Are you saying he wanted the situation that caused the X rating, when I always thought it showed how he came to New York City to be a big shot with the ladies, and ended up as just another hustler? I mean, the story is so meaningful that way . . . and when Hoffman gets sick, he realizes that there are more important things in life than "fame and fortune" -- even if he sought those things through sex, and didn't reach his goal. Again, I thought the scenes from the past alluded to whatever trauma sent him on this journey in the first place.
That kind of changes the film for me: from the general to the specific. I thought it was about broken dreams and broken people, and how, at least the people found each other. In spite of, or even because of the tragic circumstance of Hoffman's fatal illness. I didn't think it was just a film about sex. With a dramatic layer. I thought the drama was the foundation. The scene on the bus is beautiful, and in my view, has nothing to do with any kind of sexuality. More about human connection and caring.
As for that constant stream of "effing" in a film like "Blair Witch," yeah it is how a lot of people talk, but they really went to it - and do so in a lot of films. So much that you were paying more attention to the cursing than to the dramatic situation. I think films do not have to do this to such extremes that you kind of lose the film amidst all the profanity. That was supposed to be a shock-horror thing, and you kind of numb yourself after awhile to any kind of shock. A lotta films like that.
Elvis placed his wildness in interesting contexts, and really did shock people. And yes, what he did at the Pan Pacific ("we can't talk about that now," he says in '68) was truly shocking, and I think, remains so. It was a strange thing to do. The Colonel encouraged it, but no way he thought it up. Ricky Nelson was there and couldn't beleive what he'd seen. If he did that in Florida, even in ONE show, they'd have busted him. You know: the thing with Judge Gooding. And Elvis, according to June Juanico, in front of all the guys back stage, goes "F*** You Very Much!!!" to the audience, looking straight at the judge.
So, yeah, in a certain context, certain things do shock. It's when the shock is obliterated, that it becomes kinda boring.
I think Elvis could have handled a tough film in the late '60s, very early '70s. Maybe not that exact one, but if he indicated interest, the films would have come his way.
As far as a few years down a rugged road, I just don't know. Nothing is worse than not even giving it a try, as has been pointed out.
rjm
greystoke wrote:As I mentioned, Elvis was never going to star in Midnight Cowboy as the film ultimately came to be under the direction of John Schlesinger and with Waldo Salt's screenplay -- early drafts of the script, based on James Leo Herlihy's novel, were watered-down versions of the story, and that's what was doing the rounds before production started, and was thought appropriate as an Elvis vehicle. He was never offered a role and was never in line to play Joe Buck, whilst there's a great difference between one being considered suitable for a role and a part being offered. The former, being little more than talk . . .rjm wrote:To Pete or whomever is interested in the concept of "PC" . . .
I have heard of people, dunno if they were gay or not, who were quite offended.
You think everyone has become too sensitive? Hmmm. I prefer not to offend, if I can. This topic has taken an interesting turn. But only cause we were talking about a late 60s film, that Elvis had a shot at, that the media went all Victorian over and gave it an X rating. And today, it would be silly. At the time, I think, they wanted the controversy. So are we more sensitive now, or then? Not that easy a question. I saw the Blair Witch Project this afternoon, and EVERY OTHER WORD was the the four-letter one beginning with "F." With embellishments. IN BETWEEN words, even. So the 69 controversy over a perception of a homosexual act was just so silly. They didn't even curse, as I recall. ------
To any others, who think I want to hear Elvis say naughty things (!!!!!?????) :
rjm
The film, however, remains a cinematic landmark from an era in which new languages in sex, violence and dialogue were being explored in cinema -- this was one of several films to receive an X rating at the time, but remains the only X rated picture to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Yet, despite the content, and the initial rating awarded the film, this was soon reduced to an R rating, as many thought the MPAA was too harsh.
The scene in which Joe Buck gives oral to the older homosexual man, and the encounter with the younger kid in the cinema, are counter-points to Buck's own repressed homosexuality, which allows those scenes to be considered and viewed in an entirely different context to what you may be appreciating . . . Granted, what takes place is tame in comparison to cinema from the following decade and now, in 2011; but consider the era, the content and the subtext. This was daring, brilliant cinema and pivotal movie-making -- you may believe this silly now, but think of some of the furore over Elvis's on-stage gyrations and antics. And if you consider harmless asides and double entendres from the concert stage to have been close to the knuckle in 1969, think how those in the wings felt when the 21 year old Presley with writhing on top of Nipper on stage in 1956.
With regards to the Blair Witch Project, again, if you find the language to have been too coarse for your tastes, the aim here was realism and the dialogue reflects how plenty of people actually speak, or how those characters were perceived to have spoke in such a situation -- and this is what many directors strived to achieve during the mid-late sixties, and with films such as Midnight Cowboy. Plenty of films offered realistic dialogue before 1969, of course, but the envelope was being pushed further than before with regards to artistic freedom in late sixties Hollywood -- this was a rich time for cinema.