I came out in 1983. I recall all the controversy when the film opened. Before I came out, I actually thought every gay bar would look like the RAMROD. The first time I walked through the door of a gay nightclub, I was shocked how great it was and how everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves. My first boyfriend didn’t put a lot of pressure on me, he said when I was ready to go, we’d go. After that night I wanted to see every club/bar in town. We had a lot of fun. I was amazed that on a Wednesday evening there were several hundred guys in one place enjoying themselves, and able to be themselves without anyone worrying. There would be that awkward time when you might see someone you went to school with. My b/f kept reminding me they were there for the same reason. I knew there were clubs like the one portrayed in the film, but I never saw them. When AIDS began to be known in cities all over the country, you noticed it. Instead of hundreds out any evening, it might be 100. I was scared to be tested and never was. My first b/f and I broke up. I dated quite a few guys, some seriously, mostly not. Then in 1990 I was nosing around Tiffany. Someone tapped my shoulder, I turned around and was greeted by a handsome guy with a broad smile. He introduced himself and asked if I’d join him for a drink. I was a bit jaded by then but said sure. The following week he called asking if I’d join him for dinner “any place you’d like to go”. I first said no, I was busy. After thinking about it, I called him back and apologized. We had a wonderful dinner. As we left the restaurant he grabbed a menu. I asked what he wanted it for, he replied “we might want to remember this night someday”. We’re still together, and in October are going away for a week to celebrate our 33rd anniversary. I know I’m very lucky.
Congratulations! I was born in late 1982 so the '80s was such a great, carefree time for me. I know it was much more challenging for gay men who came before me and my generation. I'm glad your story has such a happy ending. 🙂
William Friedkin was absolutely fearless. He approached his work, life and even the interviews in the same way; did his way, no second thoughts. And also he was extremely intelligent. What a talent.
40 yrs later mainstream directors still wouldn't touch material like this due to the stigma around the gay community. Bravo to Friedkin for taking on a daring task.
As they discuss in this video, many gay people were very vocally against this film and tried to derail the filming with loud protests. Not as black and white as that.
That's nonsense! Now you have to have a LBGTQWERTY12345 Character to even get the greenlight... stop with the BS already!!! Gays and Traniexs aren't a victim class anymore (if they ever were, it was a long time ago) I've never seen it, and have no desire to... Why? There's nobody I can remotely relate to.... The Gay Traniex NYC scene in the 70's? Nobody I know gives a flying f*ck about any of that crazy sh*t... most people don't care about it now... Do what you want in private (as should everyone) but don't demand that everybody else agrees with your delusion or take them to court because they called you a He when that's what you obviously are...
Seen this at the theater when it came out and bought the soundtrack. Best thing about this was it turned me on to Mink Deville, who I had heard of at the time, but had never actually listened to.
@Corpus C.---yes, it is a shame , isn't it, the way that we as a society have become so wimpy--people ( esp. movie producers ) need to "grow a pair", and , tell it like it IS !!!!!!
Corpus Callosum Egberto Gismonti is overlooked when all the big names in Brazilian music are spoken. His early 80's releases are some of the best music of that decade.
This movie was far more brilliant than I thought it was going to be. The ending just blew me away. It just puts everything you think you know and turns it upside down.
I'm a Westcoast 90s kid but movies that are set in late 60s to early 80s NYC fascinate me. I can't believe that grimy NYC is the one I visit every year. That was back when NYC had character. It was dangerous, but had character. I love this mystery film. The director really topped himself making this one. This was also one of Pacino's best movies. At least top 5.
NYC was the most dangerous and criminal city in the world from the mid 1960’s-1990’s. Horrible nightmare the encyclopedia of stories that came out of that entire era.
I was only 20 in 1977 but... as grimy and dirty as NYC was.. I didn't find it all that dangerous. Now, it feels like Disneyland, and that scares me even more.
I was living right in the middle of it in 1972, a 21 year old straight girl, overjoyed at not being bothered by any guy any hour of the day or night. But to see what men can and will do to each other, and I'm not talking about sex, really put the fear of God in me and it hasn't left. Although I put it out of my head at times.
To me it is Al Pacino’s best movie. Completely under playing and playing the ambiguity of the character perfectly. In a way this movie is a testament to Pacino’s genius and certainly to Fredkin’s!
The first time I saw it, I felt like Pacino was miscast because he seemed so uncomfortable in the role and he has never ever talked about it, like he just wants to forget about it. But when seeing it again, I realised the innocence and uncomfortable expression in his face, regardless if it was actually Pacino feeling like he regretted taking the part, it makes you understand the character and the actually elevates the movie.
Well said. The film was not a depiction of how the gay community as a whole lived their lives, but how a small segment lived their lives. The reality of that world really bothered some people. I remember the first time I saw Cruising. I was horrified, but impressed at the same time. It's not a fantastic movie because the acting is less than stellar and the dialogue is nonsensical, but it's a fascinating look into a world that has completely disappeared and doesn't exist anymore. Apparently Cruising is based on real life case of a killer in NYC who was targeting men in the gay S & M community. I see it as a timecapsule. I have very fuzzy memories of NYC at this time, because I was so young when the movie was made.
@@rubaidaallen2764 Agree. That side of New York as a whole is all but gone and it's really fascinating to look back at it. A time capsule of a bygone era indeed.
My dad, a devoted Republican, as well as myself, viewed this film with me. He actually said Friedkin had topped The Exorcist in terms of shock and engaging plotline. He never thought for a minute that all gay people are into the leather scene. Dad had empathy for the characters, and simply read astounded by the movie.And yes, it,s scary as all get out. Really a dark masterpiece. I, at 53, have seen it five times.....and still ponder it. The mark.of great cinema... ..
AND, for Miss Trollete, or whatever your fake handle is, I wouldn,t subscribe to your site if YOU PAID ME. Trust me, I,m way more famous. Tell THAT to yourself....
This is a GREAT MOVIE!! What's GREAT about this movie is that you see the Village as it was. The stores, the streets, the garb, the nightlife, the music, the clubs, the scenes - that's all gone today. The Village is gone, today and man do we miss it.
Thank you for making this Cruising Documentary available for all to see. Also, Richard Gere as Friedkin's first choice would have been awesome in that role too. A very different spin to the character than Pacino's take.
Al Pacino was a perfect match, his deep black eyes so full of emotions!
ปีที่แล้ว +3
I love Richard Gere but I can't see him in Cruising, he was too cute for that character. Just my opinion. But then again after seeing Pacino's work maybe I can't think of any other actor playing that part.
I am Sorry, but I can't see Richard Gere in a S&M bar ingaged that type activity. Al Pacino was perfect because he knows how bring subtle nuances to character. I had no indication had remotely repressed homosexual traits. His slow transformation was sincerely believable.
This film has grown on me deeply. I’ve seen it so many times and every one of them I keep having more and more questions. The killer’s identity was never clear to me, and the voice dubbing just makes it even harder. Never noticed the fact that the murders on scene weren‘t even played by the same actor!!!! This movie is so underrated.
This was a disturbing film. A total masterpiece. Just coming out myself in the early 80's, it contributed to me keeping clear of the extreme underworld of the gay sex culture, and I think I'm alive today because of that, escaping drug addiction and HIV.
I do love Friedkin's movies, they have such grit and truth that sometimes it hurts some people but he was always pushing to make the audience sit up and watch and go away thinking of the movie for years. Hips or lips.
There were protests because gays then did what they wanted freely and didn't want anyone telling them how to limit their sexual expression. It was before AIDS and they could never imagine what would happen later. It's a tragedy. I had a lot of gay friends that hung out on Christopher and I went with them to bars and clubs sometimes, in the late 70s. I moved to Chelsea, 20th and 10th, in 1979 and walked and rode my bike through and empty meatpacking down West St to the WTC. That world is gone.
I think it’s more because the mainstream gay rights movement was pushing for acceptance by straight society and they felt a film about the S&M bars represented bad press. And that Friedkin was trying to sensationalise gay life and imply that it was violent and scary. Having now seen the film I don’t agree with any of that, but as Friedkin says here, you can see why they formed that opinion.
It showed the real gay lifestyle it put the homo in homosexual,homoerotic it put the sexual in homosexuality not just drag queens and fashion which has nothing to do with being gay.
I'm curious on what levels? The one level that we may agree on is the historical significance. Even if it was not exact in its historical depiction of gay life, it does represent Hollywood's thought on gay life in NYC.
I heard Brian DePalma wanted to adapt Cruising but lost the rights to the book so his take on Cruising became Dressed To Kill- which is a heterosexual nightmare instead of a gay one
Billy! You got BALLS!!! Man you got balls!!! To make this today would take balls! To make it in 1979-1980! You are a tough SOB!! Props to you and I wish more film makers were as tough as you are!
I wish they got more input from James Remar. His insight into the commentary for The Warriors was amazing. He only showed on screen for maybe three minutes in Cruising but he’s a sharp cookie.
It's cool watching this movie now and realizing "oh, this block of the east village that was once a lively and booming gay bar... is now a Whole Foods"
When I first watched this movie, I enjoyed it but it was a tad unsettling. After watching for a second time I really enjoyed it. I think Pacino showed a lot of courage at that time when he played this role. I think it’s a great movie.
This is a top five movie for me. I am a film buff so Cruising sits along side a Clockwork Orange, Blow Up, Children of Paradise and Love and Death. So underrated
This is how movies are truly made and why they are so powerful. Not some pseudo intellectual discussions in some office and then putting sequences in a computer. Research and footwork make good movies. I love how he talks about editing! Being a former Asst. Editor and Post-Production Supervisor myself, I totally agree.
Thank you for posting this documentary clip about the film Cruising. I originally saw this film on VHS around the time it was first released on VHS, as we were huge GERMS GI fans out here in NYC during the early 1980's, anyhow... I have no memory of what I thought of the film back then - but I will say that by 1985, I was no stranger to that part of NYC and truth be told, always felt very safe there. Of interest, I did get this film maybe - well, a few years back anyway - once I found out it was released on DVD - which includes this documentary as well, and I have to say I've watched it no less than 6 times, with and without the commentary, for it illustrates a NYC which no longer exists, and has not existed in quite sometime. For those who view this film as negative, all I can ask is did you really watch it ?? Better yet, have you ever been to the neighborhoods depicted ??? Because there is nothing anti-gay about it. It's a murder mystery set within a certain community, one of which many have chosen to not recognize or instead deny it's existence. It's a great film, and in my opinion - one that needed to be made, and one that Al needs not be ashamed of... *Of interest to those who loved the soundtrack, recently the soundtrack was released on a special limited edition hybrid SACD disc, which seems to have different mixes from the original record album, which I have also. If you can find a copy of either, it's well worth it, because that soundtrack was really rocking :) :) :)
22:40 The gay male community was completely justified at being offended by this movie. I’ve been out over 43 years, and lived in Manhattan briefly in the 80’s, and was in all the bars, and none of them, including the Ramrod and the Mineshaft, were as bad as this movie portrayed. This movie could have illustrating gay bashing as homophobic, perpetrated by a “straight” killer, but it didn’t. There is no empathy at all towards the victims. It portrayed gay men as lurid, psychotic, homicidal, that eagerly embrace risky behavior. This movie sort of justifies the murders, because gay men are said to get what they deserve. I have the soundtrack of this movie, and all the music is sinister, ominous, wicked, or evil. There is nothing pleasant about this movie. There is a murder scene in this movie that is one of the most graphic I’ve ever seen to date.
There was an outrage! They got lots of criticism and i remember my dad telling me that this film did not get good ratings and i should not see it. So i did not watch it for 20 years but when i saw it i realized that my dad is perhaps just has homophobia because this is very brave and powerful film and just good.
It could be Friedkin or the actor who plays the coroner who was also in the Exorcist, but the two movies feel so connected. I would even say some of the scenes on Cruising come off as horror movie scenes. The atmosphere is so ominous and the score is oppressive and tense. A great little film no doubt.
I was shocked to learn one of actors, the man was assistant in Morgue scene, turned out be a murder. Chopped up his companion and threw parts in a River.
interesting doc of a disturbing film- not about homosexuals, but cold-blooded murder of people...I think of it as a metaphor for for the horrific carelessness of a majority society for the fate of another less accepted segment. It could be homosexuals, jews, refugees, out-of-caste women- it does not matter who the victim is- the simple fact of their fate for being who they are. There is a large segment of society who do not care simply because the victims are of another group. Another note: I think that Billy murder shot in the bathroom should have had a lot more blood around. One more thing is I noticed the seat was down, it should have been up
Well I figured in the end Pacino's character killed his neighbor because he was starting to like him and felt just like the original killer that his neighbor made Pacino like him which comes back to the killer saying, "you made me do that". Plus the hat, jacket and mirror shades that his girlfriend found also points to Pacino becoming the new killer.
Since 1956, he did a lot of powerful scores such as "The Exorcist," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1976 Academy Award Nominee, Best Original Score), "Blue Collar," "Hardcore," "An Officer and a Gentleman" (1983 Academy Award Nominee, Original Score, Oscar Winner, Original Song - Up Where We Belong), "The Razor's Edge," "Starman" among others before his death in 2001.
Very surprised to learn that the huge black guy in a jockstrap was apparently something that really happened... I remember laughing so hard at that scene when I first watched. Especially when Pacino came out and threw his hat out of the window. Interesting documentary, thanks for uploading!
I'm sorry because Daryl Hannah wasn't appear in William Friedkin's "Cruising" (1980), she didn't want to do with be involved in that troubled production, according to her managers. It took her a long while that she prefers to choose and pick her own projects very carefully - such as Warners' "Blade Runner" (1982/1992/2007), Colgems-Delphi's "Summer Lovers" (1982), Disney's "Splash" (1984-1985) and Screen Gems/Hallmark/Studio Canal's "Steel Magnolias: The Unrated Director's Cut" (1989/1995).
I love comments like ‘so I was walking from my apartment to the theater’ - by a film director! Isn’t that insane and cool, so indicative of the times. Saw this in the theater, need to rewatch!
Interesting doc on this film, but Friedkin made no mention of the character portrayed by Joe Spinell, a cruising abusive cop who could of been just as murderous as any other character in the film. I found him the most creepiest of them all, introduced complaining to his police partner about his wife leaving him and moving to Florida with the kids. Ironically, Spinell's real wife, porn actress Jean Jennings, left him just a few weeks prior, moving to Florida with their daughter. Later in 1980, Spinell would finance, from his Cruising earnings, his starring role in the ultra-violent, controversial slasher flick Maniac, that he co-wrote and filmed on the streets of NYC with then porn director William Lustig. Again, in 1980, Spinell was in The First Deadly Sin with Frank Sinatra, as a doorman for an apartment building where a serial killer resides. And this was just part of 1980 of his career....
Thanks for the info, never saw Cruising to this day however just noticed Spinell in this featurette , Saw Maniac back in 80 at the theater and then uncut on video subsequently and thought it was rather underrated and very effective in it's atmosphere. Spinell did many small roles including both Godfather films and Taxi Driver.
There’s so many elements in this film that throw you off- the fact the actor playing the killer switches (I’m pretty sure the first killer becomes the second victim) the police officer who keeps turning up and could also be the killer, the ambiguity of the ending.
One of my favourite movies. I saw it when it came out, mainly because Pacino was in it (I probably wouldn't have gone if Gere was the lead instead), I live in Canada & wasn't really aware of all the controversy then. Very powerful & haunting movie. I remember leaving the theatre kind of dazed & trying to figure it all out. It showcased the mastery of all involved in the production.
I still think Richard Cox's character was the main killer, idk who was heading to the club in the end, but I honestly think Al Pacino's character killed Ted. Such mindfuck, but I feel that Cruising was one of those murder mystery movies that we will never know the true answers. And that's what makes this film so terrifying and great.
Tommy Cipriani If you've seen his other films To Live & Die in LA and The Exorcist, the idea of possessing an aura or quality of another is what in my opinion permeates the idea of the killer floating from one person to the next
It's pretty obvious seeing how the voice connects them together. However, he never dismembered anyone, so the bodyparts in the river are not from him, and he probably didn't kill Ted either
I have a faint memory of possibly having seen this movie… It was so bloody long ago! And the only reason why I think that I might have seen it is because I think that near the end, Al Pacino’s character becomes confused about pretty much “life all around”… How deep in he got and did he like some of it?… But that’s the only feeling that I have about perhaps having seen it so I will watch it again and I’m sure that I’ll be blown away, because I thoroughly enjoyed this documentary. Very beautifully done.
I have never seen Gene Davis talk in an interview and I'm amazed he actually laughed. That guy scared the crap out of me in that movie, "10 To Mindnight." I remember watching it with my sister one time many years ago when it came on HBO very late at night. We were staying with my grandparents and they had cable, so we stayed up late watching it in the living room. It must've been 1984 or so when we watched it. Haha....anyway, the killer in that movie always gave me the creeps. I just saw it again last night and he still gave me the creeps, and I'm 47 now!
Oh, the smell. Jeezuz. I used to work in Chelsea around 2010s. One bar had a patio with a rolling gate that faced 8th Avenue. The stencho of a hundred+ men, just from the sidewalk was amazing. It's why I could never, ever, go to prison. Oh, credit to Pacino for taking all those crazy roles in the 70s. That dude knew how to pick 'em.
I love the grimy aesthetic of this movie. The plot and characters not so much. It’s a fascinating view of a slice of New York that doesn’t exist now (if it ever did). Still a very raw, unflinching movie that is classic Friedkin. They don’t make films like this anymore.
I was going to some of these clubs that were alone Washington Street south of 14th Street.. I was in my early 30s. I never felt scared like I would be in this movie the scenes were very compressed with the constant fear sitting in the audience that sounds going to get killed any minute..The movie did exaggerate the constant edginess of fear. I just couldn't get into the scene just the eye candy alone is satisfactorily enough..l hardly rarely took anybody home I just didn't want to thinking how people don't spend diseases. I just had my fill of getting the clap once and syphilis once before this movie. I surely didn't want to risk at them again. I had just come out in 1974. And. in the leather clubs are in full swing at that time. Christopher Street at that time was so crowded. So many guys in the leather going down to the ramrod, Keller's, and the Badlands all along West Street. Strange it didn't have any scenes inside the big warehouses were there hundreds of guys getting it on with each other.. police and their vehicles would raid the place.. once a police car went right off of ramp into the water. So much daring things happening back then. In these clubs and bars I pretty just kept myself or this spent the time talking with friends l've seen and met over the years then. Yep there wa's plenty to see and observe with all this kissing and groping pissing in the bathtubs or urinals. and all that fisttng. It could imagine how far fist can go up into an ass it's just too much to imagine enough to make you feel pretty light-headed or nauseated if you kept starining. Could you imagine all the diseases that were being spread at that time unbridled. Thank God or whatever higher power is out there if any to keep me safe.. unlike so many hundreds of our brothers who contracted HIV soon after. Those of us who survive would wonder how lucky we were pretty much developed a survivor guilt. And now with grinder and scruff in other internet venues these fear concerns concussions should still be with us with these blind dates. It always be a good rule of caution to meet at a club or a cafe before you engage anything sexual or taking anybody to your home or their home..along about getting any diseases even with the use of Prep people doing crystal meth.. People feel protected using them, that they feel pretty much invincible.. I don't think I take a chance
@@retter2critical I adore the late 80s early 90s Hong Kong thrillers and City on Fire is the one I love the most. Ringo Lam made some great gritty movies. Full Trottle was another I think. Never seen On the Run, will check that out. Thanks!
Trust me that slice of New York 1,000% existed and was even crazier than the movie depicted. Especially the homophobia, gays were getting killed left and right by street guys. Like literally lynching these poor homos
It really is a masterful film. I first saw this film as a teenager and I must admit, it simultaneously intrigued and hurt me; I was developing a sense of my own sexuality, to my young and lonely mind, I thought this film was demonising the gay community and I really thought it was going to make the public hate the LGBT community even more. I watched it every time it came on the tv, each time seeing a new layer and appreciation for its existence. To me, the voice dubbing adds a slightly disturbing disembodied, dissociative quality that is very apt for the character.
Truly a masterpiece and a brilliant time capsule to a time long gone. No one could've made this film other than Friedkin. Its unfortunate that it came out when it did in 1980 right when the disco backlash was happening, and a year before Reagan took office and AIDS became known. Cruising became part of a new wave of hatred and violence toward gay men. Looking back now its uncanny how this film predicted AIDS, with the role of the killer being passed from one man to another. Strange time.
LOVED THIS SINCE I SAW IT IN THE 70'S. THEY HAD SOME GUY COME OUT AND READ A WARNING STATEMENT AND STATE THAT IT DID NOT REPRESENT THE GAY COMMUNITY. THERE WERE PROTESTER'S OUTSIDE IN TIMES SQUARE. REALLY COOL. AL WAS GREAT. UNDER RATED IN MY OPINION.
The political wing of the Gay Community did not want this film to be shown. They picketed the theaters and launched a PR campaign that hurt this film at the BO and critically. It was early cancel culture. They didn’t want a Gay guy portrayed as a murderer (murder was for straights only) and they did not want the leather subculture portrayed on film. I saw it when it was first released and watched it again recently and it still holds up very well, story wise, and maybe even better, film wise. The only major misstep is the confrontation scene in Central Park where Pacino meets up with Richard Cox, and the dialogue is truly cringeworthy: “Hips or lips?” “How big are you?” “Party size!” “Get ‘em down, I wanna see the world!” And Pacino taking the time to neatly fold his leather pants and place them on the ground is hysterical.
I just read Friedkin's awesome autobiography and the chapter on CRUISING is fascinating. The gay mafia in the media had it out for this movie the moment they heard it was being made.
Film Noir has always dealt in themes of ambiguity, usually of the moral kind. This film takes it to the ultimate ang logical extreme, exploring not just morality but sexuality and identity. People make the mistake of thinking that Friedkin was conflating the two (morality and sexuality) but I don't think that's true. Inside each of us they're are opposites (good/evil, male/female, gay/straight, etc.) and the line between theme often gets blurry. And the film's final scene is the same as the film's opening scene, which is a tug boat on the Hudson River. This is a call back to the arm found in the river at the beginning. The story turns back in on itself like Ouroboros, the implication being that we are in an endless cycle of recurring violence. The film isn't saying anything good about ANY of us. This was (and for many still is) far too close to the bone and unsettling for many to handle. If this film had been set in a more conventional heterosexual cruising milieu it would likely have enjoyed a similar re-appraisal as Sorcerer had enjoyed. If we allow ourselves to read the film more as noir and less of a "gay film" it is quite rewarding.
Saw this in 1982 when I was 22 and I absolutely loved it. Bought the book and waited for the movie to come out on video, which didn't happen (here in Manila) till some 10 years after. I thought it was a landmark film then and still do, along with Friedkin's earlier film, 'Boys In The Band.'
Cape Fear (1991), The Exorcist, Black Hawk Down, Prometheus, all of the Alien films from the 2003 box set (for which he won an award), Blade Runner, The Godfather box set, Apocalypse Now, The Thing, and The Blues Brothers. He's done many more as well, but my memory isn't that good! His name assures the viewer that the special features on a movie title is a stamp of quality. Brilliant! :)
Yep. I think (I haven't seen the film for a while) that this is what is on the DVD. It really is worth buying - good film, and it doesn't skimp (As Paramount does) with the special features. I guess the best thing to do is look up Bouzereau's name on the IMDb site, and check out what he's done in total. Very impressive!
I remember when this movie was being made here in NYC. There were a multitude of protests by people in the Gay community, many attempting to interrupt the filming of Cruising. The late Arthur Bell, then a renowned columnist with the Village Voice and a strident Gay activist, was critical of the film, even before it was finished. I think much of the protests against the film were that it presented a small subculture of the Gay community which was somewhat of a "dirty secret" and it was feared it would be taken literally by the straight community as how all Gay men are. The film itself was not bad, somewhat inconsistent in plot. The novel it was based on was much better.
It's truth... Cruising is somehow a monochromatic film. Great photography. I remember seeing it in the theater around '80 or '81. A double feature, with a re-release of Apocalypse Now. Friedkin & Coppola going thru hell.
The mystery is solved ......It slipped out of Friedkin himself......Friedkin got caught up in the conversation and he gave it away when he said at 8;37...he needed Al Pacino to get in the apartment of the Killer......the killer is the guy who attacked Al Pacino at the end of the movie and wind up stabbed by Al Pacino...Al Pacino wasnt the killer.....His character was getting close to go crazy because when he accepted the undercover assingnement he wasnt aware of the world of killing, abnormal behavior and danger he was gonna enter and been exposed to.....remember he had a girl and there was a moment his relation with her suffered because his role as a covered cop almost drove him crazy...that was the reason in a certain moment he exploded and fought with the neighbor...because the neighbor caught him in a bad moment and was the target of his personal anger........But i have also motives that allowed me to make me believe this....Today i saw the movie in the afternoon very carefully....very carefeul...going back and forth...2 or 3 times also....i even made notes about the people who got killed...one after the other.....but what got my attention and made me realize that the he was the killer is the fact that there is a moment in the movie when you see him "talking" to his father, sitting beside him in a park.....and his father tells him...."You know that you have to do what you have to do"...and then at the end of the movie when they raid his flat and find the letters adressed to his father, the policeman says, "but his father has been dead for 10 yrs'''''. I think in the movie he was schizophrenic and during his moments of allucinations and exacerbated psychosis, he "heard" his father telling him what to do...and wrote this letters to justify his killlings to his dead father in case he ever got caught...Just like what happened with The Son of Sam in the 70s in N.Y......when Sam was killing people and was arrested , he admitted that there was a dog barking all the time beside his house, and in his magnified madness, he perceived the dog barkings as distorded voices ordering him to kill...This is the most significant sympthom of people with Schizophrenia.....That their perception of external stimulus and reality is distorted because of absence of neurological normal activity in the sick brain....Its my personal and humble opinion....
Friedkin recreated the notorious and infamous gay club "The Mineshaft" for the main club location for his movie. Wally Wallace, "The Mineshaft " owner, wouldn't allow anyone to film inside his club, and rejected Friedkin's request. Wallace said that security agents working with the film, had connections to the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and arranged for the NYPD to illegally arrest Wallace and his employees in a raid over an alleged liquor license violation. While Wallace and his employees were taken downtown, Friedkin's crew from the movie company went into the Mineshaft and photographed everything” - the charges were later dropped, Wallace added.
The reality that Friedkin delved into to make his movies makes filmmaking seem bad-fucking-ass, involving himself with real people and observing and artistically interpreting reality. It seems a miracle he was allowed to exist and make movies, we may never have another filmmaker like this ever again.
I was 16 when I saw this film in Brasil and all this leather scenery was unexpected and unkown for us, brazilians. This film made me fear the gay night in NYC during the several times I've been there in my holydays. As a teenager at that time I considered the film very disturbing, although I also consider it nowadays as a masterpiece!❤
On further consideration, cockroach, I think you have an excellent point. I had a coming of age a lot like the one in this movie. And I think if you just tweak the movie a bit, trim a couple of minor plot details off, it really is the story of a lad searching for (the) meaning of/in life. But seriously, WHY ISN'T AL PACINO in this documentary/ retrospective?! Can't find ANYTHING online as to why he distances himself from Cruising.
new york used to be such a vibrant city, with all kinds of different people living in it. Even in manhattan, you had a sense of danger, it was fun! These days its so sanitized, and who can even afford to live there anymore?
I saw this movie with my dad when it was released at 14. There was a sign in the theater that said the theater thought it should have an X rating. I remember my dad saying if this gets any worse we are leaving but we stayed and watched the whole thing. He did turn off "Up in Smoke" saying that is terrible stuff :) I was oblivious to politics at the time even a newspaper junkie.
i saw it when i was 19 years old and was shocked that Al Pacino stared in this. It was very shocking for the time
11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Ultimately Friedkin cannot be excused for making this film. He says he knew it would cause controversy, but he does not admit that it added to gay hatred in the straight community.
To me, giving the murderer an ambiguous quality created a metaphor for and foreshadowed the AIDS crisis that sadly, soon followed, less than a year later after this movie came out.
I 100% agree and have thought this myself. Its a metaphor and maybe something about gay culture that Friedkin instinctively interpreted because it sure did happen quite like that..
What makes me really glad I saw this is it clears up who the killers were. Because I knew Richard Cox wasn't the killer of the 1st guy. And that they used the voice of his character's dad as the voice of the killer, though it was the voice of the 1st killer too. Until this was clarified and based on what I recall, I thought that they may have had the wrong guy. Especially when you see the back of a guy who looks like the killer walk into the club at the end. And because Cox was acting more cautious, and wasn't really acting like the killer had been when he's with Pacino in the park, etc. Interesting how they used the same actor (Arnoldo) to be killed by both killers. Admittedly, the folks who made this film set out to screw with your head, by using both Arnoldo and Larry Atlas each in 2 roles. Or you could say Cox's character takes over from Atlas's, and assumes his identity as the killer. Lolts of different ways you could think about it.
Hello there, thanks for watching. Please subscribe for more interesting movie and art related stuff!!
Lol
Is your avatar Bubby from "Bad Boy Bubby".
@@james-faulknerAre cats wrapped in Glad-wrap?
@@baabaabaa-El The clingfilm murderer does that!
It definitely is Bubby.
The scenes with the pet cat are hard to watch.
What is the name of the opening music
I came out in 1983. I recall all the controversy when the film opened. Before I came out, I actually thought every gay bar would look like the RAMROD. The first time I walked through the door of a gay nightclub, I was shocked how great it was and how everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves. My first boyfriend didn’t put a lot of pressure on me, he said when I was ready to go, we’d go. After that night I wanted to see every club/bar in town. We had a lot of fun. I was amazed that on a Wednesday evening there were several hundred guys in one place enjoying themselves, and able to be themselves without anyone worrying. There would be that awkward time when you might see someone you went to school with. My b/f kept reminding me they were there for the same reason. I knew there were clubs like the one portrayed in the film, but I never saw them. When AIDS began to be known in cities all over the country, you noticed it. Instead of hundreds out any evening, it might be 100. I was scared to be tested and never was. My first b/f and I broke up. I dated quite a few guys, some seriously, mostly not. Then in 1990 I was nosing around Tiffany. Someone tapped my shoulder, I turned around and was greeted by a handsome guy with a broad smile. He introduced himself and asked if I’d join him for a drink. I was a bit jaded by then but said sure. The following week he called asking if I’d join him for dinner “any place you’d like to go”. I first said no, I was busy. After thinking about it, I called him back and apologized. We had a wonderful dinner. As we left the restaurant he grabbed a menu. I asked what he wanted it for, he replied “we might want to remember this night someday”. We’re still together, and in October are going away for a week to celebrate our 33rd anniversary. I know I’m very lucky.
You sound weird. Your description of things then is off.
awwwww
Congratulations! I was born in late 1982 so the '80s was such a great, carefree time for me. I know it was much more challenging for gay men who came before me and my generation. I'm glad your story has such a happy ending. 🙂
What a lovely story!
That’s cool . Doesn’t happen like that too often anymore!
William Friedkin was absolutely fearless. He approached his work, life and even the interviews in the same way; did his way, no second thoughts. And also he was extremely intelligent. What a talent.
40 yrs later mainstream directors still wouldn't touch material like this due to the stigma around the gay community. Bravo to Friedkin for taking on a daring task.
As they discuss in this video, many gay people were very vocally against this film and tried to derail the filming with loud protests. Not as black and white as that.
The truth hurts
Lot of 70s movies were like that....
My parents thought it was ok for me to watch the exorcist but I’ve never even heard of this movie
That's nonsense! Now you have to have a LBGTQWERTY12345 Character to even get the greenlight... stop with the BS already!!! Gays and Traniexs aren't a victim class anymore (if they ever were, it was a long time ago) I've never seen it, and have no desire to... Why? There's nobody I can remotely relate to.... The Gay Traniex NYC scene in the 70's? Nobody I know gives a flying f*ck about any of that crazy sh*t... most people don't care about it now... Do what you want in private (as should everyone) but don't demand that everybody else agrees with your delusion or take them to court because they called you a He when that's what you obviously are...
RIP William Friedkin, one of the greatest American filmmakers to ever live.
Great movie. Great soundtrack. It came out at the perfect time. No one would ever have the balls to make a movie this edgy now.
Thanks for the upload.
Thanks for watching
Seen this at the theater when it came out and bought the soundtrack. Best thing about this was it turned me on to Mink Deville, who I had heard of at the time, but had never actually listened to.
@Corpus C.---yes, it is a shame , isn't it, the way that we as a society have become so wimpy--people ( esp. movie producers ) need to "grow a pair", and , tell it like it IS !!!!!!
Corpus Callosum
Egberto Gismonti is overlooked when all the big names in Brazilian music are spoken.
His early 80's releases are some of the best music of that decade.
No one else would´ve had the balls to make it in 1980, only the brilliant maverick William Friedkin.
This movie was far more brilliant than I thought it was going to be. The ending just blew me away. It just puts everything you think you know and turns it upside down.
I'm a Westcoast 90s kid but movies that are set in late 60s to early 80s NYC fascinate me. I can't believe that grimy NYC is the one I visit every year. That was back when NYC had character. It was dangerous, but had character. I love this mystery film. The director really topped himself making this one. This was also one of Pacino's best movies. At least top 5.
Soooooo true!
If you want equally grimey LA movies from that era check out the films 'Vice Squad' and 'Paul Schraders' Hardcore
NYC was the most dangerous and criminal city in the world from the mid 1960’s-1990’s. Horrible nightmare the encyclopedia of stories that came out of that entire era.
I was only 20 in 1977 but... as grimy and dirty as NYC was.. I didn't find it all that dangerous. Now, it feels like Disneyland, and that scares me even more.
Thought I was the only one with this obsession! I'm with you 100%.
I was living right in the middle of it in 1972, a 21 year old straight girl, overjoyed at not being bothered by any guy any hour of the day or night. But to see what men can and will do to each other, and I'm not talking about sex, really put the fear of God in me and it hasn't left. Although I put it out of my head at times.
To me it is Al Pacino’s best movie. Completely under playing and playing the ambiguity of the character perfectly. In a way this movie is a testament to Pacino’s genius and certainly to Fredkin’s!
The first time I saw it, I felt like Pacino was miscast because he seemed so uncomfortable in the role and he has never ever talked about it, like he just wants to forget about it. But when seeing it again, I realised the innocence and uncomfortable expression in his face, regardless if it was actually Pacino feeling like he regretted taking the part, it makes you understand the character and the actually elevates the movie.
Franklin said he was a lazy actor in this film lol
i agree!
It's his arguably worst acting in his career. As if he didn't try at all.
I still don't know who the killer was. Need to watch it again!
I can't imagine not having grown up without Friedkin's MASTERPIECES
A typical "now that he´s dead i´m a fan forever" comment...
You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Well said. The film was not a depiction of how the gay community as a whole lived their lives, but how a small segment lived their lives. The reality of that world really bothered some people. I remember the first time I saw Cruising. I was horrified, but impressed at the same time. It's not a fantastic movie because the acting is less than stellar and the dialogue is nonsensical, but it's a fascinating look into a world that has completely disappeared and doesn't exist anymore. Apparently Cruising is based on real life case of a killer in NYC who was targeting men in the gay S & M community. I see it as a timecapsule. I have very fuzzy memories of NYC at this time, because I was so young when the movie was made.
@@rubaidaallen2764 Agree. That side of New York as a whole is all but gone and it's really fascinating to look back at it. A time capsule of a bygone era indeed.
WHat are you actually saying? in relation to the film.
My dad, a devoted Republican, as well as myself, viewed this film with me. He actually said Friedkin had topped The Exorcist in terms of shock and engaging plotline. He never thought for a minute that all gay people are into the leather scene. Dad had empathy for the characters, and simply read astounded by the movie.And yes, it,s scary as all get out. Really a dark masterpiece. I, at 53, have seen it five times.....and still ponder it. The mark.of great cinema... ..
HOW DARE YOU BRING YOUR DAD INTO THIS?
@@latroletteeeee How dare you be SO possibly ignorant????? My post is heartfelt and real. Obviously you do not comprehend intelligent film reviews.
@@latroletteeeee Oh, I get it. You,re a Demoncrat. MAGA 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND, for Miss Trollete, or whatever your fake handle is, I wouldn,t subscribe to your site if YOU PAID ME. Trust me, I,m way more famous. Tell THAT to yourself....
@@louiswetzel2277 HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME. I AM EATING PASTA BTW.
This is a GREAT MOVIE!! What's GREAT about this movie is that you see the Village as it was. The stores, the streets, the garb, the nightlife, the music, the clubs, the scenes - that's all gone today. The Village is gone, today and man do we miss it.
Thank you for making this Cruising Documentary available for all to see. Also, Richard Gere as Friedkin's first choice would have been awesome in that role too. A very different spin to the character than Pacino's take.
Al Pacino was a perfect match, his deep black eyes so full of emotions!
I love Richard Gere but I can't see him in Cruising, he was too cute for that character. Just my opinion. But then again after seeing Pacino's work maybe I can't think of any other actor playing that part.
I am Sorry, but I can't see Richard Gere in a S&M bar ingaged that type activity. Al Pacino was perfect because he knows how bring subtle nuances to character. I had no indication had remotely repressed homosexual traits. His slow transformation was sincerely believable.
I thought Pacino looked uncomfortable in the role as actor not the character. Just didn't buy his change.@@paulhunter6742
Wow, Richard Gere would have been a better choice, drawing more viewers
Still less homoerotic than _Top Gun_
😂
Bshop Bmail or Pain and Gain
Top Gun is still a better film ..
So true
@@retter2critical Yes!
This film has grown on me deeply. I’ve seen it so many times and every one of them I keep having more and more questions. The killer’s identity was never clear to me, and the voice dubbing just makes it even harder. Never noticed the fact that the murders on scene weren‘t even played by the same actor!!!! This movie is so underrated.
the point was there is more than one killer in New York. you weren't crazy, Friedkin designed it that way.
Yeah it's so mind-boggling.
Just brilliant. Friedkin gives nothing away…I was guessing at the killer’s identity all the way to the very end.
Agree...a really interesting and I think, worthwhile movie.
The real killer on whom this movie was based actually had a bit-part acting role in the exorcist, of all movies. Incredible.
This was a disturbing film. A total masterpiece. Just coming out myself in the early 80's, it contributed to me keeping clear of the extreme underworld of the gay sex culture, and I think I'm alive today because of that, escaping drug addiction and HIV.
Me as well, a tad later but remembered this movie and steered clear of this environment, going to anyones apartment, etc....
An outcome I never thought of, though it's obvious, but I'm glad to read it.
I REMEMBER WELL.
I always admired this director - a real badass, totally dedicated to the point of utter madness
Absolutely!
I do love Friedkin's movies, they have such grit and truth that sometimes it hurts some people but he was always pushing to make the audience sit up and watch and go away thinking of the movie for years. Hips or lips.
Party size.
@@iliketowatch. Then gettem down
I wish we had film makers like him now.
I've always found Friedkin a genuinely curious and honest person. I'm still thinking so after watching this documentary. Thanks for sharing
No problem, Thanks for watching
He actually changed the course of my life by making The Exorcist.
If you've got people protesting, trying to stop a film being made, everyone involved in making it must know they're onto something good.
Oh yes!
There were protests because gays then did what they wanted freely and didn't want anyone telling them how to limit their sexual expression. It was before AIDS and they could never imagine what would happen later. It's a tragedy. I had a lot of gay friends that hung out on Christopher and I went with them to bars and clubs sometimes, in the late 70s. I moved to Chelsea, 20th and 10th, in 1979 and walked and rode my bike through and empty meatpacking down West St to the WTC. That world is gone.
I think it’s more because the mainstream gay rights movement was pushing for acceptance by straight society and they felt a film about the S&M bars represented bad press. And that Friedkin was trying to sensationalise gay life and imply that it was violent and scary. Having now seen the film I don’t agree with any of that, but as Friedkin says here, you can see why they formed that opinion.
The actual leather bar patrons were supportive of the film and many were extras in it, so it wasn’t the hedonists who were objecting.
Aids. They were so young, so alive, and so kind and the next thing you knew...
Friedkin is one of the greatest (and most underrated) directors of the past 50 years.
"Underrated" LMAO.
What are you talking about, "underrated"? He's in every list of greatest film directors of all time.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia Clueless as to the meaning of the word “underrated,” or just spewing nonsense.
@@AlexSosaBolivia Dude, did you read my comment right? I agree with you. I even gave you that "Like" you have.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia I know! Was referring to the OP.
'Cruising 'was in my opinion a great movie that initially received bad reviews from the media for obvious reasons.
@@Avocadosimp Yeah! It's true, Luis, thanks a lot!
It showed the real gay lifestyle it put the homo in homosexual,homoerotic it put the sexual in homosexuality not just drag queens and fashion which has nothing to do with being gay.
Pacino's dancing is epic. : D
Method!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Consider they said he heard about the project and actively wanted to do the picture. And then think of that when you evaluate his dancing.
@@WFOX44 Yes he was dancing so stiffly what was the purpose of trying to butch it up?
@@WFOX44I think you would find a lot of people would dance like that when sniffing Amyl Nitrate (poppers)
Great film. I was 20 in 1980 and saw it at the theatre. It is still one of my fave films. Excellence...on many levels.
Wow yesss..
I'm curious on what levels? The one level that we may agree on is the historical significance. Even if it was not exact in its historical depiction of gay life, it does represent Hollywood's thought on gay life in NYC.
@@Lnstrq the are different gay lifestyles. Leathermen is one.
Love this MOVIE. I was a straight kid growing up in San Francisco in the 1980s and this movie just got it right.
Saw this while browsing on a popular streaming service and I thought, " oh, an al pachino movie I haven't seen before."
Me next...😐😐🤨😐☹☹😬😨😨😨😱😭
Going to watch it on Sunday night in Fukuoka, Japan in the cinema. Masterpiece ❤
I heard Brian DePalma wanted to adapt Cruising but lost the rights to the book so his take on Cruising became Dressed To Kill- which is a heterosexual nightmare instead of a gay one
Billy! You got BALLS!!! Man you got balls!!! To make this today would take balls! To make it in 1979-1980! You are a tough SOB!! Props to you and I wish more film makers were as tough as you are!
I wish they got more input from James Remar. His insight into the commentary for The Warriors was amazing. He only showed on screen for maybe three minutes in Cruising but he’s a sharp cookie.
It's cool watching this movie now and realizing "oh, this block of the east village that was once a lively and booming gay bar... is now a Whole Foods"
Glory Hole Foods
@@ringkite stahpppppppppppp!!!!!
@@bill775 :D
That’s everywhere, man.
CBGB is a boring clothing store now.
When I first watched this movie, I enjoyed it but it was a tad unsettling. After watching for a second time I really enjoyed it. I think Pacino showed a lot of courage at that time when he played this role. I think it’s a great movie.
He was not happy about if for decades and wiped it off his record. Later he could accept it again
This is a top five movie for me. I am a film buff so Cruising sits along side a Clockwork Orange, Blow Up, Children of Paradise and Love and Death. So underrated
You left out Boys in the Band. That movie was totally opposite of Cruising. Although most of characters were emotionally damaged.
Love and Death 💜 great woody allen
This is how movies are truly made and why they are so powerful. Not some pseudo intellectual discussions in some office and then putting sequences in a computer. Research and footwork make good movies. I love how he talks about editing! Being a former Asst. Editor and Post-Production Supervisor myself, I totally agree.
Hes often described as a "montage director"
Thank you for posting this documentary clip about the film Cruising.
I originally saw this film on VHS around the time it was first released on VHS, as we were huge GERMS GI fans out here in NYC during the early 1980's, anyhow... I have no memory of what I thought of the film back then - but I will say that by 1985, I was no stranger to that part of NYC and truth be told, always felt very safe there.
Of interest, I did get this film maybe - well, a few years back anyway - once I found out it was released on DVD - which includes this documentary as well, and I have to say I've watched it no less than 6 times, with and without the commentary, for it illustrates a NYC which no longer exists, and has not existed in quite sometime.
For those who view this film as negative, all I can ask is did you really watch it ??
Better yet, have you ever been to the neighborhoods depicted ???
Because there is nothing anti-gay about it.
It's a murder mystery set within a certain community, one of which many have chosen to not recognize or instead deny it's existence.
It's a great film, and in my opinion - one that needed to be made, and one that Al needs not be ashamed of...
*Of interest to those who loved the soundtrack, recently the soundtrack was released on a special limited edition hybrid SACD disc, which seems to have different mixes from the original record album, which I have also.
If you can find a copy of either, it's well worth it, because that soundtrack was really rocking :) :) :)
Thanks for the insights, George!
My pleasure, as this was a very special time in not only my life, but the lives of many others as well.
Ooh. There's a commentary?
22:40 The gay male community was completely justified at being offended by this movie. I’ve been out over 43 years, and lived in Manhattan briefly in the 80’s, and was in all the bars, and none of them, including the Ramrod and the Mineshaft, were as bad as this movie portrayed. This movie could have illustrating gay bashing as homophobic, perpetrated by a “straight” killer, but it didn’t. There is no empathy at all towards the victims. It portrayed gay men as lurid, psychotic, homicidal, that eagerly embrace risky behavior. This movie sort of justifies the murders, because gay men are said to get what they deserve. I have the soundtrack of this movie, and all the music is sinister, ominous, wicked, or evil. There is nothing pleasant about this movie. There is a murder scene in this movie that is one of the most graphic I’ve ever seen to date.
There was an outrage! They got lots of criticism and i remember my dad telling me that this film did not get good ratings and i should not see it. So i did not watch it for 20 years but when i saw it i realized that my dad is perhaps just has homophobia because this is very brave and powerful film and just good.
R.I.P William Friedkin who passed away August 7, 2023.
THANK YOU FOR THAT im obsessed with that movie dis docu showed some new parts i didnt see before and it gave me a great idea thank you !!!
It could be Friedkin or the actor who plays the coroner who was also in the Exorcist, but the two movies feel so connected. I would even say some of the scenes on Cruising come off as horror movie scenes. The atmosphere is so ominous and the score is oppressive and tense. A great little film no doubt.
I feel the same way. Both films are very claustrophobic in parts and as a viewer, you are sucked into the story and the dread.
Friedkin does specifically reference”Psycho” in the interview here.
Famous for its anti -gay message , its funny that the creator of it passes himself off as a serious director .
@@jameskennedy721 in all honesty I don't see the anti-gay message. It's a murder mystery set in the leather bar scene.
I was shocked to learn one of actors, the man was assistant in Morgue scene, turned out be a murder. Chopped up his companion and threw parts in a River.
interesting doc of a disturbing film- not about homosexuals, but cold-blooded murder of people...I think of it as a metaphor for for the horrific carelessness of a majority society for the fate of another less accepted segment. It could be homosexuals, jews, refugees, out-of-caste women- it does not matter who the victim is- the simple fact of their fate for being who they are. There is a large segment of society who do not care simply because the victims are of another group.
Another note: I think that Billy murder shot in the bathroom should have had a lot more blood around.
One more thing is I noticed the seat was down, it should have been up
We watched this in school when I was 8 because my teacher thought it was about a boat trip
Hahaha!!
Oh please tell me you're joking?😂
@@fabiwilliams4644 We based our school end of year play on it too, was very hard finding a sling in a 1980s rural area
God I miss this courageous style of filmmaking. This is one of the greats !
Imagine the guts it took for Pacino to play that roll at that time
He never talked about it ever again ..
@@retter2critical
…and then he played the creepy devil in Devil’s Advocate
Underrated classic. RIP to the legendary William Friedkin.
Well I figured in the end Pacino's character killed his neighbor because he was starting to like him and felt just like the original killer that his neighbor made Pacino like him which comes back to the killer saying, "you made me do that". Plus the hat, jacket and mirror shades that his girlfriend found also points to Pacino becoming the new killer.
That haunting score
Yeah, I love that two guitar main theme. Off kilter, just like the rest of the movie.
Jack Nitzsche who wrote that haunting score.
@@markelijio6012 Did he also do the score for “Hardcore” from the same year? It reminds me of it.
Since 1956, he did a lot of powerful scores such as "The Exorcist," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
(1976 Academy Award Nominee, Best Original Score), "Blue Collar," "Hardcore," "An Officer and a
Gentleman" (1983 Academy Award Nominee, Original Score, Oscar Winner, Original Song - Up Where
We Belong), "The Razor's Edge," "Starman" among others before his death in 2001.
Very surprised to learn that the huge black guy in a jockstrap was apparently something that really happened... I remember laughing so hard at that scene when I first watched. Especially when Pacino came out and threw his hat out of the window.
Interesting documentary, thanks for uploading!
+Isabelle Etiévant Very much so! My pleasure, thanks for watching.
+Isabelle Etiévant I'm trying to find out if that was Jim Brown. If not, then who? He's not credited for it.
The whole movie was based on real events. What's scary is, like the Zodiac killer, this killer was never caught.
Who is that guy actually?
@@B_uttcrumbs It wasn't Jim Brown.
Anyone else think, "I don't remember Darryl Hannah in that movie" whenever the thumbnail pops up?
Haha
YUP😅@@retter2critical
I'm sorry because Daryl Hannah wasn't appear in William Friedkin's "Cruising" (1980), she didn't want to do with be involved in that
troubled production, according to her managers. It took her a long while that she prefers to choose and pick her own projects
very carefully - such as Warners' "Blade Runner" (1982/1992/2007), Colgems-Delphi's "Summer Lovers" (1982), Disney's "Splash"
(1984-1985) and Screen Gems/Hallmark/Studio Canal's "Steel Magnolias: The Unrated Director's Cut" (1989/1995).
"Richard Gere had expressed a strong interest in the part..." You don't say!
Hahahaha
hamster man
I think Richard Gere could have pulled it off. Has a very engaging voice and demeanor.
HAHAHAHA
@@hamillsamuel8301 You mean gerbil.
Master Friedking. An amazing movie. He went where nobody dared. Glorious70's rebel cinema.
I love comments like ‘so I was walking from my apartment to the theater’ - by a film director! Isn’t that insane and cool, so indicative of the times.
Saw this in the theater, need to rewatch!
Excellent! I remember when this came out and have never forgotten the name …there were certain kids in school who knew about it
thanks for uploading this
+J J No problem, thanks for enjoying it
Interesting doc on this film, but Friedkin made no mention of the character portrayed by Joe Spinell, a cruising abusive cop who could of been just as murderous as any other character in the film. I found him the most creepiest of them all, introduced complaining to his police partner about his wife leaving him and moving to Florida with the kids. Ironically, Spinell's real wife, porn actress Jean Jennings, left him just a few weeks prior, moving to Florida with their daughter.
Later in 1980, Spinell would finance, from his Cruising earnings, his starring role in the ultra-violent, controversial slasher flick Maniac, that he co-wrote and filmed on the streets of NYC with then porn director William Lustig. Again, in 1980, Spinell was in The First Deadly Sin with Frank Sinatra, as a doorman for an apartment building where a serial killer resides. And this was just part of 1980 of his career....
Thanks for the info, never saw Cruising to this day however just noticed Spinell in this featurette , Saw Maniac back in 80 at the theater and then uncut on video subsequently and thought it was rather underrated and very effective in it's atmosphere. Spinell did many small roles including both Godfather films and Taxi Driver.
I love Maniac.
Don't forget "Nighthawks" with Sly, Billy Dee, Nigel Davenport and Rutger a year later. Excellent movie.
@@jeshkam and Count Zarth Arn in the sublimely bad Star Crash.
I thought the same. You can see the detective Edelson's reaction at the end of the movie, when he asked about his name (diSimone).
A great movie! So gritty and one of Pacino's best films.
There’s so many elements in this film that throw you off- the fact the actor playing the killer switches (I’m pretty sure the first killer becomes the second victim) the police officer who keeps turning up and could also be the killer, the ambiguity of the ending.
The ADR is terrible in this movie, almost ruining it but yet giving it an eerie quality that adds to the atmosphere.
This was so interesting - thanks for posting!
Such a sleazy Soundtrack. Love it.
Glad someone else recognizes the beauty of its sleazy nature. (The soundtrack)
It was Jack Nitzsche who composed the music score along with guest musicians Anthony Marinelli and Brian Banks.
Love it.
well done, great documentary, congratulations.
One of my favourite movies. I saw it when it came out, mainly because Pacino was in it (I probably wouldn't have gone if Gere was the lead instead), I live in Canada & wasn't really aware of all the controversy then. Very powerful & haunting movie. I remember leaving the theatre kind of dazed & trying to figure it all out. It showcased the mastery of all involved in the production.
I still think Richard Cox's character was the main killer, idk who was heading to the club in the end, but I honestly think Al Pacino's character killed Ted. Such mindfuck, but I feel that Cruising was one of those murder mystery movies that we will never know the true answers. And that's what makes this film so terrifying and great.
yeah, like he is still out there watching.
Tommy Cipriani If you've seen his other films To Live & Die in LA and The Exorcist, the idea of possessing an aura or quality of another is what in my opinion permeates the idea of the killer floating from one person to the next
I think he killed Ted in part because he wanted him but couldn't have him, not cope with that, but I enjoyed it.
It's pretty obvious seeing how the voice connects them together. However, he never dismembered anyone, so the bodyparts in the river are not from him, and he probably didn't kill Ted either
Friedkin is an Absolute Legend..
I have a faint memory of possibly having seen this movie… It was so bloody long ago! And the only reason why I think that I might have seen it is because I think that near the end, Al Pacino’s character becomes confused about pretty much “life all around”… How deep in he got and did he like some of it?… But that’s the only feeling that I have about perhaps having seen it so I will watch it again and I’m sure that I’ll be blown away, because I thoroughly enjoyed this documentary. Very beautifully done.
I have never seen Gene Davis talk in an interview and I'm amazed he actually laughed. That guy scared the crap out of me in that movie, "10 To Mindnight." I remember watching it with my sister one time many years ago when it came on HBO very late at night. We were staying with my grandparents and they had cable, so we stayed up late watching it in the living room. It must've been 1984 or so when we watched it. Haha....anyway, the killer in that movie always gave me the creeps. I just saw it again last night and he still gave me the creeps, and I'm 47 now!
OMG, same here…
Mr. Davis was totally creepy. His character was partially based on killer Richard Speck. Especially when he killed the student nurses.
Oh, the smell. Jeezuz. I used to work in Chelsea around 2010s. One bar had a patio with a rolling gate that faced 8th Avenue. The stencho of a hundred+ men, just from the sidewalk was amazing. It's why I could never, ever, go to prison. Oh, credit to Pacino for taking all those crazy roles in the 70s. That dude knew how to pick 'em.
I love the grimy aesthetic of this movie. The plot and characters not so much. It’s a fascinating view of a slice of New York that doesn’t exist now (if it ever did). Still a very raw, unflinching movie that is classic Friedkin. They don’t make films like this anymore.
If you like that grimy aesthetic, I recommend Hong Kong thrillers like On The Run and City On Fire from the 1980s.
I was going to some of these clubs that were alone Washington Street south of 14th Street.. I was in my early 30s. I never felt scared like I would be in this movie the scenes were very compressed with the constant fear sitting in the audience that sounds going to get killed any minute..The movie did exaggerate the constant edginess of fear. I just couldn't get into the scene just the eye candy alone is satisfactorily enough..l hardly rarely took anybody home I just didn't want to thinking how people don't spend diseases. I just had my fill of getting the clap once and syphilis once before this movie. I surely didn't want to risk at them again. I had just come out in 1974. And. in the leather clubs are in full swing at that time. Christopher Street at that time was so crowded. So many guys in the leather going down to the ramrod, Keller's, and the Badlands all along West Street. Strange it didn't have any scenes inside the big warehouses were there hundreds of guys getting it on with each other.. police and their vehicles would raid the place.. once a police car went right off of ramp into the water. So much daring things happening back then. In these clubs and bars I pretty just kept myself or this spent the time talking with friends l've seen and met over the years then. Yep there wa's plenty to see and observe with all this kissing and groping pissing in the bathtubs or urinals. and all that fisttng. It could imagine how far fist can go up into an ass it's just too much to imagine enough to make you feel pretty light-headed or nauseated if you kept starining. Could you imagine all the diseases that were being spread at that time unbridled. Thank God or whatever higher power is out there if any to keep me safe.. unlike so many hundreds of our brothers who contracted HIV soon after. Those of us who survive would wonder how lucky we were pretty much developed a survivor guilt. And now with grinder and scruff in other internet venues these fear concerns concussions should still be with us with these blind dates. It always be a good rule of caution to meet at a club or a cafe before you engage anything sexual or taking anybody to your home or their home..along about getting any diseases even with the use of Prep people doing crystal meth.. People feel protected using them, that they feel pretty much invincible.. I don't think I take a chance
@@retter2critical I adore the late 80s early 90s Hong Kong thrillers and City on Fire is the one I love the most. Ringo Lam made some great gritty movies. Full Trottle was another I think.
Never seen On the Run, will check that out. Thanks!
@@jekw23 Great, yeah Prison On Fire is another good one
Trust me that slice of New York 1,000% existed and was even crazier than the movie depicted. Especially the homophobia, gays were getting killed left and right by street guys. Like literally lynching these poor homos
The last performance of Al Pacino as an actor, the WOO-HAH movie star guy laid in wait
It really is a masterful film. I first saw this film as a teenager and I must admit, it simultaneously intrigued and hurt me; I was developing a sense of my own sexuality, to my young and lonely mind, I thought this film was demonising the gay community and I really thought it was going to make the public hate the LGBT community even more. I watched it every time it came on the tv, each time seeing a new layer and appreciation for its existence.
To me, the voice dubbing adds a slightly disturbing disembodied, dissociative quality that is very apt for the character.
Truly a masterpiece and a brilliant time capsule to a time long gone. No one could've made this film other than Friedkin. Its unfortunate that it came out when it did in 1980 right when the disco backlash was happening, and a year before Reagan took office and AIDS became known. Cruising became part of a new wave of hatred and violence toward gay men. Looking back now its uncanny how this film predicted AIDS, with the role of the killer being passed from one man to another. Strange time.
My favorite actor in this movie is Richard Cox. I like when he said at nights him and Al Pacino would walk home "decompressing."
LOVED THIS SINCE I SAW IT IN THE 70'S. THEY HAD SOME GUY COME OUT AND READ A WARNING STATEMENT AND STATE THAT IT DID NOT REPRESENT THE GAY COMMUNITY. THERE WERE PROTESTER'S OUTSIDE IN TIMES SQUARE. REALLY COOL. AL WAS GREAT. UNDER RATED IN MY OPINION.
+minfo2000 Wow! that sounds so exciting
There was a shooting in one of the bars of the movie one month after the premiere. It was a really dehumanizing despiction of gay people.
I thought it was released in 1980 and you saw it in the 70's?
Gene Davis really got into the roll as a crossdresser, very femme. A couple of years later, he played a killer in "Ten to Midnight. ".😁🌷
The political wing of the Gay Community did not want this film to be shown. They picketed the theaters and launched a PR campaign that hurt this film at the BO and critically. It was early cancel culture. They didn’t want a Gay guy portrayed as a murderer (murder was for straights only) and they did not want the leather subculture portrayed on film. I saw it when it was first released and watched it again recently and it still holds up very well, story wise, and maybe even better, film wise. The only major misstep is the confrontation scene in Central Park where Pacino meets up with Richard Cox, and the dialogue is truly cringeworthy: “Hips or lips?” “How big are you?” “Party size!” “Get ‘em down, I wanna see the world!” And Pacino taking the time to neatly fold his leather pants and place them on the ground is hysterical.
I just read Friedkin's awesome autobiography and the chapter on CRUISING is fascinating.
The gay mafia in the media had it out for this movie the moment they heard it was being made.
The Jewish mafia has it out for the poor, oppressed Nazis, too, as does the Black Mafia for the maligned KKK.
:)
"Shhh! There's a gay mafia! Shhh! The Mauve Hand! Shhh!"
Yeah but this film isn’t anti-gay. Any more than Psycho was anti motel proprietors...
They really need to re-release this on DVD and Blu-ray!
Yeah, they should! Plus some other great supplemental materials have come to light, like the protest footage and news reports ...
Like this .... th-cam.com/video/cguub66nCfk/w-d-xo.html
Not sure if true, but I heard Pacino tried to bury the movie. I have it on VHS. It did come out on dvd. Check Ebay.
Coming to blu Ray this year from Arrow Video 😁
@@Marvdogger2 holy shit really?!?!?! I need to own this flick. I hope you're playing hahah😂
Film Noir has always dealt in themes of ambiguity, usually of the moral kind. This film takes it to the ultimate ang logical extreme, exploring not just morality but sexuality and identity. People make the mistake of thinking that Friedkin was conflating the two (morality and sexuality) but I don't think that's true. Inside each of us they're are opposites (good/evil, male/female, gay/straight, etc.) and the line between theme often gets blurry. And the film's final scene is the same as the film's opening scene, which is a tug boat on the Hudson River. This is a call back to the arm found in the river at the beginning. The story turns back in on itself like Ouroboros, the implication being that we are in an endless cycle of recurring violence. The film isn't saying anything good about ANY of us. This was (and for many still is) far too close to the bone and unsettling for many to handle. If this film had been set in a more conventional heterosexual cruising milieu it would likely have enjoyed a similar re-appraisal as Sorcerer had enjoyed. If we allow ourselves to read the film more as noir and less of a "gay film" it is quite rewarding.
Saw this in 1982 when I was 22 and I absolutely loved it. Bought the book and waited for the movie to come out on video, which didn't happen (here in Manila) till some 10 years after. I thought it was a landmark film then and still do, along with Friedkin's earlier film, 'Boys In The Band.'
As a straight woman who loves seeing men in leather this film was a godsend back in the day.
Really? You have every right to like what you like. Is it a sexual fetish for you? That’s pretty fascinating. Hugs!
Really great little documentary here....
Laurent Bouzereau always does the best documentaries for DVD releases!
What have they done before?
Cape Fear (1991), The Exorcist, Black Hawk Down, Prometheus, all of the Alien films from the 2003 box set (for which he won an award), Blade Runner, The Godfather box set, Apocalypse Now, The Thing, and The Blues Brothers. He's done many more as well, but my memory isn't that good! His name assures the viewer that the special features on a movie title is a stamp of quality. Brilliant! :)
I love the Blade Runner and Alien ones ... Did he do the Cruising ones?
Yep. I think (I haven't seen the film for a while) that this is what is on the DVD. It really is worth buying - good film, and it doesn't skimp (As Paramount does) with the special features. I guess the best thing to do is look up Bouzereau's name on the IMDb site, and check out what he's done in total. Very impressive!
Yeah, the DVD is out of print, only available on Warner Archive, which may not include extra features ... Not sure.
I remember when this movie was being made here in NYC. There were a multitude of protests by people in the Gay community, many attempting to interrupt the filming of Cruising. The late Arthur Bell, then a renowned columnist with the Village Voice and a strident Gay activist, was critical of the film, even before it was finished. I think much of the protests against the film were that it presented a small subculture of the Gay community which was somewhat of a "dirty secret" and it was feared it would be taken literally by the straight community as how all Gay men are. The film itself was not bad, somewhat inconsistent in plot. The novel it was based on was much better.
People may be surprised to learn that a decade before "Cruising", William Friedkin directed "The Boys in the Band".
@David Addison Uh, no.
But I would like to know how your question relates to my post.
Another antigay film
It's truth... Cruising is somehow a monochromatic film. Great photography.
I remember seeing it in the theater around '80 or '81.
A double feature, with a re-release of Apocalypse Now.
Friedkin & Coppola going thru hell.
Apocalypse & Cruising, that is true fusion cooking! What an odd 1-2 punch of a movie going experience!
The mystery is solved ......It slipped out of Friedkin himself......Friedkin got caught up in the conversation and he gave it away when he said at 8;37...he needed Al Pacino to get in the apartment of the Killer......the killer is the guy who attacked Al Pacino at the end of the movie and wind up stabbed by Al Pacino...Al Pacino wasnt the killer.....His character was getting close to go crazy because when he accepted the undercover assingnement he wasnt aware of the world of killing, abnormal behavior and danger he was gonna enter and been exposed to.....remember he had a girl and there was a moment his relation with her suffered because his role as a covered cop almost drove him crazy...that was the reason in a certain moment he exploded and fought with the neighbor...because the neighbor caught him in a bad moment and was the target of his personal anger........But i have also motives that allowed me to make me believe this....Today i saw the movie in the afternoon very carefully....very carefeul...going back and forth...2 or 3 times also....i even made notes about the people who got killed...one after the other.....but what got my attention and made me realize that the he was the killer is the fact that there is a moment in the movie when you see him "talking" to his father, sitting beside him in a park.....and his father tells him...."You know that you have to do what you have to do"...and then at the end of the movie when they raid his flat and find the letters adressed to his father, the policeman says, "but his father has been dead for 10 yrs'''''. I think in the movie he was schizophrenic and during his moments of allucinations and exacerbated psychosis, he "heard" his father telling him what to do...and wrote this letters to justify his killlings to his dead father in case he ever got caught...Just like what happened with The Son of Sam in the 70s in N.Y......when Sam was killing people and was arrested , he admitted that there was a dog barking all the time beside his house, and in his magnified madness, he perceived the dog barkings as distorded voices ordering him to kill...This is the most significant sympthom of people with Schizophrenia.....That their perception of external stimulus and reality is distorted because of absence of neurological normal activity in the sick brain....Its my personal and humble opinion....
Friedkin recreated the notorious and infamous gay club "The Mineshaft" for the main club location for his movie. Wally Wallace, "The Mineshaft " owner, wouldn't allow anyone to film inside his club, and rejected Friedkin's request. Wallace said that security agents working with the film, had connections to the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and arranged for the NYPD to illegally arrest Wallace and his employees in a raid over an alleged liquor license violation. While Wallace and his employees were taken downtown, Friedkin's crew from the movie company went into the Mineshaft and photographed everything” - the charges were later dropped, Wallace added.
The reality that Friedkin delved into to make his movies makes filmmaking seem bad-fucking-ass, involving himself with real people and observing and artistically interpreting reality. It seems a miracle he was allowed to exist and make movies, we may never have another filmmaker like this ever again.
I was 16 when I saw this film in Brasil and all this leather scenery was unexpected and unkown for us, brazilians. This film made me fear the gay night in NYC during the several times I've been there in my holydays. As a teenager at that time I considered the film very disturbing, although I also consider it nowadays as a masterpiece!❤
Just seen the movie, wow! i thought it was some coming of age movie where a young man found his sexuality and began cruising, boy was i wrong.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
Yeah . . . Not so much . . .
On further consideration, cockroach, I think you have an excellent point. I had a coming of age a lot like the one in this movie. And I think if you just tweak the movie a bit, trim a couple of minor plot details off, it really is the story of a lad searching for (the) meaning of/in life. But seriously, WHY ISN'T AL PACINO in this documentary/ retrospective?! Can't find ANYTHING online as to why he distances himself from Cruising.
Yes, I havent found anything with Pacino talking about this film .... Liberal Hollywood?
Its a very interesting film and a one-of-a-kind
new york used to be such a vibrant city, with all kinds of different people living in it. Even in manhattan, you had a sense of danger, it was fun! These days its so sanitized, and who can even afford to live there anymore?
I saw this movie with my dad when it was released at 14. There was a sign in the theater that said the theater thought it should have an X rating. I remember my dad saying if this gets any worse we are leaving but we stayed and watched the whole thing. He did turn off "Up in Smoke" saying that is terrible stuff :) I was oblivious to politics at the time even a newspaper junkie.
i saw it when i was 19 years old and was shocked that Al Pacino stared in this. It was very shocking for the time
Ultimately Friedkin cannot be excused for making this film. He says he knew it would cause controversy, but he does not admit that it added to gay hatred in the straight community.
To me, giving the murderer an ambiguous quality created a metaphor for and foreshadowed the AIDS crisis that sadly, soon followed, less than a year later after this movie came out.
I 100% agree and have thought this myself. Its a metaphor and maybe something about gay culture that Friedkin instinctively interpreted because it sure did happen quite like that..
I’m a 31 year old Gay man and had no idea this film existed. Gonna look it up & watch it now.
What makes me really glad I saw this is it clears up who the killers were. Because I knew Richard Cox wasn't the killer of the 1st guy. And that they used the voice of his character's dad as the voice of the killer, though it was the voice of the 1st killer too. Until this was clarified and based on what I recall, I thought that they may have had the wrong guy. Especially when you see the back of a guy who looks like the killer walk into the club at the end. And because Cox was acting more cautious, and wasn't really acting like the killer had been when he's with Pacino in the park, etc. Interesting how they used the same actor (Arnoldo) to be killed by both killers. Admittedly, the folks who made this film set out to screw with your head, by using both Arnoldo and Larry Atlas each in 2 roles. Or you could say Cox's character takes over from Atlas's, and assumes his identity as the killer. Lolts of different ways you could think about it.
Dressed To Kill did that too.
Well he did say they were working on a very limited budget so l guess this was one way to save money. Like killing 2 birds with one stone
@@danieldalton6544
That’s one of my fav movies too
Thank you for uploading this. I’ve always been curious about the origins of this movie