MovieChat Forums > Midnight Cowboy (1969) Discussion > Can we quit denying that Joe and Ratso w...

Can we quit denying that Joe and Ratso were 60s-era repressed gays?


The basic outline of Midnight Cowboy is this: a young Texan man (played by Jon Voight) decides he wants to move to New York City and become a hustler. His main aspiration in life? To find a rich woman and live off of her and simply aim to please her. He moves, he’s stuck in the city, and he doesn’t find the success that he saw in that variation of the “American dream”. While there, he finds a home with a homeless man (Dustin Hoffman) and the two learn about each other and start to make more “American dream” aspirations together. Basically, the film is about them living in the hell that is the underbelly of the said American dream. They walk the cold streets with condensation smoking from their mouths, they have to steal from produce stands in order to eat anything, and they fight and bicker with one another at the same rate that they grow fond of one another. It’s largely seen as a “buddy picture” - with two male leads becoming close and becoming a solid unit. What sets Midnight Cowboy away from those films, however, is that the film itself isn’t credited for what it actually is: a studio-funded queer love story.

Do Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo ever kiss? No. Is it ever insinuated that they’re having sex? No. But that’s because the film itself sets it up very well as to why that just may be. Throughout Midnight Cowboy, we are treated with flashback sequences that taunt the narrative with a nightmarish quality. We learn that Joe Buck’s wanting to please women (and appear as a cowboy) spin from a Freudian process through his undeniably strong (and often unsettling) relationship with his grandmother. We also learn he had a sexual relationship with a girl, but both were raped brutally by a group of men. It seems melodramatic, and the flashbacks play out in a way that seem almost exploitive. But they’re important - crucial, even - into reading the dynamic between Joe and Ratso as something that is beyond friendship, and doesn’t touch the sexual due to the frightening nature of being who they are in a world in which feeling such a way is dismissed as an act of repulsion.

Take, for example, just how prevalent homosexuality is in Midnight Cowboy. A quick peak at user reviews on Letterboxd, a few message boards on IMDb, and even Roger Ebert’s negative review will show through that the film is, in some shape or form, about homosexuality - and that it’s nature of handling it has, to some, read as homophobic. It only fuels this theory of Joe and Ratso’s love story that there are so many passionate fans of the films - mostly young men on the internet - who refuse to accept it as anything more than friendship, even when they’re not bringing up everything else insinuated by the rest of the film.

There’s a scene in Midnight Cowboy where Joe finds himself in a position where we’re meant to believe he hit “rock bottom” by selling sex to a young boy (Bob Balaban) in a movie theater. But, the thing is, this isn’t what’s being implied at all. Openly gay director John Schlesinger (who probably knew the openly gay orientation of the film’s source material) doesn’t intend this as “rock bottom”, per se. The way he splices the flashbacks of rape throughout this scene with the film they’re watching (a rocket taking off for space) give off a different impression altogether: this is a man caught in this situation, and reflecting, and feeling self-loathing for the action. He doesn’t feel such a way when sleeping with woman for money (as he did Sylvia Miles’ character in the first few scenes), but he feels repulsed by the objectivity he faces here… and it’s important to note that distinction beyond simply labeling it homophobic plot development. Besides, there’s an important social conflict that should be addressed in the young boy, himself, dangerously seeking this release in the way he is, too.

There’s also a scene where Ratso hooks Joe up with a religious nutcase who tries to have his way with him. But Joe fears him. He flees. He’s angry at the situation, and he’s angry at Ratso. Just like, later, the two leads find themselves in an Andy Warhol factory party - which stands as a zeitgeist to sexual and celebrity-driven identity. The scene almost feels random (Ebert felt so), but it’s really not when looked at with a queer perspective - because it takes this party, and an objectification from a woman to make Joe realize what it actually means to give away his body. Spelling out money (incorrectly, one should note) with dice, and with the already established theme of falsehood in the American dream - it only hits closest when you’re seeing Joe’s struggle as something of the sexual nature. He’s never really identified who he actually is. When Brenda Vaccaro’s character playfully hints at Joe’s sexuality by spelling “GAY” out with the dice, he suddenly manages to get an erection after previously being incapable of doing so with her...

Which, also, leads to the film’s most controversial scene involving a self-loathing gay man Joe encounters to make money from. What comes of this scene is disturbing - ending in an act of brutal violence that ends abruptly without any explanation to the survival of the victim (played by a blisteringly heartbreaking Bernard Hughes). Why such a violent and random attack from Joe? It’s worth looking from a primal area - and worth comparing with the rape flashbacks. It’s the one time in the movie where Joe makes money by not doing anything sexually for another person; and it’s eerily fitting that it just so happens to be the repressed homosexual. It only makes it tougher to handle when you watch what Joe does to him, and what that says about Joe and his own sexual identity for himself.

This brings me to Ratso - who almost seems asexual by nature. Crippled, homeless, self-loathing on his own terms. But the thing about his character that is most heartbreaking is that his love for Joe (thanks to Hoffman’s performance) is felt. There are moments where the melodramatics of Midnight Cowboy almost assume Ratso as the maternal role to Joe’s naive (and arguably uneducated) child. But then, you realize there’s that (also seemingly random) fantasy sequence where Ratso envisions himself with Joe in Florida. It’s dated by today’s standards, and pretty laughable in a camp way. Joe shirtless by Ratso’s side always? It reveals an aspect of Ratso, and the way Hoffman plays the part by staring so romantically at Joe from afar makes it feel like a sequence from any clichéd love story. This could be why the sequence where Joe and Ratso argue about “fags” seems all the more relevant. With all of this in mind - what seems random (the Warhol factory, the fantasy sequence, the many moments with repressed homosexuals) click as something not-so random and more meaningful. That it’s set in the gloomy, nightmarish underworld of New York City makes it feel almost fairytale-esque in a way that only fits this central idea. (One of the most unforgettable scenes is a moment in a diner involving a woman, her son, and a toy rat.)

While I still know many argue against the idea of Joe and Ratso being in love, nor that they’re gay in any sense. Some even argue that it doesn’t even matter. But that’s missing the point of Midnight Cowboy’s poignancy as a queer film - and denies it as being such when, in truth, it would make it more ideal and worth the zeitgeist notion when learning of its Best Picture Oscar win. With a queer perspective, the film garners a density and makes many of the scenes within it make contextual sense. Some feel sequences are random, or lacking in any meaning other than to shock. I’d say that they exist to develop this central “buddy movie” premise into the realm of something much more… and something that is quite present in the majority of John Schlesinger’s other films: the struggle with gay identity.

And this entire theory is encapsulated in one moment that, fittingly, comes directly before the Warhol factory scene, and as a prelude to the characters’ ultimate tragedy:
https://i.imgur.com/Ppias6d.jpg

Still not sold?
In a Vanity Fair interview with Dustin Hoffman back in 2010:

“The sexual component of the characters’ relationship was always the 800-pound gorilla in the room—or on the set, as it were. “Both Voight and I are actors, and it hit us. ‘Hey, these guys are queer,’” observes Hoffman. “I think it came out of the fact that we were in the abandoned tenement [where the characters share a flat]. We were looking around the set, and I said, ‘So? Where do I sleep? Why do I sleep here and he sleeps there? Why does he have the really nice bed? Why aren’t I—yeah, why aren’t we sleeping together? C’mon.’ Schlesinger, who was wonderful because he was so courageous in his outing himself at a time when that wasn’t common, got very troubled. He said, ‘Oh God! Please! It was hard enough to get the financing. Now all we have to do is tell them that we’re making a homosexual film. I was hoping we would get the college crowd. We’ll get no one.’ He absolutely—and I’m sure he was right—did not want to make it explicit.”


2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500

reply

Ok, I read your essay that you recommended. I then happen to notice this:
A Discussion on "Queer Film": The Subjectivity, Confusion, Oft-Denial, on another board. So, what's going on with your seemingly avid interest with "queer films".

reply

My avid interest isn't necessarily in queer film, but film, in general. It's just I posing this question about a month ago, and after my Midnight Cowboy post, I decided to follow it up with the question. It's a topic of interest, because it does happen often.

2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500

reply

Joe & Ratso are clearly damaged goods in terms of traditional hetero relationships. Joe because of his abandonment by mom and (sorta) by grandma, plus the gang rape, Ratso due to a strict Catholic upbringing.

But that damage does NOT necessarily drive the Joe/Ratso relationship toward homosexuality per se. I think the movie has bigger targets in it's sights: showing new possibilities to bypass the conscripted boundaries that societies place on the emotional connections between males.

reply

'Joe & Ratso are clearly damaged goods in terms of traditional hetero relationships. Joe because of his abandonment by mom and (sorta) by grandma, plus the gang rape, Ratso due to a strict Catholic upbringing.'
--------------------
what are these assumptions? We don't know that these men are damaged goods for women, since the film does not focus or convey that. This is not a Woody Allan psycho-babble type film. Seems that people are making conclusions for these two specific movie-characters where they wouldn't for other men who had the same upbringing. We're all hopeless, then

A strict Catholic upbringing is all it takes to ruin your hetero- relationship? And a man who has been raped is not therefore a hopeless case either for a hetero-relationship. This film is just some kind of write-as-you-go-along game. (the rape, the rape, the rape)

reply

Did no one here read the novel? Rizzo was a sickly kid. A Catholic upbringing won't make a guy gay if he wasn't going to be gay anyway. Joe Buck had had sexual experiences with women and men, but he was so passive he thought his sexual attractiveness was all he had going for him. It was his only connection to people before Ratso.

reply

It's not a movie about sex so much as it's about loneliness and loss. Sad film.

reply

Exactly, when Joe Buck goes into the hotel and Ratso Rizzo stares longingly from the streets, it's because he thinks its part of the fulfillment of his dream, which is shown in Florida. He's not beaming because Joe's about to have a heterosexual relationship with a woman. It's about the money and the hope that it brings.

Ratso is more interested in identity and dignity. When they go to Florida, he wants to be known as "Rico," not "Ratso" as in "rat."

reply

Are we watching the film or novel? Which one are we watching? Look at the film and tell me if it's a movie or a book? There is no evidence, none, of repressed homosexuality/bisexuality. No evidence that one or the other was horny for the other. And interesting that you never used the term BISEXUALITY in your remarks.

Why critique the Wizard of Oz, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Psycho, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Monster a Go-Go, since we didn't read the "book?"

reply

I really don't care what Dustin Hoffman or the director said. I watched the movie....and Joe and Ratso didn't seem gay. Especially not with each other.

But they were both damaged mentally....so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right.

reply

'But they were both damaged mentally....so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right.'
-----------------------------------
How are you so sure? You casually equate being "damaged mentally" to whoring oneself to other men. Is that because homosexuality is frivolous and not as solid as heterosexuality to you? As if you are even educated on what mentally-damaged is.


reply

Most likely, neither one of the characters were homosexual and even if they were, it's totally irrelevant to the story. They are just two humans trying to survive in horrible conditions and broken mental states and they form a strange bond while doing so. Why do you feel the need to label everybody?

I'm a real kewl kat.🐈

reply

Kewl_Kat
who are you replying to re: labeling everybody? Since I mostly agree with what you said, and have for years, I didn't know who you were addressing. However, it's only irrelevant to the story if the story does not have homosexuality as a theme.

reply

I was responding to you. I just didn't care about the sexual orientation of Joe or Rico. However, it seemed obvious that Joe was a straight guy who only dabbled in homosexuality when times got tough. Yes, he wanted to make money by having sex with women but he actually was excited about that. He only did gay stuff out of desperation and he never enjoyed it in any of the scenes were it happened. He was ashamed only because that's not who he was. With Rico, it was vague. But I didn't care and I don't think anybody else did, either. I just felt bad for his situation as a human. He was so sick and miserable, I doubt sexual feelings were even on his mind. He just seemed to eventually appreciate Joe as a friend.

I'm a real kewl kat.🐈

reply

I agree, But you asked why I label them. You may have misunderstood my stance.

reply

Yeah, I thought you were Paranoid-Roegian for some reason. That's the weirdo I was responding to... sorry. I better go to bed.

I'm a real kewl kat.🐈

reply

You've made some good points, Kewl_Kat. I was under the impression that both Joe and "Ratso" were straight men, and two ordinary human beings who were making the best of the conditions they were living under. As you also pointed out, a very strange bond was formed between them, as well.

reply

They were linked together because they both had to survive. Joe Buck was an idealist who thought that he would be a street hustler in New York where women would pay him. Ratso was a survivalist who did what he could to save himself. The kindness that they eventually showed each other wasn't love or repressed feelings. It was an acknowledgment that they were working together to make their lives better.

reply

'Did no one here read the novel?'
-----------------
Why should we? The film is not the novel, and the novel is not a prerequisite to watch the film. I don't' care about the novel, nor should anyone else who relies on the film.

reply

That's absolutely correct, hodie. Homosexuality is not a choice..it's the way a person was born. An awful lot of people still don't get that.

reply

All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with, which I think is fraud as there are plenty of Twins who are 1 of each, if its genetic then it should either or. Traumatic childhood incidents can so F up your mind that your standards of what you will or will not do, no matter what, to survive, may hinge on those early experiences.

reply

All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with,


'Necessarily' is the key word. There is a spectrum of sexuality. People fall all along it based on a mixture of nature & nurture. It's not black and white. Why would you think there is a simple explanation to something that nobody can explain?

I'm a real kewl kat.🐈

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. Ultimately it was a story about finding friendship in the most unlikely of ways. A sensational film!

reply

Ultimately it was a story about finding friendship in the most unlikely of ways. A sensational film!


Exactly. Homosexuality is not a real subject. Accusation of it is used to diminish Joe's masculinity by Ratso, but it's really just empty insult. The film is about lonely people who find each other as friends. The novel is much more explicit about homosexuality. It's well worth a read, especially if you love the film as I do.

reply

Joe and Ratso loved each other by the end, but weren't in love with each other. There's a huge difference.

reply

What if they were women?

reply

Here is my take in my review http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/22307/midnight-cowboy/

Homosexuality- There has been much written, speculated and discussed about homosexuality in Midnight Cowboy, really TOO much. The reason I write this is that it is obvious that many who do this speculation have not taken the time to either read the book or to view the film and the associated commentaries. There also seems to be confusion as to the difference between homosexuality, homosexual behavior, homophobia and homoeroticism. All of these exist in the movie, but it is up to the viewer to separate the various behaviors as they relate to the respective characters. There is one basic premise about sexuality that must be understood before you can begin to understand the sexuality that is portrayed in the film. Here is the concept and fact: Sexual behavior can be controlled, sexual preference cannot.


There are three scenes in Midnight Cowboy that vividly showed homosexual activity. All three scenes associated homosexual behavior with violence. The scene in the movie house was haunting and brilliant with the use of the musical score and flashbacks. This scene seems rather innocuous now, but was responsible for the MPAA giving the film an X Rating. Joe was so desperate and naive that he even got swindled by a mousy little college kid played by Bob Balaban, and came away with nothing but more frustration. The second scene was a flashback dream-state that gave some insight to why Joe was so damaged sexually; both he and his girlfriend were brutalized and raped by a gang of his peers back in Texas. The third, and most brutal scene was with Towny, played by Barnard Hughes, a self-loathing momma’s boy of a closeted homosexual. Joe robbed and beat his trick because of his desperation for money to get himself and his buddy Ratso to Florida. The novel by Herlihy graphically describes yet another nightmare scene in Texas where Joe was betrayed and brutalized by his newfound friend Perry, but this event did not make it into the movie.


One of the most common questions posed after viewing Midnight Cowboy is Is Joe Buck gay? or Did Joe and Ratso have a homosexual relationship? The answer to both questions is a resounding “No!” Now Joe Buck certainly participated in homosexual behavior, this cannot be denied. Yes, he looked gay in his ridiculous cowboy getup, but he was not a gay, he was merely a straight man who was forced to do things that he otherwise would not have done. In desperation, Joe turned tricks with homosexuals to survive, but this behavior did not make him a homosexual. Joe also had some horrific and unimaginable unwanted homosexual experiences in Texas that went a long way in further degrading his already fragile psyche; but none of these things made him a homosexual. As far as Joe and Ratso were concerned, they were both extremely deprived and broken human beings, Ratso physically and Joe psychologically. Joe and Ratso formed a family unit, as bizarre and fragile as it was, nothing more. Ratso Rizzo gave every indication of being asexual, mostly because of his debilitated physical condition, but nothing indicated that he had any sort of a sexual interest in Joe or anyone else. Ratso, being crippled, used his homophobic rhetoric as sort of a bravado because of his own diminished physical condition.

Even Schlesinger himself laughed when questioned about the possibility of a homosexual relationship between Joe and Ratso, noting that the film was hard enough to sell as it was without having that “burden” as well. He (John Schlesinger) knew he was taking on a load with this movie, because he was a rare openly gay man himself. Midnight Cowboy was a bold experiment for not only focusing on male homosexuality, but also attacking the great American institution of masculinity itself, and the celebrated image of the Cowboy as being the very embodiment of masculinity. “Are you going to tell me John Wayne was a fag?” was uttered by Joe Buck when Ratso hit him with the reality that his cowboy gig was not what he thought it was. 42nd Street had spoken and this was not something that Joe was ready to hear.



Goat at Ruthless Reviews

reply

Agreed. I read your entire review. This film worked on every level. A brilliant depiction of character revelation and development as two souls find each other.

reply

Agreed. I read your entire review. This film worked on every level. A brilliant depiction of character revelation and development as two souls find each other.


Thanks for reading. The information is readily out there if people will just look for it instead of just jumping to the most obvious (and incorrect) conclusion.

Goat at Ruthless Reviews

reply

One of the most common questions posed after viewing Midnight Cowboy is Is Joe Buck gay? or Did Joe and Ratso have a homosexual relationship? The answer to both questions is a resounding “No!”


Totally agree

reply

I just watched it and I don't see Buck and Rizzo being portrayed as gay.

reply

I agree they were both straight, Joe did play half a f*g in the movie when he needed movie though but he was straight, prostitution is about paying money for sex and paying customers come in both genders, i think that female prostitutes would have sex with other women if they were given money in exchange for it, green is what matters, why would a broke down Hustler like Joe Buck turn down a man willing to pay him money for sex it he was broke and had no money left?

Doesnt make someone gay, just broke and desperate, even McDonalds allows Homeless people to come inside and buy food from the menu if they have enough money to pay for a meal, because green is still green, a gay man still has green money just like rich women have green money.

reply

Joe was just acting, in real life. Acting gay does not make one a gay. One of the most stunning examples is the acting of John Michael Higgins in the movie, Best in Show. Joe Buck did what he had to do to survive. He was clearly a heterosexual. Like I stated in my review "Sexual behavior can be controlled, sexual preference cannot.

Goat at Ruthless Reviews

reply

This is a wonderful post. I'm so glad that this site exists.

reply