The writer, James Leo Herlihy, and the director, John Schlesinger, were both gay. Not supposedly gay. They were properly
-
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 02:51 AM)
It's almost like you're trying to claim this for yourself when in fact what these men shared doesn't belong to you. It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
Your insights into IY's thought process are spot on. His passive-aggressive, fear-based approach is to set out to make an issue out of a non-issue and then try to make the non-issue (e.g., homosexuality) be everybody else's problem when nobody ever said anything about issue/homosexuality in the first place. This way he gets to see himself as being the enlightened, superior one, and everybody else gets left behind, holding HIS considerably heavy bag of issues. Then his problems get to become other people's problems, and this allows him some temporary mental relief.
What it comes down to is we get to watch Inherently Yours stage his own mental breakdowns. -
!!!deleted!!! (49761343) — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 06:10 AM)
How ironic that someone is ranting about "today's reality", when he's arrogantly misinterpreting the movie himself through an incredibly skewed perspective that couldn't be more off base.
I'm old enough to have grown up with this film and there is no question beyond a shadow of a doubt that although the relationship between Joe and Ratso was presented as platonic, it was always understood that there was a homoerotic component to it. This didn't mean they were in an openly gay relationship. From a storytelling perspective, they were just two guys in a platonic friendship. However, there was always a sly, subtle gay subtext to the friendship hinted at in this movie. This was understood back in the 70s, 80s, 90s. Not according to "today's reality."
Even
before
and
as the movie
was being shot, everyone who was involved in the film brought the subject up. Schlesinger even explained to Hoffman at some point during the shoot that the reason why there are two beds in Ratso Rizzo's place was to downplay the gay aspect of the relationship, because it would cause the movie to bomb. The reason why Schlesinger had to do that is that Hoffman himself realized that the characters were gay and said, "Hey, what are you doing? This doesn't make sense. If we're gay, why are we sleeping in two separate beds?"
More about this here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10064665/board/threads/
Ironically, the people who often screech about how people are "wrongly misinterpreting" movies and TV shows through "today's eyes" are themselves millennial hipsters who weren't old enough to have understood the cultural context behind the thing they're ranting about. This is a classic calling card of theirs: "Oh, you kids and your silly takes on things!" Meanwhile, they're kids themselves who don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about but say that to sound more "mature."
Emojis=
Emoticons= -
prismabird — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 06:45 AM)
I would argue that the
majority
of people interpret Midnight Cowboy as a buddy movie, or a friendship movie. That doesn't mean that one, or both, of the main characters weren't gay. But it doesn't mean they were, either.
Some movies, IMO, have a very clear-cut theme, and were made to be interpreted in a very definite way. For example, the X-Men movies. Pick one. Along with being fun action films, they're very clearly about the fight for civil and social rights. There are race allegories, gay allegories, feminist allegories, and probably a dozen others all throughout them. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have "Eraserhead." According to David Lynch himself, there is no wrong way to interpret that movie. It's meant to be a dream, and therefore, to reflect you through interpreting it.
Midnight Cowboy is somewhere in between. It's based in reality, but occasionally delves into the subconscious of it's main characters, one of whom doesn't have a clue who he is. It's not a clear allegory. It doesn't teach a moral. In fact, I could make the argument that Midnight Cowboy is about any, or all, of the following:
It's a condemnation of society, showing us the humanity of the kind of people we choose to "throw away" and forget.
Its an examination of the underbelly of a city often romanticized by Americans.
It's a story about how abuse stunts and damages people.
It's a story about how love is an essential need on the same level as food, water, and shelter.
It's a story about the pain of loneliness.
It's a story about the isolation and struggle of being gay in a society that won't accept homosexuality.
I could come up with more. And I could come up with a dozen interpretations of Ratso and Joe. They're very complex, very realistic characters. There are interpretations that Ratso represents the dark part of Joe's subconscious. I've seen interpretations of Joe's dreams which state that Joe wasn't actually raped, but dreamed it as a literal representation of him fighting his own homosexuality (I don't subscribe to that one, but it's out there).
What I'm saying is, there's a hell of a lot of insults getting thrown around on this board over something which is non-definite and very open to personal interpretation. Saying "well, clearly Ratso and Joe were gay and in love!" is inaccurate (because very little about these characters is clear, even to themselves), but thinking that they are gay is NOT the same thing as saying that all men who share close friendships, even as close as Joe and Ratso, are gay. It is NOT an insult to all mankind to say, "hey, I think that character might have been gay." -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 07:20 PM)
'I seldom hear this movie referred to a 'gay love story', tho; it's more frequently referred to as a 'buddy movie'.'
Because it's not about homosexuality nor homo-erotic content. The other assumption is that Joe would even remotely have homosexual feelings for Ratso, in particular (that part is lost on people). We live in an era where most things need to be ruined by the pretentious "insights" and pseudo-intellectualism of the masses. I hope you enjoyed the film, and saw it for what it's meant to be -
wylierichardson-966-922691 — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 09:33 PM)
But there is plenty of entertainment featuring men with close bonds, that aren't seen as 'gay', per se. For example, "Entourage" has never once been described as "gay", even tho it's about a close-knit group of men. "The Odd Couple" explored many themes and subplots over it's long run (on TV), but never once did they hint at being gay, or even bi-curious.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 09:40 PM)
wylierichardson-966-922691
I think people are so wrapped up in the BOOK, they translate that to the film. Even if the book "hinted" at homoerotic, the film is not the book.
The funny thing which goes over their "intellectual" heads is that even if Mr Joe was bisexual, he didn't necessarily have sexual-feelings towards greasy, unattractive Ratso. I suppose men have to be careful of sharing the same room and being hugged, or they will thought of as being sex-hungry for each other -
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 10:31 PM)
"I think people are so wrapped up in the book"
Who are these people you claim to be wrapped up in the book? It's all in your mind.
At any rate, you are all wrapped up in the movie. How is this any different? Oh, yes, you get a free pass. Whatever. -
BrettLovesKerri — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 12:07 AM)
I never ever got the impression Ratso was gay, and I've seen the movie countless times. Ratso took his boots off so he could be comfortable. He was just looking after him that's all. He cared for Joe in a buddy way. He even makes fun of Joe, about homosexuality and that Joe dabbled in it. I don't think Joe was even gay, if bi either. He was that desperate for money, he was caught between a rock and a hard place, and go to any measure to make a living.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 19, 2016 07:05 PM)
BrettLovesKerri
ginger-51, our resident poster with a graduate psych-degree says we are mistaken. When I came back to the board after awhile she said I must have been "percolating" over our previous discussion. Heck, I didn't even remember her. -
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(March 19, 2016 08:07 PM)
"Heck, I didn't even remember her.
You remembered her well enough to remember that she has a graduate degree in Psychology, much to your chagrin, I might add.
You really need to start thinking through your little deceptions just a bit. It's getting to be embarrassing. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(March 19, 2016 10:45 PM)
I don't think Joe was even gay, if bi either.
Joe wasn't gay and what Joe and Ratso had wasn't a homosexual relationship like many posters have commented. However, being desperate doesn't mean one resorts to hustling one's ass, especially when other opportunities are presented. We only saw one of those in the film, dishwashing, but Joe chose to prostitute himself with other males. That makes him
bisexual
by my book, since a 100% straight guy would not go there, if they didn't need or have too.
Would you go "gay", if you were desperate for cash and you had an option of doing other things to make money? That is one element of this film that I find questionable, if one was to take it as Joe stooping so low, that he had to resort to male prostitution, ie)homosexuality.
Wha
t message does that give out about homosexuality, that it is something one would only resort to if one is in dire desperation or one is depraved? People resort to homosexual activity because they don't have an issue with it, which makes them
bisexual.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
Paranoid-Roegian — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 12:13 PM)
What I find most interesting about the denials of Joe and Ratso being repressed gay men is that both John Schlesinger and Dustin Hoffman (in a 2010
Vanity Fair
interview) came out and stated that Joe and Ratso were both gay. It's just, in 1969, announcing you're making a film about two gay men just wouldn't get the funding to even be made.
What's fascinating, and baffling, is that even after filmmakers of the actual film admitted it - there's still a passionate amount of people who shut down anybody who picks up on it in the film.
2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500 -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 12:38 PM)
What's also baffling and fascinating is that people don't know the definition of "gay". Joe was not gay since he screwed women. If you wish to say "bisexual", then say bisexual. Think very slowly before you etch words. And I don't' care what Hoffman says. The book is separate from the film; we could say Ralph Kramden was gay, but the censors would not allow it to be written into the series. Nobody would be in denial if the film depicted what we're supposed to be in denial about.
-
Paranoid-Roegian — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 12:43 PM)
The problem is, you have to focus on the "queer perspective" of the time period this film was made. You couldn't just outright say "I'm gay" or show two men kiss in a 1969 studio-funded film It's all about sociopolitical context. Not only was the author of the novel gay - and showing Joe has questioning in the book itself - but Schlesinger, the director, is, too. And producer Hellman actually brushes on the topic on the Blu Ray commentary, too. That means there's four top-billed people on this film saying they were making a queer film, but couldn't say anything to MGM about it
I agree that, often, there's too much reading into films - but
Midnight Cowboy
is outright with its subtext - and it's a shame that, even with people involved admitting the idea, there still seems to be a denial of it. How many more people
involved
need to say something for it to help deniers see that it's there? It's a lose-lose on part of the filmmakers and people who picked up on the gay subtext, because even if you deny those involved, there's no way of having someone who didn't pick up on it actually see that it was there.
2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500 -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 12:48 PM)
I fully realize the social climate of 1969. However, you're just speaking words, aside from not acknowledging my response about the definition of the word "gay". So, please list the subtext you saw in actual concrete terms, then nobody will be in denial anymore. You can make an actual list ( 1. 2. 3. .) of the gay subtext.
-
Paranoid-Roegian — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 12:49 PM)
I posted an entire essay on the subtext in its own thread here on the film's message board. I'd love to hear your responses to it. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500 -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 01:43 PM)
what I think is interesting is that 2 years earlier, Patty Duke and Co. throw around the word fg/ fggot left and right, yet that film got funded, and became the 2nd highest film of that year. I realize the narrative was set up differently, though (as to condemn homosexuality)