MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > Ending

Ending

posted 10 years ago by tlinn35
8 replies | jump to latest

(SPOILERS) Immediately after my first viewing of the film, I was puzzled by the ending, thinking that it felt tacked-on and needlessly vague. But the more I ponder it, the creepier it gets, and the more I think I understand what Friedkin was trying to accomplish. The ambiguity of the neighbor's murder, the leather costume that Karen Allen tries on, Pacino shaving and staring menacingly at the camera: the film has a palpable sense of dread that is inescapable, that swallows you whole, and Friedkin ultimately extends that to the film's protagonist, and leaves us as viewers complicit in the depravity and soullessness that infects the film. I get why critics were less than kind, and perhaps the screenplay could've better explained Pacino's character arc, but on the flip side, the ending might just be more sinister due to the fact that it's somewhat inconsistent with the narrative that came before it.

[–] manram24 10 years ago

I took the ending as

1. The killer was caught but seeing that man walk into a club implies there will be more murders/there are other killers out there. I don't believe as some do that Pacino turned into a killer or became a homosexual.

2. Pacino's psyche has been effected because of his undercover assignment (as were the real life cops that went undercover in the leather bars)

3. The neighbor was likely killed in a lover's quarrel by his roommate, Greg who threatened Pacino with a knife earlier.

4. The ending is meant to be ambiguous and raise more questions than answers as Friedkin said on the commentary.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

[–] moosefeathers 10 years ago

^Perfect (1-3). Why do people see more than what it actually is?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] manram24 10 years ago

Why do people see more than what it actually is?

I'm not sure, people who say Pacino turned into a gay serial killer because that's what they want to believe perhaps, I don't quite get it myself, it's just a guess.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

[–] FragrantBlossom 10 years ago

I agree with you on all four points. I skimmed and saw "ambiguous ending" complaints and I don't know what I expected but the ending was great. Very underrated film.

[–] milstar 9 years ago

Very underrated film.

If it were less gay.

[–] Sulaimone 9 years ago

My guess is Ted was killed by Greg or some psycho he brought home due to his loneliness, vulnerability, naive and trusting nature, etc. I just can't fathom any sensible reason for Pacino to kill Ted. I think he really liked him in a non-sexual/sensual way. He might have even seen what an easy target Ted would be for some sick, cruel person and sincerely wished he could help him.
What still creeps me out to this day is that I stayed at the St. James Hotel (where the first murder takes place) for a few nights when I first moved to New York, while I looked for an apartment. Murders allegedly related to the case were still occurring but I didn't know about them at the time. That particular murder scene wasn't filmed inside the hotel (It was a nightly rental SRO but the rooms were a lot smaller as single rooms were divided by added in walls and doors to make two rooms, each not much larger than a jail cell. Lots of street workers, johns and addicts).
After that first murder, I made my friend who was showing it to me turn it off (we watched Divine's "Pink Flamingos" instead. Big step up, right? LOL). It was a least five years later that I got up the nerve to watch the whole film.

[–] motherfckzombies-261-668745 8 years ago

An interesting perspective that others have brought up was that Pacino killed Ted because he was developing feelings for him. That was one of the things bugging him in the final shot. I can maybe see that, perhaps? However, it's too Dressed to Kill. Though, again...it could make sense because De Palma was trying to do Cruising first and eventually wrote Dressed to Kill. Maybe that was the theme and De Palma made it more obvious in DTK, while Friedkin left it up to interpretation in Cruising.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]