Cruising Bar 2 Critique Essay

Cruising is a 1980 crime film written and directed by William Friedkin, and starring Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, and Karen Allen. It is loosely based on the novel of the same name by New York Times reporter Gerald Walker about a serial killer targeting gay men, particularly those men associated with the leather scene in the late 1970s. The title is a play on words with a dual meaning because "cruising" can describe police officers on patrol and gay men who are cruising for sex.

Poorly received by critics upon release, Cruising performed moderately at the box office. The shooting and promotion were dogged by gay rights protesters, who believed that the film stigmatized them. The film is also notable for its open-ended finale, further complicated by the director's incoherent changes in the rough cut and synopsis as well as other production issues.[2]


In New York City during the middle of a hot summer, body parts of men are showing up in the Hudson River. The police suspect it to be the work of a serial killer who is picking up homosexual men at West Village bars like the Eagle's Nest, the Ramrod, and the Cock Pit, then taking them to cheap rooming houses or motels, tying them up and stabbing them to death.

Officer Steve Burns (Al Pacino), who resembles the victims' dark-haired, slim figure image, is sent deep undercover by Captain Edelson (Paul Sorvino) into the urban world of gay S&M and leather bars in the Meatpacking District in order to track down the killer. He rents an apartment in the area and befriends a neighbor, Ted Bailey (Don Scardino), a struggling young gay playwright who does tech support to pay the bills. Burns's undercover work takes a toll on his relationship with his girlfriend Nancy (Karen Allen), due to both his refusal to tell her the details of his current assignment and Burns' developing friendship with Ted, who himself is having relationship problems with his jealous and overbearing dancer boyfriend Gregory (James Remar).

Burns mistakenly compels the police to interrogate a waiter, Skip Lee (Jay Acovone), who is intimidated and beaten to coerce a confession before the police discover Skip's fingerprints don't match the killer's. Burns is disturbed by this police brutality, and tells Captain Edelson he didn't sign on for this so that they can arrest anyone just because he's gay. Exhausted by his undercover assignment, Burns is close to quitting, but is convinced by Edelson to continue with the investigation. Edelson in turn reprimands the officers behind the interrogation of Skip.

Following a new lead, Burns investigates students at Columbia University who studied with one of the previous victims, a college professor. At the film's conclusion, Burns thinks that he has found the serial killer, who turns out to be Stuart Richards (Richard Cox), a gay music graduate student with schizophrenic disorder who attacks him with a knife in Morningside Park. Burns brings the man into custody, but shortly afterward, Ted's mutilated body is found. The police dismiss the murder as a lover's quarrel turned violent and put out an arrest warrant for Gregory, with whom Burns earlier had a fight over his relationship with Ted.

With the police under the impression that the murders have been solved because Richards is in custody, Burns moves back in with Nancy. In an ambiguous finale, Burns begins shaving his beard in the bathroom while Nancy secretly inspects clothes that he left on a chair: a leather peaked cap, aviator frames, and a leather jacket that all look very similar to the outfit the killer wore. Burns, meanwhile, wipes off his shaving cream and looks directly at the camera.



Philip D'Antoni, who had produced Friedkin's 1971 film The French Connection, approached Friedkin with the idea of directing a film based on New York Times reporter Gerald Walker's 1970 novel Cruising about a serial killer targeting New York City's gay community. Friedkin was not particularly interested in the project. D'Antoni tried to attach Steven Spielberg, but they were not able to interest a studio. A few years later, Jerry Weintraub brought the idea back to Friedkin, who was still not interested. Friedkin changed his mind following a series of unsolved killings in gay leather bars in the early 1970s and the articles written about the murders by Village Voice journalist Arthur Bell. Friedkin also knew a police officer named Randy Jurgensen who had gone into the same sort of deep cover that Pacino's Steve Burns did to investigate an earlier series of gay murders, and Paul Bateson, a doctor's assistant who had appeared in Friedkin's 1973 film The Exorcist, who had confessed to some of those murders. All of these factors gave Friedkin the angle he wanted to pursue in making the film.[3] Jurgenson and Bateson served as film consultants, as did Sonny Grosso, who earlier had consulted with Friedkin on The French Connection. Jurgenson and Grosso appear in bit parts in the film.

In his research, Friedkin worked with members of the Mafia, who at the time owned many of the city's gay bars.[4] Al Pacino was not Friedkin's first choice for the lead; Richard Gere had expressed a strong interest in the part, and Friedkin had opened negotiations with Gere's agent. Gere was Friedkin's choice because he believed that Gere would bring an androgynous quality to the role that Pacino could not.[5]

The Motion Picture Association of America originally gave Cruising an X rating. Friedkin claims he took the film before the MPAA board "50 times" at a cost of $50,000 and deleted 40 minutes of footage from the original cut before he secured an R rating.[3] The deleted footage, according to Friedkin, consisted entirely of footage from the clubs in which portions of the film were shot and consisted of "[a]bsolutely graphic sexuality...that material showed the most graphic homosexuality with Pacino watching, and with the intimation that he may have been participating."[4] In some discussions, Friedkin claims that the missing 40 minutes had no effect on the story or the characterizations,[3] but in others he states that the footage created "mysterious twists and turns (which [the film] no longer takes)", that the suspicion that Pacino's character may have himself become a killer was made more clear and that the missing footage simultaneously made the film both more and less ambiguous. When Friedkin sought to restore the missing footage for the film's DVD release, he discovered that United Artists no longer had it. He believes that UA destroyed the footage.[3] Some obscured sexual activity remains visible in the film as released, and Friedkin intercut a few frames of gay pornography into the first scene in which a murder is depicted.

This movie represents the only film soundtrack work by the seminal punk rock band the Germs. They recorded six songs for the film, of which only one, "Lion's Share", appeared. The cut "Shakedown, Breakdown" was written and recorded especially for the film by cult band Rough Trade.[6]

Friedkin asked noted gay author John Rechy, some of whose works were set in the same milieu as the film, to screen Cruising just before its release. Rechy had written an essay defending Friedkin's right to make the film, although not defending the film itself. At Rechy's suggestion, Friedkin deleted a scene showing the Gay Liberation slogan "We Are Everywhere" as graffiti on a wall just before the first body part is pulled from the river, and added a disclaimer:[7]

"This film is not intended as an indictment of the homosexual world. It is set in one small segment of that world, which is not meant to be representative of the whole."[8]

Friedkin later claimed that it was the MPAA and United Artists that required the disclaimer, calling it "part of the dark bargain that was made to get the film released at all" and "a sop to organized gay rights groups".[9] Friedkin claimed that no one involved in making the film thought it would be considered as representative of the entire gay community, but gay film historian Vito Russo disputes that, citing the disclaimer as "an admission of guilt. What director would make such a statement if he truly believed that his film would not be taken to be representative of the whole?"[10]


Throughout the summer of 1979, members of New York's gay community protested against the production of the film. Protests started at the urging of gay journalist Arthur Bell—precisely the writer whose series of articles on unsolved murders of gay men inspired the film.[11] Gay people were urged to disrupt filming, and gay-owned businesses to bar the filmmakers from their premises. People attempted to interfere with shooting by pointing mirrors from rooftops to ruin lighting for scenes, blasting whistles and air horns near locations, and playing loud music. One thousand protesters marched through the East Village demanding the city withdraw support for the film.[12] As a result of interference, the movie's audio largely was overdubbed in order to remove the noise caused by off-camera protesters.[13]

Al Pacino said that he understood the protests but insisted that upon reading the screenplay he never at any point felt that the film was anti-gay. He said that the leather bars were "just a fragment of the gay community, the same way the Mafia is a fragment of Italian-American life", referring to The Godfather, and that he would "never want to do anything to harm the gay community".[14]


Cruising was released February 15, 1980, in the United States and had a box office take of $19.8 million.[15]


Critical reception[edit]

Upon the film's release, critical reaction was highly negative and gay activists had public protests against the film. However, critical opinion of it has warmed somewhat over the years as the film has been reassessed.[original research?] As of April 2016, the film holds a 50% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes based on 42 reviews.[16] Upon its original release, Roger Ebert gave Cruising two and a half out of four stars, describing it as well-filmed and suspenseful yet it "seems to make a conscious decision not to declare itself on its central subject"—the true feelings of Pacino's character about the S&M subculture, which are never explored to Ebert's satisfaction.[17]

Critic Jack Sommersby's comments typified the contemporary criticism directed at non-political matters such as character development and the changes made when the film was transferred from a novel to a film:[18]

  • [On the character of the serial killer] "The closest we get to a motivation comes from his imaginary conversations with his deceased, formerly-disapproving father, who tells his boy, 'You know what you have to do,' which sets him off to kill, and, again, we're baffled as to the connection Friedkin's trying to make. Was the father's disapproval pertaining to his son being gay, and is the son trying to win back his father's approval by killing men of a sexual nature the father has a seething hatred for? If so, there's no indication of any of this. In fact, we don't even know if the father knew his son was gay before passing on."
  • [On the character of Officer Steve Burns] "Gone is the back story of his having harassed gays at an off-base bar when he was in the Army; also gone is his racism, along with his seemingly asexual nature in the first half. Instead, he's been made a regular, happy-go-lucky guy with a steady girlfriend. One can easily surmise Friedkin's motivation here: using someone identifiable to lead us into the underworld of black leather and kinky sex... [W]e're brought up short, and the cop's emotional progression seems stunted, as if Friedkin simply didn't care. 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, if he's doing so under the pretense that the rougher, 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."

The second major criticism of the film at its release came from gay activists who felt that the film had a homophobic political message, and that it portrayed gay men as being attracted to violence, which could in turn justify homophobic hate crimes. Ebert, however, said, "The validity of these arguments is questionable."[17] But several critics also have taken issue with its portrayal of gay men. TV Guide's Movie Guide, for example, noticed that the gay scene is portrayed in the movie "as irredeemably sick and violent", with "virtually nobody [being] portrayed sympathetically".[19] Brian Juergens, associate editor with gay culture website AfterEllen, contended that the movie "viciously exploited" the gay community, arguing that gay male sexuality does not seem to serve any purpose in the plot other than being a prop to shock heterosexual audiences. Though the film contains a disclaimer saying that it does not intend to be "an indictment of the homosexual world", Juergens states that certain elements in the plot—especially the fact that it is hinted that several gay male killers are operating simultaneously—"makes a clear statement (however unintended the filmmakers may maintain it is) about a community as a whole".[13]

Vito Russo wrote, "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,"[10] with at least one critic agreeing that Burns' "willingness to sleep with a man is [portrayed as] the ultimate descent into depravity."[20] However, in Exorcising Cruising, a behind-the-scenes documentary on the Cruising DVD, Friedkin alleges that the film was supported by much of New York City's leather/S&M community, who appeared by the dozens as extras in the nightclub scenes.

Raymond Murray, editor of Images in the Dark (an encyclopedia of gay and lesbian films) writes that "the film proves to be an entertaining and (for those born too late to enjoy the sexual excesses of pre-AIDS gay life) fascinating if ridiculous glimpse into gay life—albeit Hollywood's version of gay life." He goes on to say "the film is now part of queer history and a testament to how a frightened Hollywood treated a disenfranchised minority."[21]

Connection with hate crimes[edit]

Two months after the film's release, a bar prominently displayed in the movie came under attack by a man with a sub-machine gun, killing two patrons and wounding 12 others. Friedkin refused to comment on the attack.[22]

In The Celluloid Closet, Ron Nyswaner, screenwriter for Philadelphia, recounts how he and his boyfriend narrowly escaped a beating by a group of college jocks citing Cruising to justify the attack.[23]



DVD release[edit]

A deluxe collector's edition DVD, distributed by Warner Home Video, was released in 2007 and 2008. This release is not in its original director's cut, but does include some extra scenes not seen in the original VHS release and additional visual effects added by Friedkin. Friedkin also added a commentary track to accompany the DVD. The only visible omission in this re-release, compared to the theatrical and VHS releases, is the absence of the disclaimer at the beginning of the film stating that Cruising depicts a gay S&M subculture and is not representative of mainstream gay life. The DVD also includes two featurettes titled 'The History of Cruising' and 'Exorcising Cruising', the latter being about the controversy the film provoked.

Interior. Leather Bar.[edit]

In 2013, filmmakers James Franco and Travis Mathews released Interior. Leather Bar., a film in which they appear as filmmakers working on a film which reimagines and attempts to recreate the 40 minutes of deleted and lost footage from Cruising.[24] (The period after "Interior" is a reference to Cruising's shooting script.[25]) The film is not actually a recreation of the footage, however; instead, it uses a docufiction format to explore the creative and ethical issues arising from the process of trying to film such a project.[24]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ abcde"Cruising". AFI Catalog of Feature Films. Retrieved September 26, 2017. 
  2. ^Friedkin Out, Bill Krohn, 2004
  3. ^ abcdSimon, Alex (September 2007). "Crusing with Billy". Venice magazine. pp. 68–71. Retrieved 2009-02-10. 
  4. ^ abWilliams 2005, p. 135
  5. ^Williams 2005, p. 136
  6. ^Levy, Joseph. "A Brief History of Rough Trade". 
  7. ^Rechy 2004, p. 82
  8. ^Hadleigh 2001, p. 90
  9. ^Williams 2005, p. 138
  10. ^ abRusso 1987, p. 238
  11. ^Simon, Alex (September 2007). "Crusing with Billy"(PDF). Venice magazine. pp. 68–71. Retrieved 2009-02-10. [dead link]
  12. ^Lee, Nathan (2007-08-27). "Gay Old Time". Village Voice. Retrieved 2015-02-06. 
  13. ^ abBrian Juergens (17 September 2007). "Looking Back at 'Cruising'". AfterElton. Archived from the original on January 4, 2008. 
  14. ^Grobel, Lawrence (2006). Al Pacino: The Authorized Biography. UK: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-9497-1. 
  15. ^Cruising at Box Office Mojo
  16. ^Cruising at Rotten Tomatoes
  17. ^ abEbert, Roger (February 15, 1980). "Cruising". Retrieved February 6, 2015. 
  18. ^"Movie Review—Cruising". eFilmCritic. 
  19. ^"Cruising—Movie Reviews and Movie Ratings". 
  20. ^Simon Miraudo (24 September 2013). "Play It Again". 
  21. ^Murray 1995, p. 393
  22. ^Kylo-Patrick R. Hart (2013). Queer Males in Contemporary Cinema: Becoming Visible. Scarecrow Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0810891180. 
  23. ^Michael D. Klemm (October 2007). "The Return of Cruising". 
  24. ^ ab"Interior. Leather Bar.: Sundance Review". The Hollywood Reporter, January 19, 2013.
  25. ^David-Elijah Nahmod (Summer 2014). "Franco Pushes Boundaries with 'Interior. Leather bar'". The Mirror. Wilton Manors, Florida. 3 (2): 42.  This article omits the period following "Bar."


  • Hadleigh, Boze (2001). The Lavender Screen: The Gay and Lesbian Films: Their Stars, Makers, Characters, and Critics. Citadel Press. ISBN 0-8065-2199-6. 
  • Murray, Raymond (1995). Images in the Dark: An Encyclopedia of Gay and Lesbian Film and Video. TLA Publications. ISBN 1-880707-01-2. 
  • Rechy, John (2004). Beneath the Skin: The Collected Essays. Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 0-7867-1405-0. 
  • Russo, Vito (1987). The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (Revised ed.). Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-096132-5. 
  • Williams, Linda Ruth (2005). The Erotic Thriller in Contemporary Cinema. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34713-0. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Nystrom, Derek (2009). Hard Hats, Rednecks, and Macho Men: Class in 1970s American Cinema. Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780195336764.
  • Savran, David (1998). Taking It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism, and Contemporary American Culture. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-05876-8, pp. 213–217.

External links[edit]

"Cocktail" tells the story of two bartenders and their adventures in six bars and several bedrooms. What is remarkable, given the subject, is how little the movie knows about bars or drinking.

Early in the film, there's a scene where the two bartenders stage an elaborately choreographed act behind the bar. They juggle bottles in unison, one spins ice cubes into the air and the other one catches them, and then they flip bottles at each other like a couple of circus jugglers. All of this is done to rock 'n' roll music, and it takes them about four minutes to make two drinks. They get a roaring ovation from the customers in their crowded bar, which is a tip-off to the movie's glossy phoniness. This isn't bartending, it's a music video, and real drinkers wouldn't applaud, they'd shout: "Shut up and pour!" The bartenders in the film are played by Tom Cruise, as a young ex-serviceman who dreams of becoming a millionaire, and Bryan Brown, as a hard-bitten veteran who has lots of cynical advice. Brown advises Cruise to keep his eyes open for a "rich chick," because that's his ticket to someday opening his own bar. Cruise is ready for this advice.


He studies self-help books and believes that he'll be rich someday, if only he gets that big break. The movie is supposed to be about how he outgrows his materialism, although the closing scenes leave room for enormous doubts about his redemption.

The first part of the movie works the best. That's when Cruise drops out of school, becomes a full-time bartender, makes Brown his best friend and learns to juggle those bottles. In the real world, Cruise and Brown would be fired for their time-wasting grandstanding behind the bar, but in this movie they get hired to work in a fancy disco where they have a fight over a girl and Cruise heads for Jamaica.

There, as elsewhere, his twinkling eyes and friendly smile seem irresistible to the women on the other side of the bar, and he lives in a world of one-night stands. That's made possible by the fact that no one in this movie has ever heard of AIDS, not even the rich female fashion executive (Lisa Banes) who picks Cruise up and takes him back to Manhattan with her.

What do you think? Do you believe a millionaire Manhattan woman executive in her 30s would sleep with a wildly promiscuous bartender she picks up on the beach? Not unless she was seriously drunk. And that's another area this movie knows little about: the actual effects of drinking. Sure, Cruise gets tanked a couple of times and staggers around a little and throws a few punches. But given the premise that he and Brown drink all of the time, shouldn't they be drunk, or hung over, at least most of the time? Not in this fantasy world.

If the film had stuck to the relationship between Cruise and Brown, it might have had a chance. It makes a crucial error when it introduces a love story, involving Cruise and Elisabeth Shue, as a vacationing waitress from New York. They find true love, which is shattered when Shue sees Cruise with the rich Manhattan executive.

After the executive takes Cruise back to New York and tries to turn him into a pampered stud, he realizes his mistake and apologizes to Shue, only to discover, of course, that she is pregnant - and rich.


The last stages of the movie were written, directed and acted on automatic pilot, as Shue's millionaire daddy tries to throw Cruise out of the penthouse but love triumphs. There is not a moment in the movie's last half-hour that is not borrowed from other movies, and eventually even the talented and graceful Cruise can be seen laboring with the ungainly reversals in the script. Shue, who does whatever is possible with her role, is handicaped because her character is denied the freedom to make natural choices; at every moment, her actions are dictated by the artificial demands of the plot.

It's a shame the filmmakers didn't take a longer, harder look at this material. The movie's most interesting character is the older bartender, superbly played by Brown, who never has a false moment. If the film had been told from his point of view, it would have been a lot more interesting, but box-office considerations no doubt required the center of gravity to shift to Cruise and Shue.

One of the weirdest things about "Cocktail"' is the so-called message it thinks it contains. Cruise is painted throughout the film as a cynical, success-oriented 1980s materialist who wants only to meet a rich woman and own his own bar. That's why Shue doesn't tell him at first that she's rich. Toward the end of the movie, there's a scene where he allegedly chooses love over money, but then, a few months later, he is the owner and operator of his own slick Manhattan singles bar.

How did he finance it? There's a throwaway line about how he got some money from his uncle, a subsistence-level bartender who can't even afford a late-model car. Sure. It costs a fortune to open a slick singles bar in Manhattan, and so we are left with the assumption that Cruise's rich father-in-law came through with the financing. If the movie didn't want to leave that impression, it shouldn't have ended with the scene in the bar. But then this is the kind of movie that uses Cruise's materialism as a target all through the story and then rewards him for it at the end. The more you think about what really happens in "Cocktail," the more you realize how empty and fabricated it really is.


Reveal Commentscomments powered by

0 thoughts on “Cruising Bar 2 Critique Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *