Skip to main content

Back to the Feature: Midnight Cowboy (1969)


          Whether you like it or not, Midnight Cowboy was a very important landmark of a film. Not only was it the first and only X-rated movie to win Best Picture (now it would be a tame “R”), but it had a major impact on the film industry that came after. A staple film of the counter-culture movement, it arguably brought the X or R-rated film into the mainstream, and with it, a kind of adult movie that Hollywood usually tried to avoid or de-legitimize And it did so without being exploitative or pornographic, and I think that’s what really shocked audiences when it came out in 1969.
          It’s the story of Joe Buck (Jon Voight), a young man from Texas who’s come up to New York dressed as a cowboy to make a living as a male prostitute. He’s a fish out of water until he meets “Ratso” (Dustin Hoffman) who befriends him and shows him the ropes. As his prospects get worse, Joe struggles to make it in the seedy environment of urban New York as Ratso struggles with his own health.
          The story would almost feel like a satire of the kind of American Dream fantasy and romanticism of the Big Apple, as expressed through Sinatra’s “New York, New York”, if not for how depressingly serious it takes its tone. The plot itself doesn’t really have a set direction, and the story isn’t all that important anyway. This movie’s more about its setting and characters, as told through some very skilful filmmaking from director John Schlesinger. His editing and camera trickery conveys both the feeling of being lost in your surroundings as well as a city in perpetual motion. This is in perfect contrast to Joe’s slow, unsure meanderings. The editing is particularly engaging, notably the fast-cut montages that infer a characters’ backstory, their senses, or feelings. There’s a great cut for example between television channels being changed rapidly and a slot machine. The scenes I prefer are the ones that incorporate the city in a way that really heightens the mood. My favourite is the sequential cuts between night and day as Joe is walking the city. Obviously they’re different shots at different locations, but they transition so smoothly it’s beautiful and very contemplative. The sex scenes are very tightly shot and intimate, again breaking Hollywood taboo. There are a couple scenes that use these methods to illustrate memory and presence under drug use or intoxication, and they’re quite good too; smartly shot, if not being quite as unsettling as Easy Rider. But though it’s not unsettling, the movie does get uncomfortable. It shows a side of New York that was never really seen before on film of this calibre. I’m going to use as an example, a somewhat similar movie in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, which also centres on a (albeit more subtextual) sex worker in New York City. Holly Golightly’s life is full of class, and the city we see is the respectable and accessible, though titanic Manhattan that America wanted you to believe in. Midnight Cowboy takes a very similar premise, that of a hopeful southerner come to New York and working in a sexual capacity once there; but it decided to show the gritty realism of the city in its depressed environments and from the point of view of a couple of those bottom dwellers. No beautiful Upper East Side apartment; instead there’s Ratso’s run-down place where the paint is coming off and the coffee mugs have visible stains. And that’s not taking anything away from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, it’s merely proof of an art form in evolution to a more honest picture.
          Honest characters are another contributor to this movie’s unique effect. Joe is the primary focus and a very interesting one. His initial naivety and overconfidence establish the dose of reality he’s going to need before long. One funny scene early on has him attempt to get a socialite played by Sylvia Miles to pay him after sex, only her, not realizing he was a prostitute, is incredibly offended, and it ends with him paying her. Joe’s backstory we get in a series flashbacks composited against thoughtful recollections and key moments for him in the film. He seems to have come from a family of sex workers, having mostly been raised by his grandmother, who was one herself, and it’s what directly led him into the career he’s pursuing. He also had a very close relationship with a local girl that ended very swiftly and traumatically when they were caught in the middle of sex for whatever reason by a gang who subsequently raped both of them. That’s some damn horrible stuff, but it never comes back to him. He’s haunted by his past for sure, but it never really affects his actions in the story or the story itself. It just forces you to question his character and psychological state. And Jon Voight, who we forget was a pretty good actor before he lost his mind, plays it very well, the optimistic hustler masking some serious issues. Even better is Hoffman, who was still pretty much fresh off of The Graduate. For him this was Daniel Radcliffe doing Equus (though Hoffman-unlike Voight -doesn’t have any nudity). He really proves his versatility as Ratso, who’s also had a pretty depressing life, his father having been a shoeshiner all his life. His Italian-American accent can be a little over-the-top at times, but he makes up for it in great nuance. Ratso always looks a little greasy and worn, and his distinct lack of height and limp next to Joe really sets him apart. He’s a guy who would just blend into the throngs of down-on-their-luck New Yorkers. And with his lack of much ambition or a decent upbringing, and deteriorating health, his ultimate fate is especially depressing. No one’s really going to know or care that Enrico Rizzo died. Except for Joe Buck.
          That’s another interesting area of this movie, and one of the reasons it was given an X-rating in 1960’s Hollywood. There’s a definite gay subtext to the movie. While there is some homophobic rhetoric and one very stereotypical character, you can’t deny the friendship between Joe and Ratso has certain connotations to it. The characters grow very close over a short period of time. After setting him up to meet an insane pimp played by John McGiver (oh look, another Breakfast at Tiffany’s connection!), the next time Joe sees Ratso, after he’s been evicted, it’s played almost like romantic leads meeting again. But perhaps the most telling sign is when Joe goes home from a party with Brenda Vaccaro and finds he can’t perform in bed. They play cribbage, until she suggests his inability may come from him actually being gay. This stimulates him and they apparently have such good sex, she highly recommends him to her friends, and it completely revitalises his prospects. Surely there’s some connection with him being called gay and a sudden boost to his sex work. We already saw he’s willing to perform sexual acts with men, like when a student played by an astonishingly young Bob Balaban gives him fellatio in a theatre -though he’s clearly more ashamed of this. You could also possibly draw sexual coding from the flamboyance of his cowboy outfit. One thing’s for sure, there’s certainly more overt sexual themes and politics to this movie than to any other Best Picture winner before it.
          Midnight Cowboy is certainly not much of a terrifically enjoyable film, but it is a great time capsule of that period in the late 60s when Hollywood really began its counter-culture transformation. It was deserving enough to make history. It’s the mood that really resonates for me, capped by a really good soundtrack. Though much like “Song of Silence” in Hoffman’s The Graduate, “Everybody’s Talkin” is certainly overused, but that doesn’t take away from how fitting it is, especially over the opening credits, and later during Joe’s trek through the city (that image of the distinct cowboy hat in the crowd of people has become iconic for a reason). It’s a very well-performed, enticingly edited, and superbly atmospheric study of seedy urban life. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...