462) Cruising (1980)

462) Cruising (1980) Dir: William Friedkin Date Released: February 1980 Date Seen: December 30, 2009 Rating: 4/5

I'm engaging in a wonderfully spirited and thoughtful debate on the subject of Cruising, which to my mind is a tragically misunderstood film, with my good friend Zengkun "Zack" Feng. This discussion is still taking place on Facebook (New media: go figger). I will update the discussion with Zack's comments and my replies as they come:

SPOILERS SPOILERS SO MANY FUCKING SPOILERS:

Simon Abrams (SA): Yeah, I'm not seeing the anti-gay sentiment of CRUISING. To my mind, the film's all about the preposterousness and danger of putting too much importance in the conflation of the sex act with moral identification inherent in Pacino's act of passing.Pacino's undercover act is an act of projection for his character just as much as the film is about the limited truth that homophobia AS an act of projection provides. Too many signs that show that the camp in the film is intentional and that the film is all about its ambiguous ending: is he straight or gay or the killer or what? No way to know b/c you can't decide that form that kind of loaded moral identification based on a glance, which is what the film ends on.

Zengkun Feng (ZF): Simon: a straight, hetero everyday cop goes undercover in the gay community and emerges a sexually dysfunctional, possibly gay serial murderer. Yes, all sorts of theory can be read into that transformation -- is it intentional camp, it's the brutality rather than the homosexuality that changes him, you can just easily substitute a niche verboten straight fetish, etc etc -- but at the purest/simplest level that is what the story is. And what that story implies is not exactly difficult to parse.

There's also the historical context of its release. Maybe today it doesn't seem as offensive, but imagine this is the first and only representation of gay people you have ever seen, maybe even the only one you are likely to ever see. If you were a gay person, how would you feel about having /this/ as the prism through which people would make assumptions about your life?

Even leaving aside the notion that Friedkin has any sort of social responsibility in making the movie -- let's say that he doesn't have any at all -- artistically the reductive choices just seem lazy (the S&M gay, the sweet, artistic gay, the homicidal gay, etc etc). I don't think I would classify them as camp either -- doesn't camp require a winking eye, a kind of cooperation from the viewing public? Sure, you and I know now what stereotypical gay behavior is, but people back then? Friedkin himself, who was neither gay nor involved in the gay community? I find it hard to believe he was going for camp, and even if he was somehow steeped in gay culture and wanted to present a camp portrayal of it, I don't think you can reasonably say he expected his audience to get it. It was far more likely that the people in the audience would have taken his movie for documentary. So he's either lazy to do genuine research, homophobic or a bona fide idiot about this movie.

I think at best, if it's viewed as camp (or anything else) now instead of an opportunistic shitfest, Friedkin just caught a lucky break with the passage of time and shifting of culture. Doesn't excuse him in any way, in my opinion.

SA: Well first of all you never know that Pacino is the killer. That's the film's point: you can't know. None of the behavior of the members of the gay community depicted in the film are meant to be a conclusive indictment.

The important thing to consider is that the camp of the film is limited to the stares Pacino gets at the clubs and the extreme sex he witnesses. He's so terrified of everything he sees going on that his complexion is constantly a pale pancake white. But it shouldn't be, according to Friedkin. The evidence Pacino has to go on about his suspect--he must be gay b/c he /thinks/ he saw him at the club and because he has books on performing arts--is intentionally circumstantial. It's the same way that Pacino only haunts the gay clubs that are in the meat-packing district. Friedkin liked the fact that there were gay clubs there but showed it off AS a meat-packing plant to make his point: Pacino and his colleagues' search for the "homo killer" is so loaded with preconceived notions that it makes his view of the world boil down to skewed stereotypes. The murder weapon in the film is /thought/ to be a steak knife, which signifies to Pacino an attempt to re-assert a more manly identity through, of all things, food. But that logic's not true: the suspect that works at the steak restaurant is only seen to accept Pacino’s advances. He pulls a knife at the same time Pacino does because he’s nervous. The fact that a murder takes place after he's in custody shows that the "flashbacks" he has of the murder victims may not mean that he was the murderer after all, just someone afraid of suffering the same fate if he came out of the closet.

Behavior does not lead Pacino to a conclusive moral judgment here and I think the same is true for the film's portrayal of the gay community. They are portrayed as wild and animalistic but only according to a comically frightened outsider, one who doesn't know what he’s doing. That’s proven in the scene where Pacino goes to a fetish shop and nervously asks what different bandannas mean, only to walk out sheepishly, saying that he has to think about it and the proprietor teasing in a very bemused tone that he’s sure he’ll make the right decision. Similarly, after his first few days undercover, he’s shown to have sex with his wife really aggressively but this isn’t mean to be a sign of pathology but rather an act of comic projection. There’s no menacing music to accompany ths sex act, just the exaggerated moans and looks of surprise on his wife’s face at his newfound vigor.

What I'm trying to say is Friedkin is not trying to present the gay community but rather the gay community according to a bigoted cop. One who thinks he can pass as gay but is really only seeing and hence showing us how his personality was always dysfunctional. The film begins with a scene of two fellow cops hassling two drag queens: that is Friedkin's view of a police mentality toward the gay community. From there, Pacino gets the assignment, showing us that everything that we're seeing in the film stems from that first scene's privileged, bigoted POV.

I think it's impossible to say Pacino is warped by his time undercover. He’s The first scene positions his POV as one of them, an idea confirmed by the fact that the police chief murmurs something about how the killings all took place in the jurisdiction of the precinct that the cops in the first scene patrol. That’s the bigoted cops’ stomping grounds, a place where they humiliate and use anyone they want to, as with the drag queens the two cops pull over and taunt (and possibly even sexually abuse, as one of the drag queens tells someone at the police station). The fact that that last murder, which takes place in the apartment Pacino goes undercover in, takes place in that precinct’s area, links him directly with those cops’ act of abuse.

More directly, if Pacino were the murderer all along, you can’t tell it from his behavior in the film. He’s so submerged in an earnest quest for clues as to what the “gay community” is like, as in the intentionally funny scene at the fetish shop, that if we are to believe he’s always been the killer, we’d have to make a Herculean argument that the film’s events are all a huge act of self-denial on his part. The film’s ambiguous ending hints at this in the way that his shaving and stares directly at the camera while his wife tries on his teddy boy cap just after the latest murder is announced but I don’t think that means he’s the murderer the whole time. Even if it does, that only serves to show you that his character is projected a fetishized view of the “gay scene” in an attempt to disavow it with his “straight” persona. Again, I don’t think that’s the case—his relationship with his girlfriend for one thing makes me think otherwise—but if that’s the case, it only serves to confirm that his personality is dysfunctional BEFORE he enters the “gay community,” so it shouldn’t be seen as an objective view of what homosexuality is like.

Also, Friedkin spliced in scenes of gay porn into the first murder scene to establish the ludicrousness of the causal connection b/w "gayness" and homicide. Likewise, a few shots of Dustin Hoffman are more explicitly spliced into a porn movie that two characters are watching, an attempt to get the viewer to ask "Was that..." and wonder as a means of implicating the viewer for their prejudiced assumptions. In MIDNIGHT COWBOY 11 years earlier, which has Hoffman’s definitive line in it—“I’m walkin’ here”—Hoffman’s character vehemently /denies/ being gay. I believe Friedkin’s use of him here manipulates that kind of confusion of onscreen persona with sexual orientation. Hoffman’s nasal accent and nebbish looks made him appear effeminate, an image he had to combat throughout his career, especially in STRAW DOGS (1971), where he’s shown to be fighting to re-assert his masculinity by defending his house from foreign burglars.

This all may seem like a more subtle interpretation than what the average filmgoer may think but that’s what the film’s initial disclaimer is for. Though Friedkin didn’t like the fact that the film began with a disclaimer that said that this is not how the gay community is like beyond a small group, it only serves to help his case. “Gay”ness here is not an act of condemnation but rather an act of projection on Pacino’s character’s part.

ZF: Simon -- all good points; just a few clarifications:

I don't think Pacino was the murderer all along; that, to me, would be less offensive, since it would mean that his pathology predates his undercover investigation. The suggestion is, I think, that he is only the murderer of Ted, i.e. he is not a murderer to begin with but only becomes one after his sojourn into the gay community. That's why that movie is offensive to me, because of what it implies about the effects of spending time among gay people. There are two important caveats to this, of course -- 1) one can argue that it's the obsession with the killer that 'turns' Pacino, not the time spent among homosexuals, and 2) yes, the movie is ambiguous about whether Pacino is really responsible for Ted's murder -- as you say, we can never be sure whether Pacino /is/ a killer.

Given those two caveats, however, the question I ask is: why even introduce the possibility of audiences connecting homosex with murder? If Friedkin is interested in showing how obsession with a killer might turn a person into one, why not use a straight killer and a straight policeman? There's really no reason to confuse the issue, and would make the clarity of that moral/dramatic arc more effective. But he doesn't use straight people. He uses the gay community.

Also: yes, I agree that, watched /today/, one is likely to say: Pacino is a bigoted creep, and the gays of the movie are hopelessly stereotypical. But my question is: would you have thought this if you were watching it in 1980? Bearing in mind that you probably know nothing about gay people except Stonewall a decade ago, Harvey Milk and George Moscone's murders the year before, and the various marches across the country in the last few years? I think you have to remember that the only gay movie of note prior to "Cruising" - that is, the only gay movie contemporaneous audiences were likely to have seen - is "The Boys in the Band", a movie in which being gay is equated to a lifetime of misery.

As far as audiences in 1980 were concerned, they were overwhelmingly likely to think gay people are miserable, itching for a fight and magnets for violence. And then comes this movie about a gay serial killer, a straight policeman who possibly becomes a gay serial killer, and with a debased view of homosexuals to boot. Yes, a lot of the connections in the movie are circumstantial, as you say, but, again - why suggest it at all if you don't intend people to consider it?

SA: Interesting. I think Friedkin uses the movie as a means of showing the immaterial nature of the difference homophobes put so much importance into when they delineate "us" and "them" borders. Arguably though, it could indeed be about a minority group or even feminism. I just think he found the gay subculture in NYC at the time to be fascinating and full of esp. loaded imagery and hence particularly divisive/abused imagery.

And he does intend people to consider the points to be substantial b/c the plot is meant to drag the viewer out of their comfort zone. They are meant to think they are sutured into Pacinos POV until the last act, when it's revealed that as close-minded and fearful as he is, that he's also just plain wrong.

Then again: I strongly disagree re: the only gay movie being THE BOYS IN THE BAND. MIDNIGHT COWBOY is very much about Jon Voight's sexuality and the strong hints that he is in fact a latent homosexual.

If anything, Friedkin is trying to combat the close-minded assumption he makes Pacino's character project onto the gay community. What I love about CRUISING is that he doesn't spend that he has the guts to not explain himself too much in that regard but in doing so, he alienates a lot of viewers and leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

ZF: And finally -- there is, of course, one possibly good reason to making this particular film, which you pointed out: to show how bigoted people can be. It is possible that Friedkin made this movie so people in 1980 would walk away from it thinking, 'Gee, I'm so sorry that gays always get such a bad portrayal in the movies!' Or even 'Gee, policemen sure are assholes to gay people, aren't they?'. But I don't think Friedkin had that intention (or if he did, I don't think he executed it well) because of two reasons:

1) If you want audiences to look at the events in your film as bigotry, those audiences have to have a wider viewpoint to place those events in context. You and me, sure we do -- we know now that gay people are not exclusively depraved / victims. But viewers in 1980 did not have the luxury of the last 20 years' gay movements.

2) Given that, the wider viewpoint has to come from the movie itself, i.e. if Friedkin wanted to show that the events are bigoted, as opposed to documentary, there has to be a counter-viewpoint, if you will. This is where I confess to being uncertain -- I haven't seen the movie in a while, so quite possibly Friedkin does provide this. But I don't remember any instances of that, at any rate. So what we are left with (if I am right that there are no counter-viewpoints) is this one-sided view, damaging view of gay people.

SA: 1) I think Friedkin's portrait works b/c it's so of the moment that it can't provide context. It's trying to show, within isolated and controlled circumstances, the inanities of bigotry but w/o making Pacino's character so outlandishly cruel that the viewer can easily distance themselves from him.

2) The counter viewpoint comes from the kind gayneighbor, with his dreams of being a playwright and the misunderstood suspect with his box full of letters to his father. They are not as oversexed as the gay men in the clubs Pacino visits. The former has big aspirations but is forced to concede them for the sake of paying rent now. The latter points out to the cops that Pacino was the one soliciting and is completely nervous about what he should do about his homosexuality for fear of offending his dead father. They're not teddy boys or men with hankies hanging out of their back pockets. They just happen to be gay.

For that matter, neither is the fetish shop owner: he's not flamboyant at all and instead explains to Pacino with bemusement and boredom what each bandanna means.

ZF: Ah, okay. What I meant, though, is: does anyone provide a counter-viewpoint of the bigotry in the film, i.e. exposes it /as/ bigotry? The police are brutal to gay people; does anyone neutral point out that this is wrong? So on so forth? Because that's the crux, isn't it? My beef with the movie, and the source of its offensiveness is a) the idea that 'gay = miserable or murderer or murdered (and spending time among them will turn you gay and into a murderer!)', and b) yes, you and I see the police brutality as police brutality today, but in 1980 that may not have been the case. In 1980 the case could very well have been: well, he was gay so that's what he deserves!

If Friedkin wanted to show 'negative behavior towards gay people is bigoted', he must have known that he would have to provide that viewpoint in the movie itself, because he sure as hell couldn't have relied on the enlightenment of the contemporaneous audience. I mean, this is the social climate in which Dan White was acquitted of point-blank shooting two gay men. And if he didn't provide this counter-viewpoint, I think you can see why this movie was offensive to gay people.

Also: I feel like I have to respond to this:

"What I love about CRUISING is that he doesn't spend that he has the guts to not explain himself too much in that regard but in doing so, he alienates a lot of viewers and leaves a lot of unanswered questions."

You are entitled to your opinion, obviously, and I may even agree with you if I were to rewatch the film today, but the thing is: it's all very well for you and me to theorize from a distance, but I have to point out, obvious as it is, that in 1980 this was not a film people could analyze cold-bloodedly. In 1980 this was a film which was shaping public opinion about gay people and affecting the lives of gay people in ways you and I probably can't even imagine. I think that's a consideration that's been missing from this thread and a big part of why the offensiveness of it may seem overblown from the vantage point of 30 years later. Yes, I know there's the school of thought that filmmakers are artistes! They must be free to be offensive to make art! as well as the school of thought that artistes must be free to be politically incorrect! -- but at the same time, you have to wonder (or at least I did), how much this film played into the fear and paranoia about gay people when the Aids epidemic began just a few years later.

This is not to put a damper on discussion or anything; your point in the quote above is perfectly valid; I just want to point out that expressions like "well I don't see what was so offensive / anti-gay / [ ] about XYZ!" are by definition removed from the time XYZ happened. Ours is a privileged perspective, is what I am saying. It's kind of offensive to put statements like your original status update without providing the context for why gay people were outraged.

This has little to do with the (de)merits of the film itself; it's just something I really really feel like I have to point out. Okay, back to the original programming now.

SA: Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, I see what you mean but to my mind, it's very hard to see the film as an objective condemnation of the gay scene. It's all so steeped in Pacino's actions and ideas and the ending so thoroughly destroys the associations he's constructed that it really just doesn't seem like a viewer of any time could watch without condemning it for something that's not intended. I'm not applauding Friedkin for his willingness to be offensive in that case but rather his willingness to address what HE finds to be so offensive in the way homosexuality is thought as a violent subculture of deviants. To make the film's damningly inconclusive finale so effective, he has to make the build-up to it convincingly grisly and almost convincing in its logic. Still the humor in the film, as in the sex scene, the fetish shop, the way he flees from a man staring at him in a tunnel or the man that approaches when he sees his yellow bandanna and turns him down all suggest that Pacino is meant to be seen as a skittish, unreliable protagonist.

In that sense, Pacino's attitude is condemned but always indirectly. I think Friedkin presents the character as being so dangerous because there's no one to say "You're wrong" to him. His act of passing is only revealed to the kid he busts and to the chief. Everyone else allows it and that's what makes the inconclusive finale of the film so damning: for all of his training and logic, he's not only wrong but possibly even psychotic.

But as for concrete examples that Friedkin presents his POV as bigoted: firstly there's the brutality of the cops in the first scene. Friedkin conflates their actions and Pacino's, harassing and busing the drag queens with Pacino's actions by later revealing that all of the film's events take place in their district. Keep in mind, those cops are only identified by that district #, twice or three times. The hint that Pacino is the killer comes from the chief's murmuring that the last killing took place in that same district. He's guilty by association.

Secondly, there's the ending. The fact that there is a murder right after the case is closed refutes Pacino's assumptions much in the same way that even Max von Sydow's priest in Friedkin's EXORCIST fails in no uncertain terms at the end of that film. The murder is esp. pointed b/c its his neighbor, somebody he trusts and likes so much that he's even willing to go to bat for him with his bigoted roommate. It proves that his judgment is wrong and even casts doubt on his character (there's no signs of him actually being gay or murderous up until the end, where the cops suggest, b/c they're really not interested in pursuing the case, that it was a lover's quarrel. We know that the kid didn't have a lover, once again showing how the police are shown to want to just get the job done.

That's the film's biggest mentality: these guys aren't interested in checking Pacino's actions. The one meeting he has with his chief is ridiculously brief and most of it is comprise of Pacino giving him the intel he's gathered. The cops are the only people that know about this case, making the film such a slippery slope because it is almost entirely subjective. The very ending is striking b/c you have to wonder if he's raising his head in alarm b/c he thinks he's been found out or if it's b/c his wife is trying on his teddy boy hat, which is the interpretation I subscribe to. That ending posits that Pacino fears that his wife isn't just passing but rather is in fact now seriously toying with a big lifestyle change.

I understand why its uneven nature makes it an easy target but I don't think it's irresponsible. I understand what you're saying but I think viewers would have been spoiled if he made it so easy for them to judge Pacino's character's POV, which is ultimately synonymous with the film's depiction of homosexuality. But yes, I understand why it got the reaction it did. I just don't think it's particularly fair.

ZF: I have a feeling I need to clarify something:

Is your interpretation: a) Pacino goes after serial killer, b) Pacino kills serial killer, c) Another murder happens, therefore d) He was chasing the wrong guy all along or d2) He was the murderer all along?

It's not a trick question; I'm asking because those are not the interpretations causing so much trouble for gay people. The interpretation that prompted the backlash (among other things) is:

a) Pacino goes after serial killer, b) Pacino kills serial killer, c) Another murder happens, therefore d) Pacino has /become/ a killer himself after his time in the gay community.

It's the /becoming/ part that's the problem. Also this, which puts it better than I could:

"""We see the cop engaging in some heavy vaginal intercourse with his girlfriend, but we don't know if he's normally this semi-rough, or if he's doing so under the pretense that the rougher (he does it), the manlier he must be – fucking away any trace of gay, if you will. A week later, the girlfriend complains about his not wanting her any more, and he replies, 'What I'm doing, is affecting me.' How? Turning him off sex with women, or off sex altogether in light of what he's seeing and experiencing every night? Again, we do not know."""

Add to the above: the murder of Ted, the one gay person he becomes friendly with. The one that the movie suggests Pacino killed. I mean, straight man kills the one gay man he feels friendly towards. That's why criticism like this arises:

"""Gays who protested the making of the film maintained that it would show that when Pacino recognized his attraction to the homosexual world, he would become psychotic and begin to kill."""

Add to that: the gay serial killer only kills gay people. I mean, the mirror to what may have happened to Pacino at the end -- internalized homophobia leads to externalized homo-killing -- is hardly subtle.

Yes, it is entirely possible that Friedkin does not endorse the general "woe is gay!" sentiment, and is in fact exposing how narrow-minded it is, how much abuse gay people have to endure. But, again -- if you make a movie where only bad things happen to gay people, and you present those bad things as inevitable, in a climate where both of those are taken for granted -- it's not so much that Friedkin is objectively condemning the gay scene, more that this is really just playing to the crowd, reinforcing negative stereotypes, etc etc. That's why it's irresponsible.

SA: That reading is very, very selective.

""""We see the cop engaging in some heavy vaginal intercourse with his girlfriend, but we don't know if he's normally this semi-rough, or if he's doing so under the pretense that the rougher (he does it), the manlier he must be – fucking away any trace of gay, if you will. A week later, the girlfriend complains about his not wanting her any more, and he replies, 'What I'm doing, is affecting me.' How? Turning him off sex with women, or off sex altogether in light of what he's seeing and experiencing every night? Again, we do not know.""""

First of all, who is this viewer to say it was "vaginal intercourse?" No penetration is shown, just the woman's comic O face. Second, we do get a normalizing scene where he's quietly whispering to her before he goes undercover where they quietly spoon and whisper to one another. It's pretty blatant that the atmosphere of his undercover work has affected the change in his sexual habits. This, as I've said, is not a serious moment. It is exaggerated intentionally so that you see him at a club looking very pale and nervous and then a quick cut to him aggressively having sex with his wife. Thirdly, we "do not know" but we're not supposed to know where we stand with Pacino for all of the reasons I've said already.

"Add to the above: the murder of Ted, the one gay person he becomes friendly with. The one that the movie suggests Pacino killed. I mean, straight man kills the one gay man he feels friendly towards. That's why criticism like this arises:"

The movie doesn't suggest Pacino killed him, but rather tells you that the cops that found the body thought it was a lover's quarrel. But again, Pacino has made no sexual advances to him and so based on the evidence given, I don't assume that he killed his neighbor. It's intentionally left open to interpretation b/c the film is entirely about a refusal to conflate sexual preference with moral judgment/behavior.

""""Gays who protested the making of the film maintained that it would show that when Pacino recognized his attraction to the homosexual world, he would become psychotic and begin to kill."""

Add to that: the gay serial killer only kills gay people. I mean, the mirror to what may have happened to Pacino at the end -- internalized homophobia leads to externalized homo-killing -- is hardly subtle."

There's no explicit sign in the film that when Pacino's busting his perp that he has any affection for the perp or even lust so I find it a bit tenuous to say that "Pacino recognized his attraction to the homosexual world...." And yes, "the gay serial killer only kills gay people" but not because gay-killing begets gay-killing. In fact, we can't know what the killer's motive is. We don't even know who the killer is!

"Yes, it is entirely possible that Friedkin does not endorse the general "woe is gay!" sentiment, and is in fact exposing how narrow-minded it is, how much abuse gay people have to endure. But, again -- if you make a movie where only bad things happen to gay people, and you present those bad things as inevitable, in a climate where both of those are taken for granted -- it's not so much that Friedkin is objectively condemning the gay scene, more that this is really just playing to the crowd, reinforcing negative stereotypes, etc etc. That's why it's irresponsible."

This part of your argument is a bit murky to me. Pacino is never entirely part of the gay community so I'm not show how the film is trying to show "how narrow-minded it (the gay community?) is." And bad things happen constantly b/c Pacino, a straight cop that assumes he can easily pass as gay to get a promotion, waltzes into their world and with very limited interaction with the community, nabs the wrong perp. That's a condemnation of the cop, not the people he's investigating, who to him look like aliens because he's shown to be insecure and incorrect in his assumptions. He's not enforcing "negative stereotypes" but rather recognizing that they exist and blowing them out of proportion in an attempt to deflate their validity.

Pacino's failure at the end is the ultimate slam against his privileged POV. He and the film's view of gay people is not encouraged any more than the Christian faith is vindicated by THE EXORCIST, which ends with the murder-suicide of two priests and the overt suggestion that whatever possessed Linda Blair's character will be back. In CRUISING, the look in the mirror suggests a failure on Pacino's part, a lack of resolution that undermines his cocky determination and condescending sense of security.

ZF: ""And yes, "the gay serial killer only kills gay people" but not because gay-killing begets gay-killing. In fact, we can't know what the killer's motive is. We don't even know who the killer is!"

-- No, we don't know who the killer is, but we do know that he targets only gay people, and that he himself is gay. And then you have the scene where his deceased father is all "you know what you have to do". The interpretation that he kills gay people because there's something wrong with them, or the interpretation that he kills gay people as an expression of how much he hates himself for being gay, neither of those are difficult to make, especially considering those /would/ be the popular interpretations at that point in time (see: "The Boys in the Band" with its 'being gay is terrible!' message, and, as you say, "Midnight Cowboy" -- doesn't that end badly as well with one of them dying? At least, I don't think that film promotes a 'gay is good!' message either). I mean, the bare fact of it is this serial killer only targets gay people. There has to be a reason behind that. And yes, the exact reason is never defined, but I don't think it's because he likes them.

""First of all, who is this viewer to say it was "vaginal intercourse?" No penetration is shown, just the woman's comic O face. Second, we do get a normalizing scene where he's quietly whispering to her before he goes undercover where they quietly spoon and whisper to one another. It's pretty blatant that the atmosphere of his undercover work has affected the change in his sexual habits.""

Okay, let's say it's not vaginal intercourse. Is that really important? The crux here is: he has sex with the woman before the investigation. After the investigation starts he loses interest. As you yourself pointed out, the atmosphere of his undercover work changes his sexual habits. The question here is, why? which is what that particular critic I quoted is asking. The point is not that you don't know, but that the /possibility/ of 'spend time among gays and you become gay!' is left open. It's especially not a difficult thought to reach because you only have that one sex scene to go by to establish his 'normal' sex life, and in that scene he's not exactly gentle. If we had seen other more 'traditional' sex scenes, then yes, maybe that one time is a fluke. But as the movie sets it up, for all we know, he always needs to be this rough to get it on with a woman. Hence the "fucking away the gay" comment.

What suggestion is then: he is gay, but refuses to admit it or perhaps doesn't even consciously realise it. His time in the gay community, and his interaction with Ted, opens him to possibility that he is gay. And then Ted is murdered. You have to ask: why Ted? Why not a random gay person? If the point is to show that he has been wrong all along, chasing the wrong person all along, any gay victim would have done. What would the choice of Ted accomplish that no random victim would? The answer: it eliminates the one positive thing Pacino's character has found in the gay community. Of course, you could say that maybe the real serial killer targets Pacino as a particularly malicious gesture, but, again, it's not that we don't know, but that the /possibility/ of Pacino's internalised homophobia leading him to kill Ted is left open.

""This part of your argument is a bit murky to me. Pacino is never entirely part of the gay community so I'm not show how the film is trying to show "how narrow-minded it (the gay community?) is." And bad things happen constantly b/c Pacino, a straight cop that assumes he can easily pass as gay to get a promotion, waltzes into their world and with very limited interaction with the community, nabs the wrong perp. That's a condemnation of the cop, not the people he's investigating, who to him look like aliens because he's shown to be insecure and incorrect in his assumptions. He's not enforcing "negative stereotypes" but rather recognizing that they exist and blowing them out of proportion in an attempt to deflate their validity.""

I meant, it is possible that Friedkin is showing how anti-gay sentiment is narrow-minded, not the gay community is narrow-minded.

As for the rest of the above: what we have is, as you say, gays who look like aliens, who are much of the same, who exist in a demeaning way and have demeaning things happen to them. I hate to sound like a broken record, but -- Friedkin does not show any other ways gay people can exist. Yes, it is possible that he meant to exaggerate, to reflect people's bigotry so they would recognize it as bigotry -- but how is the audience to know that? Especially in the light that there exists no counter-viewpoint, culturally or in the movie? Because Pacino is unreliable, because he's a bad cop? Even if I subscribe to your interpretation -- catching the wrong guy doesn't mean that he's wrong about gay people. It only means that - he caught the wrong guy! I don't think audiences were going to go: well, the murderer is still out there = Pacino was chasing the wrong tail = the entire film was showing prejudice about gay people because he is incompetent and prejudiced. It /might/ show that if the serial killer turned out to be straight, and Pacino's homophobia led him to assume the serial killer has to be gay -- then yes, that is a possibly legitimate case for, as you say, 'the film shows how gay people are prejudiced against'. But no. As it stands -- Pacino is on the right track. He just caught the wrong (gay) guy.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but whenever I've brought up the anti-gay examples your response has been primarily, "but we don't know that for sure!" and/or the substitution of a different reading. Which, yes, that is true. We don't know. But expecting people to make their own conclusions is not unreasonable, nor is the expectation that they would reach the conclusions I did, for the same reasons that I did. The major point I am making here is: this movie came out at a time when the anti-gay conclusions would have both been easier and more automatic to make. Friedkin, being an adult in that time, would have known that. That is why his movie was damaging and irresponsible. If he was really interested in championing gay people, aren't there easier ways of doing that -- explicitly pointing out the wrongheadedness of Pacino's character, providing a more balanced / positive view of being gay? You may say, he must make the movie he is interested in making. I agree. I'm just saying that I don't think he was that myopic. He must have known what negative impact his film would have, that he was in un/little-charted territory and making a film likely to shape public opinion. And he made that particular film anyway.

I'm not disputing your interpretation of the film; I'm pointing out that, in 1980, your interpretation would not have been, and /was/ not, the one likely reached by audiences, particularly considering Anita Bryant and her 'gays are out to recruit us!' rhetoric (which, incidentally, happened only three years before the movie). It doesn't make your interpretation any less valid. It's just that, considering you haven't been able to conclusively dispute /my/ interpretation, it's less a case of 'there's no anti-gay sentiment in the movie', and more 'I see those events in a different way'. Which you are entitled to, obviously! I don't agree with your interpretation, but I see where/how you might have reached it. All I'm asking is that, by this point in time, if you have been unable to flat-out, on a /factual/ level, disprove any of my conclusions, you see how "I'm not seeing the anti-gay sentiment in this movie!" is myopic and culturally-blind. We disagree! which is fine. All I wanted to show was that gay people did not pull their reasons for anger out of whole cloth. And if you cannot disprove their (and my) interpretation, I think you have to allow for the possibility that it exists.

SA: "Okay, let's say it's not vaginal intercourse. Is that really important? The crux here is: he has sex with the woman before the investigation. After the investigation starts he loses interest. As you yourself pointed out, the atmosphere of his undercover work changes his sexual habits. The question here is, why? which is what that particular critic I quoted is asking. The point is not that you don't know, but that the /possibility/ of 'spend time among gays and you become gay!' is left open. It's especially not a difficult thought to reach because you only have that one sex scene to go by to establish his 'normal' sex life, and in that scene he's not exactly gentle. If we had seen other more 'traditional' sex scenes, then yes, maybe that one time is a fluke. But as the movie sets it up, for all we know, he always needs to be this rough to get it on with a woman. Hence the "fucking away the gay" comment. "

Again, this is is an over-simplification. As I said, there is the "normal" sex scene before he has rough sex with his wife before this. And no the point of the film is not that if you "spend time amongst gays you become gay." If it were, you would see changes in Pacino's character. You don't. What you get instead is an open ending that confirms the fact that Pacino's behavior up to this point is unreadable. Which is what I've been arguing the film is all about. There's no proof within the film itself that he becomes a malicious gay killer or even gay at all.

"What suggestion is then: he is gay, but refuses to admit it or perhaps doesn't even consciously realise it. His time in the gay community, and his interaction with Ted, opens him to possibility that he is gay. And then Ted is murdered. You have to ask: why Ted? Why not a random gay person? If the point is to show that he has been wrong all along, chasing the wrong person all along, any gay victim would have done. What would the choice of Ted accomplish that no random victim would? The answer: it eliminates the one positive thing Pacino's character has found in the gay community. Of course, you could say that maybe the real serial killer targets Pacino as a particularly malicious gesture, but, again, it's not that we don't know, but that the /possibility/ of Pacino's internalised homophobia leading him to kill Ted is left open."

No, again, as I said, the reason Ted is killed is because Friedkin wants to show to to the audience and to Pacino's character that his entire time undercover was fruitless. The fact that Ted dies makes it personal as you said but that's it. There's no signs of love between him and Ted shown, just a mild curiosity. It doesn't matter who killed him: if it did, you would see explicitly who the killer is. As it is, you don't know who the killer is because you're not supposed to know and hence can't assume that it's his "internalised homophobia" that's now manifesting. Where in the film have you before that point seen scenes that he is "becoming gay?" You don't. That's not what the film is about. And again I think it's too much of stretch to say that "his time in the gay community, and his interactions with Ted, opens him to the possibility that he's gay" because he shows no signs of sincerity in his sexual advances or stress that relates that he's beginning to like his undercover work. Pacino's character is ebullient that he can even look like he's fitting in by the end, as when he nabs his suspect by rattling off the different phrases he's learned to pick up men. That dialogue and that scene is tense, because it's a business transaction to him, just as he's ALWAYS nervous around gay people. The only sign of affection he even shows for Ted is when he tries to beat up his roommate, but again, that's not because the roommate insulted Ted but rather because he insulted gay people in general. That to me is exactly what the film is about: him confronting a projection of his own opinion and trying to destroy it because he thinks his undercover work has made him understand the gay people better. It hasn't and his false assumptions as to who the killer is proves that.

"As for the rest of the above: what we have is, as you say, gays who look like aliens, who are much of the same, who exist in a demeaning way and have demeaning things happen to them. I hate to sound like a broken record, but -- Friedkin does not show any other ways gay people can exist. Yes, it is possible that he meant to exaggerate, to reflect people's bigotry so they would recognize it as bigotry -- but how is the audience to know that? Especially in the light that there exists no counter-viewpoint, culturally or in the movie? Because Pacino is unreliable, because he's a bad cop? Even if I subscribe to your interpretation -- catching the wrong guy doesn't mean that he's wrong about gay people. It only means that - he caught the wrong guy! I don't think audiences were going to go: well, the murderer is still out there = Pacino was chasing the wrong tail = the entire film was showing prejudice about gay people because he is incompetent and prejudiced. It /might/ show that if the serial killer turned out to be straight, and Pacino's homophobia led him to assume the serial killer has to be gay -- then yes, that is a possibly legitimate case for, as you say, 'the film shows how gay people are prejudiced against'. But no. As it stands -- Pacino is on the right track. He just caught the wrong (gay) guy."

No, again you're oversimplifying things. You do get to see gay people that aren't just aliens or bad people. You get Ted, a victim and hence someone Pacino's character can embrace because it appeals to his authority figure position. You get the fetish shop owner, who works in the light of day and is perfectly unflamboyant. And you get the suspect, who is actually innocent and just very nervous about coming out. He's the biggest proof that Pacino's character DOES encounter good gay people. He just doesn't interact with them because, yes, he isn't looking for them but rather the bad ones. This proves why his interactions in the gay community are constantly skewed by the nature of his search: he's trying to fit it but he's only looking for the worst qualities in the community, trying to find the worst of them and hence only seeing the animalistic side to them, the alien side.

And is it really that much of a stretch to say that gay people in the gay community were alienated? I don't think so. I think you're assuming that that means the film is judging them as hostile when in fact there's never a scene in the film's portrayal that's not linked to Pacino's POV. And "catching the wrong person" does mean he was wrong about gay people in general because it assumes he understands their mentality enough to catch one. That's what he treats them as: pathological people with secret codes, aggressive habits and thanks to his interactions with Ted, an insecurity complex. He doesn't warm up to them so I don't see why a normalizing force in the film is necessary. Your argument is that it's irresponsible to reproduce Pacino's POV without a strong counterpoint to debunk him. Mine is that the story requires you to not be able to reject Pacino, even if it constantly shows you why he's wrong, because that's what the police are like, according to Friedkin. The fact that the whole film is about the search for that killer and how Pacino goes about it makes the ending a damning slap in the face to Pacino. He's failed in his mission, one that he so gamely took on with the assumption that he could just pretend he was gay and catch a perp because he's just that good. But he can't because he doesn't understand the people he sees and because he's always frightened by them. He's wearing a teddy boy outfit, by the end, a sign that he feels effeminate around so many gay people and needs to look the most "macho" of them all to fit in. That's not something you need the distance of decades to see: a teddy boy outfit LOOKS aggressive as does the ass bondage straps some of the characters wear. These are meant to show you who the scene is to him and how he only fits in by emulating the heavier stuff, even if his hat is too big for his head and when he walks around on the street, he looks like his affected strut is very forced. In that sense, I think you could always tell that the gay community is seen as a threat TO HIM; the rest is just projection on your part. The end shows that his attempt to figure out who the suspect is, poring over his books, looking at his letters, was a false start. He doesn't understand what the kid's going through and hence can't say with certainty that he understands what he's looking for. That makes him the wrong gay guy in more than just the literal sense. And as for what audiences would think, I think that's a dead end. Can you know what mainstream audiences would think? I don't think Friedkin cared what they would think not because he was being irresponsible but rather because he knew the work spoke for itself and that it was going to bother people either way. That doesn't mean that he's condemning the gay community or objectively villifying them.

And I believe I have pointed out why the "factual" foundation of your argument doesn't hold: you don't see an objective portrayal of the gay community and you don't see him explicitly becoming gay and hence a serial killer and the abrupt insinuation that that is what he becomes by the end doesn't make sense considering what the film is focussing on (Pacino's undercover act as an act of privileged camouflage, not as personal lifestyle choice). You can't say that the ending implicates that he's become gay because there's no signs of that kind of sincere transformation in the film, just as there's no signs of that he's either repressing rage towards Ted or planning on murdering anyone else. His frustrations stem from his inability to get his man as the whole film is about his vain attempt to solve that puzzle, which I argue is inherently about the question of who the gay man is according to this straight cop. I think you're reading takes the film's conclusion and uses it to negate the subjectivity of the rest of the film, which is consistently shown to be subjective. My interpretation posits that the ending is an organic extension of that and hence a final, objective rebuke to his efforts, a slam very similar to the ending of THE EXORCIST. The procedurial plot is everything to this film because it's everything to the character. If you ignore it and make the film about Pacino becoming gay or becoming a killer, you're arguing the film makes an abrupt change in focus at the end, which I just don't see in the film and hence can't subscribe to your position as a fair interpretation.

ZF: Just two clarifications:

"""You do get to see gay people that aren't just aliens or bad people."""

My original post was (and you can go back and read it): gay people are aliens, bad people, or victims. Of the three exceptions you pointed out, Ted ends up murdered, and the suspect is brutalised during the interrogation.

And: """And as for what audiences would think, I think that's a dead end. Can you know what mainstream audiences would think? I don't think Friedkin cared what they would think not because he was being irresponsible but rather because he knew the work spoke for itself and that it was going to bother people either way."""

Yes, you CAN tell what mainstream audiences are thinking. I mean, come on. I highly doubt you would make a movie today trumpeting the Iraq war or glorifying George Bush. Again -- Anita Bryant, Dan White, the riots -- if you cannot accept that contemporaneous mainstream audiences were going into this movie with extremely prejudiced ideas about homosexuals, I really have nothing to say. We disagree on how those ideas would affect the viewing of the movie, obviously.

It just occurred to me that this discussion is almost the exact same one we had regarding "Jesus Camp", except, iirc, our positions were reversed, i.e. I thought it was a perfectly acceptable critique of evangelicals while you thought it was a broadside of Christianity. Is that right? I remember the arguments regarding the films' scope are remarkably similar, but I forget who was on which side then. I did like the film though.

SA: Sounds about right, lol.