Voight and Hoffman turn in flawless performances. One has the feeling that these people are really out there on the streets of New York.
I've watched it (at least) 10 times. Interesting facts: Andy Warhol would have been included in the flick (but he was in the hospital, after being shot by a militant feminist). Also, I am forever amazed that more folks don't see that the two main characters - were queer lovers. Hollywood (at that time) had no choice but to water it down. Which is a pity. It really is a great love story. QP
If the Joe Buck (Voight) and Enrico Rizzo (Hoffman) characters were gay lovers, it didn't come through in the version of the movie I saw. Maybe you're reading in to it things that just aren't there. If you have a particular scene in mind that indicates they were getting it on together, please tell us about it.
As I said, the movie was watered down for public consumption. There are no overt gay scenes between Joe Buck and Enrico Rizzo. It's much more subtle than that. Otherwise, too many straight folks would have been turned off by the homoeroticism that is quite obvious to gay film critics. Have you read The Celluloid Closet? This book gives several examples of how the film suggests they were lovers: Rizzo acts as a pimp for Joe Buck. Then takes him in, after Joe is evicted from his cheap hotel room. Rizzo cooks for Joe. Does his laundry. Then grooms him for the life of a male hustler (even cuts his hair!). When Rizzo watches Joe admiring himself in the mirror, his loving gaze is really not all that different from how a straight dude stares at a beautiful woman. And the feeling is mutual: Joe takes care of Rizzo after his health worsens. One of the most telling scenes is when Joe Buck attacks a John (and steals his money) because he desperately needs cash so that he and Rizzo can take a bus to Florida. He says he needs the money because he has family to take care of. Rizzo is his family/lover. And he'll stop at nothing to save him. Another clue is when Joe Buck freaks out after a female client tells him she wonders if he might be a "fag" (because he can't perform sexually). There are many more examples. The Celluloid Closet does a good job of pointing them out. BTW, Midnight Cowboy is a term gay men use to describe young men that only put on a cowboy hat and boots after midnight - to attract gay men. Both for pleasure and profit. Either way (straight or gay), it's a great film. Both interpretations are valid. And I think that's why it has become a classic film. I like the fact that actual sex between the two was never shown. Just plenty of mutual affection and loyalty. Oh, and that great scene where Joe Buck combs Rizzo's hair, while he clings to him for dear life. Plus the sad ending (on the bus). Imagine closing your dead lover's eyes, while everyone on the bus looks at you like you're a freak. Joe Buck's final reaction? He protectively wraps his arm around Rizzo's shoulders. Pretty bold move. And a totally loving one. Anyway, check out The Celluloid Closet: The book contains countless examples of how homosexuality exists in many popular films, but one would never know (at first glance). QP
Cool (but longish) article about the movie. Click on link to read the entire piece... "Midnight Cowboy" Hits 40 by Lewis Whittington EDGE Contributor Thursday Jul 10, 2008 A lot has changed in queer cinema since "Midnight Cowboy" which, against all Hollywood odds, won 1969’s Oscar for Best Picture (The following year the Academy returned to homo-panic mode and awarded "Patton" the trophy). And as wild as queer film can now get, the genre owes much to the groundbreaking "Midnight Cowboy." It is hard to believe that the film was originally tagged an X rating, but was quickly changed to a hard-R when it went into general release. " Schlesinger held his ground and told the studios that they couldn’t cut the film." Cardwell said of the director. "He used cinema verite and, of course, he dealt with sex and all of its variations. Even his earlier film ’Darling’ has homoerotic elements and he broke it open completely... with ’Sunday, Bloody Sunday.’" Even though the film would be considered tame by today’s standards, it did deal with the gay hustler scene in New York, illicit drug use, and prostitution and trans subcultures in New York -- the marginal world that Andy Warhol caught so well in his films and diary. Both provocative and salacious at the time, it was an underground world the rest of the country wanted to see. "The film is a classic and attracts all audiences. When I started to see what people said about this film it was amazing the response still to ’Midnight Cowboy.’ And I found the extremes of reactions. Audiences respond to the homoerotic love story, but there are others who interpret it as homophobic. There are not too many films that audiences respond in those extremes...to the same film." Romantic love between two men is the heart of "Midnight Cowboy" and that still gets scant play on the big screen. The last being "Brokeback Mountain," which against all odds lost the Oscar for best picture. http://www.edgephiladelphia.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=movies&sc2=features&sc3=&id=77303
All of the bonding activity you mentioned is non-sexual. Men are quite capable of forming close friendships such as in this film without there being a sexual component. Buck does have sex with women, even if it's as a male prostitute. If he ever does have sex with a man it's not part of the story line here. (I haven't seen the picture recently and I'm going by memory.) Rizzo is so down and out, dirty and broke, it's unlikely for him to find a partner of either sex.
"Romantic love between two men is the heart of "Midnight Cowboy" and that still gets scant play on the big screen. The last being "Brokeback Mountain," which against all odds lost the Oscar for best picture." Lewis Whittington (not I) stated this. And he is a widely published writer. I took the time to research the film, and substantiated my original claim with an informed analysis by a reputable source. Which you all but dismissed. Keep on believing that love between two men is nothing but an illusion. After all, even "Brokeback Mountain" was not taken seriously. That tells me everything I need to know... Happy trails to you, QP http://www.edgephiladelphia.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=movies&sc2=features&sc3=&id=77303[/QUOTE]
Really? Joe Buck didn't seem to judge Rizzo so harshly. He found qualities in Rizzo that go far beyond looks and money. Which is one of the reasons the film is so remarkable. QP
And the movie's writers and directors sure didn't seem to think the characters were homosexual in their version. It was an independent film, they could've done whatever they wanted with it. At around the same time, John Waters' was having people kill and fuck chickens on camera.
The IMDB.com reviewers use the terms comrades, friends, companions, soul mates. All of that is true. There's nothing in the movie (or the IMDB reviews) about Buck and Rizzo crawling into bed together and sucking each other off. As for Whittington, his idea of romantic love appears to be light-years away from my idea. As for my beliefs about love, I never mentioned them, and they're off topic anyway. What you have here, you and Whittington and Thom Cardwell (quoted by Whittington), is a flight of fantasy in which you see something that just is not there.
Not so sure that such a "graphic" review would be allowed. Nor did I make such a claim. It seems like you think sex and love are the same thing. Guess what: homosexuals can love one another (without sex)... just the same as heterosexuals. It's much more complex than "sucking each other off." QP
Hell, I believe poetry says it best. Whitman describes the kind of love between men (and this was during the Civil War!) that is both platonic and profound. And like MIDNIGHT COWBOY - there is no sex involved. Why do so many folks equate homosexuality with sex? Queers are people. Period. Some are highly sexual, while others live like monks. *end rant* QP Vigil Strange I Kept on the Field one Night Vigil strange I kept on the field one night; When you my son and my comrade dropt at my side that day, One look I but gave which your dear eyes return'd with a look I shall never forget, One touch of your hand to mine O boy, reach'd up as you lay on the ground, Then onward I sped in the battle, the even-contested battle, Till late in the night reliev'd to the place at last again I made my way, Found you in death so cold dear comrade, found your body son of responding kisses, (never again on earth responding,) Bared your face in the starlight, curious the scene, cool blew the moderate night-wind, Long there and then in vigil I stood, dimly around me the battle-field spreading, Vigil wondrous and vigil sweet there in the fragrant silent night, But not a tear fell, not even a long-drawn sigh, long, long I gazed, Then on the earth partially reclining sat by your side leaning my chin in my hands, Passing sweet hours, immortal and mystic hours with you dearest comrade -- not a tear, not a word, Vigil of silence, love and death, vigil for you my son and my soldier, As onward silently stars aloft, eastward new ones upward stole, Vigil final for you brave boy, (I could not save you, swift was your death, I faithfully loved you and cared for you living, I think we shall surely meet again,) Till at latest lingering of the night, indeed just as the dawn appear'd, My comrade I wrapt in his blanket, envelop'd well his form, Folded the blanket well, tucking it carefully over head and carefully under feet, And there and then and bathed by the rising sun, my son in his grave, in his rude-dug grave I deposited, Ending my vigil strange with that, vigil of night and battle-field dim, Vigil for boy of responding kisses, (never again on earth responding,) Vigil for comrade swiftly slain, vigil I never forget, how as day brighten'd, I rose from the chill ground and folded my soldier well in his blanket, And buried him where he fell. -Walt Whitman
Seriously, are you fucking with us? Can straight men not love each other? Or are all daddies homo for their sons?
when i started this thread i didnt mean for it to turn into this.. i just wanted to know who enjoyed this movie as much as i did. but since ur all talking about it, i do not believe the two main characters were gay, and they espcially wernt attracted to each other.
