Stunning portrait of an alienated sociopath

Rating: 9/10 (24 October 2013)

Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) is a disturbed man. Stricken with insomnia, he decides to enrol as a taxi driver in order to pass the time. What follows is a descent into madness, brutality and vigilantism.
De Niro portrays the titular protagonist/antagonist in what can only be described as a masterpiece, both for him as an actor and for Martin Scorsese as a director. The film's intense depiction of urban decay, and Travis' equally intense reactions to this corruption, have gone down (and will continue to go down) as a milestone in cinematic history.
Initially, it is relatively easy to sympathize with Bickle. He is a lonely man, lost and without purpose. After several failed attempts at socialization, he finally manages to acquire a date with a beautiful political volunteer (Cybill Shepherd). When this ends miserably, Bickle's personality takes an even more twisted turn, with him becoming increasingly concerned with ridding the streets of New York from the scum that inhabit them and his taxi. His actions (and his motives) become more and more elusive. By the end of the film, amid all the bloodshed and mayhem, it has become nearly impossible to understand Travis.
Scorsese's use of New York City is remarkable, with obscure angles and shots highlighting and contributing to the alienation and seediness that Travis and the audience are made to feel. Bernard Herrmann's ominous score likewise punctuates this overbearing feeling of dread and despair.
Performances from now-veterans Harvey Keitel and Jodie Foster all help contrast with De Niro's. Whilst Sport and Iris thrive and survive by indulging in the corruption of the city, Travis attempts to destroy this corruption, yet in doing so becomes something far more sinister.
The film's ending has inspired countless debates as to its meaning, with critics and audiences seeking closure. In my opinion, this lack of closure is a perfect ending, as we are left to decide whether Travis is at all redeemable, ultimately an unanswerable question.
If I have one complaint (and this is only a minor one), it is that the violence, due to the inevitabilities of time, has lost a bit of its impact. Today, you'll be hard-pressed not to find a modern mindless blockbuster that contains more hard-hitting violence and gore. Yet, the film's message (and a depressing one at that) remains as strong as it was thirty-six years ago.
Must-see viewing.