I probably shouldn’t have to explain my motives for watching a film like Cruising, but for the sake of a few awkward questions, I think I ought to. The first reason I wanted to watch it was that I am yet to enjoy a film by William Freidkin, being unimpressed by The Excorcist (1973) (I will give it another shot – don’t worry), non-plussed by The French Connection and put off by seeing what a dick Freidkin is in real life. Also, being a follower of Mark Kermode however – and I apologise if any Kermodian gobbits ever make it into these reviews, but I am a pupil of his ways – I became aware of the film from references, every now and then on the radio show, mentioning the re-filthed version at Cannes. Needless to say he loved it. What swung it for me, however, was hearing of a minor role, in it, by The Warriors (1979) (and Sex in the City) star James Remar.
The film opens with a series of violent murders in the gay S&M scene and the discovery of severed limbs in the water. Paul Sorvino briefs bright eyed cop, Steve Burns (Al Pacino) on the murders, the victims having something in common; they all look like Pacino – this guy has good taste. Al is asked if he wants to “dissapear” into the gay night, though it is specified that this isn’t mainstream gay society. This is where the controversy begins. The theatrical version featured a disclaimer stating the movie does not represent the gay community but only a subculture. As the film was deemed capable of promoting homophobia it was met with protests and strong criticism, with gay rights protesters even interrupting the shoot of the film with foghorns and mirrors.
The film does well on the surface layer of Al Pacino infiltrating a dark world of sex and violence. Clearly, Friedkin delights in showing us these images of leather boys to shock us, and maybe this is where the homophobia is evident. The night scenes are well shot and the punk music, from artist such as The Germs, suits it perfectly. There is some perverse humour in seeing Pacino ask a shopkeeper about the handkerchief code and there are nastier moments but overall the dark tone makes a very unique experience and an effective thriller. Its hard to say whether its homophobic or not but I can tell you most homosexuals will be disturbed by what is portrayed in the film. The issue really is whether you interpret it as the whole story or just a chapter.
The film plays out interestingly enough, as the (straight) viewer we follow a straight man trying to fit into an aggressively homosexual world for his job and trying to cope. Unfortunately the film seems more convinced in the exploitation of this psychological culture clash than the actual murder mystery, as a result the effort of the film is mostly in portraying this scary nether world through the eyes of Pacino and the film falls short, however, where it could’ve shone. The psychological element of Pacino’s development, apparently amply covered in the book, is only touched upon and certainly left unclear. We end up reading more into his mind than the film really gives us and after a while this aspect is revealed as hollow and ultimately the ending leaves a lot open and doesn’t explain enough to really give us cause to follow the popular interpretations. This may be due in part, at least, to the 40 minutes of sheer depravity removed from the film that apparently touched further on Pacino’s characters descent into the perverse subculture of heavy leather. The film was reportedly submitted 50 times to receive an R rating costing $50,000.
It seems likely enough that the film didn’t turn out how Friedkin intended, but I’m sure this third dimension was aimed for. Friedkin was (finally) convinced to make the film after discovering a former colleague (who worked on The Excorcist) was found to have murdered a gay film critic and linked to other murders – Freidkin spoke with him in prison extensively before filming. Glimpses of Pacino’s acting also touch on a more interesting story of a the cop in a relationship but with a secret life undercover forced to venture into an alien lifestyle and clearly the talents of the director and actor team could’ve made a great piece here, but it wasn’t meant to be. Foghorns can muddle you up a bit I guess.
As it stands the film is definitely and interesting watch. I havn’t seen anything like it before and for most viewers it will be shocking, illicit and disturbing. The gaysploitation plays well as horror and the murders are brilliantly dark and genuinely scary. The seedy, dangerous and edgy tone of the film in a pre-aids time-capsule of gay ’70s decadence does in some ways make up for the lack of depth we know could’ve been there, but as a result the film stands up to little more analysis or subsequent viewing and we simply end up in a dead-end debate over the message of the film. Once the thrill of the thriller wears off, we just have errr….
The film opens with a series of violent murders in the gay S&M scene and the discovery of severed limbs in the water. Paul Sorvino briefs bright eyed cop, Steve Burns (Al Pacino) on the murders, the victims having something in common; they all look like Pacino – this guy has good taste. Al is asked if he wants to “dissapear” into the gay night, though it is specified that this isn’t mainstream gay society. This is where the controversy begins. The theatrical version featured a disclaimer stating the movie does not represent the gay community but only a subculture. As the film was deemed capable of promoting homophobia it was met with protests and strong criticism, with gay rights protesters even interrupting the shoot of the film with foghorns and mirrors.
The film does well on the surface layer of Al Pacino infiltrating a dark world of sex and violence. Clearly, Friedkin delights in showing us these images of leather boys to shock us, and maybe this is where the homophobia is evident. The night scenes are well shot and the punk music, from artist such as The Germs, suits it perfectly. There is some perverse humour in seeing Pacino ask a shopkeeper about the handkerchief code and there are nastier moments but overall the dark tone makes a very unique experience and an effective thriller. Its hard to say whether its homophobic or not but I can tell you most homosexuals will be disturbed by what is portrayed in the film. The issue really is whether you interpret it as the whole story or just a chapter.
The film plays out interestingly enough, as the (straight) viewer we follow a straight man trying to fit into an aggressively homosexual world for his job and trying to cope. Unfortunately the film seems more convinced in the exploitation of this psychological culture clash than the actual murder mystery, as a result the effort of the film is mostly in portraying this scary nether world through the eyes of Pacino and the film falls short, however, where it could’ve shone. The psychological element of Pacino’s development, apparently amply covered in the book, is only touched upon and certainly left unclear. We end up reading more into his mind than the film really gives us and after a while this aspect is revealed as hollow and ultimately the ending leaves a lot open and doesn’t explain enough to really give us cause to follow the popular interpretations. This may be due in part, at least, to the 40 minutes of sheer depravity removed from the film that apparently touched further on Pacino’s characters descent into the perverse subculture of heavy leather. The film was reportedly submitted 50 times to receive an R rating costing $50,000.
It seems likely enough that the film didn’t turn out how Friedkin intended, but I’m sure this third dimension was aimed for. Friedkin was (finally) convinced to make the film after discovering a former colleague (who worked on The Excorcist) was found to have murdered a gay film critic and linked to other murders – Freidkin spoke with him in prison extensively before filming. Glimpses of Pacino’s acting also touch on a more interesting story of a the cop in a relationship but with a secret life undercover forced to venture into an alien lifestyle and clearly the talents of the director and actor team could’ve made a great piece here, but it wasn’t meant to be. Foghorns can muddle you up a bit I guess.
As it stands the film is definitely and interesting watch. I havn’t seen anything like it before and for most viewers it will be shocking, illicit and disturbing. The gaysploitation plays well as horror and the murders are brilliantly dark and genuinely scary. The seedy, dangerous and edgy tone of the film in a pre-aids time-capsule of gay ’70s decadence does in some ways make up for the lack of depth we know could’ve been there, but as a result the film stands up to little more analysis or subsequent viewing and we simply end up in a dead-end debate over the message of the film. Once the thrill of the thriller wears off, we just have errr….
No comments:
Post a Comment