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.
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.
sharePeople are looking at from today's sensibilities. I can see how a man today would suspect something if another man held him or cared.
--vise-versa with a man approaching a woman
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.
That was a thoughtful reply,Tidewatcher
share...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?
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.
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)
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 different—male\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.
'No, they just hook on Hollywood boulevard instead, or where ever it is easy to pick up trade. It is no different—male\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.
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.
sharebut 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.
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.
OP projecting his own personal inclinations...
share[deleted]
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
What do you make of the comments by posters who speak of their friendship as being homoerotic ...
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, naïve 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 brow...and Rico rests his head on Joe Buck's bare torso, closes his eyes and clearly inhales his scent...it'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
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.
share...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.
I did read the book, and it is excellent. (Actually, the movie is one of the rare cases where it equals the original novel) The cover of the book describes Joe as having come from an awkward, friendless childhood who only receives a sort of vague, sexually colored attention from his grandmother. He comes to the big city with naïve, completely unrealistic expectations and quickly finds himself in dire circumstances. Through fate, he and Rico become somewhat unlikely friends. But it is also the first genuine friendship Joe has ever known. It is also a testament to the true goodness of Joe's soul. After Rico passes away (this is directly from the book), Joe now knows what true loss feel like and for the first time in his life, he feels the true, profound fear of loneliness. It is a bone chilling, haunting truism.
I don't think that their relationship is homosexual in nature. I do think that they are both lost souls, and their mutual need for human contact and affection runs so deeply that when they do find each other, any other considerations, e.g., social norms and appearances, count for absolutely nothing. They are both so utterly lonely and alone in the world that to quibble about how their friendship might appear to the outside world would be to deny their deep, human need for connection. The kinship between Joe and Rico is stronger and more authentic than most.
To put it another way, their relationship is not gay, but it's also not not gay. It transcends the notion.
^^This.
It should be noted that the author, James Leo Herlihy, was gay and described on his Wikipedia page as "a friend of Tennessee Williams."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Leo_Herlihy
I still like the above description of "not not gay" and the idea that their love for each other transcended such notions. They were everything to each other.
Hey bliss66 -- I am pleased that you liked the "not not gay" notion.
But you and a few others have got me thinking about the two men, Joe in particular. I love this movie, it's definitely in my top ten favorite movies. And I love the book as well. I am a 45 year old gay man and have been "out" to others since I was 19, and out to myself since well before that. So there is no reason why I would ever have any problem with gay characters in a movie. But this is literally the first time that I ever even considered that maybe Joe Buck was, in fact, homosexual. Up to now, I just thought that Joe's ego was so underdeveloped and, because of his backwards upbringing, his needs were so profound that he would be open to sexual/romantic/friendly attention from members of either gender.
I guess it ultimately doesn't matter to me (actually I kind of would like Joe to be gay, in a way, because he is so damned cute and sweet and I would love to take care of him!), but do you, as an informed and interested observer/fan, truly believe that Joe Buck was a gay man?
I am genuinely curious.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Honestly? I think that if there were a sequel to Midnight Cowboy, Joe Buck would probably be with another man.
They were platonic friends. Joe was more than likely 'bisexual' anyway, so that doesn't make him a 'gay' person.
As to Joe's sexuality, my take is that he was essentially a heterosexual man who reluctantly engaged in homosexual acts for money.
________
Yes, essentially and Joe appeared very confident at the start, as to what he wanted and what his aim was in NY. However, hustling one a$$ for money, in front of a cinema, where there were other options available to Joe—the film alluded to this, when he could have worked in a diner—is also revealing.
"Situational" homosexuality (e.g. homosex in prison, straight men prostituting themselves) doesn't make a straight person bisexual any more than incidental heterosexual acts make essentially homosexual people bisexual.
_________
I don't really get this 'situational' sex thing. There will be many males in situations where they are surrounded by 'only' men and wouldn't care to engage in sexual activity with them, because they are genuine 'straight'. I can only speak for myself here; but as a 100% 'genuine' gay guy, why would I engage in 'situational' sex, if there were only women around? I can't and am not capable of this. My sexuality is innate.
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, alluded that Joe was raped as well. Wouldn't that put him off sex with men? Joe did NOT have an issue hustling his a$$. He would have had 'bisexual' tendencies and this is a 'genuine' sexual orientation. As for women like Solanas—who was a fruitcake anyway—sexuality is different for them and has more of mystical element about it. They have a different set of genitalia and not as aggressive or positive as a males sexuality. They don't need to get 'arousal' hard. Lesbians will be comfortable with women; but I would say it would be a darn sight easier for them to have sex with men, than a 'gay' guy attempting to have sex with women.
Are you 'straight' Ed?
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, alluded that Joe was raped as well. Wouldn't that put him off sex with men? Joe did NOT have an issue hustling his a$$.
I don't really get this 'situational' sex thing. There will be many males in situations where they are surrounded by 'only' men and wouldn't care to engage in sexual activity with them, because they are genuine 'straight'. I can only speak for myself here; but as a 100% 'genuine' gay guy, why would I engage in 'situational' sex, if there were only women around? I can't and am not capable of this. My sexuality is innate.
Are you 'straight' Ed?
The point is that Joe didn't seek out gay sex and there's no evidence that he would engage in it at all if money weren't an issue.
_________
Joe didn't seek out 'gay' sex, he was seeking out homosexual activity to make money. Being 'gay' is a sexual orientation and not so much about 'just' having physical 'homosexual' sex. Joe didn't need to hustle himself, when there were other options available to him. A so-called 'straight' guy, who can bring himself to have sex with the same gender, is engaging in 'bi-sexual' activity. If it was an issue with him and he was 100% straight, he would have likely found it repulsive and wouldn't have done it. Isn't that the 'accepted' attitude, by most of the general public, that the physical act of 'homosexual' sex is repulsive to many?
..........I would argue that "situational" homosexuality by straight people or situational heterosexuality by homosexuals is usually just a willingness to use a non-preferred outlet for sex, not evidence of bisexual attraction......
___________
Blah, blah, blah. The 'willingness', has to be born out of 'desire' and physical attraction, in order to perform. Of course it is evidence of male 'bisexual' attraction, if lust\arousal occurs for the same gender, when the opposite gender would 'usually' attract. That includes man on man rape too and while control\power can play an aspect over the victim, it is something that is still inherent within the assailant.
Are you 'straight' Ed?
Yes, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the merits of the point that I'm making.
_____________
Yes, I think you do and you are just being obtuse. I asked, because I wanted to know if your take on 'bi-sexuality', is due to you being 'straight' and my pov is from the perception of a 'genuine' 100% 'gay' guy. By what you have said, you make it sound that you would engage in 'situational' sex, with the same gender, if you were 'desperate' for an outlet? That sounds like a base animal instinct to me . Why would you act like an animal, when there is no 'genuine' desire or connection to engage in homosexual activity in the first place. I really don't think you have an understanding of 'bisexuality' or 'homosexuality' and that is because you are 'heterosexual'. Most don't. Or is it because while the desire is 'actually' there, it is perceived as a negative stigma, to be labelled 'bisexual'?
The 'willingness', has to be born out of 'desire' and physical attraction, in order to perform.
By what you have said, you make it sound that you would engage in 'situational' sex, with the same gender, if you were 'desperate' for an outlet? That sounds like a base animal instinct to me . Why would you act like an animal, when there is no 'genuine' desire or connection to engage in homosexual activity in the first place.
I really don't think you have an understanding of 'bisexuality' or 'homosexuality' and that is because you are 'heterosexual'.
So people who masturbate are physically attracted to their hands? People who resort to blow-up dolls necessarily have a fetish for plastic dolls?
_______________
Come on Mr. Ed! Pardon the pun. Do you really think that when a guy jerks off, they are lusting after their hand? They may like the sensation it presents; but what is the mind doing? It is more than likely fantasizing about who it wants to have sex with. There may be a fine line; but I see 'sex' and f^@k!n@ as not quite one and the same. They could be mutually exclusive, if you take penetration or climax out of the picture. f^@k!n@ is more about a base 'animal' action and looking for a quick release, whereas 'sex' is more about the whole and revelling in what it can entail. It might be blowing in a persons ear and staring into their eyes. It might be about the feet the legs the hands and just touch.
If a so-called 'straight' guy is going to 'f^@k' another guy, just for a 'situational' outlet, that is base and animal. And guess what, he is not 'fully' straight either. A 100% genuine 'straight' guy, is NOT going to want to fornicate with another male.
This isn't about me or about you.
_________
Of course it is. It is about human 'sexual' behavior we are discussing and you are part of the human race aren't you? I have commented that I 'wouldn't' be-able to have sex with a female, as a 'genuine' 'gay' guy; even if the 'situation' presented itself; but you 'haven't' commented if you would be-able to have sex with another 'male', if you were feeling horny and in a 'situational' position where only males were around. This is your point, you have brought up. Is that because of the 'negative' stigma that gets placed on 'homosexual' activity, because it is not the 'accepted' norm in society? What would people think?
Joe Buck did what he did, because he could and while he may have looked nervous about it, it wasn't a problem for him. Now, the kid he picked up was 'gay'; but Joe Buck was 'bisexual', because he CHOSE to hustle his a$$ when he could have been washing dishes. The film doesn't show any other sexual encounters he had with males; but it alluded that he may have had more male clients, just before he went to give blood.
Some people have very strong sex drives, and if you deprive them of their preferred partners, they can engage in sex and perform with people (or animals, or inanimate objects) that they have no attraction to.
_________
My case in point. They should have a w@^k then. Base, animalistic attitude and behavior.
....a lot of heterosexual men will have sex with women who they find ugly when all of the attractive ones are taken. Presumably a lot of homosexual men will do the same with ugly male partners when nothing better is available.
_______________
Who knows what the attraction, desire and need is for each individual. I have found some men, who I may have found 'undesirable' on first meetings and then gotten to know them better and have changed my stance on how I feel about them physically. It depends on ones notion of 'ugly' too, as that can be subjective. I can't speak for a 'heterosexual' male; but I have been attracted to many men, that have been with women that I would deem 'average' or 'ugly' and wonder why they would even want to go there. Lets face it, women aren't always the more 'attractive' sex, just by virtue of their 'softer' gender and what our gynocentric society promotes and wants us to believe. Physical attraction is fluid for many different reasons and like I have mentioned earlier, is it 'sex' or 'f^@k!n@ one is after. Maybe a bit of both; but the desire for a person and their own orientation is innate. That includes 'bisexuality'.
I suppose that my understanding of homosexuality is no worse or no better than your understanding of heterosexuality. You don't have to be something in order to understand it, otherwise male writers or filmmakers wouldn't be able to create convincing female fictional characters or vice-versa.
_____________
See, this is where the line blurs. We are all a byproduct of 'heterosexual' breeding and each of us, whether male or female, have aspects of both genders within us. Much of how we are supposed to behave or what is expected of us, is a conditioning that can get imposed onto us. It is 'sissy' and 'girly', for a little boy to play with girls, yet he is then expected to make a lifelong partner and friend out of a female, when he is older. Girls may not generally like to play with boys, because they are 'icky', yet are needy for them, when they get older. Go figure!
I would say, human 'sexuality' is about evolving and I may be biased here, but I do see 'homosexuality' as a more 'advanced' form of sexuality. If a male can embrace his own gender and fully appreciate it and physically share and express that with another man, then I would say the masculine and feminine qualities within him, are either more balanced, or more in tune with his own maleness and being. It can bring out the best of both masculine\feminine qualities, therefore more advanced internally and within his nature. The 'physical' sexual aspect of 'heterosexual' male\female sex, I see as quite feeble and anemic in comparison. This form of sexuality, has the masculine\feminine qualities expressed externally and is not completely 'whole'. Whatever turns one on, I suppose.
obviously not every gay relationship is sexual in nature, and if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.
share if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.
___________________
I think you're reading 'way' too much into the movie. It doesn't matter what their orientation is, it is a film about friendship and caring and these 2 men who had nothing, were looking out for each other. Becasue the director was 'gay' and Joe hustled himself, doesn't mean that we need to 'accept' that Joe and Ratso were 'gay' for each other. Why are people reading this into it? Their sexuality, is incongruous, to what the main theme of the film is.
'obviously not every gay relationship is sexual in nature, and if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.'
---------------------
That makes a lot of sense. Not every gay relationship is sexual in nature because then it would no longer be sexual. That's "obvious", alright. We're not ignoring a lot of the movie. Are you even understanding the movie??
Now, this hypothesis naturally doesn't work with 2 females in the same situation-- what a surprise.
i dont even get wat ur tryin 2 say here but if u read the article someone linked u would kno that the actors played the characters as 'queer', meaning they were in a relationship of som kind ..maybe a romantic friendship ?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendships
shareNot to get too militant here but I would make this suggestion for your consideration: there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread. That, in fact, seems to be the thrust of it. It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees.
The author was gay. The director was gay. The actors acknowledged they were playing characters in a same-sex, romantic relationship. Enrico is clearly in love with Joe Buck. The idea that there is anything certain about Joe Buck's sexuality or even psychology, misses the whole experience of a character whom by film's end is just beginning to know himself.
You think because he is presented as a sex toy "bauble" for two women who want to use him for sex - like his grandmother did - makes him a stone, cold heterosexual Marlboro Man? The very fact that this detail concerns you, from your original post, can be considered homophobic. You just want assurance that this film that engaged and moved you isn't about two dudes who are into each other because, y'know, then you wouldn't be able to like it or something. Who knows why it matters? As a gay man, James Leo Herlihy didn't have to write in coded language or accommodate your mainstream sensibility by labelling and tagging everything so you would know whether or not it was all right for you to like it - he obviously didn't care. But why would a gay man bother to write *your* story? He's depicting love as he knows it. It's almost like you're trying to claim this for yourself when in fact what these men shared doesn't belong to you. And in depicting the love these men shared on the margins of society, Herlihy humanised figures that especially at that time no one even wanted to know about. Fifty years later, neither do you.
I think what is the insult here is that you seem to think that unless there is oral or anal sex involved, people are not gay as if that were the sum total of our humanity - as if the depth of humanity depicted in the film is something gay people lack. I alluded to it in my original post - it was lost on you there - that I have seen this love before and watched grown men love and care for each, in the despair of the most wretched disease, men whose lovers have died in their arms, men who have loved and lost - and I didn't need to see them having sex with each other to confirm that they were indeed gay and sharing every intimacy between them, not just sex.
So either your view of human relationships is somehow limited or your view of same sex couples is very limited. Either way, your opening gambit which tries to shut down any notion of what these men shared and your refusal to consider not just an opposing view but an INFORMED one, seems to indicate that it is a problem for you. It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
I'm not reading your essay. The first sentences summed you up. It's not homo-hysteria, at least not in the way you mean. You have no idea of the sexual=preference of anybody on this thread, for starters. You're homo-hysterical because you think homophobia is present, due to you wanting thee to be a homosexual relationship between the two characters. I'll bet if the two lead actors were not reasonably goodlooking, you wouldn't even dream about the notion.
Let's never-mind what the film showed but rush out and buy the book, and determine the director's sexuality, to discover some underlying theme.
You thought Rico was that good-looking?
share...there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread.....It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees....It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
__________
Let's put it this way, the OP is in the closet and is a 'self-loathing' homosexual. He is as NELLIE as they come and he won't and can't admit it. So as far as seeing it from a 'heterosexual' pov, I think that notion, can pretty much get thrown out the window. I haven't yet read the book and while it is a possibility that Joe and Ratso, may have had some sexual designs on each other, I really don't think that was something, or is something, that is 'absolutely' necessary to read into the film. These guys found a common connection with each other and were looking out for each other, as they were both in a 'desperate' situation and their needs were better met, by the union. It was Ratso that offered Joe a place to stay and he was called out on his deception. He still had humanity.
Ratso was gross and dirty and while he may have had 'homosexual' designs on Joe, and that is very possible, it is not something that I feel is important in the context of the films themes and story. Joe was not 'gay', in the sense that I perceive 'gay' to be. He had sex with women and even if it might not have been his preferred choice of gender, he could still 'perform' sexually with them. That would make him 'bisexual' by my book. A true, genuine 'gay' guy, does not and cannot perform sexually with a woman. He is not aroused, by her sexual mystique and physicality. To want these characters to be full blown homosexuals, can be seen as a delusion as well.
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley until she became combative and goaded him into having rough sex with her which he later described to Enrico as not very good and strange, off-putting.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements.
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley.......
_________
No I didn't miss that scene; but it appears ONCE AGAIN, that you have misinterpreted it. Shirley was impressed with Joe by the morning and making arrangements to see him again and wanting to hook him up with another female friend of hers. She was like a feline, all slinky, sexy and haughty and scratched the hell out of Joe's back. It was the weird, kinky sex, that Joe was referring to as being strange and off-putting. I think you 'miss' many things, due to your own strange and self-absorbed slant on things.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements.
_____________
I don't think you even understand what 'gay' is or male homosexuality for that matter, even though it has been explained to you. Sit on what was written for a while and with any luck, it 'just' might sink in. I won't hold my breath though.
@bliss66's post: very true, and well said👏
shareupsydaisy29
Whats so very true. That men engage in heterosexual sexual acts, but "not" heterosexual? This bliss66 is pretentious and actually demeaning his own homosexuality by homogenizing sexuality.
"no, these men show no display of homosexuality nor sexual feelings, but sexuality goes beyond sex and reaches into our soul and deeper consciousness and blah,blah"...and we are all threatened and frighted by this,blah,blah."
Sounds like bliss66 is dissapointed that Buck and Ritzo are are not gay, which must frustrate him on some level, and everybody who has seen the film has not discovered the mysterious thing that he has.
Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay.
[deleted]
Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay.i mean yes.... it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently
I think bliss66's, pov is a tad askew, just as yours is upsydaisy.???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of ....? share
i mean yes.... it probably does in this case. y r u in denial?
______________
Well in the OP's case, yes he is in denial, about many things actually; but in this instance, he isn't.
???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of ....?
____________
Since you are not that smart and have misinterpreted the film, it is no use attempting to explain what 'askew' means. When you stop looking at things, from your own 'limited' perception of the world and only seeing things in the manner of how they affect you—which is being self-entitled & self-absorbed—then you 'just' might understand one day.
'i mean yes.... it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently '
--------------------
Duh, you don't what you mean. You just wanted to use the term "homophobia". There is no homophobia going on. Would you like there to be? You must be hetero-phobia. Are you in denial? How sad.
You're telling me with a straight face that because the director/writer is gay, then that makes the film characters gay in this film. I was actually being sarcastic with that question, and you reply by saying "yes". The film on the screen is not what if could / should/ would have been, but what it was.
The "y, r, u" of the matter. You should be so much in denial of being illiterate.
y r u so angry bout this???? y does interpreting the characters as anything other than straight get u so mad????just think about it 4 a sec
shareWhy are you using y r u?
There is no more to think about. I saw the film 40 yrs ago, to give me time to think. Why am I mad? Why are you, and the other poster who hides, re-writing the film, to make it more sensationalistic for yourselves? You can watch a nice soft-core film if you wish to see latent/overt homosexuality. THIS film was not written that way. You can dig deep and say Joe was from Mars too, but it was not clued that way either.
I'm not hiding. I just don't think you've contributed anything that requires a response. What am I supposed to do about your closed-minded ignorance? It's not my problem.
share....does interpreting the characters as anything other than straight get u so mad????
__________
upsydaisy, read all the other posts here. No-one is claiming they are full blown 'straight'; but by that same token, that doesn't mean they have to be full blown 'homosexual' for each other either. Does it titilate you, to think that they are? It is NOT important or relevant to the films story, what their sexual designs are for each other, if their characters were supposed to have any at all.
The writer, James Leo Herlihy, and the director, John Schlesinger, were both gay. Not supposedly gay. They were properly, openly homosexual. In fact Schlesinger's life partner, the actor Michael Childers, is credited as "the Assistant to the Director" on Midnight Cowboy and was present throughout the entire filming.
You speak for EVERYBODY? What a tremendous burden that must be.
I'm "homogenising" sexuality and/or homosexuality? I think regardless of any socio or political fashion, all sexualities of a human nature are innately equal and always have been. Though I didn't have anything to do with it, I support it whole-heartedly.
"The writer, James Leo Herlihy, and the director, John Schlesinger, were both gay. Not supposedly gay. They were properly, openly homosexual. In fact Schlesinger's life partner, the actor Michael Childers, is credited as "the Assistant to the Director" on Midnight Cowboy and was present throughout."
----------------------------------
What are we waiting for!? Let's label this film as a story about 2 (closeted) homosexuals due to the above. And if the filmmakers above were straight, then label this film being about 2 heterosexuals. That was easy.
"You speak for EVERYBODY? What a tremendous burden that must be".
--------------------------
That is what YOU are doing.
"I'm "homogenising" sexuality and/or homosexuality? I think regardless of any socio or political fashion, all sexualities of a human nature are innately equal and always have been. Though I didn't have anything to do with it, I support it whole-heartedly."
------------------------------
You're pompous pseudo-intellectual lengthy contrived wording doesn't compensate for you're ignorance. True Gay men do not have ambitions to become hustlers for women. You must be disappointed and frustrated that no homosexuality was sensationalized in the film to titillate your senses. And this film is not about the book.
"All sexualities of human nature are innately equal?" If you're referring to bisexuality, state what you mean in coherent terms. Sounds like you're putting random words in a sentence.
'The writer, James Leo Herlihy, and the director, John Schlesinger, were both gay. Not supposedly gay. They were properly, openly homosexual.'
---------------------------
You mean gay John Schlesinger who made all those films starring unquestionable hetero relationships. Ok.
But, yes, homogenizing sexuality is the groove-thing. "He's not homosexual, not heterosexual, and not bisexual." "He's straight, but has an orientation as another sexual identity", "yet not a lifestyle as this, etc.." "Im not closeted, just have sex with men...etc."
@bliss66's post: very true, and well said
_______________
I think bliss66's, pov is a tad askew, just as yours is upsydaisy.
I think you're a borderline troll, certainly not as clever as you think you are.
What kind of pov would it be if it didn't lean to one side or the other? A pretty boring one. All opinions are "askew" otherwise they'd be completely neutral and neutrality is practically a non-opinion, uncommitted to any point of view (though in the best sense, open to persuasion).
I think you're a borderline troll, certainly not as clever as you think you are.....All opinions are "askew" otherwise they'd be completely neutral and neutrality is practically a non-opinion, uncommitted to any point of view
______________
If I'm borderline troll, then you're a 'fully-fledged' troll, who is interpreting a film, based on what you WANT to see and NOT what was intended. Just because you have read something about Hoffman and Voight, playing the characters as 'queer, only means that you were 'privy' to something, that many others weren't and Hoffman may have had his tongue in his cheek. It doesn't mean that Hoffman and Voight's opinions, are the 'voice' of reason either, based on something that could be perceived as 'so' subtle, it hardly even exists in the context of the films meaning.
This film, is about a pure form of 'love' in it's truest and most genuine form. Joe and Ratso had a need, bond, connection and kinship with each other, that reaches far beyond physical and sexual attraction. There is no need to see them as 'gay' for each other, even if they did possess homosexual tendencies. And claiming that Ratso was holding onto Joe and smelling his scent, when he fell down the stairs is just rubbish. I think you had designs on Joe yourself and wish it was you. If Joe had been a female friend and Ratso fell down the stairs and was disoriented, feverish and physically pained and dying and he held onto her for support and comfort, would that mean he would be smelling 'her' scent? I think you need a 'reality' check.
[deleted]
It's almost like you're trying to claim this for yourself when in fact what these men shared doesn't belong to you.... It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
--------------------------
Your insights into IY's thought process are spot on. His passive-aggressive, fear-based approach is to set out to make an issue out of a non-issue and then try to make the non-issue (e.g., homosexuality) be everybody else's problem when nobody ever said anything about issue/homosexuality in the first place. This way he gets to see himself as being the enlightened, superior one, and everybody else gets left behind, holding HIS considerably heavy bag of issues. Then his problems get to become other people's problems, and this allows him some temporary mental relief.
What it comes down to is we get to watch Inherently Yours stage his own mental breakdowns.
How ironic that someone is ranting about "today's reality", when he's arrogantly misinterpreting the movie himself through an incredibly skewed perspective that couldn't be more off base.
I'm old enough to have grown up with this film and there is no question beyond a shadow of a doubt that although the relationship between Joe and Ratso was presented as platonic, it was always understood that there was a homoerotic component to it. This didn't mean they were in an openly gay relationship. From a storytelling perspective, they were just two guys in a platonic friendship. However, there was always a sly, subtle gay subtext to the friendship hinted at in this movie. This was understood back in the 70s, 80s, 90s. Not according to "today's reality."
Even before and as the movie was being shot, everyone who was involved in the film brought the subject up. Schlesinger even explained to Hoffman at some point during the shoot that the reason why there are two beds in Ratso Rizzo's place was to downplay the gay aspect of the relationship, because it would cause the movie to bomb. The reason why Schlesinger had to do that is that Hoffman himself realized that the characters were gay and said, "Hey, what are you doing? This doesn't make sense. If we're gay, why are we sleeping in two separate beds?"
More about this here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064665/board/threads/
Ironically, the people who often screech about how people are "wrongly misinterpreting" movies and TV shows through "today's eyes" are themselves millennial hipsters who weren't old enough to have understood the cultural context behind the thing they're ranting about. This is a classic calling card of theirs: "Oh, you kids and your silly takes on things!" Meanwhile, they're kids themselves who don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about but say that to sound more "mature."
---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=