Register Now!

Media

  • scanner scanner
  • scanner screengrab
  • modern materialist the modern
    materialist
  • video 61 frames
    per second
  • video the remote
    island

Photo

  • slice slice with
    giovanni
    cervantes
  • paper airplane crush paper
    airplane crush
  • autumn blog autumn
  • chase chase
  • rose &amp olive rose & olive
Scanner
Your daily cup of WTF?
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Slice
Each month a new artist; each image a new angle. This month: Giovanni Cervantes.
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Autumn
A fashionable L.A. photo editor exploring all manner of hyper-sexual girls down south.
The Modern Materialist
Almost everything you want.
Paper Airplane Crush
A San Francisco photographer on the eternal search for the girls of summer.
Rose & Olive
Houston neighbors pull back the curtains and expose each other's lives.
chase
The creator of Supercult.com poses his pretty posse.
The Remote Island
Hooksexup's TV blog.
61 Frames Per Second
Smarter gaming.

The Screengrab

When Good Directors Go Bad: Cruising (1980, William Friedkin)

Posted by Paul Clark

Usually, when I watch a potential When Good Directors Go Bad title, I’m pretty sure of how I feel about it. Generally, it’ll be a movie I already know that I dislike, or one that I’ve heard enough negative things about that I’m almost positive I’ll join the chorus of naysayers. Occasionally, I’ve tried to defend movies which are much better than their reputations would suggest. But I don’t think I’ve ever been so conflicted about my feelings about a selection than I was with William Friedkin’s Cruising.

Let’s get this out of the way- as straight-up narrative, Cruising is pretty terrible. Plotlines are introduced and abandoned, the central mystery doesn’t really work, and there’s a final “twist” that’s borderline incoherent. Yet for all it faults, Cruising is too haunting and strange a piece of work to be dismissed lightly. It made me scratch my head and occasionally pissed me off, but I was never bored.

Much of the narrative muddiness can be doubt be attributed to the film’s provocative nature. Released in 1980, Cruising tells the story of a murderer who’s prowling New York City’s gay S&M underworld. It was the post-Stonewall, pre-AIDS era, when homosexuality had become more visible in society yet was still misunderstood and frowned upon by most Americans. Naturally, Cruising aroused quite a bit of controversy from both sides. The increasingly-vocal gay rights groups protested the film for its portrayal of homosexuals as being scary, violent psychopaths. Meanwhile, United Artists was looking to make a commercial thriller, so many of the more risqué elements of the film were left on the cutting room floor.

Friedkin has stated that his original cut of Cruising was 140 minutes long, which means that nearly one-fourth of the movie had been shorn away by the time the 102-minute final cut hit theatres. And boy, do the seams show. There’s at least one major subplot- involving a pair of crooked cops who strong-arm a drag queen into performing sexual favors- that the film does absolutely nothing with. Likewise, the film presents a sympathetic homosexual friend for undercover officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino), only to forget about him for a long stretch of time until he turns up dead.

Faring even worse is the character trajectory of Burns himself. After being sent undercover to investigate the killings due to his resemblance to a number of the victims, Pacino is purported to be changed greatly by his experience in the gay underworld. Unfortunately, the film has to come right out and tell us this, having Pacino tell his girlfriend (Karen Allen) that “what I’m doing is affecting me.” Really? It seems to me like he isn’t really touched by most of what he sees. It doesn’t help that the film shies away from the more graphic details of Burns’ experiences inside a club called The Ramrod. Does he ever actually have sex with any of the other men, or does he simply walk into the clubs, look around, and leave? The film doesn’t seem to know.

Some of the blame can no doubt be placed on United Artists and the MPAA for demanding such liberal re-cutting of the film. Yet Friedkin is not altogether blameless. Looking back at Friedkin’s Oscar-winning The French Connection, one can find another cop character- Popeye Doyle- who gets far too caught up in his work. But while Friedkin had Popeye define himself almost entirely through his work, Cruising gives Burns a personal life to make him more three-dimensional. However, the scenes we see both of Burns’ personal life and his undercover work are unrevealing, and so he remains largely an enigma. Popeye Doyle was similarly enigmatic, but while we liked him we weren’t meant to care about him. By contrast, we’re meant to get caught up in Burns’ psychological journey, so the fact that we don’t should be construed as a failure on the film’s part. What’s unfortunate is that Pacino gives a fine, surprisingly low-key performance in the role that might distinguished a better film.

In addition, the gay rights protestors did have a point when they spoke out against Cruising. While Friedkin’s portrayal of the S&M underworld is certainly not meant to be a definitive statement about all homosexuals, the character of the killer is nonetheless pretty troubling. The killer is eventually revealed to be a musical theatre student whose father made him feel guilty about his homosexuality, and who takes his guilt out on the denizens on the men he picks up in clubs. After he seduces them, he stabs them repeatedly with a knife while telling them, “you made me do that.” Unfortunately, the killer-queen stereotype was one that wouldn’t go away, as evidenced by the character of Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs. To say nothing of the film’s ending, which seems to be saying that Burns’ experiences have turned him into a killer himself. If this is the case, then it’s both laughable and highly troubling.

Yet while Cruising has a multitude of problems, I found myself fascinated by it, and not in a train-wreck sort of way. For one thing, the film’s portrayal of its seamy underworld is still bold by Hollywood standards. In a time before the PC police patrolled every big-studio release and homosexuals became dependable romantic-comedy sidekicks and prestige-picture martyrs, it’s bracing to see a major motion picture that actually allows its homosexual characters to be sexual beings. Although Burns is ostensibly all about the ladies, Friedkin doesn’t shy away from the details of the sex lives of the other denizens of The Ramrod (how’s THAT for un-PC?). There’s a tangible allure to the danger this world presents to those who inhabit it, yet when you consider that the very real danger of AIDS still hadn’t announced itself, these scenes feel almost poignant. Also, it’s hard to believe Friedkin got away with a shot in which a character lubes up his entire forearm, but there you go.

On top of it all, the movie’s just too damn weird to dismiss, and it’s easy to see why Cruising has amassed a sizable cult since its original release. What can one say about a movie that pauses for Powers Boothe to describe the meanings of the various bandanas that are worn by the cruising men, to say nothing of a police interrogation that’s abruptly interrupted by a hulking black man wearing only a cowboy hat and a jockstrap? On balance, I suppose Cruising does indeed qualify as a case of Friedkin “going bad,” another step in the downward spiral that torpedoed the career of the once-hot director of The French Connection and The Exorcist. But damn if it’s not fascinating.


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT

Comments

borstalboy said:

Your comments, Mr. Clark, perfectly sum up how I feel about this movie.  It's crap, but its crap I have somehow managed to watch about three times.  It's also, for all its confusion and visual ugliness, undeniably a Friedkin film.  He's certainly "gone bad" on much bigger scale than this one (DEAL OF THE CENTURY, THE GUARDIAN).

I was so disappointed by the DVD re-release, though!  The extras feel weak and Friedkin's commentary offers so few revelations one rather wonders why he even bothered.

October 7, 2008 3:36 PM

privateivan said:

"a character lubes up his entire forearm"

That guy was Bruno Kirby! (although it's not mentioned on either his or the film's IMDB pages)

October 7, 2008 7:36 PM

in
Send rants/raves to

Archives

Bloggers

  • Paul Clark
  • John Constantine
  • Vadim Rizov
  • Phil Nugent
  • Leonard Pierce
  • Scott Von Doviak
  • Andrew Osborne
  • Hayden Childs
  • Sarah Sundberg
  • Nick Schager
  • Lauren Wissot

Contributors

  • Kent M. Beeson
  • Pazit Cahlon
  • Bilge Ebiri
  • D.K. Holm
  • Faisal A. Qureshi
  • Vern
  • Bryan Whitefield
  • Scott Renshaw
  • Gwynne Watkins

Tags

Places to Go

People To Read

Film Festivals

Directors

Partners