I really enjoyed this movie but the gay scenes was disturbing and made me sick. One can understand why people reacted against this movie when it was released. They've should have toned down the gay bar scenes mainly the fist scene and the dude sucking a stick.....
And i think that Joe Spinelli's character was the murderer.
But why?
I agree, less fisting would have been more commercial, but I frankly don't think there were enough bar scenes. When you have a milieu like that, you should run with it.
Even though I found myself saying "eww" at some of the bar scenes - (the fisting scene comes to mind) I thought that they were necessary to show the gritty underworld that he was thrown into to find the killer, and how it was affecting him every time he went. Without showing that we couldn't see the killers world.
Darling, you can't rape a townie......
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So what you're saying is that the scenes of guys having sex disturbs you more
then seeing a guy getting repeatedly stabbed to death or the other guy getting killed in the video room? Man, you are one screwed up piece of work.
Yeah whatever dude... Actually i do find the murder scenes more disturbing but that was not the point. Any normal person would find murder unacceptable......and disturbing or What tha heck the reason for your post was schmuck
"Microchanges in air density, my a$$....."
[deleted]
I found the murder scenes far more horrific.
As a work of fantasy/fiction this film does the job. In real life, what would be the point of putting an undercover police officer into "that world" in NYC? The city is too big. There are too many men to choose from. What are the odds an undercover cop would solve this case let alone meet up with the real killer?
Although this would kill the film, having a dectective go into that world in as a dectective might do more good. People could be questioned about who the victim left with or talked to at the bar. I think the gay community would embrace the idea of catching someone killing their own. Also a nice sub plot about the policeman questioning his own sexuality gives the story a nice turn.
Wrong Marky. I never said I wore a red hanky. I said I know what it is for. Ain't nobody coming near my butt with a fist.
[deleted]
What can I say. It's something I do. When I don't respect a person I change their name around because I don't think they're worth adressing properly.
[deleted]
Ain't nobody coming near my butt with a fist.
Scenes of violence are far more commonplace in movies than scenes of perversion of this type. Also, I seriously doubt the actors were ´really´ stabbed - while the degenerate activity in the pervert bars was apparently authentic. So it´s not that surprising some might find the latter stuff more "disturbing".
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
But remember this was the late 70s/80s. It was gritty, brutal and sleazy compared to something like Queer as Folk (US) where happy pretty boys bop to techno on the candy colored dance floor. This is the real dea.
I shall call him Squishy and he shall be mine and he shall be my Squishy.
According to wikipedia:
The Motion Picture Association of America originally gave Cruising an X rating. Friedkin claims he took the film before the MPAA board "50 times" at a cost of $50,000 and deleted 40 minutes of footage from the original cut before he secured an R rating.[1] The deleted footage, according to Friedkin, consisted entirely of footage from the clubs in which portions of the film were shot and consisted of "[a]bsolutely graphic sexuality....that material showed the most graphic homosexuality with Pacino watching, and with the intimation that he may have been participating."[2] In some discussions, Friedkin claims that the missing 40 minutes had no effect on the story or the characterizations,[1] but in others he states that the footage created "mysterious twists and turns (which [the film] no longer takes)", that the suspicion that Pacino's character may have himself become a killer was made more clear and that the missing footage simultaneously made the film both more and less ambiguous. When Friedkin sought to restore the missing footage for the film's DVD release, he discovered that United Artists no longer had it. He believes that UA destroyed the footage.[1] Some obscured sexual activity remains visible in the film as released, and Friedkin intercut a few frames of gay pornography into the first scene in which a murder is depicted.
[deleted]
[deleted]
for a film that should be better, you sure gravitate to the board to talk about a lot. Does the content kind of, you know..get you excited?
share[deleted]
50 times?
That is interesting; he really wanted to show those sex scenes.
What a horridly homophobic remark - would you have preferred them all to be female perhaps?
It was a movie about the gay scene. What is actually disturbing is that attitudes like yours still exist in 2012.
[deleted]
If you're so scared of homosexual sex and love, then don't watch a movie that takes place in the gay community. I'm sick of people complaining about homosexuality in movies. "It's ok to be gay as long as you don't show it." Get over it.
Dennis Alexis
http://dennisalexis.com
This movie puts a lot of gay men off. I don't know if you've seen it, but its pretty graphic.
It's nothing to do with them having a problem with homosexuality.
Your first two sentences, I agree with. The third one, perhaps not.
*Edit: You said "gay," not "straight" men. I feel kind of silly now.
Most people in general are honestly huge pussies anyway and get offended too easily. I can understand why some Gays and heterosexuals would get put off by this, predominantly from the savage killings that really do pack a punch, however you have to admit that there is a strong lack of understanding & mixed feelings between a handful of people that have watched this film who get the *beep* impression that all gay men are "predatory vampires" like some other people have said, as well the misconception that the gay lifestyle and scene is as sordid and/or still as "FILTHY" as it was back in the day when its obvious that it only takes place within the Gay Leather/S&M subculture and the director was trying to exploit as much as the interior of those bar scenes as he could (sure it's not for everyone, but I myself honestly found them hot as hell). I've never really been to a Gay bar before, especially a leather/S&M one but I can guarantee whoever's curious that they're all sincerely not like that.
I actually thought this film was pro-gay in a handful of ways despite its exploitative nature, as we're of course supposed to show sympathy for the victims, regardless of their sexual orientation as Gay men aren't perverts. The graphic nature is crucial to show and reflect just how sick, twisted, hateful, barbaric and inhumane some people are, not to mention just how far some people will go to try to systematically murder LGBT citizens who as I'm sure you know have suffered from an innumerable amount of violence, bloodshed, and hate-crimes throughout history; a good portion far worse than any of the poor souls who met their grisly fates in this film which while being based on a true unsolved anti-gay murder spree in new york city during the 70's as you can read about on the alternate poster and more on wikipedia, only mirrors the real depravity of humanity. This was not the only anti-gay serial killing spree there has been. I don't remember most of them because I don't like thinking about it, but there was another one, if not a couple in San Francisco around the same time that still remained unsolved.
But really? How can you say
It has nothing with them having a problem with homosexualityhuh? Can you be be anymore ridiculous? Of course it does! At least half of the time speaking so. Have you even looked through these petty comments from all of these nasty bigots? If anything this film just shows [and was made to show] the horrid atrocious brutality of homophobia, and that Gay men (like myself) and women being viciously murdered by a serial killer, or anyone for that matter in cold blood is no different than a straight man or a woman being heinously dispatched by another person. We are all equal regardless of our sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation and most certainly all shed the same blood. share
Leeccdoo
It's not that complicated. Homosexuality is disdained enough, and the masses, predominately made of heterosexuals, won't know the difference after seeing this film on how much is relevant among gay men or not.
It's not being "pussified". With an R rating, there are unfit-viewers (elderly, children) being brought to see this film, without being informed. That is imposing on people who had no way of knowing they would be going to see hard-core or graphic fisting. (that is sickening to me, not a hot turn-on). Friedkin did not make a denouncement at the beginning of the film : this film contains graphic sexual scenes, in case you are under 14 or over 80, for example.
The pussfied ones are the callous ones who not rate it X because they were to selfish, self-entitled and fearful of not earning enough revenue; they wanted it both ways. And the ratings board knows that people will not have enough details in order to make an informed decisions, nor do they care. That is what the X rating is for: to inform them. But that would be to honest.
That is imposing on people who had no way of knowing they would be going to see hard-core or graphic fisting. (that is sickening to me, not a hot turn-on).
_____________
These scenes are just quick flashes, even though it could be considered somewhat graphic. The film is not hardcore sex, but hardcore leather and sweat, with emphasis on the atmosphere that is generated within these S&M bars and some pretty nasty violence. I agree with you about the boundaries being pushed with the 'R' rating in the US, but most other countries did see fit to restrict it to older audiences. Why this was, and still is a problem in the US, is bamboozling. That is why the NC17 rating was introduced in 1990. It didn't make any difference to people's attitudes. In NZ, Australia and the UK it was R18 and had a few minor cuts in NZ, during the first onscreen murder, which was disturbing and repulsive anyway.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
Most people in general are honestly huge pussies anyway and get offended too easily.
______________
You have made some lucid and salient points Leeccdoo in your post. Those darn bigoted, naive and ignorant heterosexuals, are just so freakin' shockable. It astounds me how they deludedly see themselves as superior, or is that pseudo-superior. 😄
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
brockmeeks
Of course, The typical "homophobic" accusation is going to be used if you don't dot your i's and cross your t's, so the sheep can have fun saying homophobic. It has nothing to do with homophobia.
They've should have toned down the gay bar scenes mainly the fist scene and the dude sucking a stick.....I havent seen the film. Makes you wonder why Friedkin felt compelled to show this. To show the "reality" of what goes on in such bars/ clubs?
I have both seen the movie and been in "such bars/ clubs". From my standpoint, the scenes are realistic for things that might have taken place in those types of establishment, especially for the time period. Not so much now, as that particular social outlet has all but evaporated in the States. It used to be that every major city had at least one seedy leather bar with various kinky accoutrements to facilitate anonymous sexual interaction.
The movie is about an anonymous killer (or killers) moving easily through a vulnerable fringe community that at the time was driven to the shadows to exists. Thematically the scenes show people in vulnerable and dangerous sexual activities which goes hand-in-hand with the serial killer plotline. Leaving them out would be tantamount to filming Sinclair's The Jungle but never showing the abattoir floor.
So I don't need to wonder. Because I have a desire to learn and make connections through experience as opposed to making preconceived speculation about things I have not investigated.
Let's see who takes the bait.