I think the great merit of the film is being a believable construct, we really get into the story’s world with its dark depressive ambiance and music. As for the story’s content by itself I think it is very problematic and ambiguous. Travis is an antihero hailed as a hero by the end of the movie. Like the audience he is a voyeur, seeing the world around him and not being noticed. He fails at first to perform in his own life/film: being in close relationship (with friends, Iris or Betsy) or to make a good actions (to convince Iris out of prostitution). So he channels/converts these frustrations into the only rewarding form he knows: violence (remember he is a honourable discharged marine). First he tries to “hurt” Betsy by attempting to shoot Palantine, when that fails he goes for Iris and “succeeds”. Instead of being jailed he is, like after Vietnam, honoured by society, which brings Travis the acceptance he craved for at the great part of the story. Then he turns his rear mirror and looks at us, his audience.
I always appreciate it when viewers share their own interpretations in the comments. I think Travis seeing the audience is a very interesting POSSIBLE interpretation of the weird ending. Thanks for watching, and commenting!
20 minutes without nearly saying enough about either element. But good on you for covering a masterpiece by a POS. Will check out more to see how you grow.
Well, Dude, at least you follow Barthes to the letter - your author intent is alive and well throughout this entire video but me thinks the lad doth protest too much... Is it so important we know your moral stance on this elocuted through such subjective language? How are we to take any of your arguments seriously when you lack sobriety and composure give an objective criticism? (I'm going to be horribly ageist here...I, alas, shall always be older and wiser than thee [at least until I die], so I will chalk it up to your youth)? I don't mean to be harsh, merely rigourous...given time and thought I bet you'll make a darn good critic. To be sure the ethical difficulty of Polanski is complex and an ethical conundrum when viewing his films, but we are now a culture supersaturated in the magical thinking of 'talismanic immanence' ie; that - to use Barthian terms - the 'text' of a work is not not 'merely' imprinted in form and some aspects of the content with the psyche of the artist (as Barthes might argue - so, you see, his work isn't really 'pretty much useless') but that it contains the very animus of evil of that artist: hence cancel culture and the like is not really about no longer feeding capital into the hands or legacy of an artist who has 'betrayed us' (REALLY? Betrayed? Such an infantile reaction...but this is a word some people use) but of eradicating the animus of evil from the circuit of power.
Excellent insight. Have you read Jean Gebser? He would contend this 'talismanic immanence' is symptomatic of a retrieval of the ancient 'Magical consciousness structure' by an emerging 'Integral' structure of consciousness. And I bet McLuhan would say this shift of consciousness is catalysed by the medium of the Internet (with its hallucinogenic, memetic waveforms)
Thank you for this; not many have done a covering on Chinatown, irrespective if you really reviewed it. Polanski is a terrible terrible man, if u can even refer to scum as such, and yet he’s another ‘artist’ who’s talents enable him to such a large platform which is something I hate because like u, Chinatown is one of my favourite pictures ever. I’d advise that any good film you see, you disconnect yourself with the character because every ‘greatest film oat’ entry has at least one creep, and that is with no exaggeration. To consume art is to appreciate what it is, and wtv external factors lie, we take it as an amplification or decline in its quality- Like Chinatown; Nicholson & Dunaway are both controversial, and have had interesting allegations of their own- it’s lame, but “that’s Hollywood”
You seem at times to condemn the underage with the majority age out of hand, whether or not drugging the underage person was involved. I was just trying to understand if you had a blanket "ew" reaction to, say, a 14yo having a relationship with an 18yo, or with a 21yo? What if it were 1966 when the majority age was still 21yo: would you "ew" a relationship between a 14yo and an 18yo out 19yo then? Does context matter? Are you morally outraged by Polanski's criminal attack on the girl, or the fact that she was a minor? I brought up the relationship that I knew of bc I used to think that majority age adults having a sexual relationship with a minor was fully taboo. Then I learned of this relationship between two people I knew very well and for a time I couldn't wrap my head around it. Many men and women who have power seem to consider taboo, even forced relationships with the young or weak to be one the "perks" of their position in life. It goes on in politics, business, religion, education, law enforcement, and yes even in the arts. It's a poor reflection on people's upbringing.
Freidfood, what do you think of a 14yo girl that has some sort of relationship with her 30yo teacher, and later, when she's of legal age, marries that teacher, and they go on to have two kids and live happily ever after to a happy old age. Is the teacher a pedophile? Should the teacher have been jailed, or worse, as you implied?
My immediate reaction is ew, but if they meet later and there isn't like any grooming or creepy stuff, it's not illegal, but it still seems icky to me, but I wouldn't think prison would necessarily be justified, and if the teacher didn't have attraction to her as a child... I suppose he isn't... What I fail to see is why this matters? It's not even close in facts to Polanski, who was in his forties, and drugged his victim. If you are comparing this scenario you've described to Polanski you are horribly mistaken, or willfully disgusting.
You seem at times to condemn the underage with the majority age out of hand, whether or not drugging the underage person was involved. I was just trying to understand if you had a blanket "ew" reaction to, say, a 14yo having a relationship with an 18yo, or with a 21yo? What if it were 1966 when the majority age was still 21yo: would you "ew" a relationship between a 14yo and an 18yo or 19yo then? Does context matter? Are you morally outraged by Polanski's criminal attack on the girl, or the fact that she was a minor? I brought up the relationship that I knew of bc I used to think that majority age adults having a sexual relationship with a minor was fully taboo. Then I learned of this relationship between two people I knew very well and for a time I couldn't wrap my head around it. Many men and women who have power seem to consider taboo, even forced relationships with the young or weak to be one the "perks" of their position in life. It goes on in politics, business, religion, education, law enforcement, and yes even in the arts. It's a poor reflection on people's upbringing.
@@freidfood3171BTW I find that too many of Polanski's films are on my "favorites list", like The Tenant, The Pianist, The Ghost Writer, Macbeth, and of course Chinatown... in spite of the fact that I don't like HIM.
You said "some sort of relationship" which is not specific. If a Teacher has sex with an underaged student that's some type of sexual assault or statutory rape, regardless of other circumstances, requiring prison time. Once the student becomes an adult, they can make adult decisions but cannot consent as a child.
Polanski did change the scripted ending forever pissing of Robert Towne one the greatest script writers in this decade. Evelyn and her daughter were supposed to live and escape. Think there was supposed to be a rare LA snowfall.
@@freidfood3171 it's a bizarre coincidence that Nicholson found out the woman who raised him wasn't his mother and the woman he thought was his sister was, iirc. Towne deserves a lot of credit for his script and research in the Water Wars. You can watch this, Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which is kind of a parody of Chinatown) and L.A. Confidential to get a condensed history of L.A. Mulholland and the Water Wars, the Postwar Boom and rise of strip mall's, and the building of the Santa Monica Freeway. Then Blade Runner for LA's future, lol. L.A. Confidential is amazing. Kevin Spacey another problematic artist..
Part of the tension when Jake meets Cross and the meta quality comes from him asking Jake if he's sleeping with his daughter when Jack was doing that in real life! John Huston helped invent the Detective Film Genre with his adaptation of The Maltese Falcon. Dashiell Hammett wrote the novel. He and Raymond Chandler and James M. Cain pioneered Noir as we know it.
@@freidfood3171 You can watch Chinatown, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and L.A. Confidential to get a condensed history of L.A. from the 30s through the 50s. The Water Wars, The Post War Boom and gutting of public transportation and the sprawl from the building of the Santa Monica Freeway. Roger Rabbit is kind of a parody of Chinatown plotwise.
You should read "Death of the Author." He isn't speaking about how 'good' a piece of art is or whether we should celebrate or enjoy any one piece of art. He's talking about things like deriving theme, interpreting metaphors and any other subtextual meaning of the work. In those aspects, he believes understanding them based solely on the authors conscious intention limits the interpretative potential of the work. There are several reasons for this that are outlined (that's basically what the lecture is about.) Again, you should read Death of the Author.
I do like your video, and you're doing a great job, edit is great. You well.. but I think taking time to make sure you have a handle on the sources you're referencing in your argument would make your stuff even better.
Yeah. I should’ve given it a read, but I thought there was something kinda meta about referencing this work that people always use in that situation, and like so many in that situation, blatantly not read it, lol. Thanks! And yes, I do plan to actually read it next time I’m at my dad’s place.
You are going to have to stop consuming the world's best art based on this. Everyone is terrible.. artists most of all. You should never forget Gauguin... Celine.. Polanski... Socrates.... Bacon.. Tterrible people make art which makes you pause... Time to pause.
Well it’s just the case that I really love this one work specifically, if I don’t know about an artist’s issues I guess I don’t mind… but I know too much abt Chinatown
I have trouble separating the art and artist, I'm not judging, I just can't. I grew up idolizing Cosby and could quote his albums, but now I can't listen anymore.
yes. I almost gagged or couldn't talk a few times when recording, I left one in I think. I had to physically stand up and go get a drink of water when I found and then translated that finkielkraut quote, nasty shit.
It definitely is worth talking about anytime his films are brought up , for me I can watch films or consume media from people I personally hate especially considering in films lots of other people worked on the final product not just the writer and director
@@freidfood3171 I’m interested to hear if you think the subject matter and direction of his films relates to his messed up behavior and attitude, specifically Rosemarys Baby with gaslighting a newlywed young woman during her pregnancy and how this may relate to his marriage to Sharon Tate ?
I’m not Canadian or Australian. Bathcat refers to his hunting “aboriginies” in Tasmania. I was repurposing a since removed bathcat voice acting line. I am well aware of that word’s racist and colonialist history, and I hope you know I certainly did consider whether or not to say it. I would never say the word in real life to real people. Thanks for saying it’s an amazing video it took a damn long time.
I can tell you put a lot of work into this video, Taxi Driver is a timeless classic and is indeed one of the greatest films to be created as well as one of my favorites, Travis is such a complex character too, De Niro's performance was top notch in this.
Find that purpose, make yourself mean something. If Aloysius above reads this, you got this man, chase what you love, have fun, do whatever it is that makes you happy. You’re not like Travis Bickle, you can change, and I hope you’re alright. ❤️
@@freidfood3171 we need to go out to the woods just like Viking and just try and survive and I’ll bet we will be the most alive and happy we’ve ever been(maybe not happy but at least not depressed or sad)
The solution to unprofitable dumb businesses? Force other nations into -diabetes- your markets to buy your shitty corn syrup and potato or corn starch "food products".
You know from the gecko that something really really bad is going to go down. That music relentlessly telegraphs it to you like a stalker moving inexorably closer whilst you realize there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop him.
I think you missed that 106 loves pain so they put it on a loud shitty speaker and blast it in the whole facility so that he hears it and gets recontained
I’ve gotten this comment a bunch and you’re kinda right. “Secure Contain Protect” is the organizations motto, but SCP also refers to the “Special Containment Procedures” of their entities.
@@freidfood3171 Umm... I think you might've said it being government which is kinda a mistake. But let's move and learn from it. Surely it is a minor one, right? After all, it can be sort of easily repaired, I guess.
I definitely didn’t mean to make that mistake. When writing I probably meant something like “they function like a government”, but I probably did say something dumb. I’ll rewatch later and add a little thing to the description as I see fit. This was one of my earlier vids, so it was definitely not my most scholarly work lmao Thanks for the correction. I appreciate that people take time to make my videos better!
No it means snap crackle and pop 💀 (As far as I know Secure Contain Protect is the motto, and when used like “scp-1000” means special containment procedures)
@@freidfood3171 scp-XXXX = Secure the Object (get it into possesion), Contain it in a fit conntainment chamber, and Protect both the Object and the Victims (f.e. from the Occult coalition, the serpents hand or the Chaos Insurgency[which again, was caused because they couldnt protect the red right hand from an anomaly])
@@ultracoolesocke uhh ok? I guess I took a side in a debate... I didn't know this was so heated... I looked it up again and there are certainly some whomst agree w me
