We finished watching Midnight Cowboy a few days ago, and I purposely put off writing this post for a simple reason that I am not really ashamed to admit. I just didn't find too much to talk about in Midnight Cowboy. I feel like most of the topics have already been discussed, and frankly, I didn't care for the movie that much to delve deeper into it. That being said, I have some theories that I believe led to my dislike of this film.
1) Joe Buck- Although Jon Voigt's performance of the naive cowboy was pretty good and he really became the character, I just didn't much care for the character. I never felt any sort of sympathy to him and I was indifferent to how his story ended.
2) Amateur editing- Midnight Cowboy relied heavily on flashbacks and short fantasy sequences and images being flashed on screen for a second and all that junk. Executed properly, these things can be hardly noticeable and allow the movie to flow much easier. I just didn't think John Schlesinger did a very good job keeping these tricks smooth. It could have been that he was purposely making these things unsettling to watch because the point of the movie was to make you very uncomfortable. That could be a possibility based on all of the strange things we saw (that woman with the rat toy, the man lying face down on the sidewalk for an unexplained reason, the freak party). Whether he did it on purpose or not, I just didn't find it entertaining. It also gave me a lot of trouble remembering what had happened in the movie in between days. I'd come into class the next day and couldn't recall what actual events took place in the film, but instead just remembered the various flashbacks and images. This brings me to my final theory.
3) Start, stop, start again- My main concern when starting this film class was that I wouldn't be able to enjoy a movie watching it over several days instead of one sitting. With our first two films, I did not notice this starting and stopping, and your guess is as good as mine when it comes to why. But for Midnight Cowboy, this stop and go method really took me out of the film, and I just could not get back into it. Something tells me that if I were to watch this film by myself, in it's entirety, in one sitting, I will probably like it a lot more. For now though, I am sadly unimpressed and can't see how this film won Best Picture in 1969. It's a shame too, because I have always wanted to see this film.
I'm sure next time I watch it, I will like it more.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, you just don't like a film and that's that. You're right about the fact that films are meaant to be seen all at once, not over 5 days, but that's the system we have right here. I could just show films without comment over, say, two days, and then spend more time talking later, but I like to interact with the class, and so that aint' gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteTHe reason he shows a guy laying seemingly dead on teh sidewalk seems pretty easy to figure out. I'm surprised you can't put your finger on that one.
Schlesinger said recently that he thought the party scene was too long, and detracted from the film. I disagree. It really is a reflection of that crazy LSD world of 1969. In some ways, we want flms to be "dated" to be a reflection of a time. AFter all, they are historical documents as well as artistic ones. Several students mentioned to me that they loved the image of NYC at that time. And I agree. The gritty, dirty 1970's is a time in NYC that fits in very well with film-noir, and this is, to some extent, an example of that genre.
Do you happen to have the address of Lindsay's blog? Send that to me if you can.
I also agreed about the grittiness of NYC, I guess it just didn't make an impact on me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't mean to critisize your teaching methods, I understand that the period is only 41 minutes and that you want to talk to us. I enjoy that part, and was not complaining.
I sent you an email about Lindsay's blog. I don't have the address either.
As far as the guy lying on the sidewalk goes, it must one of those cases where it is so obvious that I've rejected it in favor of something more complex. Is it just supposed to represent how the city can in a way bring people to their knees, and in some cases totally prostrate? Essentially how it can corrupt someone into humility?
I think it's just a vehicle to show how out of place Joe is. He passes the "dead" guy during a series of shots that reveal him to be very small in a large, impersonal city. One imagines that back in small town Texas one would stop and help a guy lying in the street, but in NYC, people just step around him, or worse, don't even notice him. The theme of alienation is furthered by this shot, the idea that even in huge crowds of people, where everyone is walking together, most of us are really alone. Your analysis is fine, and can be added to what I've written above, and I'm sure there are other things we can say too. I only said that you would know the answer because it was you (I think) who posted a comment explaining the mouse scene on another blog. Perhaps I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks for lending me In Bruges. I liked it a lot. I liked your review also. You made several excellent observations about how Bruges appears to take on the characteristics of a Purgatory... or is it hell? I wonder if one watched the film a few more times, and read Dante and perhaps Milton, one wouldn't see more specific allegorical relationships between the elements of the film and, say, the seven (or is it nine) circles of hell.
but, like I said in class, I'm pretty lousy at film analysis, and the first time through I just try to follow the plot. For example, my wife had to tell me that the guy who had a heart attack on the stairs was most likely the fat American that they had warned not to climb the stairs the day before. And I'm not certain if the girl wasn't in on the initial robbery, wheree the punk is blinded.
I enjoyed Rafe Fine's performance, as well. Sort of different, no? Really played up the blue color English. Looked diff. too. Did he have some kind of false teeth or something? No matter. Good performances. I wonder about Collin Farrel? He's a very annoying character and always plays annoying characters. So, I wonder if this part was just meant for him. Keep this in mind when we watch our next film. Eric Roberts is similarly annoying.
The painting of the guy being flayed is actually in Bruges, but they managed to omit my favorite, the Canon Van der Peale. A serious flaw in an otherwise superior film. Thanks for the recommendation. We enjoyed it a lot.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
ReplyDeleteI thought Rafe did a fantastic job and after multiple viewings, it is his performance that I've found I enjoy most. I've never liked Colin Farrell, but this movie showed me he actually has talent.
In the robbery scene, the girl mentions that she and her ex do rip off tourists, but she had told him not to come over that night. Remember after Farrell karate chops the woman in the restaurant, and afterwards when they are outside she says she needs to make a call? I think that is when she calls him and tells him not to come.
And although I am an American, I loved the knocks on American culture in this film. I thought it was hilarious that the fat Americans in the beginning got so mad at Farrell for saying they shouldn't go up there, and then it turns out one has a heart attack going up. Haha. My favorite line in the film was by Fiennes, after Yuri shows him the UZ with the selection of guns: "I'm not from South Central Los f****** Angeles. I didn't come here to shoot 20 black 10 year old's in a drive by, I want a normal gun for a normal person". In that, he is saying how Americans can't even shoot each other with civility. Hilarious.
Anyway, I am very happy you enjoyed the film.
And I think there are nine circles of hell.