Skip to main content

I know enough to know that that great big, dumb cowboy crap of yours don't appeal to nobody except every jockey on 42nd Street.

Midnight Cowboy
(1969)

(SPOILERS) Midnight Cowboy waltzed off with a Best Picture Oscar and John Schlesinger and Waldo Salt with Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay respectively, but this is a film that was and remains mystifyingly overvalued (there have been plenty of bad choices for Best Picture since, but often with a degree of groundswell surrounding their lack of merit). That’s likely because it does suggest an end-of-an-era starkness – misery porn, one might call it – that, with Easy Rider (rightly) not in the running for the main award, made it an easy pick. Previously, I’d been more charitable towards the film, while nevertheless acknowledging that I didn’t see in it what the cognoscenti appeared to, but on this occasion, I simply found it a patience-testing ordeal.

Even Harry Nilsson singing Everybody’s Talkin’, and the John Barry score, which I regarded as the highlights, became signposts of artery-clogging melancholia I found myself entirely resisting. It may show me up as non-empathic philistine, but I was left entirely unmoved by the pit of blithe despair Jon Voight’s Joe Buck sinks into thanks to his own unswerving dumbness. If Midnight Cowboy wasn’t so excruciatingly maudlin, it would have to be a comedy. Far from Of Mice and Men, in respect of giant lemon Joe and Dustin Hoffman’s “Ratso” Rizzo, a better analogy might be Steve Martin’s The Jerk. Or something with Norman Wisdom, under the impression he’s an irresistible draw to the ladies, who will pay for the pleasure, but instead continually finds a sex-starved Mr Grimsdale beating down his door; Joe essentially walks around with a sign on his back saying “kick me” for the entire movie (a devastating combination of his costume and dimness).

To be fair, not everyone loved it. Geoff Andrew, writing for Time Out, labelled it “outrageously overrated” adding “the film indulges bland satire, fashionable flashiness, and a sodden sentimentality that never admits either its homosexual elements or to the basic misogyny of its stance”. I’d take issue with Andrew in respect of the latter two points however, since its repeatedly stressed – often through irritatingly crude flashbacks/dream imagery, characterising his troubled past and subconscious in Subtext 101 detail – that Joe’s sexual bravado is merely empty posturing. You couldn’t get a clearer statement, where pretty much everyone is accusing him of repressed homosexuality, not least Brenda Vaccaro’s wealthy socialite, rousing him to “prove” himself otherwise; his final (possibly murderous) act in getting money from a self-loathing client by shoving a phone in his mouth (an act of penetrative self-loathing itself) is the natural “climax” of this. And with regard to the misogyny, you don’t need it to be spelled out, surely. Joe’s a fool, and Ratso’s an incorrigible opportunist.

Both Andrew and Pauline Kael refer to Midnight Cowboy as a satire, but this is the blunt, dull satire of scenarios that would normally be played for comedy of pain being considered satirical when played straight (Joe continually finds his attempts to get paid for his services undermined, at one point being shamed into paying his “client’s” cab fare). Robert J Landry’s Variety review of the period seizes on the scene where Joe comes across a body on the sidewalk and wonders what to do, since everyone else is studiously ignoring it; again, it’s the kind of thing that would be played “large” in a “straight” comedy (Crocodile Dundee, say) but here simply underlines the density of our hick hero.

Kael argued “the satire is offensively inaccurate – it cheapens the story and gives it a veneer of almost hysterical cleverness”, but she also becomes hung up on what she perceives as Schlesinger’s attack on America, and how he is “determined to expose how horrible the people are – he dehumanizes the people Joe and Ratso are part of. If he could extend the same sympathy to the other Americans that he extends to them, the picture might make better sense”. It’s certainly true that there’s scarcely a sympathetic soul elsewhere in the film, but the whole point is of an oppressive, predatory urban environment, and I’m not sure one could see it as an attack on the country itself any more than, say, Taxi Driver.

Where I’m apparently most out of step is with the central relationship. Kael again, asserted “what the audience really reacts to in Midnight Cowboy is the two lost, lonely men finding friendship” and “in the midst of all the grotesque shock effects and the brutality of the hysterical, superficial satire of America, the audiences, wiser, perhaps, than the director, are looking for human feelings”. Joe’s rigorous lack of self-awareness is a block to me. Hoffman delivers a sympathetic performance, yes, but it’s also a very showy one, designed for maximum self-glorification.

Andrew references the picture’s “glamorisation of poverty”, but Koraljka Suton considers itone of the most heart-wrenching, raw and deeply empathetic depictions of homelessness we never asked for, but badly needed”. I don’t know about that. The stylisation of the performers – one a caricature of a cowboy, the other a cartoon homeless man – fights against a truly stark depiction, even in the face of the chic shivering and starving. Kael, as per often critical of the film, said “the two actors… at the heart of the story save the picture” and it’s true enough that Voight and Hoffman are, such as they are, very good. Voight doesn’t put a foot wrong. And Hoffman, well, as noted, he employs every actorly trick in the book – hacking cough, limp, affected voice – to make for a very colourful (and Oscar-nominated) type, but there’s a theatrical zest preventing Ratso from being deeply affecting, underlined by the manner in which Schlesinger cynically wallows in their despair and ignorance.

It’s possibly ironic that John Wayne took the Oscar that year over Voight, given that Joe invokes the Duke when claiming that dressing like a cowboy isn’t “faggy”, but Midnight Cowboy still took the big two on the night (Picture and Director) and nabbed formerly blacklisted Salt a Best Adapted Screenplay, leading to a further win for Coming Home and a nomination for Serpico (he was also responsible for the screenplay for Schlesinger’s overwrought The Day of the Locust). Wayne’s win was surely a consequence of splitting the vote between Voight and Hoffman in the Best Actor category (I’m always surprised Hoffman wasn’t in Best Supporting, which you might assume he’d have won, but Jack Nicholson didn’t for Easy Rider, so go figure).

Of course, Midnight Cowboy lives in Oscar history for being the only Best Picture winner awarded the X rating… Except, the arbitrary application of the X was illustrated very clearly when, post-win, the movie was re-rated R. Which fits rather well with the immoderate veneration for the film that believes it’s profound and moving, yet is largely applied veneer, window dressing for an era.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .