Homosexuality is not disturbing, but that 2 men cannot be close without it being interpreted as homosexuality, is. Why,
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Midnight Cowboy
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(December 25, 2014 10:57 PM)
Homosexuality is not disturbing, but that 2 men cannot be close without it being interpreted as homosexuality, is. Why, because Ratso must have had ulterior motives for inviting Buck to stay with him, because he took off his boots?
People look at it from today's reality where there is so much analysis and cynicism, and everything being sexual. yeah, we have really progressed. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 25, 2014 11:38 PM)
Even if Joe Buck himself, had homosexual tendencies, it doesn't mean that he is going to be physically attracted to Ratso. I can understand Ratso being attracted to Joe, if he did have homosexual tendencies; but like you have mentioned, there is no need to have this juvenile perception. It was a buddy relationship and buddies still look out for each other. Love\caring, in it's purest form.
-
Tidewatcher — 11 years ago(December 26, 2014 12:41 PM)
It is a completely stupid assumption that a lot of idiots in this day and age have that Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo had any homosexual feelings for each other at all, they do not, Joe is forced by need to resort to homosexual Male Prostitution activities in order to get money to feed himself and take care of himself but he looks and acts repulsed by this, its not his chosen sexual orientation at all.
Ratso does not act gay at all either, he is crippled and weak and pathetic but not a homosexual, he respects and admires Joe Buck for being strong and masculine and everything that Ratso is not himself, handsome and a macho alpha male type, i think that Ratso felt sorry for Joe Buck after they met again the second time, he saw that Joe was broke and homeless and out of money with no place to live or go to so he offers to bring him back to his place and off they go, then Joe's companionship and friendship makes Ratso happy and vice versa.
They were both lonely losers and found kindred spirits in each other, Ratso never acts gay at all and Joe only acts gay for pay because he has to survive, he is willing to make a buck or two by having sex with men but he does not prefer that, Ratso even mocks him for going to 42ND Street and having gay sex or sex for money with men and women at one point, Joe mocks him back for being a thief, its all banter and friendly arguing, Joe needs to be a Hustler to survive in New York City and Ratso needs to be a shoplifter and a pickpocketing thief in order to survive, its what they are both good at doing, neither one respects the others profession or what they do.
I dont see any homosexuality in the friendship at all, Ratso mocks gays and mocks Hansel, he also asks Joe about how Shirley was in bed which a homosexual wouldnt care to ask a straight guy about, so they are both straight men that are friends and living closely together, some people might assume that two college age guys that live together are homosexuals even when they are totally 100 percent hetrosexual and living together out of poverty to split bills and have a cheaper cost of living, a common thing for a lot of younger men and women today and in the 1960s too, but you will always have the homophobic idiots that call two people of the same sex that live together homosexuals even when they both date members of the opposite sex exclusively and have no homosexual thoughts or desires at all, Joe and Ratso live together for the same reasons, poverty and because they need each other to survive.
Ratso would have died long before the trip to Miami Florida if Joe Buck had not been living with him, Joe really helped him out when he was sick and made money that helped them both live better, without Ratso poor Joe Buck probably would have either nearly starved to death or ended up living in Harlem and being Pimped out by Black Pimps that were used to dealing with only women, not sure if he would last long working for them because they would have little use for a Cowboy that wants to have sex with rich women.
Clients that would be hard for African/American Pimps to find for a straight male dressed up like a Cowboy and they would not like Joe because he was nothing like the street women that they were accustomed to pimping, so Joe would either starve or end up being Pimped by ruthless Pimps that would harm or kill him when he failed to make money, or end up being a dishwasher in New York by day and a Hustler by night which wouldnt make him happy, Ratso is basically Joe Buck's Pimp/Manager and helps him out in the end like he agreed to do, street Pimps would kill or abuse Joe and he would refuse to leave them out of fear of being homeless again. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 07:09 AM)
Joe is forced by need to resort to homosexual Male Prostitution activities in order to get money to feed himself and take care of himself but he looks and acts repulsed by this, its not his chosen sexual orientation at all.
Joe Buck was a bit dense; but he DID NOT have to resort to male prostitution when there were other options available to him.like dishwashing. If he had NO 'homosexual' feelings and was 'repulsed' by the act, he wouldn't have done it.
I find it a little vague, what the intention of the writer and director was here. It was like they were saying that Joe Buck had stooped so low and there was no other way out for him, that he had to resort to 'degrading' himself as a male prostitute. If this was the point\message here, then it was sensationalizing 'homosexuality' and using it as a springboard to shock the audience. I am not sure how to take this, as director John Schlesinger himself was gay. If one is gay, would it be fair comment to say that this could be perceived as 'homophobic' and pandering to a homophobic element in the audience?
Ratso never acts gay at all and Joe only acts gay for pay because he has to survive, he is willing to make a buck or two by having sex with men but he does not prefer that.
I agree somewhat, with what you are saying about Ratso and why Joe resorted to doing what he did; but I don't believe that one has to 'act' gay, to only be perceived as having 'homosexual' tendencies. This is a naive perception of many and Joe Buck could very well have been 'bisexual'. Why else would he 'degrade' himself, if the intention of the film-makers, WASN'T to 'malign' homosexual behavior?
-
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 07:20 AM)
Homosexuality is not disturbing.
The manner in which it is presented though, could be considered 'disturbing', As much as I like this film, this is a major flaw with it; even if it was presented in context and as tastefully as possible.
-
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 10:20 AM)
I agree with 1/2 way in it's depiction:
That if he was repulsed, he would not had done it regardless of how desperate he was.
But whether it maligns homosexuality, I don't know since women don't cruise 42nd theaters for quick sex/money exchange (I suppose theater sex-for-money scene could had been cut, but then it would weaken the grit) -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 04:23 PM)
But whether it maligns homosexuality, I don't know since women don't cruise 42nd theaters for quick sex/money exchange
No, they just hook on Hollywood boulevard instead, or where ever it is easy to pick up trade. It is no differentmale\female. Women prostituting themselves for money, can still be frowned upon; but to my mind, it doesn't appear to have the same stigma or debasement attached to it as male hustling, or it's just more accepted by the sheep.
Are all the other male hustlers cruising 42nd street, just as desperate like Joe Buck and had no other option, or were they doing it because they want too and like doing it? I don't mind the scene in MC, just not the message it appears to give out. -
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 09:52 PM)
'No, they just hook on Hollywood boulevard instead, or where ever it is easy to pick up trade. It is no differentmale\female.'
Actually, I meant the reverse. You don't have female-johns cruising the blvd to pay for sex. If so, our Joe Buck would had solicited one of them instead. -
Tidewatcher — 11 years ago(December 28, 2014 08:16 AM)
I imagine that it would be a mixture of both, some are homosexuals and straight guys looking for cheap sex for money like Joe Buck was because they are horny and enjoy it but most are probably unemployed and out of work or even homeless and just having sex for money because its all that they know how to do for a living, like with Julian Kay in American Gigalo because that was all he was good at and knew how to do.
-
I_Love_Hutch — 11 years ago(December 29, 2014 07:04 PM)
but that 2 men cannot be close without that being a thought.
Yes, this always pissed me off. I have no problem if they were gay men, but I just don't think they are. People are soooo uptight sometimes.
As far as Joe Buck, I think he was just very narcissistic. (Though a sweet, warm, tender hearted narcissist!) He was a good-looking man and he enjoyed the attention he got and sex came easily to him. He seemed slightly bothered by the gay aspect of some of his encounters, but not all THAT much.
The book goes much more into detail about his childhood. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 30, 2014 12:19 AM)
He seemed slightly bothered by the gay aspect of some of his encounters, but not all THAT much.
I have the book at home; but haven't read yet. In the film's flashback scenes, it is alluded that he is raped as well as his girlfriend. If this was the case, you would think that this would have turned him off male prostitution all together, when he could have sought out other options that did present themselves to him, like dishwashing. I really don't think Joe had much of an issue with hustling himself. If he was bothered by this, it could also be perceived as plain and simple nervousness.
-
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(February 16, 2015 08:17 PM)
Yes.
What do you make of the comments by posters who speak of their friendship as being homoerotic (or whatever) In other words, do people think the only reason why a man would befriend another man and allow him to share his home must have an attraction towards him? You don't see this when it applies to 2 women -
spookyrat1 — 11 years ago(March 09, 2015 04:07 AM)
What do you make of the comments by posters who speak of their friendship as being homoerotic
I'd say they're seeing things in the movie and their relationship that just aren't there onscreen or inferred in the story.
Joe Buck participated in homosexual behavior, but he was not a gay. He was a straight guy turning tricks to survive, because of his lifestyle choice of avoiding manual work. This behaviour however does not make him gay.
As far as Ratso is concerned, we don't see him involved in any physical relationship, perhaps indicative of his own debilitating health problems.
Joe and Ratso's relationship is formed on the basis of two damaged individuals drawn together from the need for companionship and the practical requirement to assist one another through each other's personal strengths. Can't imagine why people would think their developing friendship, as we see it in the film, is "homoerotic". -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 05:00 AM)
Hoffman states in the 2000 Vanity Fair recollection of the film, Midnight Revolution, that both he and Voight realised and were operating on the assumption that these characters were "queer." However, Schlesinger and the other creatives were adamant that this could not be explicit, only subtly suggested, because of financing concerns and fear of alienating their already small, potential audience; these creative obstacles clearly influence the tender tone of the relationship. Though it isn't seen in the film, Hoffman saw them as sharing the same bed.
I haven't read the book yet but from viewing the film, it seems clear these men are experiencing a romantic love both in their present and in Enrico's Florida fantasy sequence. Enrico, especially, is in love with Joe Buck and aware of it while Joe Buck, through his flash-present episodes has very confused boundaries from the standpoint of his sexuality: he was clearly exposed to his grandmother's sexual shenanigans and with the imagery of the enema bag likely sexually abused; looks to have been born and partly raised in a brothel of sorts; is terrorised by the locals for over-stepping presumed moral boundaries in his sexual relations with Annie for which he either fantasises or is literally raped in vengeance for both his actions and likely his overall sexual appeal. The entire premise of the film/story is his sole perception of himself as only having value as an object of sexual desire based on his life experience in small town Texas. But in the big city, he doesn't; the cowboy garb is a costume, something he finally discards once he starts to feel some security in his future with Enrico near the film's end and starts to consider a better way of life. In New York, he appears to make all of maybe $65 legitimately as a hustler, only $20 of which he actually collects, and is usually hustled by better hustlers than he is until out of desperation and love for Enrico he resorts to violence. So no, in opposition to what one poster claims above, sex does not come easily to him. It is fraught with problems. Even with Shirley, it is not straight forward and becomes confrontational and combative and, in recounting it to Enrico, not enjoyable. Joe Buck is a big ball of confusion, nave and unaware of his place in the world, who comes to truly recognise his love for Enrico when it becomes clear he is losing him.
So given the sexual and emotional terrorism that Joe Buck has experienced throughout his life and in the present, coupled with Enrico's poor health and their shared existence of struggling for the most basic needs, it is unlikely that an active, healthy sex life with each other is high on their list of daily, immediate concerns. But their relationship is most certainly intimate and Rico's Florida fantasy is definitely fueled by his erotic feelings for Joe Buck, whom he fantasises in blond, strapping form clad in a white speedo. The fantasy is of them as a couple, at the centre of attention, of the life they would share. And there is that unmistakeable moment before they enter the party when Rico is sitting on the stairs, sweating profusely and Joe Buck pulls up his shirt tails to wipe Rico's browand Rico rests his head on Joe Buck's bare torso, closes his eyes and clearly inhales his scentit's such a tender moment encapsulating both fear and desire, longing. In the film's final scenes, Joe Buck cares for his dying lover, the only love he's known in the world; he nearly kills a man to get the money needed to save his lover and take him to a better climate where they can be together; he cares for him on the bus, even comforting him when he soils himself and changes his clothes with nothing but compassion and love, as many more would do after him in the age of AIDS; and he holds him in death, determined to see his lover through this passage and afraid to let go.
It is a romantic love relationship. And if the times had been different and Schlesinger had been a little more comfortable with his own sexuality (though he was as comfortable as the times would allow), he might've depicted their tender intimacy a little more fully. But it's there. Joe Buck was likely not fully aware of it until after it was gone but Enrico certainly was and nurtured it. It was their love relationship that the filmmakers feared the most and felt must never be depicted too directly or overtly, otherwise it would push any potential audience away. That they managed to engage audiences with this love story is a testament to their artistry. But these guys are on the margins for a reason, they marginalised themselves because they felt no place in society. They weren't drug users. They both had appealing qualities by which they could've gained entree into the mainstream. But they knew better. They were outsiders for a reason and on the outside they found each other and they found love.
Link to Vanity Fair, Midnight Revolution:
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/04/midnight-revolution-200503 -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 07:55 PM)
are you writing your own screenplay? I witnessed no intimacy on a romantic level between the two. Do people want there to be? What concrete example is there to indicate latent homosexuality between Buck and Ratzo? Because 2 men gave each other the time of day? It has to be more than sharing the same bed, though I don't recall them doing that. I don't care if both were flaming homosexuals, but the film did not imply repressed homosexuality.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 08:04 PM)
that both he and Voight realised and were operating on the assumption that these characters were "queer." However, Schlesinger and the other creatives were adamant that this could not be explicit, only subtly suggested
Even if they were 'queer', it doesn't mean they were 'queer' for each other. A 'straight' person, is not going to feel amorous, over every other straight guy or gal they meet. Ratso, was disgusting to look at too and while that might sound harsh, why would someone who looked like Joe, want to screw him? They were platonic friends. Joe was more than likely 'bisexual' anyway, so that doesn't make him a 'gay' person. The 'queer' word, is just a derogatory term, for male same sex activity. It is not a complete, and 'genuine' sexuality.