> Yet watching the movie today, it's a

> bit hard to understand what everyone was

> so upset about.

You supplied the answer in your column: context. At the time, there were very few depictions in the mass media of gay people. The few that existed showed them as seedy, desperate, invariably unhappy, and destined for murder or suicide.

"Cruising" showed gay life as unwholesome, entirely focused on anonymous sex, and a center of sex-based, psychologically-unbalanced violence.

Merely having a character mention that "not all gay life is like this" does not undo the visceral effects of the images, any more than having a character in "The Silence of the Lambs" say, "Buffalo Bill is not a transsexual, he's just a man who wants to become a women." The subtle distinction would be lost on most people.

Imagine if, during the civil rights era, one of the first major motion pictures dealing with issues concerning blacks was not "Guess Whose Coming To Dinner?", but was a police procedural about the hunt for a black male killer who rapes and murders white women. And if even most of the non-criminal black men in the movie were shown to be constantly lusting after white women, as if that were the most important thing in their emotional lives. And these were the only black men in the movie - no black detectives, no black friends of the main characters.

I doubt if having one character say "but not all Negroes are like that" would take away the sting.

Today there is a much wider variety of images of gays in popular culture, and more people in real life actually know gays, so the effect of a movie like "Cruising" would be lessened. But there's still a balance missing. Today's (many, many) television police procedurals, for example, have accepted gays as victims, perpetrators, and witnesses. And I have no objections to seeing gay villains. But note that gays never appear among the main-cast detectives (which today always include blacks, Hispanics, and women, so at least we've made some progress). They're always part of the chaos, never part of the order.

As a hetero female, I can tell you that my original reaction to Cruising (which I first saw on video) was only in terms of film -- which is to say, I judged it on its cinematic values. I thought it was a fabulous movie. Disturbing, thought-provoking, worth analysis.

That the plot was dark and dangerous, a neo-noir in my opinion, did not seem to dawn on many reviewers at the time. Everyone simply focussed on the fact that it was set " in the gay subculture." I have always recognized that movies have coded characters as gay with a fairly standard set of behaviors. But, at the time the movie was released, I honestly did not understand why the protests were so vehement.

In subsequent years, and after reading much criticism of the film, I do understand the protests. But I think the film may now be able to be viewed as, simply, a dark murder mystery/police drama. The ending is one of the greatest cliff-hangers of late 20th century film. Will he or won't he? Does he or doesn't he? This is not an indictment of gay men, it's a murder mystery.

And, has anyone ever pointed out that Al Pacino was quite brave to take this role?

Pacino WAS brave to take the role. Brave going in , regardless of the outcome of the film, and braver still as it drew such controversy during its making and release.

His career took a "slow motion hit" after "Cruising"; big stars don't need to have their momentum slowed down.

Pacino tried a "family comedy" next ("Author, Author") for damage control, but that didn't work. Then came "Scarface." (NOT a big hit on release.) Then an American Revolution movie (by the "Chariots of Fire" guy, I think; Pacino felt safe) and then Pacino quit movies for four years.

Now's he's the Legendary Ham. But Pacino's being brave again about "Cruising." It had been allowed to fade into the background for 27 years. And now its back. And Pacino gets to face the music again.

I hear he's good in it. I guess maybe I'll have to see it. If that's alright....

I have to agree with SpectrumRider. Where did this pop-psychology belief that "repressed homosexuality" leads to "muderous desires" come from? Isn't this just a metaphor for making clostedness a product of a psycological flaw rather than an outgrowth of social pressures? I can't help but compare this to the Larry Craig situation, to which the popular response is "what a self-loathing hypocrite" rather than "what a messed up thing that in 2007, a guy who happens to like guys is forced into a secret life and a sham marriage because in America you can't be gay and have a political career in Idaho...."

Gays are a abomination. why would God make sex between two men ok? Who would be the dominator? who would be the aggressor if they are both the stronger creatures accodring to the bible? This move at least protrays them as they should be. Sick perverts who refuse to control women as God intends and instead compete with each other.

I have to agree with SpectrumRider. Where did this pop-psychology belief that "repressed homosexuality" leads to "muderous desires" come from?

William Bonin, John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Kearny, Randy Kraft, Dean Corll (and a host of not so famous names) not to mention Jeffrey Dahmer, who merely had a murderous glimmer in his eye when Cruising was released. The fact that sexual repression and psychopathology can lead to murder can hardly be argued in light of these criminal careers. The one doesn't inevitably lead to the other, but in people who have a screw or two loose to begin with--it's volatile.

And to Jim (the poster above) you've got to be kidding--right? Surely this is an attempt at humor using ironic hyperbole? Your typos and misspellings are at odds with a capacity to formulate such trenchant wit, however.

My own memory of Cruising (I saw it in its original release) is positive. At the time, seeing gay people at all was better than the invisibility usually imposed by Hollywood. And as a film, it's better than Making Love or Ode to Billy Joe.

Besides, not all films should be limited to blue-collar, homicidal men.

Kak made a good point: It's considered extremely brave today for a male actor to play a role like this (I hesitate to label it a gay role, because that's questionable). When I spoke with director Friedkin (I wrote this Slate piece), he said that Pacino approached them to be in "Cruising," not the other way around.

Can you imagine an actor starring in this today? Friedkin said he couldn't even imaging pitching the film to a studio in 2007, when everyone's interesting in $300 million sequels. Hollywood seldom takes chances on challenging stories like this. Ironic, then, that "Cruising" may get more respect today.

One other point: If you're a gay guy watching the film, your comfort factor could depend on how far along you are in the coming out process. I know guys who saw it as they were just tiptoeing out of the closet and the film scarred them. They didnt' want to live that "lifestyle," and lacking other reference points about gay culture, they couldn't put it any larger context (ie, that the leather scene was fringe even among the LGBT community).

I wonder whether you could make a parallel analogy from the gay individual to the gay community, meaning that in 1980, the community was just coming out as well.

I, on the other hand, saw "Cruising" just as I was coming out in college in the late 80s, and loved it, but I like dark movies.

And it is a disturbing film.

If you're a gay guy watching the film, your comfort factor could depend on how far along you are in the coming out process.

I agree with you here. It's been 27 years since I saw the film, but I still remember the little twink from the prairie (just like me) who was Pacino's character's neighbor in the film. He was the character I identified with. When he turned up a victim it disturbed me deeply. I had an emotional experience, which is what I buy when I purchase my ticket. The gay men in the film looked nothing like the gay people I knew in Tacoma, Washington. If there was a lesson, it was when you're in NYC, watch out: it's full of predators. But that's something everyone outside of New York has always believed.

We're talking about art, not polemics. Not every film is intended to be polemical. Another of Friedkin's gay-oriented films was polemical--The Boys in the Band (1970). The two films need to be viewed in the context of each other as the work of the same artist. Cruising is a murder-mystery--it just so happened that it took place within a gay subculture, presented as authentically as possible, and which most of middle America would find extremely cringeworthy.

And as far as taking risks goes, Hollywood has completely abrogated that responsibility. You can find risk-taking in independent film (The Mysterious Skin, for example) and on HBO--but Hollywood has limited the power of its artists.

Kak, as a hetero woman it's probably not surprising that you didn't understand the protests against the film. It meant nothing to you personally other than being a movie. I don't know how much exposure you had to gay men at the time but the atmosphere was far more anti-gay than it is now, and the book the movie was based on was incredibly offensive (yes, I have read it).

I actually disagree with you somewhat on the movie. Though I do think it's interesting and worth analysis, the storytelling is pretty murky (Friedkin admits this and says it's not a good movie in terms of cop-drama-mysteries).

While certainly Pacino was brave to do the film I think there are several young actors these days would take on the role without a second thought.

SpectrumRider:

They're always part of the chaos, never part of the order.

Greggs from "The Wire"?

lesslucid:

SpectrumRider:

They're always part of the chaos, never part of the order.

Greggs from "The Wire"?

I don't doubt you're correct. And The Shield had a regularly-appearing gay police officer (albeit a confused closet-case).

The network shows, however - all the CSIs, all the L&Os, Without A Trace, Cold Case, and so on, each of which has a regular cast of 6-10 - have yet to jump this hurdle. They're worried that their target demographic (male, 18-35) might rebel. And they may be correct.

The first time I watched The Closer, the victim was a lesbian. However, she was a lesbian on the run from the law, disguised as a man, who deceived a Christian church secretary into loving her (prompting the murder). I didn't think this was a particularly empathetic portrayal of lesbians or Christian church secretaries. (I happen to think that devoutly religious people are also underrepresented and misrepresented on mainstream TV, although I think that relates to a different set of issues.) One of the older detectives was clearly homophobic, although the main character shut him down. But I think what bothered me was that there was no gay person in the story to speak for herself or himself. There was no openly gay officer to say to the old detective, "hey, that's me you're talking about" - or even anyone to say, hey, I have a gay son/daughter/brother/sister/wh­atever, so just back off.

I didn't watch The Closer for a while. The next episode I saw, the victim was a gay man. But surprise!, the killer was not the mugger who had been targeting gay men (he turned out to be a relatively benign guy, who only focused on gay men because they were less likely to go to the police, not because he didn't like them...), but another gay man - the victim's jealous lover, who tried to make it look like the mugger had done it.

Two gay victims (one a liar, the other a cheater), one gay killer, a mugger of gays largely vindicated in comparison - and still no gay detectives to show that gays can be devoted to cleaning up society too.

I know everybody loves The Closer. I've found it hard to return to, after randomly seeing those two episodes.

Let me make it clear that I have no general objection to gay villains or gay victims. I just think there should be a few gay heroes (with the same status these shows give to its other heroes) too. They are sorely lacking.

And, to return to the original subject, I do not think Friedkin was homophobic in any way, or that the movie couldn't be enjoyed, or that it should not be enjoyed today. I do think that, given the political and cultural context of the time, it was an insensitive and predictably incendiary choice - much as a movie about a black man raping white women would have been, in an era with widespread negative stereotypes about blacks, and few if any black heroes in popular culture. (Are we out of that era yet?)

I made the mistake of seeing "Cruising" on a midnight double feature with "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" on a winter Saturday night. By the time I left the theater, I fully expected not to make it back to my car. The power of movies.

My objection to the movie was not a homicidal gay character pillaging Greenwich Village but the horrendous depiction of violence, particularly the graphic stabbing in the early part of the picture. Even after having watched it a couple of times on video, the end was unclear: how did Steve Burns know exactly who the killer was? Even following his break-in of that character's apartment, the clues seemed buried so deeply I couldn't follow them, and so the scene in the park between the two appeared to become a game of "who will drop his pants first?" Perhaps I should watch it again.

It's kind of interesting, if not downright coincidental, that this movie appeared shortly after Larry Kramer published his novel "Faggots", which detailed a summer spent/wasted cruising on Fire Island. Kramer was roundly excoriated for exposing the heavy anonymous sex quotient that was then and still is a large part of gay life. He still defends himself against charges of exaggeration as well as taking a stand against barebacking. It seems some people are never satisfied.

As far as "The Boys in the Band" is concerned, it's important to keep that story connected to the time the play was first written, roughly 1967, pre-Stonewall, when even a large number of gays considered themselves damaged goods in need of therapy. While the first half of the movie is still good fun, the agonizing and over-the-top despair is creaky and very hard to watch.

As for the man who wrote about about "controlling women", I would like to ask: what century are you from? Good luck finding a mate with that attitude.

Kzoo

Perhaps I'm simple minded, but when I saw it I saw a movie. (BTW, saw it when it came out). I had one gay acquaintance (least that I knew of, people were far less willing to be open about it then), but I never gave a thought that this movie was reflective of him, and I guess that even if I did, I didn't really care. I think that at times we read far too much into movies and TV shows. Their general purpose is to entertain and make money, nothing more. I realize being a hetero white male, I'm a bit immune to the various stereotyping of non-white, non-male, non-straight figures that people see, but I believe that most people watch shows for their entertainment value. When I saw Fatal Attraction, I didn't start worrying about the woman I met in a bar, the Poseidon Adventure didn't make me fearful of ships, nor did Taxi Driver make me apprehensive of the people driving hacks. If someone has a preexisting stereotype then a movie might play into it, but I doubt that homophobes were going to see Cruising. Like the fuss over The 300, is it realistic to think that the portrayal of the Persians, impacts the way the audience views Iran?