The writer, James Leo Herlihy, and the director, John Schlesinger, were both gay. Not supposedly gay. They were properly
-
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)
-
Paranoid-Roegian — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 07:26 PM)
Yeah, definitely a different narrative - since it was more frowned upon at that time to show a positive view on homosexuality. It was much easier to still act upon a more hateful place. In order to do it positively, it had to be approached on a more subtextual basis.
2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500 -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(April 21, 2016 04:41 PM)
It was much easier to still act upon a more hateful place. In order to do it positively, it had to be approached on a more subtextual basis.
It can still be a hateful place, and many who claim to be accepting or tolerant of it, are just being condescending about "homosexuality". It's ok, if it's not directly affecting them, or their children aren't acting on any homosexual desires.
The term f@g, is used to describe ANY homosexual relationship, whether or not the persons who are engaging in it are "bisexual" or "gay". To most, gay is just "gay" and that is having sex with the same gender due to it being seen as abnormal and not natural. Nothing much has changed and the term f@ggot still gets thrown around just as much now, as it did then. It is and has always had the same subtext.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
cecilyeb — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 11:05 PM)
Subtext is a real life literary device that exists. Their relationship is probably frequently interpreted as romantic because guess what, that's how everyone making the movie interpreted it!
Here is an article featuring an interview with Dustin Hoffman where he says so: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/04/midnight-revolution-200503
(find in page>queer because the article is pretty long)
I agree with you, clearly we have not progressed if we still find it this damn hard to accept. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 11:17 PM)
'I agree with you, clearly we have not progressed if we still find it this damn hard to accept.'
Accept what, you and LA Hoffman's view. I don't care about the pretentious hired-help named Hoffman. We certainly HAVE "progressed" if so-called subtext must be a mandatory need, which is not always a good thing. And do not think for one second that it's due to homophobia.
We haven't a clue on whether Mr Buck is sexually interested in greasy, homeless, unattractive Ratso. Maybe Joe Buck is grooving on the other cowboys in town. SHOW the subtext on the frames of the 35mm film, and I will eat it up. The novel is not the book, whether it's based on the novel or not. That goes for any film. I want to see the subtext frame by frame. -
TheBoz — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 08:28 PM)
Its what the social engineers want you to believe. In the Army you sleep eat and shower with the same guys day in and day out for 3 years. Thats your family, your Brothers and nowadays Sisters in arms as well until, your discharged and then some remain good friends till the grave.
Platonic love is the purest. Only Homosexuals turn it into something they can relate too, since if they dont get it or give it in the azz then they are unhappy campers. So they must inveigh that everyone like Joe and Rico MUST MUST be Gay. The Gay community problem is that they think there community is larger then it really is. AIDS has done most of em in and the rest are in the closet. The rest of us still can love our fellow man without jacking off to erotic thought about them. Thats why Gays have so many more hookups then straigths do with women and thats why they are a mental disorder regardless of the Black OP to declassify it as such. They can never love based on pure humanity. Thats why they are such tortured souls. They think not, but Ive talked to, even roomed with Gay people and they are more beep up in the head then most homeless people walking the street. They are to be pitied, but no coddled like babby ducks. -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 05:21 AM)
The Gay community problemAIDS has done most of em in and the rest are in the closetThey can never love based on pure humanity. Thats why they are such tortured soulsthey are more beep up in the head then most homeless people walking the street. They are to be pitied, but no coddled like babby ducks.
I shouldn't really be laughing, because the scary thing is, you really believe in the sh!t you are espousing. You are more f<>cked up in the head than most homeless people walking the street, and I would say pretty much everyone else who is walking the street. Yes, you are to be pitied; but not to be coddled like a babby duck, due to your astounding bigotry and ignorance. You certainly don't come across as someone who is capable of loving humanity.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: