Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Cruising (1980)

The thread to discuss this notorious movie.

Do you remember when it came out?

Love it or hate it?

How accurate?

by Anonymousreply 303October 21, 2022 6:35 AM

Nothing to see here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1June 18, 2015 9:13 PM

The violence is more violent than the sex is sexy.

by Anonymousreply 2June 18, 2015 9:34 PM

I remember I was 18 when it came out and there were protests outside the theater.

I had never seen an organized protest before. I remember being petrified when crossing the picket line.

I was scared my parents would see my face on the evening news going to a gay movie.

by Anonymousreply 3June 18, 2015 9:43 PM

I remember watching this on Bravo in the late 90s when I was around 11. I thought it was an accurate depiction of life as a gay adult so I found it both frightening and fascinating.

by Anonymousreply 4June 18, 2015 10:11 PM

I was not alive at the time, but I read that gay people protested and disrupted filming because they thought it was offensive.

[quote] Throughout the summer of 1979, members of New York's gay community protested against the production of the film. Gay people were urged to disrupt filming, and gay-owned businesses to bar the filmmakers from their premises. People attempted to interfere with shooting by pointing mirrors from rooftops to ruin lighting for scenes, blasting whistles and air horns near locations, and playing loud music. One thousand protesters marched through the East Village demanding the city withdraw support for the film.[10]

[quote] Al Pacino said that he understood the protests but insisted that upon reading the screenplay he never at any point felt that the film was anti-gay. He said that the leather bars were "just a fragment of the gay community, the same way the Mafia is a fragment of Italian-American life", referring to The Godfather, and that he would "never want to do anything to harm the gay community".[11]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5June 18, 2015 10:17 PM

It sort of annoyed me the way the ending was so left open to interpretation, but I guess it's more interesting that way. I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it, but it's not clear at the end whether they caught the real killer or whether there were multiple killers. A few different people had motives and it seems like someone gets away at the end and the one they catch might just be taking the fall.

by Anonymousreply 6June 18, 2015 10:22 PM

From a new interview with director William Friedkin:

There’s a really bizarre connection between the backstory of Cruising and The Exorcist.

Paul Bateson had been in The Exorcist, and I saw his picture on the front page of the NY Daily News as a suspect in all these murders. I got in touch with his lawyers and asked if he’d agree to see me. He was being held at Riker’s Island, pending trial. He was very anxious to see me. He told me his story, which was the real and final motivational kick for me to do the film. This is also why I basically leave the murders unsolved in the film. What Bateson said to me is he was being charged with the murder of a man named Addison Verrell, who was the theater critic for Variety in New York. He admitted to me that he had murdered Addison. He picked him up in the Mineshaft and brought him home, hit him over the head with a frying pan, killed him and cut him up. He put his body in a plastic bag and dumped him in the east river. There were many such bags that were being fished out of the East River, which is how they got Paul Bateson. In very small print on a part of the bag it said “Property of NYU Medical Center. [Laughs] That’s how they traced these bags with body parts They were just body parts that were unidentified. They were called CUPPIs, which stood for Circumstances Unknown Pending Police Investigation. He was being held for about eight CUPPI murders. He told me the place offered him a deal. If he confessed to four or five more murders, they would reduce his sentence. They wanted the headlines: Fifteen murders solved. I asked him, “What are you going to do?” He said, “I don’t know. I’m thinking about it.” Anyway, he got out about 10 or 15 years ago so he must have taken that deal and gone into witness protection.

by Anonymousreply 7June 18, 2015 10:27 PM

Cruising got a lot of attention again two years ago for informing the James Franco movie Interior. Leather Bar, which used the footage you cut from your film as a broader discussion about male sexuality. What are those legendary missing 40 minutes?

Just pornography. There was one scene that I took out that involved an actual incident with two cops who were watching the area around the Mineshaft because of the violence in and around it. These two cops at one time were bored with the detail and started to play strip poker. The penalty being the one who lost would allow the other to beat him on the ass with his billy club. I think it’s one of the most provocative scenes I’ve ever shot. I just filmed everything that took place at the Mineshaft with Pacino watching and wondering and it’s down to just a handful of shots now. I’d shot 40 minutes worth. I put it into the cut I showed the ratings board knowing that they’d get rid of all of it and leave me with what I needed to tell the story. I wouldn’t put that footage back in. I think if I did that now it would be exploitive. It was nothing that moved the plot.

by Anonymousreply 8June 18, 2015 10:30 PM

Brian De Palma was originally set to direct Cruising, but couldn't for some reason. He then wrote and directed Dressed to Kill, which has a similar theme, to make up for the loss of not getting Cruising.

by Anonymousreply 9June 18, 2015 10:32 PM

[quote]What are those legendary missing 40 minutes? Just pornography.

Nah. Porn makes my dick hard. This...didn't.

by Anonymousreply 10June 18, 2015 10:40 PM

Friedkin is a sick fuck.

by Anonymousreply 11June 18, 2015 10:43 PM

The first time I visited NYC as a sixteen year-old was the weekend "Cruising" was released. My parents and I were in Times Square, and when they saw the protests and commotion outside the theater, they wanted to go over and "see what all the ruckus was about!" I was horrified, as if being near gay people would make me somehow gayer than I already was, and so I steered them away! I now wish I hadn't!

by Anonymousreply 12June 18, 2015 10:47 PM

I still think the protests for this and especially for "Basic Instinct" were ridiculously misguided.

by Anonymousreply 13June 18, 2015 10:55 PM

Do you now? Were you there? Like some others here, I was a kid and I passed by The National Theater on opening night. The protestors were passionate and I wasn't of age yet to even see an R rated movie. I still have the flyers and literature they were handing out. The movie definitely exploits the cliches that at the time mainstream thought were how gay people lived.

Even Vincent Canby is in opening day NY Times review wrote how ludicrous it was...

"Homosexual activist groups, which have ben protesting the production of "Cruising" on the grounds that it would present a distorted view of homosexual life were right. "Cruising" is a homosexual horror film.

by Anonymousreply 14June 18, 2015 11:41 PM

Were any of you involved in the gay scene in New York around this time? Was it known how dangerous the leather bars were back then? There was a serial killer who was going to the leather bars and killing lots of gay men and cutting them up into pieces. Weren't gay people in NYC scared?

by Anonymousreply 15June 18, 2015 11:48 PM

I saw this in a rundown art deco movie palace,wich made the movie seem even creepier. I had been out a few years at that point,done quite a bit that was in the film even,and I was utterly repulsed and horrified by that movie. I think it set back gay rights a decade or more. So many straight people took that movie as gospel as to what we were really like,and would tell each other after watching it "See,I told you they were all perverted" . The scene where the killer tells that poor trick "Im taking the most valuable thing you have,your life" and then stabs him in the back gave me NIGHTMARES.

by Anonymousreply 16June 18, 2015 11:51 PM

Damn, this movie was running on TV for months, but I passed on it. I've only seen bits and pieces of it previously, but I didn't know it actually bordered on horror. Maybe it's still On Demand.

by Anonymousreply 17June 19, 2015 12:18 AM

I was in grammar school when it came out. I just remember it being discussed on the news a lot. I still have never seen it.

by Anonymousreply 18June 19, 2015 12:38 AM

I think there was heavy protesting during the filming which scared the studio. By the time it was released it was done halfheartedly in a minor way. They knew critics would savage it and people would be offended so they kind of dumped it to get rid of it.

It is an incredibly ugly and depressing movie (especially if you are gay.

I believe Al Pacino later apologized for it saying he wouldn't have done it if he had it to do over because of how many people thought the film was harmful to them.

Franco's obsession with it is just odd like everything he does. He probably got interested in it since "Cruising" is the only film credit his acting teacher has on imdb.

by Anonymousreply 19June 19, 2015 12:46 AM

If this movie was made in 2010 instead of 1980 it would've garnered the same positive attention "Stranger By The Lake" got.

by Anonymousreply 20June 19, 2015 12:57 AM

I don't believe a word of what Friedkin says. Sick man.

Bateson was actually very cute.

by Anonymousreply 21June 19, 2015 1:13 AM

I'm not sure "Cruising" was all that responsible for any big change of thought in the general population, because other than the little bit of news when it opened NOBODY went to see it, and it was a total FLOP.

by Anonymousreply 22June 19, 2015 1:14 AM

It's a lot better movie than the reviews would lead you to believe. I think it's one of the most under appreciated films of the 80s. It's scary, gritty, and a snapshot of what gay life was like just before AIDS hit. I'm sure most of the gay extras in the movie died within a few years of the movie's release, which makes the movie even more chilling.

by Anonymousreply 23June 19, 2015 2:40 AM

Were the sex scenes actually tame by real life standards?

Guys actually getting fisted by a greased-up hand?

by Anonymousreply 24June 19, 2015 4:55 AM

All I know is that it features a yummy jimmy remar in his most delicious

by Anonymousreply 25June 19, 2015 6:21 AM

I didn't see it until many years after its release.

A girl at school was talking about it. She said "Al Pacino did something really bad in the movie."

I asked "Did he kill somebody?"

She said "NO. Much worse. He had sex with a MAN!"

Here's hoping she got out of the backwoods and is happily bumping pussy somewhere today.

by Anonymousreply 26June 19, 2015 7:11 AM

[quote]So many straight people took that movie as gospel as to what we were really like

That was the big problem but I don't know if Friedken was responsible for it, really. He approached the film without that kind of bias, but on the other hand, he should be responsible for knowing the cultural climate and knowing that Mr and Mrs Middle America were going to think "this is how the homosexual lives!"

But there are a few scenes where the cinematography is exploitative, lingering on the guys in the Mineshaft like they were freaks or wild animals in a nature special. That's pretty troubling stuff.

by Anonymousreply 27June 19, 2015 8:28 AM

[quote] Here's hoping she got out of the backwoods and is happily bumping pussy somewhere today.

Or better yet, her husband is having "sex with a MAN!"

by Anonymousreply 28June 19, 2015 8:42 AM

Karen Allen was kinda sexy in the closing shots of the film. Is that weird???

by Anonymousreply 29June 19, 2015 8:52 AM

[quote]It's scary, gritty, and a snapshot of what gay life was like just before AIDS hit.

For a very small portion of the gay community. The movie makes it seem like that is all there is to gay life, and that ALL gays are this way.

From Vincent Canby New York Times... "It's a world unto itself" says a New York detective early in "Cruising" Williams Friedkin's muddled melodrama about a particularly bizarre homosexual subculture in New York City. "It's not the mainstream of gay life"

That's what the detective says but everywhere the movie goes, it sees nothing but young and not-so-young men who dress as if they were going to a costume ball in a garage for motorcyclists, leather jackets, leather vests, leather jeans, leather boots, leather caps, lots of superfluous chains, decorated with the studs that are sequins to members of the fancy s. and m. crowd.

When Mr. Friedkin's camera passes through West Greenwich Village on a summer evening, it finds the streets and sidewalks teeming with men, seemingly hundreds of them, all of whom look exactly alike. When the movie goes uptown to seek out a late night tryst, it finds more people milling around Central Park than you'd see in Times Square on New Year's Eve. According to "Cruising", alien creatures have occupied New York, a city where it's always night for the living dead.

by Anonymousreply 30June 19, 2015 9:09 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31June 19, 2015 9:11 AM

Yes there is a scene of a guy in sling and another guy greasing his arm up to his elbow before he fist fucks him.

As I said upthread I was 18 when I saw it. I had never heard of fisting before and I was just gobsmacked.

by Anonymousreply 32June 19, 2015 12:57 PM

[quote]For a very small portion of the gay community. The movie makes it seem like that is all there is to gay life, and that ALL gays are this way.

I think it was the norm for gays in NYC. Sex was everywhere during the 70s up until AIDS hit, from Central Park to the piers to the bathhouses to Fire Island. Everyone was having as much sex with as many men as possible. 1970s New York was like Alice down the rabbit hole.

by Anonymousreply 33June 19, 2015 3:57 PM

Yeah,of course it was, that's why the gay community was up in arms and banded together to protest. The S & M leather scene is only a small portion of the gay community. The movie made it seem mainstream and everywhere including the streets. It wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 34June 19, 2015 4:45 PM

I found that Quentin Tarantino film more offensive

by Anonymousreply 35June 19, 2015 4:53 PM

I posted roughly this same message already on "The Exorcist" thread elsewhere here.

In the late 70's, I was an actor in NYC, and attended a SAG casting call for extras in "Cruising," for only men. There was a large crowd of men in the room, and a casting person announced at the beginning that everyone would be required to sign release forms, because they'd be required to actually participate in gay sex acts in the background during scenes. I was closeted at the time, and didn't want such a thing to be known about what I hoped would eventually be a career. So, like many of the men there, I walked out. I later heard they ended up using non-Union men for those scenes, though I would guess those got their SAG cards from working on it.

During the actual filming, one night, when I was in the Ramrod bar, down on West St., a man burst in, announcing that the "Cruising" shoot was nearby, and we all needed to go there and protest. I didn't go, and neither did most of the men there, if any. I was still living in fear about being openly gay, and didn't want to get into any possible publicity, especially since I was married to a woman at the time.

Though I have not seen the completed film from start to finish, I have seen most of it, on cable, in bits and pieces, and, like most of the posters above, consider it to be little better than smarmy exploitation, especially in its intimation that homosexuality can be "catching," if, like the Al Pacino character, you expose yourself to it long enough. This is really reprehensible on the part of Friedkin and his creative team, appealing to so-called "mainstream" straights by showing the perverts at play. (What's even more interesting is that one of Friedkin's first directorial efforts was the film version of "Boys in the Band," which is, by and large, sympathetic to its gay characters, apart from the fact that most of them are written as self-hating alcoholics and drug addicts.)

Fortunately, when it first opened, "Cruising" was a big flop. No one went to see it, and it quickly disappeared.

As a gay man who lived in New York during what I now call the "heyday," of PPPA (or Post Pill Pre-AIDS, when everyone was doing everything, I am still amazed that I not only survived, but am still negative. That's what comes from being a top, I guess. I can remember seeing West St. literally swarming with gay men on Sunday afternoons, and there was rampant sex to be had, in any number of places. At that time, all you need worry about was going to the doctor, and any communicable disease could be easily cured. (I once met a man who said he'd had syphillis "three times," and showed me the scar from the lesion on the head of his cock. That was enlightening...)

But, even though the movie pays lipservice to the idea that this is only a small percentage of gay men, what "Cruising" actually shows is quite the opposite, going for the sensational, and even killing off the sympathetic character of Pacino's nice gay next-door neighbor, played by Don Scardino, whom I'd seen on Broadway in the musical version of "King of Hearts." Friedkin presents a whole sickened world of dark impluses on steroids.

Frankly, I've never found Friedkin to be a particularly affecting filmmaker. "The Exorcist" is horrific and shocking on first viewing, but does not hold up on repeated viewings, because you're aware of what's coming next. Not like "Psycho," which still scares the crap out of you, perhaps because of the contribution of its composer, Bernard Herrmann. (For instance, watch "Psycho" sometime with the sound turned off, and you'll see what I mean.) Famously, Friedkin asked Herrmann to score "The Exorcist," but, apparently, Herrmann was not impressed with the film, and demurred. Supposedly, Friedkin said to Herrmann after a screening of a work print, "Why don't you give me a score like what you wrote for "Citizen Kane?" To which Herrmann answered, "Why don't you give me a picture like "Citizen Kane!"

by Anonymousreply 36June 19, 2015 5:22 PM

[quote] I think it set back gay rights a decade or more.

Mary!

[quote] So many straight people took that movie as gospel as to what we were really like,and would tell each other after watching it "See,I told you they were all perverted" .

Yes, so many straight people flocked to see this. It was on all their lips in 1980.

by Anonymousreply 37June 19, 2015 5:26 PM

[quote] Even Vincent Canby is in opening day NY Times review wrote how ludicrous it was... "Homosexual activist groups, which have ben protesting the production of "Cruising" on the grounds that it would present a distorted view of homosexual life were right. "Cruising" is a homosexual horror film.

Yes, when I want someone to chime in on the accuracy of the gay life, I'll go ask Vincent Canby.

The fact is, Arthur Bell and his ilk were protesting a film that hadn't even been shot or completed, which totally negated their argument. It's one thing to protest Silence of the Lambs or Basic Instinct (if you feel it's a reason to protest), when you're doing so after seeing the end product. But when you're wringing your hands over something you're perceiving to be homophobic with no proof whatsoever (from a filmmaker who had already proven himself to be a gay ally) then really you've got another agenda.

I think Friedkin has done more for the legacy of gay cinema than 75% of the openly gay filmmakers out there who have been making films for the past 20 years. I'd rather sit through Cruising or Boys in The Band a hundred times than any of the Eating Out films or whatever shit Casper Andreas, Rob Williams or any number of hacks working for TLA grind out on a yearly basis.

by Anonymousreply 38June 19, 2015 5:55 PM

I rewatched it on cable or streaming a couple of years ago, and it struck me that if it had been the exact same movie, but presented as a foreign art film rather than a Hollywood production, it would have gotten a lot more respect.

If Pasolini had directed the exact same movie, frame for frame, the reaction to it would have been very different.

by Anonymousreply 39June 19, 2015 5:58 PM

That Bernard Hermann Citizen Kane quip sounds phony to me.

by Anonymousreply 40June 19, 2015 6:11 PM

All the guys in the film have this sickly pallor, are pale and really unattractive.

The apartment building where the killer lives looks exactly the same and you really can just walk up the steps to the park across the street and pretty much peer into the windows.

by Anonymousreply 41June 19, 2015 6:14 PM

To R40: Got that quote from biography of Bernard Herrmann, "A Heart at Fire's Center."

by Anonymousreply 42June 19, 2015 6:19 PM

The soundtrack is fabulous. Glam rock, early punk, you name it.

by Anonymousreply 43June 19, 2015 6:25 PM

For those of you who haven't seen the movie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 44June 19, 2015 6:35 PM

[quote]its intimation that homosexuality can be "catching," if, like the Al Pacino character, you expose yourself to it long enough

I wanted to talk about this but first...

SPOILERS!

I don't think Pacino's character was meant to "catch the gay," I think he was meant to be closeted or even unaware of his own sexuality before he went undercover. It was implied that he volunteered because he was acting out his suppressed sexuality, and when he's approached with the yellow bandana but freezes, I felt that was not reticence because he thought gay was icky but because it would mean he couldn't deny his true identity if he went through with it.

And at the very end when one of the possible murderers is his girlfriend, and she puts on his sunglasses, I think that's another clue, that he hooked up with her because of her own identity issues.

Not that there aren't problems with "Cruising" but I think that they mainly come down to cultural cluelessness in 1980 and Friedken just not understanding that he wasn't "educating" mainstream straights but exploiting gay subculture.

by Anonymousreply 45June 19, 2015 6:57 PM

[quote]And at the very end when one of the possible murderers is his girlfriend, and she puts on his sunglasses, I think that's another clue, that he hooked up with her because of her own identity issues.

The girlfriend, played by Karen Allen, was never implied as one of the possible murderers. I don't know how you came up with that theory. Just because she puts on his hat and sunglasses doesn't mean anything except that she found them in her boyfriend's apartment. Now, Pacino is a different story....

by Anonymousreply 46June 19, 2015 7:52 PM

I couldn't tell half of the guys apart. They all looked like Al Pacino - sickly Italian-American Vinnies..

by Anonymousreply 47June 19, 2015 9:41 PM

[quote]I couldn't tell half of the guys apart. They all looked like Al Pacino - sickly Italian-American Vinnies..

Welcome to NY/NJ in 1980.

by Anonymousreply 48June 19, 2015 10:22 PM

No it clearly implied he caught the gay and you will too if you keep investigating shit like this. There was nothing subtle at all about this message.

by Anonymousreply 49June 19, 2015 11:03 PM

R35

What Tarantino movie?

by Anonymousreply 50June 19, 2015 11:18 PM

I think it implied that William Friedkin himself caught the gay. I'll never believe that a straight male director in the 1970s would have directed two gay movies if he wasn't himself gay or bisexual. And no straight male would have filmed over 40 minutes of extreme gay sex acts unless they were curious about it. I think Friedkin and Sherry Lansing might be in a lavender marriage, much like Julie Andrews and Blake Edwards.

by Anonymousreply 51June 19, 2015 11:20 PM

R49

I'm not upset about the "catch gay" undertones. This was 35 years ago and people weren't as enlightened.

If someone tried to pass that off now it would be a different matter.

by Anonymousreply 52June 19, 2015 11:21 PM

I think the scenes where Pacino is cruising the killer suspect are hilarious. It's like Come Back to Me from On A Clear Day You Can See Forever.

by Anonymousreply 53June 19, 2015 11:30 PM

There isn't a single woman in the movie aside from Karen Allen. Not even as an extra.

The forty minutes story by Friedkin has changed over the years. In the past, he has said there were scenes cut that went into more depth concerning Pacino and Allen's relationship. There was also a scene that showed a barge with "We are everywhere" written in graffiti on it. Also scenes that made the ending more understandable. In recent years, though, he's started saying that it's simply porn scenes.

I believe scenes were cut, since the movie has the feel of being heavily edited plot wise. There are huge confusing gaps and plot points that are left completely unresolved.

by Anonymousreply 54June 19, 2015 11:54 PM

I love the scene where Pacino gets high and decides to let his freak flag fly on the dancefloor..

by Anonymousreply 55June 19, 2015 11:55 PM

For those who haven't seen it:

It's available on Cinemax on demand thru September

by Anonymousreply 56June 20, 2015 12:16 AM

[quote]I believe scenes were cut, since the movie has the feel of being heavily edited plot wise. There are huge confusing gaps and plot points that are left completely unresolved.

I have no idea whether or not they exist, but WB was able to find a bunch of cut scenes from another Lorimar movie that year: [italic]The Big Red One[/italic]. So they might still be there, but if Friedkin doesn't even want them back in that's probably the end of it.

by Anonymousreply 57June 20, 2015 12:31 AM

I think Friedkin said the material was long gone, at least that's what he said on the commentary for the movie.

by Anonymousreply 58June 20, 2015 12:32 AM

What was the interrogation scene with the muscle black dude in the jock strap about? I remember it being hot.

Ps. To Live in and Die in LA. The movie and the soundtrack were both incredible and still hold up.

by Anonymousreply 59June 20, 2015 12:37 AM

William Peterson was such a hot piece of ass back in the day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 60June 20, 2015 12:44 AM

[quote] For those who haven't seen it: It's available on Cinemax on demand thru September'

In High Definition! Thanks R56

by Anonymousreply 61June 20, 2015 12:52 AM

The lead actor at the end is shaken from the experience and ends with him being intimently comforted by his girlfriend. That's scripted for hetero appeal and render the impression he was back to safe normalcy. Today, such an ending would not be presented that way.

by Anonymousreply 62June 20, 2015 12:56 AM

R59, agreed. To Live and Die in LA has aged very well. One of the most fluid action movies I've seen. I'm not sure about Sorcerer though. I tried watching it, but couldn't make it all the way through.

by Anonymousreply 63June 20, 2015 1:00 AM

To Live and Die in LA

had beautiful ass work. John Pankow from Mad About You made a lovely presentation.

by Anonymousreply 64June 20, 2015 1:05 AM

Friedkin also directed this classic Freudian video. Song is beyond fabulous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 65June 20, 2015 1:14 AM

Off topic, but speaking of William Petersen, "Manhunter" from around the same has also aged very well.

by Anonymousreply 66June 20, 2015 1:22 AM

I vaguely remember this thing (roll eyes). I had just turned 18 at the time. Believe it or not, the fisting (which I didn't know anything about at the time!) didn't bother me. Pacino practically raping Allen was disturbing.

This film was cut 3 times during its theatrical run and who knows how many times since then.

Pacino fell under the radar for quite some time after this. Friedkin was literally never heard from again. Allen went on to do Raiders. Go figure.

by Anonymousreply 67June 20, 2015 1:36 AM

This and Windows were the first two gay themed movies released in the 1980's.

In retrospective it's kind of fitting in a very depressing, unfortunate way.

by Anonymousreply 68June 20, 2015 1:41 AM

My parents used to drop us kids off at the movies on the weekends, so they had a "babysitter". I saw this movie with 4 of my siblings. We were all in the 8-12 range! I remember being quite confused as to what was going on, but knew it had something to do with men and men, sexually. LOL. To this day, I LOVE this movie, even if it's kinda bad.

by Anonymousreply 69June 20, 2015 2:12 AM

[quote] This and Windows were the first two gay themed movies released in the 1980's.

Clearly you've forgotten Xanadu and the Apple.

1980 was a banner year to be gay!

by Anonymousreply 70June 20, 2015 2:23 AM

[quote]My parents used to drop us kids off at the movies on the weekends, so they had a "babysitter". I saw this movie with 4 of my siblings. We were all in the 8-12 range! I remember being quite confused as to what was going on, but knew it had something to do with men and men, sexually. LOL. To this day, I LOVE this movie, even if it's kinda bad.

Horseshit. Who would let 8 year olds into an hard R rated movie in 1980? Where the hell did you see it, the Gomorah Orpheum Theater?

by Anonymousreply 71June 20, 2015 2:52 AM

WEHT to the actor with the hot body who was tied up and stabbed in the back? You rarely saw guys with that good of a body back then in the movies. He had to have been gay in real life with that body.

by Anonymousreply 72June 20, 2015 4:25 AM

Yes he had a beautiful soft ass.

by Anonymousreply 73June 20, 2015 8:39 AM

R54 - you are wrong about the lack of women extras. Naturally there are no women in the bar scenes but there are plenty seen on the street in the neighbourhood and in the restaurant where the waiter guy who likes Al works.

by Anonymousreply 74June 20, 2015 8:41 AM

Also Ted gets coffee splashed on him by a female waitress in the diner where he and Al have breakfast.

by Anonymousreply 75June 20, 2015 8:43 AM

R53 - that is the best part of the movie where Al Pacino is stalking the suspect. It's very Hitchcock, even though the idea of a murderous musical theatre student is a riot. We see him playing the piano but regrettably not singing a show tune. No wonder he has psychological problems and the inevitable Daddy issues. I was just disappointed that when we see his Daddy that he wasn't the Pacino-type.

by Anonymousreply 76June 20, 2015 8:48 AM

I don't find the film so offensive in terms of stereotyping, unlike say the scene in that Quentin Crisp biography where he and a friend are told to leave a denim bar because they don't fit in. It's interesting from an anthropological perspective and as a time capsule and I think an example of a risk that Pacino took as a mainstream actor in his 1970s stardom. Can you picture another leading actor of the time agreeing to do it like Redford or Hoffman or James Caan?!

by Anonymousreply 77June 20, 2015 8:56 AM

[quote]I think an example of a risk that Pacino took as a mainstream actor in his 1970s stardom.

Agreed. He took a similar risk earlier in the great 'Dog Day Afternoon', and later in the also great 'Angels In America.' De Niro and Hoffman, AP's nearest method-star peers, haven't I think been so adventurous. Which might just put Al - still working! - at the top of the tree.

by Anonymousreply 78June 20, 2015 11:10 AM

I think it's a great film. The only thing I was offended by was Al's curly hair. I recently saw 'American Gigolo' for the first time and I found that far more offensive and homophobic than 'Cruising', which shocked me as I wasn't expecting to find that at all. It seems to get a pass because Gere is seriously hot in it and it's kind of tasteful and boring, whereas 'Cruising' is hyper-sexual and trashy. I much prefer the Friedkin film, though Gere is absolutely gorgeous in AG. 'Sorcerer' is another superb Friedkin film, though I'm not a fan of him in general (apart from 'French Connection'). I'm embarrassed to admit I've never seen 'Boys in the Band' despite wanting to.

Re DePalma going on to film 'Dressed to Kill' after he lost out on 'Cruising' - I once read someone on here saying that the museum scene in DTK is the most perfect evocation of cruising ever put on film. It's a wonderful scene.

by Anonymousreply 79June 20, 2015 11:36 AM

I think the protests over this film is all about gays only wanting 'positive' portrayals of themselves onscreen. We all know that this comes from being a marginalized and persecuted group etc and we want the straights to only see us in the best light cause that way they will be more tolerant to us. BUT and it's a big one, there IS a very sleazy side to some gay men, an unbridled sexual appetite, and there ARE clubs like the one in CRUISING! I have seen how some gays act in sex clubs, so don't tell me that this movie is all anti gay propoganda etc. We have to be honest with ourselves, AIDS spead like it did because men, are often sexually voracious, and gay men do take a lot of risks. I am not self- loathing before anyone says that, it's the truth, SOME gay men are like pigs at a trough when it comes to sex. This movie just holds a mirror up to certain quarters of the scene that is all.

by Anonymousreply 80June 20, 2015 11:36 AM

----

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 81June 20, 2015 12:50 PM

[quote]No it clearly implied he caught the gay and you will too if you keep investigating shit like this.

You mean the message of the movie was to tell mainstream Middle Americans that, if they kept "investigating" by watching this movie, they would catch the gay? Friedkin is pretty out-there but I don't think his movies have ever said "don't watch my movie(s)," not even metaphorically.

by Anonymousreply 82June 20, 2015 12:51 PM

Yes Dear, we get it, but what you don't get is the film implies that is the entire gay community and not a small fetish group .

by Anonymousreply 83June 20, 2015 12:53 PM

De Palma > Friedkin

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 84June 20, 2015 12:56 PM

It's possible Friedkin was bi but I don't think gay, because I don't think Jeanne Moreau would have bearded for him. They divorced in 1979, not long after she was rumored to be having an affair with (get this) Neil Diamond in 1977. Somebody's PR actually got the gossip rags to print stories saying "They were spotted having intimate dinners but it's not an affair, it's because they're working on a movie together."

Moreau never worked on that movie, but Friedkin filmed some of it, though soon stormed off the production. Officially, it was because Diamond was impossible to work with; unofficially, it's because he found out about the affair. The little footage Friedkin shot ended up being used for a TV special.

by Anonymousreply 85June 20, 2015 12:57 PM

[quote]what you don't get is the film implies that is the entire gay community and not a small fetish group .

I bought the DVD when it came out on Warner Archive a while back and was really surprised at how much less homophobic stuff was in there than I'd remembered. But after reading this thread I'm going to go back and re-watch. Like I said upthread, the biggest problem seemed to be Friedkin presenting gays as though they were weird freaks and curiosities to be ogled at, but maybe I missed something. Or maybe I just disagree.

by Anonymousreply 86June 20, 2015 12:59 PM

This old SCTV parody of it is classic.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87June 20, 2015 1:05 PM

One thing no one ever discusses is that the film contains "subliminal" shots of hardcore gay porn, similar to the death mask cuts in The Exorcist.

If you don’t own this movie, you can see the brief cuts in a murder scene from Cruising in the documentary The Celluloid Closet. It's a guy fucking another guy's ass, inserted as a couple of frames during a scene where a man on a bed is neing stabbed in the back.

by Anonymousreply 88June 20, 2015 1:11 PM

Typical knee jerk reactions here. If you watch the film, and listen to Friedkin talk about it, it's obvious that it was about depicting the leather scene, NOT the whole gay scene. And lets face it people into fetishes like this can be strange, and sleazy.

by Anonymousreply 89June 20, 2015 1:15 PM

The only crime Friedkin committed was giving in to William Blatty and releasing Blatty's original ending to the film that was, rightly, cut. Now a whole generation has seen the longer version and thinks it's the original, it was sacrilage!!

by Anonymousreply 90June 20, 2015 1:22 PM

R79/R84, Dressed to Kill was incredible too. It is possibly the funniest and scariest "horror-comedy" that I have ever seen, as long as you watch the unrated version, not the edited version. De Palma is a superior director to Friedkin. Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Carrie, Blow Out, Body Double, Carlito's Way and Femme Fatale are all the proof I need.

by Anonymousreply 91June 20, 2015 1:38 PM

It's hypnotically watchable. I'm not sure why it was made- the audience it was intended for- or why Friedkin was interested. One of those Hollywood anomalies...

Great review here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92June 20, 2015 1:39 PM

Just watched it for the first time last night. I loved how the supporting cast is so full of recognizable faces! Also, someone mentioned how it's ambiguous about the identity of the killer. Am I taking the ending too literally, or wasn't it pretty clear what was being implied by the girlfriend trying on the leather outfit as Pacino gives that look into the camera thru the mirror?

by Anonymousreply 93June 20, 2015 3:37 PM

Even after writing R93 I am not sure myself. As I contemplate longer, I begin to wonder:

Perhaps it means Pacino did 'catch the gay' or just find his true self and plans to continue in the leather scene.

Perhaps it means there were either a cabal of killers or a succession of killers led by the daddy in the park.

I think it's the murder of the neighbor that really creates confusion. Does that suggest the killer is Pacino? Remar? Was it just domestic violence gone extreme?

Finally, I found the undertones of the cops a bit confusing and the #1 plot angle that might have been better developed by the missing footage or earlier cut. Perhaps the killer was hard to catch due to being a cop, whether Pacino or another.

I didn't hate the film, and am glad I watched it. However, I wonder if it would have long faded into obscurity without the long standing reputation as controversial.

by Anonymousreply 94June 20, 2015 4:27 PM

You can see the face of the killer pretty well early on, and it's obviously not Pacino. That doesn't mean there aren't two or more killers in the film, though.

by Anonymousreply 95June 20, 2015 4:28 PM

There certainly were gay clubs like that in the 1970s.

I find the film kind of fascinating--it's like a sociological study of a certain part of the gay world in the 1970s.

by Anonymousreply 96June 20, 2015 4:33 PM

Good point R95. I also wondered about the beat cop with the mustache, but that face didn't match the partials of the killer either.

by Anonymousreply 97June 20, 2015 4:36 PM

R94, If you read the new interview I posted upthread with William Friedkin, you get the answers to some of your questions.

He said he intentionally left the identity of the killer unsolved because the real-life murders(Cruising is based upon a true story) were never fully solved. There was a killer(s) in NYC at the time who was killing gays at leather clubs. One of the killers actually appeared in The Exorcist, which is especially eerie.

by Anonymousreply 98June 20, 2015 5:29 PM

Thanks R98. I am curious about your opinion of that last shot. How do you interpret that point where Pacino breaks the 4th wall and seems to make eye contact with the viewer and gives that look? Was it meaningful to the plot or just a cheesy ending to suggest he was cruising the audience?

by Anonymousreply 99June 20, 2015 5:41 PM

Friedkin definitely meant to imply with that last scene that Pacino could have been responsible for one of the murders in the movie, especially Don Scardino's death. Pacino's character was drawn into the gay/leather scene and his darker side. I think Pacino's character was sexually attracted to the killer in some strange way.

by Anonymousreply 100June 20, 2015 5:51 PM

Makes perfect sense R100. I think there were multiple killers directed by that dude the Columbia student met in the park who tells him to do what he needs to do.

I think the ending implies something was stirred in Pacino while undercover and he plans to be the new killer after starting with the neighbor. He is now a detective with more power and has the cover of the fact someone had been arrested and was being arm twisted to confess to the whole thing

by Anonymousreply 101June 20, 2015 5:58 PM

I think it's also implied with the 2 beat cops and the Badge Night where Pacino is asked to leave for having the wrong vibe that there is a cabal of cops who are into leather and the killings are coming out of that situation...

by Anonymousreply 102June 20, 2015 6:02 PM

In the late 70s/early 80s it was somewhat trendy to portray gay men as intimidating and dangerous macho types. Paul Verhoeven's "Spetters" from 1980 featured a scene, wherein a closeted and conflicted gay-basher, was gang-raped by a group of gay thugs in leather jackets.

by Anonymousreply 103June 20, 2015 6:48 PM

My take on the killing of Ted is that it was his boyfriend and not Al. I think this is because the boyfriend is not in the apartment when the police are there. Friedkin doesn't provide a timeline as to when Al moves out of the next-door apartment to make it clear when Ted was killed and if it happened the same night as when Al confronts the student killer near Columbia university. If you listen to what the boyfriend says to Ted when they have the argument that Al overhears it's pretty awful, and also consider the attitude the boyfriend has to Al and how he threatens him with a knife. These things make him suspect to me so killing Ted in a jealous rage seems the logical progression. The idea that Al would kill Ted because he has somehow taken on the role of a gay killer doesn't float with me, and I don't think his final look into the camera suggests the same, only that he has changed as a result of his police work but not into a killer. Friedkin says that he wanted to keep the identity of the killer ambiguous as if there are more than one, which seemed to be the situation in the true case history he based the film on, but I don't think that includes the Pacino cop.

by Anonymousreply 104June 21, 2015 12:04 AM

Penned at the time when he was going to clubs like The Anvil in the early 80s

Come and meet Another kind of love Meet another kind of love Different than the real thing But just as demanding And just as demeaning

Treacled in apathy All worries swept away By one so simple act of annihilation And I've not cried like this And I've not felt this calm

Meet murder my angel You've arrived at the moment To cross over the threshold

I met another kind of love Met another kind of love And I've not felt alive in this way For a long time

Your pleaser Annoyer Destroyer And voyeur Waits alone at the corner At the back door to paradise The back door to paradise

You're shaking all over It's time to cross over the threshold And there's no way back my angel There's no way back for an angel

Meet murder my angel You've arrived at the moment To cross over the threshold

It's such a feeling Oh such a feeling

Oh it's such a feeling My angel

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105June 21, 2015 12:19 AM

I was a 28 year old married woman living in Minneapolis when I saw it. Took myself to a matinee and waitrd to walk into the theater after the film started so it would be dark and I could hide. The movie shocked me but it thrilled me too. I was attracted by any little bit of "gay" I could find. I didn't get the impression that it represented all gay life. I guess I had sense enough, naive and closeted as I was, to understand there was more to being gay. It took me a few more years to finally come out as a lesbian and I look back at it now as just one more little oasis of gayness in my very heterosexual life. The film was repulsive but interesting. Curiously enough, another reviled film, The Boys In The Band, was another movie I shamedly snuck into but that one I loved. I loved the characters. I loved the cliches. Just seeing same-sex behavior was enough. A movie or book didn't have to be good, it just had to be accesible. I don't think younger folk can appreciate that. If you lived in a heterosexual box anything was thrilling.

by Anonymousreply 106June 21, 2015 1:08 AM

I just watched Cruising for the first time (Thanks R44 for the youtube link)

It is not a bad film at all. The captain clearly states it is not a mainstream gay scene but a small sub-culture.

Did anyone get the impression Steve felt attracted to his neighbor Ted? The altercation with the roommate felt more like sexual frustration. I bet he would have fucked the roommate if the other hadn't been such a psycho.

by Anonymousreply 107June 21, 2015 1:13 AM

The music was wrong.

Disco would have been playing and not whatever it was they were dancing to.

Some of the best music in NYC was played at the Lure.

by Anonymousreply 108June 21, 2015 1:25 AM

I know some have said the cast all look very similar because that was the reality of NYC at the time. That look also aids the angle of ambiguity about the identity of the killer(s)

by Anonymousreply 109June 21, 2015 1:42 AM

I agree with r108 - the music would have been disco. But I guess they wanted a more aggressive soundtrack.

I find the film fascinating but frustrating, much like Looking for Mr. Goodbar. I love the cinematography and trashiness of both. Films like these would never be made by a Hollywood studio nowadays with the sex, nudity and violence or downbeat (Goodbar) or ambiguous (Cruising) endings.

by Anonymousreply 110June 21, 2015 2:14 AM

But what was the deal with the huge black guy in a jock slapping the hell out of people?

by Anonymousreply 111June 21, 2015 3:04 AM

Apparently it was a real routine--a sleazier version of good cop/bad cop.

by Anonymousreply 112June 21, 2015 3:18 AM

frau at r106

by Anonymousreply 113June 21, 2015 3:34 AM

Disco was DOA by 1980. One of the (many) reasons "Can't Stop The Music" tanked.

And the leather/S+M crowd would think it was sissy stuff.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114June 21, 2015 2:14 PM

[quote]Typical knee jerk reactions here. If you watch the film, and listen to Friedkin talk about it, it's obvious that it was about depicting the leather scene, NOT the whole gay scene. And lets face it people into fetishes like this can be strange, and sleazy.

If you have to listen to an interview by the director made years after to know what he intended, he failed as a film maker.

[quote]But what was the deal with the huge black guy in a jock slapping the hell out of people? ...Apparently it was a real routine--a sleazier version of good cop/bad cop.

How is that apparent?

by Anonymousreply 115June 21, 2015 2:31 PM

I think Cruising has held up better than The Exorcist after all these years. And in some ways, it's more shocking than The Exorcist. It's certainly grittier. No way would this movie get made today by a major studio, or with an A-list star like Pacino in the lead.

The actor who plays the killer at the start of the movie who stabs the hottie in the back is not the same actor who plays the Columbia student killer at the end of the movie. In fact, Friedkin intentionally changes actors and voices, even within the same scene, to throw off the viewer and keep everyone guessing.

Richard Cox who played the Columbia student killer is gay in real life, as is the actor who played Stuart Lea(the young guy who played the waiter at the steakhouse). The actor who played the tranny prostitute is Brad Davis's brother.

I think the gritty NYC depicted in this movie and other movies in the 70s and 80s is so much more interesting than the Disneyfied NYC of today. It must've been so exciting to live in the city back then. It looks like it was an exotic wonderland with every kind of pleasure or experience you could ever hope for. This movie is an important time capsule because everything changed forever just a year later when the first cases of AIDS hit the city.

by Anonymousreply 116June 21, 2015 3:58 PM

[quote]Richard Cox who played the Columbia student killer is gay in real life, as is the actor who played Stuart Lea(the young guy who played the waiter at the steakhouse).

Jay Acovone is openly gay? Never knew that. He was seriously smoking back in the day.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117June 21, 2015 6:51 PM

I hated the movie when it came out, and have not warmed to it since.

by Anonymousreply 118June 21, 2015 6:55 PM

[quote]It's available on Cinemax on demand thru September

On Comcast there's a free preview of HBO and Cinemax through tomorrow, June 23, and Cruising is On Demand--for those who are curious.

The free preview may be on other services like DirecTV, I don’t know.

I must say, I've got it on now and less than 5 minutes in I've already laughed out loud--S/M boys in complete leather regalia, including leather caps, but in full makeup and women's wigs. If the rest is this funny, it might be worth seeing.

by Anonymousreply 119June 21, 2015 7:39 PM

Like "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," it gave middle America a chance to look at the forbidden world of anonymous sex. Because of its time, it was tinged with evil, violence and foreboding as if to tack on some kind of stupid moral lesson about the wages of sin. The truth was that everyone was obsessed with sex back then. It's a good portrait of a particular community. It's just a shame that other types of portraits don't exist.

by Anonymousreply 120June 21, 2015 8:10 PM

R105 Excellent choice, from a shamefully under-appreciated ALBUM.

The whole LP is NYC-centric, but I always felt that track was more Genet-ish than BDSM-ish.

by Anonymousreply 121June 21, 2015 8:23 PM

William Friedkin said that he did "research" for the film by going to leather bars in nothing but a jockstrap.

by Anonymousreply 122June 21, 2015 9:53 PM

[quote]I must say, I've got it on now and less than 5 minutes in I've already laughed out loud--S/M boys in complete leather regalia, including leather caps, but in full makeup and women's wigs. If the rest is this funny, it might be worth seeing.

The first time I saw it, it freaked me out! I was young, and had no idea what "fisting" was, and didn't understand it. The movie scared me, but made me an Al Pacino fan.

by Anonymousreply 123June 21, 2015 10:06 PM

But it was part of the gay scene, right? So why shouldn't a movie be made about it? It's not as if gay serial killers don't exist.

by Anonymousreply 124June 21, 2015 10:20 PM

Did Pacino get nominated for Cruising? He should have won.

by Anonymousreply 125June 21, 2015 11:00 PM

I remember the fisting scene, where the guy was rubbing his hands with lube, and didn't understand what was going on.

by Anonymousreply 126June 21, 2015 11:04 PM

One nice touch is how Friedkin brightened the lighting for a few seconds when Pacino took a hit of poppers on the dance floor so the viewer experienced a sudden rush, too. I thought that was very clever.

There are several innovative filmmaking touches like that throughout the movie.

I thought the final scenes in the park with Pacino and the killer were very erotic.

by Anonymousreply 127June 21, 2015 11:59 PM

how do you know that richard cox is gay in real life ?

by Anonymousreply 128July 29, 2017 10:08 AM

you can catch it on VUDU if you want....

by Anonymousreply 129July 29, 2017 10:50 AM

I was about 16 or so when Cruising was released in 1980. I was so closeted and in denial about my sexuality and inner freak that I wouldn't have had the balls to see it in a theater.

Flash forward 2 years to '82. I watched Cruising on cable, along with Making Love. I was sooo turned on and hot 'n bothered by the gritty depictions of gay bars and kinky sex. These movies helped 18 year old me understand a great deal more about gay male sexuality, and it's many facets and complexities. Before I watched Cruising, Boys in the Band was my only frame of reference, captured on film. The AIDS panic/pandemic at this same time was already doing a severe number on my head, terrifying the living hell out of me. Cruising was a decent film and depicts the pre-AIDS era nicely, if not a little unrealistically. But then, WTF do I know? I was a clueless, horny, scared man-child.

by Anonymousreply 130July 29, 2017 11:26 AM

I was told that Richard COX was married and had been living with in the 80s with KATRYN HARROLD, date Rebecca De Mornay and was married in 1994 with Joanna HEIMBOLD. Now it seems that he's married and has two children. Perhaps I don't know a lot of things about american artists ( because i'm french, living in france and i'm a woman...). So how do people can say that (reply 116) "he is gay in real life" ?

by Anonymousreply 131July 30, 2017 9:26 AM

According to IMDB all the main characters in Cruising are straight.

by Anonymousreply 132July 30, 2017 1:29 PM

Just for the record, since no one has explicitly mentioned it upthread...

The bars & sex clubs in the movie were real, not sets. The Anvil, Mineshaft, Eagle, Alex in Wonderland...NYCs Meatpacking District was full of leather bars & other gay venues.

Many of the extras were actual bar patrons or employees. I knew quite a few of them, but all were taken by AIDS by the mid 80s.

Never thought this had a shot as a mainstream movie. Straight people wouldnt be able to handle the graphic, often violent, gay sex (esp straight men). Most straight women would run from the theater at the back-stabbing scene, if they ever came to see it at all.

But no matter, as the topic of the movie was clearly promoted long before it was released. Vast majority of straights, even in NYC at the time, would never have gone to see it.

Don't know if Pacino was first & only choice for the lead, but he was extremely brave to have taken it.

by Anonymousreply 133July 30, 2017 2:41 PM

(R116) : Congratulations on your cinematographic knowledge. On the other hand, you seem to be knowledgeable regarding certain actor's libido... I like to know things and your mail is a "must".

In the CRUISING Documentary, Richard Cox says : " W.Friedkin encouraged us to go to these bars (...), I went and It was "Something"... As if he was a naive young girl!!! In any case, I don't understand his state of mind because he's not universally known as is Kevin Spacey... so there is no need to keep things secret (while other people know about his real sexual identity!!!)...

by Anonymousreply 134August 5, 2017 10:21 PM

R15, the leather bars then were not dangerous. SOME might have been in shifty areas of the city that you'd go into at night -- but the bars themselves were not. Most of them basically involved a bunch of leather queens trading recipes.

by Anonymousreply 135August 5, 2017 10:43 PM

Does anyone can tell us more about Richard COX ?

by Anonymousreply 136August 6, 2017 10:51 AM

A bunch of straight guys making fun of a ridiculous gay fetish...what's not to love.

by Anonymousreply 137August 6, 2017 11:19 AM

Ok r131 U TRULY IN DANGER GURL! Watch your back!

Kathryn Harrold has only been married once to WAIT FOR IT one Lawrence O'Donnell, the father of her only child. Whatever YOU'RE smoking STOP. PLEASE.

by Anonymousreply 138August 6, 2017 1:47 PM

[quote]Yes Dear, we get it, but what you don't get is the film implies that is the entire gay community and not a small fetish group .

I didn't get that AT ALL. The introduction of the decent next door neighbor as soon as Pacino lands in his new habitat makes it perfectly clear there are gays 'just as vanilla as your straight neighbors'.

[quote]I think there were multiple killers directed by that dude the Columbia student met in the park who tells him to do what he needs to do.

What the HELL are you on about? The guy on the bench in the park that the (looney) Columbia student was talking to was his own DEAD father, so the killer student wasn't talking to anyone but himself. That's the point of the big reveal when the cop asks the killer's friend why the letters weren't sent to his dad - because "he's been dead for ten years."

The cool thing about the bench scene is the dad has the voice of the killer we heard prior to the other killings. Sort of a Norman Bates bit where the child takes on the voice of the parent as he does 'the parent's bidding'.

I don't think Pacino's character (Burns) caught gay, I think he caught a killer's appetite. I was shocked when he stabbed the killer in the park, as he wasn't in imminent danger. I think he was more than a little overzealous, and the killer was accurate in his reporting to (Sorvino?) that he didn't attack Burns, Burns attacked him.

Could be Burns also had latent homo tendencies like the two "radio car" cops that were "bad news", or simply he was becoming a masochist. The time he returned to have rough sex with Karen Allen's character could have been him proving to himself he was still straight as ever, or maybe he was being sucked into the world of S&M - possibly even violence, maybe murder; the look in the mirror at Allen dressed in leather at the end has me thinking the latter.

by Anonymousreply 139August 6, 2017 3:49 PM

Cox cable doesn't have Cruising on Cinemax On Demand.

by Anonymousreply 140August 11, 2017 10:35 PM

I have not seen it. Is it good?

by Anonymousreply 141August 11, 2017 10:51 PM

when your movie about gay sex is scarier than your movie about demonic possession it's time to ask yourself a few questions.

by Anonymousreply 142August 11, 2017 10:53 PM

R80, the protest about the movie started while it was still being filmed. I remember a segment on the national news (it may have been on a show like 60 Minutes) about the protests. They were instigated by Arthur Bell, the writer for the Village Voice who had written the articles that were the basis of the film. Also, throughout the late '70s there were a lot of push backs against gays, most famously but not solely the Anita Bryant Save Our Children campaign in Miami a little less than two years before the filming in the Summer of 1979. There was a real sense that the film was just one more attack on the gay community. I agree that there was something of a tendency to shun any negative stories, even if the negativity has a basis in fact. At the time, however, most every story about gays seemed to be presented in a negative light. The few advances that had been made were being overturned. Also, in late May of '79 Dan White had been found guilty of manslaughter rather than first degree murder after the twinkie defense in the deaths of Harvey Milk and George Moscone in California. There were a lot of reasons for the anger toward the film, whether the film itself really deserved the attacks.

by Anonymousreply 143August 11, 2017 11:58 PM

Those gays are a scary bunch R142!

by Anonymousreply 144August 12, 2017 1:27 AM

The abusive boyfriend who got beat up by Pacino's character was soooooo hot in his undies. Phew.

by Anonymousreply 145August 12, 2017 2:13 AM

Thanks for the historical context, r143.

I was an adolescent when the film came out and have vague memories of gay opposition to the film, but I did not actually see it until I was in my twenties.

And I LOVED it.

But I can appreciate why it was not welcomed with open arms by all gay audiences on its release.

by Anonymousreply 146August 12, 2017 2:25 AM

I think the film starts to falter during the last third. Getting to know the supposed killer makes him less scary. And the ending is muddy: does Paul Sorvino think Pacino is the real killer? Is Pacino gay or bi?

Maybe Freidkin deliberately made it ambivalent. And probably why I've seen it a dozen times.

by Anonymousreply 147August 12, 2017 2:55 AM

"Cox cable doesn't have Cruising on Cinemax On Demand."

Free on Youtube. Not the best quality; pretend you're watching it in a Time Square grindhouse.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 148August 12, 2017 3:02 AM

HATE the back stabbing scene!!!!

by Anonymousreply 149August 12, 2017 3:03 AM

Wait, this one's better.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 150August 12, 2017 3:08 AM

WHY IS THERE NO RECORD OF MEN WHO DATE RICHARD COX ? (we have many records regarding KEVIN SPACEY...).

by Anonymousreply 151August 20, 2017 9:56 AM

I liked it. Not least because it has a great Mink de Ville song, 'Its so Easy' that fits perfectly but would never have been played in a gay club. I haven't seen the film in a while but doesn't a cop at the beginning ( Sorvino ? ) refer to the fact that it is a particularly esoteric part of gay life.

Besides, I was doorman of a gay leather/rubber/sex club in London and saw some pretty out there stuff so none of what was depicted was fanciful. NYC and SF were known to be where you went if you were into the wild stuff.A mate worked at The Slot in SF and I remember him describing the place as laid back because you could be ordering a drink and someone would be getting fisted on the bar right next to you. They had a great tag line 'The Slot - Come a Lot'. And do people not realise what the Mineshaft was like?Each floor you went down things became more extreme.

I guess the gays picketing were the ones who wanted to be respectable. Well, they got their wishes.

I also don't know many, if any, straight people who ever saw it so the protests drew more attention to it than it would ordinarily have got.

by Anonymousreply 152August 20, 2017 5:16 PM

R116 : May I know if you have been working in the film industry and for how long ? I would like to have answers to my questions. Can you post replys ? please......Thanks a lot.

by Anonymousreply 153September 3, 2017 9:46 AM

So the movie shows only a small segment of a larger group. So? Gee, not all psychiatrists are murderous transvestites, either. Not all scorned women boil bunnies. Not all Sicilian-Americans are Mafia.

Etc.

by Anonymousreply 154September 3, 2017 11:50 AM

I have always loved both Cruising and The Boys in the Band, which outrage so many homos.

And I can't sit through more than two minutes of all the gay shit streaming on Netflix.

What kind of gay does that make me, besides an eldergay?

by Anonymousreply 155September 3, 2017 11:54 PM

We "wanted more" about the actors, mostly J.ACOVONE and Richard COX.... Does anyone know them in real life ?

Not informed TAYLOR.

by Anonymousreply 156September 16, 2017 10:47 AM

I was not alive at the time but i was in the womb.

by Anonymousreply 157September 16, 2017 11:02 AM

Richard Cox is gay? Well that might be news to Kathryn Harrold who was his live in gf for years.

by Anonymousreply 158September 16, 2017 12:28 PM

Well, what is the interest to say this if it's not true ? (R158). As (R116) don't give any reply.......

Desperate TAYLOR!!!!

by Anonymousreply 159September 16, 2017 4:39 PM

Very underrated film Al took risks back then

by Anonymousreply 160September 16, 2017 5:07 PM

(R158) Kevin Spacey is not gay : Diane Dreyer was his live in gf for years................

by Anonymousreply 161September 16, 2017 5:16 PM

I thought it was a creepy film. The opening murder is especially harrowing. There's something so horrifying about how it doesn't cut away during the stabbing. It's a fairly wide/medium shot and there aren't any sudden closeups to a fake torso being stabbed. It all looks like it's done real time.

The actor that played the opening victim actually did porn in the 70's under the name Malo. I always thought he was hot. Smokin' bod, hot ass, and (as seen in the porn) a nice cock as well. I wonder if he's still alive or if AIDS got him. I can't find out.

by Anonymousreply 162September 16, 2017 11:11 PM

How do "they" (lgbt, few men, etc...) know Richard Cox is gay ?

by Anonymousreply 163September 17, 2017 5:54 PM

R158 A gay can love a woman, you have to separate love and desire. He will love a woman like he loves his mother, it's a sublimated love....

by Anonymousreply 164September 17, 2017 8:43 PM

Vincente MINELLI (LIZA's father) was married thrice and he was gay!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 165September 17, 2017 8:59 PM

Brian DePalma was originally supposed to direct this, but he couldn't do it for some reason. He ended up directing Dressed to Kill instead. I think it would have turned out much better if DePalma had directed it. He was at the height of his popularity and talent, and it would have been extremely sexy, IMO.

by Anonymousreply 166September 17, 2017 9:12 PM

I'm trying to picture De Palma doing it. All of his films, while tacking naughty subject matter, have had a nice studio sheen or gloss to them. I can't imagine Cruising with that kind of gloss.

by Anonymousreply 167September 17, 2017 9:20 PM

[quote] The bars & sex clubs in the movie were real, not sets. The Anvil, Mineshaft, Eagle, Alex in Wonderland...NYCs Meatpacking District was full of leather bars & other gay venues.

R133, Many of the bar scenes were filmed in The Ramrod on The West Side Highway, around the corner from Christopher Street in the Village.

by Anonymousreply 168September 18, 2017 3:17 AM

Who doesn't enjoy seeing sluts get what's coming to them?

by Anonymousreply 169September 18, 2017 6:05 AM

r166 interesting that De Palma was intended to direct this. I can't see what his would look like although I am curious because I am a fan.

I love the look of Cruising. Friedkin takes the viewer to a whole different world. Some really memorable images, even just the one of Karen Allen trying on the S&M gear. A film like this would never be made today.

Interesting how Paul Scrader and Friedkin were exploring segments of the gay community in the early '80s like American Gigolo and Cruising.

by Anonymousreply 170September 18, 2017 6:21 AM

WHO IS AFRAID OF RICHARD COX ?

Would he be "powerful" and that's why nobody dare to offend him : No statements about his gayness, why ? Is he gay, straight or bisexual ?

And how to distinguish truth from falsehood if no one answered....

Agatha Christie.

by Anonymousreply 171September 22, 2017 10:14 AM

Thrice, r165? Who the hell says thrice?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 172October 1, 2017 4:58 AM

This was the second film role of Powers Boothe.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 173October 1, 2017 5:04 AM

[quote] Who the hell says thrice?

Pseudolus

by Anonymousreply 174October 1, 2017 5:19 AM

(R172) : Vincente Minelli was married four times : JUDY GARLAND, GOERGETTE MAGNANI, DANICA RADOSWIJEV and LEE ANDERSON.

AND HE WAS GAY!!!!!! Well, I guess It's a very "special way" of being gay, I don't understand that state of mind.........

by Anonymousreply 175October 1, 2017 7:10 AM

Just watched it on YouTube. I thought it was good. The ending kind of implied that Pacino's became what he hunted

by Anonymousreply 176October 1, 2017 12:20 PM

Love this movie. It was repeated several times that De Palma was supposed to direct it. Thank God it didn't happen. Friedkin is much better director. De Palma's movies always had this B-movies vibe.

by Anonymousreply 177October 1, 2017 2:05 PM

Friedkin should reunite with Pacino to make Cruising 2020. A copycat serial killer has left a trail of victims in the Highline Area of the once gritty Meatpacking District and it's up to Al Pacino to come out of retirement and help rookie officer Nick Jonas stop the murders before the neighborhood's real estate prices collapse.

by Anonymousreply 178October 1, 2017 2:41 PM

I'm confused by the ending. It made it seem like Pacino's character killed some of the people himself. He was definitely changed by the whole experience and was becoming gay.

by Anonymousreply 179October 2, 2017 1:10 AM

The movie was remade by a former Monkee. Who'd have thought it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 180October 2, 2017 1:15 AM

(R51) I understand your point of view but I don't agree with you : you can be white and catholic and fighting against racism and antisemitism. William Friedkin can be straight and touched by gay people, that's why he directed BOYS OF THE BAND and CRUISING ; and when you say that you think W.Friedkin and his wife are a "lavender couple", I say prove it, it's the same thing with affirmations about the two actors Jay Acovone and R.Cox, prove it.....

by Anonymousreply 181February 10, 2018 4:06 PM

If it is as accurate and true that everything you posted, namely R51, R116.....well, you can close the thread.

by Anonymousreply 182February 11, 2018 11:07 AM

To (R116) and many others....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 183March 3, 2018 10:47 AM

Twunky James Remar is the best part of the movie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 184April 22, 2018 1:22 AM

To me, the best and the sexiest in Cruising is Steve INWOOD. Unfortunately, we see him very very little....W.FRIEDKIN wasn't very inspired regarding the casting!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 185April 22, 2018 6:20 PM

(R131), (R132), (R158) "Straight men" who have sex with men are NOT STRAIGHT and no matter what they make you believe : they are lying. That's all.

by Anonymousreply 186July 1, 2018 9:19 PM

Quote "Richard Cox who played the student killer is gay in real life as is the actor who played Stuart Lea (...)".

Why the fuck hasn't this ever been discussed on DL ???? Seriously, bitches......

by Anonymousreply 187July 21, 2018 10:57 AM

I saw it in New Orleans when it opened while I was down there for Mardi Gras, staying with friends (the husband was a doctor at the Hotel Dieu, later University Hospital) who'd recently moved there from NYC. The theater was filled a few gays and way too many (I thought) married couples who had brought their kids - 10 and 12 year old kids - and this, given the topic and it's cinematic treatment, shocked me.

My friends seemed nonplussed. They explained it was the South and that people always brought their kids no matter what the movie because, as they said, "It's cheaper than a sitter."

by Anonymousreply 188July 21, 2018 11:19 AM

^wtf. Those kids either became rabid homophobes or gay sluts! (or maybe serial killers)

by Anonymousreply 189July 21, 2018 11:58 PM

Among these actors, few have succeeded....except AL PACINO.

by Anonymousreply 190July 22, 2018 7:07 PM

James Remar still works regularly.

by Anonymousreply 191July 27, 2018 11:04 AM

(R185) We don't see enough Steve Inwood, his role is too short. I will never understand why Bill Friedkin casted R.Cox with his boring and expressionless face, oh god.....

by Anonymousreply 192August 5, 2018 6:21 PM

I loved it myself (and I was college age). Part of that "Goodbar" type of filmmaking that was allowed then. Controversial or not, movies were for adults back then. It was all about to change.

by Anonymousreply 193August 5, 2018 6:30 PM

I enjoyed the movie; the story line was fascinating. Most of the men were hot as fuck and the film was revolutionary for its time.

I know it’s fashionable to dismiss and despise the movie. Yet, it was a realistic and gritty film about the gay New York leather/S&M culture in the 1970s.

by Anonymousreply 194August 5, 2018 6:51 PM

R194 It's not fashionable to dismiss or despise the film. A lot of the criticisms geared towards it are legitimate. Besides, those gays concerned with what's fashionable have probably never seen the film.

by Anonymousreply 195August 5, 2018 6:59 PM

Am I the only one who finds the gritty NYC of the 70-80s superior to the cleaned-up version that exists today? NYC seemed more interesting and mysterious back then and that appeals to me.

by Anonymousreply 196August 5, 2018 7:06 PM

^you, and a couple of millions people

by Anonymousreply 197August 5, 2018 7:28 PM

No, R196, you are not the only one. Not by a long shot.

by Anonymousreply 198August 5, 2018 7:54 PM

I'm so torn about the gritty 70's NYC vs. the cleaned up one now. Granted, it's nice to not have to look over your shoulder all day long like in the 70's, but a lot of the charm is gone. NYC is sorta like a bland theme park these days with boring Disney musicals and Applebee's on every other street.

by Anonymousreply 199August 5, 2018 8:35 PM

There's a great documentary called 42nd Street Forever (I think) and it shows what NYC was really like in the 60's-mid 90's. Fascinating and informative. I think there are pros and cons to both NYCs.

by Anonymousreply 200August 5, 2018 8:36 PM

"the Deuce" captures it pretty well too.

by Anonymousreply 201August 5, 2018 10:12 PM

(R191) I've read on another thread and somewhere on the web that James Remar was gay, but he's a "closet case".....another one!!!

by Anonymousreply 202August 12, 2018 10:12 AM

Anyone remember the other mainstream feature gay movie just a couple years later - MAKING LOVE?

by Anonymousreply 203August 12, 2018 10:36 AM

MAKING LOVE (R203) : was it a movie with Harry Hamlin, the very handsome and sexy Harry Hamlin ????

by Anonymousreply 204August 12, 2018 10:49 AM

R202 Well, he is married to an Asian woman so that could very well be true. But, he's also not a hunky twink anymore.

Yes, R203, we all remember the equally terrible Making Love.

by Anonymousreply 205August 12, 2018 12:13 PM

[quote]"just a fragment of the gay community, the same way the Mafia is a fragment of Italian-American life"

What a fuckin' idiot.

by Anonymousreply 206August 12, 2018 12:18 PM

The guy from the beginning was gay porn star, Malo. I always thought we was really hot. I wonder if he's still alive or if he was an AIDS casualty.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 207August 12, 2018 6:12 PM

So the university professor who was murder, at the beginning of the movie, is MALO ? I've read the casting as I didn't find the name of the actor, I thought it was Arnaldo Santana.... Does anyone know MALO's real name ? I googled MALO but there is nothing about him.

by Anonymousreply 208August 12, 2018 8:34 PM

Malo was his porn name. Maybe his acting name was Arnaldo Santana. Hell, that might be his real name for all I know. He seems Latin, so it's possible.

by Anonymousreply 209August 12, 2018 9:02 PM

Arnaldo Santana is his real name because Malo was his actor porn name (R208) and (R209). Arnaldo Santana played, "under MALO", in three porn movies : in 1977 "The boys from Riverside Drive", in 1978 "A night at the Adonis" and the same year "Dune buddies". In 1980 he played in "Cruising" (the character of Loren Lukas) under his real name Arnaldo Santana. He became a very good friend of Al Pacino and the star gave him a role in "Scarface" in 1983 (he played Ernie, the Pacino's bodyguard). In 1984 A.Santana acted in the TV Show "A.K.A PABLO" and disappeared from the spot lights. I was told he was the owner of a pizza restaurant chain in California. The only one who could give us more informations about A.Santana is AL PACINO.....if he sometimes goes on DL...

by Anonymousreply 210August 18, 2018 10:27 AM

I remember being about 13-14 and seeing it on cable. Seeing Arnaldo/Malo was a big turn on for me, especially because he tweaks and pulls his nipples as he gets "ready" to play. That blew my young mind cuz up till that point I thought I was a freak for enjoying doing that myself and was relieved and excited to see I wasn't alone and that there would be hot guys who were like me out there.

Then he gets killed and the message in all movies pre-1998 was heard loud and clear. Being gay was dangerous and you will probably end up miserable or dead. That was just the way it was. I remember seeing the film Big Eden and being completely and happily surprised when nothing like that happens. It made me very happy.

by Anonymousreply 211August 18, 2018 11:20 AM

Malo a/k/a Arnoldo Santana. He’s HOT as fuck!

You’re welcome.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 212August 18, 2018 11:59 AM

How old was Arnaldo SANTANA when he played in Cruising ?

by Anonymousreply 213August 18, 2018 2:56 PM

Did A.Santana was gay in real life ??? because I know he played in porn movies with Jack Wrangler but J.Wrangler was married and had a child.

by Anonymousreply 214August 18, 2018 10:06 PM

Why A.PACINO and A.SANTANA do not intervene in the Cruising documentary ?

by Anonymousreply 215August 19, 2018 1:26 PM

Who is your favorite actor in this movie ?

by Anonymousreply 216September 2, 2018 10:43 AM

I saw it in NYC when it first came out. It was the last time too. It is one of those movies I vowed I would never watch again due to the violent opening scene where the trick was tied to the bed face down and stabbed slowly stab by stab in the back as he lies there helplessly screaming in blood-curdling agony. I don't like to feel trapped like that in real life and it just freaked me out. Call me a pussy but that scene is still burned in my brain after all these years and it grieves me. I did watch the rest of the movie which was dark and macabre but it did nothing for me but say buh bye and never again.

by Anonymousreply 217September 2, 2018 11:01 AM

The guy who rec'd the feather on the killer's back was a porn star? He was quite good in the role -- and had an amazing butt with his hands tied right above it.

by Anonymousreply 218September 2, 2018 4:54 PM

I’ve read that the soundtrack, which many people like, is not “authentic,” that the music should have been nonstop diva disco. Friedkin, however wanted a different atmosphere, and commissioned music that was more punk-like and dominated by male voices.

by Anonymousreply 219September 2, 2018 5:19 PM

That opening scene is pretty harrowing. I'm always amazed by that guy's performance as the victim. It's so real and raw. It just makes me want to cry. I've never seen a murder scene like that before or since.

by Anonymousreply 220September 2, 2018 9:27 PM

(R220) The victim was played by Arnaldo SANTANA, he was a real good actor (not only a porn actor) very talented and charismatic. Al PACINO, ARNALDO SANTANA and STEVE INWOOD are amazing. Unfortunately SANTANA AND INWOOD are killed very soon.....and I feel frustrated.

by Anonymousreply 221September 2, 2018 9:37 PM

"Very underrated film. Al took risks back then"

He wanted off the film as soon as he started. But decided to surge ahead with it. That's why he looks so haunted and miserable throughout the film. Which actually enhances his performance because in retrospect many view his character as a suppressed, self-loathing gay or bi man.

Gay protestors outside tried to scream down every scene of the movie.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 222September 2, 2018 9:41 PM

This movie is worth seeing because now I can understand feminists when they used to say "cock is fascist" : male sexuality, straight or gay, is very violent and agressive. For a study, anthropology or sociology, CRUISING is very interesting and I don't see where is the homophobia in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 223September 9, 2018 5:32 PM

Who killed Ted Bailey at the end of the film?

by Anonymousreply 224September 9, 2018 5:34 PM

(R224) I think it's AL PACINO.

by Anonymousreply 225September 9, 2018 5:43 PM

The type of people who protest movies without seeing them are never the smartest types of people

by Anonymousreply 226September 9, 2018 6:02 PM

I've honestly never understood the concept of protesting a movie. It seems like such a waste of time, except that one time when those angry Christian mothers got Silent Night, Deadly Night pulled. The sad thing is - it was doing really great business, too. Tri-Star should have stood their ground. Who cares if the posters and ads traumatized kids? That's part of the fun of being a kid. You can laugh about it when you're older.

by Anonymousreply 227September 9, 2018 6:53 PM

(R132) = LOL

by Anonymousreply 228September 9, 2018 7:50 PM

The soundtrack is AMAZING....enjoy it on CD.

by Anonymousreply 229September 29, 2018 8:25 PM

Exactly, [R226].

by Anonymousreply 230September 29, 2018 8:33 PM

R224, I assumed that the killer was Bailey's boyfriend, who was jealous of Bailey's relationship with Pacino's character. But, clearly, in the world of the movie, anybody can be a killer.

by Anonymousreply 231September 29, 2018 8:41 PM

Hard to believe young James Remar was Bailey's boyfriend. Took me a moment to even recognize him with the long hair.

by Anonymousreply 232September 30, 2018 4:28 PM

Well, hard to believe Arnaldo Santana (Loren Lukas the actor killed in St James hotel) was Ernie in SCARFACE, only four years later and totally unrecognisable.

by Anonymousreply 233September 30, 2018 6:29 PM

(R211) : Quote "Then he was killed (.....)"

Please, could you be more explicit and precise ? Do you mean Arnaldo Santana is dead and do you have verification of this ?

by Anonymousreply 234October 6, 2018 10:33 AM

I'd like to know if he (Arnaldo Santana) died or changes careers ?

by Anonymousreply 235October 13, 2018 11:18 AM

R234 He means Arnaldo's character in the movie was killed, not Arnaldo himself.

by Anonymousreply 236October 13, 2018 11:25 AM

Too young at the time.But agree about the ending.

by Anonymousreply 237October 13, 2018 12:19 PM

(R117), Does anyone can tell me what was on this link/picture ? because I went on img2.bdphotos.com and there is nothing about "Cruising" or about the two actors mentioned (R116), (R117)....

by Anonymousreply 238February 9, 2019 10:32 AM

It's just a movie.

by Anonymousreply 239February 9, 2019 10:35 AM

(R239), Thank you. If I well understand, the link (R117) has nothing to do with the Cruising (1980) Thread.....

by Anonymousreply 240February 9, 2019 6:14 PM

Thank you, R240.

by Anonymousreply 241February 9, 2019 6:17 PM

Am I the only one who only sees links and not pictures anymore ?

by Anonymousreply 242February 17, 2019 10:25 AM

R242, no, it's everyone. You can see the pics if you are a paying member (at least on a laptop).

by Anonymousreply 243February 17, 2019 2:31 PM

R214 Jack Wrangler did not have a child. He was married to much older singer Margaret Whiting. It was a companionate marriage, though she made him promise not to gave sex with men (he said he honored the promise, but who knows....).

by Anonymousreply 244February 17, 2019 3:21 PM

(R243) Thanks a lot for your clear an precise answer. I really appreciate.

by Anonymousreply 245February 17, 2019 6:07 PM

(R244) I find really strange that nowadays, on DL, no men (or women) testify having known "personally or intimately" Arnaldo SANTANA....I don't know why.

by Anonymousreply 246February 17, 2019 6:20 PM

[quote] So many straight people took that movie as gospel as to what we were really like,and would tell each other after watching it "See,I told you they were all perverted" .

This never happened.

by Anonymousreply 247February 18, 2019 12:19 AM

{ quote } Richard Cox who played the Columbia killer student is gay in real life as is the actor who played Stuart Lea

I do not question the sincerity of this comment. But as a "newcomer", would you be so kind to tell me, or reveal me, how do you get to know this ?

by Anonymousreply 248February 23, 2019 11:31 AM

Imagine being a woman and seeing any of the slasher movies of this era. You got to see yourself brutally murdered onscreen all the time, especially during nude/sexual situations. And nothing in Cruising is as disturbing as the rape scene in the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. Women movie-goers have had to endure a lot of nasty rape and murder scenes in movies over the years. Some pretty disturbing stuff.

It's funny how, years later, you see content as graphic as Cruising on detective TV shows/murder mysteries/CSI-type stuff (especially the British ones), and no one bats an eyelash at this kind of content anymore. It's almost a cliche now to see a murder investigation at a BDSM sex club.

So yeah, Cruising was disturbing to some gay men at the time. But it's a drop in the bucket to the vicarious violence women movie-goers have had to endure for decades.

by Anonymousreply 249February 23, 2019 12:26 PM

[quote]Richard Cox who played the Columbia killer student is gay in real life as is the actor who played Stuart Lea

Sorry for the incorrect quote (R248).

I do not doubt that you reveal, but I'm very impressed about DL's knowledge. My grandmother would say "curiosity killed the cat"!....If you know more, or just accept to answer, please don't hesitate to post. I await with great interest.

by Anonymousreply 250February 23, 2019 3:55 PM

This thread is very enriching culturally (the 70's and the 80's in NYC) and cinematically. Why and how this (R249) go off the rails ???!!!

by Anonymousreply 251March 3, 2019 10:29 AM

it was loathed at the time.

many protests.

made gays look like mad killer freaks.

well, we is, but shhhhhhh.

by Anonymousreply 252March 3, 2019 11:19 AM

I honestly think a lot of the slasher films of that time got a bad rep. Sure, women were killed on screen, but so were men. A few of the films actually took time to develop the female characters into full fledged human beings so that you care when they die. I always think that makes all the difference and you can tell the filmmakers were actually meaning for you to be on the victims' side and not the killer's side. Movies like He Knows You're Alone, Prom Night, Mother's Day, etc did this well.

For me, it got murky when Jason, Michael, Freddy, etc. became these pop culture figures and we were encouraged to cheer them on. THAT was disturbing to me. I like my villains scary and my victims relatable, thank you very much. The first few entries in those franchises always had us on the victims' side.

by Anonymousreply 253March 4, 2019 8:28 PM

I loved the scene when Al Pacino was wearing black leather shorts and a Muir cap in the club. Very hot.

by Anonymousreply 254March 4, 2019 8:34 PM

(R246) Thanks for sharing about Jack Wrangler. But what about Arnaldo Santana ?

by Anonymousreply 255March 9, 2019 10:27 AM

(R244) (Sorry for the wrong number) Thanks for sharing about Jack Wrangler. But what about Arnaldo Santana ?

by Anonymousreply 256March 9, 2019 10:34 AM

Does anyone can enlightened me ? I've seen on twitter last week Richard Cox on twitter : "Still not gay (yet).#ToucanLivesMatter https://twitter.com/therichardcox/status/720676736279650304

Is it a namesake or is it Richard Cox the actor mentioned upthread ? Just by curiosity.

by Anonymousreply 257April 7, 2019 2:54 PM

Obviously, nobody cares about this "illustrious unknown".....

by Anonymousreply 258April 9, 2019 10:58 AM

All the leather queens must have gotten quite pissy when their kink was shown in a bad light, bad meaning pretty much completely accurately.

by Anonymousreply 259April 9, 2019 11:02 AM

It's in my top 20 fave movies. A real creepy, atmospheric horror movie, thanks to the brilliant Friedkin.

I saw an article recently about how awesome of an actor Pacino is, and they never even mentioned "Cruising". This movie really bothers people, which to me is a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 260April 9, 2019 11:21 AM

Didn't see it then because didn't need to see a homophobic movie.

by Anonymousreply 261April 9, 2019 11:27 AM

If you didn't see it how do you know it's a homophobic movie?????

by Anonymousreply 262April 9, 2019 11:30 AM

Forget homophobic don't see it because it's a terrible movie.

by Anonymousreply 263April 9, 2019 11:30 AM

This movie takes place in the Sado Masochistic Gay Community. It's a very good movie based on real life events.

by Anonymousreply 264April 9, 2019 11:35 AM

You can tell this is what straight men think gay people are like.

by Anonymousreply 265April 22, 2019 10:04 AM

(R265) They shouldn't. SM Gay Community (leather bars) is a "world apart"!

by Anonymousreply 266April 22, 2019 10:10 AM

I personally don't think this film was intended as a homophobic indictment I think Friedkin was genuinely fascinated by this subculture and wanted to record it. Also the film was based on that serial killer who had a bit part in The Exorcist . Im sure that added to his interest.

by Anonymousreply 267April 22, 2019 10:20 AM

I totally agree (R267), there is nothing "homophobic" and don't forget when Friedkin made the movie "boys in the band" a few years before Cruising, it's was a very good and emotional movie.

The only "point"that I don't understand is about the cast : why did he cast Richard Cox ? he was 31 (in the novel the killer student is 22) and honestly, even if the age is not really important, he has no charisma, not a "movie face" and when I saw him, after one hour, my reaction was "oh, so that's the killer....what a deception". I think Friedkin could have casted someone else. I don't want to "polemic" but it seems to me that Kevin Spacey was 20 or 21 years old when Bill Friedkin decided to realise CRUISING...

by Anonymousreply 268April 22, 2019 10:36 AM

[quote]According IMDB all the main characters are straight (R132)

IMDB is useless, they didn't know anything about Arnaldo Santana for years and suddenly someone posted on DL last Wednesday (in the thread "The Rialto Report - Porn lies") informations about him that we did not have before. All at once, the "brilliant" web site IMDB have modified his "bio".

Conclusion : if you want to know something, you should only go on the Data Lounge.

by Anonymousreply 269April 28, 2019 11:51 AM

Never seen this but would love to. How come it's never discussed on DL?

by Anonymousreply 270June 10, 2020 12:52 AM

I won a lobby card from this film signed by Paul Sorvino. The game was ping pong, winner take all. This movie is shit. Fried kin is a dipshit. I totally understand why people boycotted it. Yet, the scenes with Karen Allen make me laugh.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 271June 16, 2020 2:31 PM

Siskel & Ebert said no.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272June 16, 2020 3:56 PM

Al's worst film EVER is "Revolution" (1985). Discuss! He didn't do another film until "Sea of Love" (1989).

by Anonymousreply 273June 16, 2020 5:55 PM

So...where/how can I watch this film???

by Anonymousreply 274June 20, 2020 10:01 PM

I'd like to know where to watch too.

By the way, what did Larry Kramer think of the film?

by Anonymousreply 275June 26, 2020 3:16 AM

I think Blockbuster is open til midnight.

by Anonymousreply 276June 26, 2020 3:33 AM

Google Play Movies

What a great film.

by Anonymousreply 277June 26, 2020 7:22 AM

It's free on Vudu.

by Anonymousreply 278June 26, 2020 9:30 PM

A friend of mine who lived through the 70s and has always been into more extreme sex in bars said the best thing about the movie is that it actually documents the NYC bar scene of the era pretty well--and that it was the stuff with the murderer(s) that was the real problem with the film at the time.

by Anonymousreply 279June 26, 2020 9:33 PM

[quote] I think Blockbuster is open til midnight.

Blockbuster went almost entirely out of operation in 2010.

by Anonymousreply 280June 26, 2020 9:34 PM

R280 I think that was his attempt at being witty.

by Anonymousreply 281June 27, 2020 3:20 AM

Were there lots of unsolved murders of gay boys in the 70s and 80s?

by Anonymousreply 282June 27, 2020 3:23 AM

Fuck that. I want to hear about the what really went in those establishments.

by Anonymousreply 283June 27, 2020 3:36 AM

Sometimes I wonder if Friedkin and Bogdanovic get a liter of cheap vodka and jerk off together. They probably trade stories. Bogdanovic recounts being a pedo, and Friedkin laments never satisfying Jeanne Moreau. They accidentally get cum on each other.

by Anonymousreply 284June 27, 2020 2:26 PM

I heard about Cruising on a podcast recent; and I'm watching it now for the first time on Amazon. I think it's pretty cool to have a gay killer and I like the whole premise of Al Pacino entering into this world. There is like a montage sequence of him acclimating to becoming a gay whore, but it's all believable. He has to work out to get noticed, dance, take poppers.

This seems more daring than anything they would make now. I'm halfway through and I feel like this is actually a decent gay movie. 1980 feels more progressive.

by Anonymousreply 285May 23, 2021 4:06 AM

It's a terrific, underrated thriller. Every gay man of a certain age who lived in NYC in 1979 claims to have been an extra in it.

by Anonymousreply 286May 23, 2021 4:09 AM

If anything, it made me realize how much better a film [italic]The Boys in the Band[/italic] is. This just takes the part where Emory gets attacked and makes that the whole movie.

by Anonymousreply 287May 23, 2021 4:15 AM

r2 impressively stated!

by Anonymousreply 288May 23, 2021 4:20 AM

the very premise of the movie is homophobic....This was one of Friedkin's horror movies that's about hell on earth. Premise is that a straight cop would be horrified to be gay, pretend to be gay, engage in this gay world, put himself at risk of having gay sex....Homophobic

by Anonymousreply 289May 23, 2021 4:23 AM

I honestly thought [italic]The Exorcist[/italic] was overrated, too.

by Anonymousreply 290May 23, 2021 4:24 AM

R36 You missed the whole point. Pacino doesn't 'catch' being gay, he was bisexual or closeted all along.

And he might also be a killer at the end.

get over yourself.

by Anonymousreply 291May 23, 2021 4:48 AM

[quote](What's even more interesting is that one of Friedkin's first directorial efforts was the film version of "Boys in the Band," which is, by and large, sympathetic to its gay characters, apart from the fact that most of them are written as self-hating alcoholics and drug addicts.)

In that case, that was also true of the source material: a play a gay man wrote.

by Anonymousreply 292May 23, 2021 4:51 AM

To me this feels like an authentic portrayal of the gay community, even today. The focus on sex, appearance, and hooking up is always at the forefront. I thought it was show to show jealous gays and nasty gays, but they weren't charactures that you see. This could be a night at the Eagle. It felt very real and authentic to the gay community - not disneyfication of it.

by Anonymousreply 293May 23, 2021 5:17 AM

This got protested but that Showtime show with a slur in its name did not?

by Anonymousreply 294May 23, 2021 5:22 AM

I hate to be that bitch bumping a thread from 2015, but I just finished watching "Cruising" on the Criterion Channel. Considering when it was filmed I was surprised by the depictions of gay sex (even fisting). Overall I enjoyed it and am only just learning it was controversial.

by Anonymousreply 295June 11, 2021 11:31 PM

I just watched this on Amazon Prime. First saw it in Spring 1980 when in school in Boston.

There is a scene cut that I clearly remember from the first viewing in which a blonde in white briefs is lying stabbed up on a men's room floor. (near the very end of the film). I was pretty repressed then and remember that scene because I thought that the guy was really hot. It was near the end.

Someone earlier in this thread made a reference to a scene in which Steve is seen as (almost?) raping his girlfriend. Unless that is supposed to be the scene early in the film in which they're having sex that scene was also cut. The one included has him giving her a hard fuck but it doesn't seem rapey.

I wonder what else was cut from the Prime version. Disappointed not to have seen the complete original.

Anyone know where to get a full version of the original theatrical release?

by Anonymousreply 296June 12, 2021 7:24 AM

R296: Based on what you've described, the Criterion version also had scenes cut.

by Anonymousreply 297June 12, 2021 10:03 AM

Still trying to figure out what Steve/Pacino's dick being "party sized" meant.

I loved this film.It's both weirdly problematic yet at the same time pro gay. You'll read what you want to read from the film. Killer soundtrack as well.

Also, the men were yummy . Lots of eye candy. Especially the first guy to get it.

by Anonymousreply 298October 9, 2021 6:02 PM

R217 I can relate, I found that scene horrifying too

by Anonymousreply 299October 9, 2021 10:54 PM

There needs to be a remake.

by Anonymousreply 300October 10, 2021 12:12 AM

R300....no there really doesn't. Just imagine if they even tried in this day and age. They'd make the cop a bipoc non binary woman in a wheelchair. They'd set it in butch lesbian bars and the killers will be all white cis straight men from 4 chan. I'll pass.

by Anonymousreply 301October 10, 2021 12:30 AM

Even if it were a trainwreck it would be an entertaining one R301.

by Anonymousreply 302October 10, 2021 2:55 AM

bump.

by Anonymousreply 303October 21, 2022 6:35 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!