Cruising for Opinion

SIN JONES
Cruising (1980), directed by William Friedkin based on a novel by the same name written in tandem with Gerald Walker stars leading actors Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino and Karen Allen. I was asked to watch the film by an associate of mine for a thesis he is writing. I didnt probe the primary subject so as not to influence my opinion of the film. I was asked to watch and review it by expressing my opinions on the subject matter covered in contrast to the outcry by the Gay Community. I can see why the film was subject to controversy and confusion. Looking back on 1980 I was 6 at the time born to two teenage parents ages 21 & 22; was the decade really ready for a homosexual slasher film? AIDS/HIV wasnt really widely known, and considered to be street gossip designed to target gay males. AIDS education wasnt in the forefront at this time, in fact one of the most prolific films And the band played on didnt come out until 1987. After watching it I did a search for articles which contrast/compare the film to the novel. I had not read it, so I was looking for subtle clues on the differences expressed in the film vs. the storyline of the book. Some of the more important elements which were not in the film, but were in the book: Steve Burns (played by Al Pacino) was a racist, and homophobe. It was best communicated by his Army career which isnt mentioned in the film at all. In fact, Burns is portrayed as your average heterosexual male with a normal life, girlfriend, and rookie cop career. Al Pacino received criticism over accepting the role, but much like the type-cast parts he plays in tough guy mobster films, its just a corner of the hawks eye view of homosexuality and the BDSM lifestyle. You have to think back to 1980 and the decade before that. Granted I was born in 74 but I have vivid memories of my teenage parents party lifestyle that the norm for them. Today? It would be considered not only criminal child neglect but abuse as well. I

watched the Brady Bunch on television, if you catch my drift. It was a different time. Not that drugs were any more legal then than they are now, but private club owners would turn a blind eye, knowing it would attract a specific clientele to keep the money flowing and give their business longevity.

The evolution of Burns character is interesting. Seemingly he is being transformed by his involvement in the scene, as he is looking for any leads that will bring in a suspect to the serial murders of gay males. The reason Burns was chosen for the under-cover work to begin with was because he resembled the victims. He had all the same attributes that the killer seemed to be targeting. Incidentally he also resembles the killer.

Victim 1

The trouble for Burns begins with the friction developing between him and his girlfriend Nancy (played by Karen Allen).

Another missing element from the novel was that Steve Burns was A-Sexual. Friedkin feeds the viewing audience blips of graphic homosexuality in a BDSM context; they also get a skewed view of Steve Burnss person. To a heterosexual male viewing the film, it would really test your comfort zone. Actress Karen Allen is gorgeous but Burns seems completely disgusted with her touch during intercourse. It portrays him as living a double life, for the sake of appearances. Not to mention the heartless, and cold appearance of a male-to-male BDSM relationship. At a glance it portrays homosexuals as having unhealthy relationships. Each scene portrays the men as either lacking emotion, or having a specific type of emotion to make the viewer uncomfortable. Director William Friedkin designed it that way, but the outcry from the gay community at that time was apparently not ready for this type of shock and awe portrayal.

And Burns seems shocked by what he sees in the BDSM underground clubs, and how the gay fare is communicated by the use of colored bandanas. Burns asks the shop keeper, what do these mean? As the shop-keeper breaks down the color and pocket placement symbolism, Burns seems to get the information he needs before the man ever finishes explaining it to him. Does Burns purposely select one of the more taboo activities of Golden Shower Recipient? Instinct tells me that Friedkin is purposely pushing the limits of taboos for the sake of confounding/confusing the audience. Some argued that Burns was actually gay pretending to be straight for the sake of his image as a man at that time. This may be true in some regard, as homophobes are secretly harboring an attraction to the same sex, while trying to manage their compulsions to pursue it further than mental fantasy. Which leads me to the odd dynamic between Steve Burns and Ted (apartment neighbor); on one hand it seems as though Burns is just using Ted for education about gay culture, but on the other he develops a true concern for Ted and his possessive boyfriend (Gregory). He offers to help him but he is at a loss as to how, if Ted cant see a way to just leave him. Battered person syndrome? Later when Burns meets this boyfriend, hes already got a chip on his shoulder for the guy and a fight ensues. He pulls out a knife to ward off Burns, but he seems unaffected by the idea that the knife hes holding is exactly like the murder weapon used in the killings. He doesnt consider this guy a lead? Later, when Teds body is found he doesnt beat himself up too much over the idea that all the signs were there, and it could have been prevented. This may have been necessary to confuse the audience and set their sights back on Steve Burns as the possible killer. Theres no question that Steve Burns is being transformed throughout the film. The artful cinematography flashes images before the eyes of the viewing audience that suggests that Burns may have become a copy-cat killer. This is most compelling during the murder of the

College Professor. Not only is this Burns, by the facial expression conveyed he doesnt seem to be in agony over the killing. In fact, he seems to be enjoying it.

As Burns seems desperate to have this case end and his detective work over, he fingers Skip Lee, a waiter, as a lead for the killings. I dont think people realize how much Bureaucracy is involved in police work and solving crimes. The pressure was on due to a conference coming to town, and shit rolls down-hill. The interrogation scene suggests a few things: 1) Police work is high-stress and corruption occurs as a way for men to blow off steam 2) Police work is corrupt and law enforcement will go to any length to solve crimes to get the authorities off their backs, and finally 3) Policemen that persecute gays are really just homophobes abusing them for their own deviant desires. Burns is disturbed by how Skip Lee is treated, how he himself is treated and the entire interrogation was conducted. Another element that skates by is the Precinct 6 incident which was brought to the attention of the chief by the informant.

Police rely on informants to help them solve crimes by putting their ear to the street. One in particular complained about an officer from Precinct 6 that forced him (and an associate) to give him a blow job in a police car, and he was tired of having to pay this fee to keep himself out of jail for solicitation. Burns does taunt Skip Lee in an odd way. Not only did he bait him, but he had Skip tie him up in the precise manner that one of the victims had been while Skip protested that he wasnt into that sort of thing. When the officers outside didnt hear anything they broke in, and harassed these men without cause. In essence they break in during a couple having sex, but there is no just

cause, no evidence to suggest that Skip is involved in the crimes and yet? The police face no real consequences for their actions. So Fred continues to cruise for suspects in the underground clubs. The College Student suspect was also interesting, especially in manner the that Steve Burns taunted him and pursued him blatantly as a patsy for the crimes. He was odd, sure, but there was no real evidence to suggest he was involved in serial murder. The best they could pin on him was odd behavior related to the unresolved rejection issues surrounding his father. Burns broke into the mans apartment, rooted through his personal things, and let him know by leaving the letters he had written to his dead father disheveled. I believe Friedkin wanted to suggest to the viewing audience that there was a dynamic brewing between him and Burns, even sexual arousal as Burns watches this guy day in and day out for days on end. The idea that he would meet up with Burns in the park, for an apparent sexual encounter was odd. Who meets their stalker for coffee let alone a quickie in the park? Burns stabs him as he lunges towards him, but I believe when he stated in the hospital He attacked me! would go over looked by real police work. They needed to solve this crime and quickly, they were running out of time. This guy made the perfect patsy due to his odd behavior, and reputation among his peers. I think this scene is necessary for Friedkin to confuse the audience, for if Burns were really the killer why wouldnt he just finish him off? He certainly had every opportunity.

In spite of this, Burns portrays elements of the killers persona complete with nursery rhyme which sounds a lot like the poem by Hughs Mearns: Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasnt there He wasnt there again today I wish, I wish hed go away... When I came home last night at three The man was waiting there for me But when I looked around the hall I couldnt see him there at all! Go away, go away, dont you come back any more! Go away, go away, and please dont slam the door... (slam!) Last night I saw upon the stair A little man who wasnt there He wasnt there again today Oh, how I wish hed go away Im here, youre here, were here. There is a scene that alludes to the idea that Burns may or may not have been privy to the idea that the killer had this little poem he spoke at some point during the killing. When the informant tries to bring it to the attention of police, it seems to go ignored. More mind-fuckery by Friedkin. The Finale and its cliff-hanger were designed to leave the audience throwing their hands up with a resounding WTF! They are left to figure out who the killer is, when Teds body turns up dead AFTER the college student was already in custody. A warrant is issued for Teds boyfriend (Gregory) for questioning, but it certainly doesnt close the case nice and neat. In fact, the closing scene where Burns returns to his girlfriend after a brief separation and she tries on his BDSM gear suggests that he may have been the killer after all as the scene closes with Burns staring into the mirror. Remember the coin from the murder of the College Professor? The captain states that they have prints on the coin inserted into the slot before and after the murder. He claims the print matches the College student but the killer is suggested to be Burns, so it inserts a possible Police Cover-up for good measure.

A few other mind boggling elements Friedkin injects are the rings. Steve Burns wears a silver ring on his index finger. The cinematography zooms in on scene with the college professor and killer right before the murder both wearing rings. Note the index finger. More mindfuck?

Was the film Anti-gay? I dont think so; in fact I think Friedkin did a great job in suggesting that this killer was equally hunted for committing crime, even with the bureaucratic bullshit that goes on. Was the gay lifestyle portrayed in a negative way? I dont think it was portrayed at all, but limited to a sub-culture in the BDSM underground. Our Americanisms are strange and perhaps suggested as much through the artful use of the American Flag in the night club scene. A few more odd elements are peppered in, in that there are nearly zero women in any of the scenes with the exception of Steve Burns girlfriend (Nancy). No women in the apartment building, walking down the streets, in the park, or even at the police station. This design is to keep the viewing audience focus on gay males. It may have been effective to the overall tone of the film Friedkin wanted, but I dont think the film was portrayed as anti-gay. It was a mindful work of art disguised as a shocking slasher film using homosexuality as the taboo trigger. The apartment building that Burns chooses to set up shop suggests that its a gay flop house. Purposely designed? I believe it was, perhaps even a point of contention to support the anti-gay tone of the film. The actual killer is shown in at least (3) scenes. If there was any outcry, it should have been pinning a crime to the wrong man which still leaves the killer out there to murder more gay males meeting the aesthetic profile.

Another element that is downplayed in the film was drug use. It was the late 70s-80s and there were designer and fashion drugs used in nightclubs on the regular. Perhaps Friedkin wanted to focus more on confusing the audience with vivid imagery and porn style flashes than he did want to focus on the lifestyle. Remember, the film is essentially designed to disturb the viewing audience. There is only one scene (the Club Scene) in which drug use is even suggested. The odd nursery rhyme should be remembered when considering that the killer may be killing himself over and over again, when he says You made me do this suggesting that the killer places blame with his victims, which represent a shadow-self. Friedkin designs the scenes to flip flop from killer, to victim, to burns to cause memory recall confusion.

In truth, the killer doesnt look like any of the victims, suspects or Steve Burns. Its all a mind trick artfully designed by the genius of a visionary cinematographer. Gregory probably had the right idea from the get-go, something isnt quite right with Burns and its best to just get the fuck out of dodge or else get caught up in it. Unfortunately for him, hell have to prove his innocence.

At the very least, this film should be regarded as a prolific work of art that forces the viewer out of their comfortable chairs and to the edge of their seats as they are subjected to the mind games of Friedkin and attempt to solve the crime over coffee and debate.

Ill admit I didnt catch a few things at first glance, but having more time to think on it there was most likely awkwardness to Burns that the Captain picked up on. He would make an ideal character to send into the underground. He was more of a rookie than anything, and there were more suitable men on the force that not only met the criteria for the killers victim profile, but better skilled at the work. Was Burns really transformed? Or was the viewer perspective transformed by Burns? I suppose its a matter of interpretation vs. the master director William Friedkin.

Youtube clips: Cruising Trailer Club scene Bandana Selection Killer 'archetype' Killer's Facial Profile Masked Man?

SIN JONES The Poison Apple www.the-poison-apple.com