MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > My thoughts on the ending.....

My thoughts on the ending.....

posted 15 years ago by gianlu-1
14 replies | jump to latest

I personally think that many on here are overthinking when it comes to the ending. But then again, the ending is left ambigious so therefore there is no right or wrong answer. Anyways, on to my thoughts:

I think that Al Pacino was NOT the killer, nor did he kill his "neighbour" at the end of the film. his neighbour was killed by his boyfriend, there is a seen sort of forshadowing this when Al Pacino is sitting in his room listening to them argue. The boyfriend seems violent and very angry with him. Pacino, being a cop, senses that his boyfriend is very violent and capable of doing something terrible. That is why in the next scene when they are having a cup of coffee together, Pacino says: "I wish there is something i could do for you". He feels sorry for him that he has to take such abuse and is worried that his boyfriend may do something worse. He then later tries to break into the house in an attempt to f ^ ck the boyfriend up because he knows just what he's capable of. His boyfriend then pulls out a knife and threatens to kill Pacino. Pacino leaves and that is the last you see of the boyfriend. (sorry i don't know their names).

Well, Pacino's fears came true. Eventually, the guy's boyfriend DID end up killing him with the very knife he used to threaten to kill Pacino.

Pacino staring into the camera again is just to show a bit of character ark. In the beginning of the film he seems like a very young, naive man who takes things very light heartedly. He laughs when the detective askis if he hever got a BJ from a man instead of getting personally offended, he is always smiling and laughing, and it seems that he takes the job without really thinking about it. This is because he is still very naive and does not look at the consequences the job may bring. He just kinda looks at the photographs on the wall and says: "okay sure!" and that's it.The assignment later begins to take a toll on him. You can see this throughout the film as Pacino's character gets grumpier and has more of a temper. His naiveness and lightheartedness begins to go away and by the end of the film he is almost a completely different person. It's as if he has matured out. By the end, he is left exhausted and knows how messed up and ugly the world can be. He learns something dark and grim from the assignment he has taken and it is something that will never leave him. That is the reason why he stares so grimly in the camera. His character is not as innocent and naive as before. He has seen society's dark underbelly and cannot walk away from it.

Now here's where i get confused. There are theories on here that there never really was ONE killer, but rather a bunch of random ones and it was just the cops wanting to cover it up. Well, that maybe true, but if it WAS just one killer, then how come ALL OF THEM said the exact same sayings. The "who's here, you're here, i'm here" and the "you made me do that" couldn't have been said by someone completely different. That would have been like the biggest coincidence ever. Since the killer ALWAYS had the same voice and said the exact same things, i'm gonna have to say that he was probably the same guy. Anyone have any thoughts??

[–] captkirk_4 15 years ago

Even though there were different actors playing the killer I think that was just a bit of artistic liscense from the director and Stuart was the killer. One of the victims was his teacher and they had his prints on the dirty book store murder. I think the song was supposed to clue us into some sort of multiple personality thing where his dad posessed him and killed gays as some sort of repression of his own homosexuality.(Sort of a ripoff of Norman Bates mother/multiple personality.)

[–] Flowbeer 14 years ago

Yeah, I was wondering about that ending, thanks for the insight! It was an odd relationship, between Stuart & his father; it almost explained why/how he got to be that way (a killer); but when they found his prints on the last bloody quarter in the peep show, that should have been enough evidence to convict him, and convince the audience, that he was the sole killer!....? or not?!
Odd film, for sure....

"Now, I know I'm pretty, but I ain't as pretty as a coupla titties!"

[–] XtroTerrestial 13 years ago

Thanks to everyone on this thread who answered the questions before I posted them. However one question remains: Why was Pacino's girlfriend at the end putting on the get up that he used throughout the movie? The first time I watched this, I though it was to indicate that she was somehow in on the killings, but now I highly reject that theory altogether.

http://youtu.be/dJ6fjGS1lRg

[–] marbleann 12 years ago

I just think she put them on for the heck of it. No reason. Strange looking clothes , let me try them on.

[–] Sheldonshells 12 years ago

"But now I highly reject that theory altogether."

Why/how do you "highly" reject it? And why "altogether"? Wouldn't it have been enough just to say "but now I reject that theory". Yeah I know it's OT, but just curious that's all as to why use the words/modifiers/qualifiers/intensifiers/adverbs "highly" and "altogether"? Why all the emphasis?

[–] hockeyhrs 12 years ago

"Why was Pacino's girlfriend at the end putting on the get up that he used throughout the movie?"

Friedkin is saying that playing/experimenting with gender roles isn't just for the boys.

[–] jpssteveshanahan (462) 5 months ago

This☝️

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Clemencedane 12 years ago

I was very confused when I watched it again for the first time in a few years because the first killer was definitely not the Richard Cox. And I don't think the one in the park was either, and he used the "I'm here, you're here" thing that the killer (Stuart?) used later. I guess Friedkin was just messing with us by using different actors. Until I learned that I could just not figure out how it could be Stuart all along.

[–] cynema 12 years ago

I believe the film intends to suggest that there are multiple killers and that the nature of "The Job" forces Pacino to unwittingly allow all the other murders on him, as soon as he finds evidence of insanity that allows for it.
Sure he killed at least the one guy, but if you watch the film there are specific things which allow us to draw the conclusion that the police are up to no good.
First and foremost, the body parts found, are specifically addressed by the film as not being enough evidence to even suggest a HOMICIDE because there is no 'Cause of death' and then there are these 'torsos' - the Police instantly link those two things and the audience simply accepts it. Meanwhile, the film tells us there is no substantial evidence.
None of the on-screen murders mimic these killings in any way.
However, you will recall that Benny tells Pacino that the cops swept this dismemberment of the Professor under the rug too.
Which allows for both readings. Either you accept that Stuart is the killer all along or you see the possibility that he was not and that the nature of "the job" simply allowed for this to work out.
I think its safe to say Freidkin INTENDED this ambiguity, otherwise the final scene would simply just not have been included.

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

[–] dunyadoom 11 years ago

There wasn't just one murderer, because the killer from the first murder (hotel room, big jaw and lips) gets killed in the park by the "singing guy". He is however shown from the back exactly the same as the "big jaw guy" entering the bar where he picks up that "attention" guy, which is the same scene that is shown in the end. No wonder everyone's confused.

[–] manram24 11 years ago

Friedkin had different actors play the killer, even Loren Lukas, the film's first victim plays the killer in the porn theater.

Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

[–] jpssteveshanahan (462) 5 months ago

"Pacino staring into the camera again is just to show a bit of character ark. In the beginning of the film he seems like a very young, naive man who takes things very light heartedly"

"The assignment later begins to take a toll on him. You can see this throughout the film as Pacino's character gets grumpier and has more of a temper. His naiveness and lightheartedness begins to go away and by the end of the film he is almost a completely different person. It's as if he has matured out. By the end, he is left exhausted and knows how messed up and ugly the world can be. He learns something dark and grim from the assignment he has taken and it is something that will never leave him. That is the reason why he stares so grimly in the camera. His character is not as innocent and naive as before. He has seen society's dark underbelly and cannot walk away from it"

I know I'm 15 years late but this is the best post I read regarding Pacino's character arc in the movie.

[–] KutWrite (1302) 5 months ago

I agree with the OP up until the end.

Pacino staring into the mirror looks changed, yes, but in a dangerous way.

I don't think he killed the neighbor, James Remar's character did (great to see him in an early role). But when Nancy puts on the "cruising" gear, we see it's much like the killer's getup. How would Pacino's character react to seeing that?

The very next scene gives us the answer. The same tugboat on which the mate spots the body part "cruises" into view. We know he's going to spot another floater, and it'll be Nancy.