Cruising (1980)

And were the club scenes realistic?

Bygones.

Opinion of the film has changed for the better since its release. Much of the protest at the time of filming was due to this being about a gay serial killer when there was little if any positive depiction of gay men. I happen to enjoy the film.

Pretty cool

I thought it was actually pretty hot and entertaining...I'm not sure why it was so controversial.

That said, I'm not sure why Criterion featured it for Pride (which is where I saw it for the first time past week). If anything, Cruising exposed my own homophobia and justified my fear of hooking up with random stranger. Also, being a somewhat self-hating gay I immediately picked up on the fact the murderer killed men who resembled himself...which is disturbing.

I was 13 when the film was released. I was too young to be aware of the controversy at that time about gay depiction in film. When it finally arrived on HBO a few years later I was a ripe, horny 16 year old and I thought it was hot as fuck and Pacino was sex-on-a-stick. Later, when I got older, I would be lectured by eldergay scolds but I still like the movie - not only for the gay shit but it’s also a good, entertaining mystery thriller.

“You made me do that” still creeps me the fuck out.

R5, I think it's a very good movie but I do get why it was controversial. I think the protestors were afraid that middle America would assume that all gay men are into BDSM and are all perverts after watching the movie. Still, people who protest movies are never the brightest.

Will Criterion be releasing their own blu-ray of the movie then? That would be awesome.

I don't know what the rights situation is, R8. I don't even know that they own everything they show on the streaming channel. Some things are always available and some disappear after a month.

Time for a remake. Alden Ehrenreich? Ansel Englesnort? Timothee'?

I watched it once and I'm sure it gave me the AIDS.

I just saw this 2 weeks ago per a Podcast recommendation. I thought it was more bold and daring than something that would be put out today. It was dark and though I was not around in 1980, I've been to cruisey locations and underground clubs. It feels authentic and very progressive for it's time. I think DeNiro would have ultimately had gay sex and been sucked into the world, which is implied somewhat, but not shown or confirmed.

Pacino. I would like to see DeNiro in a sex sling though.

R!2, nowadays, Twitter would attack everyone attached to a movie like Cruising if it was released today. It would sink before it was ever released.

The tie-in merchandise for this movie is terrific

R14 Twitter would only attack if it was trans being portrayed this way.

Gays are on our own.

Ah, Pacino! He obviously had a bromance with the neighbor, which is supposed to make the ending more emotional. Pacino was great. I think today it would be cancelled for showing gay men as sex starved deviants when in fact this was and is a big part of gay life for many.

YES R14 - I just typed that above when I saw you post. Exactly. That's a real shame. That is why is movies and big cinematic events, except for Marvel, are dead! Movies don't have the impact they had.

R7

I like to think of myself as perpetually indulgent………….

There's even a scene with the bathtub. What club was that with the guy in the tub?

r14, good point. Wait, no. If the movie was about a "queer" person, THEN twitter would attack mercilessly. But if the person just identified as gay (and white), they would not care.

It's an incredibly interesting film and I think a lot of nuance in the characters is lost because the plot relies so heavily on the audience going in with the assumption that being gay is disordered in some way.

Much of whether the film actually SAYS that or not depends on who you think the murderer is.

Darren Criss would be ideal in the remake

R15 damn that is clever (and warped LOL)

No way, R22. You need someone like Pacino to take this role, someone with machismo. DC would have been desperately volunteering for it.

The Mineshaft was the club famous for the bathtub.

I had been to Cock in NYC maybe 10 years ago and that's what this film reminded me of. The bouncer at Cock told me to make sure my wallet was in my front pockets, etc.

I have only been in one bar with a bathtub. That was in San Antonio in the early 90s. Been in quite a few bars in the past where guys would crawl into the trough urinals to be peed on. Not my thing but it’s not hurting anyone. God, I am getting old could you imagine that going on these days.

How offensive could this have been? The cops are obvious 10x more screwed up than the leather men. The interrogation scene is gonzo.

It's all about context.

By 1980, there was already a backlash brewing against the community. Introduced with the Disco sucks rally and boycotts the year prior and cemented with the election of Reagan.

On top of that the first two gay themed movies of the 1980's were less than positive portrayals of the community . A repressed lesbian with mental issues stalks the straight woman she pines for (Windows) and a straight man goes undercover in the gay community with veiled suggestions that he's being "changed" throughout it and a bizarre ending that left many questioning whether he killed the guy because he couldn't admit to his homosexual feelings. I don't think either movie is really homophobic in retrospect so much as they just were victims of really bad timing.

I wonder how it felt being a gay adult in 1980. Was there a sense that the party was over? The late 70's seemed to be such a carefree time, and inclusive in a way that it hadn't been before. Then Reagan came along with his fear mongering and put an end to that.

[quote] What do we think about Criterion playing this for pride?

OP, there is no we. There is "you" who likes to start threads casting a wide net. Your threads are usually trolling with the intent to demonize gay men.

This is not a club. Don't speak on my behalf or make the assumption.

We as in DL, weirdo.

Can we stop pretending that this film had any negative impact on the human psyche regarding homosexuals? All that was already there and still is. Let’s be honest for once on here.

Better skip that "we" stuff, R32...

But I do agree, R32. Seems like a pretty well made and extremely bold movie. A gay exploitation movie, sure.

I think it's empowering to gays. Gay men are sexual creatures, not neutered side kicks that are portrayed in popular media. The doting, asexual best friend just waiting to prop up the female protagonist. I think this is changing with Gen Z and I'm really hoping they go there with gay sex as norm context.

I closest thing I have seen to "Cruising" is something like Gasper Noe's "Irreversible" which is more subversive, but does have the underground, gay vibe. Noe is considered a rebel artist and not main stream or respected like Friedkin was (I'm assuming Friendkin was well respected for his work based of what I've read).

R35, he was respected for The French Connection and The Exorcist but things started gonig donwhill with the failure of Sorcerer (it bombed big time at the box office). It's a shame because I love The Exorcist, Cruising and To Live and Die in LA. I still need to watch Sorcerer.

R12 Which podcast?

Context is all: Friedkin's two gay movies (BOYS IN THE BAND and CRUISING) have been recuperated for a more positive and nuanced reception. At the time, both were considered vile and homophobic by "The Gay Community" Groupthink.

The ramble scenes make me wonder if that "Stranger by the Lake" movie was a little in homage.

Unsurprisingly, James Franco is obsessed with this movie and I think he wanted to do a remake.

Wasn’t this already released on Blu ray in the US, and in the last few years? Criterion isn’t putting it out any time soon.

Bret Easton Ellis, R37. He really goes into film and what he calls "empire" (60's, 70's, early 80's) and "post empire' in terms of popular culture. He and many of his guests feel that empire artists were the last of the really great filmmakers with DePalma, Friedkin, Scorcesi and many I can't remember on the list. There are a lot of fantastic film suggestions from that period. i would have never found or known about "Cruising" had it not been discussed in depth.

R41, yes but I think there have been times when Criterion has done just that. Dressed to Kill being a prime example. Which is ironic considering both this movie and Cruising were protested by politically correct zealots. And De Palma was originally supposed to direct Cruising.

Is that the BEE podcast, R42? There's something on Spotify called that, but it stopped in 2017?

I think it's one of Friedkin's best movies, but totally understand the protests in 1980 for the reasons R11 outlines. I don't think the motivation was political correctness; it was rage about what was perceived as sensationalized representation of a minority group that had been stereotyped or ignored in major Hollywood movies.

I guess it could happen, R43, but they’d have to wait until the Arrow Video release goes out of print. It came out August 2019, not even 2 years ago yet. Gonna be waiting a while. Also hard to imagine why Criterion would do it, as Arrow’s release is a new 4K master, personally approved by Friedkin. Criterion isn’t going to go further than that.

Cruising almost ruined Al Pacino’s career.

It's on Patreon now R44, since 2018. It's really good and it's all discussion about film and books in very detailed analysis. I have so much I wanted to dive into from those periods. I highly recommend. I'm really enjoying learning about older films. I want to explore more about Pauline Kale, who everyone is obsessed with on the pod.

Thanks R48!

A little history.

Though very different, does everyone think "Dress to Kill" is a good film to explore after "Cruising"? The only DePalma that I can think that I have seen is "Carrie".

The gay community gets in an uproar every time there is a film that actually empowers gays. I remember the whole drama around "Basic Instinct". Lesbians should be thrilled to have Sharon Stone in their company not protest.

There was definitely a protest at The National Theater in Times Square opening night because I passed them on my way to see Mary Tyler Moore in "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" at The Royale Theatre.

It is sad how long the list would be "that could never be made today" whether it's the budgets, the content or the social backlash.

R51, absolutely. It has a very sensual style but it's still very suspenseful but also very, very funny.

This movie was completely misunderstood. More of a 70s movie too.

The mixture of quickly edited shots (sometimes just a few frames) of real sexual penetration and extreme bloody violence of a knife stabbing into a torso are horrific and implies that gay sex is sick and violent. It's supposed to be subliminal but it's just grotesque. And that's just the tip of the demonizing iceberg. No wonder there were protests. If he could make a cute 12 year old into a monster in The Exorcist, he did a bang up job on us in Cruising.

For straights, the most shocking thing about this movie today would be the menacing & macho gay men.

Pacino dances

Worst. Dancing. Ever.

I walked through Morningside Park last weekend and saw a lot of men walking along the hidden trail. The whole park was gorgeous.

We were there to see the Statue of Liberty in repose.

[quote] The mixture of quickly edited shots (sometimes just a few frames) of real sexual penetration and extreme bloody violence of a knife stabbing into a torso are horrific and implies that gay sex is sick and violent.

That's certainly one interpretation of those shots, but that's not one that's necessarily underlined in the movie.

God I miss NYC. As in this NYC. Not the Disney shit from now

R62 He did the same quick edits on Regan in The Exorcist. This shot for example, flash cut with Linda Blair.

r32, In an AMAZING coincidence 2 months after the movie came out a NYC transit COP fired a sub-machine gun into the crowd in front of the Ramrod. Let's tell the truth here ya dumb cunt.

According to a 2013 book by film professor R. Hart Kylo-Patrick,[35] "Two months after the film's release, a bar prominently displayed in the movie came under attack by a man with a sub-machine gun, killing two patrons and wounding 12 others. Friedkin refused to comment on the attack." A 2016 article in The New York Times identifies the culprit of this shooting as Ronald K. Crumpley, formerly an officer with New York City Transit Police.[36] He first shot two people outside a delicatessen with an Uzi, then walked a few blocks where he shot into a group of men standing outside The Ramrod, a gay bar. In total, he shot eight persons, two of whom died. Crumpley was said to have stated to police after his arrest: “I'll kill them all — the gays — they ruin everything." He was found "not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect" and spent the rest of his life at a psychiatric hospital, dying at the age of 73 in 2015. The New York Times article from 2016 does not mention Cruising or Friedkin, and it is not clear if the film played any role in the attack.

The last scene where the girlfriend is putting on the leather. What music is that? Reminds me of the end of Master and Commander....

This music

"hips or lips?"...my favorite line!

Boccherini

r64, you apparently missed this part:

[quote] The New York Times article from 2016 does not mention Cruising or Friedkin, and it is not clear if the film played any role in the attack.

Unless you can prove something much more substantial, there's absolutely no proof the film had anything to do with this attack. There had been multiple attacks on gay men in bars in the US (like the UpStairs Lounge Massacre in New Orleans in 1973) long before this film had ever been released.

I don’t even understand what “Hips or lips?” is really asking.

Cruishing! With Paul Shorvino ash Capt. Edelshen.

I love fisting!

R40 Franco already did that, sort of, with “Interior. Leather. Bar.”

R70, also, didn't Cruising bomb at the time of its release? If it bombed, I doubt it was influencing too many people to go out and attack gays. And let's not forget attacks on gays were far more common than they are now.

R74, you're right. God, he's such a gay baiter. If you looked up that term in Webster's, his picture would appear.

Cruising certainly did not do us any favors in1980, then AIDS came along right after and set us back even further. The 80's were the worst.

If AIDS didn't come along, I wonder if gay marriage would have been accepted by, say, the mid 90s or so in America? Just thinking out loud.

One of the best if misunderstood films of the '80's.

Wow, speaking of AIDS. Apparently 33% of Americans in 1989 had a worse opinions of gays than before it began. It really did set us back.

[quote] Although 58% in a 1989 Gallup poll said the AIDS epidemic hadn’t changed their opinions on homosexuality and 33% said it changed their opinions for the worse, in fact overall Americans appeared to have become more accepting of LGBTQ people over the course of the 1980s.

Oops, forgot the link.

The Bushes used gay marriage as a wedge issue and won the White House. Nothing scarier than those disgusting Cruising fags actually wanting to get married...like normal people....

This film is perfect for Pride. It shows what the gays were doing while the Trannies were fighting for our rights

Apparently, the "trannies" were busy being picked up by police officers.

And now we have Caitlyn to represent us...

[quote] This film is perfect for Pride. It shows what the gays were doing while the Trannies were fighting for our rights

Strong contender for DL reply of the day

Friedkin and Sherry Lewis are in a lavender marriage, much like Julie Andrews and Blake Edwards were. That explains why he was so drawn to Cruising and The Boys in the Band.

[quote]I don’t even understand what “Hips or lips?” is really asking.

Fuck or blow job, Rose

The hips-or-lips scene always made me laugh. Pacino was too old and tired for this role. It's a vulgar, dead-eyed movie. It reminds me of a review of some old Davis flick--she looks like a bunch of galoshes in a gunny sack, but just try to look away.

Skip it.

Friedkin did us more favors with [italic]The Boys in the Band[/italic]. At least there, we saw gays living instead of gays dying.

Stereotypes living.

R87 They had a throuple going on. Lambchop went both ways. Hips AND lips.

It’s kind of a quaint curio piece in a lot of ways. So many years after stonewall, being gay was still considered to be such a *dark secret.”

They still hadn’t caught on to the fact that loving contact with the male penis, being devoted to the really *good* capers in one’s salad nicoise, and keeping a very tidy home space wasn't exactly the most shocking lifestyle a person could lead.

I prefer the Cruisin' Gourmet.

[quote] Friedkin did us more favors with The Boys in the Band. At least there, we saw gays living instead of gays dying.

Cruising is art. The Boys in the Band played up to the worst of old gay stereotypes. It's such a bore. I don't understand why you eldergays like that film so much. You all have softened in age. Where are the gays who fucked in the streets of SF, NYC and LA. You were the true rebels. This gay thriller is pioneering. Boys in the Band is absolute shit next to this.

The biggest queen in TBitB was the only one with a Black boyfriend. Even the Jewish guy whose birthday it was got a blond aryan manwhore as a present.

R95, if you are a parody, then you are one of the best. Much better than that awful attempt at a transman named after the Fonz or the Black Kirk Cameron, whatever his name was. Yecch and double yecch.

[quote]I don't understand why you eldergays like that film [Boys in the Band] so much.

I don't particularly like it but I do appreciate it.

You all have softened in age. Where are the gays who fucked in the streets of SF, NYC and LA.

I'm right here! Ask! Would you like to know about the young beer bellied Italian cop I was blowing in a Queens Park? I asked if I could lick his ass and he gyave me a dirty look but dropped his pants to his knees, turned around, bent over and pulled his fat ass cheeks apart. As I got my tongue up there, he said "You're one sick puppy, you know that?" But he was as pleased as I was.

[quote]You were the true rebels.

We were outlaws! Gay sex was illegal. I marched up to Central Park when it was still a protest march and not a parade. People yelled at us and threw things at us and the cops stood around and laughed. I was an outlaw and I loved it!!! Life was exciting then.

I remember I somehow watched Crusin' in high school. Can't remember how or why. But I must have been old enough to rent my own vids. This would have been 1995ish?

When that hot black cop (I think he was a cop?) enters the police station and slaps Pacino in a thong? Damn. Knew I was gay at that very moment.

It was a jockstrap. Remember jocks?

I’m with R98 about the outlaw thing. I was in the UK but was a 16 year old punk in ‘76 and so, coming out of that, Cruising and John Rechy gave me a look at a world far removed from the camp, bitchy stereotypes I saw depicted on tv and in films. I’d experienced enough already to know most straights at that time despised us and so it was pointless worrying about what they thought. Better to embrace the outlaw culture. Thank fuck I was able to. Unapologetic, testosterone fuelled sexuality.

101 - I forgot all about John Rechy. I sympathized with his characters. They always made the wrong self destructive decisions. And at the time, early 80s, I thought I was making bad decisions and thought I couldn’t help myself. In retrospect, maybe they weren’t so bad.

R102 - City of Night would make an excellent film. Rushes would have made a good play. Rechy has been consistently undervalued.

As for bad decisions…Influenced by the book I was a prostitute for a couple of years. Not a very good one as I didn’t really have the ruthlessness needed and the reality was rather different from the ‘hustler’ scenario I imagined. Then again, I did meet some fascinating people in some interesting scenarios, was very careful about what I would do and came out unscathed and somewhat wiser about the world. No regrets. But, again, it was outlaw and underground and before all the social media shit.

I love the scene where Pacino has to explain to Superman’s girlfriend why he can’t talk about the case he’s working on. Also, I won a lobby card from Cruising signed by Paul Sorvino at a ping pong match.

^^^ now I realize it was actually Karen Allen. Whoops.

It's nothing filmmakers hadn't been doing to women for a decade at least.

My sister, who is a film academic, told me that this is one of those movies that film geeks have embraced in recent years. So, I'm not surprised it's on the Criterion channel.

Criterion lets that soy-brained het male autogynephile Todd “Emily” VanDerWerrf write long, meandering essays for disc inserts. It is no surprise they would try to rehabilitate the reputation of this crap when they tried to do the same for studio-killer [italic]Heaven’s Gate[/italic].

They are not our allies, I don’t care how many John Waters movies they release.

Dressed to Kill came out the same year and was a much better film that examined similar terrain.

R12 Read the book. In the book the detective character was a twisted fuck from the word go.

I love that most of the dialog was dubbed because everywhere they filmed the protestors tried to shout the production down. The mismatch between how they sound (whispery, not enough background noise) and the actual environment around them gives it a dreamlike quality.

#105, I wish Margot Kidder had played her! I don't know if Karen Allen was up to the task of creating a riveting character in a small role, but we'll never know because she's so under-written. She's just a cipher.

A remake should definitely expand the girlfriend character.

Yes, people are clamoring for a remake of Cruising.

We didn’t want it the first time.

I’ve never heard Friedkin say anything remotely interesting about why he decided to engage such material. I like the movie, especially the ending sequence. Does Friedkin think he’s some kind of trailblazer? The Hanky Explanation scene is hilarious!

So did Pacino kill the neighbor?

Let's do it again.

I just watched that movie a couple of weeks ago on the Criterion Channel!

R116 It is implied. I am not sure whether I immediately got that after watching it.

I found [italic]The Exorcist[/italic] similarly overrated.

“I did a lot of research myself. For instance, I thought a hankie was something you blew your nose into. I had no idea you could have someone else blow a load into it. Then, carry it around in your pocket and feel it’s warmth. Maybe you could sniff it later that night? I learned a lot by making this picture. I was married to Jeanne Moreau!!!” - William Friedkin

I HATE the ambiguous ending and Friedkin's lame explanations. It implies ALL gay men are suspect of these horrible sexual murders. It could be any one of them gays! Your gay neighbor, gay friend, gay workmate! They're all sick murderous perverts! Thanks so fucking much, Bill.

This is why Aunt Ida didn’t go far enough.

I think you have to take it as an exploitation movie, and chalk it up to bad taste. And glory in it! Even Tarantino couldn't make this kind of thing now.

*Real* Friends of Friedkin call him Billy.

There are straights and even a woman it could be, r121. Not every suspect is gay.

R108 I remember VanDerWerrf's "writing" from The AV Club, so I didn't believe you.

I was wrong.

Hmmm, not buying it.

I feel for the gimp in that clip where Pacino is dancing like Elaine from Seinfeld. That poor gimp looks really hot and miserable in that rubber suit!

The AV Club is so bad it’s the one part of the Onion wannabe-media-empire that even Republicans don’t try to copy.

[quote] It was a jockstrap. Remember jocks?

Does anyone still...wear... a jockstrap?

R115 I thought it was because one of the guys playing a radiographer in The Exorcist was arrested for murdering a gay man.

We saw Cruising in New Orleans while visiting friends for Mardi Gras. They were NYC transplants and one was a doctor at the Oschner Clinic, the other a nurse at Tulane, and they’d come to understand that things in NOLA were very different there. For example, we’d see the neighbor across the street look left and right from the door and then run to his car every morning. We asked about him and were told, “Oh, he’s the Lieutenant Governor. A lot of times there are reporters on their front lawn.” He was Edwards, later governor and credited with the immortal “the only way I can lose this election is if I’m found in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy” quote.

The theater where it was being shown was filled with kids and their parents. Young kids, some of whom looked like they were in the second or third grade. We, knowing what the film was about if not how graphic it was, were shocked. Our friends weren’t. “Yeah, strange huh? It’s like people always bring their kids. It’s cheaper than a sitter.”

First victim that was hogtied and stabbed in the back was really hot

R82 why on earth would anyone want to give up the thriving, sexually fueled gay culture depicted in this movie for boring ass marriage?

I'm just glad the Murderous Hardcore Gay Leather Daddy Sex Pervert Community was so lovingly and accurately portrayed in Cruising. Now where's my Rubber Encased Fisting Gimp? It's PRIDE week ya know.

AIDS, R134?

I'm not trying to be flippant either, everyone, please don't attack me for being a bigot or Boris or whatever.

We discussed this movie several times on this site. This is what I wrote on a related thread: "The movie was shot in 1979 but came out in 1980, the year that AIDS was identified as a new terrifying epidemic. As a police procedural the movie makes no sense. The murderer seems to morph throughout the film. The murderer is revealed to be the oddball guy with the boxes in his closet that Pacino goes through but is not a very convincing candidate. I think one character that is murdered comes back as the voice of the unseen killer.

So as a whodunit it just wanders around and makes no sense and has no pacing. As a parable of AIDS is does make sense. The man who gets "killed" - i.e. infected with HIV can then turn around and become a "killer" - transmit the fatal virus to another man. The killer seems faceless and has many faces and bodies it goes through. I agree that I feel that the Pacino character fell in love with his roomate Don Scardino and killed him rather than face his repressed homosexuality.

Pacino is weirdly blank in the movie and seems detached from everyone and everything. BTW: the title "Cruising" (taken from the original novel written by a cop) has a double meaning. The one we all know "cruising" as in on the stroll looking for a gay pickup but also cops when they are driving around at night in their police cars waiting to get a call.

It's a profoundly unsatisfactory and weird film that is also very prescient as well as hateful. It was accurate because despite the fact that the gay community immediately protested the film as soon as it was announced, the leather community was happy to be filmed in actual leather bars in the act of fisting, fucking and bondage, etc. 70's and 80's gay porn actor Eric Ryan ("Centurians of Rome") is one of the extras in the bar scenes. William Friedkin filmed hours of basically gay porn in those bars which could never be used in a mainstream Hollywood film. James Franco made a documentary about those lost 40 minutes in "Interior: Leather Bar". Friedkin, the director of "The Exorcist" didn't work in Hollywood again for another three years and his white hot career really never recovered its full momentum."

The actor who plays the first victim R133 is Arnaldo Santana, a classically trained NY stage actor who did 70's porn flicks for InHand Studios ("A Night at the Adonis") under the name Malo. He also had a big role as a thug in "Scarface" and died of AIDS in the 1990's. He evidently was a friend of Pacino from their student and struggling actor days in Manhattan.

As I said above, I think AIDS added a whole other level to this film that the filmmakers never intended. AIDS is the secret killer who goes from gay man to gay man morphing from victim to killer and back. Most of the extras in the bar scenes passed within the next decade and so did Arnaldo Santana.

Thanks r138! Love all the backstory!!

It might work as a parable about AIDS but it couldn’t have been intended as such.

I think the parallel between getting fucked and getting knifed (discussed above) was intentional. It's not about gays, it's about gay panic. Right?

Cruising is red meat for conservatives. Red, sweaty man meat.

There are many parallels between the gay cruising world and the police world in this movie. Paul Sorvino asking Pacino if he sucked cock, something you'd also hear in the bars (is Sorvino supposed to be gay?). The black cop in a jock strap, there's guys in the bar scenes wearing them, too. There's the head detective who in one scene appears to be sniffing a Vick's inhaler which mimics the bar guys sniffing poppers. There is a scene where there's a large painting depicting an autopsy with men standing around the body which is similar to the men standing around the guy in the bathtub (or in the sling). Then of course there's precinct night at the bar and the cruising cop who's in a few scenes.

R141, the use of a given subjects gaze aligns the POV of a gay man with a serial killer. It’s weird. I still kind of like the movie.

It's my go to happy film.

^^^ it’s like, I either want to fuck you, or maybe kill you. Friedkin is a sensationalist.

Precinct night at the bar was pretty scary.

Pacino's black orphan Annie wig was terrible in this.

Cruising has some small amount of artistry in it, I admit, but what do you think the fairly conservative general public in1980 took away from it?

Based on this thread, I rented it on Amazon and will watch it later. Pacino's dancing is a little weird, but I give him kudos for his film choices (up to 2008). He tries to be an artist. TCM has a pride series Monday and I'm recording them all.

The best thing about the movie was the atmosphere. Dark, gritty, wet, mysterious, dangerous. Too bad the story didn't work AT ALL.

Dark and gritty movies were a dime a dozen in the 1970s.

And a lot of them were great, R152.

Just like The Exorcist, I hope people are not talking seriously about doing a remake for this. It's so of a period of time and moment. Let's do something new. Like a Grindr killer, except he wouldn't get very far with the endless texting. The new killer send viruses to iPhones that disable insta and TikTok sending Gen Z into a suicicdal tail spin.

[quote] Cruising has some small amount of artistry in it, I admit, but what do you think the fairly conservative general public in1980 took away from it?

More people saw [italic]Song of the South[/italic]. Between the two, this movie has done more damage.

People say damage but it seems like gays could really do no right in the 80s no matter what they did, so fuck it. Probably the same situation with The Song of the South.

Cruising needed some cartoon characters.

That was a G-rated re-release of a 1940s Disney movie. No children would have been buying tickets to see [italic]Cruising[/italic]. The only comparison is that the R-rated movie gets excuse after excuse made for it when it's arguably more harmful to the community it depicts.

Harmful to the leather crowd?

To gay people in general, regardless of preferred fabric.

Every gay man was potentially suspect after Cruising. I wonder if there was any correlation of a rise in hate crimes after Cruising and most certainly after AIDS. We became a punching bag for conservatives, literally and politically.

The only reason Imogene thought that gays had it coming is because she'd been to see Cruising. She'd thought it was a film about boats.

The only nice, cute gay man got stabbed 20 times.

[quote] Every gay man was potentially suspect after Cruising. I wonder if there was any correlation of a rise in hate crimes after Cruising and most certainly after AIDS. We became a punching bag for conservatives, literally and politically.

And now we are medical experiments before we are even old enough to legally have sex.

Talk about literal violence.

Was Cruising one of those movies they tried to slap an X rating on?

Yeah, we had more important things to worry about back then than pronouns. Like basic survival.

[quote]That was a G-rated re-release of a 1940s Disney movie. No children would have been buying tickets to see Cruising. The only comparison is that the R-rated movie gets excuse after excuse made for it when it's arguably more harmful to the community it depicts.

Which made "Song Of The South" even more successful as there were probably zero children half price admissions for "Cruising" while SOTS was probably a majority kids prices.

Looking For Mr. Goodbar came out in 1977 and covers some of the same ground (sexual freedom, finding partners in gin joints, etc). Did mainstream audiences really have issues with the movie (not the gay protesters who probably brought more people to see it out of curiosity)?

#138: Friedkin had just come off two flops ("The Sorcerer" and "The Brinks Job") and needed a hit (this wasn't it).

AIDS wasn't identified til early 1981:

"The first news story on the disease appeared May 18, 1981 in the gay newspaper New York Native. AIDS was first clinically reported on June 5, 1981, with five cases in the United States. The initial cases were a cluster of injecting drug users and gay men with no known cause of impaired immunity who showed symptoms of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare opportunistic infection that was known to occur in people with very compromised immune systems. Soon thereafter, an unexpected number of homosexual men developed a previously rare skin cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). Many more cases of PCP and KS emerged, alerting U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a CDC task force was formed to monitor the outbreak."

Sherri Lewis and Lambchop?

They were into it deep. Why did Shari have her hand up there ALL THE TIME.

Lambchop goes anywhere.

The film DOES work, but not as a typical genre/slasher/mystery, but rather as an indictment of a culture that hated gays. That's why, for example, the killer is played by 3, maybe 4, different actors, all of whom think they are/want to be "straight" but actually are dominated by the mainstream heterosexuals' culture and their desire to fit as straight men, which they probably are not. Pacino clearly becomes one of them in his murder of the neighbor. The killers are, in effect, trying to kill the gay in themselves, which makes the film itself a pro-gay statement. The film is all the more powerful for embracing the leather/SM scene in NYC at the time.

Pacino's character killed the neighbor? I thought it was Gregory.

Richard Cox on Merv.

[quote] Richard Cox on Merv.

Couldn’t be. Merv never let boys over 21 on him.

Merv laid on top of me!

The brilliant opening museum sequence in Dressed to Kill was lifted from De Palma's plans for Cruising. That scene with two men would be incredible - Angie Dickinson basically fucks like a gay guy does and gets killed for it.

I don't usually like to announce this, but I was Miss Angie Dickinson's body double in Dressed To Kill.

Thanks for that R138. That was fantastic info.

Saw this in the theater with a straight friend when I was 16 and horny. There were maybe 5 other people in the theater in my small town. Got lots of strange stares walking in with no clue what it was about. I was so clueless the foisting scene where you see the guys arm all covered in something white I thought was cum. Not knowing a single gay parson at that point, I assumed that's what my life would be like if I moved to a big city.

It figures though..that in the 1980’s a movie made about Gay culture would have to involve murder and mayhem…..and heterosexual cops are trying to save us… tempted by lascivious sex as an occupational hazard…what an undertone..

9 to 5 grossed over $100,000,000!!! My head is spinning!

So did [italic]Stir Crazy[/italic], making it the first film directed by a Black man to gross that much money.

[quote] The film DOES work, but not as a typical genre/slasher/mystery, but rather as an indictment of a culture that hated gays. That's why, for example, the killer is played by 3, maybe 4, different actors, all of whom think they are/want to be "straight" but actually are dominated by the mainstream heterosexuals' culture and their desire to fit as straight men, which they probably are not. Pacino clearly becomes one of them in his murder of the neighbor. The killers are, in effect, trying to kill the gay in themselves, which makes the film itself a pro-gay statement. The film is all the more powerful for embracing the leather/SM scene in NYC at the time.

That's too complicated and deep for your average movie goer.

They had to put a warning at the beginning of the film that this was not representative of all homosexuals.

But it still shows gay sex as being inherently dirty and criminal.

The cops don't come off well. Back in the early 80s I'd have thought it was over the top, but now we all know better. Just a FEW BAD APPLES, of course.

I wonder if Cruising could be remade today with mostly Grindr hookups and meth-fueled sex parties.

Could be Armie Hammer's comeback role.

[quote]and heterosexual cops are trying to save us

You didn't watch the movie, did you?

(90) so true...comments like that show no attempt to understand the film.

Well you have to admit that it's pretty easy to get caught up in the sensational aspects of the film and to mostly forget about "understanding" it.

The plot is full of holes and Pacino is so inward that he's not projecting any emotion to me. I think Richard Gere, who according to Amazon Trivia was Friedkin's first choice, would have been better. And I love Pacino.

Friedken has said that the parts he cut out were pure pornography.

Jeanne Moreau visited the set to watch the fisting.

R195

[quote] Her brooding beauty

I don't see it.

[quote]The plot is full of holes and Pacino is so inward that he's not projecting any emotion to me. I think Richard Gere, who according to Amazon Trivia was Friedkin's first choice, would have been better. And I love Pacino.

Watch "Looking For Mr. Goodbar" to see what he could have done with it.

I have and I did! Whole different film with R.G.

Pacino wanted out of the film because of the protesters and threats. I think his misery enhanced his performance.

I love Paul Sorvino in this. So world weary and burnt-out, walking with a limp.

God if Richard Gere had done this I would have flocked to NYC leather clubs right after the show. He was so handsome back then and I never got the attraction of Al Pacino.

Pacino has always had that creepy face, even when he was young he looked skeevy. How he ever got to be a leading man is beyond me.

[quote] For straights, the most shocking thing about this movie today would be the menacing & macho gay men.

Straights chuckle at leather gays because they can see it's all drag.

R89- At 80 years old , TODAY Al Pacino is OLD and TIRED. Not in 1979 when he was still in his 30's.

Pacino's dancing is almost as embarrassing as Michael Douglas's in Basic Instinct.

Only time Pacino was hot...."Serpico"

R205- WRONG

The movie he was the BEST looking in was

The Godfather as the young Michael Corleone.

R199, agreed. I love Paul Sorvino, he almost steals the show. But, I referred to Karen Allen as Superman’s girlfriend, so what do I know?

Piece on the 'bag murders'.

Here's one of those gay Youtube dissections of the movie. Like virtual friends!

Sorvino gave the best performanc of the movie, and was probably the most sympathetic character, despite being pretty unethical. Pacino was realistically portrayed as being deer in headlights most of the time, which was realistic but it was a pretty thankless role.

As an aside, I feel the movie is underrated as far as the hot men in it.

Arnaldo Santana the first victim, Richard Cox, that guy who played Skip, the red herring, James Remar in his undies, the cute and sweet and doomed Ted. Even the dude that asks Pacino to dance is hot. Most of them straight though, except maybe the first 2.

Al Pacino was hot as hell. Didn’t like the perm, but those were the times.

The scene were his gf was blowing him was hot. He was ok in the movie but he has looked hotter in others.

[quote] Dressed to Kill came out the same year and was a much better film that examined similar terrain

Dressed To Kill was EMBARRASSING. I howled with laughter at the cruising scene in the museum.

Pacino has a great body in this film but his face looks haggard and he has dark circlres under his eyes. I can;t tell ewhether that's on purpose or not.

I have to say I find Dave Thomas really sexy in the SCTV parody.

And Power Boothe as the clerk behind the counter explaining to Pacino what the different colored bandanas are for.

R215 I thought that was some dumb shit invented for the movie. Turned out it was 100% true. And still practised in lather bars today.

We've had lot of threads about this move and i always submit that the thing i most enjoy about it are the scenes where Al stalks Richard Cox because they are hilarious.

What was up with William Friedkin? A-list directors back in the 1970-80s didn't direct multiple gay-themed movies. And these weren't polite gay movies that you could watch with grandma--they were hardcore gay. I think he's closeted, like Blake Edwards.

Nah, WF just likes to shock with "unsavory" subject matter, which is why I love him.

To me the funniest scene of the movie is when the leather guy in the "Precint night" gets all indignant and pissy at AL for saying he just likes to watch WHILE WEARING THE YELLOW HANKIE. Cock tease.