Not sure...

...that my reactions to the next film(s) on the list deserve a whole blog post, so I'm combining them.

You know the drill.  Watching all the films on the AFI Top 100 Films (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year and writing about them here.  The rules I placed on myself in order to have a wide variety of subjects/actors/directors/rank/genre, etc. are listed here.

Let's get on with it, shall we?

Films 13-14

13.  "Midnight Cowboy" (AFI Rank #43)
"Midnight Cowboy" has the distinction of being the only X Rated film ever to be given the Oscar for Best Picture.  In the early days of the MPAA, a film being rated X was not strictly because it is was pornography.  The designation was to keep all viewers under 18 from seeing the film.  "Midnight Cowboy" is now rated R, because...well...the reason for the rating was for a non-graphic, but implied, homosexual oral sex act.   Pretty tame, actually.

I'm getting off on the wrong foot.  What was my reaction to watching "Midnight Cowboy?"

Um.

I don't know.

On the one hand, it seems a groundbreaking film, full of adult themes, full of cinematic tricks/gimmicks that seem revolutionary.  Until you sit back and process it all...and wonder...how was the film, in any way, enhanced by any of that?

The story is paper thin.  An uneducated (stupid might be better) young man from somewhere south of the Maxon Dixon line quits his dishwashing job to make it big as a "hustler" in New York City.  So.  Good looking guy wants to be a male prostitute.  He arrives in New York, naive, but ready to make his mark.  Except...he really has no business being in the business.  His first "date" is shown in the photo above.  He meets a classy blonde, who takes him to her place, then sleeps with him (while talking on the phone for a large portion of the prelims).  Thing is, Joe Buck (Jon Voight) didn't negotiate price up front.  So, he asks her for money afterward...in a very awkward way.  She then puts on a huge act...and he winds up paying her $20...which reveals that Joe's first "Jane" was for her...a "John."  Actually, the idea of a naive male prostitute paying a streetwise female prostitute for sex...well...that's pretty good.

Joe then meets a streetwise, sickly little man, Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, (Dustin Hoffman) whose dream is to "work" in Florida, and who hustles money from Joe, sending him to a man he promises can act as Joe's pimp, only to discover that the pimp is a lunatic Christian, hell-bent on saving souls...for some reason.  Joe, quickly running out of cash, and shown, through a series of shots, to be getting NO work...finally catches up with Ratso.  The two wind up living together in a condemned apartment building...surviving a New York winter with no heat, food, etc.  ANYWAY.  Lots of bad happens to Joe and Ratso...including Joe having fellatio performed on him by a very young Bob Balaban in the back of a movie theatre.  Of course, Joe didn't get paid for that either.  Meanwhile, Ratso looks progressively more and more sick every time we see him.  It's not going well for him.

Finally, Joe and Ratso are filmed by a couple of Andy Warhol Factory types, who invite the pair to a groovy party.  In the process, Joe meets a rich woman, played by a very sexy Brenda Vaccaro.  Ratso arranges the terms...and finally...FINALLY...Joe gets a customer.  In the post coital bliss, and as Joe is leaving, she says, "I've got some friends who can use your services..."  Joe's going to realize his dreams.  At long last.

He returns home with his great news, only to find out that the condemned building is coming down.  Ratso and he are now homeless.  Ratso spews about going to Florida...and Joe acquiesces.  Then...after a little more...the film ends.  On a bus.  With Dustin Hoffman.  Gee. That sounds familiar.

Now.  Thoughts.

Jon Voight was a great looking dude.  He's a way better actor now, but he's had 45 years of practice.  This...really not quite that much.  There isn't that much subtlety with Joe.  Maybe that's as it should be.  Joe is shown through handwriting/spelling to be quite dumb.  Perhaps the lack of depth was a choice wrapped up in that dynamic.  Perhaps not.  I don't know...except the performance feels stiff.  Maybe all of that is intentional.  Maybe I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt.

Dustin Hoffman gets praised a lot for this film.  OK.  I see it.  And not.  Ratso is a little too "theatrical" at times for film.  The voice...for starters...of course the guy's nickname is "Ratso."   He sounds like a Muppet rodent.  Maybe that's because he was the inspiration...but in 2015, he sounds like a caricature.  It's a fine acting performance, though.  Consistent, always in character.  We feel for Ratso.  It's hard to believe that the mess that he is could draw our sympathy, but he does.

There is an underlying evil in the film, referred to repeatedly in flashback, of a girl that Joe knew in his youth.  Being a film from the 60's, the flashbacks are sporadic, often really not tied to any sort of "trigger."   As they continue to assert themselves, they become more and more confused as to what happened...to the point where I stopped giving a shit.  I think the girl was gang raped.  It looks as if she pinned it all on Joe, in a daze, and while being interviewed by the police.  I don't have any idea what any of it has to do with Joe's story as it is depicted in the film...except maybe as a convict he couldn't get a better job that dishwasher...then why show that he is stupid on top of that?  Is he underemployed because he's dumb, or because he's a con?  John Schlesinger, maddeningly, doesn't feel inclined to tell us, I guess.

And that, is my biggest complaint with the film.  It's excessive.  It needs an editor, or someone to say..."that is cliche.  Stop that."  It needs...well...it needs a little modernity.  Unfortunately, it had it.  1969's version.

So.  I've watched "Midnight Cowboy" now, and I understand its inclusion in the top 100.  Not sure that I agree with that assessment, but I can see why many would view it as an important film.  It's a shame that those people don't seem to understand why it maybe shouldn't be viewed that way.  It misses.  A lot.

I read these AFTER I write my thoughts.  Roger and I are in lockstep on this one.  Ebert's second published take on it here.   Read that.  He's a way better writer than I could aspire to be.

14.  "Swing Time" (AFI Rank #90)
I have never sat through an entire Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers film.  Now I have.  Folks, this ain't great filmmaking.  There exists no great acting performances, no stunning visual images (well....maybe a couple), no compelling story...  No, the reason that this is here, it seems to me, is because of the sheer force of the stars, and their impact on the history of American cinema.

I'm not going to bother with a recap of the story.  It's thin.  It's a boy meets girl musical.

No.  What is great about this film...is the music and the dance.

I'm going to include more photos from the film than I normally would if I'm posting about more than one film at a time.

"Swing Time" is some really wonderful, if lighthearted, entertainment.  Watching Astaire and Rogers move together is, at times, breathtaking.  The execution, the energy, the hint of desire, the symmetry...beautiful.

However, there is a sequence in this film...well...its intentions may not have been racist, but sorry...the execution is.

Astaire does a piece in the film called "Bojangles of Harlem."  I knew something bad was about to happen when Astaire announces the number that is coming, while we see him start to put on...blackface.

In Astaire's defense, the result is not minstrel show quality...but it's, well.  It's offensive.  It just is.  If this were a public opinion court, I'd offer this photo as Exhibit A.  Now.  There are those that will tell me that "Haven't you seen Bill Robinson's outfits?"  Yes.  I have.  This is still offensive.   It's the sole of two shoes sitting in for a face...with a big pair of lips.  The outfit...OK.  Maybe I can forgive that.  Not really, though.  Bill Robinson did lots of dancing in tuxedos.

Anyway, the number itself is terrific.  It's got some amazing cinematography with some projected shadow work of Astaire.  Perhaps most amazing in that...is that the shadows aren't really shadows, but filmed in different takes than what we Astaire do in front of them.  It's subtle at first, but by the end of the number, we realize that Astaire has been dancing not with a partner...but with his shadow.  And he stays almost absolutely in sync for a great deal of the time, then he breaks and starts moving in opposition to the shadows.  Amazing.  I'm glad I got to see it.

Anyway.  I don't have a whole lot more to say on this film.  It's worth watching.  I'm glad I did.  Its stars are worthy of our attention, even now, nearly 90 years later.  They don't make 'em like that anymore.

See you soon.  I've got 3 more films already under my belt that I need to write up.

EDIT:  Turns out Roger Ebert wrote about this one in his "Great Movies" series, and I didn't catch that.  Hmmmmph.  Link is here.