I was inspired from seeing William Friedkin’s Cruising (1980). A detective (Al Pacino) goes undercover into New York City’s world of S&M to catch a serial killer who has been murdering gay men. This Hollywood movie sparked much controversy at the time. Its release was on eve of the HIV pandemic and post Stonewall, a time where gay clubs were being raided all over North America until late 1970s. Ghettos of gay people from around the country were mobilized in major cities, visibility to mainstream society and a sense of community was finally formed.

Cruising was a film themed within the gay fetish subculture. The film’s bio entices the viewer into a world of public sex, leather and drugs.  The resulting controversy from releasing a gay Hollywood film in 1980 was not what you would normally expect.  Gay activists were the ones to denounce the film’s release out of fear its content would set back the positive visibility the community was hoping to have.  Fears of increased gay bashing as retaliation and validation of misrepresented stereotypes to the general public. There were claims of more assault and harassment following the release of Cruising.

By the time the film was released, activists already fought silence from right-wing conservative movements following California’s Prop 6 and Harvey Milk’s death in 1978. The gay community in turn was accused of silencing their own out of fear of being misrepresented. People went so far as to protest during production, disrupting takes by yelling and reflecting light off the actor’s bodies on set. The film and it’s response clearly represent a divide within our community that leaves us with a "good gay, bad gay" dichotomy. If gay fetish subculture is a reality in the community, why hinder this visibility? It highlights that certain members of our community are considered fit to live in mainstream society versus those who aren’t.

What this proposes is that we can have equal rights only if we fight to emulate everyday heterosexual life. We can relate this today to the gay marriage debate.  The truth is, some people don’t wish to get married and live behind a white picket fence with an adopted/ surrogate child. Some see this as counter to gay culture and don't care to fit themselves in a gay box with hetero-approved packaging. While having the choice to lead one's life as we please is key, one option clearly carried judgment then in 1980, does it still today?

While the film made the fetish subculture more visible, it didn’t necessarily shine it in a positive light. There were scenes justifying police brutality and invasion of privacy.  The film ultimately conveying gay men must be asking for their oppression and even enjoy harassment because they are into pain as pleasure.  Now there’s a mixed message.  Parts of the script also describe the character's fetish play as a result of unresolved daddy issues and portrayed gay men as insane with the potential to kill. Of course gay activists were pissed off, I would be too!

I viewed the film overall as misrepresentative of the S&M community, blurring issues of consent and representing fetish enthusiasts as crazy killers. Friedkin argued that the film was simply about a murderer within a gay themed subtext, like 1992's Basic Instinct, apparently just a psychological thriller…where lesbians are ice pick wielding man-hating killers. Still one of my top film favorites, but I do raise an eyebrow when I think about it further. Both were fun films anyway, I admit to having a bias for anything Pacino or Stone does.

These films came at a time where we needed more positive representations of gay and gay subculture within pop culture. Hollywood’s 1980 attempt with Cruising was simply premature. Activists were concerned it would be misinterpreted as representative of all gay culture, in addition to the attempt to hide the fetish/cruising subculture... Whereas today, I know many straight people who delve into fetish play and have had public sex with their partners. Perhaps the film's criticism was underestimated, fears that mainstream society would see the spec in our eyes before noticing the log in their own, who knew! Comparative strokes for different folks, indeed.