William Friedkin's 'Cruising' from Priestess CoraSahn's blog

I'm adding this review to my blog as it relates to the use of symbolism as a necessary shock.

It's a rough draft, I still have to do a fair bit of editing to refine it. It will automatically update when I upload the revision.

Enjoy!

The edit is up, phew! This version is more refined.

Cruising looks like a worthwhile film. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Besides confronting cultural stereotypes and social issues, is it really that shocking? If so, why are the shocks necessary?

It may not be shocking to you or I, but I can imagine the outcry was enough to make it shocking to a self-identified 'Gay' (I hate that term), and/or the viewing audience to provoke them to think about the themes in the film. I think it's a worthy shock to decide what is really being portrayed in the writing and why.

I think its a worthy film for any person to put their own thoughts and ideas to the test, especially with social stereotypes.

I studied this film as part of a film studies course. I recall Friedkin also directed 'The Boys in the Band', a seminal gay film from 1970. However this one was universally panned, gay people hating it for its negative portrayal of gay males. Pacino distanced himself from it, also. I think the plot followed the Exorcist concept of an evil which 'jumped' from one person to another, so there was no set killer; each one was different. The main bone of contention was that it equated homosexuality with pathological violence, or tried to connect homophobia with latent homosexuality. It played out cliches on this subject, such as the distant father complex. Some of the material filmed around New York was authentic, capturing the zeitgeist of the time, but the killings were based on events from the 1960's; people's gay consciousness was too developed by 1980 to tolerate such a film. Ironically, the concept of the 'killer' which jumped from gay person to gay person unwittingly foreshadowed the HIV virus that was soon to decimate the gay community. I am gay, and the film is quite gripping, I feel.

"Ironically, the concept of the 'killer' which jumped from gay person to gay person unwittingly foreshadowed the HIV virus that was soon to decimate the gay community. I am gay, and the film is quite gripping, I feel."

Indeed, its one way of looking at it. From what I recall personally from the 80's, homosexual males were regarded to be problematic 'spreaders' of HIV/AIDS. The focus was less on drug use/needle sharing, and more on 'gays' as the bane to society. So I can imagine the impact internally the film would have at that time. Now? In my observation this view (while still present) has lessened.

I think the label 'gay' is a detriment to how one internalizes these issues. As a bisexual female, I don't see my sexual preferences as 'who' or 'what' I am. It's just something I do, or how my interpersonal relationship choices play out. For example, I'm now in a serious relationship with a male. I don't see that relationship as who or what I am, but perhaps an extension of how I express myself through that union. Does that make sense?

Have you read Jack's book Androphilia? Any thoughts?

When it was first released I was anxious to read it, and I'm glad that I did. I think he expresses the 'gay identity' issue very eloquently from his own point of view.

http://www.thinkandask.com/2006/0302076-homo.html

I've shared the book with a few of my friends that identify as 'gay' and engulf themselves in 'gay culture', many found the book insulting, while others found his insights useful for introspect.

I've read it very quickly, (Androphilia) and it's certainly an interesting take on the subject of homosexuality. It does sound, I must say, like an old concept with a new twist, that of pointing out the masculine side of homosexuality over the more identifiable 'effeminate' type males. It's not new, most gays would be aware that sexuality covers a wider area, including those people who may have had 'bisexual' experiences which aren't uncommon. However, he disliked the word 'gay' over 'homosexual', which ironically came into being as a more neutral word to remove the negative connotations the latter, in the 1960's! It's a wide 'church' which covers many people, and no one can dictate the 'correct' way of being gay, because there isn't one. Everyone is different, and really we should also tolerate effeminate people and not get into the trap of condemning them either. That's my feelings on this subject.

Sure, I feel you. It's merely one perspective. I personally don't like the term 'gay' because of the connotations and treatment of the 'gay identity'. I'm not merely having 'bisexual' experiences, I think this type of attitude should also be open for discussion. I've seen bisexuals, dismissed as not having a true understanding of what it means to be gay. I don't think that assessment is fair in all cases. Sure, there's the bi-curious or the 'instances' but may live all encompassing with no preference for male or female, they are more interested in the experience.

Purposeful, or for shock value?

I would say that 'Cruising' was extremely shocking and violent with its portrayal of S&M activities, serial killing and stabbings. Most video releases were edited by a few seconds for censorship reasons. Friedkin was forced to preface the film with a disclaimer to say that the events represented only a very small section of the gay community, due to protests. Filming was hijacked by gay rights protestors, who shone mirrors and lights into cameras. In its defence, it was loosely based on real events about an agent provocateur hunting homosexual killers in the '60's.

Hollywood, as a panacea produced the gay film, 'Making Love' (Arthur Hillier 1982) and starring Harry Hamlin. However, this went the other way in being overly sweet and romantic in its portrayal of gay men.

After watching the film, I searched for some of the backlash, and noted that there was a small volume of writing addressing the protests of the film based on the book (to include the mirror/flash shining).

When you are a child, you received a very obscured version of socio-political issues. Often times, parents are of no help to foster healthy values about human needs, they may even be detrimental to how a child grows into their own views about human sexuality.

I can recall vividly the many papers written on Jeffrey Dahlmer's pathology which seemed to be culminated into an anthology of the negative affects of 'free love' and homosexuality on any given culture.

Flash forward to 2008, and the themes in the film 'Cthulhu' produced by a 'gay film' production company. There was a fair bit of backlash over how homosexual men were portrayed; even if it was purposefully done to reflect the Eldritch weirdness that is Cthulhu (and the body of works by HP Lovecraft).

How damaging was Cruising really? I suppose it's a matter of personal perspective. It's the 21st century, and many of this controversies play on...

http://youtu.be/uKEl0kM9p58

I have read the essay on Homosexuality & Christianity, which is very informative. Perhaps another reading would simply be that Leviticus, Romans etc were written by heterosexual males. Therefore, they were demonstating nascent homophobia. There would be no reason why they would be enlightened enough to accept homosexuality, unless they have homosexual feelings themselves.
I can't access the Cthulhu film trailer just yet, but will try to give feedback when available.

Well, considering that 'homosexuality' as a construct didn't even exist at points on the timeline, and it was pretty much the norm - I'd say its the symbol illiteracy that is problematic vs. Ancient homophobia.

Case in point, Pederasty was common throughout Greece.

I think Hellenization really did a number on prolific esotericism.

I think Ancient Greece was one place where homosexuality and lesbianism was tolerated, before Christianity, as you said.