'Cruising' is not an especially good film. Not as a gruseome, gritty crime thriller. Not as an adaption of a crime novel. Not as one of the first mainstream Hollywood films to depict, often quite explicitly, the"after hours" life-style of some gay men.
The film depicts – intentionally or not – gay and bisexual men in a manner starkling similar to Hollywod vampires; i.e. nocternal, decadent, amoral and predatory.
Granted, it could be argued that the film's decadent aspects – namley the S&M leather bars and depicting the men who visit these bars as willingess to engage in casual, even public, sex acts may be accurate.
In the sexual liberation ethos of the 1970s (filming largely took place in the summer of 1979), before the AIDS pandemic, it is certainly possible that this is how some (mostly white, middle class) gay and bisexual men liked to "get down" and party after work.
The problem is that 'some' becomes 'all' as far as this film is concerned. The film makers had many creative and simple ways to better depict the gay community without being a bland, public service announcement.
The undercover cop has a gay neighbor who is a nice character (played by a terrific actor) but is not really given much to do, except be brutally murdered.
Franky, even the film's stars are not really given much to do, largely because the film removed much of character development, motivation and story arches found within the novel.
As a crime drama, we have a depiction of the New York City police department that is, frankly, down right scary.
I am surprised that members of law enforcement are not as outraged as the gay community is on how this film depicts them. 'Criminal Minds' or 'NCIS, it ain't.
The 'investigation' into a serial killer basically boils down to one straight man posing as a regular bar at kinky gay bars in the hopes that the killer will try and pick him up.
Basically, this means paying a straight man to dance in sweaty/smoky bars and then being awfully surprised that this is not an effective way to track down a serial killer.
Apparently, all that late night dancing (to some funky disco and punk music) gives the undercover agent a sexual identity crisis, which, in turn, transforms him into a gay murderer.
After the gay serial killer is caught, the gay neighbor is killed, apparently, by the undercover cop.
Yup, our film's hero becomes a gay serial killer after catching a gay serial killer because....um...er....I have no idea. He hung out with gay and bisexual men? His girlfriend dumped him? He listened to punk rock music? The homophobia, sexism and good-old-fashion bad writing in this film makes for a rather tragic triad.
"Tragic" because the film has got a great cast and crew involved with it. The novel itself could be adapted into a great film. I even enjoyed the retro, 1970s music.
Film audiences -- gay or straight -- deserve better. Fans of gritty, crime thrillers deserve better. Heck, fans of vampires or the S&M scene deserve better.
The film depicts – intentionally or not – gay and bisexual men in a manner starkling similar to Hollywod vampires; i.e. nocternal, decadent, amoral and predatory.
Granted, it could be argued that the film's decadent aspects – namley the S&M leather bars and depicting the men who visit these bars as willingess to engage in casual, even public, sex acts may be accurate.
In the sexual liberation ethos of the 1970s (filming largely took place in the summer of 1979), before the AIDS pandemic, it is certainly possible that this is how some (mostly white, middle class) gay and bisexual men liked to "get down" and party after work.
The problem is that 'some' becomes 'all' as far as this film is concerned. The film makers had many creative and simple ways to better depict the gay community without being a bland, public service announcement.
The undercover cop has a gay neighbor who is a nice character (played by a terrific actor) but is not really given much to do, except be brutally murdered.
Franky, even the film's stars are not really given much to do, largely because the film removed much of character development, motivation and story arches found within the novel.
As a crime drama, we have a depiction of the New York City police department that is, frankly, down right scary.
I am surprised that members of law enforcement are not as outraged as the gay community is on how this film depicts them. 'Criminal Minds' or 'NCIS, it ain't.
The 'investigation' into a serial killer basically boils down to one straight man posing as a regular bar at kinky gay bars in the hopes that the killer will try and pick him up.
Basically, this means paying a straight man to dance in sweaty/smoky bars and then being awfully surprised that this is not an effective way to track down a serial killer.
Apparently, all that late night dancing (to some funky disco and punk music) gives the undercover agent a sexual identity crisis, which, in turn, transforms him into a gay murderer.
After the gay serial killer is caught, the gay neighbor is killed, apparently, by the undercover cop.
Yup, our film's hero becomes a gay serial killer after catching a gay serial killer because....um...er....I have no idea. He hung out with gay and bisexual men? His girlfriend dumped him? He listened to punk rock music? The homophobia, sexism and good-old-fashion bad writing in this film makes for a rather tragic triad.
"Tragic" because the film has got a great cast and crew involved with it. The novel itself could be adapted into a great film. I even enjoyed the retro, 1970s music.
Film audiences -- gay or straight -- deserve better. Fans of gritty, crime thrillers deserve better. Heck, fans of vampires or the S&M scene deserve better.