Midnight Cowboy (1969)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

For those of you wondering why it took so long to be released again, consider this for a moment: how many best of lists does it make nowadays? You'll find your answer there.

In short, Midnight Cowboys' status has declined whereas other Criterion titles released in May have increased. e.g Au Hasard Balthazar and Mishima.

It is suffering the same fate as Easy Rider. Known more for its historical importance.

Or, more plausibly, negotiating a licencing agreement with the studio then completing a 4K remaster of the film, along with preparing all of the supplemental material, takes more time than people realize.

[koberulz]

I've heard of Midnight Cowboy. I've never heard of Au Hasard Balthazar or Mishima, so clearly MC deserved a much quicker release and the others didn't deserve one at all.

See, I can be bad at logic too.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I've heard of Midnight Cowboy. I've never heard of Au Hasard Balthazar or Mishima, so clearly MC deserved a much quicker release and the others didn't deserve one at all.

See, I can be bad at logic too.

I was waiting for somebody to say this. So you've heard of it. Big deal. Maybe you haven't heard of the others because you are just ignorant? Two can play at that game.

[koberulz]

Or maybe I was pointing out your shitty logic. RCRochester's reasoning makes much more sense.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

For those of you wondering why it took so long to be released again, consider this for a moment: how many best of lists does it make nowadays? You'll find your answer there.

In short, Midnight Cowboys' status has declined whereas other Criterion titles released in May have increased. e.g Au Hasard Balthazar and Mishima.

It is suffering the same fate as Easy Rider. Known more for its historical importance.

But ultimately Easy Rider, whilst being important in the way you describe, is pretty poor film by any realistic and objective standards, whilst Midnight Cowboy is still quite excellent.

[MifuneFan]

The only reason we're seeing this from Criterion is because of the new 4K remaster. MGM is doing tons of 4K restorations/remasters right now, which is why boutiques are raiding them for their movies.

The Apartment (Arrow)
Princess Bride (Criterion)
Silence of the Lambs (Criterion)
Magnificent Seven (unknown, probably Criterion)
Midnight Cowboy (Criterion)
Bull Durham (Criterion)
Annie Hall (unknown)
etc...

All being licensed from boutique labels because MGM have done new scans/restorations. I don't think this movie was truly on Criterion's radar years back, and anyone thinking the "ill, sore possum" was a clue for it has to be kidding themselves.

[Rory]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Saw the movie not long after it was released and can honestly say that it was one of the most impactful film experiences I've ever had.

To anyone that's a fan of the movie but has never read the book it's based on, I highly recommend reading the book. It's a much more impactfully emotional experience and its conclusion is, unlike the sadness of the film's ending, quite harrowing and haunting.

I'm glad I've never bought this on Blu-ray as this Criterion release looks to be definitive on this format.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Rory

To anyone that's a fan of the movie but has never read the book it's based on, I highly recommend reading the book. It's a much more impactfully emotional experience and its conclusion is, unlike the sadness of the film's ending, quite harrowing and haunting.

I'm glad I've never bought this on Blu-ray as this Criterion release looks to be definitive on this format.

I remember reading the novel more than 20 years ago when was in my twenties and I recall it delved more in depth in Joe Buck's past. I'll have to read it again because I don't remember all that much about it, other than my superficial feeling that the movie was better. But I'm sure I'd have a more sophisticated response to the book now.

[mande2013]

...

[Rory]

Originally Posted by English Patient

I remember reading the novel more than 20 years ago when was in my twenties and I recall it delved more in depth in Joe Buck's past. I'll have to read it again because I don't remember all that much about it, other than my superficial feeling that the movie was better. But I'm sure I'd have a more sophisticated response to the book now.

I read it when I was in my late thirties. The book allows you to understand the two main characters better than the film, which still couldn't be totally explicit at that time. I wonder how many casual viewers of the film realize that the story is about two highly dysfunctional gay men and their inability to fit into society?

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by mande2013

Except that Au Hasard Balthazar appears prominently on just about every 100 GOAT list you could muster whereas Midnight Cowboy does not, so your insinuation that AHB is by comparison some 'obscure historical curiosity' is more or less moot.

It's not on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100, nor is it on IMDB's. It obviously didn't make the AFI's list either.

A world where Au Hasard Balthazar is a well-known and highly acclaimed picture might be the one you live in, but it's not the one 99.9% of the world lives in - and the majority of those probably aren't in America.

"MC is more deserving of a release because it's more well-known" is just as good an argument as "MC didn't deserve a release because it's not as good as AHB." Discs do need to sell.

And it wasn't supposed to be a good argument, because I don't think malakaheso's argument was good either. Which was my entire point.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

The Midnight Cowboy novel (James Leo Herlihy, 1965) is great, and is actually a lot more disturbing than the film - and that's saying a lot. I first read this in my early 20's (early '90's), and it does delve a lot more into Joe Buck's sad upbringing (his mother was a prostitute, and he was raised by his grandmother - who later passed away) - some of these sequences are shown in flashbacks in the film. However, if you read the book and then watch the movie, the flash-backs will make a lot more sense. I.e., in the film - while on the bus to NYC - Joe asks an old-timer if he knows someone named "Woodsy Niles" - and the old timer says no. As it turns out, Woodsy Niles was the boyfriend of Joe Buck's grandmother - who spent time with Joe when he was younger (this was also seen in flash-backs in the film). However, if you hadn't read the book, you wouldn't know this background.

I also remember the book had more background on Ratso Rizzo's past & how he ended up in his sad situation.

One thing that I also clearly remember from the novel is that the author/narrator states that Joe & Ratso - despite living in extreme poverty - never even consider getting "straight" work, i.e. honest employment. They're always looking to rip someone off, hustle them, etc. I can see why Ratso may have a problem getting & keeping a job because of his limp/bad leg, but Joe was fully capable of working. And, the novel clearly stated that the thought of getting a straight job just never crossed their minds. Obviously, they were so caught up in the "hustling" lifestyle (Joe prostituting himself with varying degrees of success, and Ratso scamming/robbing people) that they never looked beyond this - which says a lot about the state of mind of these two characters. This is also evident in the film, but isn't as explicitly voiced as in the book.

I'm a huge fan of novels & literature in general. However, in comparing the novel to the film - I would still have to say the film is slightly better because:

- It's a visual time-capsule of NYC in the late 1960's. The mentally ill/strange woman (with the kid) playing with the plastic rat/mouse in the coffee shop; the Andy Warhol-ish counter culture party with all of the bizarre imagery, etc. are all extremely memorable.

- It has an amazing soundtrack.

- It closely follows the book in many cases; so, it's extremely faithful to the source material.

That all being said, the ending of the novel is extremely harrowing & disturbing. While the film ends with Ratso dying & is quite sad, it seems that Joe will still be going on to Florida & will eventually be moving on. However, in the novel it's clear that Ratso's death REALLY bothers Joe, to the extent that you don't know if he will be able to move past this. So, from the stand-point of the ending, the novel is more effective.

Again, however, I still prefer the film.

[English Patient]

I think the film is great at doing the things that novels too often struggle in achieving - very quickly establishing a memorable atmosphere, just using haunting images and moments. In Midnight Cowboy, Schlesinger does a great job of showing unforgettably bleak moments, with Joe Buck standing on street corners, looking at all the grimy people passing by, looking at all the harsh neon lights and the run-down buildings. Also, that brief scene of the odd woman in the cafeteria with the plastic rat - it's just so bleak and uncomfortable and inexplicable and weirdly depressing. It's like Joe has entered a bizarre Twilight Zone-like world that he'll never understand. The atmosphere in the movie is so haunting and uncomfortable.

[JohnCarpenterLives]

Originally Posted by koberulz

It's not on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100, nor is it on IMDB's. It obviously didn't make the AFI's list either.

Black Panther is #3 on Rotten Tomatoes. The world can burn.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by English Patient

I think the film is great at doing the things that novels too often struggle in achieving - very quickly establishing a memorable atmosphere, just using haunting images and moments. In Midnight Cowboy, Schlesinger does a great job of showing unforgettably bleak moments, with Joe Buck standing on street corners, looking at all the grimy people passing by, looking at all the harsh neon lights and the run-down buildings. Also, that brief scene of the odd woman in the cafeteria with the plastic rat - it's just so bleak and uncomfortable and inexplicable and weirdly depressing. It's like Joe has entered a bizarre Twilight Zone-like world that he'll never understand. The atmosphere in the movie is so haunting and uncomfortable.

Exactly. What the movie does extremely well is depicting Joe way out of his comfort zone when he moves from TX (I think the restaurant where he quits his job is supposed to be Houston, or at least it was in the novel) to big, bad NYC - with all of it's quirkiness & strange characters. The scene with the nutty woman in the coffee shop is somewhat nightmarish - which is obviously intentional on the part of the film-maker.

There's another scene early on in the film right after Joe gets to NYC & he's walking around, grinning at everyone - and they just ignore him. The camera then pans back to show the huge crowd around him, and he's barely noticeable among the sea of people. It just shows how easy it is for someone to get lost in the shuffle in a huge city like that - which is essentially what happens to him in an extremely short period of time. In fact, the Joe Buck character is representative of the types of people who go to the big city with a lot of hopes & dreams, and get disillusioned fairly quickly when they realize that a fast buck is not going to be made, and that life is difficult - in many cases even more difficult than it was wherever they came from.

[Trace Buster Buster]

Am I the only one who doesn't enjoy the party scene? This is one of my favorite movies of all time but that long drawn out scene drags the movie down in my opinion.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by Trace Buster Buster

Am I the only one who doesn't enjoy the party scene? This is one of my favorite movies of all time but that long drawn out scene drags the movie down in my opinion.

It's probably the most 'dated' part of the movie, maybe that's why it seems a bit tedious. It's like Schlesinger is pulling out all the stops to immerse the viewer in the modern hipness of the scene - the drugs, the psychedelic lighting, the weird dancing. But all of us have seen people smoking joints, seen clubs/parties with wild lighting, etc, so long lingering shots of those things aren't that compelling or interesting anymore. Plus, Joe and Ratso are mostly passive and inactive during the scene, just standing around looking at things, so the story isn't really moving forward in that scene (until the end, when Joe meets Brenda Vaccaro).

Still, the scene does have a great bit of dialogue when the party host tells Ratso the food is free so he doesn't have to steal it. "Well, if it's free, then I ain't stealing it," he says very logically.

[klingsor]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But ultimately Easy Rider, whilst being important in the way you describe, is pretty poor film by any realistic and objective standards, whilst Midnight Cowboy is still quite excellent.

I agree completely. Midnight Cowboy holds up more than well today. It's practically my favorite movie. I've owned it twice on DVD. Probably won't resist the new blu-ray.

[English Patient]

Regarding the cover of the upcoming Criterion blu-ray - I don't hate it or love it. It's ok, but I wonder why on certain releases Criterion will use the familiar poster art (Breakfast Club) but for others they come up with something totally different. I would have preferred the original Midnight Cowboy poster art - it's kind of an iconic image.

[English Patient]

I hope the Criterion edition gets more people to check out this movie - I get the feeling that this is one of those films that's kind of fallen through the cracks over the years and isn't as well-respected anymore.