The 27th General Hall of Fame

Safety Last

The story in this film seems secondary to the gags, which is totally fine, I'm sure that may be the case in some Keaton films. Off the top of my head, it doesn't seem that is the case with Chaplin films. And like I said, that's totally fine, that isn't what makes one better than the other. I think the thing that makes Chaplin and Keaton better than Lloyd is that they are just funnier. I am basing that off very little exposure to Lloyd, but this film does feel a tier below the best of Chaplin and Keaton. It's impossible for me not to compare the three of them, but this film can stand on its own as a solid, fun movie. The gags are usually worthwhile, but almost never blow-away funny. There are impressive stunts that are easy to appreciate. I do like how the film is a big setup for the final act which is just a comedic stunt show of climbing the side of the building. Solid film.

Started watching Thunder Road today, but it's one of those that I just can't finish in one day. 100% not my kind of movie.

__________________

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Midnight Cowboy was made by John Schlesinger of the British New Wave which was highly influenced by the French New Wave and decided to come to Hollywood...by making a film of New York. And that's kinda what makes Midnight Cowboy so good...the film is a result of several movements and ideologies brought together in a compelling story.

The film has a duel aspect to the film where it's about Joe Buck coming to New York to work as a male prostitute where he is quickly disillusioned. But the film is also about Joes PTSD and about sexual events of his childhood/young adulthood that framed his personality. He is both naive and empty...it's a testament to the Voight performance that he's able to walk this line. We often think of the film as a buddy film because it was promoted as such. Dustin Hoffman plays Rizzo who is I believe Puerto Rican or Italian, he has the physical embodiment of Bucks mental issues. Someone who likely worked as a prostitute himself and likely carrying a disease (I'm guessing syphilis).

The films biggest flaw is it's about homosexuality, the idea of "gay panic" as the 60's moved on we got our first view of homosexuality and the problems with the homosexual in New York. We have the self-hating religious version, the college virgin, and the predatory masochist. Buck want's but he's constantly confronted by men which he doesn't want. It doesn't help that it's implied his mother sodomized him when he was little, and he was raped and cuckolded in Texas. The film is constantly hitting you over the head with the darkest possible elements of homosexuality. It's provocative but also terribly dated and we know in the years that followed that these images and ideas are heavily exaggerated.

And really that's kinda my biggest issue with the film is that every scene is very awkward and a little to long almost to the point of self indulgence to go with the self loathing. It's a great film but when you are a message film from 50 years ago the message has a habit of changing and you are left with something else. I love the French New Wave and do not care for the British New Wave...this is really in the middle of the two.

Since yesterday Randy has suddenly gotten better thank god so I'm back. Will have a write up of Mad Love in tomorrow.

Glad he is doing better.

Glad your dog is doing okay.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Randy looks so happy there! Glad he's feeling better

__________________

Yeah...Randy!

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

__________________

Compliments to your taxidermist...I had the same thing done with mother.

Dolores next

*Checking the deadline to see in how much of a hole I am*

__________________

Maybe I should reconsider

To be fair, three of the films in question I've seen so many times, I could write something without rewatching them so if I do roughly 1 or 2 of the films a week, I'll be ok. I've just been focused on some of the Oscar nominated films from this year for an interview this week.

Midnight Cowboy (John Schlesinger, 1969)
IMDb

Date Watched: 3/8/2022
Rewatch: Yes.

I first watched this movie back in 2015 for the 60s countdown and, while I gave it a respectable ranking of #15 on that ballot, I had sort of forgotten about it since then. So tonight's viewing was done with almost fresh eyes.

I don't have much to say that wasn't already covered multiple times in other people's write-ups, but I was pretty thoroughly engaged with this tale of desperation, suffering, shattered dreams, and the frail hope that comes with finding a connection with another person. On the surface, neither Joe nor Ratso are likable people. Ratso is a thief and a low-life who preys on Joe's naivete. Joe, at least at the start, appears to be a cartoonish buffoon. They're both homophobic - sometimes violently so - and toss around a certain F word like it's nothing.

And yet, I don't find that to be problematic nor does it detract from my ability to invest in them. Rather that homophobia serves to make the pair feel more real and as the film progresses it becomes obvious that much of this is facade. They both are desperate for human contact and affection and they find that in each other. The film certainly puts forward the suggestion that there may be more to their relationship than simple friendship, but whether or not they are anything other than heterosexual is not something the film ever answers either for the audience or for the characters themselves. But ultimately the answer to that doesn't make any difference. Midnight Cowboy is a tragic story about two men - irreparably damaged by their circumstances - who find love and comfort in each other. It is moving, well-crafted, and well deserving of its reputation as one of the film greats - even if it might not ever rank as a personal favorite for me.



Just have rewatches of Raiders and True Romance left. Gonna try to finish this weekend.

__________________

Glad to see so many positive reactions towards Midnight Cowboy so far.

Jaws - CONTAINS SPOILERS

This remains a terrifying thriller almost 50 years after it came out and a more than worthy one to be considered the first blockbuster. What makes it hold up after all these years? A lot of things, particularly that it’s a masterclass in tension buildup and release. It's a happy accident that the shark prop rarely worked properly because it makes its appearances count, and what a prop it is, one that I believe pays off what Quint and Hoopers' obsessions with sharks, John Williams’ timeless theme and of course its first attacks where it goes unseen make it look like in your head. What's more, the buildup works so well because the movie doesn't rush through it. The dinner scene from Brody's cute moment with his son to getting to know Hooper's backstory is a highlight for this reason, and it seems like the kind of scene that would be half as long or removed entirely were the movie to be made today. My favorite example of how deliberate the movie is about buildup and possibly favorite scene in any movie, though, is the one with Quint’s "U.S.S. Indianapolis" monologue. Aside from it being a strong counterargument that it’s better to show than tell, it proves that great writing and acting are just as mesmerizing as the best special effects. As for the grand finale, from its Kirk/McCoy/Spock-like character interplay to it taking to place on a, well, not big enough (or functional) boat, it pays off all the anticipation and then some, and that Brody - the guy who is most like us for how he knows as much about sharks as we do - gets to pull the trigger is the icing on the cake.

The best movies offer something new to think about each time you watch them, with this viewing making me wonder if the shark is not actually the villain. After all, it's just an animal with a big appetite. I was going to write something about Mayor Vaughn (any of you other Twilight Zone Hall of Famers recognize him from One for the Angels?) being the villain, but his confession to Brody I always seem to forget that his children were also on the beach paints him in a different light. Could the movie be saying that the American way is the villain? It's a system that encourages Vaughn to keep the beaches open (on Independence Day, no less, which I know is a holiday, but it’s hardly a coincidence), sends Quint on a secret mission that leaves him a traumatized husk of a person when it (tragically) ends; in short, one that seems to idealize death and destruction. There is optimism that people from such different walks of life like Brody, Quint and Hooper got together to save their community. All the same, when you consider they did it to save a community, should it really be a minor miracle that it happened at all?