Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver deals with justice. Through the telling of the story of New York taxi driver Travis, Scorsese questions the limits of justice: What is just? Who should determine what is just? Can murder be justified? While Taxi Driver may not be seen initially as an example of an artist’s political voice, I believe that Taxi Driver tackles one of the most controversial political issues: murder as a form of justice.
Scorsese takes an interesting perspective by telling the story through the eyes of the murderer: revealing Travis for what he really is, not as a hero but as a less than average, lonely man looking for a purpose.
Craving to be remembered, to be important, Travis decides to be a vigilante, an unauthorized administer of “justice” thus presenting the first set of questions: Is Travis as an individual entitled to decide what is and what is not just? While each individual has his or her own sense of morality, is it ok for one person to do what he or she thinks is right? Or is it necessary for a person to have his or her beliefs confirmed by a group of individuals deemed more qualified to make decisions concerning justice?
The foundation of our American justice system is based on the belief that the alleged “unjust” be judged by a jury of their peers, by everyday people. Should it matter if one person or twenty people make a decision that could alter a person’s life forever?
Should any human being be given the right to judge what is or is not just? Should any human being be given the right to destroy or take away another human life?
The way Scorsese structured Taxi Driver is extremely important. The film itself can be divided into three main parts: Travis’ search for meaning and pursuit of a “normal life” with Betsy, Travis’ failed pursuit of Senator Palantine and Travis’ “heroic act” involving Jodie Forester’s pimps. If Scorsese had wished that Travis be viewed solely as a hero, only the third part would have been necessary. Instead, Scorsese chose to juxtapose the three parts, each portraying Travis in a different light. The use of the additional first and second parts forces Scorsese’s audience to question whether or not Travis is a “hero.”
In the first part of the film, Scorsese portrays Travis as a classless, pathetic character who watches dirty movies and has no goals. He appears to be one of the city’s lowlifes, a nobody, scum. In the second part, determined to give his life purpose, Travis decides to deliver “justice” by murdering Senator Palantine. By this point in the film it becomes clear to the audience that something is off about Travis. He is clearly not stable mentally.
After being chased off by the authorities, Travis decides to abandon his mission to assassinate the Senator and pursue a new, saner mission: saving Jodie Forester from her pimps. With Travis’ attempt to assassinate the Senator (an act that would have earned him a death sentence and/or the rest of his life in a straightjacket) juxtaposed along side Travis’ successful murder of a group of drug-pedaling pimps, Scorsese raises another series of important questions: How is it possible that murder can be viewed as both good and bad? Why would one instance of murder be deserving of a life long prison sentence and another be deserving of a metal? Is murder a good form of justice? Can/should murder be a heroic act? Why does the social status of the victim and/or the murderer make a difference? What crimes, if any, are deserving of a death sentence?
In Scorsese’s film, Taxi Driver, the director seeks not to provide answers but to provoke the audience to ask questions. That is what qualifies Taxi Driver as art.
