CRUISING
Terms:
Homosexual/Gay: Terms indicating sexual orientation. Again there is an indication of a biological commitment vs. a life style. The term basically indicates an orientation or eroticism of people of the same sex. Kinsey denied people were homosexual or heterosexual but argued there were degrees.
Homophobic: A fear of people attracted to people of the same sex
S/M; S&M Sado-masochism: A sexual orientation in which people eroticize the giving or taking of pain. A distinction is generally drawn between people who are in a relationship of S&M as opposed to people who are simply sadistic or masochistic without regard for the other person.
Sadist/masochist; Top/bottom: Traditionally sadists are people who derive sexual satisfaction from inflicting pain; masochists derive sexual satisfaction from receiving pain. In the distinction made earlier, sadomasochism is the involvement of two or more people in acts which are consensual, often rather elaborate fantasy situations complete with code words and so on. In these cases, the terms “top” and “bottom” are used rather than “sadist” and masochist”
Prejudice: Basically “pre-judging”- using a concept about a group, and applying it to individual members of the group. We have talked about this before in 2 contexts: (a) the nature of culture and that cultures are not rigid with everyone behaving the same, but that there are diversities in behavior in any culture and (b) the questions that arose with the Charlie Chan movies and other ethnic minorities where the idea of “prejudice” occurs in assigning roles and so on.
Discrimination: Originally a word to show a person had “taste” and wouldn’t accept just anything. Later it indicated a negative trait in the idea that one didn’t choose people because of the membership in certain “biologically determined” groups (sex, race, sexual orientation).
Cruising: Walking around looking for someone to have sex with. Also what police do in patrol cars.
BEFORE THE FILM
Film deals with gay SM - a rather small, but vocal and symbolically obvious minority. Whips, chains and leather are the markers of the group.
Caused riots in NY when being made among the gay population. Probably based on the problems of (a) whether film would lead people to believe that all gays were into SM and (b) that there is a question about the sexual orientation of the killer and (c) there was a question whether thi film might not spark a set of gay killings (a kind of copy cat killer). Depiction of police leads one to wonder that the police didn’t riot over the film.
Similar things happened with Silence of the Lambs with which this film has many parallels. Demme was attacked for making a film in which his serial killer “Buffalo Bill” a gay guy. The pressure was so great that in atonement he made Philadelphia. The atonement should have been for making a lousy picture in “Silence of the Lambs”. Although it is hard to know whether yet another “feel good” (this time pro gay) movie with Tom Hanks (Philadelphia) should count as “atonement” or another crime.
Both films were taken as homophobic.
What does that mean?
Several years ago the American Psychiatric Association said in effect “homosexuality is not deviant”. Nowhere in the decision did they decide what “deviant” meant. “Homophobic” is likewise, a word thrown around with much PC. Much of PC is a kind of “phatic communion” a kind of speech in which people say things that are already known and agreed to. It is the act of saying things that is important, rather than what one says.
Depictions of minorities in film – whether ethnic, sexual (or God forbid) political always raises some social problems. Southern sheriffs are not all rednecks and children are rarely if ever smarter than their parents, although films would have most of us believe otherwise. The discussion and sanitizing of social problems arrives as early as silents like Intolerance and Broken Blossoms and continues through films like Gentlemen’s Agreement and Guess Who is Coming to Dinner.
The depiction of gays was relegated to either comic parts or doomed people. Not until the late 50’s early 60’s did sexual minorities (except possibly in Europe with M) become a topic of film discussion. (see The Celluloid Closet) Hence a totally ignored group like SM was likely to have been wary of the problems of the depiction of the group, although large numbers of NY’ gay SM community participated in the making of the film. The Bar (Mineshaft) opted out of the film and one was recreated for the film.
There is some attempt in the film to “educate and inform” the audience about some aspects of SM, although the life style is pretty much left to the viewers imagination.
Title comes from the concept of “cruising” tricks or pick-ups, but the film is far more sinister.
The film is complexly “noir”. Noir films are marked by a number of events:
Normal people lead astray by chance,
Femme fatales
Dangerous city
It is also typified by duplicity, high key lighting, shadows, mirrors and reflections in mirrors, frames within frames, bars across people – especially faces. Cruising is in color; hence some of the style of the black and white film is gone. As any genre develops, there are twists and turns in the route. Original noirs which were called that when seen by the French after WWII where a certain bleakness and cynicism appear from what was thought to be the land of the Busby Berkely musicals. Of course, the French (as usual) must have missed a lot of earlier films because many o these are bleak and rather foreboding in nature. Most however, do not have the feeling of doom, the dark city and the specific lighting associated with noir films
Early noirs have young femme fatales, but these yield to older women in films like Sunset Blvd. Here noir is stood on its head and the femme fatale becomes male, as does the victim. This film has been called “homophobic and inaccurate”. Is it?
Does disliking something make you “afraid” of it (i.e. phobic)? Is the case here one of simple “dislike”? Is it reasonable to assume that the only reason that people disapprove of homosexuality is because they fear that underneath they are homosexual? That is nonsense.
Most people have little knowledge of who is and who isn’t gay, and less about the life style. SM is even less well known and gay SM even less. One wonders about how anyone knows whether the film is inaccurate! Especially given the number of actual gay SM participants are in the film.
The classification of people by some characteristic is not automatic. B&D (bondage and discipline) for example is arguably a part of SM or something different. Classifications are always open to debate.
There is however, a darker side to the film that is rooted in another problem about homophobia.
AFTER THE FILM
Is the film “noir” How so?
Lighting
City is dark, gritty. City is dangerous.
This is a "noir" film in color. Blues predominate but dark shadows are also often seen. There is a stong contrast between the lighting in the scenes having to do with sexuality (dark) and those ouside (usually brighter).
Charactters are frequently lit from behind so that we see the shadowed side of the face, hiding as it were, the real person.
Duplicity
Film is rampant with duplicity. Police officers not police – in the discussion between the transvestite and Paul Sorvino (Capt. Edelson) when accusing the 2 police in the radio car of forcing sex, Sorvino says there are more fake police on the street than real ones.
Undercover police appear not to be police. SM crew appears to be police (precinct night)
Duplicity is like fantasy but also different.
Duplicity is dangerous; fantasy is safer.
Entrapment motifs
There are a number of "frames within frames" shots as well as shots with lines across characters. People are framed in windows of buildings, patrol cars, busses. One of the most dramatic is that of Stu framed in his window looking down through his Venetian blinds at a smiling Burns. There are many mirrored scenes - in the hotel, in the bathroom and so on. Also the use of a projected image as a mirror in the porn store, where the murder takes place as blood splashes up on the screeen.
Femme (?) fatale
Casual pick-ups lead to death for victims (most noir have stories that follow the person who makes the wrong turn). Here the wrong turn is somewhat more complex. Each of the victims takes a wrong turn (not intrinsically wrong, but leads to undoing). Does Pacino make a wrong turn when he accepts the assignment?
Violence in real world vs. SM world.
Most upsetting is the real violence interpolated into the SM sequences, which are safe but have suspension of disbelief. (First murder victim says, “Now I am afraid”.
Parallel between duplicity and fantasy. Once again, duplicity is dangerous; fantasy is not. The film looks at the question of whether self-duplicity results in violence.
Self-duplicity is the cause of the films real violence in that the killer is trying to convince himself he isn’t gay (in trying to keep with what he sees as his dead father’s ideal”. The line “You made me do this” is repeated to each victim. What did they do? They brought out his desire for them, and this was problematic. (Compare with the Joan Crawford line in Johnny Guitar, when asked why Emma hates the Dancing Kid. She says, “He makes her remember she is a woman and that frightens here”. The implication being that she is being forced to realize she does not respond like a “normal” woman to men. This generates in Emma a murderous rage. Even Psycho to some degree implies that being duplicitous forces people to protect the lie and therefore, when exposure is threatened, they become violent and potential homicidal.)
"Snappy dialog" typical of noir appears throughout the film - often in sequences of sexual involvement - pick-ups in bar, scenes between Steve/John and Richard outside the tunnel in the park.
THE FILM ITSELF
(may disagree with message, but film can be well made – see Triumph of the Will for example)
Opening scenes show dismembered arm and start the detective/mystery going.
Following scenes of misogynist police (sexual identity unclear). Film here has parallels with Taxi Driver “maybe one day a real rain will come and wash…. Police proceed to have sex with two males (in their mind, although gender constructionist might hold that they are a different gender than “male”)
Interestingly enough, just before Pacino goes undercover, his girl friend says that his father called. He seems upset and some rather sinister music slips in the background. Does Pacino have a problem with his father as does the killer?
As Pacino slips into the world of gay SM, he starts to respond to it. He returns to his girl friend and his sex becomes more violent.
He immerses himself more and more finally added a yellow bandana, leather jacket, and hat to his attire, which he brings home to his girl friend at the end of the film which she then puts on.
Why does Pacino “pick up” allow himself to be “picked up”? Just what is he supposed to do once that happens. How far is he supposed to go? His conversations with his next-door neighbor are far more reasonable ways to gather data.
Pacino’s unwillingness to pick up the first guy who approaches him is explained to another officer: “I don’t know why I didn’t”. He says he was uneasy. Is this a kind of sexual panic? The other man indicates that Pacino was visibly sexually aroused in the bar (and still is when he is talking to him).
In the next pickup, he is already tied up on the bed when the police come in. He says they came too early. Is this a ploy for himself to have a homosexual experience and be able to rationalize it (“I couldn’t stop him, I was tied up”, much like a person who has a homosexual encounter while drunk and then can’t remember anything about the event)?
Interaction with the black male police officer: Real vs. fantasy violence
There appear to be two sets of murderers. The first indication of murder is in the opening sequence when the mate finds arm in the water. These are dismemberment murders (of which we hear, but see no more). There are other murders that are not. The three murders we see are not dismemberment murders. Are the two kinds of murders done by one person? The police would have us believe that, but in truth one would have to believe there is at least one other killer out there.
The final murder (of Pacino’s neighbor) is clearly not the murderer who has been caught. Who commits it? Is it Pacino? Is it for the same reason – is this the person who “brought him out”? Although there is an implication that it is the roommates lover (who is missing) one wonders why he would kill him at this point. After all we are told that Forbes (Pacino) had moved out some time ago. The suspicion is there because of the obvious motive of jealousy, and we know that the lover had a knife. But we see the knife when he pulls it on Pacino, so Pacino would know where it was too.
When Sorvino looks at the body he doesn’t say much, but when he discovers that Forbes lived down the hall, he says “Jesus Christ”. Does he suspect Pacino?
We are also made to feel that there may be a "subliminal" relationship between Edelson (Sorvion) and Burns/Forbes (Pacino). In the scene where Edelson cajoles Burnes into continuing with the case, the scene is almost like two lovers - or is Edelson more a "father figure"?. One can argue that male bonding is a form of homosexuality, but then it has also been argued that men who overly interested in women (Don Juan complex) are sublimating their gayness, so it is not clear how any male can be heterosexual!
Is that Pacino we see walking to the SM club?
Is Pacino now on the rampage and replacing the killer he arrested? He has a problem with his father, an ambiguous sexual identity and is fighting to be heterosexual (“I’m back” he tells his girlfriend – from where?)
Parallels between Steve Burns/John Forbes (Pacino) and Stewart
Steve Burns is sufficiently split to have two names: Steve Burns and John Forbes
Parallels with Silence of the Lambs – rookie is chosen to handle important case.
Silence of the Lambs serial killer
Cruising serial killer
Involvement of detective with serial killer (Foster with Hopkins)
Silence of the Lambs however, looks backward to see what caused Agent Starling to choose the profession. Cruising looks forward as to what is going to happen with Pacino and (in a more minor way) his girl friend.
What attitude does the film have towards homosexuality? What does it do (if anything) for your attitude towards gay SM (if you had one to begin with)? IS the films perception of both homosexuality and SM one of a contagious illness? Does Pacino become involved – with whom? Who is the murderer at the end? What does the scene where his girl friend puts on the hat represent?
The idea of contagious "evil" also occurs in Orson Welles Touch of Evil and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now.
Is the films homophobia about the spread of a cancer (homosexuality and SM)? One might rightly fear the spread of small pox, cholera and other diseases, and also of homosexuality and S but only if you see the latter two as diseases.
It is interesting that the gay criticism of the film in 1980 was not this (it saw gayness and SM as a cancer or illness), but rather than gays might all be thought of a being into SM (i.e. the non SM community saw the SM crew as a cancer that they didn’t want to be associated with). In a similar vein many of the gay crew despised the more flamboyant effeminate gays as something they didn’t want to be associated with (even after Stonewall, in which those practicing “faggotry” were the first to attack the police. Prejudice and hostility to others sexuality seems not restricted to heterosexuals!