CRUISING Reconsidered

Great stuff, as usual. Really looking forward to checking out Cruising (never thought I'd say that, given its reputation) as well as Sorcerer.

I almost saw this last weekend in NYC, but I had a list of films to see and that was ranked "low priority." However, I did hear that it was selling out. Since the gay rights movement in New York through the AIDS epidemic is one of those subjects I'm fascinated by, I'd like to check this out at some point.

I've seen CRUISING quite a few times over the years, via my beat up old VHS copy.
I look forward to a cleaned up, widescreen, extra vaseline-sheen version.
I'm Glaad people are giving this movie less shit these days.

I re-read Robin Wood's essay on the film after watching it, and he - surprisingly? - liked it more than American Gigolo, which he felt was more anti-gay in agenda. though it's interesting to note that both Friedkin and Schrader spent a good deal of time in that scene.

Wood suggests he was focused on the background players more, who he felt carried joy on their faces. The film's a mess, but something.

I see what you did there. Pretty excited for this myself. I find the idea of Friedkin almost maliciously exploiting his audiences gay paranoia to be oddly pleasing. If I have the pocket change I'll pick this up day of.

Great article Beaks, oddly enough other entertainment sites seem to be doing their pieces on Cruising also. Can't say it's something to gather the family around but it might be if anything to be viewed as a discussion piece after seeing it.

Of course I'll remember this bit from the Onion A.V. Club:

CRUISING is pretty much a failure on every level. That is not to say that it isn't worth watching, because it has some interesting things to offer. Mainly the hard-core gay porno spliced in with the murder scenes...can't get enough of that.

If it has interesting things to offer, it's not a failure on every level.

It did not fail on presenting near-subliminal scenes of hardcore buttsex, you are correct.

Just watched this for the first time in 20 years; Beaks' article is interesting food for thought. I'd really like to know if anyone has asked Friedkin about casting two different actors to play the killer, and why he thought that was a valid choice. You see the killer plain as day in the beginning of the film, and watch Pacino chase dead end after dead end, until the last dead end, due to some recasting, isn't a dead end! Didn't strike me as playing fair with the audience.

That article, by the way, is here now (to save you the search).

 

There's also Russ Fischer's take. And (what the hell) mine, ignore if desired.

Thanks!

Martin, that was a great write-up!  I was unprepared for and ultimately detached by the use of different actors to play the killer. They're all connected through the voice, which belongs to Cox's character's dad, but they are clearly different men, and we get a good look at at least two of them. (I'm not sure why that gets a pass from me in ZODIAC; maybe it just wasn't presented as obliquely here.)

Friedkin has said they're supposed to be different killers, which makes the movie that much weirder. I have to wonder how much of the in-movie strangeness was affected by the conditions of making the movie.

 

Supposedly there was a cut scene that showed what happens after Pacino goes off with that guy he picks up. Apparently they get mugged by some Puerto Rican gang, so nothing sexual happens; in the movie, it's left ambiguous as to whether Pacino and the guy get it on.

 

The key to the movie, I think, is that it's structured as a police procedural but it really isn't one. Someone's killing people, it doesn't matter who, apparently. It's a pretty nihilistic movie but I don't think it's homophobic. If it were, Friedkin didn't have to give so much time to Don Scardino as the Friendly Gay Guy.

 

One other thing I didn't bring up in the review but floated in a forum somewhere is that I wish we only saw Paul Sorvino with Pacino and with nobody else. That way you could have one reading of the film as Sorvino being in Pacino's imagination — he creates Sorvino so that he can justify being gay; he essentially assigns himself to go undercover. But no, you do see Sorvino elsewhere all over the place.

 

The flick is problematic on a few levels, but it could only have been greenlit by a major studio with a major star in the '70s. (Came out in '80, but must've been developed for a while before that.) Pacino had just had a trainwreck with Bobby Deerfield but was still huge; can you imagine any star with his name recognition today doing a movie like this? Not only that, but coming out of it with his heterosexual status pretty much intact? (Pacino is one of the few stars I've never heard any whispers about i/r/t sexuality.)

And he played a gay character in one of his best films (Dog Day Afternoon).

 

It just doesn't hold water for me that the killer is different people, unless they're all possessed like in Fallen, as you say.  If the movie wants to move into fever dream logic, it needed to go a touch further from reality for that to work. I don't know. Compelling as hell, just the same.

 

I don't think the movie is homophobic, but I do think it's got some dated/bigoted views on sexuality.

There was a two hours-twenty version, which Friedkin thinks the studio burned. Maybe in the longer version there was more dream logic. Or more logic, full stop.

 

I'd agree with the dated/bigoted, but do you mean in terms of "either you're gay or you're not"? I mean, Pacino's character could be bisexual/bicurious. That doesn't seem to occur to the movie.

 

Or if you're gay, you're either a Cuddly Gay doing your thesis on musical theater or you're Criscoing your fist up someone's ass.

 

Again, maybe a lot of nuance ended up on the cutting-room floor. Then again, I don't know that Friedkin even knows how to spell "nuance." This is William Friedkin we're talking about. Often great in his own ways, but essentially Oliver Stone before there was Oliver Stone.

 

The premise is compelling as hell, but there's no way you can do it with any level of honesty and not piss off a lot of people. Not then, and definitely not now.

Or it could be a statement by Friedkin, that the homosexual community is open to the predations of any number of killers.  Perhaps the killers know each other and deliberately adopt the voice. Then there is the issue of, does this subculture "ask for it?" which is one of the things that caused people to protest the movie.

 

 

 

Dated/bigoted = the scene at the train station (?) where Sorvino and Pacino have a conversation about the brutal interrogation of Skip, and the sentiment is put forth that "these people can't help what they are."

 

On the other hand, there's no mainstream movie from the period this side of "Can't Stop the Music" that shows this really fringe subculture having such a great fucking time.

 

Not sure I agree about Friedkin as Stone; Friedkin was known for long takes, long lens, documentary-style shooting. Admittedly, he breaks that here, as you see scene after scene of his camera panning across a leather bar, shot in 30fps, Scorsese "mafia bar" slo-mo.

 

I don't think Friedkin is judging, but at times - often, really - it feels like he's second-guessing the road he's gone down. The movie, as it exists, seems to suggest you can be turned gay, and turned into a killer, which is an uncomfortable parallel. Had he committed to the narrative presented, it might be a defensible position (shit happens, Dahmer happened), but Friedkin seems afraid to really get into it. It's kind of maddening; I think this was almost a great movie, but somebody flinched and we got this 100 minute version where stuff is definitely missing, and the ambiguity is not the good kind.
 

 

I think what should be implied, but is unfortunately absent, is that Sorvino's gaydar was fucking spot-on, and he found the perfect cop for this assignment. (He says he's hired because he looks like the other victims; after that point NO victims look like Pacino.) The movie bitches out on following through with that.

I just wanted to pop in to say kudos, great discussion gentlemen.

 

Since it was brought up earlier in the thread, I was wondering what your thoughts on AMERICAN GIGOLO are? Is it dishonest or the more successful film?

 

 

What makes things even more bizarre, is the actor who plays the first killer, is killed out in Central Park by the other killer, and he may have been actually playing the same character from the beginning, and wasn't just thrown in as another character. The one who kills him may or may not be Richard Cox's character. He was the killer for sure in the peepshow killing. You can obviously see him.

 

I want to think that the killing of Don Scardino's character was done by Pacino, since he is evidently struggling with his sexuality throughout the film. Most notably when he's having rough sex with Karen Allen, and he keeps hearing the club music in his head, which he tries to drown out by thrusting faster and harder.

 

It's also nice that there's that hint of justice when Sorvino does a double take to Joe Spinell's character at the end, since Gene Davis had told him about him and what he was doing.

 

Paraphrasing from my movie-watching blog: Decent film, but there's still that Schrader-esque thing where you feel his Calvinist roots getting all "OMG isn't this naughty and decadent??" Plus he just copies himself a dozen years later in Light Sleeper.  Giorgio Moroder is emerging as the real hero of this period of Schrader's career.

 

To that I'll add that  the movie shits the bed in the third act, like Schrader tends to do elsewhere.  But it's an applesauce and oranges comparison with Cruising, I think.
 

 

 

Jesus, I was wondering why that victim in the woods looked so much like the killer from the first killing. The one look you get at the killer in the peepshow killing looks like the first victim.
 

 

Edited by Phil - 9/13/11 at 7:47am

 

Also, the Zodiac Killer is a real life killer who was never caught, and had multiple suspects. That's probably why you're okay with it. That's why I am, at least.

 

I watched Cruising a few years ago, and never noticed the killer was played by two actors. Because of it's controversial nature, I'm chalking all this up to the studio biting off more than it can chew. 

Edited by Walker - 9/13/11 at 2:31pm

After Rene's post, I went back and looked, and I now think there are at least three actors.

 

Here is the killer (uncredited, near as I can tell) from the first scene:

 

 

After that, we see him again, as a guy Pacino goes off with in the park:

 

 

We see him one last time in the park where, just as Rene says, he gets killed!

 

 

The next killing we see is at the peep show. But I think it's two actors. Outside the peep show:

 

 

To me, this looks like Arnaldo Santana, who played the first victim (and who, by the way, we flash back to during the peep show murder):

 

 

However, inside the peep room, it's definitely Richard Cox, the actor who we are told is the killer for the remainder of the film:

 

 

As we learn more about this guy, we see him have a conversation with his dead father, who not only speaks in the same voice we've heard the killer speaking in since the beginning, but his dead dad uses the same catchphrase the killer's been saying since the first kill ("You know what you have to do.")

 

 

I'm not pointing this stuff out as logic holes, but as frustrating pieces of a puzzle which, thanks to the cut and lost footage, we'll never get an answer to (if we were ever meant to).

That really does look like the first victim standing outside, and I'm not certain if I read it somewhere, or if Friedkin says it on the commentary, but he intended to have the first victim show up as one of the killers later on.

 

I've been working under the assumption that there are at least 2 killers, (now maybe 3 thanks to Phil's screencaps and his sound theory.) and I think that it was Friedkin's intent to just screw with the audience and never truly give us a clear picture. It's pretty smart, even if it wasn't his intention, and was just a product of the studio demanded recuts.

 

PLUS, the killers all talk like Richard Cox's Dad, even the first one, and then at the end when Richard Cox is in the hospital bed, he talks in his Dad's voice. The last one could just be explained that he has absorbed so much from his Dad, that a part of him talks like him when he does killings, but the rest? That just adds to the confusion.

 

Guys, this thread got seriously awesome. Thank you all. Now I need to rent this movie.

You won't regret it. The movie is a classic.

Yeah, I've added it to my rental list because of you eloquent and insightful sons of bitches.

It's on Netflix Instant. Hopefully I can give it a spin this weekend.

 

That's the thing, though - the FIRST DEAD GUY can't be one of the killers. (To say nothing of the idea that Friedkin is mixing and matching killers and victims as if they're interchangeable in this world, further muddying the socio-sexual waters he's found himself in.)

 

On the other hand, after uncredited killer #1 is killed, the next scene is Pacino walking into his apartment, wearing the same cap and sunglasses every iteration of the killer has been shown wearing, having a tortured moment. Is he already killing? Did he go off and fuck that first killer and catch "murderer" like an STD? What the fuck is going on?

 

I don't want to give anyone the impression that I think this film is a success in any way. But I tend to be more captivated by perplexing failures than masterpieces. And it's on Netflix in HD, which is better quality than is available anywhere. Might buy the DVD for the commentary, though.
 

 

Edited by Phil - 9/13/11 at 8:08pm

Wow.  I guess I need to see this again.  GREAT discussion.

I'm pretty sure that was a time that he just wanted to screw with the audience who was paying close attention, or seeing it again to make them pause and think "Wait, that guy was killed earlier. Why is he there?" It's just the actor playing another character. No way could he be playing the same guy.

 

I wouldn't doubt it if Pacino was already killing. He's confused, he's got Karen Allen who doesn't know about his undercover work, and Don Scardino who actually thinks he's gay, and is attracted to him, as well as having troubles with his live in boyfriend (James Remar!). He doesn't know what he wants, and in the end, we're left to assume he flew into a rage and brutally murdered Don Scardino because Pacino realized he was really gay and refused to accept it. The murder being his severing of the character who cared about him and to disguise it as one of the murders.

 

Hence the look on his face at the end of the film when he's shaving.

 

One could also look at Karen Allen putting on the hat and the sunglasses to "look" like one of the many faceless guys who go cruising, so Pacino would feel more comfortable. That is if she already knew by this point.

 

I could also just be looking into this WAY too much, but it's fun to theorize.

Looking at your screencaps, I'd say Pacino looks like the killer(s).

 

But I don't really buy that Pacino's a killer at the end. The tension between Scardino and his unstable boyfriend is established. Pacino genuinely likes Scardino; if anyone, he would kill the abusive boyfriend. I think Scardino was going to leave his boyfriend and the boyfriend killed him.

 

The meaningful look in the mirror I put down to Pacino being spooked by Karen Allen wearing the rough-trade shit — wondering, "What am I now? Gay? Straight? I like it when she wears that, what does that mean? Is it really over?" Or else her wearing it symbolizes how the experience is going to haunt him — "No, it's never going to be over." 

 

To recap a lot of this thread, a lot in the film (a) could be made a whole lot clearer and (b) might've been clearer in the longer cut.

 

On the Schrader tip (mentioned earlier i/r/t American Gigolo), I just rewatched his Cat People remake. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

I like those subtler reads, Martin; I wish I could accept that Friedkin intended them. (BTW, I don't  think he's homophobic, or set out to make a homophobic film; consider one of his first features was THE BOYS IN THE BAND.) 

 

And holy cow, he went on a three year break after this movie and didn't work again until DEAL OF THE CENTURY. Oof.

Nah, I don't think Friedkin's homophobic, just an insensitive dick generally by many accounts (just ask Ellen Burstyn).

 

He may have mellowed a bit after all those humbling lean years, though.

 

Oh, and with the Stone comparison I didn't mean style so much as sensibility. Stone is more overtly political, too. But they're both alpha-male directors who would beat the shit out of you with their films if they could. (Although Stone seems to have mellowed a lot lately too.)

I keep hoping that since they discovered that lost footage from Blue Velvet that one day someone will find that missing 40 minutes and it will be reintegrated for a Blu-ray release.

Much love for the Jack Nitszche score. Love how unconventional it is. Using stuff like rubbing drinking glasses to get that noise. not to mention all the great punk songs that play in the clubs.

Pacino wasn't feeling much better at the time. He followed it with Author! Author!, Scarface, and Revolution — three critically razzed flops in a row. (Scarface, of course, is now the definition of "cult-following-on-video/cable," but at the time it was widely hated. Of the three, it did the least worst in ticket sales — $65m worldwide against a $25m budget.) It wasn't until Sea of Love a full nine years later — after a four-year leave of absence following the deserved humiliation that was Revolution — that he got some of his box-office mojo back.

 

Then again, I don't know that Pacino's really been a box-office force since 1999. It seems like he's beloved more than ever, but he doesn't seem to headline anything that people would pay to see any more. Anyway, he's in his "one obscure artsy film for me/one redolent piece of shit for the studio" stage. 88 Minutes gave him the money to make Wilde Salome, I guess. That and he seems to have done his best recent work for HBO, the Phil Spector biopic likely included.

 

He's really, really good in the Kevorkian film. And he gets a lot of respect from me for taking challenges and risks long after his contemporaries have ceased doing so. I think a lot of that risk taking can be traced back to CRUISING. I've heard he dislikes talking about the film (though there are some second hand comments to be found in this Max Landis youtube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTjmtRa7b1c - really no added value here but it's all I can find in the way of Pacino being asked about the film).

 

And LOL at the 2007 DVD promo: http://youtu.be/mpJ5K8Vt5V8

He should dislike talking about Revolution more. "My mouth belongs anywhere I put it."

Which should really be the tagline for Cruising.

I actually thought 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill were pretty decent , but they're obviously paycheck gigs. Like Phil, my respect for him returned when he did You Don't Know Jack. It was like seeing the Pacino of the 70's back on screen again. Really looking forward to that Phil Spector bio film, and agreed on it being cool that he seems to be the only one of his group taking risks, but then again Bob De Niro was in Machete, and looked to be having a lot of fun in it too.

Rene, you are the only dude to try to liken what Pacino is doing on HBO with Deniro slumming in Machete.

 

Just a couple other things I noticed:

 

Right after Pacino takes on the assignment, there's a really loaded conversation where Karen Allen asks why he's taking the gig, and he seems impatient and squirmy as he answers: "skip patrol, gold badge right away...can we talk about something else?" When she says "Gold badge? I didn't think you were that ambitious." His response is "There's a lot about me you don't know." DUN DUN DUN! This convo, cut against him- nearly giddy- setting up his cover in the very next scene, really comes this close to making it explicit that Sorvino pulled the pin on a closeted grenade in the Steve Burns character.

 

In the scene where the cops bust in on Pacino and the other guy, you can hear someone in that room under the radio static saying "Whoooo's here?" in the killer's voice.  Friedkin is a fucker.