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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.