CRUISING

Finally a new topic on here!

Could have been an good film—but the ending is uninteresting and leaves details hanging.

R2 comes through with in-depth , incisive analysis.

The scene on the dancefloor where Pacino disovers the delight of poppers is just laughable. So silly. I think they really wanted him to be snorting cake - but that would have been a bridge too far with studio execs and censor? His reaction is certainly more like someone on a coke or speed high high...

It reminds me of The Exorcist in that I can’t imagine how shocking it must have been for filmgoers at the time of its release.

It was produced at the wrong time. They had to edit so much out that the story makes no sense. That was one of the problems of that time period: things were sort of wide open, but 'we' couldn't really talk about them. Playboy Magazine always talked about the celebrities attending, yet another party, and spending time 'in the grotto', but never mentioned what took place there. It's only been lately that we're learning that stuff. On the other hand, we did learn, earlier, about a lot of the things happening in the gay club scene back then, but the public just wasn't ready for it, and may still not be.

I saw it when it first came out and was surprised how short Al Pacino was. Not really believable as a gay stud, though.

I remember reading about the protests against the filming of the movie at the time.

Wow cool. I heard of that movie I think. And Al Pacino is in it? Cool OP. What's it about?

Was this move shocking?

It showed Pacino was midget but did it show dick?

R9 it's about a serial killer who picks up gay guys from clubs in 70s New York and the undercover police investigation to find him

They should have been protesting about AIDS, not a silly movie.

It's surprisingly raunchy. Good movie though.

Was enough cut footage saved to produce a new director’s cut to improve this film? Or is it now a lost cause? Maybe James Franco would be interested in a re-make. He’s not Al Pacino but he would not be afraid of graphic gay BDSM.

Great soundtrack.

Look out for Al's elevator workman's boots.

The Celluloid Closet showed the killer stabbing some poor guy in the back over and over...That was enough for me!

This film does show how freaky the leather community was and still is now.

I hope they keep the S&M leather bar scene in it. It shows a man getting fist fucked in a swing.

Apparently, the bar was based on the "Ramrod" bar in Greenwich Village on Christopher Street. Don't know if the bar is still around.

R20 Ramrod became the Dugout I think. I was a bartender there

I watched this on VHS with my parents.

Originally Friedkin wanted Richard Gere. That would’ve been a, uh, very different movie.

A homophobic former transit cop killed two men outside the Ramrod in 1980. He targeted it partially due to the noterity Cruising brought to the bar.

Lips or hips!

That brief glimpse of fisting is burned into my memory, more so than Caligula's ringed-fisting.

Party size!

Leather and S&M guys are just creepy.

Especially this dark back rooms in the late 70's. It looked like Sodom and Gamorrah.

Not one goddam boat in this film.

I saw it when I was in high school, with a group of two other guys and four girls. We had no idea what it was about, one of the girls said “it’s probably about cruising to the beach or something.” We were all horrified by it but also too titillated to actually leave. I hadn’t yet realized I was gay and this movie probably supressed my feelings even further — this was a life I wanted no part of.

No hot rods, either, R29. Sorely disappointed.

[R30] That is why all the gays were protesting the making of the film.

This film reminds me of Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Dark, gritty filmmaking, with the correlation of sex and violence, which is probably why I find both films so fascinating. Both Pacino and Keaton out of their comfort zones. Both films made by truly great filmmakers. Great cinematography in both films.

Cruising is a bit of a mess, though. We don't really know who the killer(s) is/are and it's very vague about whether or not Pacino is turned on by the clubs although it does seem to suggest he picks up homicidal tendencies.

Although the film is bold and explicit, somehow it doesn't seem to go far enough content-wise.

When I first saw “Cruising” at the movies, I had no idea what “fisting” was all about, and the scene really confused me.

Hips or Lips?

DL fave Don Scardino played Pacino's roommate.

[quote]I watched this on VHS with my parents.

Omg, that must have been awkward.

I was another one who figured out what fisting was when I saw this movie. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Still very daring for a mainstream studio film. I don't think it could be made today.

I remember finding the guy who's killed in the opening to be very attractive and sexy with a perfect body. He was also an incredibly good actor. I'll never forget how horrifying it was to see him begging for his life and crying as he's getting stabbed. Such a terrifying scene. I discovered later that he did gay porn in the 70's under the name Malo. That was a very nice discovery. Not sure if he's still alive today or was a casualty of AIDS.

I watched the movie with my folks when I was 7.

Nobody mentioned the scene with a young James Remar in his underwear. I like this movie for the scenes of vintage NYC, especially the meatpacking district. One scene that doesn't make sense to me is when Al goes up to the room with a guy they think is the killer to set him up and the cops waiting downstairs think he's in trouble so they bust through the door to find Al tied up naked (you may be able to catch a glimpse of his butt, I can't remember) and he gets all pissed at them like he was about to bust the guy but they ruined it - leaving the viewer to wonder exactly how he planned on turning the tables on a murderous trick while he's hog tied butt naked with his ass in the air????

Omg, r39! 😯

I just checked and the full movie is on YouTube; there is also a 45 minute documentary about the making of the movie fyi

I watched it with my uncle when I was 18.

Thanks, r42!

I preferred "The Cruisin' Gourmet."

I love these two characters. They illustrated the prejudice and harassment LGBTQ people endured at the time. And the blond one is pivotal to the investigation, acting as an informant.

Yes, R45--beaks or cheeks. SCTV was so damn brilliant.

Cruising is a good thriller, that just happens to take place within a subculture of the gay community. Protested my many in the gay community for potential perpetuating the myth that gay men are just organisms worrying about deep dive fisting, leather bondage, and proper handkerchief etiquette. Titillating thriller like Basic Instincts was viewed by some of the women's movement of erroneously portraying women as femme fatales, calculating and manipulative. A large number in the women's movement protested this movie as well. Women no longer wanted to perpetuate this myth

The unfortunate thing is the gay community was not very well represented in these times and Cruising helped to laser burned these thoughts as the ipso facto representation of the gay culture as a whole at that time. Something Folsom Fair helps to perpetuates each year.

Fortunately, we have had some great representations of gay normative in the media throughout the years that has help to alleviate societies fears, for no other word I can think of,when it comes to the gay community.

The Supreme Court may rule in favor of Religious Freedom, which is just gay discrimination in not just cakes, but renting, buying, working and starting a family. We need to progress. It takes a village. We are a part of humankind!

I also saw it in high school; my memory is that it was advertised as a gritty police/drama movie set in NYC, w. the heavy-hitter gay side of it played way down. I also remember being real surprised that this this was showing in a generic, suburban theater in Florida.

Was that your Uncle Bottom R43?

It really deserves a public screening in some revival house in LA or San Francisco. It's now the perfect movie for an audience to participate, and there should be a Q&A. It was really derided in it's day, but it has become quite the period piece. It's really a fascinating movie now.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

William Friedkin, Director Of Controversial Gay Film ‘Cruising,’ Looks Back With Regret

[quote]I thought there might be some negative criticism of it, but I thought that that would come from more of the so-called ‘straight community’ who were not used to seeing those events depicted. To be accurate, the film was about the S&M world. It was a murder mystery set against the backdrop of the S&M world at that time, in the late-seventies. It was not about the gay community at all. But, here’s the historical fact about it. Gay liberation had begun to make powerful steps forward and I’m sure when ‘Cruising’ came out, it was not the best foot forward for gay liberation. I recognize that in hindsight but I didn’t at the time.

the film was so disappointed it is full of cliches and show the gay community as something dark and what you should be afraid of....the last part where Al Pacino character hit the gay guy was so disturbing and homophobic.

"His film promises to be the most oppressive, ugly, bigoted look at homosexuality ever presented on the screen, the worst possible nightmare of the most uptight straight and a validation of Anita Bryant's hate campaign [launched against anti-discrimination legislation by the conservative pop singer]," wrote gay columnist Arthur Bell in the Village Voice. He urged readers to give Friedkin and his crew a "terrible time". "Bell's columns were very negative,"

[R43] Friedkin was right about his film it did not show the gays in the best way but as dark people with obscure activities

[quote]It takes a village.

Really R48?

[quote] Basic Instincts was viewed by some of the women's movement of erroneously portraying women as femme fatales, calculating and manipulative. A large number in the women's movement protested this movie as well. Women no longer wanted to perpetuate this myth

I don't remember this at all. Sounds to me like bullshit pulled out of R48's ass. Why would anyone protest a movie about ONE evil person as though she represents half the human race?

I agree r51 but see r53's post and remember the hostile reception that the director of Boys Don't Cry got from all the SJWs at Reed College recently. I doubt Friedkin would ever have the chance to say a word about the context of the times or how he might have done the film differently if he were making it now. We're in a place right now where thoughtful discussion or questioning isn't allowed.

r33 Great comparison to Looking For Mr. Goodbar. I saw that one when I was in college (University of Illinois) and the whole theater was cheering the opening scenes filmed on Chicago's Rush Street but were deadly silent walking out of the theater. Very sobering.

They're all harsh and gritty films but based on real events. Two more things all three films have in common though.

1) All of the characters in all three films are very fucked up and none are very sympathetic.

2) People born after a certain time can't grasp these film in the context of those times.

Trying to force the boilerplate of today's all inclusive political correctness on top of these films doesn't work so there no there's not many places that would even try to host an open discussion.

We can still talk about it here though so if anyone want to...

What is up with the random huge black dude that smacked Pacino during the interrogation?

THAT was weird.

I saw this movie with my kindergarten teacher and Mother Teresa at age five.

I saw this movie with my dead dog.

Think you have to look at Cruining in the context of American cinema up until that time and how it ar dealt with homosexuality. It’s worth another look at The Celluloid Closet. It reminds of how anything gay was framed in mostly negative ways. We were perverts. Not wholesome or normal. And often died at some stage during the movie.

The post-Stonewall gay liberation movement meant people got angry about that and wanted changes. They wanted some positive depictions of gay lives. Even a film like Boys in the Band which had been a huge hit as a play prior to Stonewall - mainly because it was felt to be an authentic look at urban NYC gay life - seemed dated and very negative and self loathing when it was made into a film not that long after. Negative portrayals of gay men and their lives in film seemed to echo all that had come before. So when a film like Cruising hit the screens - it was the worst possible timing.

It’s an OK thriller - but Freidkin and the studios clearly were tone deaf and not reading the mood of the time if they thought the gay community was gonna flock to the film and support it...

Having said that - I know some gays out in the provinces who did flock to it - and loved it! It was an OK thriller after all - but they loved seeing the portrayal of big-city gay life and the contemporary NYC gay ghetto on the big screen. It was a kind of life they couldn’t even dream of having living out in bumfuck - and seeing any portrayals of gay guys onscreen - especially hot ones! - was still a thrill.

My parents were alcoholics, so they would drop me and my siblings off at the movies. We saw many, many R rated films. I saw so Cruising when I was in the 5th grade! Imagine how awkward it was when the sex scenes were on the screen! I didn't really know what was really happening, but I knew it was raunchy. Years later I watched it again and I really liked it, though it is an uneven film. I think it's a great historical film if anything.

I thought Pacino should have been nominated for best actor in Cruising.

The movie was accurate in its depiction of the hard core leather culture at that time, Those protests were bullshit , there was far worst activity going in reality in places like the Mineshaft.

I find it funny how subcultures want the realities of what goes on as their rituals sanitized when put out there for public consumption , There were several unsolved murders in NYC at the time , all under shall we say "unsavory " circumstances so none of this was new or made up from fiction.

Oh and all the hot guys in that movie are either dead or are eldergays now in their late fifties or early 60s. Those former "hot " guys are now dealing with rejection as eldergays. Karma is a bitch , given that those hot guys from the late 70s and early 80s perpetrated the same rejection to the eldergays of that time, I saw it happen and it was as bad as it is today .

It made straight people even more determined that gay people don't deserve nice things.

There was an earlier thread about this which became preoccupied with Richard Cox and his sexuality. Anyway ... as I think I said on the other thread, the funniest and best part of the film for me is when Al is stalking the suspected killer played by Cox.

R60, I left the theatre after that. My boipussy's cockslot got all moist and lubricated itself.

I discovered this movie on Starz late night in the 90's when I was about 12/13. I jerked off so hard at the black guy in a jockstrap.

This was pretty much the closest thing to gay porn I could find at the time. I eventually found Sundance and IFC and discovered European erotica, back when Sundance and IFC actually played indies and foreign films.

I saw it while high and I kept getting confused because a lot of the actors, including Pacino, looked alike. Did Friedkin have a specific thing for Italian, Pacino-looking guys?

Here, some music from the film.

I thought the black homie with the jock strap was yuckers.

R20 scenes were shot The Mine Shaft at Washington and Little West 12th, closed by the Health Department in 1986. Later a Thai restaurant and now The Sugar Factory. If the walls could talk!

R51 The Film Forum in NYC screened it a few time last summer as part of their "70's in NYC" festival. It was so great to see it on a big screen. The screenings were well attended. I would have loved for there to have been a Q&A.

"We saw many, many R rated films. I saw so Cruising when I was in the 5th grade!"

Those were the days. I saw many R films (The Omen, The Exorcist, Bolero, Tarzan (Bo Derek)...) while my mom was shopping at the mall. The ticket clerks just wanted a sale.

My memories are similar to what R58 said. While I was not around for CRUISING (I saw it only two-to-three years ago after a DL thread), I was for BASIC INSTINCT. I remember that the protesting about the latter was by gay groups (similar to what I have read about the CRUISING protests) and NOT by the women’s movement.

[quote]Al Pacino is in it

[quote]R66: ...there was far worst activity...

Oh, dear.

I saw this in the critical care ward after being born six weeks premature with my mother and my other mother.

That’s awful. Are you okay?

I am halfway through the DVD. I will return to comment when I finish.

I saw it on Movie Mondays in the student lounge at Oral Roberts University when I was 19.

I saw it when I was 91 and getting Oral from Robert.

R17 Me too. I know it's only a movie. Despite the fact I had seen lots of stabby bloodfest flicks, that scene evoked a strong wave of nausea.

Sometimes I confuse the killings in The Fan (1981) with those in this film.

I saw this on a twin bill with "Herbie Goes Bananas" at a theater in Biloxi.

I saw that and Goodbar at the movies when they came out...they were great>

I cant imagine tight assed America making anything like either of them for the mainstream movie goer now. We need to entertain our simple minded audiences with happy ending crap without any realism at all because this country cant handle them. God forbid they make movies that allow us think anymore....

For all its darkness, I loved this movie. It was the fist film I ever saw that revolved around gay male characters.

Amazing this flick gets so much discussion so reliably so frequently on DL

"t was the fist film I ever saw that revolved around gay male characters."

R89 You ain't kidding!

^I think numerous posters came of age in this period just pre-AIDS and can identify with many elements of the film.

A workmate (and big old fag hag of a friend) loved it and saw it again and again when it came out. She called it her favorite movie. I always knew a part of her hated gay men. Right out in the open.

I see her on Facebook and she's still a single, bitter bitch.

The most anti-gay part was at the ending when Pacino found solace with his gf......a return to normalcy and heterosexuality.

If done today, the uncover cop would be gay, already knows the ropes in the gay community, and at the end, finds comfort in the arms of his partner.

Also, the film would include a few lesbians and trans. Bitches (said affectionally), also know the gossip, are very observant, and are aware of the really, really strange characters making the seedy bar rounds.

Cruising may have been disturbing but nothing beats this film for truly grotesque and frightening depictions of homosexuality in all it's unmitigated horror.

Is this a sequel to Boys in the Band? No doubt Hank would've graduated from vanilla monogamy with Larry to full-on S&M by the early '80s.

I agree with the analysis of 'Cruising' given in this review. I quite like it despite its flaws.

Damn, Al Pacino was an ugly motherfucker. If I was casting today, I'd give Ryan Reynolds or Chris Pratt the lead role.

The Exorcist was a critical darling from its release. Boys in the Band and Cruising both had mixed reviews and then sank in esteem. Only to be rehabilitated after everyone had a safe distance from the guttural stereotypes that were a bit too true for time of each each film.

[r12] AIDS was not known about when this movie was released.

Most of the protesters were probably dead within a couple of years, sadly.

I hope the missing 40 minutes cut from the film still exist. Apparently (according to IMDB) William Friedkin once attended a gay bar wearing nothing but a jockstrap as research for the film.

The ending is so ambiguous as to whether Pacino's character became a killer, too. Many people think he even killed his red-headed friend's boyfriend.

R103, it’s even unclear whether the guy Pacino caught was guilty of all the killings the cops plan on attributing to him.

I can't watch anything featuring that midget, scene chewer, Pacino.

Been a long time since I watched this one. It was worth seeing but those leather guys were so gross I never really was motivated to seek it out again.

The most interesting behind the scenes item about the film is the actual serial killer was an actor in The Exorcist and inadvertently was "technical advisor" for Cruising.

[quote] William Friedkin-huge after The French Connection (1971)--was shooting his spiritual/psych-horror The Exorcist (1973) in downtown New York. For a scene requiring mock brain-scans of the possessed lead character, he shot a real-life radiologist and his assistant, Paul Bateson.

[quote] In 1979 Friedkin was planning an adaptation of Gerald Walker's novel "Cruising", inspired by a real-life serial killer who was carving up "leather boys" in the city's underground gay bars and dumping their body parts in the Hudson River, wrapped in black plastic bags. When Friedkin learned that his "Exorcist" radiologist assistant Bateson was awaiting trial for the post-coital slaying of gay film critic Addison Verrill, Friedkin decided to pay him a visit to do a little research into the psyche of his cruising killer. Bateson was later sentenced to life in prison for the Verrill murder, but not before dropping hints while in custody that he was also the body bag killer.

[quote] Detectives were satisfied that Bateson actually was the serial killer they had been looking for, but lack of solid evidence resulted in his not being charged with them.

I love those 70's - early 80's slick thrillers. As a flyover adolescent, NYC almost seemed like shadows and fog, knives and mink coats.

Omg, she’s so pretty!

I wish Brian De Palma had directed this. He was all set to direct, but had to drop out at the last minute for some reason. He ended up doing "Dressed to Kill" which had a similar theme.

Great clip, R95. I forgot just how cheesy The Village People were. While not about the YMCA, this video is a modern take on all-male athletic activities. No subtle homoeroticism here; it’s all quite loudly proclaimed.

How did Dressed to Kill have a similar theme to Cruising?

(R68) : Eldergays can you tell us more about Richard Cox ?....

Nasty Pervy homos

(R113) : do you mean Richard Cox is a "nasty perv homo" ? I don't understand...Is it true that R.Cox is "gay in real life" ?

(R114) He's a closet gay man....I prefer KEVIN SPACEY, he is not married with a woman and had no children, there is a "kind of honesty"and I appreciate.....

At least, K.Spacey is not a liar and he is a prodigious actor. It's not the case of the "actor" mentioned upthread....

This is the murder scene from the beginning of the movie. Warning, it is very disturbing.

Also, at the end of the scene you can see the subliminal gay porn. It is very brief, anal sex, close-up of two men fucking (around 1:26).

Kept waiting for Pacino to show his dick. Never happened. Disappointing for that alone.

I ❤️ R95

R23

Here's the guy who went on the rampage

Old article about the murder rampage

William Friedkin's interview on Marc Maron's podcast is very good.

He thinks James Franco's live sex version of the cut scenes serves no purpose, and hilariously when Marc Maron wants to muse on being Jewish, talks about how he and Sherry Lansing were so excited to the Shroud of Turin or some other Jesus artifact.

Al Pacino is very cute, though.

That subliminal shot during the murder scene is really creepy.

Did anything come out of the talks to make this a Broadway musical?

Al Pacino was goodlooking in this movie, but prefer his look in Serpico.

Never seen it but I do love fisting a hot mancunt. I’ll have to watch it now. Most of you are such prudes lol.

[quote]I love these two characters. They illustrated the prejudice and harassment LGBTQ people endured at the time.

C'mon baby, I CANNOT handle another bust this month!

R59 you're a moron. The movie is incredibly homophobic, and it's a fictionalized account of events, not a true story.

Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon, that was peak hotness for Pacino R126

R101 STFU, seriously. ASSHOLE.

I always heard it was so terrible and homophobic, but when I ended up watching it, I loved it. Gay men don't have to be role models, and they sure as fuck aren't here, but they aren't monsters either.

The conclusion with Al Pacino's heterosexual wall shattered and the terrifying repercussion thereof isn't homophobic at all. It turns into a homophobe's horror story.

It panders to the notion that homosexuality is contagious and, therefore, dangerous and undesirable. Despite this fact I like the movie, I saw it as a child who was already aware of my attraction to other boys and I didn't see it as hostile (although it obviously is) so it's one of those movies I'm fond of.

[quote] Dog Day Afternoon, that was peak hotness for Pacino

Yes. Oh, yes.

Cruising has an incredible mood and atmosphere. It's so surreal and nightmarish and I've never seen a film that has that kind of palpable, sexual energy. It's even creepier when the identity shifting killer is viewed as a metaphor for the AIDS epidemic.

I don't think it's homophobic at all. The most sympathetic and "normal" character presented in the film is the young gay guy whom Pacino befriends, the one who DOESN'T "cruise" and, unfortunately, gets killed at the end. I think the movie was simply an examination of an edgy SUBSET of homosexual experience that even today is not understood or even feared by many people. It also featured a number of closeted or conflicted characters and I think the film was exploring the ramifications for that kind of emotional dichotomy and self-denial. In some ways I viewed the film as rather gay affirming. I guess it all depends on what perspective one is approaching the material.

Have you ever noticed how the Cruising movie poster is almost an exact replica of The Exorcist poster?

Is there an intended meaning hidden there?

I miss gritty films like this, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Taxi Driver, The Exorcist, French Connection. Films made by directors with a vision, who didn't bow to producers and studios or test marketing.

This would never be made today.

R137, I too miss that era of filmmaking. I love all of the movies you cited, and I'd also throw in Klute, which is one of my all-time favorites.

Real question: what does ‘hips or lips’ mean in this context? TIA.

R37 Agree. Too many movies push looks above acting ability, and as for CGI.........try to avoid them.

[quote]Have you ever noticed how the Cruising movie poster is almost an exact replica of The Exorcist poster?

Good catch; I'll have to give that one some thought.

Both films directed by William Friedkin.

R135 - how could the movie have anything to do with the AIDS crisis? The movie was released in 1980. The novel it is based upon was released in 1970. You also have to put the movie in context. I think a key to the movies homophobia can be seen by the reaction of the gay community at the time it was produced and released. Overwhelmingly negative. The movie was exploitative and laced with victim blaming. It was a violent form of Blackface.

R137 - expand your horizons. Cable networks have changed the industry. We are no longer restricted to movie theaters.

1980 was the year that so many of my favorite movies were released. Of course, you always have a fondness for movies of your youth. They weren't the best movies, but I love them all. 1980 was a very sexy year.

Cruising

Dressed to Kill

The Fog

Friday the 13th

Terror Train, He Know You're Alone, Prom Night

R107, Dressed to Kill is a fantastic movie, one of De Palma's best. I love Dressed to Kill and really liked Cruising. Many people don't pick up on the satire of Dressed to Kill--or any of De Palma's other movies.

R136, for some reason, that poster reminds me of some of the album covers by Killing Joke.

If you guys like gritty movies from that era, I highly recommend watching Ms. 45 (1980) by Abel Ferrara. That movie is even grittier and more disturbing than Taxi Driver. It's like an extreme version of Roman Polanski's Repulsion (which I didn't like). Also watch Abel Ferrara's Bad Lietunenant from 1992.

[quote][R135] - how could the movie have anything to do with the AIDS crisis?

I meant in hindsight.

What shocked me the most was the ending, when they find the cute innocent guy who befriended Pacino slashed to death...I actually cried! The killing of the first guy was horrifying. Pacino was great as usual. And, I had a crush on Jay Acovone. Ed O’ Neill was so hot back then.

r143 sounds pressed

[quote]What shocked me the most was the ending, when they find the cute innocent guy who befriended Pacino slashed to death.

And the suggestion that Pacino, who may have developed an attraction for the cute guy,is the killer.

I haven't seen this yet. Can you see Al Pacino's dick ? Wonder what happened to the cut footage.

I saw this at the age of 2 with Dick Nixon,Rip Taylor,my grandmama and my nanny. I vaguely remember the sex but I remember Rip's confetti much more

[quote] haven't seen this yet. Can you see Al Pacino's dick ? Wonder what happened to the cut footage.

For a movie about raw, underground gay sex there is ,surprisingly, NO overt dick.

However, during the murders, there are quick ,subliminal insert shots of hardcore,penetrative gay sex that Friedkin got past the MPAA.

Not very sexy considering the context.

This was before the many slasher films we we are accustomed to now in horror films. When “Cruising” was released in the 70s, many viewers passed out or walked out of the theater.

[quote]What shocked me the most was the ending, when they find the cute innocent guy who befriended Pacino slashed to death.

[quote]And the suggestion that Pacino, who may have developed an attraction for the cute guy,is the killer.

SPOILER...

SPOILER...

BOOK SPOILER...

Which is how the book ended - [bold]after[/bold] the murdered guy gave the cop (Pacino character) a blowjob (implied, yet rather evident). The "real" killer had been previously caught.

I found it in a used book store years ago and was surprised to read that the publishing copyright was 1970, as I had assumed that it was published just prior to the movie coming out. It held up extremely well and the ending stayed with me.

40 minutes of Censored Gay Porn With Al Pacino - Dir. William Friedkin on Cruising

To me STEVE INWOOD was the sexiest and handsome actor in Cruising. Unfortunately, he appears only a few minutes and he's killed by R.COX in the "peep show". We don't know very much about this actor. It's a pity...

I do not think I understood the ending. Stupid? Maybe?

The only thing I understood is the following thing : even if the murderer has been taken (R.COX), there will always been another "killer"turning around the gay places....

In the "making of" doc., Friedkin said he felt perfecting the sound of a movie is rather separate from the visual. They spent a lot of time getting the right sound of chains, squeaking leather, boots on pavement... and Jack Nitzsche's score didn't really use any musical instruments: just eerie sounds like that of fingers rubbing the rim of a glass.

Although I always enjoy watching it as a well-made, suspenseful horror movie, it's unfortunate that the LGBT films of that year were not positive ones: "Windows"; "Dressed To Kill". No wonder people were protesting.

R161, but in the case of Dressed to Kill (one of my favorite movies), it wasn't gays protesting, it was idiotic women claiming it was mysoginist

I saw this movie with my babysitter and Mother Teresa.

It does make one wonder how these films would fare if they were released today. I mean, first of all, they certainly would have to be made indie style. I don't see big studios bankrolling these films. One can barely get a rom com greenlit these days unless it has a super hero in it, but besides that, can you imagine how a film like Dressed To Kill would be attacked these days? Not just by, potentially, the same kinds of feminists, but by trans rights groups? It'd be a bloodbath.

Hmm, I wonder what Friedkin looked like in a jock strap while he was doing "research".

R165 now he looks like a pedo with those glasses and members only style jacket. I don't know what he looked like then, but to Google I go...

quote : those former hot guys are now dealing with rejection as eldergays (R66)

Do they (eldergays) marry and have children (with women) ? How do they "live" that rejection and what are they doing ?

Cruising Halloween costume

Who was gay in CRUISING ?

Interesting that during this time (late '70s/early '80s), a few directors were exploring sexual themes - some queer-related - in their films, like Friedkin with Cruising, De Palma with Dressed to Kill and Paul Schrader with American Gigolo.

Pacino has appoligized for this movie. He says he has heard so many stories of how the movie disturbed young gay men that he wishes he hadn't done it. I says he didn't realize at the time it would harm people's psyche. (I rented it years after its release when I was really young and felt this is what being gay means? Yikes.

[quote]and Paul Schrader with American Gigolo.

Actually I think Schrader was accused of removing the gay content from the film

It's a horror film for gays of the late seventies, much in the way that The Stepford Wives was a horror film for white suburban women.

Both are effective at engendering empathy for the leads, the victims, and a measure of grief when they are killed.

In a sense, Cruising is exploitation with a heart.

I think it is a great film that serves as a time capsule piece for a gay sub-culture in NY in 1980 as well as a comment on straight male gay panic at its most disturbing.

What's difficult about the film is that there really wasn't much else in the mainstream that focused on gay men; all we got was a serial killer targeting them. We deserved more, but now that we've got it, including the glut of worthless gay garbage on Netflix, we need more provocative and involving films like Cruising was nearly forty years ago.

(R66) : have good time...

It was the first gay movie I ever saw while I was about 16. I thought that's how gay men must be if I were to move to the city. I didnt get the fisting scene at the time since they didn't actually show anything. All they showed was a guy in a sling and another guy with a lot of white stuff ( Crisco) on his arm. My friend thought was a lot of cum.

Just going into the theater and buying a ticket drew stares from the people working in the theater. Most of the seats were empty. Town was very homophobic.

It's eerie how Cruising forebears the AIDS epidemic that would hit the gay community a couple of years later. The serial killer could be a metaphor for the virus. The promiscuous sexual behavior depicted in the movie almost seems like a warning in retrospect.

Do you think Friedkin knew what was coming?

[quote] I think they really wanted him to be snorting cake - but that would have been a bridge too far with studio execs and censor?

But I love snorting cake! It's so delicious--especially the buttercream frosting!

Most of us eldergays snorted cak at some point at some point in the 70s.

With graxy, no less!

Yeah, the fisting scene confused me. I had no idea what that was all about, because I was a very young gayling at the time. I thought it was a good gay film, because it was the first gay film I ever saw.

Can someone explain the Black guy slapping Pacino? Was that for comic relief? That was a very weird scene.

(R68) and (R113) Why is it a "crime of lèse-majesté" to ask on DL if an actor is gay in real life ???