Midnight Cowboy - Best Later 20th Century American Film By An Englishman? [Archive]

View Full Version : Midnight Cowboy - Best Later 20th Century American Film By An Englishman?

Raphph

19-01-2002, 12:52

Check out my review of Midnight Cowboy at DVD Times (Review link is in my sig). I think it is the best post fifties American film by an English director?

Anyone agree/disagree with this claim?

cervaro

19-01-2002, 13:02

Originally posted by Raphph
(Review link is in my sig)

You forget the link in the sig?

I agree Midnight Cowboy is a brilliant movie, and when I first watched it as a teenager, it was enthralling. Never really saw the ending coming as it did. As to best late 20th Century movie by an Englishman, not sure. Ridley Scott has done some fine work, but I'd find it a struggle to name many English directors of any note come to that.

Raphph

19-01-2002, 13:09

The link is there - it's under Region 2

Mike

19-01-2002, 17:29

I think it's vastly overrated. All style, no real substance at all - and unlike in the work of De Palma, the style is not nearly accomplished enough to overcome this. Hoffman is on autopilot and only Jon Voight makes it worth watching. The satire lacks any bite and is obvious to say the least.

Better post-1960 American films by Englishmen (or Irishmen if you want to be pedantic)

Point Blank
Deliverance
Eureka
Shoot The Moon
Breaking Away
The Friends Of Eddie Coyle
Alien
Marathon Man (which has far more genuine film "style" than "Midnight Cowboy", proving that Schlesinger could do it if he tried)
The End Of The Affair
Psycho
Marnie
The Border
The Gambler
Everybody Wins
Juggernaut
Pulp
Leaving Las Vegas
Coal Miner's Daughter
The Dogs Of War
Under Fire
Petulia
Dangerous Liaisons
High Fidelity
The Loved One
Oliver !
Soldier Girls
Tatooed Tears
The Innocents
The Crucible

I think Boorman and Jordan knock Schlesinger for dead as far as talent goes, as would Roeg on a good day.

Cap'n Al

19-01-2002, 18:25

Originally posted by Raphph
I think it is the best post fifties American film by an English director?

Is that a serious statement? Are you honestly proposing that the work of (admittedly late) Hitchcock, Ridley Scott, Neil Jordan, (some) John Boorman and even the likes of Stephen Frears, Alan Parker, Terry Gilliam and (massively cheating here to make a point, but he was resident in England and making all his films there, so...) Stanley Kubrick didn't- and haven't- made consistently better films??? Mike's listed some of the more (and less) obvious, but I can think of dozens and dozens more.

Raphph

19-01-2002, 18:41

To be honest it wasn't a serious statement (and I wouldn't lie). I was thinking about what American films directed by English directors were the best, and used Midnight Cowboy as a way to start the debate.

When I said it was the best, I should have probably said it was my favourite (which is a different concept altogether from 'best', and I do acknowledge some very good choices (and some I disagree with)

Next week - English films by american directors!!

spider

21-01-2002, 10:35

Originally posted by Cap'n Al

(massively cheating here to make a point, but he was resident in England and making all his films there, so...) Stanley Kubrick
You're massively cheating with Jordan and Gilliam as well ;)

McD

23-01-2002, 20:58

I think Raphph was referring to English directors making fims in an American setting, rather than just American productions, which are endless. At least I hope so.

However, even something as recent as Donnie Brasco knocks the pants off the hugely overrated Midnight Cowboy.

Michael Brooke

24-01-2002, 13:27

You're massively cheating with Jordan and Gilliam as well 

Although born in LA, Terry Gilliam considers himself to be a British film-maker, and has said so on numerous occasions – most recently when the Evening Standard’s Alexander Walker attacked the Lottery for funding “this American director”. Gilliam pointed out that he holds a UK passport, that he’s spent his entire adult life here, and that the overwhelming majority of his creative output is firmly British, both in terms of tone and cultural origin.

I’d certainly argue that he’s a much more obviously “British” film-maker than Ridley Scott, whose sole lasting contribution to British film culture is the Hovis ad way back in the 1970s!

As for Neil Jordan, I think he’s pretty definitively Irish – though he’s also made distinguished British films (again, rather more than Ridley Scott!)

In any case, I don’t think a director’s nationality is ultimately that relevant – do we cite Double Indemnity as being a masterpiece of Austrian culture?

kerbcrawler

24-01-2002, 14:00

This is interesting and (despite some curious anomalies and the exclusion of Hitchcock) Mike's list has most of my immediate choices. I would necertheless throw PERFORMANCE in to the mix (note to self - petition Warners to get this released on DVD pronto) along with and Ken Russell's THE DEVILS. However if the parameters were narrowed to the 1970's only then I would certainly put MC in my Top Ten and I do think that it is a landmark piece of cinema.

RDNZL

24-01-2002, 15:17

OOPS! Just seen McD's post :o

Michael Brooke

24-01-2002, 18:10

I would necertheless throw PERFORMANCE in to the mix (note to self - petition Warners to get this released on DVD pronto) along with and Ken Russell's THE DEVILS. 

Both these films are pretty well 100% British (subject, casting, location, nationality of virtually everyone who worked on them), so they don't apply in this thread, which concerns American films by British directors.

kerbcrawler

25-01-2002, 09:45

Originally posted by Michael Brooke

Both these films are pretty well 100% British (subject, casting, location, nationality of virtually everyone who worked on them), so they don't apply in this thread, which concerns American films by British directors. [/B]

I appreciate what you're saying Michael but it does raise the question of what defines a National Cinema since the above were made solely with American Studio $$$ (Warner Bros. in both instances I think) and the executives in charge of Production were (I believe) very much Hollywood based.

For the sake of illustration (since I'm sure you are aware) if a movie is made in a UK studio - ALIEN say - it's set in space, it features international talent, is made primarily by UK talent, but financed by a major US studio - combining genre conventions (arguably) American in origin - does it become an international movie? I think most people would agree that ALIEN is very much a Hollywood movie and I would argue that both PERFORMANCE and THE DEVILS are perverse examples of the same.

Michael Brooke

25-01-2002, 22:05

I appreciate what you're saying Michael but it does raise the question of what defines a National Cinema since the above were made solely with American Studio $$$ (Warner Bros. in both instances I think) and the executives in charge of Production were (I believe) very much Hollywood based. 

Yes, but they had no creative input whatsoever - indeed, the Warner execs loathed both films so much that they did their level best to mutilate and dump them. The Devils was butchered in the US (I don't think it's ever been screened there in anything approaching Russell's original cut), and Performance would have been as well if Donald Cammell hadn't rather radically reinterpreted Warners' insistence that he shorten it by coming up with one of the most radical editing strategies ever seen in a mainstream feature film. Even then, it was stuck on the shelf for two years and only released after a change of regime at Warners.

For the sake of illustration (since I'm sure you are aware) if a movie is made in a UK studio - ALIEN say - it's set in space, it features international talent, is made primarily by UK talent, but financed by a major US studio - combining genre conventions (arguably) American in origin - does it become an international movie? 

You have to judge this on a case-by-case basis - it's impossible to generalise. In any case, I disagree that Alien is made "primarily" by UK talent, since virtually all the key creative roles (the writers, the producers, five-sevenths of the cast, the composer) were filled by Americans, quite apart from the overwhelmingly American tone and generic subject matter. So it's essentially a Hollywood film with some British input.

I think most people would agree that ALIEN is very much a Hollywood movie and I would argue that both PERFORMANCE and THE DEVILS are perverse examples of the same.

Sorry, I totally disagree, because there's nothing remotely "Hollywood" about either of those two films. Unlike Alien, there's no significant American input other than financing (Performance's co-editor Frank Mazzola is about the best I can come up with), both films are virtually 100% British in terms of cast, crew and location, and both are based on firmly British subject matter (true, The Devils is set in France, but the literary source material is British). I don't call that "Hollywood" by any stretch of the imagination!

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, not only are Performance and The Devils American, but so are The Commitments and The Full Monty - and, furthermore, David Lynch's recent films are French, Ken Loach's recent films are German, most of Peter Greenaway's films are Dutch, The King of Comedy, Brazil and Once Upon a Time in America are Israeli and Colin Welland should have shouted "The Egyptians are coming!" when he picked up his Oscar for Chariots of Fire! You see the problem?

Personally, I don't think the financing should have anything to do with establishing a film's nationality - something that the British government has belatedly acknowledged when it recently redefined its definition of a British film from something made with mostly British money to a film where at least 70% of the budget was spent in Britain or on British talent, regardless of where the money came from. That's a much more sensible definition, because it's slanted towards a film's national and cultural origins as opposed to its financial ones.

kerbcrawler

28-01-2002, 12:10

Thanks Michael for your informed response.

I'm sorry but I still do not agree with you although I would agree that financing should not have anything to do with establishing a film's nationality but it obviously and sadly does, especially when it buys ownership rights. Accordingly I was under the impression that THE COMMITMENTS and THE FULL MONTY were considered to be American movies by various sectors of the industry. I may well be wrong here but I could swear I read various articles exploring this very situation at the time of THE FULL MONTY's release. However I would accept that there is a big difference in calling a movie an 'American movie' or a 'Hollywood movie' and that THE FULL MONTY is nothing like your typical 'Hollywood movie' even if it was made with American $$$.

I would also argue that while specific production exec's had no creative input per se, their money and influence did - would the expansive sets of THE DEVILS have been quite so lush without it?... would PERFORMANCE have sat on a shelf for 2 years? .... might we not have had a director's cut of THE DEVILS by now?

I was not aware of the governement re-defining what is or is not a British film since I am not really all that fussed about it and generally speaking do not like british films of recent years, but I am assuming this new definition will only apply to new or future films and I am again quite certain that this definition did not apply 30 years ago.

Finally, it did occur to me over the weekend that my example of ALIEN wasn't the best. I also wondered what nationality you would give to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE which, despite it being as much a Kubrick film as THE DEVILS is Russell's, struck me as being another 'oddball' film from the same era in the Warners canon that was also made in Britain with predominantly British talent. So, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - British or American?

Michael Brooke

28-01-2002, 16:34

I'm sorry but I still do not agree with you although I would agree that financing should not have anything to do with establishing a film's nationality but it obviously and sadly does, especially when it buys ownership rights. 

Yes, but I think that should be a separate issue. Obviously it’s important to establish a film’s technical nationality from the point of view of apportioning rights and indeed tax breaks (I’ve recently had to prove to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that my own film Paradise Grove is British by getting every senior cast and crew member to sign a declaration to that effect!), but this should be an internal matter that’s only of concern to people who have an interest in the relevant documentation.

Accordingly I was under the impression that THE COMMITMENTS and THE FULL MONTY were considered to be American movies by various sectors of the industry. 

Yes, but we’re now up against the problem whereby an “official” definition is in conflict with the common-sense one. Technically, yes, The Commitments and The Full Monty are, in industry terms, American – but this is an absurd claim to make when set against the evidence of the films themselves, which are respectively Irish/British and wholly British in terms of conception, location, culture and creative personnel.

Just to come up with an even better illustration of the absurdity of taking the official line, Kurosawa’s Kagemusha and Ran are technically American and French – but how many people would support that particular line?

I may well be wrong here but I could swear I read various articles exploring this very situation at the time of THE FULL MONTY's release. However I would accept that there is a big difference in calling a movie an 'American movie' or a 'Hollywood movie' and that THE FULL MONTY is nothing like your typical 'Hollywood movie' even if it was made with American $$$. 

I think you have to accept that, because if you take the financing argument to its logical conclusion, everything released by Columbia must be Japanese! The source of financing should be utterly irrelevant to determining a film’s true nationality (as opposed to its “official” nationality for tax purposes, which is a separate issue).

I would also argue that while specific production exec's had no creative input per se, their money and influence did - would the expansive sets of THE DEVILS have been quite so lush without it?... would PERFORMANCE have sat on a shelf for 2 years? .... might we not have had a director's cut of THE DEVILS by now?

These are irrelevant side issues - The Devils would be an unmistakably British film no matter what the size of the budget (the input of Ken Russell, John Whiting, Aldous Huxley, Derek Jarman, Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave and Peter Maxwell Davies alone establishes that!), putting Performance on the shelf did nothing to the content of the film itself, and The Devils was butchered in America after a cut approved by Ken Russell had been released in Britain, and this version is still in circulation over here, though I don’t think it’s ever been shown in the US.

In any case, The Devils wasn’t an especially big-budget film – Derek Jarman worked wonders with the sets on what was actually a fairly tight budget and schedule.

I was not aware of the governement re-defining what is or is not a British film since I am not really all that fussed about it and generally speaking do not like british films of recent years, but I am assuming this new definition will only apply to new or future films and I am again quite certain that this definition did not apply 30 years ago. 

It doesn’t matter whether it did or didn’t. The point is that the “official” definition is now much more based on common sense than it used to be, which means that this sort of confusion is less likely to occur in the future.

Finally, it did occur to me over the weekend that my example of ALIEN wasn't the best. I also wondered what nationality you would give to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE which, despite it being as much a Kubrick film as THE DEVILS is Russell's, struck me as being another 'oddball' film from the same era in the Warners canon that was also made in Britain with predominantly British talent. So, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - British or American?

Easy – British. British novel, British setting, overwhelmingly British cast and crew (even the American Walter Carlos’ score drew heavily on British sources such as Purcell and Elgar), and overwhelmingly drawn from (and indeed subsequently making a major contribution to) British culture. In these circumstances, the nationality of the director and the financiers seems entirely irrelevant – and I’d also consider films like Blow-Up, The Go-Between and indeed Sense and Sensibility to be British for the same reason. After all, how many people champion the Sydney Opera House as a great masterpiece of Finnish architecture?

kerbcrawler

28-01-2002, 16:58

Thanks Michael. I enjoyed that. Apologies to everyone else.

Raphph

28-01-2002, 18:58

off the subject, I had a similar argument with a football fan. Is a football team governed by the nationality of the players or the nationalit of the team. if Man Utd. had 11 japanese players managed by a japanese manager and owned by a japanese chariman would they still be considered an English football team? Tricky, isn't it.

No-one slate me for changing the subject - It's my thread goddamnit!!

Michael Brooke

30-01-2002, 17:15

With inspired timing, <A HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=117088">this piece</A> appeared in today's Independent!

Cap'n Al

30-01-2002, 19:44

I think that trying to claim Peter Greenaway's films as 'British' is a doomed attempt from the outset, given his recent output; 8 1/2 Women (set in Italy, international cast & crew), The Pillow Book (set in Hong Kong, international cast & crew), and The Baby of Macon (set in a stable somewhere, international cast & crew.) Even his more 'conventional' (ha, bloody ha) stuff from the 1980s is probably best seen as English-language, rather than British.

I'm also intrigued by the definition of 'a British film' as it seems so remarkably broad. I'd never have said Harry Potter was a British film- co-production, certainly, but it's stretching it to say it's British. Ditto Gosford Park, which is at least mostly funded by British money.

Michael Brooke

31-01-2002, 12:02

I think that trying to claim Peter Greenaway's films as 'British' is a doomed attempt from the outset, given his recent output; 8 1/2 Women (set in Italy, international cast & crew), The Pillow Book (set in Hong Kong, international cast & crew), and The Baby of Macon (set in a stable somewhere, international cast & crew.) Even his more 'conventional' (ha, bloody ha) stuff from the 1980s is probably best seen as English-language, rather than British. 

I can see where you’re coming from, but I’ve always found Greenaway a peculiarly English (as distinct from British) film-maker, regardless of where his films happen to be set – there’s a fussily dogged eccentricity about them that makes them unmistakably of the culture from which their creator sprang. In fact, it’s quite hard to think of films more distinctively English than The Falls, The Draughtsman’s Contract, Drowning By Numbers and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover!

From a similar viewpoint, is Tarkovsky’s Nostalghia Italian or Russian? The largely Italian setting, cast, crew and production company would suggest the former, but in fact few films are more wholly imbued with the Russian soul at every single level. Oddly enough, though, I don’t find that that’s true of The Sacrifice, which is unmistakably Tarkovsky but not especially “Russian”, if that makes any sense.

stefmcd

31-01-2002, 15:04

'Midnight Cowboy' is a deeply moving film. Hoffman and Voight provide very convincing portrayals. I think the original post offered a valid claim.
Other posts made seem to be confusing a single film with a director's catalogue.
I would go so far as to say this film has one of the most perfect endings in modern cinema. And let's not forget John Barry's magnificent score

- 'One fine night I'm gonna fly right out my window - I'm gonna fly so high that the people below won't see me go - by'