Pro-gay?

more like anti-homophobic.one of the the things the film is about is the consequences of homophobia,i.e. social conditions that lead to police brutality,self hate,and murder.it really is a terrible thing,and where the film stands on it should be plain to see for anyone who actually pays attention to it.

I am currently watching this film and I can definitely see some outcry. It’s almost hard to watch some scenes.

I can't understand why so many gay men protested this movie. The subculture that it depicted really did exist in pre-AIDS New York, and elements of it still exist here today. I didn't see anything anti-gay in this film. I think that the movie might have just hit a little too close to home for the activists of the time.

As someone who, frankly, doesn't care for homosexuals and their political movement, I found this movie to be anything but "homophobic." Quite the opposite, in fact. Like you, I consider the film to be pro-homosexual.

I suppose the reason this movie was protested was because, apart from the fact that the homosexual lobby is always looking for something to whine about so it can get free publicity and flex its muscles, the film's depiction of the homosexual counterculture was too realistic (if anything, the movie tends to downplay how perverse it actually was and still is, probably because about 40 minutes of footage was cut at the behest of censors). "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," as the saying goes. The homosexual lobby wants to present a sanitized, sugar-coated image of the homosexual lifestyle and feels that portrayals which show it to be the perverse, hedonistic, self-destructive lifestyle it actually is would be counterproductive to its political agenda (which right now seems to mostly revolve around forcing the travesty known as "gay marriage" down the public's throat).

The homosexual lobby pulled the same thing again in the 90's with Basic Instinct, a film which only the most rabid homosexual zealots could consider to be anti-homosexual. If anything, Basic Instinct glamorized aberrant sexual relationships rather than stigmatizing them. I highly doubt that the Dutch liberal who directed Basic Instinct harbored any ill will towards homosexuals.

I'm reminded of the feminist airheads who protested the novel American Psycho claiming it was misogynistic when the novel clearly makes misogynists look bad. I guess thinking ain't the feminists' strong suit. So stupid are the stated reasons for most of these protests that you almost have to wonder if they aren't orchestrated by the publishers/producers themselves to gain publicity for their products; nothing sells like controversy, after all (well, most of the time, anyways).

That the homosexual lobby considers pro-homosexual movies like Cruising and Basic Instinct to be prime examples of "homophobic" moviemaking suggests that there is (regrettably) little real "homophobia" in modern America. Give me 10 million dollars to make a movie and I'll show you what REAL "homophobia" is about. Homos should thank their lucky stars that guys like me aren't in charge of Hollywood.

The silver lining in all this is that it has shown to the average person how little respect special interest groups like the homosexual lobby, despite using the rhetoric of freedom, have for others' artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of choice. You know it's bad when a filmmaker is forced to put a disclaimer in front of his movie by the zealots who form the homosexual lobby. I can only hope that someday soon, homosexual filmmakers will have their shoots disrupted by protesters the way homosexuals disrupted the filming of Cruising and Basic Instinct.

definitly spoilers in here.. beware.

I understand what you are saying... and maybe you're right... but theres one thing that bothered me in this film.

the hero, Pacino, a definitly hetero sexual cop, spends most of the film in the company of gay men and in hardcore gay clubs... and we can cleary see that as the film progresses he slowly starts to question his own sexuality.

but what bothers me is that at the end of the film.. he is not turned into a gay men... the film trys to seed the idea that he was turned into a killer. as if a hetero male, or someone that questions his sexuality will become a killer if he spends too much time in gay bars.

i just found that odd and anti-gay... my two sents.

Nope, I think it is basically using the "Blue Oyster Bar" leather scene as a freakshow to make money by "shocking" a heterosexual audience. The idea that a heterosexual cop like Al Pachino would "go gay" after staking out these bars is something right out of the 700 Club. But I don't think it was made to support the 700 Club types, to the contrary I think it was meant to shock them and shake their confidence in the world. This whole movie is sort of a big joke on beourgoise sensibility.

{I suppose the reason this movie was protested was because, apart from the fact that the homosexual lobby is always looking for something to whine about so it can get free publicity and flex its muscles, the film's depiction of the homosexual counterculture was too realistic (if anything, the movie tends to downplay how perverse it actually was and still is, probably because about 40 minutes of footage was cut at the behest of censors). "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," as the saying goes. The homosexual lobby wants to present a sanitized, sugar-coated image of the homosexual lifestyle and feels that portrayals which show it to be the perverse, hedonistic, self-destructive lifestyle it actually is would be counterproductive to its political agenda (which right now seems to mostly revolve around forcing the travesty known as "gay marriage" down the public's throat).}

I can well imagine that a lot of reviewers, especially gay ones, will be outraged by the paragraph by [le-chiffre-1] above, but not withstanding it's objectionable position, there is a lot of truth in what's been said there.

The scenes in the film were as close to realistic as a commercial films could get. Also at that time promiscuity by various elements of the population, gays in particular, was especially rampant. It was the height of the "sexual liberation" experience. However, gays alone do not indulge in what some people would regard as disgusting behavior. Furthermore, there are gays, who without being chaste puritan types, are nonetheless put off by the sexual behaviors of some gays, as could some heterosexuals by some of the behavior of some of their own kind if they but knew of it.
It is also true that some gay activist types, represented in [le-chiffre]'s term "the gay lobby" would have opposed the film for not presenting "their kind" in what they would consider a favorable light, but then that is true also of all other actist types. Thus minorities of other varieties like to present themselves favorably too, and are willing to suppress any information about their own kind that they find unflattering. This includes such "sacred cow" groups: Jews, blacks, Hispanics, women and various other ethnic or religious elements of the population.







{The homosexual lobby pulled the same thing again in the 90's with Basic Instinct, a film which only the most rabid homosexual zealots could consider to be anti-homosexual. If anything, Basic Instinct glamorized aberrant sexual relationships rather than stigmatizing them. I highly doubt that the Dutch liberal who directed Basic Instinct harbored any ill will towards homosexuals.

I'm reminded of the feminist airheads who protested the novel American Psycho claiming it was misogynistic when the novel clearly makes misogynists look bad. I guess thinking ain't the feminists' strong suit. So stupid are the stated reasons for most of these protests that you almost have to wonder if they aren't orchestrated by the publishers/producers themselves to gain publicity for their products; nothing sells like controversy, after all (well, most of the time, anyways).}

In the two paragraphs above [le-chiffre] again makes very valid point.






{That the homosexual lobby considers pro-homosexual movies like Cruising and Basic Instinct to be prime examples of "homophobic" moviemaking suggests that there is (regrettably) little real "homophobia" in modern America. Give me 10 million dollars to make a movie and I'll show you what REAL "homophobia" is about. Homos should thank their lucky stars that guys like me aren't in charge of Hollywood.}


Regarding the paragraph above: There is true "homophobia" scattered around in the US, but it is insignificant compared to the homophobias in most other cultures ie: the Roman Catholic Latin American phony ultra macho posing culture; the fanatically obsessive Islamic culture; the rigid regulated Hindu caste culture; the politically ideological Chinese culture.

Euro-American culture is comparatively extremely liberal compared to its own past and to the present of those cultures named above. Euro-American should be grateful for this development, and its minorities should be even more grateful, and this includes more than just the gays.
Women are some of the most deluded about how favorable it is for them in the Euro-American societies. They don't appreciate how good they have it.
Political agitators are always at work stirring up dissatisfaction in all these groups, not just gays.

As for [le-chiffre]'s concern about the gay marriage issue, that in particular is a good example of one of the issues being used by activists to stir up trouble where it needn't exist. Everyone's being mislead and misinformed about everything constantly.




{The silver lining in all this is that it has shown to the average person how little respect special interest groups like the homosexual lobby, despite using the rhetoric of freedom, have for others' artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of choice. You know it's bad when a filmmaker is forced to put a disclaimer in front of his movie by the zealots who form the homosexual lobby. I can only hope that someday soon, homosexual filmmakers will have their shoots disrupted by protesters the way homosexuals disrupted the filming of Cruising and Basic Instinct.}


In the preceeding paragraph [le-chiffre] has again made a very good point. A lot of these "zealots" who complain about prejudice and mistreatment are themselves very intolerant and seem to be incapable of exercising their cherished beliefs in "freedom of speech and opinion."

Reviewers who denounce such reasonable and well presented positions like those written by [le-chiffre] aren't discriminating between the reasonable differing opinion and the mindless hostile bigotry of a true fanatic.

I don't really see this as "pro gay" like a lot of modern films, it seemed to carry that 60's Hollywood message that gayness led one down a terrible path that would end in murder, madness, or suicide. Sort of like "Advise and Consent" or "The Detective." The scene where the guy who gets stabbed in the seedy hotel room is laying on the slab at the morgue is right out of Pat Robertson and the 700 Clubs take on how you'll end up if you decide to "go gay." The film suggests that there is this epidemic of homosexuality and that it is "spreading" amongst ordinary men who in frustration of getting fleeced by predatory females in divorce decide that "You're better off, you're better off" going gay. And Pacino's character himself finally succumbs and is recruited "into the life" in the scene where he has this "epiphany" on the dance floor in the leather bar and does that really, really bad dancing that looked like an epileptic seizure. Furthermore, with the different actors playing the killer, the movie suggests that homosexuality, taken to it's logical conclusion, eventually turns you into a killer. Still though, I can't imagine the "blue collar gay basher" types sitting through this movie. Can you really imagine "Joe Sixpack" buying tickets for him and his girl to go see this movie on Saturday night? So I think the danger of "homophobes" aping the killer and bashing gays while saying "You made me do this!" is not very likely since those kind of people aren't going to sit through this movie in the first place.