why would either director feel so compelled to make this film?
What's so special about this real life atrocity? Is Friedkin intrigued by gay men,what? (Would this project be made if it was about a similiar real life Hetereosexual victims case.)
And if this film looked so good script-wise,what went wrong?
For DePalam and Friedkin attached to the film,it must had looked like a winner on paper.
[deleted]
(Would this project be made if it was about a similiar real life Hetereosexual victims case.)No. The film would lose its meaning. It's not about the murder. It's about male sexuality.
'It's not about the murder. It's about male sexuality'.
---------------------------
Does it also send a message that homosexuality is about leather-bars and public sex? Not a healthy message for heterosexuals who already have a tainted image of homosexuals as 'devient'.
In short, was Friedkin a closted homosexual who projected his hatred of homosexuality via this film?
Does it also send a message that homosexuality is about leather-bars and public sex? Not a healthy message for heterosexuals who already have a tainted image of homosexuals as 'devient'.Like I said, its the capturing of the heterosexual gaze, which would, yes, likely view the world like some modern Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem with aligning yourself with such a subjective mental state in a film is giving the appearance of endorsing that subjectivity - and no, I'm not certain Friedkin does enough to transcend it - but I will say that revulsion that comes with that gaze is also matched with a genuinely erotic attraction to it. Pacino's character, as the audience, suffers a mix of BOTH revulsion and arousal, which is where that male anxiety stems from. I think an acknowledgment of that arousal already begins to transcend any simple label of "hatred" or "homophobia", as it begins to look at the very source of homophobia.
In short, was Friedkin a closted homosexual who projected his hatred of homosexuality via this film?
Thanks for reply.
However, you are looking at as the intelligent person you are, and perhaps Friedkin is. Shall I say that the masses will not have the analysis that you did?
And we certainly cannot have a new code: "Rated I, for intelligent audiences only"
I just saw this film on cable tv. In the very beginning there is a disclaimer that it doesnt represent gay society as a whole, that it represents only a particular small portion of it. ( I paraphrase)
I dont think that the disclaimer was part of the film when it was first made, I saw when it first came out and dont remember.
I have a feeling that it was edited and cut badly because there were a lot of kind of jerky transitions between scenes. Again I dont remember if it seemed so when I first saw it.
The ending blew me out. It's not that I dislike ambiguous endings, it's just that it was so unexpected in such a graphic, naturalistic film.
I think Al Pacino was a much better actor in the beginning of his career this was a perfect example.
Glad to see that it is still being discussed .
Pacino was great in Scarface, Donnie Brasco, The Merchnt of Venice, Angels in America, etc so many good films. But this was si ply a bad film and Pacino clearly didn't like being in it.
share<< Pacino's character, as the audience, suffers a mix of BOTH revulsion and arousal, which is where that male anxiety stems from. I think an acknowledgment of that arousal already begins to transcend any simple label of "hatred" or "homophobia", as it begins to look at the very source of homophobia. >>
While respecting your careful and articulate analysis, I didn't notice Pacino's character undergoing "revulsion" at all. From the very first time the job description is explained, he seems quite cool and accepting. He shows good humor as he learns about this underground -- to him -- society (as when he asks about the different colored handkerchiefs and politely excuses himself), is nice to and socializes with his gay neighbor without showing discomfort, and is later upset when that innocent gay guy is roughed up in an interrogation.
Having a conflicting reaction to this gay S&M scene is an interesting premise...but the only time it showed itself to me was in the (kind of jarring, dropped-in) scene where Pacino tells his boss the assignment is just becoming too much for him.
Finally, I was surprised how non-homophobic this film seemed to me, watching it for the first time just now in 2011. The element I DON'T like is that there's some implication at the end that Pacino has "snapped" (?) and become a killer, himself. For god's sake, from what?? Going to some leather bars?? I do think that kind of gives off a message of "Enter At Your Own Risk - Associate With Teh Gays And You Turn Murderer!"
Also, to answer the OP....I don't know WHO the studios thought would go see this film in 1980!! I would really like to read the script as it was circulated back then...partially because I'm unclear as to what the writer's intention was. But Al Pacino was certainly very brave to accept this role at that time. Can you see Michael Douglas', Robert Redford's or Christopher Reeves' agents pitching it to them? ("Uh...I then do WHAT???")
Finally, I was surprised how non-homophobic this film seemed to me, watching it for the first time just now in 2011. The element I DON'T like is that there's some implication at the end that Pacino has "snapped" (?) and become a killer, himself. For god's sake, from what?? Going to some leather bars?? I do think that kind of gives off a message of "Enter At Your Own Risk - Associate With Teh Gays And You Turn Murderer!"For the same reason Stuart Richards kills: he doesn't kill because of his homosexuality; he does it to repress his own homosexuality. By killing these homosexuals, he can, in essence, kill the homosexual within himself. That's why the flashback/hallucination involving his father isn't a cop-out, but in fact, opens the films meaning wide-open. It's not his father that drives him to kill, but everything he represents: heterosexuality, masculinity, patriarchal authority, normality. The implication is that Pacino himself does the same thing. By killing Ted, he could in essence kill that aspect of himself he discovered during the investigation, Ted being the deepest homoerotic relationship he carved out during that time, and probably the guy he closest came to sleeping with (that scene where he knocks on his door)... all this especially poignant since Ted had NOTHING to do with his investigation, so he couldn't even lie to himself about it being part of his "job". He has to go back to normal, heterosexual, patriarchal society, and in order to do so, must sever all ties, all doubts. Once again, it's not the exposure to homosexuality that makes him snap, but the awareness of his own homosexuality, and the heterosexual panic that follows. share
I think these things are fine as theories for discussion...but the film doesn't really build to say anything that's that conclussive.
The story is disjointed, and the filmmaker's take on whatever was there for him appears kind of shrouded.
I do think the plot is pretty much a mess, as another posted found. But the film is professionally made on other levels. I wish whatever we're supposed to get from it were clearer.
I wonder if it was edited and re-edited many times at the studio's behest, and that's why it's all so murky.
So what? I think the fact the film doesn't pretend to have the insight to make a conclusive statement on anything is a strength (although it's also the point at which the film obviously limits itself). I am automatically skeptical of any film that believes it makes an authoritative statement on its subject, as if a 90 minute film could ever provide the irrefutable answers to life's problems. Films work best as meditations on a subject, not sermons. Friedkin's film is just that: a meditation on homophobia and male anxiety. It's confused, disjointed, and limited by the viewpoint and experience of its creator, but in its jumbled glory touches on truths that other films, in their coherency, leave ignored.
shareMmmmm....well, I would say that since the film is not clear or what it's saying (let alone on what's happening in its plot), that absence acts more as a mirror for some people to see what they want in it.
I don't think a film's statement or message needs to be "authoritative"...it's just usually supported by what's going on around it in the universe of the story. For instance, if we're going to say Al Pacino's character is "disgusted" and this film is partially about disgust, don't we have to see him be disgusted? Where is he disgusted? I observed him being more neutral than disgusted in most of the film.
(This might be because, if what I read in another thread is true, the director didn't tell Al Pacino if his character was turning gay, or turning into a killer, or anything. So...it's no surprise that the whole sense of the film is vague.)
If we're supposed to believe that Mr. Friedkin is working outside the traditions of psychology and storytelling...okay. But if that's his ellusive world, it's awfully difficult to add anything up at all.
Maybe it would help to go back to the novel the story is based on, which I haven't read.
PS: I just noticed something funny. The copy on the back of my VHS box starts with "PACINO IN TOP FORM!" (I guess someone in the advertising department had a sense of humor?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: I think this is an interesting review:
http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2949
[deleted]
I guess his performance is too subtle for me to identify that reaction as the center of the story.
But, I will live : )
I HAVE BEEN READING bstephens21's threads and I must state those posts are along the lines of my thoughts on the film. However I often start my own threads because I wish to address new issues yet my "new issues " have been touched on herein. This is one of the longest threads I have read.
BACK IN THE DAYS BEFORE MY TIME WAS 70/80S'
BUT FOR THE PARTY ANIMAL I WAS THERE WERE THE DAYS OF BACKSTREET
If some straight guy on here has admitted to going into gay bars and used that confession to expound on first hand experiences that I might have missed it, my apology. However,let me be the first to admit that and not because I want a feather in my cap (I feel a joke coming on here that also says I don't want a boa either). I have never cruised but I have been way past drUNk and still wanting to party. I have gone into gay bars. I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE SEEMINGLY STRAIGHT BUT EQUALLY DRUNKEN WOMEN DOING LIKEWISE. THIS WAS MIDTOWN ATLANTA'S BEST KEPT SECRET DURING THE LATE 90'S. Gay Bars (BACKSTREET)were the greatest after hours bars for pure insanity. I highly recommend one to anyone who unlike me still PARTIES and I MEAN PARTIES HARD. I HUNG UP MY DANCING SHOES AND GOT SOBER BUT...
What I wish to shed light on is my gay bar experiences were in Mid Town Atlanta at a bar called Backstreet and THROUGH THE FOG, MY MEMORY SAYS, a place called THE RED CHAIR. ONE HAD TO PAY A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP COSTS AND THAT WAS ABOUT IT . YOU COULD THEN ENTER AND DRINK UNTIL THE SUN CAME UP. Ofcourse this was in Atlanta in the 90's long after former New York Mayor G. had cleaned up New York's seedier elements. "CRUISING" was intriguing as it captured the seedy side of New York before gentrification took place place. The style of the film is not documentary but definitely without the glamor of a Hollywood back lot. Heck it seems accurate for the times since the only black to appear was the JIM Brown cop in jock strap. But that is not my concern. At the outset I knew this was going to be a film made to look poorly shot to enhance the grittier elements. There was one light on the cop car as it cruised the street. The opening scene immediately tells me "Dorthy you are not in Kansas". In fact its more like Alice falling down the rabbit hole. Not only are we out there we are, from a moralistic stance without God descending into to hell where good is bad and bad is good. As the camera pans from the cop car a Killer strolls without so much as casting a glance toward the cop car into a bar. This is not anti gay nor pro gay those are political pursuits we are in film here and the opening scene tells me that I'm the voyeur. The cops are pawns. They are sordid participants in a Topsy-turvy world gone bad.. William Freidkin's knew it and wanted to take us on a tour. His French Connection and To Live and Die in L.A. where cops are humans and heroes allows him that space for me. I being familiar with then accepted and respected his portrayal of cops. He had earned his authoritative license as a director. These are the kind of cops who cant be trusted. Their opening lines "hey look at that" was more lust from their POV than I might have thought. This is made obvious to us later but first we are also introduced to our first double-meaning. The cop while addresses the cross-dresser says, "this is my corner". Did he mean that as a cop or a transgressor? The cops are just as much apart of the landscape of destitution as are the street walkers they accost. Their malfeasance is allowed to go unchecked (albeit while hiding behind their badges).
All is not well in cop land and the cops need help. The system is flawed for the outset. They have snitches in drag just like today they urge us all to become snitches. But they also have undercover cops that they employ. Enter Al Picino a cop who upon first instruction looks like the killer who we have just witnessed stab a victim to death. Al Pacino enter Solvino's office with a head full of curly hair. Slovino has a limp. We are not told anything about either. How did he get that limp> Why did he choose Picino? Yet we know Picino looks like either chopped liver or the killer himself. This is our second double meaning. Al is eye candy for the viewer, he is presented to us for our voyeuristic consumption. Friedkin is having his cake and eating it too. What is his intent in this film to have a crime documentary or take us on the ride to observe sex and death? When Solvin tells Picino, "all the victims look like you", The camera hangs on Picino. We are left to gaze upon his androgynous pretense..
I'M GOING TO BACKSTREET
IF YOU ARE SELF RIGHTEOUS AND YOU GO OUT DRINKING AND YOU PICK UP A FEMALE PROSTITUTE, YOU RETURN HOME TO YOUR WIFE AS IF YOU HAVE NOT *beep* A WHORE. YOU RETURN TO YOUR WIFE AS IF YOU HAVE NOT LUSTED. BUT IF YOU GO TO A GAY BAR AND LET YOUR INSECURITIES DOWN, YOU MIGHT FIND YOU HAVE TO GO HOME AND BEAT YOUR WIFE WHILE YOU DENY TO YOURSELF WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN. SEXUAL ENERGY ALL AROUND YOU AS IT WAS WITH AL PICINO IN THE MOVIE "CRUISING" WHILE IN THOSE S&M CLUBS WILL SCREW WITH YOU. ITS THE ANIMAL TENDENCIES YOU HAVE HAD REPRESSED DUE TO YOUR SOCIAL CONDITIONING. THEY CAN COME RUSHING TO THE SURFACE AND YOU MAY LASH OUT AS YOURSELF OR SOMEONE. LEFT UN CHECKERED THEY CAN CAUSE SEXUAL CONFUSION AS THEY DID FOR AL.
BUT REMEMBER AL IS AS MUCH AS SUSPECT FOR US THE VOYEUR AS HE IS CRIME STOPPER. WHAT WE SEE IS THAT HE HAS TO DEAL WITH THE EXPOSURE. HIS FACT OF LIFE DEAL WITH HIM AS HE DEAL WITH A LOSING IDENTITY. FOR SEVERAL YEARS I WORKED FOR AN ADULT DIRECTORY. I had photo shoot in dungeons while they were open and found myself shocked at the sight of whipping and blood letting. I am no sadomasochist. But after year of visiting club after club, I got out of the adult industry because I was getting uncomfortable. Exposure to many things outside my norm were ruining my spirit. Nonetheless, this film takes us deep than I had even gone. I may purchase this film for my collection but I will not search for a copy with the deleted 42 seconds. I knew the fisting scene was coming as I recognized the tour we were upon. The camera was with the participants. We watched Al as if were there. The film was well done for while we remain the interloper like Al, we were not invited to make light of those whose lives we spied upon. The Cameras did not lure it panned. ye the murder scenes were trite. There is where we wish to make fetish of scenes. And I too am guilty of that as a modern day horror film buff.
THE HOUSE RETURNS TO KANSAS
We are all Dorothy's in this thread, seeking the comfort of our puritanical world where we simplify our selves into denial of any transgressions and the self righteous can bash homosexuals and gay rights activist can call those of us not quite right wrong. Al Picino's characterization was well acted. I almost thought he was enjoying himself just a tad. Remember the stake-out scene where the cops burst in to save Al's life...did you see Al all tied up....? He later said, "you busted in too soon..." lol
Making A Living Seeing
What are examples of “things” it succeeded in?
shareCertainly this film would have been made if the targets were straights, but we've seen generic serial-killer films hundreds of times. Kudos to Friedkin to exploring a community rarely seen in mainstream films, and for handling it so boldly. Friedkin took a lot of heat for this film, but it stands as an important thriller about the gay S&M subculture.
As for what went wrong: Honestly, I'm not sure anything did. I like the fact that the ending is extremely ambiguous about whether they captured the real killer and what Al Pacino is going to discuss with his girlfriend. Life provides no easy answers. Why should film?
Warped,
It goes deeper than that.
It's more than the issue of serial-killer filmmaking. This film is depicting gay man in a preverted way to the general public who already have a negative view of homosexuality,and everybody who sees this film probably always will. Is that a good thing?
There is a certain element of irresponsibility about doing that, but since it doesn't affect Friedkin personally--except for the almighty dollar he makes-- why should he care,right?
How typical of people.
[deleted]
'The leather bars were just a setting for a crime thriller that Friedkin liked.'
--------------------
(hehe..I'm sure)
Anyway, the masses don't know this; they are not as intelligent as you are.
I didn't see any of the sexuality here as "perverted" (your words, hence the quotes), and hopefully most of the people who see this film will have a more open mind than you. If they don't, this film will do nothing to damage their perceptions, which are already skewered, as yours are.
[deleted]
You were fortunate to see this in the theaters when it was released. I don't think it even played in my hometown. I was going to just about everything that did (including "Apocalypse Now"), and I think I'd remember if "Cruising" played there.
The fact that this is such a late '70s period piece is part of the reason I love this so, just like its brethren, "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" and "The Eyes of Laura Mars." The first time I saw this, which was probably the mid-'80s, I was alternately repulsed and intrigued by it. Now I'm less repulsed and more intrigued because I've seen it so often.
It seems we were told to hate this film for so long that once I finally saw it, I remembered the orders, but not the rationale behind them.
WarpedRecord, I had the same experience. I had read so much about this film - how awful it was, that it's blatantly homophobic, etc. But, I was curious to see it.
When I was coming out in the '90s, myself and a lesbian friend watched it and we were both fascinated by it - the leather/S&M scene, the art direction and cinematography, the capturing of New York's gay/leather scene of a certain period.
I don't think it's a great film, but it's very interesting and engrossing. I think it makes a perfect double-bill with "Goodbar" in that it is a very dark exploration of sexuality, and a film which would NEVER be made today by a Hollywood studio.
Hello, tpcorless:
I think the gay community's objection to this film was twofold: that it gave away some of the "dirty little secrets" of the gay community, and that it would lead to further gay bashing or copycat killings. The first objection seems pretty erroneous to me, and as far as I can tell, the second one never happened.
This is indeed a captivating look at an era that, these days, is hard to believe ever existed, and we're lucky to have this as a document, regardless of some of the failings of the film. I watched it this week with a friend who lived in New York at the time, and he said it was very true to life with the scene at the time.
The two things that strike me as false here are the leather drag queens, who probably wouldn't have been accepted in the bars then (and now), and the rocking soundtrack, which if they played that instead of the screaming disco divas (or the High NRG or whatever it's called today), would make me go out more often.
[deleted]
Oh yes, I remember that "Police Woman" episode. I assume it's still in print in the DVD collections? Do you remember the lesbian slasher movie "Windows," which came out about this time, with Elizabeth Ashley pursuing Talia Shire (and who could blame her)? I'd love to get my grubby little paws on that one.
Of course, gays and lesbians are capable as just as much evil as straight folks, in fiction and reality: Jeffrey Dahmer, Aileen Wuornos, John Wayne Gacy and Andrew Cunanan come to mind immediately, as well as several other names where the orientation isn't quite as clear.
But thankfully, we also have boring folks like Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge and Ricky Martin to remind us that non-heterosexuals can be just as vapid as those on the other side of the white picket fence. Progress indeed.
"I didn´t see any of the sexuality here as "perverted"".
If sticking an arm up other guys ass is not "perverted" then I can only assume nothing is.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Michel Foucault loved fisting.
"Michel Foucault loved fisting".
Whatta pree-vert.
But he was a frog so this doesn´t count anyway.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Lesbians do it too, of course they stick the fist into the beaver but essentially it is the same thing. But it goes without saying that you don't have any problems with THAT since it's lesbians.
shareWell that sort of depends on what these lesbians look like, don´t it? It may have... redeeming qualities, in certain cases. But it is sort of a perversion nevertheless, of course - unless you insist the term "perversion" is meaningless entirely.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I would label 'Cruising' a homophobic film in the sense that it was unnecessary to make this ugly, confusing and pointless film. Although it does not judge the gay community or subculture portrayed through it's narrative and the film as a thriller piece is most likely forgotten and dismissed; it was representing a small facet of the gay community that the majority of gay people at the time were probably not akin too or interested in. It sensationalised a portion of the gay community to a dangerous degeree.
Considering the climate and attitude of the time it was made and the struggle faced by many gay individuals to obtain acceptance and equality even today—rights which are a given to many hetrosexuals—the heat that Freidkin took from the gay community was deserving. I cannot even begin to fathom what Al Pacino must have been thinking either.
The Hetro\Homo representations of serial killers portrayed in films can be perceived as being no different. However, the seedy underbelly represented in hetro themed films would be less taboo for viewers and likely easier to swallow for mass film audiences, than to watch the portrayal of the homo underbelly. Cruising' could have been perceived as if you are gay this is the kind of life you will lead and deserve. Amongst the individuals who frequent these kind of places and lead these sexually un-inhibited lives, what is prortrayed in these films would not be perceived shocking or controversial gay or straight—was this the audience 'Cruising' was aiming at?
'it was representing a small facet of the gay community that the majority of gay people at the time were probably not akin too or interested in.'
------------------------------
I have to question what you mean by a small facet.
The difference is that cities(depending on where)have done away or limited the peepshows like you see in CRUISING. Even West Hollywood's Santa Monica Blvd,which was the place for male-prostitutes, has been cleaned via a slow and steady sting operation.It's amazing how they did it.
'Considering the climate and attitude of the time it was made and the struggle faced by many gay individuals to obtain acceptance and equality even today—rights which are a given to many hetrosexuals'
--------------------------
I was an adult in 1980; not much has changed. It only seems like it has.The struggle for acceptance still exists.
'However, the seedy underbelly represented in hetro themed films would be less taboo for viewers and likely easier to swallow for mass film audiences'
-------------------------
Glad you brought that up because heteros prefer to think the seedy unbelly is a homosexual-perversion,and are less likely to ackowledge the seedy actvities of the average male 9-5 crowd who live in thier white-picket fenced homes.
However, the reason male-male seedy-behavior is more prominent is simply because men are more sexual by nature.
I remember the 'rap-booths' on 42st for heteros,and was familar with Boston's combat-zone before that was torn down in the 80's. I hear 42st has been cleaned up.
Hi SimplemindedSociety!,
I didn't grow up in the US and was only 13 when this film came out and didn't see it untill a few years later. What I mean by "small facet", is the S&M leather bar subculture. Maybe it was something that was much more prominent from your adult perspective at the time from where you are from. I suppose the statement '.....representing a small facet....' would be better replaced with the word 'exposing.....'.
From my teenage mind when I first saw it, I enjoyed the shock value of the film. Upon subsequent viewings from an older more mature perspective, I can't help thinking that the shock value of the film was more do with lining the pockets of the filmakers than making any profound statement about the gay community. This film is very much a product of it's time and not a very good one at that— IMHO. It is interesting that Friedkin made 'The Boys In The Band' 10 years earlier and while that film is very much a time capsule and the characters are self loathing, it is well intentioned. It bamboozles me as to why Friedkin would choose to make another gay themed film 10 years later and one so repellant......oh yeah of course, duh! The almighty $$$.
[deleted]
Is there like some kind of actual reason to think Pacino is gay? Or are some kind of abstract personal beliefs supposed to constitute sufficient evidence?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
'Is there like some kind of actual reason to think Pacino is gay? Or are some kind of abstract personal beliefs supposed to constitute sufficient evidence'
---------------
wow..now that was abstract of you.
Let's see, translation of "abstract personal beliefs supposed to constitute sufficient evidence", meaning: How come?
Is there some reason why you think he's not gay? Now, make you sure you state your reason to constitute sufficient evidence.
Hmm.."evidence",interesting choice of a word; as in what evidence of a crime.
Sorry, this is not how it works; you made the extraordinary claim so it´s your job to provide the (equally extraordinary - meaning, "factual", in case you might have further trouble understanding English) proof. So cut out the irrelevant beating around the bush and answer the question. Clearly and to the point.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
'Sorry, this is not how it works'
"you made the extraordinary claim"
-------------------
Homosexuality is "extraordinary" to you?
Yes,I see how it works with you. Unfortunately,society has to deal with ordinary people like you who are proudly(or subconsciously)anti-gay.
"you might have further trouble understanding English"
-------------------------
You WILL have further trouble with English(among other things)if you have the need to dress it up with pretentious fancy wording. I understood your pompous comments,which,again says much about you. You can speak in everyday terms; we won't think you're any less intelligent..unless that's the point.
Just go and gossip about the private lives of celebrities at your local market with the other sauna women, not here.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
>>> Is there some reason why you think he's not gay?
He has a girlfriend. But surely you're aware of that, so I don't know what the point of your post was.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c
It bamboozles me as to why Friedkin would choose to make another gay themed film 10 years later and one so repellant......oh yeah of course, duh! The almighty $$$.You really think this was a commercial subject back in the late 70s??? It's not even commercial today. share
'You really think this was a commercial subject back in the late 70s
It's not even commercial today'
---------------------
That's just; the 70's are not today. Nothing is "new" today. Of course 70's audiences were intrigued.
The box office suggests otherwise. Cruising may have been an utterly misguided film (an opinion I don't hold), but there's no denying it was a gutsy movie given the time and place.
sharegrossed 19M. Is that a disspointment?
sharebstephens21 'The Boys In The Band' wasn't a commercial film and neither was 'Cruising'. What gave you the impression in my post that I said it was. I was only making a comparison between the 2 films being both gay themed made by the same director. I would say—and I am only assuming here—that the majority of the box office would have been made up by gay audiences and the rest by those that were intrigued by the controversial subject matter and shock value of the film....aspects which made Friedkin's 'Exorcist' a hit. The film didn't and still doesn't have a large appeal and deservedly so.
Film is an expression of art and life, and everyone is entitled to their opinions—I won't buy into all them though. What an absolutely appropriate term you have used bstephens21".....utterly misguided....' to describe what 'Cruising' is......WOW! You have hit the nail right on the head.
[deleted]
I guess the main reason was the sensationalism that would gain publicity and box office revenue. I don't know which one was released before but the makers of this film most likely had American Gigolo and its success in their mind.
share[deleted]
does Friedkin give insight into what went wrong, or does he think the film is fine?
shareNothing went wrong. It was brilliant. It captured one of the most important periods and one of the most important subcultures in modern New York history, something we've lost forever. For that it is a priceless treasure. There is nothing like the New York of the late 70s/early 80s, no trace of it left in the sanitized Disneyland of New York City in 2012. The power, the eroticism of darkness and danger, and the ultimate horror of the serial killings are an overwhelming sensory experience, taking one out of the humdrum, inert, well lit world most of us live in. It also makes clear the subculture is far from the mainstream of gay life, takes a sympathetic view towards gay men in the film, portrays most of the police as despicable, gay-bashing thugs, and shows the most sympathetic characters on the police force taking the solving of these murders very seriously.
shareWith all due repect. I was there in he 70's also..and jacking off in peep shows, while "erotic" is not an important subculture in modern New York history. Maybe the word "fun" might suffice
I guess the rap-booths were an overwhelming sensory experience also.
Well, if all goes right, we'll have those things back again. Hold onto the dream.
Revisited 'Cruising' the other day and my personal opinion hasn't changed about how I feel about the loathsome theme\nature of this film. Need to listen to the director's commentary, but in the interviews, Friedkin says he was attracted to the thriller aspects of the story and does talk about the protests. He talks positive and unbiased about the experience, but it may also be perceived that he is in denial about this atrocity that he created and wont admit it. However, I do admire Jack Nitzche's—as always—atmospheric score.
shareSo a city being more safe to live in is a suckier one?
I guess if Haiti or North Korea were to ever be cleaned up, lots of people would be awful nostalgic for the more "interesting" times, huh?
The film was adopted -loosely - based on a successful crime novel (written by a guy that worked for the New York Times paper). Gritty "realistic" crime thrillers were quite popular at the time.
In the 1970s, Hollywood was just starting to look at gay people as a potential consumer demographic. I believe that the director of this film had adapted the Boys In The Band play into to film.
So these two things were put together in the summer of 1979 with Cruising. Alas, Hollywood didn't really know how to write fully developed/realistic gay characters very well, and, well, back then 'realistic' didn't mean like how Criminal Minds or NCIS have a focus on investigative procedure.
Realistic often meant graphic violence, blood and Gore and nudity and as such explicit sexuality as possible. I am not say that such things are bad in a film, but they tended to get used in an sophomoric/exploitative manner.
[deleted]