MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > And Al Pacino was in this because why?

And Al Pacino was in this because why?

posted 12 years ago by SimplemindedSociety
21 replies | jump to latest

It looked good on paper? The great Friedkin was directing? Looked like a box-office hit? Maybe all of those things, but wouldn't an actor of his stature refrain from a film that seemed..expolitive or borderline sleaze? Yes, I know it'a a film ABOUT the sleaze,but it still is what it is.
For example, if Friedkin soley wanted a character study, he didn't have to show the sleaze, but speak of it in the narrative.
Or of Freidkin thought it would be abother "shocker" like The Exorcist, he was about a decade too late, except for those living in a naive existence(well, on 2nd thought, maybe Friedkin was right about that part)

[–] SnoozeAlarm 12 years ago

I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tabbycat (878) 3 months ago

I had the same question about the movie.

[–] macabre_madness 12 years ago

The material itself was a hot item between directors and I believe at one point Depalma was going to do it, then didn't acquire the rights, and took the theme and used it to create what became Dressed To Kill. The Gay subculture depicted in the film was very real then and exists still today. It's hokey and outtdated and goes on mostly behind closed doors and through the internet but it does still exist. I don't know why anyone would think that the film was meant to cast "gay" men in a bad light. It was just one subculture and in no way reflects community as a whole. I think the movie fails because it's not very well made. The ending makes no sense at all. Things are shown simply for shock value. It also fails to depict the beauty and attraction within this subculture that led soo many men to it. You don't understand it because the film never tries to address it. You're just strolling through a cheap funhouse.

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

ONLY because the masses would think that is all homosexiality is about, going to sex clubs and using leather-clad objects on,and in,each other. Society hasn't even gotten to the point of even finding gay men "normal" ,and Friedkin throws this stuff at audiences?

Yeah, I know,I know everybody says the polite thing when in public,then thinks how perverted homosexuality is(even without this film)behind closed doors. Oh wait,not everybody;I forgot about the many who call people "fags" in public also.
A lot of things are 'real',but you try to use some discretion when broadcasting it for the entire world.

That is why.

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 10 years ago

You're wrong though. Although the film does portray a very specific gay subculture, it also addresses the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive; the Ted Bailey character is proof of this. "I won't cruise. It scares me," he tells Steve. He is totally removed from that culture, but is still a gay character who is for all intents and purposes "normal." This is not a film that is aiming to lump all gay men together as S&M queens.

[–] marcjacobspants 10 years ago

Captain Edelsen (Sorvino) also says something similar when he recruits the young cop (Pacino). He tells him its a small sub-culture of bondage and S&M and he'll gain a lot of experience from it, more than most detectives will learn.

[–] rsb342013 11 years ago

SimplemindedSociety

Why are you so against this movie? I think you MUST have some sexual hang ups. I mean, you've posted 2 separate threads now...

[–] manram24 11 years ago

Friedkin thought the leather bars would be a good backdrop for a crime story and got the idea of the movie when he read the novel which came out before the leather bars were around since the novel was outdated. Even Friedkin says that this was NOT representative of the gay community as a whole, and not a statement for or against gays and said he gets it now why this people were angry at the time b/c they thought this movie wasn't the best foot forward for the community. Even in this scene, Sorvino says "Lukas and Vincent were not in the mainstream of gay life", but I guess some people will always find something to be offended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzIwHP53uPQ

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

[–] mwlindsey2000 11 years ago

I am reading Friedkin's biography (which is excellent) and he says that he first wanted Richard Gere for the role. Gere accepted but in the meantime, Al Pacino read the script and he loved it. They went with him because he was the bigger star. So Pacino did it because he wanted the part.

[–] kidjay83 10 years ago

if i was pacino i would of skipped this film no matter how much i needed the money i would of saved it for a no name closet case like say....james franco

Let's face it, people hate art movies. Especially when they are not expecting an art movie"

[–] ciffou 10 years ago

Good.
Thanks for sharing
Too bad you're not Pacino.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MidnightThud 9 years ago

Back then studios still allowed films like this and a listers still took risks.

Could you imagine brad Pitt in this nowadays? Fight Club was hard edge but not perverse.

[–] ghostdog2041 9 years ago

I wondered the exact same thing, OP! For the first half of the movie, I kept thinking to myself, "I can't BELIEVE Pacino did this!" After Godfather 1 and 2, Dog Day Afternoon, and Serpico, why would he want to star as a cop in a gay who dunnit? That boggles my mind. And this movie looks so cheap. Visually. Harsh lighting, and so forth. Pacino actually looks rough. It is bizarre to think that he took this after the godfathers.

Coming Soon... The December Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qj7fRpcXRI

[–] kakstin-270-41573 8 years ago

Hadn't he already played a gay (or at least, not exactly straight) character in "Dog Day Afternoon"? Completely different film, of course, but I'm merely suggesting that Pacino's turn in "Cruising" wasn't *entirely* unprecedented.

[–] [email protected] (2017) 6 months ago

That was simply a character who was gay, it wasn't the primary focus of the film.

I read somewhere that Pacino hated making this film, he said that what was on the script was very different to what became of it later. They changed the movie he agreed to making while shooting and he had no choice but to finish it. But I don't recall where I read it.