I finally watched Midnight Cowboy. I’ve heard nothing but good about it, it won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director and both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman were nominated, it’s a classic, and so on and so on. I expected to at least like it, if not love it.
So Texas cowboy moves to New York expecting to be a gigolo. It’s harder than he thinks. He meets a hustling lowlife who scams him out of some money. Cowboy looks for the guy, finds him, and suddenly they’re living together. Hustler gets sick and wants to go to Florida. Cowboy goes evil and beats the shit out of a guy (possibly killing him, we don’t get to see) to get money to get hustler to Florida. Hustler dies on the bus. Roll credits.
The performances were great, but I just don’t get the movie. What was the point? Was there a theme? What the hell was up with O’Daniel? I thought he’d just turn out to be a gay guy looking for a lay, but apparently he’s a religious guy who likes praying side-by-side with cowboys or something. What really happened in Joe Buck’s past? Some flashbacks look like his girlfriend was gang-raped, others look like he was gang-raped, yet others look like she was gang-raped and he got the blame. Why did Joe move in with Rizzo? Why would Rizzo want him there? Oh, and what was that party where Joe finally managed to find a paying customer?
I’m not knocking the film, I’m really not. Some movies I get but dislike anyway, but this one I just plain don’t get. So, what am I missing?
To me, it was about how pathetic our little lives can be (especially compared to others’ expectations of us, and our expectations of the future), but at least we can share the patheticness of it all. Also, I thought it portrayed a sad (not violent, but sad) side of New York City that is often missing in films which take place there.
That was weird. I think maybe he was both – turned on by Joe, AND by the Lord, and was planning to blend the two for a moment of ecstasy.
I’m sure this was meant to be vague. I thought he just had pleasant sex with her, but was “caught” by some disapproving villagers, and it ended up being traumatic. YMMV.
This one seems pretty clear to me. Nobody gave either of these two the time of day, so any potential for a friendship, however tenuous, was going to be snatched up by both of them.
My wife wasn’t as impressed with the film as I was. But let’s remember that it was daring and original in 1969 – recall that it was made before Easy Rider, Taxi Driver, and their ilk.
That’s probably part of it, yeah. It’s always tricky to see the first film that did something new after you’ve seen all the imitators. I saw Platoon for the first time the other day, and even though I found it great and most of the performances wonderful, I didn’t quite get the raving reviews it got at the time. Then I realized that most if not all war movies back then were John Wayne style films where the hero blows away bad guys and saves the day for the good side. Since Platoon, we’ve had plenty of “war is hell” movies, so it doesn’t seem as revolutionary.
As I recall, the “embarassment” of having an X-rated move win the Oscar resulted in a review of the rating system. (Midnight Cowboy was eventually downgraded to an R.)
Been ages since I’ve seen it (the great thing about home video tapes when they came out was that I could catch up on all the great movies I missed when I was a pup because of their ratings). My impression of the theme of the movie was: idealistic kid from the sticks goes to the big city and - gets screwed. An uncommon theme before that time.
It’s been a long time since I saw the movie, but doesn’t Joe move in with Rizzo because he’d be homeless otherwise? Wasn’t Rizzo squatting in some abandoned building, and he decides to take pity on this dumb kid (whom he owes, anyways – didn’t Joe move in only after he finds Rizzo again and threatens him?). Also, IIRC, wasn’t there an implication that Rizzo was attracted to Joe?
I thought the theme was just how hard it is to survive in the Big Mean City. Here you’ve got Joe, a young, cocky kid, the best looking guy in his town, convinced he’ll go to New York, strut his stuff, and have all sorts of rich women throwing money at him. He gets there, and is not such hot stuff anymore. When he finally finds a lay, she ends up screwing him instead of vice versa. Money’s running out, things are not going well, he has to move in with Rizzo, and finally he has to stoop to sleeping with strange, poor middle-aged men instead of the hot, rich young women he’d imagined. The city basically eats him alive, chews him up, and spits him out.
As for O’Brien’s religion, either he’s a crazy fanatic, or he feels religion will atone for him being gay, or something like that. I don’t know about the gang rape scenes…
I seem to recall a recent interview with Jon Voight in which he said that if the movie were to be made today, it would be made more explicit that Ratso and Joe Buck were sexually/romantically attracted to each other.
Where’s the evidence that Rizzo is attracted to Joe or that there is any kind of homoerotic relationship between the two? I didn’t notice this when I saw it, but it was a long time ago so maybe I missed something.
MC is about love and bonding: Joe Buck is a loser who comes to NYC, convinced that he is irresistable to women. He plans a career as a gigolo-only to find out that he isn’t as attractive as he thought. “Ratzo” Rizzo is a hard hearted hstler, who nontheless, befirneds Joe Buck-with the premise that they will go to Florida (escape the cruel NYC winter). The scene with the religious fanatic-Rizzo actually gets Joe to laugh it off-even though Buck is horrified by homosexulaity… In the end, Joe tries to save his friend 9Rizzo dies on the bus0, but in a sense, fulfills Rizzo’s dream. It was a pretty quirky movie for 1969, but it was thought-provoking-sort of a modern-day “Don Quixote”.
I would characterize Apocalypse Now’s depiction of war as closer to surrealistic than to realistic.
I don’t think the claim is that Platoon was the first anti-war movie, but rather it was the first movie to depict war realistically.
According to Roger Ebert, anti-war movies before Platoon generally were not quite successful because they still somehow imparted a sense of heroism rather than horror. His theory on how Oliver Stone pulled it off:
Sorry, but I have always thought the movie was crap. True, good directing and great acting, but the plot was Crappy McCapperson, Mayor of Craptown. The Op is right- the plot -what little there is- get’s *at best * a “huh?”
Note that my uncle- who was there (Ok, second wave, and he packed a typewriter, but still) thought that “The Longest Day” was very gritty & realistic. He likely would have loved “Saving Private Ryan.” War is about heroism, too.
Okay, fine. There are plenty of people who believe that Apocalypse Now isn’t meant to be a realistic depiction of war. It strikes me that it might not really be about war at all, but rather, just set during a war. It certainly doesn’t strike me as an “anti-war” movie as such. Except for the one scene depicting the murdering of those people on the boat, most of the scenes don’t really seem to be taking a stand on “war.”
The only thing I ever got out of “Midnight Cowboy” was that it was about two pathetic losers trying to survive in the big city. They were utter failures because they both wanted to survive by essentially doing nothing. Ratso couldn’t make it as a petty crook, and Joe Buck couldn’t make it as a whore, because neither of them had what it takes to even be bottom feeders.
What this tells us about anything escapes me. I could never understand how it was considered an important movie, or even a particularly good one. The only memorable scene (“I’m walking here”) was an improvisation by Hoffman.
Fortunately, Schlesinger made “Cold Comfort Farm” before he died, and thereby redeemed himself.
As for the war movies, I don’t remember anything about “Platoon” except that I didn’t find it as good as “Full Metal Jacket.” “Apocalypse Now” is a collection of great war scenes with an over-arching anti-war theme that gets bogged down by trying to connect itself to its ostensible source, the nearly impenetrable “Heart of Darkness.” The result is such a hodge-podge that I think almost equal cases could be made for both RikWriter’s and ascenray’s views.
Now, can someone explain “Last Tango in Paris” to me?
Umm…never heard of Apocalypse Now?