The historical context of the 1970s New York gay scene and the intense protests surrounding its production profoundly shaped Cruising's reception and continue to define its complex legacy. Director William Friedkin's approach to the subject, rooted in real-life events but filtered through a "straight, Other-ing perspective", clashed dramatically with the burgeoning gay rights movement, leading to accusations of homophobia and a turbulent initial reception.
Here's how the historical context influenced the film:
The 1970s New York Gay Scene as a Backdrop:
- Real-Life Murders and Undercover Operations: Friedkin based Cruising on a real series of "grisly, unsolved killings of gay men picked up in leather bars" in the 1970s, specifically the "Fag in a Bag" murders where dismembered body parts were found in the Hudson River. The protagonist, Steve Burns (Al Pacino), was inspired by actual NYPD detective Randy Jurgensen, who went undercover in these leather bars and found the experience "messed up his mind". The film's murder scenes are fictionalized but based on widely reported actual occurrences.
- Depiction of the Subculture: Friedkin made "several trips to the Mineshaft and the Anvil," notorious hardcore leather bars, and filmed scenes on location with actual patrons as extras, rather than unionized ones, asking them to "do their thing". He aimed for a "vividly realistic portrait" of the "legendary and now-vanished leather bars and cruising areas". The film details the dress codes, like the symbolic meaning of handkerchief colors, and explores various aspects of the gay S&M scene, including peep shows and cruising spots like Central Park's Ramble.
- Police Interactions and Corruption: The film incorporates real incidents and attitudes of NYPD officers dealing with the West Side leather bars, including instances where police coerced transvestite hustlers into having sex with them under threat of arrest. The controversial interrogation scene, where a man in a jockstrap slaps a suspect, was directly "cribbed from a firsthand experience about NYC police interrogation techniques" designed to make brutality complaints sound implausible. The film also highlights the "blurring of lines between police and 'kinksters,'" with people in leather bars dressing like cops and vice versa.
- "Exotic Background" vs. Sociological Comment: Friedkin explicitly stated his intention was "no intention to make any comment about gay life at all," seeing the gay S&M world as simply a "unique background to a detective story" or a "sociological phenomenon". This detached perspective, however, was a key source of the controversy.
- Pre-AIDS Context: Released in 1980, the film inadvertently coincided with "the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic", before the condition was fully understood. Some interpretations now read the random murders as an "allegory for the AIDS crisis," whose effects were just starting to be felt.
The Protests and Initial Reception:
- Gay Community Uproar: News of the film's production sparked "open and hostile demonstrations" from gay activists, who feared it would present a "distorted view of gay life" and imply that the small S&M subculture was more prevalent than it was, thus linking violence with gay life and potentially justifying attacks on gay men. Arthur Bell, a Village Voice writer whose columns on the serial killer had inspired Friedkin, called the film "the most oppressive, ugly, bigoted look at homosexuality ever presented on the screen" and urged readers to give the production crew "a terrible time".
- Disruption of Filming: Protesters "disrupted filming with air horns, whistles, and loud music," blocked streets, threw bottles and bricks, and led to arrests. Some gay bars withdrew cooperation, and some gay extras quit or served as spies for the activists. Pacino himself noted that the protests taught him to "know what you represent and what you’re doing and how it affects the world around you".
- Historical Significance of Protests: The protests were notable as possibly "the first time a citizens’ protest has been mounted against a film before it’s in the can". They became a "rallying point" for the nascent gay liberation movement, coming shortly after the Stonewall uprising's tenth anniversary and before the full impact of AIDS activism.
- Conflicting Views Within the Gay Community: While many protested, some gay individuals, particularly those who frequented the actual leather bars and appeared as extras, "happily contributed" to the film. They felt the protests were partly a critique of the leather subculture itself by "middle-of-the-road gays" who didn't want this fringe element seen by mainstream America.
- Critical Backlash: Critics largely dismissed the film. Roger Ebert found its central ambiguity "annoyingly unclear" and a "cop-out". Other critics called it "hopelessly garbled," "sordid and depressing because it’s been made without insight or love," and something that "sickens, insults, and distorts". The film's menacing soundtrack, which seemed to have "no relation to the community it’s portraying," contributed to the perception of danger and homophobia.
Legacy and Reappraisal:
- Initial Box Office Flop, Later Classic: After its controversial release, Cruising initially "flopped at the box office". However, decades later, it has undergone a "curious cultural artifact" and a "bold, graphic depiction of an underground gay subculture," something rarely seen in mainstream cinema. It is now considered a "classic of gay cinema" and a "precious time capsule" of 1970s gay New York, particularly the now-vanished leather bars and cruising areas that have since been gentrified.
- Reinterpreting Ambiguity and Homophobia: While initially deemed explicitly homophobic, later reevaluations by critics, "particularly gay critics," found new value in it. The film's deliberate ambiguity, which was a point of criticism early on, now allows for more nuanced interpretations. Some argue the "killer is repressed, internalized homophobia". This reading suggests the film exposes "the contradictions and potential dangers of any self-loathing gay man who turns his internalised homophobia violently upon himself and his own". The ambiguity also allows for the interpretation that the film critiques "the rampant homophobia that the gay community faces from every facet of society, whether that be the average joe or the police".
- Enduring Relevance: Cruising's unresolved questions and its challenging themes continue to resonate. The film remains relevant to contemporary discussions about "who is permitted to tell a culture’s stories," the "limits of free speech and peaceful protest," and the "significance and consequences of representation in popular art". Its depiction of cruising spaces also connects to ongoing conversations about sexual liberation, gentrification, and the "rightwing backlash against gay and trans progress," particularly concerning public spaces like bathrooms.
- "Unsettling and Uncomfortable": Despite its re-evaluation, the film is acknowledged as remaining "complicated and uncomfortable" for viewers. Its 4K UHD release includes extensive bonus features, such as "Exorcising Cruising," which specifically looks at the controversy and the film's "enduring legacy".
In essence, Cruising emerged from and was deeply impacted by the volatile social and political climate of late 1970s New York, especially concerning LGBTQ+ rights and visibility. Its controversial portrayal, initially met with widespread condemnation, has, over time, allowed it to transcend its initial reception and become a culturally significant artifact for its unflinching, albeit ambiguous, look at a pivotal moment in gay history and the complexities of identity, violence, and societal prejudice.
