PDA

View Full Version : Cruising dvd update



Jennifer S.
10-07-2002, 04:27 AM
Well not the greatest news.Yet since there hasn't been much going on since the original mention of the petition.I did get some news,nothing much...but here it is.



I recieved a reply from AnchorBay. They said that there is a possiblity of a uncut SE release if they got their hands on it,that is. Of course they have to find out who owns the rights at the moment & the price . If the price is to high,then most likely they will have to ignore it much like asking Paramount for the rights of their films. Yet if there is enough request it stands a good enough chance as any film & could make for a interesting release if it ever happens.





Now i noticed the film is a United Artist release...which means.....it could be owned by Warner Bros(who released the now OOP 1990's vhs release) or MGM. I still have yet to hear a thing from them. If only there was another way to contact William Friedkin,other than his website...which you will not get a reply back obviously( i tryed a few times). yet i don't know any other way,so will give that a rest for now,unless by luck,i am able to get in contact with a personal assistant or something.

Of course he's busy working on SE's for a couple films & so on. Maybe thats a good sign? I mean...once he's done with the To Live & Die In L.A. SE release. Maybe he could also be aiming for a uncut SE of Cruising...if he can convince the studio that is?


Still..i'll keep trying. Posted the petition link on a few forums to spread the word.Always get a divided response..& alot are to afraid to be for it,because of it's controversy..thus not many people signed it:(

I expected that. Yet will not give up...& hope to see it get a restored complete release someday:)



http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Vixens02/petition.html

John G.
10-07-2002, 11:16 AM
I remember that discussion quite well, and I can't believe I neglected to sign the petition in the first place. Oh well, I signed it now (Number 82) and hopefully, we'll get a decent release, or any release at all for that matter! :)

Chris Workman
10-07-2002, 01:13 PM
Thanks for the update, Christina. As always, it's appreciated. Hopefully something will get done.

Betsy Young
10-07-2002, 01:28 PM
I'm looking forward to this one coming out. Hopefully it will be soon. Since it was United Artists that released the film back in the day, I suspect that MGM owns the rights to it. I also can't wait for TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. to finally come out. It's about time.

~B

Jennifer S.
10-07-2002, 08:17 PM
Your welcome......


I also decided to contact Blue Underground just in case they may be interested & try to get something done considering other studio's may take forever with it.

If MGM has it...then we can expect it on dvd eventually...but a fully restored uncut release would help the film out im sure...since the current release is a incoherent jumping all over the place mess. Yet lucky for me,i'm more open minded & look at the film with the cuts in mind:)

Betsy Young
10-07-2002, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Christina Valentine
Your welcome......


I also decided to contact Blue Underground just in case they may be interested & try to get something done considering other studio's may take forever with it.

If MGM has it...then we can expect it on dvd eventually...but a fully restored uncut release would help the film out im sure...since the current release is a incoherent jumping all over the place mess. Yet lucky for me,i'm more open minded & look at the film with the cuts in mind:)

If there really is an uncut version of this film available I'd sure love to see it. I understand the reason for the studio to want to make the cuts but it would be nice to see the film the way the director intended, the way all films should be seen.

Jennifer S.
10-07-2002, 08:44 PM
Yeah....i read a hilarious interview with the director about the cuts.


Since i can't find the sight it was on right now.Heres a quick run down of what i remember.


Basically he & the producer invited the head of the ratings board over for dinner since they knew him. he's a really close minded,uptight kind of guy. They watch the uncut version of the film,he's getting ver uncomfortable durring the film & freaks out in disgust when it's over & says "X...theres not enough X's for it,you'll need 50,000 X's to rate 'this'!" when asked what he thought it would get rated by the board.
So they talk him down,the producer putting on a act of "Please you can't do this to me,my whole life is in the film,i have a family to raise & if this film isn't a success..i'm ruined!" so he calms down a tiny bit & says "I may be able to help you out here" & tells them to contact some guy who's fee is $1000 a day to help cut the film down to what he thinks is 'acceptable'. Well Friedkin thought he'd be alright..since the guy helping cut the film is the same one who helped with The Exorcist which got by the MPAA with no cuts!

Well soon it was taken out of his hands...& they started hacking away at the film...long before submitting it to the MPAA!

He was angry about that..so to fight back in a sneaky way....he inserted a couple hardcore gay sex footage'subliminal' shots in a few scenes that not many peope would notice anyway(though some claim to have seen it by slow motioning..though i still have yet to..is it just a urban legend?)...& soon the butchured film was shown to the MPAA & got a R on first pass with no cuts,they didn't even notice the sublinmal shots!

Then he say's he'd love to get the restored version released...since maybe people would understand it more since huge chunks of important things where cut out...including a ending that isn't so confusing as in the film since all the key footage was removed..that your left wondering "huh?" at the very end.



Which makes me wonder. If the cut version was passed with no cuts for ratings reasons...even though many people claim it's 'to far' & "revolting' to be R rated in current form. Theres a chance the MPAA would have given the full uncut version an R. Yet all because of one uptight person...it was butchured!

At least..thats what the director states happened.





Anyway...i'd love to see the real version to make up my own mind on the film. + Will always keep trying:)

Troy Howarth
10-07-2002, 08:45 PM
I've never seen this film, but being a Pacino fan I think I should. How is Al in this one, anyway?

Betsy Young
10-07-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
I've never seen this film, but being a Pacino fan I think I should. How is Al in this one, anyway?

I have to tell ya...if you liked him in SERPICO, you'll love him in CRUISING.

Troy Howarth
10-07-2002, 09:06 PM
Cool... Pacino's at his best these days in INSOMNIA and SIMONE - he had been giving a lot of OTT performances as of late.

Betsy Young
10-07-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Christina Valentine

Anyway...i'd love to see the real version to make up my own mind on the film. + Will always keep trying:)

Awesome story, Christina. Now, I'm about as determined as you are to see the uncut version.

Ian Z.
10-08-2002, 11:05 AM
Definitely thanks for the info, Christina. I had no idea this film was so seriously cut, since it really is very rough in its current form.

I do recall thinking "Huh??" at the end, so I'd surely buy an uncut DVD.

Jennifer S.
10-08-2002, 05:46 PM
Your welcome.....oh forgot to mention.It was cut by 40 minutes!


All footage meant to be in the film itself..not stuff that was left over in the workprint & cut at the last minute. So thats alot of missing footage.

Jennifer S.
10-08-2002, 10:24 PM
Well hopefully the footage is out their somewhere. It's bound to be lieing around in a vault,wasting away. So if found..just restore it to as good as possible condition & voila..uncut version is released:)

+ the film's grimy quality did add to the gritty disturbing look & feel of the film.So it doesn't have to look perfect & pristine in my opinion.




+ If the cut footage because of the production code from King Kong & Frankenstein can be found & restored decades after release. I'm sure this now 22 year old film stands a chance. Then again the same thing happened with C.H.U.D. & the AB dvd only restores what little footage still existed(about 5-10 minutes worth). Of course C.H.U.D. was released by a indie-studio,not a major. So who knows.

Jennifer S.
10-09-2002, 09:35 AM
I found this very negative article on the film. Though some of the stuff i have a hard time believing(such as the mention of a 'gay massacre' at the end by the 'hero'),unless their was proof,since i'm sure people made up quite abit about the film upon filming to get everyone riled up,like what happened with Last Temptation of Christ.

Either way..it would make a great & interesting documentary i'm sure,if their's enough footage from the time! Hmm i'm just having tons of ideas,lol. Seriously..that would be a great thing to try,yet not sure if anyones up for going to the trouble to document it?

Well if no one else is.Then if i ever get into film..maybe i'll attempt to get something done:)





Basic Impediment :
Basic Impediment :
"Cruising" William Friedkin's 1980 Film
"Cruising" William Friedkin's 1980 Film
Still Rankles Queer Nerves
Still Rankles Queer Nerves
by David Ehrenstein
(Bay Area Reporter, Vol. xxV No. 19, May 11, 1995)

_ _ _ _ Imagine that The Eternal Jew was revived at a local cinema not as a cautionary example of the sort of anti-Semitic propaganda ground out in the Nazi era, but rather as a work "conceived and born of a time too timid to deal in harsh realities." _ The Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai Brith would put out an all-points bulletin, armies of protesters would surround the theater, and you'd never hear the end of it.

_ _ _ _ Cruising, William Friedkin's 1980 exploitation thriller about a serial killer stalking the leather bars and sex clubs of New York, is being revived in a newly struck 35mm print at the Roxie Cinema starting May 12 and continuing through the 18th. _ And no, it's not being advertised as exemplifying Hollywood at its most virulently homophobic. _ Rather the Roxie management has chosen to hail it as a film "conceived and born of a time too timid . . ." etc., see above.

_ _ _ _ Back in 1979 when Cruising went into production, hundreds of supposedly "timid" gays and lesbians erupted in widespread protests against its making. _ Will there be even so much as a peep out of their successors today? _ Don't bet on it.
_ After decades of struggle, the gay and lesbian movement is stagnant -- and for all intents and purposes -- powerless. _ To judge from Out or The Advocate, the "coming out" of formerly closeted billionaires David Geffen and Sandy Gallin is more important that grass roots activists fighting the anti-gay initiatives of the radical right.

_ _ _ _ Add to that the fact that neo-conservatives have successfully hijacked the first amendment; using it as a club to silence progressive voices by labeling them either "politically correct" killjoys or (when that won't work) "thought police" comparable to (you guessed it) the Nazis. Protest Cruising? _ Hell, people lining up around the block to buy tickets is more likely.

_ _ _ _ An entire era has passed since Cruising first appeared, and a new generation of gays and lesbians has come along. _ Many of them revel in turning up their noses at protests past. _ Growing up with AIDS as an everyday fact of life, they've also developed a queasily prurient interest in the "before time" -- associating it with unfettered personal freedom, and the alleged bliss of condom-free sex. _ Reviving Cruising for such ready-made consumers is consequently one honey of a "niche" marketing ploy. _ The film's new "target" audience is too young to remember the activists of yore. _ And besides, all that marching and screaming is just so "five minutes ago," isn't it? _ But then it's always easy to return to the scene of the crime once you know that most of the witnesses are dead.

_ _ _ _ "I thought it was so accurate," gushes self-styled queer punk filmmaker Bruce LaBruce (Super 8 1/2) of Friedkin's film in a recent issue of Planet Homo -- striking the proper "badboy" pose. _ But as anyone who actually hung out in the West Village in the allegedly freewheeling 70's knows, Cruising is about as "accurate" as Mondo Cane.

_ _ _ _ Based on the 1970 novel by New York Times reporter Gerald Walker, the film's plot is exceedingly slim. _ A straight cop (Al Pacino) is assigned by his superior (Paul Sorvino) to go undercover and investigate a series of grisly unsolved murders of gay men (the opening shot features a severed limb floating in New York Harbor). _ Fairly early in the film a suspect (Richard Cox) emerges, complete with a motive -- an overbearing father who couldn't face the truth about his son's sexuality.
_ But no sooner has this been established than things get murky. _ Hints are dropped that more than one killer may be involved. _ Cops initially introduced as straight start showing up in gay bars. _ And as the film lurches towards its finale, we're given reason to believe that the hero -- about whom we know no more than the fact that he has a girlfriend (Karen Allen) -- may indeed be the killer.
Preposterous premise

_ _ _ _ For anyone familiar with the history of New York's West Village, Cruising's premise is simply preposterous. _ Thanks to a series of laws introduced in the post World War II period under mayor Wagner's administration, bars that catered to "sexual degenerates" were subject to fines and closure. _ As a result, the Mafia took them over. _ When the police threatened to close a bar, the mob paid them off. _ When payments weren't forthcoming, bars were raided. _ On one such raid in June of 1969, the patrons revolted.

_ And so the "Stonewall" rebellion, credited with giving birth to the modern gay/lesbian rights movement, was born. _ For Cruising to assert that a West Village cop needed to go "undercover" to find out what was going on in West Village gay bars is ludicrous in the extreme. _ They knew perfectly well. _ They simply didn't care. _ Serial murders of gay men in the West Village were ignored until the early 1970's, when gay activists began complaining to authorities. _ And even then action was minimal. _ The murder sprees of the 60's (which inspired the novel) and the 70's (which inspired the film) remain unsolved to this day.

_ _ _ _ But Friedkin's film is no more interested in historical truth than it is in the whys and wherefores of murder mystery storytelling. _ You don't have to get much past the first reel to see that. _ Cruising is nothing more than an exercise in slumming designed for straights anxious to know what "they" do in "their" after-hours leather bars and sex clubs. _ While there's no mistaking the fact that Friedkin's army of extras didn't need anyone to yell "action" to get the orgy scenes started, the wily auteur makes sure to keep explicit doings just out of camera range to get an R rating. _ Aping the quick-cut editing style of Nicholas Roeg (Performance, Don't Look Now) Friedkin serves up a 102-minute peep show filled with more leering facial close-ups and sinister shadows than Freaks, White Zombie and Island of Lost Souls put together. _ But those 30's era horror classics show infinitely more compassion towards their subjects than this quasi-"snuff" extravaganza, where murder is seen as the truest expression of gay sex. _ Don't expect a watch-cry of "Are we not men?" from Friedkin's grunting groping faceless mob. _ This is a horror film. _ And we are the monster.

_ _ _ _ On July 16, 1979, just before principal shooting began, columnist/activist Arthur Bell wrote in The Village Voice that Cruising "will negate years of positive moment work and may well send gays running back into the closets and precipitate heavy violence. . .I implore readers. . .to give Friedkin and his production crew a terrible time if you spot them in your neighborhood."

_____


Note-Article is to long..so i had to divide it in two...hopefully the 2nd half shows up. Said can't post again withing 60 seconds when i tryed,so not sure if it will or not.

Jennifer S.
10-09-2002, 09:50 AM
_ _ _ _ On July 16, 1979, just before principal shooting began, columnist/activist Arthur Bell wrote in The Village Voice that Cruising "will negate years of positive moment work and may well send gays running back into the closets and precipitate heavy violence. . .I implore readers. . .to give Friedkin and his production crew a terrible time if you spot them in your neighborhood."

_ _ _ _ He then went on to mention several Village locations Friedkin planned to use, with the clear suggestion that protests be staged there. _ To be sure, Bell wasn't operating entirely out of a sense of civic duty. _ He was a columnist with a readership to please and an axe to grind -- his book on the murder of a gay Boston upper-cruster, Kings Don't Mean a Thing, had been given a pass by Hollywood. _ But he was perfectly justified in questioning Friedkin's plans for Cruising. _ Dan White was still fresh in people's minds, and a new spate of serial killings was in progress in the West Village as production got under way.

_ _ _ _ The situation wasn't helped
by the fact that while refusing to meet with the groups planning to protest, Friedkin found time for a tete-a-tet with Paul Bateson, an Exorcist bit player imprisoned for the murder of gay Variety film critic Addison Verrill.
No such thing as bad publicity

_ _ _ _ While The French Connection and The Exorcist had made him an A-list auteur in the early 70's, as that decade drew to a close flops like Sorcerer and The Brinks Job had left Friedkin hankering for a hit. _ Cruising, considered a hot property in Hollywood for many years (Paul Morrissey had even though of fashioning it as a vehicle for Joe Dallesandro) seemed the way to go. _ While Friedkin's 1970 adaptation of The Boys in the Band had pleased few, some in the gay community were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when he made the point of announcing that he would pen the script himself to create a film quite different from Walker's novel -- a homophobic hatchet job filled with self-loathing closet queens railing against the men that "turned" them into homosexuals. _

But as insiders quickly learned, Freidkin was planning something not so different from Walker's book after all. _ In fact, rumor had it, Friedkin was think of ending the film with a scene in which the hero massacres a crowd of gay men.

_ _ _ _ Street protests took place whenever Cruising's crew came to the West Village. _ Columns pro and con filled the papers on a daily basis. _ The film's producer Jerry Weintraub was delighted by it all. _ This was the sort of publicity money couldn't buy. _ United Artists, on the other hand, went into high dudgeon, releasing a statement declaring that the company "has pursued a standard of excellence since 1929."

_ _ _ _ Many gays and lesbians felt ambivalent about the protest. _ Leatherfolk felt activists were demonizing them as bad for the image of gay liberation. _ Others had free speech complaints. _ But the heart of the anti-Cruising movement had less to do with any particular "image" than with who was creating it and why. _ Hollywood had the money and power to make and distribute whatever film they wanted. _ Out gays and lesbians did not. _ Consequently whining about the first amendment rights of William Friedkin, Jerry Weintraub and United Artists was beside the point. _ As Ronald Gold, head of the Gay Task Force leading the Cruising opposition noted: "We always find ourselves in the position of having to play civil libertarians to a bunch of bigots who want their constitutional right to express their hatred of us."

_ _ _ _ When Cruising was finally released in September of 1980, however, nearly everyone found themselves in agreement on one simple fact -- it was a lousy movie. _ It didn't have the massacre finale that some had feared, but it lacked suspense and the acting was terrible. _ Gays didn't need Friedkin to tell them about leather bars. _ Straights stayed away in droves. _ Opening to uniformly negative reviews, Cruising did five days of good business and then died a fast box-office death. _ "We gave it the best shot we could," one studio executive -- requesting anonymity -- told a reporter at the time. _ "The material just wasn't there." _ And that would have been that, if the film's decade-and-a-half-long absence, coupled with a shift in the sexual and political climate, hadn't created the impression in the minds of the young and uninformed that there was something of value in this grotesque travesty.

_ _ _ _ "I'm quite willing to sit down with responsible members of the gay community and have them tell me just how a film like mine is going to provoke more violence against gays," Friedkin told gay activist and film scholar Vito Russo in a New York magazine interview he gave during the film's shooting.

_ _ _ _ Two months after Cruising's release a man armed with a sub-machine gun opened fire on patrons of the Ramrod -- a bar prominently featured in the film -- killing two and wounding twelve.
_ _ _ _ Friedkin had no comment.

Copyright © David Ehrenstein, 1995.
All rights reserved. _ Reproduction without permission is prohibited.
< < _
_
_
_

Troy Howarth
10-23-2002, 03:17 AM
I watched this tonight - it has a sleazy feel to it that reminds me of TAXI DRIVER and NEW YORK RIPPER. Pacino is excellent in a rather daring performance - not too many actors would be comfortable doing this sort of thing, I'd imagine, especially at that time. I do not see the film as homophobic, though the ending is muddled. Interesting film - I'd like to see it restored.

Jennifer S.
10-23-2002, 04:04 AM
I found out the guy who wrote that article is a pretty well respected writer & has written essays for Criterion & so on.Heres a email i recieved from him(5 minutes after sending btw!) when i decided to ask him what he thought......





E-mail message


It would be very interesting to do a documentary. Unfortunately many of the most important people involved in the protest of the film, such as Arthur Bell, are long dead.

The film was a box office disaster. The ocasion for my article was a screening of the film in San Francisco that Friedkin and others thought might spur a re- release. It didn't happen.

Only Friedkin knows what was cut from the film. Whether a "more complete" version would make any sense I have no idea. And only Friedkin has control over that.

The basic problem is his peepshow attitude towards gays in general and the S&M scene in particular. I doubt that much of an audience would put up with it's sniggering naivete in any form today. Gays aren't Instant Boogeymen any more.

Remember to that "Cruising" and the uproar over it that followed, took place just prior to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic -- which as I'm sure you know changed gay and straight culture forever.

Good luck all the same,
David Ehrenstein





Though i find this interesting with the negative views of the film from certain people. They look at the film as homophobic,thus come away hating it since thats what they thought of the whole time.Other's claim it states homosexuality & murder are one in the same & the film shows you the 'abyss' of depravity that homosexuality is & where it leads to. + of course others state as in that email it's a homophobic 'peepshow' for the straight crowd who know nothing of homosexuality,thus will end up being more revolted by it based on the film.


Yet since the film is left open to interpetation you will come away with differing opinions based on your frame of mind. + i think it makes itself blatantly obvious(not talking about the warning before the film) that no not all homosexuals are like this by mentioning this takes place outside mainstream gay-life.


If they portrayed mainstream gay life as nothing but a non-stop promiscuous sexcapade with no protection, with the usual stereotypes pretending to be 'real' & 'truthful'..then you could say it was homophobic.



+ you can also look at the film as what repression may lead to!


Theres Joe Spinell & his police partner who may be gay..yet in severe denial & hatefullness of themselves...yet i think many of there scenes where cut out,since nothings fully developed & i remember reading somewhere of a sequence with them cut.

The killer has some major psychological problems & can't seem to deal with being gay..since society pressures you into thinking its evil & degrading..thus this guy became messed up since he never let himself be who he was,just became all paranoid & pyschotic.


Then thers Pacino's charecter who may have been gay all along,but in the closet..& it slowly started seeping out over the film..he is not sure how to deal with it,since again he's been forced to think it's wrong as his life...thus by the end if it is him who did kill Ted...theres the question of why?

Well how are you considered a 'real' man?..through violence! Since most men are raised to be turned on by violence,agressiveness & all that crap...if you show any signs of compassion & being cute or happy....your ridiculed!


Meanwhile in the middle of all this are the S&M leather boys who while not that attractive to myself..are not 'evil'..just a bunch of men out having a good time,being themselves for better or worse....yet for the above repressed charecter's..they are upset at seeing people actually liking who they are & open about it,while they are sheltered off in there mind,trying to pretend to be something they are not..& of course end up lashing out against them.


So of course all this crap is mostly in someones head..yet it can cause severe issues they may not be able to deal with...unlike had people been open & accepting all there lives,that you were able to be yourself rather than forced into a stereotypical version of what is 'acceptable' for whatever gender you are.





Again the film is pretty chopped up..so maybe the full uncut version will prove my interpetation wrong..or maybe just maybe it will prove i'm right..& the people crying out against it are wrong. Either way...i'm open to giving the film a chance,thats the least ou can do,without taking sides just yet.I don't care what someone else may think since we are all entitled to our own opinion...though since theres the whole negative atmosphere surrounding the film..i thought i'd give a different take on what i think the film is reall about:)




Oh yeah others try to pretend that the leather scene does not exist when it still does! I remember being a gay club & thought "What are the cops doing here?" as i saw a guy cross the room who really stood out with how he was dressed,since the lights where low,it appeared more like a police officer & i was thinking "hmm something must be wrong!"...yet when the guy was near.i saw he was just all decked out in a leather outfit & similar style hat that the killer wheres in the film!


Then this same club was closed to the public because a private party was being thrown.Well my friend & i were unaware of that..so we followed the directions on the door to go around to a side entrance...inside...huge leather-party going on.Yet since i was 20 & my friend 18..& it being a private party for 21+...we could not go in of course(not that we would as it's not our scene)...yet this was on 18 + night,so it was a surprise to see the place closed to us anyway that night.

Paul Freitag
10-23-2002, 10:46 AM
Hmmm.. intersting article, thanks for bringing it up. I've actually had a message board debate with Ehrenstein m'self, over class issues in the Matthew Shepard murder. Well-spoken, highly intelligent guy, if he is a bit goofy in his conclusions.

I love the idea that CRUISING seems homophobic based solely on the fact that it's a grimy film about a serial killer. Nobody goes around accusing SEVEN or THE ZODIAK KILLER of being heterophobic. (Misogynistic maybe)

Interesting too that Bruce LaBruce likes the film, though not surprising... his films have a dingy, gleefully trashy quality about them that I love.

Now where's that director's cut of Friedkin's RAMPAGE?

Troy Howarth
10-23-2002, 02:54 PM
I can appreciate homosexuals having a problem with the film as it stands, but let's be frank here - are we to present homosexuals as NOTHING BUT fine, upstanding folk? Is showing a gay man with a taste for leather such a bad thing? Do these things not really exist? Are all gay people decent folk? Has there never been a killer who was gay? The answer to all these questions is perfectly obvious. And though the film, as it stands, is muddled, do I, as a heterosexual, come away thinking gays are perverted freaks? Of course not. The murder that opens up the film is painful, you really feel for the poor guy. The gay man Pacino befriends (falls in love with?) is incredibly sympathetic. Yes the film presents a rather sleazy portrait of the gay leather scene, but I'd feel this would be appropriate for even a "straight leather scene," as the film makes it perfectly clear (as per Sorvino's dialogue) that this is totally isolated from the mainstream of gay life - it's its own little world. Ultimately the film doesn't strike me as homophobic in the least - but the argument that gays should NEVER be presented in a negative light strikes me as a form of reverse racism. I could just as easily say that a film with a straight killer is anti-straight, or that DEEP RED with it's female murder is misogyinistic, etc.

Chris Workman
10-23-2002, 03:26 PM
I think this film has aged well. In 1979, let's face it, when this film was being shot, audiences didn't get anything BUT the idea from film that homosexuals were depraved killers (SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, FREEBIE AND THE BEAN) or flaming gay stereotypical queens (we haven't lost that last one yet, as WILL & GRACE proves). Today this isn't the case, and so it's easy to divorce ourselves from the feeling of the 70s and be more open-minded about the film. I have a feeling that those who protested at the time were fully justified in that, and I'd probably have stood with them. Today, this view is no longer the prevalent one, so I'm fine with the film, in fact, I generally like it. I'd definitely like to see it restored.

David's article is excellent. And many of the points he makes are valid, though I find they are a bit extreme. I doubt anyone is going to watch this film today and decide that gays are all serial killers in leather or drag.

Josh McBride
10-23-2002, 05:43 PM
Another great film I've yet to see...

Joe L
10-23-2002, 05:54 PM
Saw it around 1986 and recall zip. Must not have been too good, but I'm not against trying it again since I like Pacino.

Chris Workman
10-23-2002, 06:08 PM
I like it precisely because it's sleezy and dirty, much like MANIAC and some other films I like. (That's not to say I think CRUISING is a great film; it isn't. But let's face it, it is rather daring in what it gets away with showing in a rated R film.)

Jennifer S.
10-23-2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Chris Workman
I think this film has aged well. In 1979, let's face it, when this film was being shot, audiences didn't get anything BUT the idea from film that homosexuals were depraved killers (SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, FREEBIE AND THE BEAN) or flaming gay stereotypical queens (we haven't lost that last one yet, as WILL & GRACE proves). Today this isn't the case, and so it's easy to divorce ourselves from the feeling of the 70s and be more open-minded about the film. I have a feeling that those who protested at the time were fully justified in that, and I'd probably have stood with them. Today, this view is no longer the prevalent one, so I'm fine with the film, in fact, I generally like it. I'd definitely like to see it restored.

David's article is excellent. And many of the points he makes are valid, though I find they are a bit extreme. I doubt anyone is going to watch this film today and decide that gays are all serial killers in leather or drag.





I can understand that concern & i'm sure the film was to much for anyone not aware of gay life would freak out from the film at the time...yet you have to put some thought into it & come away with your own answer,much like my analysis i came up with in the last reply. Of course others gay or straight may look at it differently,so again it's a tricky situation.





Your right about Freebie & The Bean. I saw that last year on cable. Was thinking 'hmm this is a pretty quirky film,pretty funny & entertaining" + it needs a OAR release as it looks horrible in P&S.
Anyway after enjoying a pretty quirky film that was'nt offensive at all(+ this may have truly started the buddy cop picture from so many things 'borrowed' in later films)..then you get to the ending which is completely homophobic in how it comes off....& when the chief asks James Cann "who was she?"...he replies "No one,a fag!" & thats it,it's over.

I'm not the person that cries out "homophobic' for every little thing since i'm pretty open minded & no not everyone regardless of race or sexuality is perfect. Yet when a person comes out of nowhere(especially in a light hearted film) in a straight dominated film being gay or tg & is some nutty psycho or 'unworthy' person they can bully,only to be killed off violenty as if they're nothing since "just a fag,big deal" is pretty mean spirited & hurtful.



Meanwhile i can deal with a film like Cruising & have no problems with it(besides the plentiful cuts making the film incoherent)..since it is showing even if exagerated that the world is not perfect & things like this can & do happen.

Troy Howarth
10-24-2002, 01:22 AM
I definitely agree with Chris here - we both used to (well, still do) frequent the Scarlet Street boards, and this film was a frequent target of all sorts of accusations. I think it's definitely worth a look, and as much as I enjoyed the compromised cut, I can conceive of a truly great film beneath all the edits. If you like Pacino, the film is definitely worth a look - it comes before his fall into hammy mannerisms that marred most of his performances up until just recently.

Troy Howarth
10-24-2002, 04:47 AM
I thought SEA OF LOVE was a decent film with a terrific Pacino performance - I'd rate INSOMNIA higher, no doubt, both in terms of the film and Pacino's acting.

Joe L
10-24-2002, 07:12 AM
I love SEA OF LOVE. Hard to say which is better, INSOMNIA or SEA. Anyway, what the hell is up with Universal? Do they intend on re-doing this DVD with a more proper release?

Jennifer S.
10-24-2002, 10:16 AM
Has anyone seen The Boys In The Band & what did you think of it?



I have'nt seen the film yet,though find this ironic..



The first time i heard of the film was in the documentary The Celluiod Closet.....basically everyone was saying "Oh what great film,finnaly realistic happy gay charecter's for a change"

Meanwhile upon looking up reviews..they are mixed & people claim the film is homophobic & the charecter's are not so happy. Though as far as i know..the writer of the script was gay(i think) & just wrote what he know,based on people he knew. So exactly how could that be homophobic..if it's based on a persons own experiances..even if it does'nt represent all gay people?




Then when the documentary gets to Cruising,they quickly go over the film to move on to other things.Talk about the film for 2 minutes or less it seems. Of course,it's all negative...then "hey lets move on!" & you don't really learn anything about the film or the controversy.

This is another reason why i came up with that idea for a real documentary that documents all sides of the story...yet also does something unheard of...but actually re-evaluate the film & tackle the issues raised by people who claim it's homophobic in the extreme to give it a fair chance rather than only being on the negative side since the majority is on that side despite what they may really think of the film,yet are afraid to actually think differently about it for fear of persecusion. It'd be a interesting story i'm sure.




Though one thing that i don't understand is that if Friedkin was the raging homophobe people claim he is...then why would he even bother filming 2 gay-themed films..let alone one taking place in the S&M world when he is disgusted by it????


If your really that homophobic..you'd want to stay as far away from those type of films as possible..since your afraid of it..sure you could include one gay charecter(maybe to be killed off & treated badly) in a film to appear 'realistic' & 'nice'...yet would you make a film where the majority of the cast/charecter's would be homosexual & thus out number you & god forbid be themselves & actually see male on male affection???


Think about it. I find it hard to believe someone as homophobic as they claim he is based on those two films would even bother with it.

Chris Workman
10-24-2002, 11:42 AM
I don't see THE BOYS IN THE BAND as either homophobic or realistic. The bitchiness of the characters seems somewhat realistic (when you get a bunch of queens together) but the fact that they're all depressed and suicidal (even in the 1960s) is unrealistic.

Jennifer S.
10-26-2002, 10:55 PM
I just recieved this bit of info from Video Watchdog.





E-mail message

Christina --

We have have ran a continuing thread of correspondence detailing the subliminal material and cuts in CRUISING in VW 80 - 84.

I can also tell you that Mark Kermode, the British broadcaster who created the detailed making-of documentaries on the DVDs of THE EXORCIST and THE FRENCH CONNECTION, told me the other day that he plans to set his sights next on CRUISING._
Tim / VW

Troy Howarth
10-26-2002, 11:42 PM
Sounds promising. I'd love to see this restored. Has Pacino ever commented on this one?

Jennifer S.
10-27-2002, 12:00 AM
I don't think he has...all i could find was alittle blurb stating "The finished result was not what i signed on for according to the script"

Probably because of all the cuts,so who knows.


Be interseting to hear what everyone including Pacino would have to say today:)

Troy Howarth
10-27-2002, 03:11 PM
Badly made? In what regard? It has a grainy look to it, but that's a stylistic choice. The editing is choppy, but that's due to the censorship. The compositions seem nicely done, the performances are good, some of the scenes are incredibly suspenseful. I don't see how you can call it badly made.

Troy Howarth
10-27-2002, 04:24 PM
I haven't read the book it was based on, but people who have say it's one of the most faithful adaptations they've ever seen of ANY novel. Friedkin is, to say the least, a difficult character. I know Jason Miller said he wanted to kill him at various points during the filming of THE EXORCIST - at one point, to get a startled response from the actor, Friedkin fired a gun within close range - Miller was NOT appreciative of such tactics. I suspect Pacino probably didn't appreciate his methods, but this tension isn't evident on the screen. Pacino is indeed VERY good here, as are the other actors.

Jennifer S.
10-27-2002, 10:38 PM
I found this interview from 1979.It's a condensed version of course since it went on for what seemed like 20 pages.This is the only portion discussing the film. It's from the website Al Pacino's Loft which has tons & tons on interviews from online & print ect.This was all i could find on my search though.


_
_
_
_
Playboy, December 1979

AL PACINO, THE PLAYBOY INTERVIEW
by Lawrence Grobel
A candid—and very rare—conversation with the enigmatic actor and superstar.

Al Pacino is pacing in his camper, parked on Waverly Place in Greenwich Village, the location for the day's shooting of his latest and most controversial picture, Cruising. While waiting for director William Freidkin to set up the next shot, he tries to relax by reading aloud all the parts from Bertolt Brecht's The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui to his hair stylist , secretary and make-up man. Down the street, behind a police barricade, he can hear faint shouts and the shrill whistles of the gay activists who have gathered to protest the making of this picture, which deals with homosexual murders.

"There they go," Pacino says, interrupting his reading. "Sounds like day crickets." The people in the camper smile, but no one is laughing, especially Pacino, who has found himself in the midst of a controversy he doesn't understand.
All his life he has shied away from social movements, political issues, marches, protests. Then, last summer, he did Richard lll on Broadway—the first "Richard" done on Broadway in 30 years—and many of the critics attacked him so fiercely it seemed vindicative. No sooner did that play complete its run than Cruising began. And, once again, the press was provoked. For an actor who considers himself removed from such furor, and a man who has passionately avoided the press, the spotlight has suddenly been turned strongly his way—and this is the only major interview he has ever granted.


Pacino: (Getting up) Mind if I stand and talk to you? Walk around a bit? I wonder if it's a competition thing, an interview. Does it become a battle or a cat-and-mouse thing? But it's probably impossilbe to strip my defenses. How could I do that with anybody?

PB: Are you feeling very defensive now?

Pacino: I'm in a…certain kind of condition now.

PB: Strained?

Pacino: Strained.

PB: Why don't we talk about it? It must have something to do with the fact that you've been filming Cruising in New York City and the set has been picketed and harassed. Gay activists have claimed the story is antihomosexual.

Pacino: I feel I don't know what's going on. I don't understand it. It's the first time in my life I've ever been in this position.

PB: You play a cop who tracks down a killer of homosexuals, and some of the protests have been about the fact that the film shows scenes on the sadomasochistic fringes of gay life, rather than the mainstream of homosexual life.

Pacino: That's the point! When I first read the script, I didn't even know those fringes existed. But it's just a fragment of the gay community, the same way the Mafia is a fragment of Italian-American life.

PB: What does the film seem to you to be about?

Pacino: It's a film about ambivalence. I thought the script read partly like Pinter, partly like Hitchcock, a whodunit, and adventure story.

PB: Apparently, the gay community in New York sees it differently. Pamphlets were distributed calling the film "a rip-off" that uses gay male stereotypes as the backdrop for a story about a murderer of homosexuals.

Pacino: How can they say that without seeing the movie?

PB: But how do you react to the charges?

Pacino: Well, it makes me feel bad. It's actually hard for me to respond at all. When I read the screenplay, the thought of being antigay never even came to me. It never dawned on me that it would provoke those kinds of feelings. I'm coming from a straight point of view, and maybe I'm not sensitive enough in that area. But they ARE sensitive to the situation, and I can't argue with that. The only thing I can say is that it isn't a movie yet. It has not been put together as a movie.

PB: Do you think those protests will have an effect on the outcome of the film?

Pacino: If the gay community feels the film shows them in a bad light, then it is good they are protesting, because anything that raises consciousness in this area is all right. But I hope that's not the case. When I saw "The Deer Hunter," my only reaction to some of the war scenes in Vietnam was: War is tough; I don't want to be there. I was taken by a general wave of feeling and swept up in the horror of war. But I wasn't thinking that the film was racist, as many accused it of being. If I had been preconditioned to think it was racist, I probably would have read that into too.

PB: Is Cruising you most controversial project?

Pacino: There is no second to it. I thought Dog Day was going to be, but nobody bothered us on the set. Nothing else even comes close.

PB: Don't you feel a responsibility for some of the issues the movie raises, since it's an Al
Pacino movie?

Pacino: You're turning this into an Al Pacino movie? Al Pacino is an ACTOR in this movie. They way the press focuses attention on something like this is by throwing my name into it. Responsibilities are relative. My responsibility is to a character in a script, to a part I'm playing—not to an issue I'm unqualified to discuss.

PB: But aren't we all ultimately responsible for what we do? Isn't what you're saying something of a cop-out?

Pacino: I don't think the film is antigay, but I can only repeat—I'm responsible for giving the best performance I can. I took this role because the character is fascinating, a man who is ambiguous both morally and sexually; he's both an observer and a provocateur. It gave me an opportunity to paint a character impressionistically—a character who is something of a blur. I also took the role because Billy Freidkin is one of the best directors working today. My communication with the public is as an actor. Although I'd never want to do anything to harm the gay community—or the Italian-American community or the police community or ANY group I happen to represent onscreen—I can only respond in my
capacity as an actor.
PB: Since you're halfway through the filming, what's your sense of the movie so far?

Pacino: There's a power to it, a certain theatricality, no doubt about that. I sensed it when I read it and I can feel it while we're shooting it. I hope Billy's energy comes off on the screen. It's extraordinary to be around him. It's like a temple he's creating, and it lifts you. He's a lot like Coppola in that way.


_______________________




Well there are two things that come to mind with Micheal's mention of Friedkin going off and filming more 'sick' things that were not in the script.

One could be for shock value & to make it look as disgusting as possible..thus pretty homophobic as people claim if he says "Ok..lets make this a gross as possible..i don't care if it's not truthful..lets just go off & really make them look disgusting"


Or...once finding out alittle more about the S&M scene...wanted to include that more into the film,thus it would of course be shocking & seem sick to some people since they don't know about this scene...yet he wanted to be dareing & go where no film has gone before & show as much as possible onscreen to be more accurate...though it proved to be to much for many to handle.

If he went with this route..i would have no problems,if he went the other route without knowing about the scene & just thought up as much sick things as possible,then that'd be more offensive. Yet we won't know for sure..unless the uncut version is released...even then it will seem offensive & hateful to some..while underrated,unique & not hateful to other's who look past the surface of things..such as in my little interpetation of the film before.




I've tryed finding some Karren Allen interviews..but ended up with not much except little one paregraph magizine 'articles' & most just state "Theres one film she doesn't want to talk about"(in some 1980's articles) which don't go into any detail.Though someone said she has a website somewhere & mentions many of her scenes being cut from the film.So again it would be interesting to see the complete version!

Troy Howarth
10-27-2002, 11:28 PM
Thanks so much for posting that, Christina. Very interesting stuff.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 01:26 AM
True but it could have quite abit of stuff that makes the film make more sense!


In fact in a interview with Friedkin talking about the cuts.He mentions one reason why no one gets the ending is because it was all cut out,everything that would have made it slightly less confusing.Same thing with many other issues the film raises then disapear all of a sudden. It'd probably still left up to interpetation,but better explains the film,than with what we've been left with.



Now i don't know about you..but cut or uncut Death Wish 2 was a pretty horrible film.At least with Cruising,theres plenty of interesting real issues raised to discuss good or bad...while i never thought the same with DW 2.

Chris Workman
10-28-2002, 12:42 PM
If it was originally released by UA, MGM should own the DVD rights, not Warner.

That said, I feel that all films should be on DVD the way their directors intended, if at all possible. So, even if I don't like DEATH WISH 2, I still think it should be restored and treated properly. Same with CRUISING. If I found out that YENTL had stuff missing that should have been there, I'd agree with that too, but I'd never buy the film or watch it. Film needs to be preserved as intended, with proper aspect ratios. It's a part of our heritage and history.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 06:51 PM
I agree with Chris...even though i did not like DW 2(or the series really)..i would want it restored for dvd.I may check it out at least once uncut to see for myself,but would most likely not buy it.


Besides even if you are offended,at least you have a reaction to it,rather than being passive & not care. So i'm sure while that rape scene in DW 2 is pretty horrible & more disgusting uncut,at least you are revolted by it rather than finding it fun & cool to see. Yet since the film is pretty bad as in bad,it makes seeing that stuff all the more revolting & offensive to myself. Yet i would never try making sure only the cut version is released,since all films no matter what should be preservered as intended.

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 07:08 PM
I don't understand the assumption that the film "deserved" to be cut or that the cut footage would make it even worse. This film is most likely will always remain controversial - but if the film were restored to its proper form, at the very least we could see what Friedkin's intentions REALLY were.

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 08:32 PM
It's possible the studio was on Friedkin to cut it down, but they also knew that had a volatile film on their hands and I'm sure they just didn't know what to do with it.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 08:55 PM
+ since over 40 minutes were cut out...thats mostly alot more than just 'shock footage'..but stuff that would help flesh out the film alittle more,even if it is alittle more explicit. Yet if people find the R version to graphic & tough to handle,i'm sure the uncut version is not much different. Yet at least we could see the real film,then judge it.



+ from a interview i found(was posted on the old thread i think)...he talked about how the film was cut in the first place though if it's true,who knows.


Basically he said he & the producer invited some guy over who they knew for dinner,he happens to work for the ratings board as well. They watch the uncut print,this guy is really conservative,uptight & homophobic..he's very uncomfortable durring the film..that by the time it's over & they ask what he thinks it would be rated.He freaks out screaming "X..theres not enough X's for this..you'd need 50,000 X's for thi,thi this film!"

So they hired a guy who helped Friedkin out with The Exorist which got an R from the MPAA with no cuts. Only he would'nt be so lucky this time...as ignorant guy got involved helping out what he thought would make a 'acceptable' R rating..& they started hacking away until the film was a mess. Friedkin was mad about it being taken out of his hands,thus snuck in some hardcore gay-sex inserts into a couple sequences(though subliminal's people mention)..& when shown to the MPAA for the first time...the film got an R with no cuts..& no one noticed those inserts.

So if the MPAA gave the cut(without there knowledge) print a R....maybe they would have done the same with the uncut print..if it's not that much more graphic?



Either way..it does deserve a uncut release whether you like the film or not.

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 09:00 PM
We have to bear in mind, too, that Friedkin was VERY big and had a lot of clout at that time - that's how the film got the greenlight, since it's a very faithful adaptation of an existing novel. I doubt the studio gave him too much of a problem... it was this film that seriously impaired his career.

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
I don't know the real story but I always thought the film was cut not because of the violence but because it was bad. Of course, not many studios like releasing a nearly 3 hour film.

I'm not sure but I doubt MGM would release a "director's cut" unless the director himself contacted them and offered to help. Even then, I don't think they'd drop too much money on it. Universal is releasing their Pacino titles so maybe MGM will rush this one. If Pacino wins the Oscar this year I'm sure we'll see most of his films on DVD by next Christmas.

Pacino won't be winning an Oscar this year - I doubt he'll even get nominated, which is a shame.

The cut because it was bad theory is the spin certain groups have put on it because of their personal distaste for the film. It couldn't be further removed from the truth.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 09:37 PM
Most films are'nt cut because they are 'bad'..but because the studio interferes with thinking they know what audiences want & jump in to 'help'.


A great example is Disturbing Behavior...it is not a bad film,just a bad cut of the film that is a jumbled mess.The reason being the studio wanted to make it 'hip' like Scream since they 'know' what teens 'want'. Thus they made them cut out all the scenes with adults(or cut them down severely),important plot points...add in some one hit wonder pop-rock & try to sell it to the massive teen audience who should eat the film up!

Yet what happened? They stayed away in droves & the film bombed. Yet had not tryed to act like they know what kids like(since they were on to them)..& released the film intact..it would have been a decent sized sleeper hit at best.Since in uncut form,the film is much better.

Hopefully MGM will restore it someday..until then you can watch the edited for tv version on USA or Sci-Fi Channel which has all the cut footage,expect the alternate ending(which was'nt that good anyway) included in the film!





As for Cruising...there could be many reasons other than it being a 'bad' film that kept people from seeing it. Most likely it was just to much to handle for a majority of people at the time,they don't like dark films or want to see masculine gay men who could kick your ass having a good time in the S&M scene,they'd rather stick with the 'safe' queeny stereotypes that are no threat to them & can be ridiculed,put down,treated badly for laughs..& also made out to be the bad guy to be killed off violently. They don't want to deal with real issues & see there is more to life than what meets the eye,so a film that shows you all this stuff & leaves everything up for you to decide...really scares them since they don't want to think deeply about things.

Thus most are sheltered & were revolted by the film.You could ask them "Why did you react that way,what were you thinking while viewing the film?"...& the questions are to deep & much for them to think about..so rather than deal with how they were feeling..either openly admitting they found it gross & that gays are sick(proving they are homophobic & closed minded)...or maybe they actually for some reason or another 'liked' what they saw..but are afraid to admit it without being labeled a 'pervert'.

Then theres myself who's not turned on by the film in anyway...but do find it interesting & unique..with plenty of issues to discuss...that sadly people are afraid to deal with or notice. Thats what makes the film good for me,it makes you think & ask questions.Yet plenty of people don't want to do that..so they come up with just about any other reason for not liking the film & saying it's "bad"..yet won't say why it's bad!

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Christina Valentine
Most films are'nt cut because they are 'bad'..but because the studio interferes with thinking they know what audiences want & jump in to 'help'.


A great example is Disturbing Behavior...it is not a bad film,just a bad cut of the film that is a jumbled mess.The reason being the studio wanted to make it 'hip' like Scream since they 'know' what teens 'want'. Thus they made them cut out all the scenes with adults(or cut them down severely),important plot points...add in some one hit wonder pop-rock & try to sell it to the massive teen audience who should eat the film up!

Yet what happened? They stayed away in droves & the film bombed. Yet had not tryed to act like they know what kids like(since they were on to them)..& released the film intact..it would have been a decent sized sleeper hit at best.Since in uncut form,the film is much better.

Hopefully MGM will restore it someday..until then you can watch the edited for tv version on USA or Sci-Fi Channel which has all the cut footage,expect the alternate ending(which was'nt that good anyway) included in the film!





As for Cruising...there could be many reasons other than it being a 'bad' film that kept people from seeing it. Most likely it was just to much to handle for a majority of people at the time,they don't like dark films or want to see masculine gay men who could kick your ass having a good time in the S&M scene,they'd rather stick with the 'safe' queeny stereotypes that are no threat to them & can be ridiculed,put down,treated badly for laughs..& also made out to be the bad guy to be killed off violently. They don't want to deal with real issues & see there is more to life than what meets the eye,so a film that shows you all this stuff & leaves everything up for you to decide...really scares them since they don't want to think deeply about things.

Thus most are sheltered & were revolted by the film.You could ask them "Why did you react that way,what were you thinking while viewing the film?"...& the questions are to deep & much for them to think about..so rather than deal with how they were feeling..either openly admitting they found it gross & that gays are sick(proving they are homophobic & closed minded)...or maybe they actually for some reason or another 'liked' what they saw..but are afraid to admit it without being labeled a 'pervert'.

Then theres myself who's not turned on by the film in anyway...but do find it interesting & unique..with plenty of issues to discuss...that sadly people are afraid to deal with or notice. Thats what makes the film good for me,it makes you think & ask questions.Yet plenty of people don't want to do that..so they come up with just about any other reason for not liking the film & saying it's "bad"..yet won't say why it's bad!

Very well said, Christina. I don't for one second believe this film was bashing gays, but I can see how homophobes would be put off by its frank depiction of the seedier subsection of gay life. It's a shame that the film has taken so many knocks over the years.

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
I haven't seen the film in years so that's why I'm not going into details. From memory, to me it was an ugly film with a boring storyline. I personally didn't care who the killer was. The film was TRYING to be "bad" or "dirty" if you will. The same thing I'd say about DW2. As for Pacino, I'd say this was one of his bad performances.

Again, a second viewing could change my mind because I was rather young when I watched the film.

As for the studio cutting the film, the same thing is happening to GANGS OF NEW YORK. Like I said earlier, a lot of studios don't want to push 3 hour films to the theater. This could be what happened to CRUISING. It could be that the studio thought the film was very bad and by cutting 40 minutes, it might clear things up a bit more. "IF" the studio thought the film was bad then I could see them cutting the time.

The film is reguarded as a disaster and I doubt this is because people were scared of the subject matter. There were a lot more graphic films out through the 70's and early 80's, although the homosexual thing may have been an eye opener. Even though, I'm sure you could release the director's cut to today's audiance and it wouldn't change things.

Of course, none of us know if the deleted scenes are still available. Maybe the director has a print of the uncut version but it looks like he would have showed it off.

You need to see it again, Michael. Pacino is fine in the film and you might find it more interesting this time around.

As to the subject matter... if you do a bit of research on the film you'll see that it IS the subject matter that caused such a scandal. Locations during filming were filled with protestors, etc., and many critiques accused Friedkin of blatant homophobia, etc. The subject matter was indeed unusual for the time, and that was part of the problem.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 10:06 PM
Well i've never heard of the 3 hour print rumor.Though with the 40 minutes added back in..it would only be close to 2 1/2 hours.



As for Gangs of NY....the major mistake with this film is being released by Mirmax.They don't want long films & want to make them as 'mainstream' as possible,thus they hack up foriegn films trying to sell them to us as the 'real' version...meanwhile not putting a stranglehold over imports of the films they own making it impossible for people in the US to get the real versions:(

While many studio's worry about length..Miramax notorious for 'thinking' they know how to release a film & even have problems with a 2 hr length on some films. Some of there foriegn releases were original 2 hrs everywhere else..yet Miramax cut them down to 90 minutes!


So if i were Scorsses..i'd have made that film for another studio:)


Heck Miramax never even bothered releaseing a director's cut of All The Pretty Horses like they said..it was originally over 3 hrs..but cut down to around 2.

Jennifer S.
10-28-2002, 10:19 PM
I remember someone else mentioning that screening as well,but also was not a member,thus could not see it.


Though Friedkin would like to get the complete version restored if possible.

So if MGM does have the rights now..theres hope.Since they do restore plenty of films other studio's wouldn't bother & just toss out whatever print they had,cut or not. + They are proving with alittle research & effort put into it..they will find many things...such as the complete Vampire Lover's & complete opening to Escape from NY.Both of which were thought to be lost for good!

Then when i got that email about that one guy looking into doing a documentary of this film. That gives a pretty good idea that,this will make it out on dvd sooner or later...preferably uncut.




As for the subject matter causing much of the controversy & causing both sides to attack the film.Thats a pretty interesting indication & just how society viewed these things at the time & would rather shuffle it all away & not deal with,thus they really exploded to stop this.

Yet trying to pretend things don't exist & hide away from real issues...only adds to the problems!

Erik David Herrera
10-28-2002, 11:22 PM
I may be the only person out there who feels this way, but I happen to very much like Crusing as it is, ending and all.... I feel that for whatever reasons, cuts or not, the ending as it is simply states that the reason this person or whoever it was was killing gay men was due to issues we all, or many of us, struggle with ourselves. It was this base homophobia that has to be overcome that when not dealt with can transform itself into violence. I think the confusion would mostly still be there no matter what was put back into the film. It didn't seem to really matter who the killer was.... Freidkin has admitted to using a different actor for each of the killing scenes, so, I can't help but imagine he may have intended something simillar to what I'm saying. Whatever the case, even thought the film is difficult and sometimes off-putting, we have to commend Freidkin for at least having the guts to not only tackle the project at all, but to do it with obvious thought and care

Troy Howarth
10-28-2002, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Erik David Herrera
I may be the only person out there who feels this way, but I happen to very much like Crusing as it is, ending and all.... I feel that for whatever reasons, cuts or not, the ending as it is simply states that the reason this person or whoever it was was killing gay men was due to issues we all, or many of us, struggle with ourselves. It was this base homophobia that has to be overcome that when not dealt with can transform itself into violence. I think the confusion would mostly still be there no matter what was put back into the film. It didn't seem to really matter who the killer was.... Freidkin has admitted to using a different actor for each of the killing scenes, so, I can't help but imagine he may have intended something simillar to what I'm saying. Whatever the case, even thought the film is difficult and sometimes off-putting, we have to commend Freidkin for at least having the guts to not only tackle the project at all, but to do it with obvious thought and care

You make a very interesting case, and I can't disagree with your reading of the film, but I'm still VERY interested in seeing a longer, more definitive presentation. Didn't realize Friedkin used a different actor to play the killer during the "kill" scenes.

Erik David Herrera
10-28-2002, 11:50 PM
Thanks for the sympathy, Troy. I got that info from a book called "Hurricane Billy" it's long out of print by now. I think I checked it out at the main Library in Downtown Los Angeles.

Of course I'd decimate a Warner's luncheon room or two to see a complete version of Cruising. There are a lot of loose ends. For instance, did anyone notice that Pacino's friend's ex-boyfriend pulled a knife on Al that was exactly like the one used in the killings? Also, the distinct keys chinkling sound used to sort of identify the killer as he prowled was used when we last see Pachino!!!! Actually, we aren't really told who this is, but we assume it's Pachino! Or is it the real killer? Or another killer????????????? Guess I'm just trying to lay one on for Friedkin's mastery of the film medium. will this guy ever get the credit he deserves??????

By the way, did you get my e-mail regarding Taste The Blood Of dracula?

Troy Howarth
10-29-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Erik David Herrera
Thanks for the sympathy, Troy. I got that info from a book called "Hurricane Billy" it's long out of print by now. I think I checked it out at the main Library in Downtown Los Angeles.

Of course I'd decimate a Warner's luncheon room or two to see a complete version of Cruising. There are a lot of loose ends. For instance, did anyone notice that Pacino's friend's ex-boyfriend pulled a knife on Al that was exactly like the one used in the killings? Also, the distinct keys chinkling sound used to sort of identify the killer as he prowled was used when we last see Pachino!!!! Actually, we aren't really told who this is, but we assume it's Pachino! Or is it the real killer? Or another killer????????????? Guess I'm just trying to lay one on for Friedkin's mastery of the film medium. will this guy ever get the credit he deserves??????

By the way, did you get my e-mail regarding Taste The Blood Of dracula?

Haven't checked my email today, but when I get home I'll see if it's there...

I didn't notice the thing with the knife, no - very interesting. SPOILERS!!!! My assumption is that Pacino killed the guy he befriended because he was falling in love with him and he couldn't deal with it. That last shot of him looking at himself in the mirror as he shaves is actually rather chilling...

Jennifer S.
10-29-2002, 08:55 AM
See now thats a great interpretation on the ending & the whole repression issue. Pretty much how i see it as well...yet the people who cry out "Homophobic!!!" seem to miss it & think it means that being gay leads you to murder. They also claim he was straight & so disgusted by homosexuality that it drove him to kill...when in fact,he was obviously repressed since theres many hints... "theres alot you don't know about me" among others.


Sure it's not a pleasent topic to discuss..but it's a real issue many have to deal with.Though while i'm sure repression does'nt lead everyone to murder..it does at least lead many to suicide or a life of misery in the closet...& alot of gay-bashing/hate crimes which may lead to murder if they really go ballistic..since they can't deal with people living there lives being happy,while they live in the closet miserable with paranoia & depression building up. So rather than coming out,being themselves & happy finnaly...they keep building up this wall of denial which will explode sooner or later.

Troy Howarth
10-30-2002, 12:52 AM
Look at the scene where Pacino is talking to his gay neighbor and the guy is saying about how he has all these problems - the way Pacino looks at him and says, "I wish I could help you." He clearly has a thing for him. Pacino's reaction the nightclub action also doesn't speak of a homophobe. True, he goes home and makes violent love to his girlfriend, but this is all part of the "manly man" facade he's trying to maintain. It's a rich, complex film - the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Jennifer S.
10-30-2002, 09:55 AM
Good point...& i doubt he was just 'acting' gay. The reason being is when most straight guys pretend to be gay for whatever reason.They always put on that stereotypical queeny flamboyant act so you can 'tell' they're gay. When in real life,while there are queens out there,most appear just like everyone else..even though i can tell they are gay.I'm not good at describing peoples charecteristics..so won't bother,lol..yet i've seen plenty of guys i don't even know at the mail & so on & knew right away they were gay,just by how they walked,talked to other guys..& quite abit of couples dressed alike..though pretended to be 'friends' while in public sadly..though it's pretty obvious to me anyway.




Anway with Pacino's charecter...if he was only 'acting'..then he did a good job since most straight guys even pretending would be highly defensive at a gay bar & freak out if someone flirted with them,let alone just being around so many gay people(they always worry about being hit on,lol)..it would be a dead giveaway that they're not gay..or at least not comfortable being out.


+ did you notice how after awhile his relationship with Karren Allen seems bland & boring? Since there scenes are far to brief(hopefully we'll see them restored!) you may not notice right away...but after you think it over..it's pretty obvious.


Though i have noticed that about the gay & straight clubs i've been to.The gay clubs(with a highly mixed crowd of gay,str8,tg ect) where always full of energy,everyone having a good time,dance floor is packed & enjoying themselves...meanwhile at the straight clubs i've been to,everyone was uptight,no one was on the dance floor & just was no air of excitment at all...even though loud music was playing,a DJ live on the air trying to make the place sound like it rules & everyone should be there...it was a joke!

I'm sure there are some good straight clubs out there where people know how to have fun...yet the few i've been to were dull...probably since they were full of the macho-'stone cold cool' straight guys who are afraid to enjoy themselves for fear of looking 'gay'..so they just stand there,blank face,girls pleading for them to dance with them & they say no..keep drinking. No fun at all,lol.





Oh i did a search& that Hurricane Billy book is on ebay for only $3 at the moment. Just search Friedkin since the title is not in the header.

Also noticed a VCD of the film from Asia..claims it's official...but i'm skeptical since i emailed the guy,says there are no subtitles at all(burned in or removable) & did not tell me whether it was PAL or NTSC..his reply was "It umm has no specific transfer,it's region 0 & digital,so it lasts forever!".

Now why would a offical Asian release not be PAL or have any foreign subtitles?


Anyway i would'nt waste my $$ on it.despite the box art looking nice. Since i've heard VCD's suck & have horrible quality.

Charles Avinger
10-30-2002, 10:27 AM
Interesting thread. My Warner Brothers "R" rated tape has the subliminal "screw the MPAA" hardcore shots. I was dumbfounded to discover this. Imagine WB execs discovering they distributed hardcore, and better yet, picture the ratings board finding out they passed it!
I understand and respect the arguments against Cruising, but I personally don't have a problem with it (obviously -- I own the tape). I don't think it is homophobic, though it obviously *depicts* homophobia and, as several people have noted already, the insidious effects of repression, denial, and prejudice. Same with Basic Instinct, one of my favorite movies. I *know* Paul Verhoeven isn't homophobic, having seen most of his films. Basic is essentially a reworking of The 4th Man, which is as far from homophobic as you can get IMO. The problem isn't one or two films like Cruising (you could easily call Fatal Attraction and Audition heterophobic). One problem is that the overall depiction of gays/lesbians/transgendered people in movies is very unbalanced compared to the treatment of heterosexuals, who used to have a complete corner on the market and dominate film even today. The other, bigger problem is, of course, homophobia and discrimination that is rampant in US society even here in the 21st century. Consider how many actors have no problem at all playing murders, rapists, raving maniacs, etc., but wouldn't even consider gay roles (and admittedly for understandable reasons -- Harry Hamlin of Clash of the Titans didn't get work for years after his role in Making Love). Here's my question: why can actors play the most evil, horrific roles and be perfectly OK (ex. no one typecast Glenn Close as an insane stalker afte Fatal), but actors who play gay roles are still viewed with "suspicion" afterwards, as though their role means they might/must be gay in real life? (I think if these two problems didn't exist, activists might react less violently to movies like Cruising and Basic.)

Jennifer S.
10-30-2002, 06:42 PM
I can understand that & some say it may have faired better today if made than then.Yet it's good it was made at the time,since it'd be impossible to make today..as accurate as that filmed in real places & so on. + I'm sure no one would touch a film like that today with fear of 'offending' anyone,thus would make it a more polished studio film that preach's to you since the majority are to lazy to think for themselves.

+ ever see Copycat? While released durring the same year as Seven.So i don't know which was made first...yet stylewise both films are similar..only Seven does come off as dark,intense & atmosoheric...while Copycat tries to have a documentary look for the crime scenes..yet fails,meanwhile the rest of the film is filmed the usual polished way,& it's a pretty standard studio film..though admittedly does have a few suspensful moments.Though i've never liked the film that much.

Thats probably what Cruising would be like today if filmed...& not only that,start preaching itself much like the movie version of Less Than Zero butchuring the book & turning it into a glossy anti-drug film which rubs it in your face that drugs are bad!







Though i never had any problem with Basic Instinct as well.It's one of my favorite films(have only seen it uncensored & plan to keep it that way). It's wicked naughty fun,that did not offend me at all.I never understood why some people got up in a hissy fit over it.

Then again i had no problem with Dressed To Kill as well since it's nothing but a updated Psycho in my opinion & one hell of a great well made,incredible film.





Yet there are far to many films to mention(most i don't remember) which i've seen over the years that did offend me in some way since it was obviously homophobic ect & put in for no reason other than ridicule.



The few that come to mind right now are

Mean Streets...great film,though does have that one sequence in the car with the two flaming queens..& i'm talking flaming. Obviously(badly) used for comic relief. I have never ever in my life seen a gay person(even real life queens) act this way! Since those charecter's have nothing to really do with the film & are not heard from again before or since,it's pointless & offensive that they'd toss that in just for laughs. Though i can understand why they kick them out of the car(hey i would,lol) since they were out of control,drugged up & annoying + very embaressing. The scene was pretty hurtful in my opinion.

Thats almost like if a film had a all-white cast...then they tossed in a black charecter for one scene to be ridiculed for there enjoyment,then never heard from again.



Vanishing Point.....fun drive-in film with a awsome car......everyones hetero though & then out of nowhere come two gay hitchhiker's who try to rob the main charecter,which he laughs off since he can't take two 'fags' seriously & kicks them out of the car in a flash.

Sure some peope will say..."well if you had a gun to your head..would'nt you do the same thing?"...yes,but they are missing the point. while true people from all walks of life can be killers,thieves & what have you. Theres plenty of completely hetero filled films which just through in a gay charecter to be killed,evil,mocked & all that for no reason.
Why could they have not just had two hetero hitchhiker's trying to rob him only to be beat up & kicked out?


Because that would be to standard so they think "You know what would make this scene hilarious?"

"What?"

"Get two fags to be the hitch-hikers,you know wearing those tight close,purse,acting femish..& make them attempt to rob him & get there asses kicked!"


Then when i saw Teen Wolf un-edited for the first time when my brother rented it(only seen it on tv until then) there was....

"I need to tell you something?"

"What..are you a fag..because if you are..i don't wanna know,can't deal with that..so if you are..don't tell me!"

"No(slight chuckle like "no way!") i'm not a fag"



Sure its just abit of dialogue,but wasn't put in there to show the ignorance of society or anything. Just put in for more put downs & laughs in a completely(cheesy) hetero filled film.



Then of course the already mentioned Freebie & The Bean.





Maybe thats another reason many people could not handle Cruising...not just because of the S&M subject matter.Yet also that it showed unrelentingly just how people really felt at the time about homosexuality..& no one wants to admit "wow i didn't realize..but i'm homophobic & talk/think like that!" when you see just how hateful some of the cops are,especially with the interogation scene. Though of course i can't help but burst out laughing when that large black guy in speedo's & cowboy hat comes out to intimidate them(still don't get that aspect).

So of course rather than thinking about many questions/issues...everyone puts up that wall of denial "No i'm not homophobic..but that was a disgusting film & would prefer not to see another film that tackles that subject!"...or "stop the film,it's hateful!!" when they seemed to miss the point(though can understand why at the time).






Though if theres one thing Hollywood still is afraid to truely tackly..is crossdressing & transgenderism in a serious way.

The films about men poseing as women to win back a lover,get back into school/job & many other things...all played for laughs since the guys just hate dressing up like women,only to understand(sort of) what women are like & how they are treated....only to then go back to there 'normal' male lives never to dress up again happy that it's finnaly over far out weigh the # of real thoughtful looks at that aspect of life. In fact crossdressing/tgism is never a issue itself in the films...just 'ok dress like women..solve problem...go back to 'normal"!".


In fact i can only think of three films that seriously tackle that aspect,yet not or ridicule...even if the film is a comedy or drama.

The Crying Game

Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert

Hedwig & The Angry Inch



If there are any more..i have'nt seen them sadly.


Sure there have been some TG charecter throwin into some mainstream films...but of course they are always for comic relief & really campy. Usualy they get very little screen time as well..just "Hmm we better pretend we're open to all ways of life...lets get you know,one of those guys that dress like women & put them in this tiny role for laughs..then we're showing we 'accept' people!!".


When the true way to show your open about things is to not do this or that in order to pretend your PC or open about things...but just use whoever is right for the part,actually know about other ways of life if you have no experiance with the gay or TG scene since you only get your information for tv,yet don't 'know' anyone 'that' way in real life.


Yet sadly igonorace & discrimination runs rampant in society.whichi s why you have Hollywood execs always making a film have the obligotory black guy,so they don't appear racist...when in fact they are being racist in the persons portrayal("yeah..he'll be jive talking with one liner's...just like in real life!!!")



Anyway because of all this..i created this idea for a outrageous slasher satire which spoofs conformity,censorship & all that.Basically all the main charecter's are gay,bi/tg ect stuck in a world trying to make them conform to be one way among other things.

It may seem like your usual slasher film on the surface(Though does pay homage to some classic slashers). Yet theres really more to it than meets the eye:)

Charles Avinger
10-31-2002, 05:27 AM
Very well put -- I agree with everything you say (the idea for the slasher movie threw me completely, but then again, it is 4:15 AM!) There's the added problem that protests inevitably *help* the movie at the box office ("there's no such thing as bad publicity"). Consider Showgirls. If, let's say, feminists had staged widespread protests against that movie, it probably would have been as big a hit as Basic... Or consider Michael Douglas in Wall Street. Did that movie turn everyone against Wall Street execs or hurt his career? No, it seemed to do the opposite.
One of the worst caricatures of a gay man I've seen was in St. Elmo's Fire. I mean, come on! That character couldn't have been more ridiculously stereotyped. I love the move (it's bad, but I love it anyway), but Joel Schumacher's defense of the stereotyped gay character on the commentary track on the DVD just doesn't hold water. As a gay director himself, what in hell was he thinking?!
It amazes and saddens me that here in the 21st century there are still so many offensive, stereotyped, and token portrayals of women, people of color, the mentaly/emotionally challenged, the elderly, gay people, etc. in US popular culture. I'm no member of the PC patrol (as Jack Hill says on one of his commentary tracks, "PC is boring"), but there's just too damn much hatred and prejudice in our society. Will we ever grow up and say, "This person is different from me; so what? It's no problem." I doubt we'll see it happen in our lifetimes, at least on a wide scale.
BTW, Dressed to Kill is one of my faves too.

Betsy Young
10-31-2002, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
I haven't seen the film in years so that's why I'm not going into details. From memory, to me it was an ugly film with a boring storyline. I personally didn't care who the killer was. The film was TRYING to be "bad" or "dirty" if you will. The same thing I'd say about DW2. As for Pacino, I'd say this was one of his bad performances.

Again, a second viewing could change my mind because I was rather young when I watched the film.

As for the studio cutting the film, the same thing is happening to GANGS OF NEW YORK. Like I said earlier, a lot of studios don't want to push 3 hour films to the theater. This could be what happened to CRUISING. It could be that the studio thought the film was very bad and by cutting 40 minutes, it might clear things up a bit more. "IF" the studio thought the film was bad then I could see them cutting the time.

The film is reguarded as a disaster and I doubt this is because people were scared of the subject matter. There were a lot more graphic films out through the 70's and early 80's, although the homosexual thing may have been an eye opener. Even though, I'm sure you could release the director's cut to today's audiance and it wouldn't change things.

Of course, none of us know if the deleted scenes are still available. Maybe the director has a print of the uncut version but it looks like he would have showed it off.

Yeah, a film like LORD OF THE RINGS, with a theatrical running time of 3 hours, gets through without cuts. I don't buy the idea that studios cut a film because it's too long. A studio asks for cuts usually based on content and not just for length. However, given the climate of today's level of "acceptance" with more and more people coming out, I bet you that if you released CRUISING uncut to today's audience, you'll get a decidedly different response (hopefully, a response where people would ask questions and make them think, unlike alot of films coming out these days). I don't remember much about the film since I saw it many years ago. I wish I could remember how old I was but I'm thinking I was either in my late teens or early twenties when I saw it. It was one of the first films I rented when I got my first vcr. I really need to see it again. But I remember it being a very dark and depressing film but a genius one, mainly due to Al Pacino's performance. Probably at the time the film came out, there haven't been many films if any that graphically portrayed gay life the way this film did and mainstream audiendes weren't ready for it. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on my part, but hopefully today's audiences are a bit more open-minded. But somehow I find that unlikely. But homosexuality isn't the taboo subject nowadays as it was 30 years ago. It's funny. My reaction to any one, either celebrity or otherwise announcing that they are gay, I shrug. Who cares?

Betsy Young
10-31-2002, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Charles Avinger

It amazes and saddens me that here in the 21st century there are still so many offensive, stereotyped, and token portrayals of women, people of color, the mentaly/emotionally challenged, the elderly, gay people, etc. in US popular culture. I'm no member of the PC patrol (as Jack Hill says on one of his commentary tracks, "PC is boring"), but there's just too damn much hatred and prejudice in our society. Will we ever grow up and say, "This person is different from me; so what? It's no problem." I doubt we'll see it happen in our lifetimes, at least on a wide scale.
BTW, Dressed to Kill is one of my faves too.

It's because society has placed a stigma on those groups. One of the many reasons I loathe going to the theatre anymore to see films from the 'Hollywood system' is because they are loaded with stereotypes, cliches, and other similar offenses. It's truly pathetic that in this day and age we have such a problem with people who are 'different' from us. It's even sadder when these reactions are brought into focus in the films being presented. And this whole thing of being politically correct. What the f*** is up with that? Who was the moron who thought this was a good idea? We are so afraid of people who are different that we have to change our language so we don't 'offend' anyone. You can't call someone blind anymore. They're vision- impaired. Handicapped became 'handicapable' or physically-challenged. What is going on in this country? Euphemisms need to leave our language. The World would be a much better place without it. :mad:

Jennifer S.
10-31-2002, 09:35 AM
I never understood where the hell PC came from either.Just seemed to come out of nowhere into wussyout everything in order to APPEAR accepting & sensitive..when really your still the same ignorant bigot,just useing different words!


To truely be PC in the real sense i think is to actually be yourself & not run from the truth,by hiding various things under new words to sound 'nicer'. So while i would never use various racial & sexual slurs such as faggot & nigger since it's just not in my volcabulary & i would'nt feel right saying it anyway. I still am a very honest & direct person...yet that offends plenty of people,lol..go figure.No one can handle the truth it seems & would rather hide behind the wall of pretending to be PC & 'care' about things,when really they are just running from the real world.


Try to discuss real issues in a polite way..& people get all defensive,uptight & don't wanna hear it since it may make them think & gasp might wake them up & look at things differently..if they actually put some thought into things.


+ I always get the "your just overly-sensitive" reply to everything if i happen to make note of some things i've observed such as people calling everything they hate 'gay'.

"Oh that band is soooo gay..ewww"

+ once while listening to The Doors. Joey the kid from next door comes in with my brother & says "That sounds like faggot music" & they start acting like idiots making fun of the music & myself. Well i told them like it was..& well they just left with "yeah right..faggot!!!"

I'm not 'overly sensitive' & can take alot of stuff..but i'm also very honest & never run from the truth:)

I'm not one of those over-acting people crying out "OH MY GOD WON'T SOMEONE DO SOMETHING??"...i'm usualy calm..but very direct..though can get into a heated debate & usualy win:)


My trick...just ask them to think.Look at various issues,put themselves in my shoes..& just ask questions.That stumps them right there & they usualy stop the debate,since they know i will be able to truely answer the stuff better than them.




+ I'm one nice as hell person otherwise.I mean if someones gay,straight or whatever.Does'nt matter to me,if we get along,thats great..so why do people make such a big deal over it? same thing with race..i'm practically color blind as i don't go around thinking "Hmm i have so many white friends..i better get at least 1 black friend to show i'm a open minded person!"....i just chat & get to know whoever & things take off from there. It's pretty simple actually..i'm surprised not many others have tryed the same thing.

So of course when i notice ignorance & hate in the world..i will comment on it..& make the person see it for themselves since they may be unaware.Yet thats usualy to much for them to handle..thus i get the usual "overly sensitive' remarks.




Speaking of which...i've noticed this religous station on the radio while flipping through the stations on my way to work.The guy is a complete sheltered 'moral do gooder' who's causing more harm than good with his words. He does some "Family Hour" show discussing ways to make families better & how to 'protect' the children.The past couple days,thats all he's gone on about useing stereotypes,exagerated "facts" & so on to scare parents into raising there kids right & keeping them away from anyone 'different' than themselves.

Last night he discussed sex-education & awareness programs in K-12 grade.He freaks out stating...'not only are they given your kids immoral ideas about immoral acts(sex in other words)..they are also teaching them about homosexuality & trying to 'recruit' them into that way of life.The homosexual agenda is everywhere,sneaking into your lives,trying to get at your kids to accept them & most likely become homosexual themselves...then they are more open to molestation. Then after that drugs will be taught in school & your kids will have acess to all kinds of drugs,then the pornagrapher's will be let into school...kids are the #1 buyer(!) of porn you know!" Then he goes on & on...& pleads for people to stop this & 'protect' your children. he also then talked about the Goth scene,blamed Columbine on the 'goth' kids...which is what leads to violence since they wear black & love morbid things! He even believes that movies & music are to blame for all real life problems..& they give kids idea's...soon they enter the goth scene,start exploring 'ammoral' sexuality such as homosexuality,practice santanism & so on!

The night before...he talked about adoption & why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.....because of molestion,turning out gay themselves & living a 'unnatural' life with a 'unnatural' family. he then mentions about that TG murdered in CA & says "While i don't agree with violence...i do not feel bad for what those kids did & don't wish any harm upon them,yet i feel nothing for that thing they killed,which must be burning in hell as we speak!"



This guy has major issues & is just one of many reasons why hate & prejudices still linger today...since there are many mindless people out there looking for something to hate,so they follow someone without question & pass that down generation to generation.


If i could find the # to that station..i'd like to call him up & question his views & watch him sweat)

Jennifer S.
11-01-2002, 08:26 AM
Heres two atricles i found on the film.The first is a new brief bit.While the other is the previously mentioned interview on the cuts for those that missed it on the last thread.


The plummet continued with Cruising, a garish murder mystery set against the gay S&M scene. Predictably, American homosexuals were less than delighted with the director's attentions. Neither was the American ratings board, which demanded that Friedkin make cuts.

'But at the time we made Cruising, around 1980, that aspect of gay life had not been portrayed in a mainstream film in the United States,' he says. 'I could certainly understand them not wanting to feel that this was representative of all gay life. But most of the journals that condemned the film originally have reversed their opinion.'


_________________________________

Mark Kermode: There is a similarity between that and - although it looks very different - To Live and Die in LA and some of your earlier documentary work, that what you're very interested in is the difference between the good guys and the bad guys and how they all blur together. It seems to me that the area that this comes together most is Cruising. Now Cruising is a story about a cop going undercover who may or may not become the killer that he is searching out. By your own admission, the story is elliptical to the point that you don't know at the end who did what.
That film provoked this enormous form of controversy when it first came out and you've now said that in fact it was 40 minutes shorter than you'd wanted it to be. Are we going to see the proper version of Cruising and is it substantially darker than the film you made originally?

William Friedkin: Very much so. The film was really heavily edited by the man who was head of the ratings board at that time. He was a very uptight guy. He had a television programme on public broadcasting that was called the Open Mind that we all referred to as The Empty Head. His name was Richard Heffner and he was a very starched guy. But the fellow who produced Cruising was a rock and roll concert producer named Jerry Weintraub and he had produced concerts of Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond, Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra and many others. And he produced the film Cruising and he's a typical American out-going guy.
So he invited Richard Heffner to come to his house to see the film at his house, which is never done. The head of the ratings board at your house! I mean, we don't even know who is on the ratings board. There's seven or eight people that are chosen, somehow... I think they're members of the parent teacher association or something! Literally. And we don't know who they are or how they come to their decisions. But there is a head guy who can influence these decisions.

Jerry called this guy Richard Heffner, who we didn't know, said: "Hey Dick. Why don't you come to my house and watch the picture? I've got a beautiful house at the beach." Sure enough, Heffner turned up at the house for dinner to see Cruising before it had been rated, to give it a rating. And we sat around at dinner watching the ocean waves and the moon. Jerry had several wines and it was sensational. Finally we left the dinner table. Jerry and Mrs Weintraub and myself and Heffner to go into Jerry's screening room and he was going to see Cruising.
And the film comes up and - I was sitting behind him - and every two minutes or so I hear him sigh and groan. And pretty soon the jacket came off and then the tie came off and then the collar. And I can hear him screaming. And then the lights come up, and he's just sitting there. Jerry and I look at each other and then Jerry says: "Well Dick, what did you think?" And Heffner says: "What did I think? What did I think! Jerry, this is the worst movie ever made. This is awful." And I'm sitting there. And he says: "God, this is terrible. How could you do this! How could you make this film!" And Jerry says: "But what's the rating?" And he said: "Rating! There are not enough Xs in the alphabet! I would have to go and find Xs from some other alphabet. This is a 59,000 X rating is what the rating is!"

And Jerry said - and Jerry was a marvellous actor in his own way - "Dick, you can't do this to me. My life is on that screen. Do you understand that, my whole life is up there. If this film doesn't make money I'm broke. This house goes. My kids." He was virtually on his knees pleading with this guy. And at the end of this, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, Heffner was all red, red and sweating. He couldn't look at me because I had perpetrated this deed and ruined his dinner. But in the end he said: "Look there's a guy in New York who is my predecessor. He's the guy who started the ratings board. His name is Aaron Stern and he is a psychiatrist in a private practice. Very often we use him now to consult with difficult films. Why don't you go talk to him and see if he can help you."

I knew Aaron Stern because he had formulated the code for the ratings board and he gave The Exorcist an R rating with no cuts. (R of course meant that children under 16 years of age were restricted from going unless accompanied by a parent.) And he gave the film an R rating without a single frame cut. So I was delighted.
So I called Aron and I told him that Heffner said he could help, maybe. And he said, "Yeah, I'd be happy to help you guys. My fee is £1,000 dollars a day." About 50 days later we had a film that had been cut and messed around. The reason people say that they don't know what happens at the end of this film is because it's all been cut out.

I started to play games with these guys. While they were making me take out first shots and then whole scenes I decided to insert various material. Two or three frames of things that I knew they wouldn't see that are in the film to this day. For example, I had shots of male homosexuality, openly, in the film. You know, men being intimate with men. And I cut two or three frames of this into portions of the film and they're still there to this day and the ratings board would never see it.
In the end, I sat down with Stern and Heffner and ran the picture for them in a screening room and I ran it right through and asked them if they saw anything else I should take out and said it was fine, great.

Charles Avinger
11-01-2002, 08:53 AM
Goblingoddess -- Yes, I agree that the stigma placed on various groups by society is the real problem. As far as names and euphemisms, I think it's best and most polite to call someone whatever that person wants to be called (the ideal would be to call everyone by name with no labels attached, unless someone wanted to be identified in a specific way for political or other reasons). With so many large groups in our society and so many different subgroups advocating one name over another (ex. gay vs. queer, African-American vs. black), it's hard to know how to refer to groups of people without being offensive, which is the last thing I want to do.
Ironically, the term PC began in the '80's within the gay (and I think specifically the lesbian) community as a kind of in-joke ("Is it politically correct to wear blue jeans?") The concept spread and was taken seriously, both by some rightfully sensitive members of various minority/stigmatized groups, who embraced it, and by some conservatives, who denounced it. Teaching at a college, I have to be sensitive to what to say, not out of fear but out of respect for the people concerned. As an individual, maybe it's best to simply ask someone, how do you identify yourself? What do you prefer to be called, if anything at all? (Ex. I have a colleague who "outed" herself as having a high functioning level of autism, and she wants people to know that she's an "autie" who can still get a prestigious degree, teach and write, etc., and I think that's great.) As a society, I'm not sure what the best thing to do is.

Betsy Young
11-01-2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Charles Avinger
Goblingoddess -- Yes, I agree that the stigma placed on various groups by society is the real problem. As far as names and euphemisms, I think it's best and most polite to call someone whatever that person wants to be called (the ideal would be to call everyone by name with no labels attached, unless someone wanted to be identified in a specific way for political or other reasons). With so many large groups in our society and so many different subgroups advocating one name over another (ex. gay vs. queer, African-American vs. black), it's hard to know how to refer to groups of people without being offensive, which is the last thing I want to do.
Ironically, the term PC began in the '80's within the gay (and I think specifically the lesbian) community as a kind of in-joke ("Is it politically correct to wear blue jeans?") The concept spread and was taken seriously, both by some rightfully sensitive members of various minority/stigmatized groups, who embraced it, and by some conservatives, who denounced it. Teaching at a college, I have to be sensitive to what to say, not out of fear but out of respect for the people concerned. As an individual, maybe it's best to simply ask someone, how do you identify yourself? What do you prefer to be called, if anything at all? (Ex. I have a colleague who "outed" herself as having a high functioning level of autism, and she wants people to know that she's an "autie" who can still get a prestigious degree, teach and write, etc., and I think that's great.) As a society, I'm not sure what the best thing to do is.

Best thing to do...don't label. Having been a victim of that ever since I can remember in my early school years, I've always hated being 'called' something just so I can 'fit' into someone else's category. I've been called remedial in grade school for years just because I was a shy girl (to the nth degree I may add), never spoke up in class and seemed to get good grades in everything except math. Then some crap-head of a 1st grade teacher, decided to try and keep me back because I already knew how to read and would make it difficult for me every chance she got (I guess that pissed her off). I just wish that 'labelling' would go away. Sometimes it hurts and I've been hurt for years in school because of it. I got through ok but I'd hate to have the same thing done to another student that was done to me.

Charles Avinger
11-02-2002, 01:38 AM
As a teacher, I'm deeply sorry to hear when people have experiences like yours. I had my share of horrendous school experiences too, esp. in elementary and junior high.
I understand and respect your position about not labeling people, as it has happened to me far too often in far too many ways. Here's my dilemma: if we're having a class discussion and a topic like, let's say, prejudice/stigma regarding a specific group of people arises, we have to refer to the group in question somehow, just to be able to talk about the issue. How can we talk about any group of people without using some term to identify them? And what term to use?

Jennifer S.
11-03-2002, 07:04 AM
Well i think you should just use whatever 'labels' there are to discuss them then since theres no way around it in that type of discussion.Otherwise it would just be confusing!


The major negative aspect of labels is the stereotypes that go with them.


What do most people picture when they here the words gay or drag queen/transsexual?


Probably really negative ugly images,gathered from various sources like Jerry Springer & other negative portrayals shown in the media.

So the best way to debunk those stereotypes is to say "Yes i am gay(or whatever)"..but show them who you really are..& maybe they would see that wow the media is way off on this & should it even matter what someone is?



In fact i'm wondering how i should let my relatives know who i really am so i don't have to hide it around them. I could either show up at some family gathering dressed up & let it all out of the bag(i'd dress classy of course) & see how they react as i behave as i usualy do.Or i could just tell them next time they ask me what i've been up to lately. Yet right away they would think "ewwww" & conjure up nasty images...so without any visual proof. The negative reaction is most likely to happen...yet if they see my photo's or me in person in drag..they'd see "wow you actually look like a woman!".

At least thats how it worked with my dad.When he found out. He kept saying "Ok do what you want..just don't let me see it!!" since his only view of TG's/DQ's was on tv,usualy negative portrayals & really nasty looking queens. Well i showed him my photo's when they were developed & he was totally blown away at how wrong he was. So after that he was more cool about it & even seeing me in person dressed up was no big deal. So now he's saying he's much more open minded & not homophobic at all since he used to be(but my step-mom opened his eyes i guess).


So when we saw Rules of Attraction..he didn't get uncomfortable or freak out at some of the gay overtones in the film. In fact he ended up loving the film for being something different for a change.Even joked about how my older brother is a major homophobe who's so worried about it(he tries to be a macho real man if you know what i mean).He mentioned how they played a trick on him at work..making him work with this really large muscular guy..saying he was gay.My brother was so nervous & worried about working with him(the guy was really straight)..& eventually the joke was ruined since they could'nt go through with it. My brother was so uptight & felt like an idiot.

So we joked that we should make him watch Rules..or Cruising which will really freak him out. Of course that would be a bad idea..since it would only add to his fear of homosexuals. Yet it's fun to joke about since..hes to close minded.

Jari K
11-25-2004, 11:27 AM
Jii-haa! This thread was saved. ;)

Jennifer S.
11-25-2004, 05:22 PM
Wow,lol,talk about a time warp.

I guess alittle update on the original shooting script I won on ebay(since those posts were deleted).

It was pretty interesting and more fleshed out than the film,that it made alittle more sense. Even if there was still some stuff in the film that was not in the script(probably thought up on the spot..ie-the killers "You made me do that" and a few other lines).

For example the main reason for the cops getting involved is because one of the victimes was the son of a politicion. So under pressure to keep things quiet so a huge scandal does'nt shoot up in the media. Edelson is forced to try another method to solving the case under the radar,via someone going under cover. Since earlier he and the cops were raiding various gay bars/clubs trying to force the killer out from hiding(or so they assume). Burns does'nt show up for 46 pages in the script(which is nearly 40 minutes of screen time,if you go by the one page=one minute rule).

There are also more scenes with the two cops at the begining(one played by Joe Spinell),more with Nancy and more fleshing out of the killers daily life.

Some things mentioned merely in dialogue in the script,turned out better when shown in the film(ie-the discovery of the killers letters to dad never sent).

Also I bet some rewritting went on durring shooting,since the great infamous police interogation sequence(& previous scene) were not in the script at all!


Anyway I would love to see a fully restored uncut directors cut of this film.

ps-I just got a free copy of the book off ebay since no one bidded on it. So since I emailed the seller earlier(& forgot to bid..it was only $1). He offered it to me for free. So a pretty good deal all around,lol:D