Boldly charting the signs of the times of NYC’s gay SM subculture before the Aids pandemic, William Friedkin’s CRUISING returns to the queer territory after his sturdy cinematic adaption of THE BOY IN THE BAND (1970), and Al Pacino, also knuckles down into the precious showcase of LGBTQ presentation after Sidney Lumet’s canonical DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975), this time around, he plays a straight undercover cop Steve Burns, a decoy to lure a homo-killer on the prowl.

Historically, CRUISING comes out at the peak of gay liberation, and it incurred quite a ballyhoo of protestation for its candid if exploitative depiction of an unorthodox lifestyle predominately, provocatively, chronically seeking libido-driven danger, suffering and dissolution, and one must hand it to Friedkin and his team for not shying away from its eye-opening ostentation of a marginalized, often tabooed minority group, coupled with a chromatically heightened scenographic exuberance of the Big Apple’s underworld cityscape, both interior and exterior (iconic leather bars and the cruising location in the nocturnal park), where violence and lust are equally throbbing in the same beat.

A backstabbing killer on the lam (the first victim’s demise is operated with unsettling suspense and piercing dread), CRUISING’s police procedural is a blasé business, with casual sideswipes angling police inaction and brutality (smacked by a naked, thick-set, thong-sported black bruiser in the interrogation room utterly beggars belief), and ultimately, the murderer’s own perverse motive fails to pack a punch (father issue bobs up tentatively, but what makes him tick still eludes us), although Richard Cox squeezes out a chilling intimidation during the fateful encounter, the odor of death is pungently attendant on the palpable sexual impulses.

The analogy between sex and death is a time-honored theme that is explored delectably, tantalizingly and precariously in CRUISING, moreover, Friedkin’s script (loosely based on Gerald Walker’s eponymous novel) also tacitly mines into the less burrowed mentality of a straight man questioning his own sexuality after being introduced to the same-sex sensual surroundings which intrigue his curiosity but also effect his heterosexual potency (Karen Allen as Burns’s clueless girlfriend Nancy is simply a cipher to be sexualized to gauge his bedroom performance). As contentious and avant-garde as the theme sounds, especially being a studio production with a named helmer, the film finally adopts a milder route to fudge the issue it propounds, especially by grafting an open-end denouement that suggests Burns’ own implication and morphing into the variety of a dangerous beast that is a far cry from the average-Joe type he is in the beginning, with a somewhat iffy and inconvenient understatement, does a latent homosexuality turn a good man into a murderous menace to the society?

Pacino, donning a tank top with his not-so-complimenting physique and eyeliner-strengthened brows, is apparent on the wrong side of Burns’s late 20-something age (he is almost 40 at then), albeit he displays extraordinary luminosity out of his fierce gaze and puzzlement-tinged preoccupation. Yet, Friedkin’s script deters going deeper and rebellious into a straight man’s psychosexual oscillation, Burns remains a diligent but dull observer, flinching from any opportunity to get physical in its true sense. Most of the time feigning an apparent persona of youthful plainness, Pacino only lets out his usual fuse-blowing voltage once when confronting the jealous boyfriend of his artsy neighbor Ted Bailey (Scardino), played by a scanty-clad James Remar, still, that actually further complicates the coda, because there is not enough material to attest Burns and Bailey’s fledgling bond.

The long and short of it, though not a legitimate trend-bucker in a groundbreaking scale despite of the potential it falsely projects, CRUISING reflects Friedkin’s sweaty, straight-angled abandon in plumbing into a largely unseen rabbit hole of our society, also for being a gorgeous mood-setter for those who can really relate to the insalubrious but deadly entrancing vibes, not least the different significations of those colorful hankies.

referential entries: Friedkin’s THE BOYS IN THE BAND (1970, 7.8/10); Sidney Lumet’s DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975, 8.4/10)

这部片子确实看得人云里雾里的，为了pacino多给两颗星，为了此片和历史的巧合也多给一颗。这部电影拍摄于79年，80年上映，随后81年艾滋病就开始肆虐了，爆发最初就是在纽约的同性恋群体，打那以后毒品和性都再也无法回到过去那种肆意享乐的状态了。 回到影片本身，各种leather bar和SM镜头拍摄地很真实也够震撼，分分钟吓坏观众，感觉那些人不光是在追求肉体的快感，简直是在追求痛苦和死亡。导演大概除了想要震撼观众，还想耍文艺，不清不楚地故弄玄虚，也不知道那杀手是最后抓到的那个人，还是有不同的人享受虐杀性伴侣，更不知道最后Pacino扮演的卧底警察Burns是不是彻底黑化了，唯一一个对他友善的邻居到底是同居男子杀的还是Burns杀的，看警察局长的表情似乎是意识到Burns可能是杀手。另外，Burns的装束越来越像杀手，皮夹克，牛仔衬衫，黑色背心，制服帽子，如出一辙。DVD版的影片删掉了原片40分钟的SM片段，虽然导演说不耽误情节，但是SM里会不会有Burns出场也是很重要的吧，目前看到的这个删减版里面Burns没有直接参与同性行为，倒是要时不时地回去找女友，肯定一下自己是个异性恋。不过，抓捕嫌犯的时候也很诡异，俩人都从靴子里摸出刀子互相捅，Burns出手更快，但捅完后站在原地似乎迷茫了片刻，说不清这是不是开启了他内心的阴暗面。 影片取景是真实的gay bar，不少夜晚狂欢的镜头据说也是酒吧里常客的日常状态，而且酒吧是黑道管理，他们很支持租给导演拍片子。不过拍摄的时候，引起当地同性恋团体各种抗议，据说有人故意用镜子反光破坏拍片现场的光线布置，认为导演把gay拍地太负面了，似乎他们除了性欲就是暴力，好像出现杀手也是道德堕落的必然后果一样。电影播出来当年的票房也不好，虽然有Al Pacino这样的顶梁柱在拼尽全力好好演。不过，到了2008年出DVD版的时候接受度倒是好一些了，可能毕竟在LGBT奋战这么多年后大家对于他们的认识更多样化，不会轻易地被一部电影所表现出来的形象左右，不会说看到这部电影里的荒淫堕落就认为所有的LGBT都这个样子。 最近看了很多Pacino的电影，这部不算是他标志性的作品，但是演绎地还是很成功的，影片编辑再差，都不能说他演的不好。印象很深的是他所处的两个截然对立的空间，一方面是夜晚的gay bar和公园，总是光线昏暗，音乐狂躁，肉欲横流；另一方面则是女友的公寓，很敞亮，一切纯洁美好。将近影片最后，结案后，Burns在女友公寓的洗面池前刮胡子，当卧底的道具丢在客厅椅子上，白天，阳光从大片的玻璃里透过来，他的女友穿着浅色长裙，一副天真好奇的样子，捡起皮夹克和帽子穿着玩。男主性格的两面也在这个空间布局里展现出来，暗藏的同性倾向，和明亮的异性取向。女主洁白纯真的样子套着黑暗面的道具，以另一种方法表现了男主最开始去卧底时的状态，当时他对于gay这个群体一无所知，洁白内心披着暗夜道具，只是道具穿得久了，不免在心里留下印记。当然啦，这样的黑白对立，完全反映了影片的恐同倾向，虽然是在拍gay，但真心地是拍出了对gay的恐惧厌恶，即便这不是导演本人的态度，也反映了当时社会对于这个异类群体的态度吧。

全片的悬念还是落在杀手身份上，一直都不说明白，总是只露一个背影，一个轮廓，一些标志性道具，一句谁都可以学来的撩拨台词，似乎任何人都有可能走进那个轮廓，丧失理智，由阴暗的人性本能左右失去自我。隐形的杀手正是每个人内心深处隐藏不见的暗黑欲望吧。

1. The Ending: Friedking says it's meant to be ambiguious, that Burns will never be the same after his ordeal...he's still carying his leather outfit after finishing the case. As such it's a toss up who killed Ted, either Burns or his lover/roommate.
①关于结局：导演对结局的解释是这部电影旨在模糊不清，完成任务的Burns已经不是以前的自己，最后谁杀了Ted，Burns还是Ted室友？并没有给出明确答案。

2. Killer's identidy: Friedkin states he firmly believes there was more than one killer involved in the actual case, so he wanted to convey that feeling here also. The first killer (the "Martian") gets himself killed in the park by another killer (Friedkin says as much) and at the end whomever we see entering the Cockpit (Pacino, someone else?). The only link between them all is the voice we hear a few times (Friedkin refuses to explain it).
②关于凶手身份：导演坚信在真实案件中应该不止一位凶手，所以它通过这部电影传达了这个想法。第一个凶手在花园中被第二个凶手杀掉，且电影最后走入俱乐部的背影并不确定是谁。让人们觉得其实凶手是一个人的联系只是那个声音。

3. Stewart being the killer: He did kill at least the guy at the peep show, but likely not all victims were his. Friedkin says that police always would get whomever looked good enough as a suspect and try to pin all the murders on them and even cut deals if they go along with it. Remember the 8 year sentence offer.
③关于凶手Stewart：他至少杀了一个人，但并非全部。警方总将所有凶杀归咎于一位嫌犯身上，甚至只要嫌犯承认了所有谋杀，具体细节都不再追究。

4. The 40 minutes of cut film: Friedkin says it's mostly sex scenes at the clubs and that the plot wasn't affected by the cut.
④关于删减的40分钟：多为在俱乐部中的sex镜头，对情节无影响。

5. Questions unanswered: Friedkin states he meant to leave questions open and not answer them all.
⑤关于未回答的问题：导演旨在给大家一个开放性的结局，没有回答所有问题。

6. Pacino knowing Stewart's exact song: The "who's here, I'm here, You're here" even though the police got it inacurate from the drag queen. How does Pacino know it accurately? To link him to the killer (he's dressing the same, feeling the same turmoil, maybe even picking up after him in the end).
⑥关于Burns知道Stewart的歌"who's here, I'm here, You're here" ：警方从踩着高跟的drag queen处知道了这首传说中的死亡之曲，可是男主角是怎么知道的？这会不由让人把男主和凶手联系在一起。


English source： http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080569/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm

首先，影片的氛围营造是相当成功的。不管是GAY BAR，中央公园，色情影院，俱乐部附近的小旅馆，还有黑暗暧昧的角落，都布置地异常逼真，让人有身临其境之感。其次演员的表演到位，不提阿尔帕西诺，给人印象最深的是鲍洛索维诺，他深沉略带忧郁的眼神很有感染力，他给人的感觉就是：作为一个警察，他已经见过了这个世界上最残忍的事情，他想打击犯罪，同时又恨自己力不从心。最后说说导演。看过几部威廉的片子之后感觉他的风格还算统一。这部片子和他稍后的《玉焰》比较类似，结尾都属开放性的，给了观众思考的空间。
之所以我说这个影片CULT，就是它涉及的同志特别是虐恋圈子很小，很多人又不想公开地看这种电影，或者感觉不舒服，所以它没有得到大多数人认可是可以理解的。但它的优秀与独创性也是不能泯灭的。

这部片子看过的人不算很多，里面的帕西诺再次出演警察，不同的是这次扮演的是一位卧底。整部影片架构在悬疑之中，从头到尾的男同志视觉盛宴，如果你是GUY那肯定相当享受。音乐配的基本都是80年代时代作品，影片里帕西诺的演技再次得到充分发挥，而且也证明了他真是演什么都有味道。剧情设计也别有意味，尤其是最后结尾的悬念，相信也是对于人性的一种疑问。

有意思的地方是, 故事没有交代,邻居是被谁男杀了, 也没有交代最后走进酒吧的人到底是谁, 你可以有多种猜想. 结尾镜头耐人寻味, 只有主角知道自己变成了什么样子, 他认得不认得自己, 或许他自己也不认得. 那一点泪花真实又矫情.
另外, 别说什么不现实了,本来交代了就是重口味俱乐部, 这种地方确实存在. 这电影本来就不是反正常见的gay群体