Midnight Cowboy

Flopper

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 23, 2010
32,166
9,067
1,330
Washington
There are some of you who have never heard of this movie and some who wish they hadn't. Midnight Cowboy is the only X-rated movie to win an academy award. It's rating was later reduced to an R rating. It won best picture of 1969, Best Director, and Best Screen Play. It also won 28 other major awards. And the song "Every Body's Talking" which was featured in the film won a Grammy as did the instrumental theme, "Midnight Cowboy."

Midnight Cowboy is not a very pleasant film to watch, but it's worth it due to the great performances from Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, John Schlesinger's unique directing for its time, and its portrayal of the dark side of urban American life and poignant themes on failed aspirations. It earned an X-rating not because there is any erotic sex in the film, but because of the theme of the movie and language. Although, there very little sex in the movie, it is about sex and not the good kind.

"Convinced of his irresistible appeal to women, Texas dishwasher Joe Buck (Jon Voight) quits his job and heads for New York City, thinking he'll latch on to some rich dowager. New York, however, is not as hospitable as he imagined, and Joe soon finds himself living in an abandoned building with a Dickensian layabout named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). The two form a rough alliance, and together they kick-start Joe's hustling career just as Ratso's health begins to deteriorate." It is hard not feel sorry for these two, Ratso with his wasted life and failing health and Joe with his youth and navigate both headed for ruin.

Although this is a great movie, I don't recommend it because it is not an enjoyable film. I remember walking away from the movie wishing I'd saved my money.
 
Yeah....movies back then were very good, like that one.

Not anymore.
Good movies and plays transcends time. Potboilers come and go.
Movies like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, Gone with Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The Wizard of Oz, On the Waterfront, etc will be playing long after 99% of today's movies exist only in studio archives.

Midnight Cowboy is example of good acting, a fine script, excellent direction, fine music, etc. but it's not a very good movie because it doesn't appeal to audiences then or now.
 
Last edited:

Every Body's Talking is a beautiful song. In the movie it creates a sharp contrast between Ratso's dream of sailing off to Florida and the reality of his life. If there is anything in the movie that is enjoyable it's the music, both the theme and this song.
 
Last edited:
Great movie.

"I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"

Supposedly, that was entirely improv.
 
Great movie.

"I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"

Supposedly, that was entirely improv.
It is certainly not a favorite movie on mine because I didn't find it entertaining. The subject matter was just not to my liking. However, it was very well done, great performances by both Hoffman and Voight and the music and script was excellent.
 
There are some of you who have never heard of this movie and some who wish they hadn't. Midnight Cowboy is the only X-rated movie to win an academy award. It's rating was later reduced to an R rating. It won best picture of 1969, Best Director, and Best Screen Play. It also won 28 other major awards. And the song "Every Body's Talking" which was featured in the film won a Grammy as did the instrumental theme, "Midnight Cowboy."

Midnight Cowboy is not a very pleasant film to watch, but it's worth it due to the great performances from Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, John Schlesinger's unique directing for its time, and its portrayal of the dark side of urban American life and poignant themes on failed aspirations. It earned an X-rating not because there is any erotic sex in the film, but because of the theme of the movie and language. Although, there very little sex in the movie, it is about sex and not the good kind.

"Convinced of his irresistible appeal to women, Texas dishwasher Joe Buck (Jon Voight) quits his job and heads for New York City, thinking he'll latch on to some rich dowager. New York, however, is not as hospitable as he imagined, and Joe soon finds himself living in an abandoned building with a Dickensian layabout named Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). The two form a rough alliance, and together they kick-start Joe's hustling career just as Ratso's health begins to deteriorate." It is hard not feel sorry for these two, Ratso with his wasted life and failing health and Joe with his youth and navigate both headed for ruin.

Although this is a great movie, I don't recommend it because it is not an enjoyable film. I remember walking away from the movie wishing I'd saved my money.
We watched this last night. Both of us had seen bits and pieces of it, but never the whole movie.
About 2/3 way in I mentioned to Bonzi "this movie is pretty decent, but I'm not seeing a movie that won all these awards".
But then I thought about the fact this movie, similar to Platoon for instance, was not like any other film before it. There are many dark movies today - many. But in 1969, there was not that many. It didn't follow the expected plot diagram, so therefore watching this movie in 1969 was very different than watching it in 2022.
 
We watched this last night. Both of us had seen bits and pieces of it, but never the whole movie.
About 2/3 way in I mentioned to Bonzi "this movie is pretty decent, but I'm not seeing a movie that won all these awards".
But then I thought about the fact this movie, similar to Platoon for instance, was not like any other film before it. There are many dark movies today - many. But in 1969, there was not that many. It didn't follow the expected plot diagram, so therefore watching this movie in 1969 was very different than watching it in 2022.
You're so right. Movies are a product of their time. In this movie, male prostitutes wearing cowboy clothes on the streets of New York at night were not that uncommon nor were characters like Ratzo Rizzo. Characters like these, dialog and dress of the times makes this movie very dated for someone born in this century. As my grandson who is 19 says, they look stupid and say stupid stupid stuff.

It's the same problem with movies before 1950. B&W by the current generation is rejected because what counts as a “good movie” changes over time. Acting changes, cinematography changes, pacing changes, stories change. An outdated movie could seem sexist, or hammy, or slow, or a lot of other things. Why? Because the audience do not understand the times in which the movie was made. Yet some of our greatest cinematography and acting was filmed in B&W. Take a look a the "Third Man"

One of my favorite movies is City Lights, a silent movie starting Charlie Chapman as the Little Tramp. I tried to get my daughter to what it and all she said was it's boring. I want to hear the actors and want see them in color. What she did not understand is how difficult it is in silent move to tell a story, elicit tears, and laughs by just facial expression and body motions. Audiences use to responded to that but not today. Thake a look at this scene from City Lights in which Little Tramp encounters the beautiful flower girl on a street corner and in the course of buying a flower realizes she is blind; he is instantly smitten. The girl mistakes the Tramp for a wealthy man when the door of a chauffeured automobile slams shut as he departs. This scene always brings a tear to my eye. Silent movies leave a lot to the imagination. Audiences today don't want to imagination anything. They want it all laid out in color and Dolby sound.

 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top