Cruising | The Danger Of Indifference
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2024
- [SPOILERS: Cruising (1980)]
I first became aware of Cruising years ago when I was on a vintage Al Pacino binge, catching up on the films of his I slept on (Panic At Needle Park, And Justice For All), but Cruising was the film that stuck with me most… though not necessarily for the best of reasons.
I’ve wanted to make a video on it for a while, but couldn’t narrow down the angle: should I chronicle the insane chain of events that led to acclaimed director William Friedkin agreeing to make the film, explain the protests by the LGBT community that sought to prevent it’s release, maybe discuss the fact the film’s plot is basically incomprehensible, or how, upon the film’s release, its thematic contentions intersected with the current attitudes towards homosexuality and what the consequences were.
And then I was like screw it, I’ll just do it all in one video…
Main Channel: / macabrestorytelling
Live Stream/Gaming Channel: / @macabrelive8266
Podcast Channel: / @nocritic
Patreon: / macabrestorytelling
Twitter: / macabstory
Twitch: / elpapamac
Reddit: / el_macab
[00:00] - Intro/Shout-outs
[02:32] - Chapter I: A Homicidal Coincidence
[07:09] - Chapter II: "...a picture we sincerely wish we did not have to show."
[13:18] - Chapter III: In Which James Franco...
[30:17] - Chapter IV: The Danger Of Indifference
[45:32] - Outro/Patrons
MUSIC:
"Scheming Weasel" by Kevin Macleod 
Кино
“I don’t give a flying fuck through a rolling donut” needs to become a common phrase
That's a Kurt Vonegut quote, though not correctly quoted.
Where have all the amazing quotables gone? Feels like a relic of a bygone era at this point
@@kevinalford "I couldn't give a flying donut from a rolling fuck."
-Tom Sawyer
Marlon Brando used to say it all the time, even putting it in Last Tango in Paris.
I prefer 28.30: "I don't give a rolling **** into a flying donut!"
If you wanna see a good movie where Al Pacino plays a gay (or bi it's never made explicitly clear) man, you should watch Dog Day Afternoon. You probably have already though. I rewatched it recently and was surprised at just how well it has aged nearly 50 years later. Anyways great video essay as always
Nah, the best gay Pacino film is Merchant of Venice, where Pacino spends most of the film hankering after Jeremy Irons' "pound of flesh"
Yeah the movie even treats the transgender partner (i believed the one name Angela) with relative respect
Attica Attica!
I ABSOLUTELY ADORE Dog Day Afternoon!
I mean, he plays a man who’s in a relationship with a woman…so idk why that would make him gay
My take on the movie was that it was essentially an illustration of underlying temptation being drawn to the surface. There was almost a supernatural vibe throughout for me, like the malevolence of Stuart passed into to Steve.
Genuinely creepy film and I loved it.
Same, and I’m only 27 mins through the video but to me the the cops tying the bodies from the water to the stabbings is a kind of perfect, although probably an unintentional example of neglect and the politics we see in policing. The idea the cops didn’t care enough about the community and rather just wanted the city, mayor and people off their ass and to restore some sense of order and trust so they group a bunch of unrelated killings to do so is o actually really great commentary on cops. It’s probably def unintentional but this movie especially today is kind of a great commentary and look at the police, homophobia and toxic masculinity and the things some people may do when their masculinity or idea of the man they are is challenged.
Edit: finishing the video toxic masculinity is touched upon haha. I understand why in the time and the place the movie was made it could be harmful but watching in 2023 and being bi myself I really enjoyed this film. Having as a child my arms slapped apart because “crossing your arms was for girls” the toxic masculinity presented resonates with me. I did feel disturbed and sad but also moved by the victims and the lack of care for the community by the police, which hits home especially hard being half black as well. I understand the criticisms but besides the dismembered body parts in the water I don’t feel the film is incoherent or discombobulated. Even that is a great way of showing police negligence especially for minority communities and how they sometimes rather have a case wrapped up and put away then actually find true justice.
'malevolence' passing from one character to another was also how The Exorcist ended, curiously enough.
“Toxic masculinity” could be ascribed to the men engaging in unprotected sex orgies. It’s very much a side affect of them being male homosexual Vs female. Lesbian bed death is a thing for a reason.
Toxic masculinity came from the men's movement in the 80s, and was really about men not being able to understand and control their feelings and resultant behaviour, so I think your point is better than the one you are replying to. It might be interesting to think about the reaction to the film as the difference between the free expression liberals (the leather boys) vs the harm minimising liberals (the advocates and activists)@@cannibalholocaust3015
I never went to see it cus freaked me out cus of the subject matter, & according to the doc here I get the impression is basically garbage. Is easy to see is too politically incorrect to say one likes it for a public person. But you, & some others in this thread, say you liked it, so I don't know?
*Friedkin is a master of the psychological.*
It is a much deeper film than it first appears and demands multiple rewatches.
Mysterious and haunting and eerie. The real life coincidences and synchronicity make it even more interesting.
Although I totally understand the controversy surrounding "Cruising" at the time, I really love this movie for its reference to the gay leather subculture, its atmosphere - and its chilling murder scenes, which remind me of an Italian giallo back then from the 1970's. As a cinephile I prefer the era of NEW HOLLYWOOD - and "Cruising", although not recognized as a typical representative, breaths the spirit of it. As a gay man I agree with your critical point of view.
I feel the same way. It’s a very very ugly movie, but so are many Giallo’s. This is a sub culture that does not exist anymore, and Aids would hit the gay community so so so close to this movie being released. It made flagging a thing people otherwise didn’t know about, and depicted other unknown nomenclature and how stuff in the scene went down at the time. Idk, it’s a really interesting document of a world that just doesn’t exist anymore, and that part I really really appreciate it. the ending was jarring, but god damn we’re those murder scenes something else.
Have you ever slept with a woman ♀️👠?
“40 minutes of what would you would call Gay pornography”
"SUPREMELY BASED"
I always thought the implcation of the ending was that Stuart WAS the killer, but that Steve had also become a serial killer, taken Stuart's shades and hat, and therefore killed Ted, himself becoming a serial killer, which explains his impression of Patrick Bateman at the end of the movie.
I realise this doesn't explain all of the other bullshit that happens throughout, but I take what I can get.
I liked the fact that the film was indifferent. The problem that people seem to have with it’s lack of moral perspective seems rooted in Friedkin’s documentary style of letting the work just be there. Such a style allowed for the disturbing and unsettling style of Exorcist and Sorcerer. Perhaps in the case of Cruising it comes across as neglectful. On a side note: Figured that the ubiquity of the real killer was Friedkin’s take on AIDS. Could be anyone. You could be next. But everyone remains doing what they do.
One problem with he AIDS theory though, the epidemic didn't begin until a year after this film was released
@@jardinag It was officially acknowledged the following year, I'm pretty sure it was already wiping them out.
@@jakestroll6518 no one but a few doctors and and a handful of men in the gay community knew about Aids in 1979 when the film was made though.
No one knew about Aids at that point
I like this theory. It would explain why the first killer was the victim in the second murder and also why the killers M.O. was stabbing his victims in the back (a metaphor for gay sex). It would also explain why the camera lingers on Steve's girlfriend putting on the cap and aviator glasses at the end. She contracted HIV through Steve and has now become a potential killer as well. The only problem is I don't think Friedkin could've known about AIDS yet.
I’m guessing you’ve seen Friedkin’s black and white interview with Refn. It’s gold. Refn calls Only God Forgives a masterpiece and Friedkin rips him apart.
The best video of all time
Got a link?
@@foomantang ruclips.net/video/1jPWGEoyJHY/видео.html
@@foomantang ruclips.net/video/BOc__mvXcOg/видео.html
I've also heard the theory that Joe Spinell, one of the cops from the beginning of the movie, is really the killer. We see him at the club. He looks way too happy at that final murder scene. He played a deranged serial killer in the film Maniac (there his victims were women) released that same year. This actor also appeared in The Godfather movies. (Wow, he had a great agent!) Then again, it's been years since I've seen this movie, maybe I'm remembering some details wrong.
I definitely agree, the ending made me believe he was the killer
He's obviously a pretty sick guy between his rants about his ex wife, abusing the trans women.
Rocky as well
That actor played the killer in Maniac!
He definitely tried to cruise Officer Burns a few times. I think one totally legitimate interpretation is that there were many different gay serial killers operating at the same time.
Remember that Bates-- the dude Friedken interviewed who admitted to the bag killings, claimed he only remembered one murder. But he admitted to many others for a lighter sentence. My feeling is that Friedken believed there were others involved- possibly. So he inserted the ambiguity into the film on purpose to reflect the fact that we may never know how many gay killers there truly were at this time.
The incomprehensible plot was probably the result of
1.Cocaine
2. Friedkin getting way too smart and putting in all these red herrings without any real answer
3. More cocaine
4. He just wanted to film gay sex, everything else was secondary
I mean, considering how Friedkin's the same dude responsible for The Night They Raided Minsky's (1968) and The Boys in the Band (1970) before his big break in the 70's, ehhh it's a maybe....
@@osmanyousif7849 And Jade (1995)
...or William Friedkin tried to confuse the audience by taking different actors for the (three) murder scenes, which suggests, that everyone could be a killer....(?) For me, it's the best explanation.
Cocaine abuse sounds like a plausible theory, lol! Did he have any background in making gay or mystery movies? If he wanted to make a gay mystery movie, he should have based it on gay mystery novels, such as the David Brandstetter series.
I never think of the movie as incomprehensible. Cleary their are supposed to be multiple killers. I do think Freidkin was trying to be to clever and vague/opaque of who the killer was. I understand the frustration people find with it, but it seems incredibly obvious that there are multiple killers
I'd read an interview with William Friedkin, where he explains that the possible multiple killer theme in CRUISING was similar to the concept of a 'Possessing Evil Spirit' similar to THE EXCORCIST, that Friedkin also directed.
The Demonic Spirit jumps from person to person, perpetuates the violence/murder, then jumps into another person - possibly, someone who kills the earlier Killer.
This theme of a spirit jumping into another person was also present at the end of TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA - which was also directed by Friedkin.
It was a interesting theme - although, it doesn't explain all the inconsistencies in CRUISING.
Interestingly, from some articles by Gay Writers that I'd read, the Gay Community seems to have re-considered it's negative judgement on CRUISING.
Some older Gays see it as a slice of Decadent Nostalgia for Pre-AIDS Gay NYC Nightlife - while some younger Gays don't think that the movie was a judgement on Gay People at all, it was just a (possibly Supernatural) Thriller/Crime Movie that just happened to take place in the Gay Leather Scene in late 1970's NYC.
The epitome of a "Time Capsule" film. Just by virtue of when it existed
Yeah, I think in the end, Friedkin did this movie because he's attracted to "edgy" subject matter like "The Exorcist", etc. Friedkin liked making confrontational movies, throwing stuff at you that may make you uncomfortable. He obviously wasn't thinking about the sociological implications of the movie, he just wanted to make an edgy crime flick. But the artist in him did like making the killer's identity and even Al Pacino's character's true identity, ambiguous.
Well said.
One thing I'll say I appreciate about this video is the historical context you provide. So often with video essayists, it seems like the actual context - whether historical, cultural, or psychological - is glossed over to avoid derailing the essayist's claims. I also like the fact that you humanize the people you critique. If it had been other essayists, I feel like they would've taken one look at this movie, its director, the actors etc and simply tarred and feathered them. In this, you try to understand their position, but you don't exonerate them either.
Sidenote, I enjoyed Dressed to Kill when I watched it, but I had no idea of any of the history at the time when it was released. I knew of Harvey Milk, just not the time of his death, although I didn't know of Prop 8. I still think it's a good film, but I can definitely understand and empathize with people who felt hurt and angry by its depiction of trans people.
I appreciate it! I think especially when it comes to representation, historical context is everything. I have heard many discuss "cancel culture" and what not when it comes to films such as Dressed To Kill, but their flippancy is usually due to not understanding said context.
@@MacabreStorytellingNot sure if you will see this, but I had one question about the police gay bashing, and one comment about the CA anti gay teacher bill.
I knew the mafia could be involved in quasi legal stuff like porn films (Deep Throat) and gay bars, and you mentioned they owned several near the start here. So how did cops get away with beating patrons as the mafia would have paid protection to the police to keep those bars open, unraided and safe. Would police going against the mafia after getting protection money find themselves in danger of getting taken out for going against the families?
One thing you didn’t mention about the failure of the anti-gay teacher bill so perhaps you didn’t know was it’s connection to All in the Family. All in the Family was a CBS sitcom that dealt with mature subjects and was the number one show many years in the 70s. It had vast ratings and was universally known and loved, back when there were only 3 networks (+ pbs). They reran, the night before the referendum, an All in the Family episode that was VERY sympathetic to gays. It featured two lesbian teachers who loved each other deeply and one was Edith’s cousin and she had passed before the show opened. Edith and her prejudiced husband Archie were there for the funeral. Edith doesn’t completely understand gay love, but she understands that it is love and accepts it. Archie doesn’t but because he loves Edith, he does accept it too. This would have been huge, the night before this major vote. Again, this show was huge, maybe ten or twenty times as big as Game of Thrones became during its heyday.
@@RLucas3000
That was an Outstanding point you made.
👏👏👏
And, I concur. It very well may have made that pivotal decision!
The plot is a huge mess but it's definitely not a mistake that all he killers look like Al Pacino
pacino doing gay dancing needs to be a meme.
I can’t help but have a hunch that Friedkin had approached this movie like “The Exorcist” - as a stranger in a strange land. The idea of immersing a character into a completely foriegn situation and watching as they try to gain a footing into a situation that may be viscerally offbeat & abhorrent while trying to reconcile their own beliefs, feelings, rearing (no pun intended) - & navigate it without tipping your reservations or shaky identity to your opponent might be what he had in mind.
Obligatory pedantry: it's pronounced "Grennitch" :D
I'm very excited to watch this, this film definitely needs to be talked about more. Such a fascinating mess.
Man, this is great analysis. You have raised the bar with this one and no mistake. Consider my hat doffed!
Tip: consider using "comprised" in place of "consisted of". It's snappier, and you won't have to concern yourself with that pesky "of".
--- TRUE . . . but the quality of the essay makes the error forgivable!
Well I figured in the end Pacino's character killed his neighbor because he was starting to like him and felt just like the original killer that his neighbor made Pacino like him which comes back to the killer saying, "you made me do that". Plus the hat, jacket and mirror shades that his girlfriend found also points to Pacino becoming the new killer.
Great Video! The part where the NYPD used a massive man with a cowboy hat to slap the suspects almost killed me. It's surreal!
And the last part where you talk about history and proposition 6 was very informative and glued me on the screen.
Ps: English is not my native language, so, im sorry for any mistakes.
Your English is lovely 👍
Not only is it surreal, it’s absolutely true. They really did stuff like that back then. Look it up.
that was the best part, made me choke my chicken.
i dont care about haters I liked this movie .
You would, wouldn’t you given your name 😂😅
Really fascinating history! Well done!!
Well, this sounds like a very uncomfortable film
On a lighter note, the best Pacino film is obviously the comedic masterpiece "Jack and Jill," for how else can one describe the transcendent brilliance that brought us "Dunk-a-Cino"? (The worst, equally obviously, is The Godfather Part II, widely regarded as one of the worst cinematic experiences made by human hands, topped only by the arguable exception of its eponymous predecessor.)
Declaimer: I was not paid off by a certain "Turk" to write this, I assure you. This is a perfectly legitimate comment, strictly a personally held opinion rather transacted business.
Does everybody have their yellow bandanas ready?
Was he gay or was he just deeply closeted?
While I don't think Franco had any intentional malice toward queer men and I kind of respect for unabashedly presenting men having intercourse on screen (something very rarely done) I think this movie like your point ultimately was released in a very poor time and did more harm than good, similar to other problematic subjects in media such as the trans serial killer trope or poorly thought out race metaphor in Detroit Become Human or RWBY, even if you don't intend to portray a marginalized group in a poor light you have to mindful of other groups history and their culture and how they could feed into a potential bigoted persons world-view.
what harm do you think it did? I keep hearing that about this film but I legitimately cant think of what it did. I do know that there were a few very pro gay films to come out of Hollywood after this one, so I struggle to see any damage=
I think Tom Hanks portrayal of an aids carrier was far more detrimental to the gay community. I won’t touch eggs anymore, not even if they’re poached
I haven't even seen this movie but I'm watching regardless cause you make great content
Never heard about this movie before today, great video and history on the topic
I love friedkin‘s movies but I can see why Al Pacino might have been frustrated with him. Friedkin is known for his rather intense way of shooting and also unconventional. Pacino is a naturally trained actor and I think he likes you know to know what the fuck he’s doing lol and friedkin kind of has a habit of going with the flow and shooting without completed Scripts.
The "make it up as we go along" method really seems to be a high-risk high-reward sort of thing. Due to a snaggle in how it was being funded David Cronenberg had to start filming Scanners before the script was finished and it turned out amazingly and essentially kicked off what most consider to be his classic period as one of the greatest creators in the history of horror cinema. Granted that same snaggle also meant he had to shoot the entire thing in less than two months, so he couldn't exactly afford to dawdle and shoot extraneous scenes like Friedkin is wont to do.
I heard Friedken say he didnt use storyboards either. Crazy!
Directors can have a big ego but Pacino is the best no matter what the hell Friedkin's opinions were.
I love how confusing the movie is to normies.
God, why do I get the feeling that this guy is that coworker that everyone just wants to tell to shut up but doesn’t know how to do it professionally? He’s the guy that pretends he’s profound while simply using words soup and using the age old “use your imagination. It isn’t my job to educate you.” I thought douche bags like this only recently infiltrated Hollywood, but it turns out that they’ve been there for a while.
I've felt for some time now that films like The French Connection and The Excorcist were a result of everything other than Friedkin.
What a great analysis of and commentary on this film. You're a very talented critic and storyteller. TBH I still love watching this film, but I could never quite put it together. Now I realize it's because the film can't be put together, and I know why. Incidentally I'm also a big Bond fan, and I never liked Spectre but couldn't really pin down my dissatisfaction. You gave me clarity on that one too.
I don’t know how you will take this but I mean it as a good thing but you are my favorite youtuber to go to bed to. Like I’ll play the same video each night until I get thru it thru the whole week. Your voice is perfect for me 😂 anyways goodnight g
❤
Honestly I had never heard of this movie before but I found this very interesting and insightful. Kudos.
Great analysis! I was aware of the Paul Bateson murder case from seeing documentaries on The Exorcist but the connection to Cruising is interesting. All I saw of this film was the scene where James Remar and his bulge answer the apartment door, I'll have to watch it all at some point.
Based scene
I never saw the film, but all of that local TV footage from my teenage years brings back lots of memories. (Dennis Richmond is still my all-time favorite news anchor.)
This was very nice, enjoyed the laughing Pacino gag quite a bit
This is so long ago yet so much of the drama feels like this movie came out like 2 years ago. Honestly it's good to have a movie not make complete sense every once in awhile.
Ahhhhhh, the good old Green Witch village. I remember it well.
😂😂😂
In reality, there was not one serial killer. But several. Between the drugs, blackmail, the mob. That was what the case was about. The police concluded that was more than one killer.
One of my fave movies of all time ! Saw it several times in the theater on release just to watch the audience reactions - I have seen it over 50 times - I watch it every time I need a fix of that gritty 70's NYC feel- I went to many of the bars in the film starting when I was 17 back in 1978 visiting from Canada - My fave bar was The Anvil
This is the BEST explanation of this film I have ever read ! Fantastic job Macabre. I feel the making of this film, Al Pacino's attitude towards Friedkin along with the protests that damaged the shoot that he just gave up in the editing room. He basically thought, "Fuck it all" and went on to look for his next project.
This was EXCELLENT! Thank you!!
17:58 picture on the top of the bulletin board looks like De Niro in Taxi Driver
Interesting catch on the killers. I had honestly thought it was only the one killer when I watched it recently
Great video man! I actually really enjoyed this movie despite its obvious flaws. I enjoy a lot of Friedkkns like the French connection and cruising and sorcerer and to live and die in LA. His movies are usually really dark and just have this really mean nasty kind of feel to them that I personally kind of like. And his movies usually tend to have main characters who aren’t good guys and have a dark side and I think cruising is another example of that.
And as a gay dude I was actually shocked watching this a few years ago. I can’t imagine audiences in 1980 watching this in theaters LOL it’s just a shame that it was kind of at the wrong time to release it.
Giving new meaning to dunkaccino.
Is there a version with the original material?
Great video man, even as someone who loves the movie, despite it's many flaws, you gave a lot insight to the film and the overall production and impact i was only half aware of
Also, if you're looking for Cruising, but done better(or at least more coherently), I'd highly recommend the french film Knife + Heart, it's like Cruising, but directed by Dario Argento
It's a one-of-a-kind abstract thriller, and no amount of smarmy put-downs do it any harm.
I remember I heard Cruising being offhandedly mentioned on a podcast once, and since then I had always wanted to watch it. I had hoped that maybe, just maybe it was a film that would depict the blatant metaphor of the killer being society who preys on gay men while they are literally forced into the shadows. It wasn’t. Steve Burns was such a flat and boring protagonist, Servino was also totally one dimensional, and the killer(s? Not even sure about that) was exactly the same. Which is something that really confuses me, because in 1977 Friedkin made one of my favourite films of all-time, Sorcerer. The reason I love Sorcerer is that the characters have explicit motivations and backstories, which is completely absent from Cruising. Like you mentioned the stuff with his dad is almost thrown in because they needed to motivate him to do the action of the film. “You made me do that” slowly became more and more aggravating for me, it felt like a justification for the senseless violence I’d had to endure for the past hour. Thank you for making this video, I was excited for this and you did not disappoint. Looking forward to any of your future work!
It’d be hard to remake given it’s such a unique moment and place in history for the setting (pre aids, post stonewall New York)
@@conorl1894 Not necessarily, if you look at the history of AIDS (and what the original name for it was) American society was still homophobic, and still is now. If anything you could talk even more explicitly about society oppressing LGBTQ+ people, as we have more information about the homophobic movements of the past and how they’re related to the present. All you’d need is a competent writer!
This may be your best work yet. Your channel is wholly underappreciated.
❤️
An excellent video of a film I didn't know existed.
The film Cruising was protested by so-called gay leaders-It was well liked by the leathermen bdsm subculture. Few of those guys in the club scenes were actors, they were just doing their thing.
It was insane activists who showed their true colors on free speech-Ok for their politics, not for anyone who they misguidedly thought was against their politics.
A lot about Cruising is disturbing. Only some of it from the actual film.
Eh this seems like a shallow reading of the controversy.
And 40 years later, they still haven’t changed.
Another great analysis, Mac!
The things you've said about the gay community and media like this can also be said about the trans community and the media depicting them. You already mentioned Dressed to Kill - there's also Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Trans people were (and still are, in some cases unfortunately) always depicted as either mentally unstable individuals ready to dish out violence or comedic punchlines that also double as gay jokes.
This is absurd. The majority of trans depictions are not negative what are you talking about? An ambiguous reference in Silence of the Lambs 30 years ago? And that's an issue btw. Everyone else gets to be a villain anyway so why wouldn't trans people? Frankly the death threats I see them hurling at women feminists on twitter tells me they're just as prone to tyranny as any other group with a podium.
@@jakestroll6518 Never mentioned Silence of the Lambs because I don't count Buffalo Bill as trans. He thought he was due to severe trauma and self-hatred. The idea of being trans is also shown to be neutral/mundane in that film - plus, the mention came and went because it's a part of the fleshing out of Bill's motivation. It didn't need to be dragged out and zeroed-in on to have a forced joke or opinion piece. It's just there as one of the things explaining the villain.
And I've no doubt in my mind that trans activists on Twitter aren't doing their community any favors. What I've also seen there are my fellow women hurl nothing but insults about men. I've also seen my fellow non-white people on there saying nothing nice about white people in general. Twitter is a podium for the worst vocal minorities of EVERY community you can think of, so that's a pretty weak example.
@@MistyTheFangirlyLady Twitter is honestly the best example of how anybody can be a villainous person. It doesn't make sense yet that place enables the worse takes by it's very nature. Meaning to get some sort of "pop" you gotta slide into evil. Or else you serious avoid all that by only posting what you need to post or being a bystander to it all.
@@MistyTheFangirlyLady I give a kind of a slack to "Ace Ventura:Pet Detective" because unlike "Dressed to Kill" where the whole point is [redacted for spoilers] having gender disforia makes him/her have mental issues, envy "realer" women and kill, "Ace Ventura" one has a psycho killer who just changes gender as METHOD to disappear into the identity of a real existing woman (there is Ace discovering that she disappeared during a nature walk and then came back, supposedly already being the killer passing for her) and do his (and I think it is made clear that he sees himself as a his old him and being a she is but a cover) revenge...
That being said, and not wanting to be self-contradictory, although the circunstances are different, it is PLAYED plot/humour-wise as a normal trans situation aside from the scene where Ace is trying to figure out the connection between [redacted male for spoilers] and [redacted female for spoilers] (which is the only proof that the woman exists way before the case and that the sex change was some sort of "means to an end" convenience issue). There is no other reference after that scene that [redacted female for spoilers] existed (or is still alive somewhere aside her post-surgery copy? Nothing is made of it!), nothing on telling her family she's actually be gone for a long while, nothing about finding her body (that could have helped Ace's final reveal case), nothing. And yes, after the reveal of the lady having disappeared and then suspiciously coming back it is pretty much played as "IT'S A MAN!" (and doubling as gay jokes as you say) humour and treated not too distinct from a normal trans situation (as understood by a "cis" straight comedian) although it is different plot-wise and I wouldn't describe that film's villain as a transsexual identification-wise (I think the final scene makes clear he still sees himself as the disgraced pre-surgery man and there's not even split personalities, it is a person under a surgical disguise). Which is why I separate it from a transphobic film but I can't deny it can give vibes of it and can't criticise those who object to it on transphobic grounds.
Holy shit! Is Ted the guy from Squirm?
Enjoy all of your work but this is next level. Really well done
❤️
I wonder what would have happened if the murders were never shown on screen and only the police investigating it. I mean, there are a lot of detective movies, tv show, games, etc where the murders are never shown and you have to use your imagionation in order to visuallise what the detectives deduced in order to ID and catch the killers.
Why are your videos not being recommended to me?? They never show up on my home feed or on the recommended tab; i have to come check out your channel every so often to find em even though i am subscribed.
I’m so good YT doesn’t think it’s fair if they rec my stuff.
Great analysis. You are genius.
Super awesome very well presented! I totally agree but in the end these same reasons are why I think it’s an excellent film, and very successful; it is exactly as you say, an exploration of his fascination in coincidence and ‘reading tea leaves’ when interpreting the coincidence. What could it “mean” and what does it “point to” that I otherwise was unaware of. And this is what the film is. It is a study of ambiguity, not an attempt at ambiguity or a failure of ambiguity. It is a study of ambiguity and how it is interpreted when one is forced to do so. I would argue that perhaps your argument is based in a literary idea of ‘primitive narrative’ when the film is crafted to be a cinematic exploration of the production of meaning and ‘text’ in a post-structural method. It is for lack of better words, and despite a term that I dislike for its generality, it is a ‘postmodern’ visual work and not a traditional literary work expressed in film. It is a cinematic ‘setting-in-motion’ of the act of interpretation. Now, the merits of that type of distinction have been in debate since art left the church so that can’t be concluded. But to me this is a demonstration of why the film is so prone to the scandal of its interpretation. And this is why the financial powers that be knew the long game; the temporal interpretation was where the value as a creative asset was commercially.
Outro sounded like I left Diablo 2 running in the background
The multiple different killers, actors and inconsistencies are Al Pacino going insane, or Pacino being the killer lying on his rapports to his boss, and we're seeing the movie from his bosses perspective ... maybe ?
It looked more like the director cheating, putting different actors to play the role of the murderer, but with the intention of framing Al Pacino as the real killer.
Really interesting, intensively researched, and intelligently argued--I commend our host for this excellent upload. 'Cruising' is a film I largely dislike, recognizing it as fundamentally homophobic, though Friedkin and team had every right to make it, its distributors and exhibitors every right to show it, and its audiences every right to see it. But as aptly demonstrated here, the movie is a narrative and thematic muddle, with its strong implications that merely immersing oneself in the gay male underworld could provoke a latent homosexual to become a brutal, merciless murderer, as I interpret the film's conclusion to suggest. On the other hand, the film ironically preserves some of this subculture at that particular historical moment and place, and spotting gay porn performer Eric Ryan at 44:03 supports Friedkin's assertion that he documented graphic sexual acts on the set.
I discovered this when I was 15 in 2007 and Netflix first introduced live streaming. Growing up knowing Pacino for The Godfather and all his post-80s roles, it was...an interesting expereince
Although Friedkin never refers to it, I've heard that he was completely coked out by the time he made Cruising (along with a LOT of Hollywood artists at the end of the 1970's). That would explain Cruising and his subsequent film, Deal of the Century, because I never understood how the same filmmaker who made The French Connection and The Exorcist could make anything like Cruising.
Thank you for your video though! I've only seen it once or twice...and I never understood it.
Also, the Reagan Administration did try to do something about AIDS: they shut down the San Francisco bath houses when they figured out the virus was coming from them, but the gays rioted until the gov't backed off (this was also noted in Randy Shilts' great book on the epidemic , And The Band Played On). In 1987, the Federal Gov't spent $7 billion on breast cancer and spent $77 billion on AIDS, so it's not like AIDS wasn't addressed. Everyone lived in fear back then.
Reagan did nothing for AIDS sufferers the first few years- wouldn't even refer to it.
The federal executive in the form of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Administration, which was (ostensibly) built on ideas of smaller government and slow to action on matters of public health, did not go so far as to (attempt to) shut down bathhouses in San Francisco, CA. Reagan did not acknowledge the epidemic, either behind the scenes or publicly as POTUS, through the whole of the early-to-mid 1980’s. He forbade even his Surgeon General, Press Secretary, and his staffers from addressing it. (HIV/AIDS as a political issue was a hot potato, totally “lose/lose.” Inaction was the default conservative position.) The late democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, then Mayor of the city of San Francisco, is the figure responsible for those efforts. She and her colleagues at the city’s Department of Public Health fought to close the bathhouses down in 1984. And the figures on both sides of that battle were liberals, one and all of them. Reagan conceivably could’ve had the means, motive and authority to act in such a specific manner when he was California’s governor, of course, but there was no epidemic of HIV/AIDS anywhere in the habited world to combat (yet) then. What’s more, the federal government will in 2023 have spent $28 billion in the previous twelve months. They have never, in 42 years, spent such a massive sum-even if you were adjusting for inflation, which you didn’t specify in your comment-let alone in 1987, when public sentiment was less than compassionate on the issue. Even now, they only spend (comparatively) so much because George W Bush’s administration acted to build five categories of HIV/AIDS funding into existing programs of diplomatic and humanitarian foreign aid,specifically in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1987, the year you cited, the federal government spent significantly less than $400 million in both, mandatory and discretionary spending. No one has ever prioritised the AIDS epidemic above breast cancer-especially not in the 1980’s! I don’t know if you tend to take a contrarian or reactionary position on these kinds of issues, or if you really were just mistaken about some of these facts, so I wanted to reply.
*The problem with the protests against this film was because it was **_exactly, 100% accurate,_** and depicts the NYC Gay community as it saw what we now refer to as HIV, going from it's very old "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Disorder), to the new "AIDS" designation. The spreading of GRID into AIDS was **_directly_** attributable to the unbelievably crazed leather subset of the gay community. When the leather subgroup became mainstream, and the sexual craven behaviour became mainstream with it, GRID spread like fire, and morphed into HIV/AIDS. Whil the medical community started to recognize this is late 1980, the gay community and the general public didn't really become aware of it until late 1981 to mid 1982. By 1983, AIDS was a full blown epidemic on track to infect it's first million people by 1986, in NYC alone. This movie generated a lot of bad blood (no wordplay intended) outside the gay community because of AIDS - with local government and medical communities seriously discussing forcible isolation by early 1984.*
*The entire period sucked.*
13:30
A sequel to _Jumper (2008)_
I like Cruising a lot and like how it doesn't really take an obvious side. Yeah it's weird but it just tells a story of murders taking place in a specific community to me. Not every movie needs a message. Besides I don't feel the movie makes the killer(s) out to be a hero or a sympathetic person.
So to me it's not made to screw over gay people..
As of recent events this video has aged extremely well and while I wish more time could have been dedicated to troublesome portrayals of queer men this is still a very solid informative videp
Would you ever want to do a video on night warning?(butcher, baker, nightmare maker)
This is a high effort video that I’m surprised only has 30k views
Not the most high traffic subject. Glad you enjoyed!
Overall I do enjoy this movie and how open to interpretation it is. I wish that was done intentionally though by Friedkin and not just figuring it out as he went which is what it appears to be.
All the killers have similar physical attributes and they wear the same attire showing that being a serial killer in this universe is more of them almost being possessed compared to the concrete and being a killer gets passed along (think of the overdubs of the father's voice too). I feel like he borrowed themes from the Exorcist.
I do think there's some good directorial decisions though which make it a good thriller. One scene that comes to mind is when Steve knocks on his neighbors door and the roommate answers. I was really surprised because we don't see any violence from Steve really the entire movie at this point but the roommate knows exactly what type of guy he is. Makes you question how reliable Steve's narrative is.
There's a lot to unpack with this movie and I think you did a good job with your analysis.
A brilliant film. I saw it when it was released and those heavy leather clubs are a completely different world. They played brilliant music before all the other clubs.
I just finished AHS:NYC. If you haven’t seen this, it’s like a replay of a lot of the themes in Cruising and actual events. But, the other thing stalking the gay community was HIV and gave a compelling portrayal IMHO. I found Cruising from that as the first AHS:NYC episode uses a song from the soundtrack.
Midway through so you might address this, but there is only one killer, the changing actor is a stylistic choice
First saw this movie 10 years ago and always found it fascinating for how little sense it made and also for Al Pacino in his weirdest role ever. I think the clothing aspect of the movie is overlooked, all of the possible killers not only wear the same aviator shades and the police hat, but they also wear dark pants, light blue shirt, some black undershirt and the same biker leather jacket. I've theorized about Karen Allen's final scene where she put on the killer outfit as some sort of Aids metaphor but that's like, going too far into trying to give meaning to a movie that probably has no real meaning and it was the result of Friedkin being a total hack for this particular film after realizing how much it sucks. I love Friedkin and I kinda hate to like Cruising.
While I see the faults in Cruising I do sorta like it. Primarily because the depiction of the gay community is actually more positive than the NYPD. The NYPD in this movie comes across as abusive and incompetent(probably realistic for 1980). The gay leather bar types mostly look like guys trying to have a good time but who have to deal with pressures from two directions the unknown serial killer and the police. The main fault in my view is that Pacino comes across as too passive an observer. He's not engaged either way. Plus the music is pretty good.
I attribute the current climate of unrest in places like SoCal to the rise and fall of groups who act in private and now are in front of everyone. The etiquette used to require safety and dignity but nobody could tell if it is coming from a jail cell or the wrong side of the street. It isn't about liberation if it is darkness and hiding in shadows.
I was really amused by how shades, a hat and a cigarette are supposed to render the killer(s) completely unrecognisable to the audience.
As somebody in the NYC area, it's pronounced "gren-itch" for Greenwich. Just a heads up
16:28 that is the correct response to this information lol
RUclips used to have a Barbie Doll version of this film. A NYU film student project with many Ken Dolls. Now lost forever b/c I cannot find it.
I found this video essay after watching the movie. At first, I worried that I failed to pay attention to the plot. Watching this helped me feel relieved. Glad to know other people left the movie feeling just as confused as I did.
Thanks Mac! I have always wanted to know what was up with this movie, but I did not want to watch it.
The more and more I play Elden Ring the more and more I realize how this game's boss fights were never balanced before release.
Oh yeah and Cruising seems meh
I think it's important to consider Friedkin as part of the new Hollywood movement, which helps us understand why he chose to take such a free wheeling approach to the narrative. These movies seek to differentiate themselves from the more staid narrative films of the hayes era and erupt in kind of postmodern decadence that gives primacy to tone, mood and fragmented storytelling over and above linear narrative. I don't think the story of cruising is that confusing? The idea that it isn't satisfying or is inherently confusing because it doesn't provide a clean ending is perhaps missing the point?
Is it vague or is it playing with narrative? Does it have to have a set, clear outcome? In many ways, the narrative of the film represents the uncertainty of the bag murders. The man who was convicted of the bag murders never truly confessed to those extra murders except under duress and with the option for a reduced sentence if he admitted guilt.
Your videos are always fantastic and that’s why I subscribed last month! I will never not enjoy your uploads. As a queer dude, this video is spectacular.
❤️
I think that the incoherence of the edit might be tied to the protests going on during filming. Since there were so many scenes disrupted during filming, they might not have had important plot scenes to put _in_ the film when they were cutting it. Sure, the 40 minutes cut for the MPAA might have been exactly what Friedkin claims it is, but footage lost due to crowd noise, people running through the set, rocks being thrown, light being used to distract actors, could add up to not being in the film because the scenes were unavailable. They weren't "cut" from the edit, because they were unusable _for_ the edit.
Greenwich is Pronounced "Gren-ich".
This is a really thorough and thoughtful analysis, kudos!
I'd pay a lot to see the original cut.
I feel like the Polish film "Project Hyacinth" that is on Netflix is an interesting response to this. It is also based in the 1980s, about a serial killer killing gay men. And when a cop goes undercover to investigate, he starts to question his own sexuality (also, daddy issues). But the comparisons stop there because Hyacinth has something political to say about it.
I had the same impression when I saw "Project Hyacinth" on Netflix.
What a fascinating video essay! Many thanks for your efforts
Cruising is one of those movies where I wouldn't mind seeing a remake. I agree with you about the movie being indifferent on its subject matter. I believe the indifference could've been used more effectively if it was a personality trait of Al Pacino's cop character. Now I haven't read the novel and I'm just spewing out my own fanfic ideas (that could possibly improve upon the original) if a Cruising remake were to happen.
Let's just say this Cruising remake deals with the same conflict from the original and Al Pacino's cop character is being sent undercover to investigate. It could be plausible to have the cop character being introduced as someone who is indifferent and at times ignorant about the gay community. Maybe throughout the investigation, the cop gains knowledge about a world he previously knew little to nothing about. (For example, the political aspect you mentioned, dealing with homophobia, police brutality, and personal drama within the gay community itself.) By the end, the cop character either takes a more sympathetic or more ignorant stance based on his experience of the investigation.
As far as finding out who the killer is, you could base the killer off of Paul Bateson (for an isolated incident approach) or Dan White (for a corrupt political approach like Chinatown). But I think taking the approach of David Fincher's Zodiac and leaving the killer ambiguous would suit better since I feel like Cruising should've been about a cop's personal journey and letting the audience dwell on how they would've acted in this scenario.
I actually disliked the 'ambiguity' of "Zodiac", altho I suppose one can't entirely blame the film-makers; after all, there was no actual 'arrest' made in the real-life case. But compare it with "Silence of the Lambs", wherein Jodie Foster is locked in an uber-tense "showdown' scenario, and kills "Buffalo Bill' (in self-defense) in the nick of time. There is a build-up of tension, followed by a cathartic climax wherein good triumphs in the end.
In a better movie, the confused nature of who the killer is would be a reflection of the police's ambivalence to discovering the truth. The earlier (most likely) unrelated murder being connected allowing them to stop investing the earlier case... which could very well be what happened with the Bag Murder when a good enough suspect let them stop going through the motions of caring. The constantly shifting identity of the killer being symbolic of the police just looking for anyone who fit.
I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't part of the confused mess of thinking that went into the film, where Friedman had a bunch of ideas but ultimately never decided on one to lead with and tried to hide behind "letting the audience decide".
I maintain that the reason this movie was made was the failure of Sorcerer at the box office. It's an amazing film that had the bad luck to come out around the same time as another film.... Star Wars.
Just because you watched Making of Cruising and know what's behind the curtain, doesn't mean that Burns pursuing Stuart disregards all the previous switcheroos.
Regular viewer most certainly won't see the constant switching or recognize the voice dub.
It's not "incomprehensible."
Calling it "incomprehensible" is just lazy criticism. It's a modern noir film about ambigous moral indenties, only it expands it out even further to ambigous sexuality as well. The scene in the park where Pacino and the suspect mirror each others movements is a pretty clear confirmation of the films themes or ambiguity and duality.
I’d like to see this film made again; same time span , but addressing sociopolitical issues that Friedkin veered away from. And, of course, with a cohesive plot.
Great essay, really enjoyed it! Came to scroll through but couldn't stop watching.
I liked the movie until the end ruined it, what the flying hell into a rolling cookie was that ending?
Anyway, I thought it was a brace movie, showing things as they are, and going all the way with it. Not presenting a group in a overly positive way does not mean it's anti-that-group. furthers, It showed the audience the injustice that they had to go through, and humanized characters that were vilenise In a lot of people minds back then, and even now. I do think that the real insanity was people trying to stop an artist from expressing himself, thats really fd up, and a real concern. The fact that you didn't get what William think about the movie and he is vague about it might show that there is more to the movie for him then we will know. The thing about the film going so haywire - can someone really get a good movie while all those things in the background are going on? the amount of pressure and everything... I'm surprised it even turned out the way it is. So again, really a super brave movie, the way the movie shows the s&m clubs and what's going on is truly amazing and unique, this movie should get more respect then it did, it did gain some over the years and I hope it will keep gaining more. Thanks!