MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > Reason's Why This Need's To Be Remade

Reason's Why This Need's To Be Remade


Casting ;

Pacino was the only actor in this entire movie that was attempting to do something here, only to come off bland. Sometimes his own fault, other times because the supporting cast are so dull pacinos work is foiled.
For a remake id suggest some actors for lead and supporting gay roles like Ryan Phillippe, Kevin Zegars, Tom Sturridge, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emile Hirsch and John Robinson.
For the sole female role of any consequence id go for Elizabeth Shue.

Script ;

People often try and say 'crusing' is misunderstood. People have said it's muti layered movie. It isnt. Its crude and completely under developed.
Instead of focusing on S&M gay bars, a new script with a modern approach to gay culture and the nature of self loathing could be very cleverly written.
Instead of the ambigious ending, which leads us nowhere, a real twist could be wrote that actually surprises the viewer instead of leaving you empty.
Ryan Phillippe as menioned above would be ideal for the lead, his choice of roles have been constantly engaging, and with the right supporting cast, a clean, crisp and confident script could be easily achieved and realised.

Director ;

William Friedkin was a bad choice. His only notable movie that was well presented and directed was The French Connection, and only because the gritty presentation enhanced that picture. "what about The Exorcist" you might cry. Well, what about it ? It was a very average horror movie that was going to be seen as subversive in anybody's hands, the religious aspect and its treatment was always going to cause an outcry. I argue any director could have turned in The Exorcist as good if not in most cases better than Friedkin.
If this were to be remade, with the focus on the psychological, id say Gus Van Sant, David Cronenberg, Brad Anderson, Christopher Nolan, David Lynch, or Lodge Kerrigan would be more apt.

Demographic ;

When 'Crusing' was made, much work had still to be dont to deal with homophobic attitudes. One of this movie's main shameful points is the interpretation of 'gay culture'. Since this was made, movies with a gay theme or lead character are now able to be released to the mainstream audience without pre-conceptions attached to them. Not all gay men dress up in leather and like disco music. I believe a modern audience would respond quite well to a well wrote remake.

..........

that concludes my brief overview as to why i think in this instance a remake is essential. I dont normally go for remakes, often something that made the original special is lost, but here, i firmly believe only improvements can be made.

reply

Everything you suggested just describes a much more ideologically "safe" movie. Friedkin's film has it's problems, and it is wrong-headed in many aspects, but the only way for a remake to work would be to go farther into the deep end, not retreat into toothlessness.

Either ways, the time for a movie like Cruising to happen is long gone. Not to say that thematically similar movies couldn't be made (in that respect, the film is still as timely as ever), but a "modern context" would destroy so much of the original that a remake would be pointless.

Of the people you mentioned, only Cronenberg seems to have both the intellectual breadth and fearlessness for this project. I certainly don't think a film like this couldn't have benefited from a queer perspective, but who's around that has the talent for the subject matter? If I could put a dream team together for a hypothetical second version of this film, it would be something like Rainer Werner Fassbinder directing, from a script by Jean Genet... both the type of daring artists that are largely absent from both straight and queer filmmaking and literature nowadays.

And perhaps that's why it's so easy to over-praise a flawed film like Cruising: the cinema has gone so toothless and careful in regards to difficult subject matter that even an audacious failure seems remarkable.

reply

I'm with bstephens21 on this. A remake like this is a great idea since it'd only show how much better the original is. Cruising works because of the way it's done. Since the movie was essentially created in the editing room, I'm sure Bill and Bud had all the time they needed to figure out how to put the pieces together for the maximum effect.

What bummed me out is the way it was rereleased - like all the "contemporary greats" Friedkin tinkered with the original movie to the point where it was really distracting. I hope if they remake it the original cleaned-up version surfaces. Plus the soundtrack with all the Germs songs recorded for this film in good quality.

have a nice life!

reply

Hi guys, thanks for the responses, interesting.
bstephens21 im keen to know why you think a movie with the kind of cast ive described would be an ideologically "safe" movie.
You'd still have the theme of the troubled 'protagonist', set in a modern american context, which i honestly dont see as a detraction from the whole, and with actor's like Ryan Phillippe, and the other's ive mentioned your going to get actor's that have took risks with movies before and have proven they are able to contribute to a project such as this.

I didnt mention Gregg Araki as a possible director because i feel he'd probably not be suited to what is essentially a story of a man's struggle with his past and coming to term's with himself, with the serial killer element being the spark that ignites his demons.
Givin the main character has more going on that his sexuality (which seems to be Gregg Araki's main interest) i think Cronenburg would be perfect too.

I would argue that a remake with the focus on the psychological set in a modern context couldnt possibly detract from the original, since the original was so badly flawed in so many area's.
In terms of writers, id go with Scott Kosar. I know he's more of a horror writer, but coupled with cronenburg, and given what he achieved on 'The Machinist' i think that could be an intoxicating pairing.

Of course, this kind of production would be a large one, and would have to navigate it's way through mountins of red tape, but i for one, would welcome an attempt at a polished, stylish remake, and i dont agree that would necessarily negate the project's integrity or visceral impact.

reply

I think a remake of Cruising is a good idea. I think now gay movies have gone in the opposite direction conforming to heternormativity. We need to see to see a movie like cruising in theatres. Also a film like cruising needs to go further and push the bounadies.

reply

I am really hesitant on the pertinence of a remake, despite the movie s flaws. I think the movie is ok as it is, even if I would have appreciated to see more scenes that were cut. And besides the pertinence, I also do believe that this type of movie couldn t be made the way it was made then. I really do not think any big studio would back it in the first place; today studios are much more conservative than they were back then and the american censorship is also regretably worse, especially when it relates to "alternative" sexual lifestyles. Like it or not, the United States are, in parts, still very touchy when it comes to expose various homosexual acts, or worse an association between violence and sexuality like we see in the film.

That being said, I really do think that if they were to do a remake, they would have to go a bit deeper in the exploration of the subculture exposed in the film (S&M and fetish gay subculture), of how it is today and how people live it and enjoy it (which is perfectly ok if you ask me). Also, I never thought there was something wrong with what they presented in that movie in terms of accuracy; after all they really filmed the clubs scenes in REAL gay clubs and bars. It may look cliche today because there were so many jokes on so-called prototypes of leather-wearing guys, but the S&M or fetish (two different things) subculture in general can include that element amongst many other things (leather clothes on an attractive partner can be major turn on for men of both sexual orientation in general in fact).

So if you ask me, they should not do a remake at all, but IF they do it, they would really need to expand on it within the same subculture and structure. As for possible casting, well I am frankly not sure who could be the right choice for the main detective character (Ryan Philipe is a good actor, granted, but I just do not see him play that part; perhaps they would need an unknown actor or really a chameleon, subtle actor who could transmit all the ambiguity and compexity of that character and keep him mysterious in a way).

Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?...How did that happen?

reply

A remake of Cruising would struggle to find an edge. NYC is so bland and so antiseptic now that true subcultures barely exist there. Where they do, they haven’t come about organically, but rather through the efforts of various hipsters trying to recreate the NY or the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Leather and S&M bars are purpose built, smoke-free and probably welcome straight women from the upper west side who fancy slumming it while their drugs wear off.

“Not all gay men like S&M and disco music”. No, but some do – and this film was set within that milieu specifically, so I’ve never been able to understand why folk were so up in arms against it. I can only presume that it was the sauvignon-sipping chattering-class gays who loathed it. (And there’s barely any disco in the whole film! Mutant disco, maybe. Other than that, it’s all No Wave, punk-funk, hardcore and pure punk rock.)

I understand that at the time, when homosexuality was slowly gaining more and more general acceptance – before it was all set back a decade with AIDS – that a film like this was seen as being unhelpful to the ‘cause’. I can understand that. But you have to understand there will always be those gay men who do not wish to be part of the ‘cause’ - who do not wish for an approximation of heterosexual middle-class life. And why was it so wrong to show us *them*? The sexual, hedonistic deviants? Sexual deviant hedonism can be pretty good for the soul sometimes – try it! You might like it!

(Why Ryan Phillipe anyway? Not just ‘cos he’s incredibly handsome and buff by any chance? And what are these filmic and artistic ‘risks’ he’s taken in his career? I’m struggling to think of them . . . Cruel Intentions, that Studio 54 flick . . . er, Igby Goes Down?)

reply

[deleted]