Schrader and Scorsese disagree about the ending
Ritual suicide or tabloid item? The writer and the director give incompatible accounts of the same scene, and the film supports both.
- themes
- structure
- atomic
- authorship
- dispute
Scorsese, on what he wanted from the massacre:
Paul saw it as a kind of Samurai 'death with honour' — that's why De Niro attempts suicide — and he felt that if he'd directed the scene, there would have been tons of blood all over the walls, a more surrealistic effect. What I wanted was a Daily News situation, the sort you read about every day.
— Scorsese on Scorsese (1989), sos 63–sos 66
The disagreement runs deeper than the staging. Schrader denies the film is about Vietnam at all:
I didn't really make him a Vietnam vet. . . . It's assumed he has some kind of searing memory and that he's had some familiarity with weapons, but it's not meant to be a story about Vietnam and Vietnam is never discussed.
— Schrader (1990), quoted in Aaron Baker — A Companion to Martin Scorsese, smc 394
Scorsese's account is the opposite: the war is exactly what makes the reflected gutter look
threatening, and he ties it to an uncle who ran two blocks when a car backfired (sos 62).
For Schrader, Travis is Sartre's Antoine — existential, not traumatised
(The returning veteran, 1976).
Do not resolve this. It is the most useful thing about the film for teaching Themes: two of its three authors describe a different film, the third (De Niro) rewrote the dialogue (De Niro wrote in the margins), and the finished object sustains every reading. Intention is evidence, not verdict.