This may very well be the last time I ever take film advice from my sister. Despite being a huge fan of the Sex Pistols and possessing some knowledge on the Sid Vicious/Nancy Spungen time in their career, I had never seen Alex Cox's biopic 'Sid & Nancy'. If only I could go back to that time again....
Alex Cox, famous for his 1984 cult classic 'Repo Man', directed the film which focusses on how Vicious, Sex Pistols' bassist played by Gary Oldman, meets Nancy Spungen, an American groupie portrayed by Chloe Webb. Oldman and Webb were unknown names back when the film was released in late 1986, ensuring that nothing would take away from the onscreen characters. Think of Reese Witherspoon in 'Walk the Line'. You are very aware that the woman singing with Cash is that idiot from 'Legally Blonde' and not his wife, June Carter, completely undermining Phoenix's brilliant portrayal of the Man in Black. But I digress...
'Sid & Nancy' starts off well with the opening scene depicting Spungen's death in a hotel bathroom. The death itself is not shown but we see Vicious escorted out of the building by policemen under suspicion of murder. Vicious is interrogated by a cigarette-sharing officer which starts the story off via flashback.
The film falls apart soon after Andrew Schofield portraying John Lydon (then known as 'Johnny Rotten') makes his first appearance urging Vicious to spraypaint a dog which had been locked inside a Rolls Royce. Strangely, Lydon speaks with a Scouse accent despite hailing from London where the film takes place. Cox claims that Lydon himself encouraging Schofield to play the role this way though there is no official confirmation on a meeting ever happening.
Lydon is portrayed as a ginger-haired, beer-swilling buffoon rather than the witty lyricist of one of the most important band's in music history. Schofield does not look or sound like Lydon, nor does he give across the same energy as the frontman. Cox also implies that Lydon was jealous of Vicious and Spungen's relationship, despite having rejected her previously. Lydon wrote in his autobiography 'Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs' that he found the implication "particularly loathsome", lambasting the film as "someone else's fucking fantasy, some Oxford graduate who missed the punk era".
Oldman received praise for his portrayal of Vicious, which I believe is deserved. Vicious comes across as awkward, unsure and bewildered rather than the over-the-top, fighting, fucking junkie troublemaker image which he seems to have left behind.
Anyway, to cut this somewhat facade of a review short, I did not like the film. Nor did I like 'REC 2'. Well I did up until the threat went from being super-rabies to the souls of dead children or something.
Cheers for wasting my time Emily Whelan.
Martin Scorsese has always been one of my favourite directors.
Robert De Niro has always been one of my favourite actors.
They have collaborated for eight films, all of which are fantastic.
This piece is about the greatest title on that list, and arguably one of the greatest films of all time.
Of course, I am referring to 'Taxi Driver', Scorsese's 1976 drama centering around an honourably-discharged Marine who takes the job as a New York cabbie post-Vietnam. Travis Bickle, played by De Niro, is plagued by insomnia, encouraging him to work daily fourteen-hour shifts to cope with his illness. Bickle is depressed, lonely and restless who spends his time away from work visiting seedy porn theaters. Bickle becomes increasingly agitated by the underworld of New York, seeing drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes and even murder on a regular basis whilst driving through the city projects.
De Niro gives one of his greatest performances as the anti-hero, though he is not the only big name involved. Bickle meets a twelve-year old prostitute named Iris, played by a similarly-aged Jodie Foster who has a Stockholm syndrome style relationship with her lecherous pimp named 'Sport', played by Harvey Keitel. Peter Boyle, Albert Brooks and Cybill Shepherd also give supporting roles, playing Bickle's work colleagues and love interest respectively.
SPOILER ALERT
If you hadn't guessed by the name of this post, there are spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen the film (which I thoroughly recommend you do!) stop reading here. If you really do not care for the film, feel free to continue, though let it be known that you are officially on my shitlist.
After the film's iconic shootout, Bickle has killed Sport, another man linked to the prostitution ring and a well-known gangster with ties to the Mafia, saving Iris from her personal hell. Bickle is bleeding from bulletwounds in his arm and neck. He tries to shoot himself but realises he is out of ammo. The police enter the room and find him slouched against a couch, still breathing. Bickle acknowledges the cops and gestures shooting himself in the head with his fingers repeatedly. After this shot, the scene 'freezes' and an overhead tracking shot follows the stairs and corridor where the shootout previously took place. We are shown the chaos outside the apartment building as police cars, ambulances and citizens gather.
We then hear a voiceover of a letter being read addressed to Bickle. The letter is from Iris' parents who wish to thank Bickle for saving their daughter. We are told that Bickle has recovered from his wounds which put him in a coma and is doing well. The audience are shown various newspaper articles regarding the shootout and Bickle, hailing him as a hero in the eyes of the public and the media.
Bickle has returned to work following his injury and encounters Betsy, the campaign volunteer who he had previously courted unsuccessfully. She seems impressed by his newfound celebrity status though he is quick to dismiss his 'hero' title. Bickle drops Betsy off without charging her and drives away. We hear a dramatic cymbal crash and Bickle anxiously glances in his rear-view mirror, ending the film. The audience do not see what he was looking at.
Now, there are two main theories as to what the ending sequence means. Some believe that the events following the shoot-out are nothing but Bickle's dying thoughts or dreams. The other theory is that the events did actually happen and the film's coda is supposed to be taken literally.
DREAM THEORY
It can be easy to see why some believe the events following the shootout are a figment of Bickle's imagination: his dying thoughts and wishes. Firstly, he has just murdered three men in cold blood with unregistered firearms, no less. There is no mention of jail-time or other punishment. He is simply hailed as a hero by the media. Usually, the law does not praise vigilantes. Betsy is no longer disgusted by Bickle, but rather impressed when they meet following the events. Bickle's character is redeemed by his actions, which is often the theme for many of Scorsese's films. The music during the ending sequence is overdramatised, signifying heroism and gallantry.
LITERAL THEORY
The newspaper clippings explain that a policeman on the scene was reminded of his daughter by Iris. Nowhere in the articles does it mention that Bickle was carrying a large amount of firepower, nor do they mention his intention of murdering the men in the first place. It could be believed that the police were sympathetic towards Bickle as he did kill two pimps and a Mafioso to save a twelve-year old girl. Surely no jury is going to punish him for that? It could also be believed that the police may have twisted facts in order to protect Bickle, such as lying about his firearms and his reason for being there. Bickle does not have such an understanding about the media to have concocted these articles in his dreamstate.
I believe that the events following the shootout are meant to be taken at face value. I believe that the conclusion is supposed to be an ironic statement about the media. For example, Bickle had attempted and failed to assassinate the campaigning senator Charles Palantine. Had he been quicker to pull out his gun, he would have succeeded in this mission and been thoroughly slated in the following newspapers. However, after going through with the same heinous act of murder on a group of people deemed 'unsavoury' in the public eye, he is acclaimed for it. The film's ending is a dig at how fickle media reporting can be and how sensationalised stories can become. Can violence be acceptably glorified as long as it is against those who apparently deserve it?
Sorry if that wasn't as coherent as planned, though I think I got my point across alright. "I should get one of those signs that says 'One of these days I'm gonna get organezized'"
