As usual, Davey is being a tad disingenuous in his assertion that I subscribe religiously to an artist's interpretation of his work. I teach English to high school kids - and literature is the mainstay of most of my courses. Often I am asked "when the question asks for our opinion on the piece, how can the the answer be wrong?" My answer remains stock: "I don't care what your opinion is, as long as you can back it up." You state your thesis, and back it up with facts from the text. It's how literature and writing is taught. I care not a whit for Davey's interpretations of
Taxi Driver or
The Conversation (I don't even recall our discussion regarding
Taxi Driver - though I'm sure it occurred. But I do recall last year's
Conversation discussion. He said the main point of the film was that Caul wasn't as good as he thought he was. I disagreed with Davey because I didn't feel he could adequately back up that assertion. It was Davey who went apeshit, not me - and he was the first with the name calling. Later claiming I said he was 'wrong,' when I didn't, of course, The discussion is right there for anyone to read. But I digress...).
So, to recap: One can certainly have any interpretation of art one wants to. But to convince others of the veracity of said interpretation, then one has to have evidence of the claim. It's up to the other person to be convinced or not. I don't feel Travis dies at the end of
Taxi Driver. Davey is free to think whatever he wants to about the film, as am I. He gets upset when I tell him the director and writer doesn't share his views, claiming that I just won't step outside conventional wisdom or whatever. That's fine, too. I forget these discussions after a few months. He doesn't.
To show that I'm not always on the side of the director and his views, snee mentioned
Blade Runner. Ridley Scott is clearly in the "Deckard was a replicant" camp. He says this in commentary on the disc. I think this is ridiculous. The whole point of
Blade Runner, as I see it, is that the replicants are more 'human' than the humans. They're more alive, more emotional, they love and live, etc. To make Deckard a replicant as well serves no purpose. But then there you go - it's just one more interpretation. No more or less valid than anyone else's.