MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > So did Pacino turn gay?

So did Pacino turn gay?


What was the meaning of that last scene where Pacino is staring into the mirror and giving that creepy look? It seemed to imply he was hiding something or something about him had changed. Did he "turn" gay at the end? When he was having sex with his girlfriend he gave a look like something was wrong, like he wasn't enjoying it fully.
Is it possible he killed the neighbor? That's what I thought at first when the Capt. realizes there's another killer and then it immediately goes to the shot of Pacino giving the weird look in the mirror, like it's basically saying he did it, even though other viewers have said it wasn't clear or it was supposed to end on a mystery.


reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

cliche, i know. but i thnk Pacino killed the neighbor in order to cleanse himself of the sleaze that he picked up during the assignment. and to go further, i think that in the killing, he was saving the neighbor who he befriened from anything happening to him or some impending doom...

While I do also think there were more than one killer (DeSimone being one of them) I don't think Pacino was one of them. I think that his was an isolated killing in order to achieve what i wrote above.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

The dead guy was the neighbour that Pacino befriended.

reply

[deleted]

"Men do it to women all the time right?"

Men do what to women all the time? Are you honestly that stupid? Are you a man and have you even gotten to know yourself or the other men in your life in any real depth? Here's a list of WOMEN who are the ones who "do it" to men all the time, cuz it sounds like you're just another ignorant who doesn't seem to be aware of just how abusive and murderous women can be in intimate relationships. Not entirely your fault of course since hugely powerful (and corrupt) feminist interests do a tremendous duty to themsleves to keep this kind of discussion locked out of the mainstream media. It plays into media corps. hands because they wouldn't want to disappoint or alienate their narcissistic, self-righteous female audience in order to make their profits.

Check it out, over 200 studies and surveys revealing how violent women can be towards men. Check it out, turn off the tv, don't go to the movies, and stop reading the newspaper, and maybe then you might learn something.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

reply

I got the impression Pacino was the killer also.

reply

Well the ending was HORRIBLY done on ALL accounts, b/c if Pacino WAS the killer, we barely saw an inkling of it. Creepy looks do not a statement as such make. If we saw the face, and had some juxtapositioning and/or a technical edit to add a better link, it may have worked. Think, maybe, if we heard or saw Tim in some way present when Pacino gave that look it would certainly allude to that conclusion. We don't, however, see any of that. The other way it may have worked was if we caught something that linked him to Tim's murder, or there was something more we knew about them that the police didn't, maybe. James Remar as Gregory may have been a good bet with his violent temper, but with so many diversions and tactics the filmmakers used to throw audiences off...just...no. Not good

As for Pacino as the killer in general, we saw the killer in some way, and it was not him.

Bottom line, the film was done terribly, and a wonderful opportunity was squandered.


I'm livin' in desperate times. Bein' alive's my only crime...

reply

>>>>>>Well the ending was HORRIBLY done on ALL accounts, b/c if Pacino WAS the killer...<<<<

It was terribly done. But between the captain's reaction at the last crime scene(I don't remember the dialogue now), and Pacino's look in the mirror. It just seemed like that is what the movie was implying. What other conclusion can you possibly draw? Even if you try and stretch another scenario, like pacino was staring at himself in the mirror out of disgust for of the ordeal of a staight man living a gay life for a while. It still doesn't explain the captain's reaction at the crime scene.

I saw 4 gritty 1970's NYC movies back to back. Needle Park, Cruising, The Incident and The French Connection. Both Pacino movies I thought were failures. The Incident was an incredible forgotten gem. French Connection is a classic. Another classic NYC movie that was extremely over rated is Taxi Driver.

reply

Now the look Paul Sorvino gave at the end was indeed, an interesting aspect. I'm inclined to agree that it implied something about Pacino, henceforth we get to him next, where the film ends. Still...what might Sorvino know that we don't? Anything that might be implied or is open to interpretation is killed in credibility b/c the filmmakers didn't handle the material well enough to justify why it was presented as said.

I do agree though, it certainly seems to imply as much on that level.




I'm livin' in desperate times. Bein' alive's my only crime...

reply

[deleted]

Was The Exorcist a fluke?
How does such a 'good' director make not just one bad film, but subsequent ones?

reply

Just saw this film dubbed in French last night. In that scene Sorvino repeatedly asks the name of the neighbor, and looks stunned when he gets the answer from his colleague. I was stunned too, because the way it was dubbed, the name that's being given several times is John Ford. I realize now reading a few posts in this forum that it was actually John Forbes, but when I was watching the film it made the scene very funny, because Sorvino's stunned expression made it look like he was thinking: "John Ford? The man who made Grapes of Wrath and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance??? Oh man.... what is the world coming to???"

reply

>>> Well the ending was HORRIBLY done on ALL accounts

Wel,l after all, Friedkin showed us in TFC that he doesn't know how to end movies!


http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

reply

I just get the sense that Friedkin lost confidence because he never liked Pacino in the role, so he went with the weak ‘have the ending you want, I’m outta here’ option.

It just seems absurd for Pacino to be a/the killer, he showed no signs of repressed rage or sociopathic tendencies, in fact he was an unusually open minded guy who had no qualms about going undercover as a gay BDSM enthusiast, was comfortable with his inner peculiarities (‘there are things you don’t know about me’ to his wife), and there was no hint given as to why he would murder the neighbour he had become friends with - in fact the rage-prone, knife wielding roommate was obviously the likely killer.

Ambiguous endings are great when they’re deliberate because they want your mind to chew on a particular issue or conundrum, but this felt thrown together at the last minute. I don’t know what Friedkin was gong for, and I’m not convinced he did either.

reply

[deleted]

I was thinking about the same. Is he gay now or he killed the neighbor? It seems, "he" was fascinated of the leather world.

reply

Yeah, I don't think that he was the killer one bit. But I think that allowing himself to be immersed in gay culture may have led him to a realization of himself. Perhaps he was thinking about life as a gay man not being so out of the ordinary for him. Just a possible thought quickly flying by in his mind. His wife trying on the clothes, I thought, led to the presumable conclusion that that would be a turn on for him. But for his wife, it would be because she thinks he likes lady tough cops, whereas it could be Pacino truly had a thing for leather guys. Who knows really. So ambiguous.

I do think that the cop was surprised at Ted's death scene because he realized that the Drag Queen was telling the truth and that his police force had a serious problem that he had up until this point completely ignored. He's finally seeing the corruptness of his "side".

Just some ideas from an overtired student after finding this film to be a pleasant ride. A decent slasher-crime-thriller.



I review horror films at: http://www.oh-the-horror.com/
900 with pics!

reply

My take on this is the cop realizes that Pacino's character has taken his advice and potentially framed one killer for more murders than he may have committed.
There is a very TELLING scene on a train platform between Pacino and he that I think directly ties to the events at the end. Not too mention the bizarre leap the police take in the Gay Slashings being related to the Dismemberings..

"The more real things get, the more like myths they become. " R.W. Fassbinder

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

He probably did. I mean if you start imitating a state of being, there's a chance of becoming it. I also suspect that guys who are hyper-sexualized are more prone to homo attractions. After it's all just flesh and 'getting off'. Reading through historical cultures, when there's an absence of women, they can turn to men, and if an absence of men, they can turn to animals(goats).

Just the fact that men are half beasts.

They also had the implication that quite a few gay murders go on because they tend to be screwed up, self loathing etc because of society.

reply

[deleted]

Pacino was already gay, but had not realized until he fell in love with his neighbor to whom he killed out because of jealous.-

reply