CRUISING
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.)
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 (Sorvino) and Burns/Forbes (Pacino). In the scene where Edelson cajoles Burnes into continuing with the case, the scene is almost like two lovers. 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 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!