boy's Indian father or uncle might have wanted him killed. Better than than have a red man fight for whites and kill fellow Indians.

Still, Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is deeply disturbing because she is wholly innocent. She was taken as a child by the Indians and raised as one. Under the circumstances, she is what she is. To kill her seems over-the-top, more an expression and realization of Ethan's personal rage than anything to do with justice or purpose. (Ethan would want to kill her even if or especially if she found happiness with the Indians.)
Debbie's 'betrayal' isn't something she chose. She was acculturated into another world that accepted her as one of its own. It's like what happens to the white kid in THE EMERALD FOREST by John Boorman. He becomes a genuine Noble Savage. Now, in THE SEARCHERS, it's revealed at the end that Debbie never fully gave herself to the Indians. She did grow fond of them and came to regard them as her people, but deep down inside, she still remained true to her real family, like the priest in THE SILENCE(Martin Scorsese) kept the flame alive deep in his heart under captivity in Japan.

The real question about Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is, "Was it more for her sake or his sake?" I think it was more about his feelings, and on that note, it is wrong. It was his rage more than her interests that drove him to such extreme resolve.

Ethan also knows that once Debbie reaches puberty she will be raped. Maybe she will be killed then. Maybe she will be made into a squaw. Ethan would rather die than suffer that fate. He wants to spare Debbie from it. This isn’t racism and hate. It is an act of love in a terrible situation.

No, the rape issue was with Lucy. The problem with Debbie is she will be wed to an Indian. This is worse than rape as far as Ethan is concerned. At least in rape, there is the act of resistance. It's like the scene in THE BIRTH OF A NATION and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS(by Michael Mann) where white women kill themselves than be taken by the Negro or Indian. White male 'racists' may be outraged by black-on-white rape but they are truly enraged by white-on-black love, aka Jungle Fever. At least the white rape victim resisted the Negro. In contrast, there is white lust and desire for the Negro in jungle fever. A white woman happily surrenders herself to black men. So, as horrible as Lucy's death was, Debbie's acculturation into Indian life seems worse to Ethan. She won't be raped but may 'freely' give herself to some Indian brave she regards as her husband to serve and obey.

Ethan would rather die than suffer such fate? You mean Ethan would rather kill her than suffer the fate of knowing of her 'betrayal'.

Whatever it is, can't it be race-ist and hate and love and honor all rolled into one? Why think in binaries? Ethan hates what has become of Debbie, but that hate exists only because of his love for her. It's often the case that the person you come to hate the most was the one you loved the most. You feel most betrayed when the person you trusted the most turns out the wrong way. The notion that Ethan, in his fit of rage and on the cusp of killing Debbie, was acting out of love is a bit of a stretch. There is love buried somewhere in Ethan's heart but also unhinged rage and hatred. He's not acting rationally based on questions of ethics(in terrible situations) but burning with fury of the moment.

The problem men face with women is twofold. In SEVEN SAMURAI, a woman abducted by bandits feels great shame, and later, face to face with husband, she would rather throw herself into the fire than have him look at her fallen self. (That peasant's rage makes Ethan's seem pale by comparison.)
In THE WILD BUNCH however, it's not the case. When Angel asks the village elder if his woman Teresa was molested and taken, the old man says, "No, the bitchass ho ran off with General Mapache who has more blings to give her." Later when Angel encounters Teresa at Mapache's compound, she laughs at him, and he grows so enraged that he kills her.
Kurosawa idealized the woman-as-saint, whereas Peckinpah saw women as natural whores, true enough in STRAW DOGS.

Raped by Black Savage or Jungle Fever? Long ago, maybe sex between black male and white female had a good chance of involving rape. Today, most of them are products of jungle fever, and furthermore, it's promoted by Jews and endorsed even by Conservatives and Donald Trump, the friend of Kim Kardashian.

TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE, both written by Paul Schrader, reveal that the girls ran off on their own and chose to be whores than 'chores' and 'bores' in small town setting. And so many small town girls go to Hollywood and prefer to work as skanks than be stuck in nowhere-ville with the prospect of settling down with Average Joe. Even in PATTI HEARST where a white woman was really kidnapped and raped, she becomes one of the radicals soon enough.
Coen Brothers did a variation on this with the porn girl in THE BIG LEBOWSKI:

And it is this question that haunts Ethan. How much of Debbie's 'betrayal' was forced on her and how much of it was voluntary? Is she a mere victim or a willing accomplice with the Indians?

Martin Scorsese was deeply influenced by The Searchers.

True, but his yammering about Ethan-the-'racist' is so sickening in that series he did on the Western. Sometimes, an Irishman
would do well to paint his house.

Ford makes Martin Pawley one-eighth Cherokee. He first appears riding a horse bareback, then neatly dismounts while it is still trotting. He’s also late to dinner. Later we see that he is highly emotional and impulsive, although he is still a teenager. When he is a little older, he does not fight “fair” in a fist-fight. All this suggests that he has a bit of Indian wildness in him.

His entrance comes later to accentuate his 'intrusion' into the family setting as preferred by Ethan. The very sight of him triggers Ethan's deep-seated hostility. Ethan's reaction is 'animal', like when a dog instinctively feels wary of another creature. It takes time for Ethan's memory(of having saved Marty) and the family's affection for Marty to ease him back into the family setting. His mind knows that Marty is 'part of the family', but his heart remains wary of him. He feels tolerance but not bond.

As for being emotional and impulsive, those are more Irishy traits than Indian ones, whose stereotype was stone-faced stolidity. It's like Scar speaks in monotones.
We learn that Ethan rescued Marty as a baby, and this foreshadows Ethan's rescuing(or sparing) of Debbie at the end. Both 'rescues' have an air of ambivalence. The white-man-side of Ethan didn't particularly care to save a 'half-breed' child, but perhaps the Christian side made him do, though he shunted the kid off to another family than raise him on his own. Likewise, we don't know until the very end what Ethan will do when he gets his hands on Debbie. He doesn't know it either, also the case with revisionist NOAH of Darren Aronofsky's movie that combines the Noah story with that of Abram. In the end, this 'Noah' just couldn't do it. The difference between Marty and Debbie is Ethan's heart wasn't into saving baby Marty but his mind was — he knew it was the right thing to do even though he didn't really care — , whereas with Debbie, his mind is set on killing her but his heart isn't, which is revealed at the end.

When Ethan sees him, he blurts out that he could be mistaken for a half-breed. In truth, he cannot. Played by Jeffrey Hunter, Marty has strikingly handsome Caucasian features

Yeah, Marty is supposed to have distinguishable Indian features. Back then, it was the norm in Hollywood to cast white actors for non-white roles. So, we must go with what Ethan says than what we see.


When Laurie suggests that it might be better for Debbie to die than stay with the Comanches, it is obviously not because she has a horror of miscegenation. Instead, she has a horror of rape.

No, it's more due to her feelings about mixing with savages. She doesn't like the idea of Debbie having Indian babies and living as a squaw-woman. She's high-spirited and proud but not particularly sympathetic. She's a bit vain and selfish, at least to the extent allowed by frontier experience. When Marty rides off to find Debbie, she takes it as personal slight and grievance. She wants Marty's attention on her than on Debbie. In this, she is sort of like Ethan. Both act like the world revolves around their feelings.

The characters of Marty and Laurie bring us to the main faults of The Searchers. They are incredibly annoying: less characters than caricatures. Perhaps these characters could have been saved by good acting, but both Jeffrey Hunter and Vera Miles as Laurie are committed over-actors. Marty is annoyingly whiny and buffoonish, and Laurie tends to be shrill.

I like Marty, but the performance is problematic because the actor was too old for the role, especially in the early years of the search. He acts too boyish for a full-grown man. Also, he plays the most morally and socially/racially complex character in the movie, but Ford wasn't sure whether he wanted Marty to be a comic sidekick or the voice of conscience.
Vera Miles on the other hand shines like an apple. Her performance isn't subtle or complicated but from the heart, but Laurie is a simple girl with strong passions and full of spunk. She's a girl blossoming into womanhood, and it is peak Miles. It's a hearty and heartbreaking performance. She is bound by duty and does her chores and more but also defiant and self-centered. Her life revolves around work, but she wants the world, or at least Marty, to revolve around her. She's responsibility and vanity in one tight bundle. Even when she wails at Marty for choosing the search for Debbie over her, she goes through the trouble of retrieving the horse and handing(or hurling) him the rifle.

There is a great deal of childish flirting and bickering. It is often painful. But the worst thing about it is that Ford left nothing to accident. He clearly wanted it exactly this way, which is a terrible lapse of taste.

The problem lies in taking Ford and THE SEARCHERS too seriously. Ford never aspired to be a pure artist, and his movies are essentially folkloric popular entertainments. Much of the appeal owes to the air of familiarity. When you watch a Ford movie, you expect the similar cast of characters. It's like the Irish returning to Ireland to bask in Irishness. Ford's movies feel like 'home', even when set in the Western wilderness. Ford created his universe of characters, and the appeal was to popular and even vulgar taste. Ford wasn't exactly about good taste or sophistication. An average Ford movie was perhaps more complex than the usual Hollywood fare but not by much. His movies weren't Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. And much of THE SEARCHERS has to seen as Family Entertainment. It had nostalgic appeal, especially in the 1950s when Teen Culture was on the rise with the birth of the Cool. There's nothing cool about Ford's movies. When Laurie receives a letter, her parents hardly have any concept of privacy and tell her to read it out loud. It's old-fashioned and homey.
Though Ford could be somewhat complex, his movies have to be taken like Norman Rockwell paintings(than Rembrandts). Naturally, they are filled with archetypes and caricatures than three-dimensional characters. THE SEARCHERS is very much the usual Ford fare but something a bit more, as if entertainment has been miscegenated with art into something promising to be wondrous, or monstrous.

terrible possibility that Lucas also copied Luke’s annoying whining from Marty and the juvenile bickering between Luke, Leia, and Han from similar scenes in The Searchers.

That owes more to screwball comedies.

By the end of the film, (Marty) is man enough to defy Ethan then fight off Laurie’s would-be groom, a grinning, drawling buffoon about whom the less said the better.

That 'grinning, drawling buffoon' is wonderful. It's hilarious because he talks like a hee-haw tard but sings like an angel. But the single most memorable character is Old Mose who looks racially ambiguous and is wonderfully goofy. He looks both infantile and senile. Inspired personality and performance. One thing for sure, characters like Old Mose show that the movie was as much bawdy comedy for the unwashed masses as a dark tale of race and redemption for thinking folks.

What happened? Obviously, Ethan has had a change of heart. But it makes perfect sense. He wanted to kill Debbie when she wanted to stay with Scar. But Scar is now dead, his people will be killed or captured, and Debbie has run away from the Comanches. So she has had a change of heart too. Now Ethan can rescue her, so he does. But that was Plan A all along.

No, this is too neat and rational. His murderous feelings toward Debbie went deeper than the problem of her loyalty to the Comanches. She'd been defiled in his eyes and is beyond redemption. Sure, his rage has abated some since his attempt to kill her, but the rage is still there, as Marty noticed many times. (Marty says that whenever Ethan talks about Debbie, his face goes 'red rum, red rum'.) And when Marty sneaks into the Indian camp, it is as much to protect her from Ethan as to save her from Scar. Marty fears that the US cavalry raid might serve as perfect moral cover for Ethan to kill Debbie(as surely some women and children will get killed in the melee). Even to the very end, Marty tries to stop Ethan, and Ethan strikes Marty to the ground and rides off in pursuit of Debbie. It is only when he holds her in his arms that he knows for sure that he won't harm her. It's like John Wayne's character wasn't sure what he was really going to do with Montgomery Clift's character in RED RIVER, an emotional precursor to THE SEARCHERS. On the one hand, Wayne's character vowed to kill the 'traitor', but face to face with the young man, he refuses to shoot him and slugs him instead until he is slugged back... until they make up. This element of THE SEARCHERS has something of 'existentialism'(fashionable at the time). In the end, we cannot sum up Ethan's final decision with recourse to logic, ethics, philosophy. He was torn between killing her and sparing her, and he didn't know what he'd really do until the very end when she was in his arms. In a way, she saves him as much as he saves her. That sense of mystery is what adds power to that scene. It's like the closing line of Scorsese's RAGING BULL.

"So, for the second time, [the Pharisees]
summoned the man who had been blind and said:
'Speak the truth before God.
We know this fellow is a sinner.'
'Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know.'
the man replied.
'All I know is this:
once I was blind and now I can see.'

Saturday, January 2, 2021

Notes on Review of TAXI DRIVER(by Paul Schrader & Martin Scorsese) by Trevor Lynch

https://counter-currents.com/2021/01/taxi-driver/

-- But even with (Dylan) Roof’s case, I felt that I had seen this all before. Then I remembered where: Taxi Driver. --

Is there much in the way of parallel between Travis Bickle(Robert DeNiro) and Dylan Roof? Bickle, as troubled as he is, devised a clear plan that followed a certain logic. He went after figures of authority, the politician and the pimp. If Dylan Roof had gone after black thugs or politicians, he would have been like Bickle. But he went to a black church where nice folks welcomed him. I'm no fan of Negroes, but what he did was beyond the pale. Roof's act is more in line with the Columbine murders. He left a 'manifesto' of sorts, but it had no bearing on his actions whatsoever. If he had problems with blacks, presumably as bullies or criminals, why take it out on a black church full of nice folks? Even the Columbine Massacre, crazy as it was, had more rhyme and reason. Even though the two homo psychos mowed down kids of every clique, they felled some 'bullies' as well. Perhaps, they killed the 'bullies' out of revenge and killed others for having been all-too-compliant with the school hierarchy. Bickle acts with a degree of clarity and purpose(despite all the craziness), whereas Roof struck out as if in a haze. It's sort of like how Sirhan Sirhan insisted he remembers NOTHING of the day of Robert Kennedy's murder. We sense resolve in Bickle's preparation and action(as with Anders Breivik), whereas Roof seemed to have sleep-walked through his mayhem.

-- Travis Bickle, an alienated loner in an urban hellscape who decides to die in a hail of bullets --

Suicide by assassination? Perhaps not. The film was made cognizant of the spate of famous killings going back to the 60s. JFK, RFK, and MLK. George Wallace survived but was paralyzed from waist down. Assassination plots were hatched against Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. (Sean Penn starred in THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON during the Bush II years.) Even celebrities were not spared. Andy Warhol nearly died from gunshot wound. David Chapman was obsessed with John Lennon throughout the 70s before killing him in 1980. Some of these assassinations were the acts of lone lunatics. Others were seemingly political or ideologically motivated. Others were by lone nuts using ideology as crutch for their madness. If John Wilkes Booth was obviously motivated by politics in killing Lincoln, Lee Harvey Oswald(if he was the real culprit) was drawn to radical politics as a kind of psycho-drama. He hated being a nobody.

So, the conception of Travis Bickle has to be seen, at least in part, as a response to the times. Indeed, it's been argued that the Sixties as a cultural phenomenon began with the death of John F. Kennedy and the coming of the Beatles. Loss of innocence, rise of radicalism, and youth hedonism, all of which are reflected in TAXI DRIVER but in stale and deflated form. Bickle's mission is like a parody of the Kennedy assassination, and Iris(Jodie Foster) is the pathetic product of Counterculture and "Women's Lib". Sexual Revolution led to new forms of tyranny. Sport(Harvey Keitel) is made up like a debased version of the hippie(though he also resembles an Indian, perhaps an homage to John Ford's THE SEARCHERS, an influence). What seemed so new and fresh in the 60s had already grown tired and sickly by the 70s. No wonder the celebration went from natural outdoors(Woodstock) to the artificial dance floor(SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER).

The 1960s, for good or ill, were truly a momentous decade. It was like the Second Revolution or Second Civil War though the conflict was generational, racial, cultural, and sexual than military. In contrast, the first American Civil War was essentially a war among whites, pro-Union and pro-Secession. The 1960s affected everyone, everything, and every group in some profound and seminal way. Just about everything that followed has been an attempt at repetition or rejection. Antifa imitates the Weather Underground and SDS. Blacks invoke Civil Rights Movement over and over. MLK has been made god. And, what means of conservatism traces current social ills and moral malaise to the 60s. All roads, pro and con, lead back to the 60s.

For a time, the 80s were billed as an effective and successful counter-revolution against the 60s, but the so-called Reagan Decade was really an extension of boomer excess, this time with materialistic yuppies than delusional hippies. 60s anti-materialism and 80s materialism were really two sides of the same coin: Boomer egotism and narcissism run amok. Young boomers could play at anti-materialism because they grew up with prosperity that they took for granted; and when they graduated and entered the work place, they were far more acquisitive than their parents whom they'd once condemned.
At any rate, the fact that the 80s decade defined itself against the 60s showed it didn't have compelling themes of its own. It's almost as if people have been unable to dream new dreams since the 60s. One either revives the 60s as exemplary or reviles the 60s as execrable. So, Obama was hailed as the new JFK, or current 'wokeness' is blamed as outgrowth of 60s student radicalism. Yet, even conservatives often wax romantic about the 60s as a time of free speech and, if anything, denounce current 'liberals' of having betrayed the 60s spirit of freedom. Even conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter prefer pop culture from 60s onward. Either way, all things are measured in relation to that transformative decade.

The 70s were an interesting period as both continuation and rupture with the forces unleashed in the 60s. Gone was the naivete and idealism, and yet, the nation had yet to coalesce around a new consensus that would come with the short-lived Reagan's Morning in America and the rise of MTV that made Grace Slick truly slick with 'We Built This City'. In the 60s, the young cheered on Benjamin Braddock as the white(or swarthy)knight in THE GRADUATE, but Mike Nichols keynote film of the 70s was CARNAL KNOWLEDGE that documented the betrayals of the 'sexual revolution'. Also, more candid depictions of sex and violence went from liberation(BONNIE & CLYDE that gave Pauline Kael orgasms) to grim reckoning with brutality. Closer cinema got to sex & violence, uglier things seemed, as in STRAW DOGS and THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS. It turned into disgust and loathing(before the industry and audience accepted them as guilt-free meaningless thrills). One of the more controversial films from the period was JOE, starring Peter Boyle who appears in TAXI DRIVER. It too is about a man trying to save a girl(his daughter) from degenerates, a scenario revisited by Paul Schrader with his own directorial effort, HARDCORE. It's as if men and women, liberated from traditional roles, went from short-lived liberation to the state of pimps and whores, real or metaphorical.

Anyway, given that Travis Bickle was partly inspired by radicals or misfits of the 60s and 70s, is it fair to say he was seeking death? After all, most assassins of the period weren't looking to be gunned down. Lee Harvey Oswald ran for his life and pled innocence. Sirhan Sirhan was wrestled to the ground. The shooter of George Wallace wasn't killed either. David Chapman just surrendered after killing Lennon. Hinckley was jumped by secret agents and policemen. James Earl Ray ran from the scene. So, it's possible Bickle wasn't seeking death. He might have expected arrest and trial. On the other hand, his character seems partly to have been inspired by Yukio Mishima(a Schrader obsession) who did seek ritual death.
As for the bloodbath in the brothel, Bickle did everything to avoid getting hurt. He was sure Sport was incapacitated, but the pimp came back and shot him in the neck. In the end, he tries to shoot himself because he's badly injured(shot in two places) and has no chance of escape. At any rate, he doesn't seem upset that he's alive in the final scene.

-- Any movie involving vigilantism is inherently anti-liberal, which makes it objectively Right-wing, regardless of the vigilante’s or the director’s intentions. Liberalism is the idea that we can be governed by laws, not men. --

Vigilantism may be anti-liberal, but it isn't necessarily right-wing, though it depends on how we define the term. After all, Antifa and BLM violence are premised on the notion that Law-and-Order as it exists is unjust and perpetuates tyranny. Therefore, radicals and blacks must take the law into their own hands and fight the evil police state that perpetuates 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. And Jews and globalists are happy to aid and abet such mindset and mayhem. At Charlottesville, the authorities let the radical rabble run riot and attack Alt Right types. Global Media controlled by Jews almost never condemned attacks on Trump supporters. When Richard Spencer was clocked, most 'liberals' cheered and called for 'punching nazis'. California courts were ultra-lenient on radical thugs, such as the professor who used a bike lock to bloody someone's head. In 2020, the Power, even the US military, bestowed blessing on BLM thugs and Antifa nuts. Governments in Portland and Seattle hardly did anything to rein in the 'mostly peaceful protesters'.

Now, one could argue that such violence isn't vigilante in the classic sense. Still, blacks and radicals believe they must take the law into their own hands because of the 'inherent violence' of the system rigged to favor certain groups. (To be sure, the current 'left' is less about the powerless against the powerful than the sacred select against the tainted others. Jews, blacks, and homos are sacred, and so, it doesn't matter how much power, privilege, and wealth they have, whereas whites and patriots, even the poorest among them, must be attacked and humiliated because they are eternally soul-tainted by History.)

Radicals clearly have a more abstract and theoretic sense of injustice; therefore, their violence is of a different kind than that of conservatives. While radicals and anarchists aren't claiming to act violent for violence's sake(which would be nihilism), their sense of wrongness derives from a macro-vision of the world. In contrast, right-wing vigilantism is grounded more in personal safety. Rightists take up arms because of direct threats to their well-being. (In RED DAWN, the townsfolk pick up arms because they were invaded by the Soviets.) So, when BLM marchers were met with a white middle class couple holding assault rifles in St. Louis, both parties were going against social norms but on different grounds. The marching blacks were not in danger of being gunned down by the police, but blacks and their white radical allies have a abstract vision of historical injustice with endless invocations about slavery and Jim Crow and etc. In contrast, the white couple picked up guns to protect their lives and property; they felt under direct threat. The Left responds to History, whereas 'right-wing' vigilantes react to circumstances.

From the encounter, we can deduce why the 'left' has an advantage over the 'right'. The 'right' is reactive and limited in scope; its members aren't willing to act unless they are threatened there and then; indeed, many such folks don't even deem themselves to be rightist in ideology. In contrast, the 'left' is motivated by a larger vision(even if delusional and nuts) that goes beyond the well-being of me-and-family. The 'right' is usually dormant when undisturbed whereas the 'left' is agitated even when its members face no dangers. All those college professors are affluent and privileged, but they still wage the 'culture war' and infect students with radicalism. Discontentment is always part and parcel of Leftism. Indeed, the average leftist feels ill-at-ease and guilty about feeling content. With all the problems in the world, why should anyone be happy? So, leftism tends to attract more malcontents who, even when faced with no danger, feel much rage and hatred in their hearts.

How would Travis Bickle fit into all this? On some level, he seems a conservative type disgruntled by all the filth and corruption. And yet, he is different from the stereotypical vigilante because he does have a larger sense of what's 'wrong' and goes after those posing no direct harm to him. Palantine is just another politician, one Bickle could just ignore. And Sport the pimp had no personal beef with Bickle. Sport is content to do his thing on his piece of turf. It is Bickle who intrudes into others' spaces. Furthermore, his sense of the Wrong is less personal than 'spiritual'. Though living in a dangerous city, he isn't particularly victimized by crime. If anything, he says he's willing to pick up anyone, even 'spooks', in his cab and take anyone to any part of the city. He seems to make okay-money driving the cab. So, what's his problem?
He's more like Oswald the radical than Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH. Kersey hardly thought of bigger issues before his family was attacked. And he reacts to criminals who threaten his life. It's entirely personal. Bernie Goetz, who became famous or infamous in the 80s, was a classic vigilante. He wanted no trouble as long as others left him alone. If those black thugs hadn't accosted him in the subway, there would have been no shooting and no publicity. In contrast, Bickle, like Oswald, goes looking for 'trouble'. They both feel there's something wrong with the world that must be made right. In that sense, Bickle doesn't fit the stereotypical profile of the right-wing vigilante. He has right-wing sentiments but also radical obsession.

When blacks riot and loot, is it an act of vigilantism? After all, they justify their actions as righteous rebellion against a 'racist' society that won't give them a fair shake in the system. There was a TV show a year back with Al Pacino as a vengeful Jew. The scenario called on Jews, blacks, and cuck-whites to hunt down 'nazi' whites. Is that vigilantism? If so, Jews seem to be okay with vigilante justice as long as 'nazis' are hunted down and hanged.
What about post-WWII violence in Europe? In Italy and France, communists and anarchists were let loose to lynch anyone accused of fascism or collaboration. The authorities either looked the other way or encouraged it. This complicates the meaning of vigilantism and rough justice.

Bernie Goetz

Of course, 'progressives' and 'leftists' almost never characterize their extra-legal activities as 'vigilante', a term that connotes bigotry or brute instinct, i.e. a vigilante has no sense of right-and-wrong or vision of society other than 'my security' or 'my tribe'. So, anyone from Bernie Goetz to KKK member could be labeled as 'vigilante' because they were motivated not by ideals but personal safety or tribal/racial security.
In contrast, extra-legal violence on the Left is idealized as serving History or some greater cause. Whereas the vigilante acts to defend life and limb(and has no higher sense of good beyond himself, his family, and perhaps his tribe), the revolutionary is deemed as self-sacrificing; he takes up violence to make for a better world and is willing to give his life for it. Like Che Guevara, he's willing to offer himself up for the Cause, live or die. To the extent that Travis Bickle is a self-sacrificing character with shades of Jesus-complex, he doesn't fit the bill as the classic vigilante.

-- Vigilantism takes place when the legal system breaks down and citizens feel the need to take action themselves. --

It comes in two flavors. There is post-order vigilantism where people take up arms in a world where order has broken down. But there is also pre-order vigilantism, often depicted in Western movies. The frontier has yet to establish law-and-order(and secure systems of contracts and property rights), so everyone operates in vigilante mode with guns and guts.
The appeal of the Western was contradictory because the genre revels in the freedom of violence but also roots for law-and-order whereby children and womenfolk could walk safely to church without being accosted by Lee Marvin. HIGH NOON is especially contradictory because the citizens won't stand behind the lawman who is left all alone to go 'vigilante' against the will(or lack thereof) of the 'good' people of the town.

It's also murky in STRAW DOGS. In a way, David Sumner(Dustin Hoffman) goes vigilante against the town thugs, but he is motivated by pride of principle than self-preservation. Indeed, he's willing to risk his life for that principle. He could have avoided the whole trouble had he given up the village idiot to the local yokels. He insists on protecting the village idiot out of some higher principle than self-preservation, the main objectives of most vigilante types.

-- and the lyrical but also menacing musical score by Bernard Herrmann --

The score is remarkable but problematic. It is too jazzy, hip, and loose to convey the constricted and sullen inner torment of Bickle. Herrmann's music for PSYCHO was closer to the mark with the subject matter. The score for TAXI DRIVER is more reflective of the city than of Bickle in particular. (Its jazziness also sounds overly nostalgic in the age of Rock and Soul, the dominant forms of music in the 70s. On the other hand, Bickle is a man out of time.)

-- So who is Travis Bickle? Travis Bickle is a twenty-six-year-old honorably discharged Marine... Travis suffers from insomnia. --

Some have tried to explain Bickle's madness as post-war syndrome, but he was surely borderline psycho BEFORE he entered the military, like Francis in STRIPES.

In a way, Bickle would have been better off in the military, which provides some sense of order, structure, and purpose. One of the characters in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES has difficulty adjusting to life back home. At least in war, he was a 'hero', a patriot among 'real men'. As a civilian, he's suddenly a nobody.

It's no wonder Bickle shows interest in the secret service. He isn't only trying to measure up the enemy but fascinated with its sense of order and purpose, like with Clint Eastwood's character in IN THE LINE OF FIRE. One wonders why Bickle doesn't join the police force. Still, driving a taxi offers some semblance of order and purpose. Taxi cabs, like police cars, are alike in standardization. It's a way of being 'organizized'. There's uniformity and order in being a cabbie in a city full of crime and chaos.
And yet, it isn't fulfilling because Bickle as cabbie can only be an observer than an enforcer. He belongs to an order of sorts but one of serving than saving the customers. There's a part of Bickle that wants to belong, to be part of an Order. And yet, there's another side to him that is deviant and asocial, rather like Paul Newman's character in COOL HAND LUKE. Bickle is a walking contradiction, like the lyrics from the Kris Kristofferson song. He's a misfit who wants to fit in. Unlike Randall McMurphy who revels in his anarchy, Bickle is uneasy with the bohemian side of his being. The Mr. Hyde part of him feels more at home with the hookers, junkies, and other flotsam, while the Dr. Jekyll part of him feels nothing but contempt for the lowlifes. He is a weirdo with the square's disdain for weirdos. No wonder he doesn't leave NY. And yet, another part of him recoils in disgust from the weirdness. It's like Woody Allen's quotation from Groucho Marx: "I would never want to belong to a club that would have someone like me for a member", which is visualized in the opening of STARDUST MEMORIES where Allen, in a train car full of Jews(and depressives), wants to be with the glitzy glam-goyim in the other car.

Some people are happy to be squares among squares while others are happy to be bohemians among bohemians. Bickle, in contrast, is like both a square among bohemians and a bohemian among squares. There's a film MAX about young Hitler with a similar theme. Hitler's problem is he's too square and straight to be a bohemian artist, but too weird & deviant to be fit into respectable bourgeois society. He's ill-at-ease in both worlds. In contrast, the Jewish Max is comfortable in both. Bickle has all this weirdness but simply can't face up to it.

Trailer for MAX.

-- He tries to connect with his fellow cabbies. But, being on the night-shift, they are almost as weird and asocial as he is. --

But the key difference is the other cabbies are okay with what they are. Weird or not, it's just a living for them, as with the characters in the TV series TAXI. Bickle isn't merely weird but ill-at-east with his weirdness. (In contrast, Jeff Bridges, originally slated for the role of Bickle, plays a happy-go-lucky weirdo in THE BIG LEBOWSKI. He's weird alright and proud of it. If anyone recalls Bickle in that movie, it's the John Goodman character who's just as weird as Lebowski but thumps his chest as an upright patriot and pious Jew to boot. BIG LEBOWSKI may have taken some inspiration from CUTTER'S WAY, which in turn, might have been partly inspired by TAXI DRIVER.)
When Iris calls him 'square', he even misinterprets the word and says she is the 'square' one for doing all the un-square things. And he doesn't seem to understand the term 'hip' either in his encounter with Sport. As with James Dean in THE REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, something's tearing him apart. If Dean's character was trapped in an all-too-square and conformist society, Bickle is caught up in the exact opposite, an open sewer of libertine freedom with humanity reverted to the tyranny of animality. Either way, there's lack of equilibrium, especially for the innately confused.

-- Senator Charles Palantine, who is running in his party’s presidential primary. (His party is not stated, but he’s clearly supposed to be a Democrat. --

Or, Palantine could be based somewhat on John Lindsay, the Liberal Republican.

-- he walks into the office and asks her on a date. Betsy accepts. Travis is strange, but he’s not bad-looking and has an off-kilter charisma.
Travis blows it on their second date, however, when he takes her to a pornographic movie. It is painfully awkward. --

He initially strikes Betsy(Cybill Shepherd) as confident and worldly. But already at the first 'date', she notices something off about him. He seemed easy-going, even a bit suave, when he walked into the campaign office to introduce himself. But at the coffee shop, he comes across as overly earnest, almost like a Jehovah's Witness. There are also signs of agitation, like of a sculptor anxious to turn a slab of marble into his ideal vision. It goes from easy to a bit queasy. When she quotes from Kris Kristofferson's song about 'prophet and a pusher', Bickle takes it the wrong way(like Burt Lancaster's ruse in the restaurant scene in ATLANTIC CITY when Susan Sarandon's character says he has no fingerprints).

TAXI DRIVER stood the test of time. As mere sociology, it would have become dated, like JOE, PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, and NETWORK. But Bickle's problem is psychological, even spiritual, and as such universal and timeless. It's part of man's unceasing struggle with one's demons, but then the demons of one era are the angels of another. No wonder Scorsese has been more fascinated with the existential aspect of the struggle. The real meaning is in the struggle than in happy acceptance of official truths without questioning. How Christianity was struggled into being as vision and movement is more fascinating to Scorsese than how it was consecrated as the compulsory Faith for all in the Kingdom. Bickle goes about it the wrong way, but there is a certain dark integrity in his struggle to figure things out.
Jesus is shown undergoing a similar struggle in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. The 'spiritual' aspect of TAXI DRIVER partly derives from Robert Bresson, whose works also influenced Schrader's AMERICAN GIGOLO and LIGHT SLEEPER. (Bresson's characters are usually inarticulate and withdrawn, social outcasts and pariahs. And yet, isolation and/or rejection may be a requisite for grace. Carl Dreyer with PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC and Tarkovsky with STALKER, NOSTALGHIA, and THE SACRIFICE also pondered madness as a kind of hell with a backdoor to heaven.
TAXI DRIVER is impure in its fusion of Bresson and Peckinpah. (Bresson's more austere and purist take on violence can be seen in L'ARGENT.) It was also in the spirit of Sidney Lumet's work with SERPICO and DOG DAY AFTERNOON. By the looks of Robert Altman's NASHVILLE, the 70s malaise was a nation-wide problem. The country music capital, though far from New York, is beset with same problems of drugs, sex, and sleaze. It also ends with an assassination. And DELIVERANCE showed the woods ain't no sanctuary either. Hillbillies can be queers too.

TAXI DRIVER was both a Zeitgeist film and a stand-alone work. On the one hand, it was very much the film of the moment, the talk of the town about symptoms of the malaise. It dealt with violence and sex and urban decay, crime, pornography & prostitution, alienation, crisis of youth, the problem of guns & assassination, racial tensions(especially with blacks), and etc. Like Lumet's film from the same year, it can be approached as a social document. But like MIDNIGHT COWBOY, it is much more and has been compared with the works of Dostoevsky and continues to strike a chord with new audiences. In terms of alienation, Bickle most closely resembles Robert Duvall in THX 1138 though the worlds the two characters exhibit are diametrically opposed. Both are about individuals who feel such powerful sense of angst but can't put a finger on why.

Ironically, TAXI DRIVER'S biggest problem may be it's too-well-made. Scorsese displayed such mastery and brilliance of style that Bickle is transformed into an 'icon' of sorts. It partly sensationalizes and idolizes him even if such wasn't the intention of Schrader and Scorsese. The visual prowess canonizes his madness, much like in THE GRADUATE does for Benjamin Braddock(and HAROLD AND MAUDE does for its lead). In that sense, the raw Bickle might have been more honestly conveyed by a second-rate director lacking in visual flourish that inadvertently serves as advertisement for madness.

Dave Kehr's Review of LIGHT SLEEPER by Paul Schrader.

-- The choice to take Betsy to a dirty movie makes it abundantly clear that Travis has issues. It is not socially appropriate. --

And yet, here's the irony. It was both appropriate and inappropriate. Bickle attends porn movies because they were so conspicuous in the 1970s. There were porn theaters all over NY, and XXX movies were advertised in newspapers. Serious critics and scholars wrote about movies like DEEP THROAT, which also became the codeword of a key leaker involved in the Watergate Scandal. Pauline Kael, John Simon, Susan Sontag, and others weighed in on the matter of pornography. Playboy had already become a reputable magazine with serious interviews with important figures of politics and the arts. The Carter clan would soon become chummy with Larry Flynt of HUSTLER.

And as Bickle notes, couples attend porn movies, and there were plenty of educated middle class people, men and women, who watched porn movies in the 70s, out of habit or curiosity. So, given the culture of the times, Bickle's taking Betsy to a porn movie wasn't as outlandish as it may seem. (These days, stuff like Lena Dunham's GIRLS on TV and Miley Cyrus have pretty much legitimized porn among young people, and respectable journals like Forbes and other run articles about the porn industry as just another sector of capitalism.) There's no indication that Bickle has any special thing for porn. Confused and alienated with too much time on his hands, he wanders into porn theaters because they are there, like he watches whatever is on TV. So, he takes Betsy to a porn movie because pornography seems to be a normal thing in New York. In that sense, he is the one being 'normal'. It is Betsy, in taking offense, who seems 'abnormal', 'old-fashioned' and 'square'. She still seems to cling to 'outdated' notions of 'respectability' and 'dignity'. Initially, she seemed hipper than him, but there's still something of the small-town girl in her to take offense from pornography. She did say she's from upstate.
This all adds to the confusion of modernity, and this confusion may be worse than ever. Women now celebrate 'slut pride' but also claim to take offense at Trump's 'grab pussy' remark. And their idea of wearing dignity on their sleeves was to wear pussy hats. Women who use sexual wiles to get ahead in the industry suddenly shriek and join the #MeToo Movement. That crazy and shameless skank Emma Sulkowicz also cried 'rape', and then made a porn video about the trauma. Porn and puritanism sit side by side.

-- He broods and ruminates. He tells Wizard, one of his fellow drivers played by Peter Boyle, “I got some bad ideas in my head.” Travis does not, however, come off as delusional. Instead, he is angry at the sleaze and injustice that surround him. --

He isn't delusional about social ills, but he's delusional in failing to realize his own sickness. Foul fumes rise from sewers, but Bickle own soul is a sewer. A part of him morally recoils from the urban rot, but there's something fermenting inside him as well, which he's unwilling or incapable of realizing.
Paul Schrader said in an interview that Bickle is a uniquely American phenomenon. He said a European or Japanese Bickle, being more cultured and/or philosophical, would realize that the main source of his sickness is from within; therefore, he would commit suicide, presumably like the character in Louis Malle's THE FIRE WITHIN(based on a work by Drieu La Rochelle). In contrast, Americans, being less self-aware, are prone to project their inner demons on the outside world and strike out in violence; guns help some. The problem with Bickle is he both suffers from inner demons and is correct about the urban rot. So, his inner demons and the social decay become intermeshed, and he's not sure whether he's going crazy or being driven crazy by the city. And we aren't sure either as Bickle seeks an external solution to his internal troubles.

https://www.filmcomment.com/article/paul-schrader-richard-thompson-interview/

-- One wonders, though, why Travis continues to subject himself to this world. Not every city is as dystopian as New York. He could also focus on better neighborhoods and better fares. But he doesn’t. The truth is that Travis is a glutton for punishment. He has a masochistic, self-defeating personality. --

In a way, it's because he's just as sick as the city though loathe to admit it. In this, he's different from the retard in SLING BLADE(the indie FORREST GUMP). Billy Bob Thorton's character is capable of murder but is really a good soul. And he feels a peace of mind looking out the window of a mental hospital. In contrast, Bickle is always in a state of inner turmoil. So, things might be even worse for him in a stable and normal community. Amidst the peace and quiet, he would come face to face with his demons. In contrast, NY is somewhat therapeutic precisely because its craziness serves as a diversion. It's like someone who hallucinates strange voices may not prefer quietude as the voices will only grow louder. He'd rather be in a noisy place where the constant din drowns out the voices emanating from within.
Craziness being commonplace in NY, he is distracted from his inner demons. Or, he can pretend his demons are the sounds of social degeneracy and decay. Bickle is a different animal from David Lynch who, as in ERASERHEAD, could probe into his weirdo psyche and see what's there. Bickle is loathe to stare into his own soul and prefers the distractions of NY. Easier to see craziness in the world than in oneself. (Likewise, a minor character in FIRST REFORMED, the latest Paul Schrader film, becomes obsessed with environmental issues as a coping mechanism for his depression. He clearly has psychological issues but would rather project them onto the wider world. But this poses a new set of problems. If the whole world is as diseased as one's own soul, where's the escape? The man commits suicide, like Max von Sydow's character in Ingmar Bergman's WINTER LIGHT who ascribes his depression to fear of nuclear holocaust.)

Also, despite Bickle's loneliness, it too is somewhat comforting. After all, anything goes and everyone is tolerated in a big city full of strangers. No one cares. It's lonely but one is left alone. If Bickle were to settle in a nice rural community, he would be observed and judged by his peers. If judged badly, he would be shunned by the community. In contrast, no one is exiled in NY because everyone is a stranger. Bickle is just one of the many nameless nobodies. It is lonely but also liberating.
Besides, many people prefer to be a nobody in The Place than a somebody in no place. Why does Joe Buck hang around New York for so long in MIDNIGHT COWBOY? It's the capital of the world whereas the place whence he came was some nowhere-ville in Texas. Adolf Hitler hated degeneracy but was drawn to the city where things were happening. Only the 'happening' metropoles matter. It's like Washington D.C. is a sleazy place, but Pat Buchanan is addicted to the sports of politics. It makes him feel alive, and he just can't let it go despite his disgust. And in Oliver Stone's film, Nixon feels dead outside politics. You'd think he'd have peace of mind after bidding farewell to the System that only kicked him around, but he must re-enter the ring. The warrior part of Bickle knows the game is in the city. In a way, he's a war lover and still in the fight even after leaving the Marines.

-- Today, I look at Travis and see someone on the autism spectrum who is also an incel. --

He has issues but isn't technically an incel, which means 'involuntary celibate'. Bickle had a chance to have sex with Iris but refused. Even when he approaches the mulatto woman at the porn theater refreshment stand, he courts her. (In the background is a classical nude statue, suggesting Bickle's idealism about the other sex.) And he approaches Betsy with courtesy and feels she deserves respect. Ironically, he takes her to a porn theater thinking it is the 'proper' thing to do in NY. He thought she might appreciate it as a New Yorker.

So, if Bickle really wanted to 'get laid' or 'ball' someone, he surely could have. He is willfully celibate with Iris. Thus, he's more a 'wilcel', a willful celibate. It makes him feel special. In his mind, other men see Iris as a piece of meat, but he sees her as someone special; therefore, he is better, nobler. There's a similar appeal to Vito and Michael Corleone. Whereas Sonny, Fredo, and Carlo stick their dongs into everyone(and even Tom Hagen has a mistress), Vito and Michael are faithful to their wives. And Vito despised the Tataglias for dealing in whoredom.
A key difference between Michael Corleone and Bickle is the former belongs to a family and tradition. So, Michael's 'psycho' acts(and those of Al Neri) have legitimacy within the milieu(with its core of honor), whereas Bickle's psycho act seems out of the left field... but for the fact that society comes to spin his crazy deed as an heroic act in total ignorance of the fact that Bickle attacked the brothel ONLY BECAUSE his attempt on Palantine was foiled. It's the thin line between monster and hero, but then in our age of George Floyd, notice how easy it was some lowlife Negro druggy to be spun as a saint, along with Michael Brown. And Jonathan Pollard went from arch-traitor, the worst in US history, to a hero who worked for Israel; as Israel is America's Greatest Ally, Pollard's deeds now seem justified. If the US's primary purpose is to serve Israel, then Pollard did no wrong in betraying the US for Israel. It's what 99% of politicians do on a daily basis. Maybe Jews will demand in that the US apologize to Pollard as the 'New Dreyfus'.

-- Betsy isn’t the only object of Travis’ gallantry. He also wants to rescue Iris, a twelve-year-old prostitute from a pimp played by Harvey Keitel. --

In a way, he 'also' wants to save Iris. In another way, he 'afterwards' wants to save Iris as compensation for having lost Betsy. Iris is like a consolation prize. Had things worked out with Betsy, it's unlikely he would have paid any mind to Iris. But after his humiliation with Betsy, he fixates on Iris to restore his pride. Betsy is too high above him. He saw her as an angel, even a goddess. He apologized and groveled, but she snubbed him as a loser and lunatic. He can't handle this pain, and so, Iris becomes useful to his wounded ego.
After all, she's a young whore, the dreg of society. There's no way someone like her can look down on him. She allows any man to screw her orifices for money. She's so low in the totem pole that he need not worry about being rejected by her. Jesus too had a special relation with a whore.

People feel offended by being snubbed or rejected by superiors, not inferiors. People take offense when called dumb by a smart person, not by a retard. So, Bickle feels more at ease with Iris who is below even someone like him. Also, there's something similar to the dynamics in MULHOLLAND DR. There, Diane Selwyn feels dejected and humiliated by her friend who made it in the industry. In her fantasy, Selwyn-as-Betty is full of love and kindness; she would never do what her friend did to her and goes out of her way to help out an amnesiac stranger who is modeled on the friend. Similarly, through his concern toward Iris, Bickle is reassuring himself that he would never do to another what Betsy did to him. She turned out to be a BITCH, but he's no son-of-a-bitch. He cares and would go out of his way to care for Iris.
But then, he's not being entirely honest. After all, his real objective was to kill Palantine(and face arrest or be shot by cops and secret service men). He attacked the brothel as compensation for his failed attempt on Palantine. Now, why did he target Palantine? He may consciously justify it on political or ideological grounds. But, it really has to do with Betsy. Subconsciously, he sees Palantine as the pimp who owns Betsy as his whore. In Bickle's subconscious, Palantine is to Betsy what Iris is to Sport. So, despite his bitterness about Betsy, a part of him still wants to prove himself to her as the slayer of the super-pimp who owns her.

-- The seventies were the decade of the anti-hero. The organs of the culture were by then firmly in the hands of the hostile elite. Thus the instinct of the critical mainstream was to weaponize anti-heroes like Bickle against the establishment, meaning against mainstream America. There was surely some hand-rubbing on both coasts when Reagan was shot by a wannabe Travis Bickle. --

But Bickle isn't at war with mainstream America but with the very things that led to White Flight. He seems uneasy in the presence of black thugs. And he feels contempt for the Jew played by Albert Brooks. Also, many Anti-Heroes of 70s cinema were accused of 'fascism'. Dirty Harry was an anti-hero cop. Unlike the traditional crime fighter, he played dirty like the criminals. He bent rules. But people still rooted for him because he got things done. Crime got so out of control that even Liberal Hollywood was making 'vigilant movies' and soon shut down the production of Blaxploitation movies as agitating the Negroes. SWEET SWEETBACK'S BADASS SONG was a runaway hit in the black community but was soon taken out of circulation.

Audiences also identified with the Corleones of THE GODFATHER. Corleones were killers and criminals but not without an element of Nobility of Evil in service to Family and Honor. THE LAST DETAIL mocks the military but also hippies and other freaks of the period. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST has an anti-hero who fights Negroes and a bitch-monster. If the problem in CUCKOO'S NEST is too much order, the problem in TAXI DRIVER is too much disorder. Both were released in the same year, but the 60s revolution is the gulf between the two anti-heroes.
It was Liberals who were most upset with THE FRENCH CONNECTION where anti-hero cops played dirty to shake down black junkies and break up the international drug trade. William Friedkin's other big movie was THE EXORCIST, the appeal of which wasn't much different from TAXI DRIVER. A priest paralyzed with self-doubt regains meaning by fighting the Devil to save a young girl whose body is ravaged by onset of puberty.

With movies like NETWORK and ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, things got further confused. Are the two newsmen in ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN heroes or anti-heroes? In a way, they are hero journalists. Yet, they can also be seen as assassins, gunning to bring down the President. You don't need a gun to hunt politicians, as Trump recently found out. Are Woodward and Bernstein righteous rebels against the most powerful man in America, as the movie suggests, or are they hired killers for the Establishment that simply didn't like Nixon? Heroes and Anti-heroes become even more muddled in the world of NETWORK.

-- Today, the hostile elite is fully in control. They are the establishment. They want to hold on to their power. Thus they live in terror of Travis Bickles like Brenton Tarrant and Dylann Roof. Hence the cultural organs pushed back hard against Todd Phillips’ Joker, which owes a great deal to both Taxi Driver and Scorsese’s later DeNiro vehicle The King of Comedy. --

I don't think the current elites would be much upset with a film like TAXI DRIVER were one to come out today(but for the part about blacks, especially the scene where Martin Scorsese as jealous husband says he's gonna take a magnum 44 and blow away his wife's pooter for her infidelity with Long Dong Silver). The reason why many critics reacted in horror to THE JOKER was it sensationalized Art House tropes for the mass audience. Some people might come away with sick ideas from TAXI DRIVER, but it was never going to turn mobs into Travis Bickles. From beginning to end, Bickle is on his own as God's Lonely Man.
In contrast, THE JOKER is about how the lunacy of one spreads like wildfire and ignites a mass movement. Also, due to its superhero comic book pedigree, many more people were going to see THE JOKER than TAXI DRIVER(or something like THE KING OF COMEDY). Whatever its flaws, Scorsese and Schrader tried to be true with the material: What would really happen with someone like Travis Bickle, a ticking time bomb?
In contrast, THE JOKER merely steals Art Film tropes and goes into fantasy mode not unlike V FOR VENDETTA. Genuine art rarely has mass appeal. Fantasy has mass appeal but is usually taken as fantasy, nothing serious. But THE JOKER was Mass Fantasy posturing as Radical Truth, and there lay the danger.

2020 WAS THE YEAR OF THE JEW. THE JEWISH TAKEOVER OF EVERYTHING