Midnight Cowboy
Nov. 5, 1991
In 113 minutes, director John Schlesinger can make you feel uncomfortable. His film, Midnight Cowboy is a tale of attempted sexual exploits of a young Texan stud. It contains themes that are less risqué today than when the picture was released in 1969. Homosexuality, prostitution, gang rape, and sordid sex abound and last throughout the film. Back in 1969, these topics were not as openly discussed, or shown, as they are today, and the film seems less likely to cause a stir now than during its first release. But the reason you’ll feel uncomfortable is that this film breaks down in the telling. The plot is simple, but Schlesinger’s direction is unclear; it makes hardly any sense when seeing it for the first time. Schlesinger takes liberties with the film medium. Certain filmic aspects which he uses confuse an otherwise simple story. Flashbacks occur so often that they’ll leave you wondering about what you are seeing. Odd angles and shots make the film seem twice as strange. You don’t understand what you’re seeing. You don’t know what the point is being made by the director . You won’t care about what you’re watching. It’s too bad, because Midnight Cowboy makes a good point about friendships.
At the heart of the film is the character of Joe Buck who is played brilliantly by Jon Voight. He is a swaggering cowboy who believes that he’ll make lots of money in New York City sexually satisfying rich, middle-aged women by prostituting himself. Needless to say, he doesn’t make it big as a male prostitute. In fact, his first trick not only ends up not paying but also swindles Joe Buck into loaning her money for cab fare. Joe Buck is completely out of place in the big city which leaves him at a disadvantage. He is a man innocent of the ways of hustling, and cannot hustle a trick without a the help of someone with some street knowledge. He eventually meets a crippled small time hood, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), who thinks of using Joe as his meal ticket in exchange for help. Ratso wants to be his pimp, but their relationship starts off ugly as Ratso cons Joe Buck out of twenty dollars. Later, they become the best of friends, and it’s Joe Buck who supports them and cares for the sick Ratso.
Now that doesn’t sound too confusing, right? Wrong. The characters are more complicated than that. Schlesinger, in his attempt to show the underside of life in the big city, peoples the film with indecent characters. They run the gamut from a two bit, hustling thief, Ratso, to Warhol-like, drugged out artists. Not one of the characters are likable. Even Joe Buck, who at the end seems to be a decent person, leads the life of a male prostitute. This is not a job for such an ambitious person. Yet, his complex character is interesting for the fact that his life has been dominated by prostitution. Schlesinger points out through flashbacks that Joe Buck had a rotten childhood. His grandmother had plenty of male friends who had visited her plenty of times; she seemed to be a prostitute. He was also victimized at his peak sexual age by a gang. What little attention he got from his grandmother hinted toward sexual advances; he could’ve been molested as a child. Who knows, because the flashbacks to his childhood are indecipherable.
The most dizzying scene of the film is the party scene. It is of a Warhol-like gathering. Artists, stoners, and groupies gather in a loft to smoke dope and watch pretty, dancing lights. Joe Buck and Ratso go the party in order to get food and maybe make some money by picking up women. In this scene, Schlesinger reaches the epitome of distraction with plenty of flashy tricks. More flashbacks into Joe Buck’s past occur which are just as confusing. During the party scene, Schlesinger continues to make the plot confusing by his untimely switch into a psychedelic state. He has groovy music play as Joe Buck takes his first hit of a marijuana cigarette. Grotesque images flash on screen to highlight the weird atmosphere of the party. Strange camera angles and rough editing also impart a disorienting feel to the party. If you had hardly followed the film up until this scene, when you get to this point, you’ll probably furrow your brow and ponder what is it that Schlesinger wants to say.
Midnight Cowboy is obsessed with sex. Joe Buck thinks to make money from being a gigolo, but the cowboy routine suggests homosexuality. Throughout the movie, Joe Buck isn’t the only male prostitute prowling the streets in western garb; there are plenty of others who have the fringed shirt and cowboy hat. They all are gays, and in fact, Joe Buck has a few homosexual encounters to help pay the bills. In its time, the openly expressed homosexuality would have been considered very risqué for a major motion picture, but now in this politically correct world, men loving men is almost casual to hear about and see. The film doesn’t exploit gay love, but makes more of a statement on the relationship of two men, namely Joe Buck and Ratso. They don’t have homosexual tendencies, but what they do have is friendship. Their relationship is like the one between Lenny and George in Of Mice and Men. One is the brains; the other is the muscles. They have dreams of going to Florida and basking in the sun. They rely on each other to the point that if one falls so does the other.
Midnight Cowboy tries hard to establish itself as an important film. In some ways it does, and in others it falls short. The general story without the confusing details is a tragic tale of man’s search for an end to his loneliness. It’s a simple story that is similar to a great classic of literature, Of Mice and Men. It is a moving film, but John Schlesinger’s direction hinders the film from achieving its goal. Schlesinger mistakenly adds unnecessary elements to the film. He imposes his authority onto the story and creates confusion. Schlesinger cannot tell the story straight, but has to embellish it with a confusing style which ultimately leaves you puzzled. In Midnight Cowboy, the telling overshadows the tale.
3 Replies to “Midnight Cowboy”
Comments are closed.
Excellent review. I've only seen snippets of Midnight Cowboy. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a Schlesinger film but I have Day of the Locusts in the back of my mind. oh no, i did see that madonna film, The Next Best Thing, which i thought was okay.
I did like Gus Van Sant's, "My Own Private Idaho", which in my mind seems like an Ode to schlesinger based on your review. The movies seem similar in theme and the chaos of the story. I mostly remember River Phoenix's play on the narcolepsy being the thread for me. Like, where would he nod off next?? maybe Ratso had an affliction like this that brought the comic relief in Midnight Cowboy?
Both directors seem to have a touch of Warhol influence, right? with the chaos and the images, i mean.
i guess i like GSV stories because they're weird. and his characters are usually profoundly good but seem a little off. And when you look at them it's usually because of environment or some crippling circumstance beyond their control. They're trying to rise above it all, other's people manipulations, and it goes good or bad.
anyway your review makes me want to revisit some of S's films. I think those disturbing images flashed in films were pretty much the artsy thing in the 60's. Like here's the harsh reality of how twisted people can be thrown in your face. you're meant to feel the sickness or disgust. I don't know. probably less shocking today like you said. i mean you'd have to go NC-17 to really shock someone nowadays.
Did you watch Midnight Cowboy on tv? Cause I checked, and it was rated X back in the day.
I wrote this when we were back at the U. Check the tagsn and the date. I've been posting some of those here as I scavenge them from old floppy drives.
CMP 403 was the film criticism class taught by Bill Cosford who sadly passed away in the 90s. I believe they renamed the large cinema/auditorium in the Memorial building after him. Do you remember that place? The Memorial building? Good times!
Anyway we had a semester of watching a movie on Tuesday and writing a review of it by Thursday like for a paper. I think I got a B. Never knew how to write those things. Should I be witty? Should I have a hook/shtick? I just re-read a part of it. I'm surprised that it is semi-coherent.
My reviews nowadays aren't this involved, because I don't have to turn in two pages.
yes i totally remember free movies at the Memorial building. one of my loves of college life.
wow i didn't know they named it after him. that's UM story for your grandkids.
every now and again, I wonder…should i have studied communications? i feel like a groupie cuz I love movies so much.
You studied it, my two best friends now studied it — yep I'm a groupie. Ha!
well your review is now immortalized and obviously still relevant cuz it made me want to watch that movie. Awesome!