Taxi Driver : An odd scene in the diary of Travis Bickle
Somebody occupies the omnipresent’s role in a film and this unknown/unseen shows the film to the audience. This “somebody” uses the camera to show a tale. Even if there is a complete darkness on screen this darkness comes via camera to the audience.
This somebody could be director whose presence, though invisible, is present in all the frames of a film. He decides what has to be shown and how it has to be shown.
Mostly films are shown in a way where director’s camera is presenting all the events and such films are not shown via point of view of a particular character and camera is capturing lives of all the characters present in the story.
Sometimes a narrator presents the film. It looks good when narrator acts as a narrator only and he is not part of that story because as soon as he becomes a character in the story limitations start coming into the existence.
Many a times a film is shown via POV of a character and here comes a genuine difficulty because it is not possible that a character may be present in all the events. He can not be physically present with all the characters all the time.
Hindi films have been suffering from this particular mistake since long. Many blockbuster films have been having this weakness where a character w’d narrate/show the whole film to the audience, though s/he is also part of that story but as a character s/he has not been a direct witness to the events happened in the lives of few characters.
If such versions are accepted in court then anybody, who has heard about a murder, can give a witness. 
Film is no less dependent on the importance of eye witness otherwise background for a film like Rashomon will be lost.
On top of this many a times, when story is narrated to a younger character, even lovemaking scenes of his/her parents are shown to the audience.
Out of all the films suffered from this lacking, three prominent examples are.
Deewar: Film is shown via memory of Nirupa Roy, who is standing on stage where her police inspector son, Ravi (Shashi Kapoor) has to get medal for his bravery and honesty.
Shakti: Dilip Kumar narrates story of his son, Vijay (Amitabh Bachchan) to his grand son (Anil Kapoor).
Kranti: Dilip Kumar, narrates story of his son, Bharat (Manoj Kumar) to his grand son (Kunal Goswami).
Interestingly all the abovementioned films were written by same writers.
There are films written by other famous writers of hindi cinema also and their films also have this weakness/mistake .
In the past filmmakers did not pay much attention to this aspect and because this weakness/mistake has been part of many highly successful films so this weakness/mistake still exists in the hindi films. Even a film like Black Friday also suffered with this weakness/mistake.
Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver is shown via point of view of Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) and he is present in every frame of the film because film represents his vision or how he sees the world around him. Either he sees something or hears or overhears something but he is actually shown present in every frame using eyes or ears to witness any happening.
But there is one scene where director violates, and knowingly, this structure on which film is built.
Scene is :
Harvey Keitel is trying to lure a young girl (Jodie Foster ) inside a room in a building. He is trying to make her believe that she keeps an important place in his life. Robert De Nero is not physically present near the room but still this incident is kept in the film.
To justify it, Robert De Nero is shown sitting in his taxi outside on the road.
But Nero is not able to watch and hear what is happening inside the room/building. This arrangement does not justify the scene and it is like a patch on a film following a set pattern of showing a diary sort of thing of Travis Bickle.
No idea if this particular scene was part of the script/screen play provided by Paul Schrader or not or it was added later because Harvey Keitel played the pimp’s role and his presence demanded at least one full length scene where focus was kept on him only.
Could there be any possibility to show that Nero watches them entering that building and he follows them and observes this happening through window etc?
Or that room, where HK and JF are present, is situated in the building at ground floor and Nero can actually go near the window to see and hear them?
Not that this odd and almost heterogeneous arrangement affects the quality of Taxi Driver as a film and inspite of this weakness it remains a fantastic film but still an important point remains considerable in the area of filmmaking and that is”
“What not to show when a film is shown through a character’s POV”.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Yeah.. I remember Scorsese and Chapman (the photographer) talking about this particular violation of spirit in that wonderful documentary ‘Making of Taxi Driver’ and also about how they edited that sequence of Travis sitting in his cab , just to bring in some consistency…. You have seen that documentary kya?
No. Not yet. Will definetely watch whenever get an opportunity.
Dude..this is just one of two scenes in the film where the character of Travis Bickle is absent…
Tarantino made a five minute video for SKY movies on TAXI DRIVER (kind of review) which talks about this same observation…Yeah i get it he must have read your article..Kidding bro well written w.r.t to Hindi movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YGPfDk9_Yo&feature=related
Fellini,
Thanks for the link. Will watch it in Fursat ke lamhon mein.
…
This is not an attempt to express that There is some kind of Sansaneekhej khulasa in this post.
Nothing new has been mentioned which has not been mentioned in the last three years of PFC.
Comments having same points are present in the relevant posts. I have only combined those thoughts here.
Not the knowledgeable people but some newbie may get some help while writing screenplay and if not a help then a sort of alert.
Raunak,
Cant recall what is second scene where TB is absent from the place where some event is happening and it is shown.
…
It is just one scene.
so?
It is always one scene be it Deewar, Sholay, Shakti or Kranti. That is mis-placed one scene. Remove that one scene after which film goes into the flash back mode and each film (Deewar, Kranti, Shakti) takes right path of showing an interesting tale.
I wouldn’t call this a ‘weakness’. A filmmaker of Scorcese’s caliber was obviously aware of this, as pointed out in the documentary.
I think of this scene as another tool in the filmmaker’s arsenal, like crossing the line on purpose to show that something is amiss. For me, this scene represents how the taxi, while being the lonely Bickle’s only ‘friend’, also traps him in a way. Sure the taxi takes him all around New York, but does it allow him entry into the lives of the people he carries around, or even of all the people he discreetly observes?
At this point in the film, Bickle has started a relationship of sorts with Iris, and wants to maintain that. However, his taxi prevents him from peeking into Iris’ world – the one where she is infatuated with her pimp.
Also, Keitel’s subtle performance in that scene as a pimp seducing his innocent muse (so to speak) is fantastic.
Interesting observation…but I dont think its the Taxi that prevents him from establishing a meaningful relationship with others human beings, but infact its his anti-social nature which is responsible for it…
I feel the taxi represents his anti-social nature. A taxi-driver is never supposed to establish a relationship with his customers. He never turns around and looks at the customers, and only looks at their reflections in the rearview mirror, even while they talk to him, something De Niro said he found the cabbies in NYC doing and tried to maintain throughout the film.
Arsenik,
Where it is mentioned that MS was not aware of this?
It can be doubtful that MS had become THE MARTIN SCORSESE before Taxi Driver was exposed to the world. It is possible that Taxi Driver’s fame helped in bringing lime light upon his past work also. It always happens.
….
You write (like crossing the line on purpose to show that something is amiss)….
Really?
If he had taken the scene in a way where corrective measures were taken care of and this whole discussion could not have been generated, still you could have imposed your own hypothetical theory on the film and MS?
…
You write Taxi prevents him from socialising.
Is it true? is it shown in the film?
The version I saw TB leaving his Taxi many a times.
He goes to woo Betsy.
He goes to watch films.
He sleeps at home.
He goes to buy gun/s.
He goes to visit the place where senator is going to address the people.
He goes to meet Harvey, who is standing at the door of a building.
He buys the time of Iris in a hotel.
He spends time with Iris inside a restraurent.
and so many other things are done by him while he leaves his taxi on the road.
Taxi does not stop him doing all these things but it stops him to peep in to the room where HK and JF are present?
Amazing !
First of all, chill out dude!
Film is an art form, and art represents different things for different people. Good films tend to me multi-layered.
It’s true that TB goes to plenty of places, but he isn’t able to assimilate with people in those places or other outsiders. The seclusion I refer to is more of a mental one than a physical one for the most part. Iris is the only exception (not even Betsy), and as I have mentioned, that is why the scene is so vital.
Peace.
Arsenik,
Film is an art form but a moon can not look like a sun to many. What is not there in the film, can/should not be imposed on the film.
Cases are there where people have searched deep reasoning or meaning in the things which were present in the film because of some practical problems and not to bring any kind of deep philosophical meaning.
I hope it is not the similar case here.
Sorry but, IMHO, film does not support arguments produced by you.
There are some basic things associated with the character of Travis. can we ignore those?
As per your arguments, Vehicle and his profession control more his life than his own nature.
Was he different before he got the license to drive the cab? Was he not suffering from sleeplessness and loneliness before also?
TB’s solitude and lonely nature would have been changed if he was denied a permit to drive a taxi in the begining?
Film could have been different if he had become a bus or a train driver? or a worker who works in the night at any place?
Film actually shows him making sexual advances to first that counter girl, who scolds him and cautions him that she would call her boss.
Then he tries to lure Betsy.
He makes conversation with Senator. He talks with the man ( Who I think was Martin Scorsese himself) who asks him to stay outside of a building and shows him a woman standing near the window and says she is his wife who is involved in infidelity.
He is somewhere affected by this man and afterwards goes to buy the weapon.
There is no bravery or heroism attached with his association with Betsy. he can not save her from any big problem to appease this hunger to do something big, while Iris’s case brings that opportunity to him (atleast as he understands it).
I never said the taxi or his profession prevent him from connecting with people. If anything, they are extensions of his solitude. If TB wasn’t a cabbie and was a bus driver or a night clerk, the movie wouldn’t have been as layered, at least for me. It is for a specific reason that Shrader chose this profession for TB.
Yes, TB tries real hard to connect with people but fails. He flirts with the girl but she scolds him, as you said. So he fails.
The Senator is superficial with TB. With the man in the cab, yes it was MS, TB doesn’t utter a single word, as far as I remember and is almost like a wall. He just mutely observes.
Let’s not continue arguing. I don’t think there is a right or wrong in this case. It’s just different ways of perceiving things – subjectivity.
Writers dont have dependence on a particular treatment only and if PS wanted he could have created same story around any other profession and it would have same layered screenplay. Though one thing remains that what were the options before immigrants who were not so educated?
…
Whatever is the case,
Subject never dies or it is never insulted by a discussion.
Something truthful about a topic comes out of a discussion on any topic.
To do it or not is prerogative of any individual.
1942-ALS also tells a flashback story from anil kapoor’s POV; but they show activities of anupam kher/jackie/manisha etc…
in fact, most flashback stories fall in this trap
Re: 1942 A Love story,
Can not recall properly if after starting the film with the scene {Where Anil Kapoor is confronted by his parents while british soldiers are taking him up the stairs}, (later shown again in preClimax), film goes in to flashback mode through Anil Kapoor’s memory or not? It could be Director’s POV and then it is fine.
…
Not always flashback stories fall in to this trap. Few of Gulzar Saab’s films have used flashback very effectively, for example Ijazat.
He has tried to keep a balance while keeping flashback scenes in his films and I realise while writing this that most of his films have flashback scenes be it Khushbu, Mausam, Aandhi, Maachis or Hu tu tu.
Crazyrals,
It takes sometime to go back into the memory. 1942 A Love story is not shown via POV of Anil Kapoor’s character. It is that somebody’s POV who is showing all the events and hence this theory does not apply here.
If it was via AK’s POV, then there was no need for a narration through Voice over of Raza Murad, who is not part of the film but who introduces the time period and socio-political scenario of India in which film is set.
…
Though I dont neglect completely your claim as to know it on a certain basis, a fresh watch of the film is needed. But Raza Murad factor goes against your observation.
* if thats the case, then the best example would be ‘mahabharat’ where ’samay’ as in harish bhimani oes the voice over and tells out the story. no probs with that at all. but when you show anil kapoor at the altar and then flashback to all events that lead him into this situation, then its the director’s fault of not introducing the voice over much earlier…say from beginning of the movie…so we know that somebody else is narrating and AK is not reminiscing.
* titanic also falls into the same trap
Crazyrals,
Titanic- yes,
but 1942… – may be not.
It does not matter when narration has been introduced to the audience,
First few moments could be there to generate curiosity of high order in audience.
Why Anil kapoor is going to be hanged?
Why he says to his father,” Mein to sirf ek gaddar/deshdrohi ko janta hoon aur wo aap hain Babuji”.
Gen. Daglas shouting,” Hang him”.
Sushma Seth’s brief conversation with AK.
Danny in the uniform of a british army officer.
Those initial moments make an environment in favour of the film.
And same scenes are repeated in the end as such.
This is just clever arrangement of the scenes.
When nobody is recalling the events and director is showing the film then a problem does not arise (atleast for me) in this case.
You may have different perspective about it.
When I was a child, these thoughts regarding consistency used to occur to me initially but these things happening in every other movie (hindi), made me to take it as a permanent suspension of disbelief.
watching is not disturbed by these things. But when you write your scripts, if such cautions are there in the mind, considering long list of films suffering from such mistake, you will be able to avoid such mistakes.
Though there may/will be new kinds of mistakes which others may/will point out.
A well made taut hindi movie like A Wednesday too suffers from this mistske in some frames of the movie. The whole movie has been shown from the POV of Anupam Kher but some scenes with Naseer sa’ab in them are misplaced.
When a thing is repeated again and again and is part of many blockbusters then it is possible that new creators are unable to pay extra attention to such things and these things enter in to their scripts also without making any disturbance in the head.
I think that if a person is narrating a story to the audience or someone in a movie we can consider it as his/her point of view i.e. what s/he considers should have been rather than what actually was because if we start taking everything into account then it is also not possible to remember the exact dialogues of the characters.
It’s like the narrator is viewing the events unfolding from a distance or with panaromic view and also interacting with it sometimes. It works for the movies like Shakti and Sehar etc. In Sehar Pankaj Kapur’s voice can be heard throughout the movie.
.
On the other hand if a charcacter recalls the past events and we are watching the movie from the POV of director then it is a mistake to include those events in which he/she was not present.
Jahanpanah,
Surely there are difficulties. Thing is, there are films where care has been taken on such things and if ambiguity can be avoided then it is good.
It is difficult to recall immediately but I guess none of the Ray’s film suffers from such thing.
…
Either it is omnipresent way of presentation and if it is coming through an individual then a logical way is taken.
Blending of both the approaches can create confusion.
…
If a person is reciting a story then scope for liberties is there. For example – Suraj ka Saatwana Ghoda. Manik Mulla is narrating the stories to his friends and stories are based on 3-4 individual characters and these characters share common moments. Every time Manik says story from different angle, keeping focus on POV of one character at a time. And he himself is part of the stories. Main point is he is telling them STORIES or events under the disguise of STORIES.
…
Shakti and Kranti dont take appropriate route. Dilip Kumar is not telling fiction but true story of his son.
Both the films could have worked very well without using flashback method but perhaps it was seen as a fascinating thing at that time. A linear way could have worked.
Sehar also could have worked in a linear way like Satya had worked. What was the need to show it via a narration of Pankaj Kapoor?
Director can keep focus on every character but a character can not have this liberty because in visual media “time and space problem” will occur.
What I meant is that people write biographies or something based on true events, the author may not be there but s/he knows about them through various sources.
So I guess, while reciting past events a person should sound like s/he is telling pretty much what s/he knows rather than all the true facts and this is possible only if director is taking care of such detailing in a movie.
S ka S G is not fresh in my memory and yet to read the book so I dont know how it is taken care there but it may be a good example.
i agree with this…[the author may not be there but s/he knows about them through various sources]
thats how i took those movies, that a lot of details get filled in through interaction with other important characters…
Jahanpanah,
If you/I have to write a biography or something about a true event then we have to consider few things.
If it is about an event, like they do in journalism, information are taken from various sources to present a story. characters went here or there, met with this and that person etc etc.Who came at which time and who went out. but again the person who is presenting or preparing the storey is not a part of story.
a person could be a part of the story. like people write about a movement, or any event where they were also present.
But what they dont mention is personal actions of other persons. They w’d mention that we had heard about it that something like this was followed by this person.
Till a book is a collection or reportage of the events happened in a person’s life, or events happened as part of a big event or movement, it is fine to mention all the details obtained from various sources, but they are not presented as fiction. this is not story.
There are examples where people have created the book on the life of a person and they have presented it as a story and he is presented as a character and here author may analyse even his thinking process. I mean such a book is written in present tense. MohanDas is born, he goes to school, goes to England fr higher studies, comes back to India, goes to South Africa, comes back to India; leads the freedom struggle and later he is killed by Godse.
If this book is written in a first person mode then author can not cross few boundaries because he is forced to mention only those things which Mohan Das as a person could see, think or do. Here Mohan Das can guess about other person and event because story is going on in present tense but author can not show here in a scene that Mohan Das is in Poona and book describs that Jawahar Lal is sitting in Anand Bhawan and thinking. Such episodes will not be found in such a book.
If author is the preseter and observer only and book is presented in a third person mode then he can show all the characters, their thinking and doings.
Try to recall and compare Shekhar…, Nadi Ke Dweep, and Apne apne ajnabi, all the three novels of Ageyeya, and this point will be more clear.
If you are writing accounts of your hostel days and you give the book a shape where you are present as a character and it is based upon your observation and you start from the day when first time you enter in to the campus and story goes further (as it had gone few years ago) and you write in a present tense then your options are limited.
In a first person mode you can not show other person sitting and thinking (unless you are witnessing this action on a first hand basis). If you know about it as person has told you that he is going to think in his room, your option is to quote it as such. If it is a guess you have to mention it that you think it is happening like this.
If somebody has commited suicide in the hostel and you are writing about it and you are going in a present tense then you have to write as you see or as you get to know or as your character is pasing through the moments. there w’d be several stories in the air about he suicide and truth w’d come out in few days or maybe it w’d not come out ever but even if you are writing after 10 years you dont have much liberty as a writer if book is following a present tense and first person discipline (even if you are writing about these vents ten years later).
Books- When a book is written in a first person (say Mr X) manner then it does not happen in good books that book consists of any section where it is mentioned what “Mr Y” is thinking, and whatever “Mr X” will observe in the life of “Mr Y” only that will be included.
Even while writing on mythology, writer decides the format in the very begining.
Is it biography of a particular character or a new take on all the events?
format will decide how to go ahead and what can be mentioned and what is not allowed by this format.
Now Films:
Sehar- Pankaj Kapoor`s character can combine the information related to that mission but what he can not narrate is personal events happening in the life of Arshad Warsi (What he is talking with his mother and would be wife etc., lovers singing song) as even if he is writing a book on that mission he is bounded by the format. if he includes such things which he does not know then it has become a fiction. he as a writer, who was part of the mission, is manipulating the things.
In such mode which is follwed in Sehar, there is a difficulty, police team may know about the actitivies of Sushant Singh and Surendra Pal etc on a macro basis only and later they can guess about them but they never can know the exact details of their meetings especialy when everybody is killed in the end.
…
A Wednesday:
Anupam Kher might know things which other policemen told him before he gets the call from Naseer. Veerendra Saxena’s version may reveal to him that Naseer came and kept the bag and he can visualise these things but director can show these things and this much liberty is there but what Anupam Kher can not know is the telephonic conversation that happens between Naseer and his wife. Because there is no witness to such an event.
Director has shown in the end that Anupam Kher allows Naseer go after talking briefly.
So directors often mix two things, they w`d follow a first person mode and when they want they impose omnipresent mode also. Though film’s format does not allow this.
These are simply mistakes which are overlooked while writing screen play.
For new directors it is fine.
…
Filmmakers take liberty. Such things also suggest that visual presentation is too powerful a thing than these weaknesses as mostly such weaknesses which are script based, are covered easily by visual presentation and people dont mind these things while watching.
SHolay, Taxi Driver are prime example. They dont strictly follow the discipline decided by the filmmaker and still audieces live under their magic.
That way writers and their writings have lesser role than directors in films.
Ideally MS and PS could not have shown all those dialogues where Travis is not able to listen. He is only able to see Tom and Betsy from outside but he is not able to listen what they are talking wth each other.
But such liberties are taken by filmmakers.
Because visual presentation overcomes these factors.
Though this is different thing that if it is a drama based on legal aspect same director might have shown that in the court Travis’s witness is rejected by the lawyer because he was not able to hear the conversation of Betsy and Tom.
…
Other thing is, after a film obtains a cult status, people treat it as a holy cow and it hurts their personal ego to read, listen anything which goes against their own impression about the film. Everything is found just 100% perfect. Though in reality possibilities are always there that new directors and writers commit such mistakes in their younger days.
So I infer that the personal events regarding the characters should not be shown and the shortcomings should be avoided in the screenplay while taking the limitations into account.
sorry for the late reply
This is out of context, but..
…I wonder whether suicide in hostels are the common things across the hostels of India, there were some cases in past in my college hostels.
Jahanpanah,
First, If somehow you have not got to read Sooraj ka satvan ghoda till now, read it at first possible opportunity and if have missed reading 2 other books also of Dr Bharti, then dont miss them for long.
- Kanupriya (Bharti Ji’s poetic take on love between Radha and Krisna)
- Andhayug (To know how one can masterly superimpose mythology on contemporary situations and to read things from Ashvatthama’s side is quite interesting)
- and ofcourse Sooraj Ka Satvan ghoda (where story telling and analytical skills of Bharti Ji are at their pinnacle)
Interesting thing is, after reading all the three books, comparative minds are always in confusion whether he is better in prose(SKSG) or in poetry (Andha Yug and Kanupriya).
…
About your biography part, bit later.
Glad that you mentioned these books sirjee.
]. I couldn’t find Suraj ka Satva Ghoda on some local stores and online stores like flipkart etc. Then, I got busy in other books and stuffs and didn’t give serious thought about it.
The only book by Bhartiji that I’ve read is ‘Gunaho ka Devta’ [you didn't mention it so I guess other books are much better than this and thus must reads
Now after being motivated by you, I think I’ll have to get these books ASAP.
Jahanpanah,
Considering your interest in literature (as per our discussions on various posts) It was almost certain that you have already read GKD, which is almost the entry point for any reader who is interested reading good literature in Hindi.
Bharti ji wrote less but whatever he wrote has transcended the time.
It may be difficult to find them in videsh but in your city in India you may find them easily.
Finally, I got SkaSG with some effort and read it in one sitting. I still prefer GKD over it.
Yet to get his other 2 books.
@Jahanpanah,
” Ai, Kaif Bardosh, baadlon ko dekh yun angdaayee na le,
Asmanon ko neend atee hai ”
In majority of cases people dont forget first love.
Many a times people may not realise but versions come later in life have something which are based on that first love. GKD works mostly as first love.
But slowly it happens that form, content and philosophy it propagates in a subtle way, presentation and after effects and the realisation that what a thing this creator has created, generate more respect and a person (even unknowingly) shifts toward SKSG and GKD still remains as a favourite book but one does not need to read it again then. Without reading it, its detailing remains in mind. It has happened with many, it may happen to you also.
Dr Bharati himself transcended to SKSG via GKD and any reader who feels associated with his creations have to follow the footsteps of his understanding. It is a natural phenomenon.
And at the core basis, GKD and SKSG both are born out of same origin. that’s an article material.
I felt, the relation of Manik with the 3 women was something which Bhartiji carried forward from the relationship of Sudha and Chander, this time he has got some freedom in it because of 3 different women with the effect of economy and social structure on love. This is a natural progression.
What you said was true for GKD as some time after reading it I recollected my thoughts and I found it very subtle in some aspects which I may not have noticed while reading it.
SKSG was written in somewhat humorous way and throughout the reading it doesn’t affect me as GKD. The story was told in seven afternoon (when sun was blazing bright?). In the end, I somehow didn’t find it suitable to compare the seventh horse (future) with children of the characters. May be I need some time to crystallize my thoughts.