Cruising (1980)

After soaring the heights with 'The French Connection' (1971) and 'The Exorcist' (1973), William Friedkin's next two efforts were considerable box office flops by comparison. This being despite the fact that one of them, 1977 classic 'Sorcerer', is one of the best films of the era. So by 1980, Friedkin found himself in the position of still being a coveted director, but his star was arguably on the decline. The fortunes of Al Pacino, on the other hand, were quite the opposite. By now he was Hollywood royalty who had reached the rarified air of doing whatever project interested him. Given this background, it is quite bizarre that these two forces of nature would combine on what turned out to be an unrelentingly shocking serial killer movie about the underground gay scene in New York City. But collaborate they did and sometimes when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, it leads to one of the greatest quotes of all time - "I don't give a flying fuck into a rolling donut about what Al Pacino thinks" (William Friedkin) 

So it's safe to say the two didn't get along. However, what of the film itself? Well, the story is about a serial killer targeting young gay men in the underground leather club scene of the 1970s in New York. It is based on two different influences, Gerard Walker's 1970 novel of the same name, and the real life case of the still unsolved 'bag murders' of the 1970s in NYC. Al Pacino plays a cop who is tasked with going undercover into this subculture to attempt to lure and catch the killer at large. On the way he is exposed to increasing levels of depravity, which takes a great toll on his personal life, his relationship with his girlfriend (Karen Allen), and his state of mind in general. Not only is he on the trail of a killer, and therefore constantly in the realm of danger, but he is also immersed in a world very different from the one that he is used to, causing his brain to utterly scramble in the process. By the end, the catching of the killer himself becomes almost irrelevant as far more compelling is the study of what a deep undercover job can do to a person's psyche. This is territory much explored in cinema, but here it comes across as quite unique and compelling.

First thing to say about this film is that it was very controversial upon it's release. The gay community in particular were appalled by their depiction and when you watch this film in 2024 you can understand why. It is so gay. And I don't mean in a beautiful, heartfelt, 'Brokeback Mountain' type of way. I mean watching a man bound to a sex swing getting fisted while being watched by 20 other men type of way. Indeed the entire homosexual world is depicted as being about not much more than sweat, drugs, and many variants of sexual deviancy. For what it's worth, Friedkin and his producer spent a lot of time in the leather clubs of the ironically titled Meatpacking District, so it's hard to argue that this isn't an authentic account of that scene in particular, it's just understandable that at the time this film was released, people were concerned that this depiction would only serve to further demonize the gay population of America. I can't say I disagree with that point. 

However, a filmmaker as uncompromising as William Friedkin does not care about that. He cares about finding a world, opening a window for you to peer inside, and making it as visceral an experience as he can muster. The fisting scene, for example, initially featured full penetration and lasted 10 minutes when first submitted to the censorship board. This is a technique quite widely used in the game - showing them appalling violence knowing it will be rejected and scaling back to the version you had originally intended which now seems tame by comparison - but here you cannot help but feel that Friedkin is operating off of the sole desire to shock the square world. You can almost feel the smile on his face. But there is a certain exuberance to that level of filmmaking which is palpable on screen. Whether you like it or not, he means it. Thus you feel almost as submersed as Pacino himself at times. Speaking of Pacino, he great as always and his journey into this world, and by virtue himself, is a fascinating watch. One thing you never have to worry about is old Al's ability to carry a film and here he doesn't disappoint. 

For the most part, despite some of the shock value on offer, this plays out like a fairly standard thriller. That is until the end. As I've mentioned many times on this blog, if you can stick the ending it really can elevate everything you've watched previously. Here that notion is executed beautifully and the film's last shot makes you question everything you have just watched, almost begging for immediate re-examination. I sense that this is why this film has gained something of a cult following over the years - Quentin Tarantino and Mark Kermode being two notable fans. The strength of this ending, coupled with the subject matter, boldness of the filmmaking and performance by Pacino himself, certainly elevate this film above standard thriller stuff and the ending has been debated many times over the years. This is the joy of having two artistic heavyweights, despite their differences, joining forces and playing to their strengths. It's a well crafted film that lingers long after you watch it. By today's standards, it's probably not that shocking, but if you watched this in 1980 I imagine a few sleepless nights would have followed. 

JB.