Cruising (1980)- coming from Arrow Video (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

I've heard worse things about gays from William Peter Blatty, the author of The Exorcist, which I honestly thought was a worse film.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Somehow I never saw this response. I respect your opinion and thoughts but I do have to question this comment as I know nothing about this:

I only own an official, studio-released, VHS tape of the film -- and by slowing down and still stepping through the murder scenes you do indeed see the notorious inserts of X-rated gay sex that were edited in to cause unconscious triggers of unease and disgust.

Honestly, I can find no evidence this occurred. I do not have a copy of the VHS so have to take you at your word but this seems highly unlikely.

 

[Mark-W]

Well, as a gay man, I find the film loathsome and homophobic in its deepest core assumptions about sexual identity. I protested the film when it was being made in NYC -- and also was among the very first on opening night to view the film in a theater. I was hoping to be surprised. I once made a chart of the film, scene by scene, and identified each and every homophobic moment for a gay friend who didn't find the film offensive. To be fair, though, one of my favorite gay film historians and critics, Robin Wood, once wrote a very strong defense of the film. So it goes!

I only own an official, studio-released, VHS tape of the film -- and by slowing down and still stepping through the murder scenes you do indeed see the notorious inserts of X-rated gay sex that were edited in to cause unconscious triggers of unease and disgust. That alone, inserting images of explicit and graphic gay sex into the murder moments, makes the film irredeemable and genuinely homophobic to me. Also by making the identity of the murderer ultimately unknowable – several actors play the murderer at different times as a kind of floating personality – the idea of contagion is linked to the impulse of gay identity. And finally, to have that “gay contagion” infecting a male/female relationship in the final images/sound effects, really puts the nail in the coffin for me personally. Perhaps my interpretations of the images and audio are faulty.

I honestly believe that Friedkin set out to make a film about homophobia, but ended up creating a horror film that is itself homophobic.

Just my opinion of course!

I have mixed feelings about this film. My basic assumption is that directors who are/were very accepting of the gay community (for example, Friedkin, Hitchcock, Demy) wanted to make movies that freaked out audiences. While they personally did not take the films to represent a whole community because of their day-to-day interactions with gay people, society-at-large was less informed and could take these films as "gay people are like this" when so little else was out there in the available cinematic universe to counter these representations of LGBTQ people.

Silence of the Lambs is not a problem now because of the plethora of readily available contrary examples of LGBTQ people. But when it was released, while I enjoyed it as I sat in my theater located in my liberal bubble of an urban gay ghetto, I know others experienced vocal homophobic taunts akin to "kill gay people" in the very theater they were sitting in watching it.

 

[Mark-W]

Somehow I never saw this response. I respect your opinion and thoughts but I do have to question this comment as I know nothing about this:



Honestly, I can find no evidence this occurred. I do not have a copy of the VHS so have to take you at your word but this seems highly unlikely.

Even in the film The Celluloid Closet, the hardcore gay porn while the man is stabbed in the back can be seen between shots of the close up on the killer's face and the knife plunging into the victim's back. I just rewatched that moment on the DVD. They are two porn inserts in that stabbing scene.

My DVD of WB's release of Cruising is, unfortunately, freezing up, but I saw the porn inserts in that official DVD release, too.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Mondo Digital's review of the Arrow disc. I think it looks pretty great, too. http://www.mondo-digital.com/cruising.html

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Honestly, I can find no evidence this occurred. I do not have a copy of the VHS so have to take you at your word but this seems highly unlikely.

In the new commentary on the BD, Friedkin says the subliminal shots of sex are in there...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Mondo Digital's review of the Arrow disc. I think it looks pretty great, too. http://www.mondo-digital.com/cruising.html

I'm confused - unless I missed something, the review you link doesn't mention picture quality...

 

[Bob Cashill]

I think I know what you're asking and maybe this doesn't supply the answer, but I saw none of the problems I've been reading about here. "In 2019, Arrow Video announced a Blu-ray release of Friedkin's film in the U.S. and U.K. touting a "brand new restoration from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, supervised and approved by writer-director William Friedkin." Of course that raised the question of what condition the film would be in given Friedkin's penchant for revising his films, most notoriously The Exorcist and the last scene of Sorcerer. Thankfully this is most definitely not the 2007 reworking of the film; the colors are back exactly as they should be with a chilly but natural look that replicates the original theatrical appearance. Pacino's dance scene is now back as it was originally filmed, and the film is completely uncut including the subliminal shots and the other odds and ends of footage that have drifted in and out over the years back in place. The opening disclaimer is gone again (as Friedkin prefers), this time replaced with a more organic pair of stylized title cards for Pacino and the film's title that thankfully don't intrude on the opening scene.

​

The DTS-HD MA audio options include the theatrical 2.0 stereo mix and a 5.1 mix supervised by Friedkin; the latter is subdued but effective with some of Nitzsche's score and the city sound effects nicely spread out discreetly to the front and rear channels."

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

the 2.0 PCM Stereo mix IMO it is clearly a downmix of the 5.1 that contain the annoyingly distracting wind sound effects.

Although having watched it with both audio options the 2.0 Stereo in Dolby Surround comes across better than the 5.1 mix which pushes a lot of the music to the rear channels... not bad but just sounds unnatural.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think I know what you're asking and maybe this doesn't supply the answer, but I saw none of the problems I've been reading about here. "In 2019, Arrow Video announced a Blu-ray release of Friedkin's film in the U.S. and U.K. touting a "brand new restoration from a 4K scan of the original camera negative, supervised and approved by writer-director William Friedkin." Of course that raised the question of what condition the film would be in given Friedkin's penchant for revising his films, most notoriously The Exorcist and the last scene of Sorcerer. Thankfully this is most definitely not the 2007 reworking of the film; the colors are back exactly as they should be with a chilly but natural look that replicates the original theatrical appearance. Pacino's dance scene is now back as it was originally filmed, and the film is completely uncut including the subliminal shots and the other odds and ends of footage that have drifted in and out over the years back in place. The opening disclaimer is gone again (as Friedkin prefers), this time replaced with a more organic pair of stylized title cards for Pacino and the film's title that thankfully don't intrude on the opening scene.

​

The DTS-HD MA audio options include the theatrical 2.0 stereo mix and a 5.1 mix supervised by Friedkin; the latter is subdued but effective with some of Nitzsche's score and the city sound effects nicely spread out discreetly to the front and rear channels."

And again: beside a reference to the color timing, that's not a discussion of picture quality.

I guess you can infer that the reviewer thinks the picture looks good but there's no specific comments about picture, and there's almost nothing about audio.

Is that your review? I don't see a writer's credit - and I don't see any info about what equipment the reviewer used, either...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

the 2.0 PCM Stereo mix IMO it is clearly a downmix of the 5.1 that contain the annoyingly distracting wind sound effects.

Although having watched it with both audio options the 2.0 Stereo in Dolby Surround comes across better than the 5.1 mix which pushes a lot of the music to the read channels... not bad but just sounds unnatural.

I listened to the 2.0 with the "Direct" option of my receiver activated, so it was standard stereo. That worked way better than the weird 5.1 mix that overemphasizes music in the surrounds.

And FWIW, I played the 5.1 "Direct" as well to make sure it wasn't funky decoding on the part of my receiver that overdid music in the surrounds...

 

[Bob Cashill]

It's Nathaniel Thompson's site; he's been at this for decades, maybe as long as the HTF has existed.

I, too, have seen numerous shoddy transfers, with exactly the problems you've described. I know of what you speak and I'm not dismissing you or your disappointment--but I just didn't see any of it when I sat down with the Blu-ray last week, via my Epson projector on a 108" screen. Then again I'm not looking for Karen Allen's eye at the 63-minute mark, and unless the problem leaped out at me I wasn't going to see it. You could provide screenshots as "forensic evidence" but we all know how problematic that is. I won't be going back to the DVD or the HD stream after this.

 

[Will Krupp]

While they personally did not take the films to represent a whole community because of their day-to-day interactions with gay people, society-at-large was less informed and could take these films as "gay people are like this" when so little else was out there in the available cinematic universe to counter these representations of the gay people

Exactly the way I've always thought about this film as well. I "get" why people were upset at the time because we thought we were finally breaking free of the sad, suicidal stereotypes and comic relief of decades past in the more "enlightened" time of the late 70's and then, bam. It must have felt like a slap in the face when it was announced and fears of "this is how they will all think of us" make perfect sense. I completely get it. Nowadays, we can see the nuances that we weren't willing to necessarily look at in 1979 and realize that he's spinning a tale about a subculture of a subculture and one that would surprise most gay people as well. I consider its attitudes to be a product of time and place and I've never held that against it.

Silence of the Lambs is not a problem now because of the plethora of readily available contrary examples of LGBTQ people. But when it was released, while I enjoyed it as I sat in my theater located in my liberal bubble of an urban gay ghetto, I know others experienced vocal homophobic taunts akin to "kill gay people" in the very theater they were sitting in watching it.

It's SOOOOO interesting you say that because I was in New York yesterday and having a discussion about THIS VERY thing last night over drinks. Apparently (and I didn't know this and still haven't researched it much) the movie IS a big problem right now in the Trans community!

 

[Thomas T]

I never found the film homophobic. Just a crappy thriller although nowhere near as awful as Friedkin's Boys In The Band.

 

[Matt Hough]

I haven't watched the movie in many years, so forgive me please if I get things mixed up or wrong completely, but it seems to me that my two big objections to the movie were:

1. It suggested that the S/M B/D gay leather scene was SO alluring it could sway a heterosexual man into a sexual orientation adjustment (turn him at least bisexual) AND turn him into a killer.

2. The original murders were never actually solved since the person Pacino inevitably faced off against couldn't possibly have committed at least one of the murders (he wasn't the man we saw pick up and slay the man at the beginning of the movie).

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's Nathaniel Thompson's site; he's been at this for decades, maybe as long as the HTF has existed.

I, too, have seen numerous shoddy transfers, with exactly the problems you've described. I know of what you speak and I'm not dismissing you or your disappointment--but I just didn't see any of it when I sat down with the Blu-ray last week, via my Epson projector on a 108" screen. Then again I'm not looking for Karen Allen's eye at the 63-minute mark, and unless the problem leaped out at me I wasn't going to see it. You could provide screenshots as "forensic evidence" but we all know how problematic that is. I won't be going back to the DVD or the HD stream after this.

I wasn't "looking for Karen Allen's eye at the 63-minute mark" - I didn't set out to find specific problems.

But when glaring issues occur, I notice them.

Kinda my job, don't you think?

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

But to be fair It was just the full image of Karen Allen mostly her face, I think someone previously joked about her glowing eyes... but that was just once shot her combined with the windows / blinds in far background. One of the most overly digitally processed shots in the whole film. I found it striking because it was fully lit, so it should have looked great, but wow its a mess.

Will be interesting to see more comments when other fans finally get the BLU.

 

[Bob Cashill]

I haven't watched the movie in many years, so forgive me please if I get things mixed up or wrong completely, but it seems to me that my two big objections to the movie were:

1. It suggested that the S/M B/D gay leather scene was SO alluring it could sway a heterosexual man into a sexual orientation adjustment (turn him at least bisexual) AND turn him into a killer.

2. The original murders were never actually solved since the person Pacino inevitably faced off against couldn't possibly have committed at least one of the murders (he wasn't the man we saw pick up and slay the man at the beginning of the movie).

No. 2 is why I find the movie so interesting. How many killers are there? The notion of homicide as a kind of communicable illness is an intriguing one, and the movie is more misanthropic than homophobic. (That is grossed about $20 million surprises me; I thought it was an instant failure, shunted off quickly to 10pm time slots on HBO.)

My biggest problem with the movie is that Pacino was pushing 40 when it was made, too old to be so callow. If Richard Gere had starred it might have clicked better. I think it’s a good Friedkin film but a mediocre Pacino credit.

 

[Will Krupp]

I never found the film homophobic. Just a crappy thriller although nowhere near as awful as Friedkin's Boys In The Band.

Hahah. Seeing as you are lacking the "camp" gene, as I think you called it, I'm not surprised you're not a fan. The campy behavior is half the fun!!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

In a review linked to in this thread it says the following:

"...given Friedkin's penchant for revising his films, most notoriously The Exorcist and the last scene of Sorcerer."

What did he revise in Sorcerer?