Does the current cultural climate allow for a movie like Cruising to be considered, let alone greenlit? The brazen attitude with which William Friedkin infuses this story takes it far beyond what the source material, Gerald Walker’s novel, would allow. Utilizing an entirely different backdrop, one that would cause many audiences to do a double take today (and even more so in 1980), and a foreboding sense of dread and despair, Friedkin established the ingredients for a memorable cinematic thriller, even if his method is unrelenting in its depiction of a world unto itself.

But Friedkin’s intentions are not mere shock and horror. Rather, the subtle thematic and visual cues give us an inside look at a particular subset of gay life in 1970s New York City, a world twenty-first century audiences can hardly believe existed for as long as it did, especially considering such a lifestyle often led to untimely death. Yet, Friedkin’s willingness to document this world realistically has allowed for a conversation of this particular era to continue. Looking back, we can understand it better but not necessarily more deeply.

When Friedkin first received Walker’s novel as a potential adaptation, he was uninterested in its straightforward depiction of a cop whose own sexual fantasies and conflicting attitudes toward homosexuals are affected by his undercover duties. A few years later, Friedkin was again given the opportunity to adapt the story; this time, the timing was perfect. Friedkin knew of the still-unsolved ‘bag murders’ of gay men in mid-1970s New York City, and Paul Bateson, a former radiology assistant who appeared in The Exorcist, was a suspect. Furthering Friedkin’s interest was his fascination, through acquaintances, with the leather subculture and its proliferation in West Greenwich Village as the tenets of the sexual revolution spread. At this particular point in time, the social and cultural mores of America, as well as burgeoning medical technology and the population explosion of the Baby Boomers, permitted virtually any form of sexual experimentation, provided it was consensual. To that end, large groups of men, already biologically predisposed to be more sexually aggressive and adventurous than most women, created a cocoon wherein they felt safe to explore and experiment.

At the center of this moral vortex is Steve Burns (Al Pacino), a young beat cop looking to fast-track his way to detective by going undercover and solving these seemingly random murders. Despite being at least ten years too old for the role, Pacino does bring his usual intensity as well as a naive, vulnerable side to Burns. We see this world through his eyes and are as shocked as he is. Friedkin famously had difficulties working with Pacino on set, and this tension adds to Pacino’s onscreen presence. He acts with a tautness that speaks to Burns’s need to adapt quickly lest he himself become the next victim. After the movie’s release, many activists derided the movie for its portrayal of Burns as being surrounded with darkness and depravity in the clubs, contrasted with a soft gentility in scenes with his girlfriend (Karen Allen). Yet, as Fitzpatrick points out, the scenes between Burns and his girlfriend can hardly be understood as a safe haven from the depraved homosexual world. Rather, the few moments with his girlfriend are awkward and stilted with no true intimacy. The only character Burns forms any real attachment to is a gay neighbor (Don Scardino) who has no connection, or possibly knowledge of, the S/M leather subculture and its activities. Indeed, the movie makes a clear distinction between mainstream homosexuality and this unique subset as “a world unto itself.” Furthermore, most audiences in 1980, gay or straight, would have had little knowledge of the existence of such a world. Can Cruising be blamed for perpetuating a stereotype of something most people were unaware of?

On a cinematic level, Friedkin’s decision to leave large elements of the plot opaque and murky frustrated initial viewers but fascinated subsequent ones. By design, it is difficult to surmise who the killer is, but Friedkin is less interested in answering this question than he is in capturing the inner machinations of a hermetically sealed world that had as part of its ritual strong components of audaciousness and impulsivity. Subsequent reviews have now warmed to Friedkin’s confusion of clues and instead focused on thematic elements, such as dual identities and the visual connection between male flesh and animal bodies in the Meatpacking District’s butcher shops, as well as the degree to which everyone uses duplicity as a means to get what they want. In Friedkin’s world, the line between good and evil is muddled, and we see the tactics police are willing to use to solve murders as well as gay men making the police’s job more difficult by withholding information. When it comes to the murders, no one group is completely blameless.

As important as the sociological context is in regard to the making of Cruising, what accounts for the vitriolic hatred it received even before its release? Throughout its scheduled shooting in New York, gay activist groups gathered as often as possible to disrupt the production through various means such as air horns, chanting, and even reflecting lights to prevent the crew from lighting the scenes properly. According to journalist Arthur Bell, who called for the protests to occur, many believed Cruising would normalize violence and intimidation against gays due to the onscreen depiction of their graphic murders. Tremendous strides toward acceptance of homosexuality had been made in the 1970s, and a section of the West Village was essentially cordoned off for the gay community; a space set aside in which to act out every imaginable impulse and desire. However, about a decade after the pioneering Stonewall riots, activists were still concerned that, partly because of the seemingly random ‘bag’ murders, gay men were being specifically targeted and, by reflecting that, Cruising would only exacerbate the problem.

It might have behooved these activists to look at Friedkin’s earlier work and note he had already directed The Boys in the Band, a notable gay production that depicted its characters with a great deal of humanity and complexity regarding their relationships to the ‘straight’ world and one another. Yet, according to Drew Fitzpatrick, “it was used by many gay rights groups as yet another example of how Friedkin didn’t ‘get’ homosexuals…with many of the gay characters coming off as self-hating.” It must have seemed to Friedkin that there was almost nothing he could do to appease the activists, so his decision to push onward and emphasize the strangeness and exciting danger of this underworld only served to amplify the protestations. It also further demonstrates the sheer bravado that is so characteristic of Friedkin as a director. Whether focusing on corrupt cops, distressed priests or members of the leather culture being hunted, his singular pursuit for authenticity and provocative spontaneity is what makes his work unique among American filmmakers.

Perhaps not surprisingly, in this current age of hyper-acceptance of once-marginalized groups, Cruising has regained its status as a work of challenging filmmaking, an almost anthropological study of a bygone era. Unlike the clubs and bars depicted in Cruising, today’s venues are no longer imbibed with the elements of danger and adventure so prevalent in the 1970s. Such a remarkable change in mainstream attitude toward something that was once unfathomable illustrates how ahead of his time Friedkin was in even daring to show this world onscreen, let alone setting the story within it. Yet, as his filmography has shown, going against conventional taste has been one of Friedkin’s greatest strengths. Despite waffling over its attitude towards violence against gays, Cruising does offer the most harrowing depiction of changes in American culture regarding homosexuals. In the 1970s, they had to hide in underground clubs; now, they can do it in the streets the entire month of June. Unfortunately for those intrigued by the lifestyle fifty years ago, while medical and public health knowledge has made such activities safer, it has removed the thrill of getting away with something subversive. For many of those considered on the periphery of society, an attitude of rebellion against the status quo was just as important as the act itself.