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.

Continuing my gay education: Cruising (1980)

Recently, I've been catching up on a lot of gay history/culture that I never bothered to look into much before. Last night I finally got around to watching Cruising.

I have SO many questions about this film and need to do a bit more research around it. Questions like: after the film was released, were the people that were protesting this still unhappy with it? What exactly were the protests about? (The worry that straight people would view this as being representative of the community?). Also, what happened at the end? I couldn't work out if they caught the killer or not. They said they had Stuart's fingerprint on the coin, yet it finishes on an ambiguous note. Was Ted's boyfriend the real killer? Or was there another killer? I was kinda confused.

BUT, I actually enjoyed this movie a lot for what it was. I have watched a number of these late 70s/early 80s New York movies that feel exceptionally gritty and leave you wanting a bath afterwards (Don't Go In The House, Maniac, Basket Case, The New York Ripper). I think I enjoyed this one the most. I find the aesthetic really interesting, and this time and place really interesting, though it's so grubby at the same time.

From those who were around then - how accurate was the depiction of these gay places? I really appreciated how divey the whole thing looked. Even after I came of age in the early 00s, a lot of gay places had a kind of divey, "poor man's version" feel, so I did find that gave a feeling a believability to something set in 1980. Although not a funny movie, I did laugh when Pacino goes to Cop Night and is kicked out for being the only one not dressed as a cop when he actually WAS one.

Was Central Park really that populated at night back then? I remember reading how dangerous it was then, but then again all these men looked threatening themselves in all that leather, so maybe they felt safer because of that?

"Some friends of mine were up there that night and heard someone singing..." brr. That line is quite creepy, really.

I was surprised that there was a lot less homophobia that I was expecting. Some from characters in the movie, but even then it didn't permeate everything. And I didn't pick up any from the actual movie itself.

Al Pacino was HOT! I was really shocked, because I know of him of course, but never thought anything of him. Here, I liked him very much.

Another thing I appreciated about it was a different portrayal of gay men (and I noticed they state straight away that this isn't mainstream gay life, but more an underground culture). We don't really get a lot of portrayals of gay men that are so... well, [italic]threatening[/italic] for want of a better word. I'm not talking about the killing aspect, I mean the masculinity and machismo of the whole thing. In most things we're portrayed more femmey (which doesn't always bother me, necessarily, but it is pretty standard and only one part of the community) or basically neutered. So that was interesting to me. All that focus on hair, muscle, sweat and griminess. I'm not even into leather and I found the look of the movie fascinating. I kinda loved the idea that to go underground in gay culture involves Pacino having to lift weights. Most other movies would have to have him learn camping or something and it'd be jokey. And it's all men bar one woman really, who just seems to exist so Pacino can fuck her. (tbc)

by Anonymousreply 135August 14, 2022 12:18 PM

(continued...)

I liked Ted, that ending was sad. Weirdly, the ending seemed familiar to me yet I've never seen this movie before. But the bit where Paul Sorvino is like: "Di Simone? 6th Precinct?" and the realisation on his face, ooh that was satisfying!

I just don't really understand everything. Which is ok, but I still have questions, like above. And also, what was with Pacino's stare at the end. Had he become corrupted? I never got the feeling he was getting turned on by men or anything. So was it like a darkness in his brain had opened up?

Anyway, would love to hear thoughts, particularly on the history of this film, the feeling at the time, etc. Is it actually a homophobic movie and I'm missing this somehow? Were the protesters right at the time?

I also watched a review by Siskel and Ebert on this film. Question: did they EVER like a film? They seem so miserable, and never really explain properly what their problem with a film is.

PS I know there have been other threads made on this, but some people hate bumping, and I have a lot of specific questions as you can see above, so...

by Anonymousreply 1June 26, 2022 2:37 AM

Also, why was Pacino sucking on that handkerchief - that was impregnated with amyl nitrate, I assume?

by Anonymousreply 2June 26, 2022 2:39 AM

r1 One of the popular interpretations (in the ancient past before every critic could take a class on queer cinema and be told what to think) was that Steve Burns was the actual killer... which the depraved bisexual was a popular theme in the day as were those kind of plot twists while lacking the m night shyamalan build up where you'd be able to predict the ending fifteen minutes in.

now the more fruity would address that the homoerotic homophobia of force allowed him to stay closeted and we're not seeing him as an individual go through exposure to the scene but rather we're experiencing the duality of man. so, we get presented with his light half, the closeted side and casually accept it as the ideal vs the dark which is only accepted as a predatory and seedy stalker.. so, much so that gets away with murder because he's the soft and modern, empathetic, married guy... essentially the only liberal cop in a conservative world.

by Anonymousreply 3June 26, 2022 2:55 AM

It's been awhile and I only skim watched it but I thought the overall message was that inside every man is The Beast and it's unwise to do things that awaken him.

Much like someone once told me about dogs and their killer instinct being reawakened, causing them to require being put down for the safety of others.

by Anonymousreply 4June 26, 2022 10:18 AM

I think Friedkin wanted to show it could be anybody. We're all 'cruising' (for a bruising?).

by Anonymousreply 5June 26, 2022 10:41 AM

I think it was just exploitation.

by Anonymousreply 6June 26, 2022 11:47 AM

While you're continuing your education, learn brevity.

by Anonymousreply 7June 26, 2022 11:50 AM

Kind of a SPOILER, I guess, so don't read on if you don't want to get spoiled.

We don't really know who the killer is. I think a lot of the protests then, and some complaints now, are from people who think the murderer was gay, and this is a movie that was showing gays as perverted murderers, which is a stereotype they were protesting against. The murderer may very well not be a gay man.

However, there's a real problem with the movie portraying the gay scene in a sleazy way, not in documentary style but in a judgmental way which shows basically every gay in the movie being a hyper-violent, grotesque sex fiend, and it's done in a way so that it makes sense that the one character, who seems to be starting to wonder if he's gay himself, would resist "becoming" gay and like all those other men.

by Anonymousreply 8June 26, 2022 11:51 AM

I picked up the Arrow Bku-ray which restores the shots of penis penetrating the victim’s anus while being stabbed. I was shocked that was allowed in 1980.

Also, fisting out in the open.

by Anonymousreply 9June 26, 2022 11:53 AM

R9 - the thing is the two penis shots (or inserts) happen so quickly, the average viewer would never notice it unless they slowed the movie down.

BTW, I was watching The Celluloid Closet last week - it was on HDNet - and the penis shot were in it.

by Anonymousreply 10June 26, 2022 12:06 PM

I was 16 yo in 1980, and Cruising gave the impression that every gay man on the planet was a hungry voracious insatiable cock monster on the prowl for fresh meat every minute of the day and night. I was a horny teen, but I knew that screen image was not representative of me, that I had self control, and the movie was a gross exaggeration of gay men. It Portrayed a small segment of a certain gay culture, and in the narrow insilar minds of straight or homophobic types, they believed we were ALL like that. Education and knowledge is greater than ignorance and stupidity. At least I hope it is...

by Anonymousreply 11June 26, 2022 12:36 PM

^^ I mean INSULAR, not insilar, autocorrect betrayed me again ...

by Anonymousreply 12June 26, 2022 12:38 PM

I attended one of the protests before it was released, here's what I remember at the time. Context is everything, we were fed up with how we had been portrayed in big Hollywood movies. Remember, it was only 1972 until we were not officially considered mentally ill. There were no positive images of us in the media, at best we were comic relief. In the years leading up to Cruising, we had Al Pacino as a bank robber, tranny lover in Justice for All, We had Ode to Billy Joe, suicide, Midnight Express, drug dealing, and rape. Midnight cowboy, street hustling. The New York Times didn't even use the word "gay" until 1987. IIRC the first movie with ordinary characters, a doctor and a writer, was Making Love in 1982.

In 1980 when Hollywood decided to go inside what many would consider the seediest most decadent part of the community we were afraid of the violence and negative stereotyping. Plus, it was filmed in the streets with "us" as background, it felt exploitive and invasive. We turned out to be correct. 15 days after the election of Ronald Reagan a guy went to the Ramrod and started shooting us. He didn't go to Prison.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13June 26, 2022 12:46 PM

Interesting interpretation, R3! I did sort of wonder if the movie was implying that he had killed Ted (from the look on Paul Sorvino's face as he looks at Ted's body, at least), but I did also interpret it a bit like R5 did too, that it could be anybody.

The use of uniform made all those guys look so similar it was hard to tell them apart, which I think must've been intentional. I didn't even notice, until listening to the Horror Queers podcast episode on this just then, that the murderer was played by different actors each time and that these actors often interchanged between murderer and victim. That's kinda a cool choice to make.

R4, also an interesting interpretation. I don't know if I'm naive, or it's just watching with modern eyes, but I actually didn't see a particularly judgmental look on that scene, it seemed to depict, but not make a judgment in any way, if you get me?

R11, I'm definitely a very horny guy, but like you, I don't see myself in this portrayal at all.

R9 and R10, I rented the movie from YouTube, and I definitely saw the penetration shot while the first stabbing took place. It was so quick I could've almost believed I'd imagined it, until you two confirmed it for me.

The fisting bit was pretty confronting to me, to be honest. Not that I judge others for doing it, but it makes my bowels hurt just thinking of it.

Thank you, R13! That is exactly the kind of context I was interested in learning about, I really appreciate you sharing that, and so interesting that you were a part of history too, as someone involved in the protests. I can also feel so lucky now that I can watch the movie today and have a different experience due to the change in what is happening in society at the moment.

by Anonymousreply 14June 26, 2022 12:50 PM

Back when gays had brains.

by Anonymousreply 15June 26, 2022 12:51 PM

Ok, I have another question: what on earth was going on with the guy in the jockstrap and cowboy hat that punched the guys around in the police station? That was so bizarre! The podcast I was listening to made a brief mention that this was a tactic police did use, [italic]because[/italic] it was so bizarre that no suspect would be believed if they mentioned it. But the movie doesn't make this clear, so it ends up being a really odd scene that does add to the odd atmosphere of this movie.

Oh, and can I say, I love the music used in this movie. A really cool choice not to go with obvious "gay" music, but to use punk instead. Especially as I prefer that to disco anyway.

by Anonymousreply 16June 26, 2022 12:54 PM

[quote]we had Al Pacino as a bank robber, tranny lover in Justice for All

I believe that was Dog Day Afternoon.

by Anonymousreply 17June 26, 2022 12:54 PM

That's part of the exploitation thing, R16.

by Anonymousreply 18June 26, 2022 12:57 PM

How do you mean, R18 - the guy in the jockstrap or the music?

by Anonymousreply 19June 26, 2022 1:03 PM

Based on a real series of murders in NYC, though very little information exists upon them today. Friedkin was also inspired by Paul Bateson’s murder of Village Voice critic Addison Verrill. A few years earlier Bateson had a small part as an X-ray tech (his real job) in The Exorcist.

Friedkin really wanted Richard Gere for the lead. He’s stated Gere understood the character best whereas he found Pacino didn’t get Burns internal struggle and was hesitant about how balls-out sexual the movie was going to be.

by Anonymousreply 20June 26, 2022 1:06 PM

I love Cruising. It's "problematic" at times but not intentionally so (basically homophobia is the killer which is not a bad message itself but when you start implying there are several killers then it can read as such) and it does try to make sure its not viewed as representative of all gays, and does speak out for gays too at times. It IS very anti cop though. That said I don't blame gays for freaking out, especially before seeing the film, when there was such little representation before And though I hate censorship I kind of do admire how the community (sans the leather crowd who loved the film and being part of it and felt THEY were being shamed by the other gays) stuck together and through their limited means did everything to stop the film. Again not that I agree ever with doing that but they really had a closer knit and more organized community then.

But I love the film, very seedy, very urban late 70's/early 80's and it captures a time period that would be cut dead in 2 years times and a side of society no one had the balls to venture in before or after. Also great soundtrack and lots of beautiful men (especially Arnaldo Santana, the 1st victim).

The ending is supposed to hint at the possibility of Pacino's character possibly being a murderer. But it doesn't say it outright.

by Anonymousreply 21June 26, 2022 1:07 PM

[quote]Based on a real series of murders in NYC, though very little information exists upon them today.

I'd be really curious to find information on these, but it sounds like that'd be pretty hard. Which makes me sad, you get the feeling there probably isn't good information out there because these were probably considered "just" gay men.

You've reminded me, I need to watch that scene from The Exorcist again so I can see who that was.

I think I'm a bit alone, in watching reviews of others, in finding Pacino did something for me, sexually. I do have a thing for the "rugged Italian 70s daddy" type. Richard Gere would've been interesting in this movie too, and obviously when young he was very attractive. Would've had a different feel to it, I'm sure.

[quote]It IS very anti cop though.

This is what I really wasn't expecting before I watched the movie. I was expecting uncomfortable depictions of gay men, but really, it's a movie against cops more than anything.

I really enjoyed the movie too, R21. I do think I need to watch it again to get a better grip on my thoughts on the actual mystery. This first time watching I was just all about the aesthetic and thinking of the history behind it and the social history of it, the setting and being startled at how explicit it was, because it was MUCH more than I was expecting.

[quote]That said I don't blame gays for freaking out, especially before seeing the film, when there was such little representation before And though I hate censorship I kind of do admire how the community (sans the leather crowd who loved the film and being part of it and felt THEY were being shamed by the other gays) stuck together and through their limited means did everything to stop the film.

I agree with all of this!

Fuck, he was gorgeous. And he had that great line, something like: "I suffer from ego problems and need someone to worship me". I've fucked that up, but you know the line I mean.

by Anonymousreply 22June 26, 2022 1:14 PM

In the end when you see Ted murdered it breaks your heart, and it's mean to. The actor did a really good job in playing a sweet likeable though complex gay guy (who I could totally buy even a straight Steve falling for).

by Anonymousreply 23June 26, 2022 1:14 PM

Ted was so sweet. And it pulled the rug out from under me, because a lot was made of the fact he didn't like to cruise because he was scared of it, and his boyfriend talking about him having a night time job would keep him safe. It added to this feeling there was NO safety.

And I kinda wanted him and Steve to hook up, their few scenes together could've almost been the beginning of a romance.

by Anonymousreply 24June 26, 2022 1:16 PM

I understand the community being fed up and wanting to stop the film, but it's a shame they did it with this film, because the protests were about another gay being a violent murdering pervert, when the murderer may very well not have been gay at all. The movie portrays the gay community as being victimized by cops and the public's perception of what gays are. I think a lot of respectability politics were part of the protests, and that made the leather community feel ostracized from their own community. Let's not lie about what was going on here, a lot of the issue were that the "good kind of gays" were angry that the movie was showing the "seedy, disrespectful side" of being gay, instead of "the good ones."

by Anonymousreply 25June 26, 2022 1:19 PM

Oof, and Arnaldo Santana's shirt with the diagonal slit in it. Mmmm!

by Anonymousreply 26June 26, 2022 1:19 PM

R22 Arnaldo Santana was a god. Very talented and classicly trained actor who did (gay ) porn and sex shows where he apparently practised alot of fun S&M stuff too. Him in this film is up there with Brando as far as most beautiful man on film I've seen.

by Anonymousreply 27June 26, 2022 1:21 PM

R25, I recently found episodes of Emerald City TV uploaded on YouTube, and there is one episode where these discussions are being had between Larry Kramer and Vito Russo ("Why do gays have to fuck in the bushes?" "Well, why did you have to tell straight people about this side of us?" to sum it up roughly). I can imagine this movie must've created quite a debate among gay guys of the time, for sure!

by Anonymousreply 28June 26, 2022 1:21 PM

There are some really good podcasts about the film on Spotify too, OP. And an interesting mini doc on yt about the filming it if you haven't seen it.

by Anonymousreply 29June 26, 2022 1:27 PM

R8 but I didn't think the film was judgemental in its portrayal at all. There are some seedy moments that do seem exploitative in the nightclubs (the close up of the arm being lubricated was almost hilariously on the nose) but if you watch those scenes you see alot of guys having fun just dancing, flirting and even being close and loving. That's because the extras were all from that scene n real lufe and acted like they usually did. It saddens me knowing alot of those men are probably gone now.

by Anonymousreply 30June 26, 2022 1:34 PM

I liked the film, but now can’t think of it without being reminded of this little piece of brilliance:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31June 26, 2022 1:48 PM

[quote] I'd be really curious to find information on these, but it sounds like that'd be pretty hard. Which makes me sad, you get the feeling there probably isn't good information out there because these were probably considered "just" gay men.

That was it. They were sometimes referred to as the Garbage Bag murders or something close to that. Bodies dumped in bags, the victims being men who were part of the gay community. Before that in the early 70s were another series of murders in the Village, and before that the Salt and Pepper murders which were the basis of the book Cruising was based on.

by Anonymousreply 32June 26, 2022 2:44 PM

Don Scardino (who played the nice character Ted) played Jesus on stage in “Godspell;” he went on to a lot of directing jobs.

by Anonymousreply 33June 26, 2022 3:03 PM

r30, It doesn't seem judgmental now because we have so many other examples of everyday homos. Remember, no one was out. In 1980 Billie Jean King was a straight lady who denied being a lesbian. She divorced her HUSBAND in 1987. Rock Hudson wasn't outed until 1985 and Liberace sued a tabloid for calling him queer. Elton John was straight and married a woman in 1984. We've come to a long way babies.

r17, Of course, you're right. And Justice for All was the one with the black, tranny, bank robber that Pacino did in 1979.

I'm r13 and just to be clear about my role in history, I was out cavorting and came upon a protest in the west village, IIRC outside The 9th Circle, I'm sure I was standing on the opposite corner drinking a .50 Budweiser out of a paper bag while smoking a "loose joint", 4 for 5 in the village but you could get them for a dollar each at the bandshell in Central Park. Central Park was scary and everyone (rich, white people, covered in the media) was afraid of being mugged, but what did I have to lose, 20 dollars and a subway token? People didn't bring valuables to the park. As a gayling, I was more afraid of "chickenhawks" than muggers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34June 26, 2022 3:59 PM

"... and this is a movie that was showing gays as perverted murderers"

Aileen Wuornos, Bruce McArthur, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Andrew Cunanan... it happens.

by Anonymousreply 35June 26, 2022 4:10 PM

I rewatched it within the last couple of years (first saw it in 1980 when at university).

I distinctly remembered the ending being a blond guy just in white briefs lying stabbed on the floor of a men's room (My sex-deprived self found the guy hot despite the scene). This was nowhere to be seen in my rewatch.

Anyone care to comment?

by Anonymousreply 36June 26, 2022 4:36 PM

I think you mean Ted R36. Perhaps the dvd or stream skipped a few seconds.

by Anonymousreply 37June 26, 2022 5:25 PM

Thanks for responding, R37.

by Anonymousreply 38June 26, 2022 9:44 PM

Thread on Arnaldo Santana.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39June 27, 2022 1:15 AM

Cheers, R39!

Oh my god, R31, that is hilarious! Thanks for sharing.

I've been listening to the soundtrack off and on all day. I'll say it again: I really love that they went in a different direction with the music. I read an interview with the director who said in reality it was Donna Summer and Giorgio Moroder, but he wanted a different effect and I think it was a decision well made.

[quote]That was it. They were sometimes referred to as the Garbage Bag murders or something close to that. Bodies dumped in bags, the victims being men who were part of the gay community. Before that in the early 70s were another series of murders in the Village, and before that the Salt and Pepper murders which were the basis of the book Cruising was based on.

I'll have to have a look into this piece of history. It's pretty terrifying. I remember hearing someone (Camille Paglia? Though she talks so fast I'm not sure I could've really heard her say anything, haha) talking about how gay men have always had this particular relationship with danger and sex - needing to get off and also having to balance that up against the threat in any given situation. I'm explaining that badly, I think.

[quote]but if you watch those scenes you see alot of guys having fun just dancing, flirting and even being close and loving.

This is a really good point. I was thinking while watching, if this were made today those scenes would be much less interesting, just a lot of cookie cutter looking men having rough, emotionless sex. But it was more than that and much more interesting to watch because of that.

by Anonymousreply 40June 27, 2022 7:13 AM

If they made it now, it would be Jonah Hill undercover in a swimming pool full of bears.

by Anonymousreply 41June 27, 2022 10:29 AM

So, what are people's opinions on whether Al Pacino's character was actually having sex with men at any point? I thought the movie left it intentionally vague, but we did see him cruising a lot and the camera never really followed him. And the time he gets that guy with him for the sting operation he complains when his colleagues break the door down "too soon". I thought this was really interesting.

And when he said something about "seeing the world", was that code for having full penetrative sex?

"Hips or lips?" Haha I gotta use that sometime. There is some very quotable dialogue in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 42June 27, 2022 12:23 PM

[quote]If they made it now, it would be Jonah Hill undercover in a swimming pool full of bears.

I know it's becoming a cliché to say "they could never make this now", but I honestly think parts of it really couldn't be made these days.

by Anonymousreply 43June 27, 2022 12:24 PM

[quote]There are some really good podcasts about the film on Spotify too, OP.

Thanks, mate. I will definitely check out the documentary, I think I did see it come up on YouTube when I was searching for the movie initially.

Also, have listened to two podcasts so far, Horror Queers, and One Fucking Hour, and both episodes were really interesting and enjoyable, and surprisingly didn't repeat the same information for the duration, so I learned quite a bit from both. I couldn't work out if the One Fucking Hour guys were gay or not, but they were very respectful of the whole thing.

by Anonymousreply 44June 27, 2022 12:40 PM

It's true, what R43 said, this is one movie that's not getting a remake. I guess gay sex is seen as too nasty by the Jesus crowd to even get the exploitation treatment?

by Anonymousreply 45June 27, 2022 12:45 PM

R42 there's a scene in a park where I think one guy sort of cruises Pacino's character and walks past him and he starts walking after and then it fades to black, which is never explained. So could be he decided to go REALLY undercover and see how the really did things.

I do thinks he started to have feelings for Ted. The way he looked at him at times..

by Anonymousreply 46June 27, 2022 1:09 PM

[quote]there's a scene in a park where I think one guy sort of cruises Pacino's character and walks past him and he starts walking after and then it fades to black, which is never explained. So could be he decided to go REALLY undercover and see how the really did things.

Yep, that's one of the scenes I was thinking of in particular. I got the sense we could definitely make a good argument that he went all the way on occasion.

He did seem to have some sort of feelings towards Ted, huh? His anger at Ted's boyfriend was so extreme otherwise. But I must say, very effectively threatening, it made me nervous when the boyfriend peered out of the door and Pacino came barging through.

by Anonymousreply 47June 27, 2022 1:13 PM

[quote]I distinctly remembered the ending being a blond guy just in white briefs lying stabbed on the floor of a men's room

Is it possible your mind took the image of Ted on the floor in the apartment and rewrote it as him being in his briefs? Or when you saw that scene did you remember it as being distinctly different? That's curious. I know there were 40 minutes removed from the film, but I don't know that they were ever shown (my understanding is that they were just pornography that the director used so that the MPAA would cut them and he could keep the other explicit stuff in there).

by Anonymousreply 48June 27, 2022 8:24 PM

Does anyone believe Friedkin is straight?

by Anonymousreply 49June 28, 2022 12:14 AM

I feel like I'm not understanding this, am actually rewatching thanks to Amazon.-not sure if my commentary is just stoned stupid or spoiler territory, but that said:

I thought Ted was murdered by Gregory, who was quick to go for a weapon, and the murderer had completely different M.O.s between the serial murders. I thought it was either a closet case cop (especially when the chief detective caught the name of one of the 'problematic' cops their informant mentioned) or one of the many 'clones' frequenting the bar. But I also was confused by the strange pep-talk Mr. Collegiate got which made him seem like the murderer.

In an unexpected way this movie holds up incredibly well, possibly being better now than when released. It did a successful job documenting a moment in time about to be completely decimated which gives it a voyeuristic and more realisticly tragic element.

by Anonymousreply 50June 28, 2022 1:08 AM

I thought the most likely thing was that Ted was murdered by his roommate/partner too, but then there was that moment were Paul Sorvino reacts with shock when he hears who was living next door and the focus on Al Pacino at the end. Perhaps we're just not meant to know.

by Anonymousreply 51June 28, 2022 7:53 AM

So apparently Cruising is the movie the Dugong troll spanks his pygmy marmoset to.

by Anonymousreply 52June 28, 2022 8:36 AM

R49, I do not.

by Anonymousreply 53June 28, 2022 8:44 AM

Interesting. Does Friedkin claim to be straight? I don't really know anything about him, but I assumed he would have to have at least some same-sex interest. Well, there you go!

by Anonymousreply 54June 28, 2022 9:31 AM

[quote]In an unexpected way this movie holds up incredibly well, possibly being better now than when released.

I don't have the context of watching it in 1980 to compare this too, but from a 2022 perspective, I thought it really did stand up to today, even though some of the scenes would never make it into a film made today.

by Anonymousreply 55June 28, 2022 9:33 AM

Like Pacino dancing...

by Anonymousreply 56June 28, 2022 10:30 AM

Made me wish I had some poppers on me, haha.

by Anonymousreply 57June 28, 2022 10:50 AM

Would Jeanne Moreau have bearded for Friedkin, though?

by Anonymousreply 58June 28, 2022 11:45 AM

R42-?I didn’t don’t know about Pacino’s CHARACTER having sex with men but I think Al Pacino has had sex with men.

by Anonymousreply 59June 28, 2022 12:10 PM

Really, R59? Interesting, what makes you think that? And also, yet another reason to regret not being born earlier, on the off chance I could've run into a young him, haha.

by Anonymousreply 60June 28, 2022 12:21 PM

Friedkin is straight...I just watched a video of him a few months ago of him drunkingly hitting on a female reporter and it was pretty funny.. He may have dabbled at some point since he certainly had the opportunity what with BitB and Cruising but he reads 100% hetero to me. I did think it was funny when he said he went to a leather bar for research (apparently with all the necessary get up) for the film and felt like the ugliest person on the planet (I don't think he was ugly).

by Anonymousreply 61June 28, 2022 2:07 PM

R51 I saw it as alarm at the name of the officer on the scene, one of the two problematic cops from the beginning. Though was just my impression. (Just hard to see Steve as the killer in that instance).

I also thought that him keeping the Precinct Night garb as indicative of his own investigation into the new world he's been drawn into. But according to synopses of this film I'm not on an accurate tract.

by Anonymousreply 62June 28, 2022 2:14 PM

Also at some point he went to Fire island to do research for TBITB and came across a full on "daisy chain" on the beach and was fascinated.

As far as the film, I thought the 3rd murder in the porn booth was so incredibly shot. I hate murder scenes and usually don't rewatch them if I can help it but that one I always have too. It just looks so cool.

by Anonymousreply 63June 28, 2022 2:15 PM

I always thought the Pacino character being gay or bi all along was too easy a reading. I mean maybe he was, but I always found the idea of him being sucked in to the bdsm/violent side of himself he became part of as more interesting. Though that does contradict my idea that he had feelings for Ted.

by Anonymousreply 64June 28, 2022 2:18 PM

As to podcasts, “Girls, Guts & Giallo” has a show devoted to it. The host is Annie Rose Malamet (a lesbian) and her guest is a gay artist named Pacifico Silano.

by Anonymousreply 65June 28, 2022 2:59 PM

[quote] Is it possible your mind took the image of Ted on the floor in the apartment and rewrote it as him being in his briefs? Or when you saw that scene did you remember it as being distinctly different?

No, R48. That image stuck in my mind for more than 4 decades. I was not out at all then and remember having a strong attraction to the image (the hot guy), despite his unpleasant condition. I didn't otherwise pursue images of hot men, then.

by Anonymousreply 66June 28, 2022 11:00 PM

[quote]As to podcasts, “Girls, Guts & Giallo” has a show devoted to it.

Thanks, mate. Have listened to about half an hour of it so far. Podcasts on this movie are so interesting, I haven't found a dull one yet. I disagree more with the two on this podcast than with the other two I have listened to, but that's not important, I don't need to agree with all other reviews.

[quote]I always thought the Pacino character being gay or bi all along was too easy a reading. I mean maybe he was, but I always found the idea of him being sucked in to the bdsm/violent side of himself he became part of as more interesting.

This is how I felt on watching this film the other night. The idea he might have homosexual feelings really wasn't interesting to me at all. I think it was much more about him going so underground that he was losing himself in it. In fact, it just occurs to me: at the end he is shaving his beard and returning to "normal" - I think his look at the end is just signifying to us that that darkness will never be able to be removed from him; that he can't shave [italic]that[/italic] away.

by Anonymousreply 67June 29, 2022 7:16 AM

Another question: what do people think of Steve's choice in handkerchief? That scene made me laugh. I was wondering why he chose yellow - especially when that had been explained to him. My interpretation is that he probably didn't realise he might be expected to do something and wanted to wear a handkerchief to fit in, but also I wonder if he chose yellow because if he did feel he had to do something he might feel that peeing on another guy was the easiest thing for him to do as a straight man.

Whatever the reason, I did have a giggle.

by Anonymousreply 68June 29, 2022 12:56 PM

Better than the fisting bottom hanky obviously.

by Anonymousreply 69June 29, 2022 12:57 PM

Hehe well yes, he would've been in for quite a surprise if he'd chosen red... hehehe.

by Anonymousreply 70June 29, 2022 8:55 PM

Yeah essentially out of all the other options, pissing on someone is probably the least work lol.

The hanky thing is a real thing btw and its much more intricate and elaborate than they show in the film. I thought it was made up will I saw a Vicee doc on leather bars.

by Anonymousreply 71June 29, 2022 8:59 PM

I know about it from a song by Peaches:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 72June 29, 2022 9:00 PM

R2, ethyl chloride. Cruising is a horrible film. It tried to use the kinky sex world as background to a horrific crime to make it more horrific, or so they thought. It comes off as overwrought and misrepresents that whole scene at the time. The film was rightfully panned when it opened. It exists as a sort of dated movie bomb of its day. Very little to be learned about gay history in NYC from it.

by Anonymousreply 73June 29, 2022 9:17 PM

[quote]r73 Cruising is a horrible film. It tried to use the kinky sex world as background to a horrific crime to make it more horrific, or so they thought. It comes off as overwrought

You might like the podcast referenced @ r65

The host and guest are a lesbian and a gay guy, and they agree the film’s horrific, homophobic trash… but also that it sinks so low it becomes glorious in its way.

by Anonymousreply 74June 29, 2022 9:27 PM

Who'd think a lesbian would hate a movie starring 99.9% men.

by Anonymousreply 75June 29, 2022 9:31 PM

I like the movie as a time capsule murder movie

by Anonymousreply 76June 29, 2022 10:54 PM

The final scene is somewhat charming, in a disgustingly heterocentric way.

by Anonymousreply 77June 29, 2022 11:43 PM

[quote]R75 Who'd think a lesbian would hate a movie starring 99.9% men.

No, she loves it. She just realizes it’s trash made by a somewhat clueless straight director for a skittish, straight audience.

by Anonymousreply 78June 30, 2022 5:38 AM

[quote] Garbage Bag murders

The primary suspect in those crimes had a bit part in The Exorcist

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79June 30, 2022 6:43 AM

R79, thanks for that clip! I've been meaning to look it up ever since I heard about this.

[quote]ethyl chloride.

Oh ok! So that's a bit different from amyl then, or basically similar type stuff? Sorry to be ignorant.

[quote]It comes off as overwrought and misrepresents that whole scene at the time.

This is the stuff that interests me, I'm curious if you could elaborate on how it misrepresents the scene? My understanding was that Friedkin did quite a bit of research and involved the actual members of the scene in those scenes and told them just to do what they would normally do. I'd love to hear an alternative viewpoint on this.

I disagree that it is a horrible film, as I mentioned above, I really enjoyed it. But I am aware I am viewing this through a 2022 lens and that I wasn't even alive in 1980 so I can't understand the feelings of then. So, I really appreciate hearing all viewpoints on this film. It's almost like everyone's opinion is equally correct when it comes to Cruising.

[quote]Who'd think a lesbian would hate a movie starring 99.9% men.

I listened to the podcast on the advice of the poster above and interestingly, it was the lesbian who really quite enjoyed the film and managed to change the gay man's opinion on it more. She is into the leather scene herself and she really loved it (as noted by R78 above). They definitely spoke a lot about the 'problematic' parts of the film (which I couldn't really see myself), and spoke of it being trash, so I disagreed with them there to an extent, but also they had some really interesting discussions on conservatism in younger gay people today and the scolding that takes place and they had thoughts on "no sex at Pride" and all that stuff. It was very enjoyable. All discussions centering on this film are so interesting to me.

[quote]I like the movie as a time capsule murder movie

This is definitely a big part of it's charm. And I've gotta say, I don't see the argument that it's a homophobic film personally. I thought it actually was kinda neutral on the whole thing. But of course it would read differently in 2022 compared to 1980. If anything, it's an anti-cop film.

by Anonymousreply 80June 30, 2022 7:21 AM

Based on this thread, I ordered the Arrow Special Edition Blu-ray from Amazon. I never saw it. I was too young when it was released, and then was turned off by the description of homophobia and violence when I was older. Now I'm looking forward to it.

by Anonymousreply 81June 30, 2022 7:56 AM

Oh, fantastic, R81! I would definitely get that as part of a collection. Whatever you think of it, I think you'll definitely see it as an interesting part of gay history, and also the social history of it is quite interesting too. Plus an Arrow blu-ray is going to look really good. Will be interested to hear your thoughts once you've watched it!

by Anonymousreply 82June 30, 2022 9:09 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 83June 30, 2022 10:14 AM

I don't know if "homophobic" is 100% the right word. But nobody calls Shaft racist, right? It's an exploitation film. Tarantino would get this.

by Anonymousreply 84June 30, 2022 11:39 AM

While you're continuing your education, learn brevity.

—Anonymous

LOL, R7! This is why I love DL!

by Anonymousreply 85June 30, 2022 12:03 PM

Originally The Germs were hired to do the full soundtrack. They recorded a bunch of songs that were intended to be used throughout the movie. The punk scene had just exploded in the US a few years before and it had a brief moment of association with gay culture due to a shared subversiveness.

But eventually the producers decided they needed to diversify the music a bit so they only kept a couple of those tracks.

Waxworks recently released the full soundtrack - in collaboration with William Friedkin - including those lost Germs sessions...but they all sold out like instantly. You can stream below.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86June 30, 2022 12:08 PM

Boys in the Band seems more hateful and homophobic. Cruising just features subhumans or nonhumans.

by Anonymousreply 87June 30, 2022 12:09 PM

I keep forgetting to mention - young Al Bundy in this film was HOT!

There were quite a few familiar faces in this film, actually. It also sounds like many actors really wanted to be a part of it, which is curious in and of itself.

by Anonymousreply 88June 30, 2022 12:19 PM

Oh bugger, R86! I would've liked to have gotten a copy of that album. I've been listening to the original album on YouTube every night and loving it. At least on that link you've provided you can listen to the six Germs tracks.

[quote]Boys in the Band seems more hateful and homophobic.

Honestly, I know I should probably watch this one too, but I really am not keen considering everything I've heard about it.

[quote]But nobody calls Shaft racist, right? It's an exploitation film. Tarantino would get this.

Good point! Incidentally, I think I read that Tarantino loves this film and has used the soundtrack in his own movies?

Cruising in many ways is like a Giallo to me. It has that feel of the European co-production about it, and I love those movies. Been a fan of Argento's for a long while and recently been watching Fulci's too. Cruising in some respects reminded me very much of something like The New York Ripper, but not quite as, um, silly maybe? I mean, there's no Donald Duck voice in Cruising at least, haha.

by Anonymousreply 89June 30, 2022 12:25 PM

Thanks for sharing the link R83!

by Anonymousreply 90June 30, 2022 12:48 PM

I never got the hate for BITB (that's for another entire thread) AT ALL. I somewhat get it over Cruising. But I like both.

by Anonymousreply 91June 30, 2022 2:23 PM

BitB is just another of those movies where it's always a sad ending for gay men. Sort of like, oh, I don't know, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Not much has changed in Hollywood. That's also another thread.

by Anonymousreply 92June 30, 2022 8:55 PM

BitB was written by a gay man about his gay friends. And not all of them were basket cases full of sob stories. The film dares to say self loathing was a thing for some gays. Oh nosies. It was, especially in 1968. It also showed proud gays, a loving gay couple who resolved their differences and friendships that despite all the drama, remained intact. For fucks sake, did you want a play where all they did was smack each other's asses and talk Judy Garland? Nothing says groundbreaking play like a bunch of happy, well adjusted people sitting around being nice to each other.

by Anonymousreply 93July 1, 2022 3:13 AM

It's still about self-loathing. At least the Brokeback guys were acting out of self-preservation. BitB was about a bunch of people who hated themselves and each other. Whoever wrote it.

by Anonymousreply 94July 1, 2022 10:50 AM

R94 Disagree. Don't know what play you watched.

by Anonymousreply 95July 1, 2022 11:31 AM

Did you think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was a movie about conjugal bliss?

by Anonymousreply 96July 1, 2022 11:38 AM

I was talking to my older friend the other day, and he told me that I should watch Boys in the Band, though he knows me well enough to warn me a bit about it. But he said it's an interesting look into that time. Incidentally, he also recommended I watch the new version, not the original. I don't know what others here might think of that advice?

[quote]It was, especially in 1968. It also showed proud gays, a loving gay couple who resolved their differences and friendships that despite all the drama, remained intact.

One of the podcasts I was listening to briefly touched on this movie, and advocated a position that they thought the way gay men treated each other in this film was almost a kind of "toughening up"/hazing kind of thing in preparing each other for the outside world.

The story, all up, doesn't really grab me enough to have to watch it right now, like Cruising did, but I'll pop it on the 'continuing my gay education' list anyway.

by Anonymousreply 97July 1, 2022 9:18 PM

R97 don't listen to your friend....if you watch it, watch the original....it is by far better ESPECIALLY the performances in it. It also has a grittier, more urgent and realistic feel (since it was filmed during the period it takes place, unlike the more polished but passionless, lackluster reboot).

by Anonymousreply 98July 1, 2022 10:53 PM

Thanks, R98! The reboot is a Ryan Murphy production, isn't it? That already makes me wary...

by Anonymousreply 99July 1, 2022 11:00 PM

R98 It is....it's not like terrible or anything but it just doesn't have the passion of the original nor the great acting. Plus they cut off some words and sayings that were too "unsavory" for today's audience...so meh on that as well.

by Anonymousreply 100July 1, 2022 11:03 PM

Very interesting, R100. Ok, I'll pop the original on the list for sometime, and if I like it enough may do a comparison with the newer version too.

Both Cruising and The Boys in the Band were directed by Friedkin, right? Well, I've enjoyed both The Exorcist and Cruising, so perhaps I'll like this too! I know this sounds lame, I just don't really like watching gay men be horrible to each other (probably because it cuts a bit too close to home, haha).

by Anonymousreply 101July 1, 2022 11:08 PM

So, ethyl chloride vs amyl nitrate. Anyone able to give me a run down of the differences, or do they feel pretty much the same? I've done poppers once before, so am familiar with the sensations of amyl.

by Anonymousreply 102July 1, 2022 11:21 PM

R101 "gay men be horrible to each other" Well there is some of that but there is also alot of positivity and love in the film that for some reason alot of detractors of the film seem to forget imo. The main character is very self loathing, yes, but the rest of the characters, for the most part, aren't. I personally don't think Stonewall wouldn't have happened were it not for the play. It is a heavy scripted drama though with dialogue taking center stage so be ready for that but the dialogue is so brilliant you don't miss the action. Anyway let me know if you ever see it what you think.

by Anonymousreply 103July 1, 2022 11:27 PM

Oh, ok! Thanks R103. It sounds a little bit like I may have been given an incomplete idea about this film! Will definitely check back in once I watch it.

by Anonymousreply 104July 1, 2022 11:30 PM

It's interesting - I just watched The Celluloid Closet and there is a guy there (the screenwriter for Philadelphia) who said he and his partner were gay bashed around that time by guys who stated that Cruising was their justification for it.

by Anonymousreply 105July 2, 2022 1:11 PM

"Cruising" marked the effective end of Pacino's value as an actor.

As a performer and as a person, he never came back from the experience.

Now he looks like Depp's grandfather.

by Anonymousreply 106July 2, 2022 1:21 PM

R106 he won an oscar after it and was nominated several times so I'd say he recovered quite well. But it is true he went through a bit of a slump after Cruising

by Anonymousreply 107July 2, 2022 1:28 PM

From what the podcasts have been saying, apparently he felt so bad after doing Cruising because of how it was received by the gay community that he ended up donating a significant portion of his salary from that movie to something like gay rights organisations/AIDS research or something.

by Anonymousreply 108July 2, 2022 9:28 PM

You mean he felt bad about making an exploitation movie about urban gays.

by Anonymousreply 109July 3, 2022 1:00 AM

Yeah, I think that's it, R109. He saw how upset many gay guys were and felt bad he'd been a part of something that had done that, I believe.

He seems to have wanted to at least be what we'd call an ally, back then, which is pretty progressive for the times.

by Anonymousreply 110July 3, 2022 4:53 AM

I was listening to a review of this movie from a straight guy the other day (who loved it), and he was saying he put this film in the same league as Last House on the Left and Cannibal Holocaust, which I thought is rather overstating things, but his point was that as a heterosexual watching it, it had that feeling to him. I found that quite a curious statement.

by Anonymousreply 111July 5, 2022 12:46 AM

I just watched the mini documentary mentioned by R29 (posted below) - or rather, it's kinda two mini documentaries put together. I found that very interesting - particularly the focus on the social history of it, the true life inspirations etc. I thought the things Randy Jurgensen was saying were a great little insight, and I actually really love those "huh?" bits in the film that seem like they wouldn't really happen and yet they were based on reality.

I also just get a kick out of all these straight guys going and doing research and what that must've been like for them. Imagining William Friedkin and Jerry Weintraub on a boys night out is just funny to me. There are also pics that really tickled me, like Friedkin standing around in the bar scene, wearing his Exorcist t-shirt.

Weibtraub makes a point about the story of cruising not being as important as the aesthetic, which I agree with and really is a great part of what I enjoyed about watching this movie.

And how dumb am I to not have realised that James Remar was the same person who played Richard in Sex and the City? Until I saw him in this doc, I just didn't put it together.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 112July 9, 2022 5:15 AM

^Oh and I was going to point out, stories like the "salt and pepper" duo who were extorting men at the time were really interesting, if not slightly terrifying, stories from the past.

by Anonymousreply 113July 9, 2022 1:07 PM

Cannot stop listening! So good!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114July 15, 2022 10:54 PM

R11 you didn't live in New York City in the 70s and 80s. Some people thought Cruising was a documentary.

by Anonymousreply 115July 15, 2022 10:58 PM

[quote] were the people that were protesting this still unhappy with it? What exactly were the protests about?

OP, know that people who protest against movies/music are never the brightest bulbs. Ever.

by Anonymousreply 116July 15, 2022 11:15 PM

Here's a very interesting video about the making of the movie and the NYC leather scene as it used to be.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117July 29, 2022 7:10 AM

[quote]Recently, I've been catching up on a lot of gay history/culture that I never bothered to look into much before.

Hey, gurl!...CATCH!

by Anonymousreply 118July 29, 2022 7:11 AM

Which is the better controversial erotic thriller from the 80s: Dressed to Kill or Cruising? I think Dressed to Kill is still offensive to many, but I don't think Cruising is as offensive as it was in the early 80s. Most people see it as a time capsule now of because that subculture it portrays doesn't really exist anymore. I like Dress to Kill better because it was gleefully trashy in a way Cruising was not. Can you imagine Twitter discourse if it was around for those two movies? They get offended by anything.

by Anonymousreply 119July 29, 2022 8:07 AM

^Dressed to Kill is high on my list of movies to watch, but I can't find it anywhere. No dodgy copy on YouTube, but also no copy I can rent on YouTube either. Not on any of the streaming services I have access to (that would be Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+. Oh, and Tubi). From what I have heard, Cruising is considered much less offensive today than Dressed to Kill by people generally. I'm looking forward to seeing it and seeing how I feel about it too.

Thanks R117 - I watched that (or those, really, as it's two minidocs put together) and enjoyed it a lot.

by Anonymousreply 120July 29, 2022 1:44 PM

Dressed to Kill can be watched on HBO Max for nothing (extra). Can be rented from YouTube.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121July 29, 2022 2:34 PM

I looked to rent it on YouTube, but couldn't find it, unfortunately. Maybe not available in Australia? We don't have HBO Max either I don't think.

by Anonymousreply 122July 29, 2022 2:38 PM

Where can one watch it now?

by Anonymousreply 123July 29, 2022 2:46 PM

If you're talking Cruising, R123, I rented it from YouTube. The quality was fantastic.

by Anonymousreply 124July 29, 2022 3:10 PM

Is that Nicole Kidman in R117?

by Anonymousreply 125July 29, 2022 10:37 PM

If you can travel to the Allentown Pennsylvania area on Tuesday night you can see Cruising on 35mm at the Mahoning Drive-In!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126August 5, 2022 6:30 PM

R126 that sounds AMAZING! I wish I could go.

by Anonymousreply 127August 5, 2022 6:38 PM

That's a brilliant idea for a drive-in.

by Anonymousreply 128August 5, 2022 6:58 PM

R126, fantastic! Pity it's such a drive from Australia to Pennsylvania, haha! Damn, these things always happen on the other side of the world.

by Anonymousreply 129August 5, 2022 9:22 PM

Ick, horrible movie, avoid at all costs. Nothing about it is even sexy, even though I am usually turned on by BDSM/leather stuff.

by Anonymousreply 130August 5, 2022 9:26 PM

I'm definitely going to get myself the 4K version of this sometime soon, and I never really buy movies anymore. I can't stop thinking about this film. I just wish the soundtrack was still available, because that is awesome, and unfortunately it was only limited edition from what I can see.

by Anonymousreply 131August 5, 2022 9:30 PM

This scene is bizarre

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 132August 6, 2022 3:31 AM

That was such a trip when that moment came on during my viewing, R132. What is so fascinating about it is that it's based on reality.

by Anonymousreply 133August 6, 2022 12:14 PM

There was an interesting moment tonight when I decided to watch that movie Mapplethorpe from 2018 with Matt Smith. There is a scene in it where he goes to a fetish club similar to something from Cruising, and the music playing there is more of the realistic Giorgio Moroder stuff (Cerrone's "Supernature"). It made me think back to Cruising, and I was glad to get to see a scene like this with the actual music of the time in it too just to get an idea. I thought it worked really well, and I can see how suitable it was - a song like "Supernature" in particular works because it is a darker sounding disco song. And lyrically it's not sexy of course, but the repetitive beat of it works in that environment for sure.

I absolutely love the Cruising soundtrack as I've said a couple of times above, so I don't prefer one or the other, I just enjoyed getting an idea of what it would've been like.

by Anonymousreply 134August 14, 2022 12:17 PM

^Oh and just to add, Mapplethorpe also had a really enjoyable soundtrack. I'll have to search some of that music out too.

by Anonymousreply 135August 14, 2022 12:18 PM
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!