edited by Jonathan Doyle

Mafioso (The Criterion Collection, 3.18.2008) Nino Badalamenti is a supervisor in a car manufacturing plant who hasn't taken a vacation in over two years. On his way out the door to visit his beloved childhood hometown of Sicily -- with his blonde wife and daughters -- Nino is handed a package by his boss and asked to deliver it to a powerful and influential Sicilian gangster named Don Vincenzo. Once in Sicily, Nino has a hoot seeing friends and family, but his wife has trouble fitting in and is unfairly dismissed as a snob by Nino's family. Even more worrisome, Nino finds himself entangled in an intricate web of secret mafioso dealings and is eventually sent on an unexpectedly... elaborate errand. (continued)

Upcoming

July 2

Hancock

July 3

The Whackness

July 4

Diminished Capacity

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson

Holding Trevor

Kabluey

We are Together

July 9

Full Battle Rattle

July 11

A Man Named Pearl

August

Eight Miles High

Garden Party

Harold

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Meet Dave

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

The Stone Angel

July 18

A Very British Gangster

Before I Forget

The Dark Knight

The Doorman

Felon

Lou Reed's Berlin

Transsiberian

July 22

Two Tickets to Paradise

July 23

Boy A

"Cruising" 27 Years Later

email this story
read comments (26)
post a comment

Paul Willner has written a nicely descriptive L.A. Times piece about a special screening of William Friedkin's Cruising (1980) that was held Monday night at San Francisco's Castro theatre. The screening was a promotion for a Cruising deluxe-edition DVD that Warner Home Video is bringing out out on 9.18.07.

Cruising director William Friedkin

This once-controversial film was despised and protested against by hip Manhattan gays back in the day. They were angry that the film's hunt-for-a-serial-killer story not only used the world of downtown Manhattan gay bars (and the anonymous sex that was routine in these places in the pre-AIDS era of the '70s) as a backdrop, but as a creepy-atmospheric thing that suggested that guys who went to the Mine Shaft on weekends were flirting with an element that was on some level malevolent and not at all healthy.

27 years later, Friedkin is still saying stuff like (a) "I didn't set out to make a movie that would be offensive to people [but] a murder mystery set against the backdrop of this particular milieu" and (b) "I could see why some people felt like it was not the way to put the best foot forward at the time, but I also felt I had the right to make a movie, not a political statement."

Except he was making a kind of political statement, and Friedkin damn well knew this all along. if Cruising wasn't fastidiously political it was obviously a cultural statement that said, "Eewww, look at what these leather-clad gay guys are doing with each other in skanky downtown bars.....eewwww! Amyl nitrates, fist-fucking, golden showers....how perverted is that? Is it any wonder that in a scene as dark and kinky as this that a serial killer -- a guy in denial about latent gay tendencies, perhaps -- might be attracted to the nocturnal intrigue and wander into it and start stabbing gay guys to death?"

Cruising was a thriller first and foremost, but it was obviously a straight-male, straight-culture message flick that was going "tsk tsk" at an exotic culture. It was eyeballing something within the downtown gay-sex scene that, to some at least, seemed possibly self-destructive. The irony, of course, is that there was something self-destructive going on back then. If thousands of guys weren't fucking each other left and right in backroom bars coast to coast, it's certainly plausible that the AIDS virus might not have spread as quickly as it did.

The thing that always bothered me about Cruising was that the voices of the killer didn't match. We hear (but don't see) a shadowy baritone-voiced killer in the beginning, and then the killer is identified as Stuart Richards (Richard Cox) in Act Three and his voice is nowhere near as deep, and then we hear the voice of his father (i.e., the guy he's really trying to kill) and it's still not quite the same as the original baritone killer's voice. I could never figure this out.

And I could never really figure the ending as far as Al Pacino's cop character was concerned. The film's second-to-last shot is of his girlfriend (Karen Allen) trying on a gay-bar leather jacket and hat in their apartment, and the last shot is of a tug boat on the Hudson. Abrupt cut to black and mass confusion.

But I always liked Paul Sorvino's line to Pacino at the beginning, when he's giving him his undercover assignment: "Have you ever been corn-holed?" And I remember that Pacino looked a little beefy in this film, and that I took to calling him "Porky Pacino" when I was discussing the film with friends.

Elley's "Atonement" review<< previous | next >>Chicago building blown up

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 29, 2007 at 03:00 PM

comment #1

jjgittes says ...

A good, muddled film that fell victim to hysteria. Even Pacino disassociates himself from it (it NEVER shows up on tributes to him - by his own asking) despite the fact that he's quite good in it.

The voices don't match because the film is suggesting there may be "multiple killers" - there's this theme of 'transference" of evil - the killer earlier is clearly not Richard Cox.

The last scene is meant to show the seductiveness of evil (Allen trying on the jacket). The final shot is remarkable pacino - half of his face wide-eyed and "normal" with a tear streaming down the other half suggesting his dichotomy.

An offensive film to be sure but a pretty effective one.

Posted by jjgittes at August 29, 2007 04:25 PM

comment #2

actionman says ...

Big Friedkin fan...have wanted to see this film for years. Will certainly check out the new dvd...just wish it had the 30-40 minutes put back in that were cut out.

Posted by actionman at August 29, 2007 04:56 PM

comment #3

Larry says ...

Wilner's piece gets something wrong right off the bat. "San Francisco" is associated with Jeanette MacDonald but has nothing to do with Nelson Eddy.

Posted by Larry at August 29, 2007 04:59 PM

comment #4

scooterzz says ...

friedkin says in his commentary that the missing 30-40 minutes are still actually missing and nowhere to be found.....i find the film just as offensive now as i did back in the day and even in the context of the period that big black cop in the jock strap and cowboy hat is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense at all....i'm mystified as to why friedkin would want this re-released.....

Posted by scooterzz at August 29, 2007 05:27 PM

comment #5

christian says ...

talk about timing!

Posted by christian at August 29, 2007 05:31 PM

comment #6

jjgittes says ...

The big black cop in the jock strap is based on a real case history so I guess it "not making sense" is part of the point in the context to freak out the suspect.

The movie has a pretty loyal cult that defends it passionately which is why Friedkin probably wants it re-released - can't say that about much of his post mid-70s work. The reaction at Cannes was pretty rapturous. Stephen Schaefer raved, etc. :

http://news.bostonherald.com/blogs/stephenSchaefer/?m=20070524

Posted by jjgittes at August 29, 2007 05:32 PM

comment #7

Devin Faraci says ...

The worst way to judge art is on how offensive it is, or how much you agree with what it has to say.

Posted by Devin Faraci at August 29, 2007 05:33 PM

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

"The irony, of course, is that there was something self-destructive going on back then. If thousands of guys weren't fucking each other left and right in backroom bars coast to coast, it's certainly plausible that the AIDS virus might not have spread as quickly as it did."

Yeah, they should've settled for picking up men in bathrooms. AIDS isn't a gay disease, Jeff. No one blames hetero yuppies for their sexual antics during the 60s; but the minute the gays came out in the 70s, it's all their fault that we have to wear rubbers.

Posted by D.Z. at August 29, 2007 05:38 PM

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

SHUT UP!

Posted by jeffmcm at August 29, 2007 05:53 PM

comment #10

actionman says ...

Friedkin's Sorcerer needs a new dvd with a widescreen transfer...that film is amazing.

Posted by actionman at August 29, 2007 05:54 PM

comment #11

jimjonesiii says ...

"SHUT UP!"

that was soooo gay. not that there's anything wrong...

Posted by jimjonesiii at August 29, 2007 06:05 PM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

It wasn't gay inside my head.

Posted by jeffmcm at August 29, 2007 06:07 PM

comment #13

T. Holly says ...

The best way to judge art is by how much hot talk is in it, like, "I cruised him, we balled, he became my trick." That's hot, and I'm quoting a good friend.

Posted by T. Holly at August 29, 2007 06:13 PM

comment #14

Stephe96 says ...

AIDS was originally termed GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). When doctors who were studying the disease on both coasts got together in the early 80s and compared notes, they noticed that all their patients were frequenting gay bath-houses. They recommended that public health officials shut those down in an effort to curtail the virus but the gay advocates went bananas and refused to comply. So it's fair to say that, in the beginning at least, AIDS really was a 'gay disease.' This is all public knowledge. You can look it up.

Posted by Stephe96 at August 29, 2007 06:15 PM

comment #15

Aunt Sassy says ...

The pungent odor of leather and poppers, the sharp report of a riding crop on man ass, Sylvester booming on the sound system...good times. Brings back the memories, doesn't it Jeffrey? See you at the Flex.

Posted by Aunt Sassy at August 29, 2007 06:24 PM

comment #16

bmcintire says ...

I loves me some Aunt Sassy!

Posted by bmcintire at August 29, 2007 07:10 PM

comment #17

Mr. Peel says ...

I still say that the final scene means that Karen Allen is the killer. Which makes as much sense as anything else in the film.

Posted by Mr. Peel at August 29, 2007 07:11 PM

comment #18

T. Holly says ...

Things I learned:

gorgeously restored, HD-projected

"Cruising" is another movie Paramount sold from it's library.

It came out a decade after Friedkin's "The Boys in the Band."

http://news.bostonherald.com/blogs/stephenSchaefer/?p=198

Posted by T. Holly at August 29, 2007 09:39 PM

comment #19

Mike Schaefer says ...

I saw "Cruising" the weekend it opened -- at a multiplex in the Bronx on a cold January night, with my then-boyfriend. We kept looking around to see if we were the only 2 gay guys in the theater; it seemed to us that we were.

I saw it again last winter when IFC showed it. I like it better now than in '80. But the article makes no mention of the notorious "subliminal" shots that Friedkin allegedly used during a sex-and-murder scene. Will they be on the DVD?

Posted by Mike Schaefer at August 29, 2007 09:42 PM

comment #20

GeorgePrager says ...

"AIDS isn't a gay disease, Jeff. No one blames hetero yuppies for their sexual antics during the 60s; but the minute the gays came out in the 70s, it's all their fault that we have to wear rubbers."

I thought people wore rubbers to prevent pregnancy.
And what is this "we"? You're a virgin, D.Z.

Posted by GeorgePrager at August 30, 2007 09:32 AM

comment #21

Filipe says ...

For what its worth Bill Krohn has a real good well article done in the same style of his Hitcjcock book that includes a wide research on script drafts, production reports and editor notes from the film. It's availabnle here: http://www.rouge.com.au/3/friedkin.html

Posted by Filipe at August 30, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

George: You're awfully interested in my love life for a guy who doesn't like to wear rubbers. Are you considering batting for the other team?

Posted by D.Z. at August 30, 2007 01:40 PM

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

Excellent. All is forgiven.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 30, 2007 10:11 PM

comment #24

GeorgePrager says ...

Feels a lot better without one.

Posted by GeorgePrager at August 31, 2007 09:18 AM

comment #25

Hal says ...

"And I remember that Pacino looked a little beefy in this film, and that I took to calling him "Porky Pacino" when I was discussing the film with friends."

Good thing he does not have a bulbous nose!

Posted by Hal at August 31, 2007 09:59 AM

comment #26