Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[Shanghai Express]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

The phrase "silly little schoolgirl catfight" rendered you deserving of the "shaddap" in question. Contest that all you want, but it's what garnered you that command. You seem like a nice guy, though, so I'll retract the statement and even offer up a slight and halfhearted apology. That's me at my most sensitive.

Back to the subject at hand: You said you're not fond of the Criterion, so is that to say that you like the MGM disc?

I do like the MGM disc. I would never have known there was any so-called "DVD-era magenta push" on it if I had not read it in this thread. I'm not that sophisticated a videophile. At the very least I can acknowledge that might even be true. But to call it unbearable and unwatchable compared to the Criterion is utter, errant nonsense. It's just so smug it gets under my skin. The MGM is perfectly watchable and everyone knows it, considering it has been watched that way for decades. Admittedly, I prefer the MGM because it is closer to my own memories of early viewings of the film and thus makes more sense to me, and also because the image is a lot more in line with other city-set films of the era. I accept that the Criterion is the "approved" version by proxy but it simply isn't my favored presentation. That doesn't make me some kind of ignorant idiot as has been suggested by some in this thread. Even the most ardent Criterion fans can't and shouldn't deny their history of releasing heavily color-manipulated versions of recently-restored films. I don't have to repeat the titles but I will: Dressed To Kill, Scanners, Tree Of Wooden Clogs, and there are probably more of which I'm not aware. Whether Midnight Cowboy belongs in that group I can't decide and won't pretend to know enough about that, but it's certainly food for thought.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

I do like the MGM disc. I would never have known there was any so-called "DVD-era magenta push" on it if I had not read it in this thread. I'm not that sophisticated a videophile. At the very least I can acknowledge that might even be true. But to call it unbearable and unwatchable compared to the Criterion is utter, errant nonsense. It's just so smug it gets under my skin. The MGM is perfectly watchable and everyone knows it, considering it has been watched that way for decades. Admittedly, I prefer the MGM because it is closer to my own memories of early viewings of the film and thus makes more sense to me, and also because the image is a lot more in line with other city-set films of the era. I accept that the Criterion is the "approved" version by proxy but it simply isn't my favored presentation. That doesn't make me some kind of ignorant idiot as has been suggested by some in this thread. Even the most ardent Criterion fans can't and shouldn't deny their history of releasing heavily color-manipulated versions of recently-restored films. I don't have to repeat the titles but I will: Dressed To Kill, Scanners, Tree Of Wooden Clogs, and there are probably more of which I'm not aware. Whether Midnight Cowboy belongs in that group I can't decide and won't pretend to know enough about that, but it's certainly food for thought.

I didn't see it on the big screen, but having watched it on just about every possible home video format (VHS, laserdisc, DVD, both U.S. Blu-Rays and even various TV airings), I can definitely say that the Criterion looks jarringly different. Again, some of the scenes don't appear to have the teal, and even some scenes where it's identifiable aren't negatively affected by it (in my opinion), but there are too many moments that took me out of the experience because it looked so absurd. The fact that it has become so fashionable for filmmakers to revisit their older films and make them flamboyantly teal (BLADE RUNNER, THE TERMINATOR, THIEF, etc.) doesn't help Criterion's case with MIDNIGHT COWBOY.

That said, I do urge fans to get their hands on the Criterion and see if they like the look of it. Anyone who enjoys the color of that release is lucky, because the clarity of the image is unarguably superior to that of the MGM BD (and it has the elusive Schlesinger commentary). I don't regret my purchase, for those reasons, but I can't help but feel that the MGM will be the one I reach for next time... and anyone who regards that release as "unwatchable" or "unbearable" has a screw loose.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Shaddap, hall monitor.

You’re just swinging in all directions now, aren’t you? He’s right though, the thread is denigrating into a pit of childish idiocy, and I admit I’m a part of it. Time to give it a rest and move on.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

To those who haven't seen the Criterion Blu yet, here is "Midnight Cowboy: On the Fringe", the great article/analysis of the film that is duplicated in the pamphlet that comes with the Disk:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...-on-the-fringe

I agree with most of what this article states, and feel it's one of the best - if not the best - analyses of the film.

Re: the gay subtext in the film (also touched on in the article), I can see where this is coming from re: the same-sex encounters that Joe has when in NYC (I'm not counting the assault against Joe in the flashback, since that was against his will). However, I never saw Joe as a gay character, nor have I ever thought of MC as a gay film. It was obvious that Joe had these encounters out of desperation & in order to survive, not because he enjoyed them.

In fact, as a straight guy who saw MC for the first time during in my late teens sometime in the late '80's (in a heavily edited network TV broadcast), I can unequivocally say that I could relate to the character (to a certain extent) at that point in my life. I.e., at that time I was sleeping with a much older married woman (she looked slightly like Cass in MC - but much heavier - LOL) and even though I wasn't getting paid for my "services", thought of myself as a real stud - LOL. So, the idea of a guy who sells himself to women for money (or at least tries to) was very interesting/intriguing.

Re: Ratso Rizzo, I actually find the character somewhat asexual in the film - which I'm sure was intentional. This makes the friendship between the two characters unusual - i.e., they couldn't be more different.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

To those who haven't seen the Criterion Blu yet, here is "Midnight Cowboy: On the Fringe", the great article/analysis of the film that is duplicated in the pamphlet that comes with the Disk:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...-on-the-fringe

I agree with most of what this article states, and feel it's one of the best - if not the best - analyses of the film.

Re: the gay subtext in the film (also touched on in the article), I can see where this is coming from re: the same-sex encounters that Joe has when in NYC (I'm not counting the assault against Joe in the flashback, since that was against his will). However, I never saw Joe as a gay character, nor have I ever thought of MC as a gay film. It was obvious that Joe had these encounters out of desperation & in order to survive, not because he enjoyed them.

In fact, as a straight guy who saw MC for the first time during in my late teens sometime in the late '80's (in a heavily edited network TV broadcast), I can unequivocally say that I could relate to the character to a certain extent at that point in my life. I.e., at that time I was sleeping with a much older married woman (she looked slightly like Cass in MC - but much heavier - LOL) and even though I wasn't getting paid for my "services", thought of myself as a real stud - LOL. So, the idea of a guy who sells himself to women for money (or at least tries to) was very interesting/intriguing.

Re: Ratso Rizzo, I actually find the character somewhat asexual in the film - which I'm sure was intentional. This makes the friendship between the two characters unusual - i.e., they couldn't be more different.

Interesting. I too never saw Joe as a gay character - just a guy trying to survive. The sex, whether gay or straight, seemed superficial and transactional. When Joe tells Ratso, "All I've ever been good for is lovin'!" it struck me that he's too dim and naive to really understand what "love" truly is. And it's only through his relationship with Ratso that he begins to understand love - a totally asexual love, in that he's simply caring for and connecting with another person.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

I do like the MGM disc. I would never have known there was any so-called "DVD-era magenta push" on it if I had not read it in this thread. I'm not that sophisticated a videophile. At the very least I can acknowledge that might even be true. But to call it unbearable and unwatchable compared to the Criterion is utter, errant nonsense. It's just so smug it gets under my skin. The MGM is perfectly watchable and everyone knows it, considering it has been watched that way for decades. Admittedly, I prefer the MGM because it is closer to my own memories of early viewings of the film and thus makes more sense to me, and also because the image is a lot more in line with other city-set films of the era. I accept that the Criterion is the "approved" version by proxy but it simply isn't my favored presentation. That doesn't make me some kind of ignorant idiot as has been suggested by some in this thread. Even the most ardent Criterion fans can't and shouldn't deny their history of releasing heavily color-manipulated versions of recently-restored films. I don't have to repeat the titles but I will: Dressed To Kill, Scanners, Tree Of Wooden Clogs, and there are probably more of which I'm not aware. Whether Midnight Cowboy belongs in that group I can't decide and won't pretend to know enough about that, but it's certainly food for thought.

LOL, the whole image has a red tint, but you can't "see" it unless you read about it, but somehow you can magically see the blue in the Criterion? Okay

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL, the whole image has a red tint, but you can't "see" it unless you read about it, but somehow you can magically see the blue in the Criterion? Okay

The teal on display in the Criterion is much more apparent than the magenta in the MGM.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

The teal on display in the Criterion is much more apparent than the magenta in the MGM.

It's actually not, people just see what they want to see.

It's laughable that people paint themselves as "experts" on nuance of color so much so that they post misinformation as fact, but then "can't" see the magenta push in the old masters.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's actually not, people just see what they want to see.

It's laughable that people paint themselves as "experts" on nuance of color so much so that they post misinformation as fact, but then "can't" see the magenta push in the old masters.

I'll say it again:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=120...73&i=6&l=0&a=1

Does the MGM look as red as the Criterion looks blue? Doesn't take an "expert" to notice the teal in the Criterion, even at a glance. Meanwhile, the magenta in the MGM never bothered me in the slightest, nor did it call attention to itself but in a small handful of shots.

[Kyle15]

"This never personally bothered me, so it's not a problem for everyone and not wrong."

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

"This never personally bothered me, so it's not a problem for everyone and not wrong."

Didn't say that, was only speaking for myself. I guess you require everyone to preface their comments with: "In my opinion..."

That said, the point was that the teal in the Criterion is more apparent than the magenta in the MGM. Thought that was clear, but I was unfairly neglecting those who don't (can't?) process what they read before replying with a high degree of unwarranted snark. My fault.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

I'll say it again:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=120...73&i=6&l=0&a=1

Does the MGM look as red as the Criterion looks blue? Doesn't take an "expert" to notice the teal in the Criterion, even at a glance. Meanwhile, the magenta in the MGM never bothered me in the slightest, nor did it call attention to itself but in a small handful of shots.

I'll say it again: IF YOU KNOW COLOR AND COLOR GRADING, YES the MGM looks just as red as the Criterion looks blue. Period. But I know what I'm looking at.

And the magenta "didn't bother you except in a handful of shots." Which means you see it and it bothers you somewhat, and it's 100% incorrect coloring.

You obviously haven't even watched the Criterion, since the "blue" is also only noticeable in a handful of shots, since it's not a blanket tint.

Not hard to understand.

You also, predictably, used the oNE cap to try and make some blanket point. Well, I'll use one:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=120...7&i=12&l=0&a=1

In that one, the Criterion looks natural, while the MGM is so red the grass and white lines on the highway are PURPLE. So my point still stands.

Originally Posted by CineSicko

That said, the point was that the teal in the Criterion is more apparent than the magenta in the MGM.

Nope.

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Thought that was clear, but I was unfairly neglecting those who don't (can't?) process what they read before replying with a high degree of unwarranted snark. My fault.

I process everything you said, it's just wrong. Go color grade some films then get back to me with your newfound knowledge, and we can swap notes.

Sorry the "snark" triggered you so bad that you're the only "right" one here and can't accept any other method of thought.

But again, go WATCH the Criterion before spouting all your faux knowledge about it because you looked at a couple of caps. Good lord.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I'll say it again: IF YOU KNOW COLOR AND COLOR GRADING, YES the MGM looks just as red as the Criterion looks blue. Period. But I know what I'm looking at.

Most of the MGM looks very close to natural, accurate photography. While much of the Criterion does as well, it's clear through much of the movie (not ALL, which is something I have never suggested) is altered by varying modes of blue. If you argue that point, you clearly don't know what you're "looking at".

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And the magenta 'didn't bother you except in a handful of shots.' Which means you see it and it bothers you somewhat, and it's 100% incorrect coloring.

Again, at no point in the MGM is there such aggressive red as there is aggressive blue in the Criterion. Yeah, I know, you disagree. I'm growing tired of this tendency for Criterion apologists to refuse to even acknowledge the blue segments. There really is no denying that there are numerous portions in which blue is prevalent, sometimes minutely and other times obnoxiously. A constant and extremely faint pinkish lean is comparatively far less distracting, at least to me (and likely most people).

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You obviously haven't even watched the Criterion, since the "blue" is also only noticeable in a handful of shots, since it's not a blanket tint.

Bought and watched the Criterion. That was stated previously, as was my assertion that the Criterion doesn't have a "blanket tint". In fact, I have never used that term in regard to the disc, so maybe ease up with your insistent - yet wholly uninformed - remarks.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You also, predictably, used the oNE cap to try and make some blanket point.

It's among the most extreme examples, which serves to illustrate one of the most extreme sequences in the presentation. The very fact that even just one scene in the disc is that fiercely blue only proves my point to anyone who looks at it. I defy anyone to look at those shots and not say: "Wow, that's blue!" Everyone would, regardless of their color grading knowledge or experience. So, predictable or not, that cap comparison serves its purpose.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=120...7&i=12&l=0&a=1

In that one, the Criterion looks natural, while the MGM is so red the grass and white lines on the highway are PURPLE.

Thanks for reiterating what I've always said about the MGM: It's flawed, with a magenta lean. Could it be that you're confusing me for someone who used the term "blanket tint" and claimed that the MGM was perfect? Your arguments here seem oddly misguided, as do the "likes" given to your comment by your mouth-breathing fans. Hero worship sure is strange, especially when misguided.

Also, your screen cap choice is hilarious. I'll definitely agree that the green grass in the Criterion cap sure is green(ish blue)! It was the remark about how green the grass looks that had me in stitches, though. I mean, we ARE talking about teal here.

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I process everything you said, it's just wrong. Go color grade some films then get back to me with your newfound knowledge, and we can swap notes. Sorry the "snark" triggered you so bad that you're the only "right" one here and can't accept any other method of thought. But again, go WATCH the Criterion before spouting all your faux knowledge about it because you looked at a couple of caps. Good lord.

I'm actually a bit worried about your emotional state. Honestly. I stated that several scenes in the Criterion (which, again, is on my shelf, opened and watched) have what appears to be excessive blue/teal. You're practically freaking out about it, claiming that I'm insisting that the MGM is beyond criticism while almost fanatically disregarding all comments about the Criterion's teal issue. Something is definitely wrong, I fear. Talk to someone, in REAL life. If not for yourself, do it for the rest of us.

[Shanghai Express]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's actually not, people just see what they want to see.

It's laughable that people paint themselves as "experts" on nuance of color so much so that they post misinformation as fact, but then "can't" see the magenta push in the old masters.

When did I paint myself as an expert? The whole point of my comment was that I am a far more casual viewer than the aficionados on this forum, and was comparing the releases based on my personal preferences, not on what I think is “right” or “wrong”. I stand by what I said: I can’t see the “magenta push” except in comparison to the far bluer-looking Criterion. I didn’t even know what a magenta push was until a few days ago when I read it here.

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

When did I paint myself as an expert? The whole point of my comment was that I am a far more casual viewer than the aficionados on this forum, and was comparing the releases based on my personal preferences, not on what I think is “right” or “wrong”. I stand by what I said: I can’t see the “magenta push” except in comparison to the far bluer-looking Criterion. I didn’t even know what a magenta push was until a few days ago when I read it here.

I don't recall you making any claims that you're an expert on the subject, and neither have I. The entire point of our initial conversation was that the MGM and Criterion look markedly different from one another, and that in the light of some questionable revisionist color schemes done by Criterion recently (THIEF, SCANNERS) it would be fascinating to know which of the two - if either one - resemble the look of the original theatrical prints. Then came the mysterious and belligerent assault, stemming from things that we supposedly said but obviously didn't.

I'm starting to better understand why Bates Motel tends to get a lot of disrespect on this site, not including his tiny handful of knuckle-dragging followers.

[Harryhausen AF]

Midnight Cowboy Criterion has a blanket green tint and a blanket blue tint in some scenes so there is a blanket tint and it is revisionist because blanket tints were impossible to do before digital grading. Look at the green whites in the scenes that have a blanket green tint and even in the black and white scenes the whites are actually blue because there is a blanket blue tint. Blanket tint is used to describe more than just one thing to do with color and you can have changing blanket tints in one movie. kk650 has removed blanket teal tints from movies only to find out that theres blanket yellow tints in the same movie so to say Midnight Cowboy has no blanket tints is not true and nobody should be making blanket statements about people who know what a blanket tint is.

[Gacivory]

it was called dying more than tinting. You could time film to get specific colors and tone down specific colors.

http://www.brianpritchard.com/Tintin...ing%201918.pdf

[CineSicko]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

it was called dying more than tinting. You could time film to get specific colors and tone down specific colors.

http://www.brianpritchard.com/Tintin...ing%201918.pdf

Thanks for that, it was an interesting read. Now... Are you saying that MIDNIGHT COWBOY was dyed with teal for the 1969 theatrical run, or are you merely suggesting that it's a possibility?

Cool avatar, by the way. Always loved that picture. The man was a great artist. "An invitation--"

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by CineSicko

Thanks for that, it was an interesting read. Now... Are you saying that MIDNIGHT COWBOY was dyed with teal for the 1969 theatrical run, or are you merely suggesting that it's a possibility?

Cool avatar, by the way. Always loved that picture. The man was a great artist. "An invitation--"

I’m saying it’s a chance. I’ve not followed the look of Midnight Cowboy and proclaim no definitive knowledge. I was more responding to the person saying that no dying ever happened on films finished photochemically.

Thanks! Love Cassavetes! One of my favorites!

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I’m saying it’s a chance. I’ve not followed the look of Midnight Cowboy and proclaim no definitive knowledge. I was more responding to the person saying that no dying ever happened on films finished photochemically.

Which is hilarious and shows just how much misinformation is passed around as fact on here.