there is no logical, narrative, or thematic reason for the film to indicate that steve was involved in the killings.
seems like the director just threw that in there in the most lazy of ways which didn't coincide with any of the events which occurred earlier.
if that was truly planned from the beginning, they would have made it far more ambiguous throughout the movie
I personally don't mind the ambiguity. I would have been disappointed if Friedkin ended it as if it were a Kojak episode in which the killer is caught and order restored. These were choices Friedkin made in the editing room and not during filming. Yet supposedly this was not part of the original design and infuriated Pacino when he first saw the film. He felt if he knew Friedkin was going to go in the direction of Det. Steve Burns possibly being a killer himself, he would have slipped subtle clues into his performance rather than having the revelation come out of nowhere which seems to be your beef with it as well.
shareExactly. Pacino couldn't be trusted with that knowledge.
shareYes he could. Far less talented actors have successfully played roles which required repressed tendencies which were invisible at first but apparent once the revelation was expressed, eg Psycho.
Pacino could easily have portrayed a budding killer. What we got was a guy who was partially seduced by the gay BDSM scene, which Friedkin then muddled with the implausible idea that was a/the killer all along 🙄
I was very confused by the ending, but I don't dislike that I was. It made me THINK about it for days afterwards! I love when movies do that. It's menorable and emotionally unsettling. Because the movie didn't give me a solid and clean cut answer to all my questions and thoughts, it felt like I was still in it; It stayed with me for weeks. I really liked the way it ended. Ive watched the movie about 3 additional times and I get it now, but I'm glad the ending was so abrupt and sharp. It would have been less impactful if it was all presented to me in a neat little packaged ending.
Another movie with an ambiguous end that is really really good is Martha Marcy May Marlene. Also, Simon Killer. Abrupt endings are an art. Cruising threw us all in confusing loops throughout the entire movie and the ending was the last one. The answers are all there, just look for them and find them however you need to. Once it clicks, it's great!
there is no logical, narrative, or thematic reason for the film to indicate that steve was involved in the killings.
seems like the director just threw that in there in the most lazy of ways which didn't coincide with any of the events which occurred earlier.
if that was truly planned from the beginning, they would have made it far more ambiguous throughout the movie
That's because at least 30 min of footage was excised. We will never know until Friedkin finally releases a Director's Cut.
shareI really question that "30 minutes" (or, by some accounts, 40 minutes) story Friedkin has been telling for 30 years. He is a fascinating raconteur, but I usually get the vibe of a tall tale in many of his accounts of his films. The Cruising excised footage is one of his more notorious, its mythology actually inspiring James Franco to make a truly wretched film. Friedkin has said the footage was mostly hardcore pornography with Friedkin's cameras picking up various exhibitionistic goings-on when filming was going on in those sordid S&M clubs in Lower Manhattan. Friedkin would have known perfectly well he wasn't going to be able to show actual blow jobs or anal intercourse (though he did slip in subliminally a porno shot of male-on-male anal penetration that probably ranks as the first time that had ever been displayed in a mainstream studio release). In 2007 Friedkin promised the DVD would include the excised footage. Many fans were pissed it of course didnt include it. Since this would be a selling point for any future releases, i would think Warner Bros. Would have provided it by now. I question whether this footage has ever existed outside of Friedkin's imagination.
shareTry 40 seconds. Since Friedkin is a big, whiny baby, most of those 40 seconds remain in the film. Only about 10 of those 40 seconds are lost. Bud Smith replaced a couple of blood-spurting shots in one scene with alternate camera-angle takes, and those replacement shots went out in all versions. The original shots that CARA had a problem with are lost, mainly because this was the only scene, of the three scenes that garnered this an "X" rating, in which Friedkin actually did what was asked of him for his "R."
The picture is incomprehensible because Friedkin is incomprehensible.
You're a little hard on Friedkin and "Cruising", but I agree with you on the whole.
shareI agree 100% with the OP
If a private venture fails it's closed down. If a government venture fails it's expanded. M Friedman