MovieChat Forums > Cruising (1980) Discussion > The murder of Ted Bailey

The murder of Ted Bailey

posted a year ago by ReneeFindley (39)
10 replies | jump to latest

I guess I must be missing something here-most people seem to think that Pacino's character murdered him-I have never thought that. My first guess was his ROOMMATE because of the violent altercation with Pacino and because of his rude demeanor. However, I AM curious about what everyone thinks about what Pacino's character was conflicted about when he was talking to Paul Sorvino at the train station-was Pacino starting to develop an attraction to these guys or was he becoming upset at going after people he thought was innocent? I watched the documentary about this film and still have questions-even though it says in the documentary that the director wanted people to think that Pacino did it. My FIRST thought was that the roommate did it...

[–] letess (1789) 10 months ago

Yes, the killing of Ted was by Pacino character, John Lynch. It’s in the novel too and it’s pretty much suggested and understood to be him in the movie without going into an investigation which was never going to happen. It’s also in most of the reviews. It’s kind of confirmed as well when you see Sorvino’s face upon learning that Pacino lived two doors down. You know it will be unfairly pinned on the boyfriend, or as you say, the ROOMMATE. Pacino became more and more conflicted sexually and angrier as time went on. He became more like the killer. And, in turn, you see the killer had become his unloving and authoritative deceased father. But for both the killer and Pacino, the sex act is killing with a knife. Pacino killed off Ted and then goes back to gf, Karen Allen, as a way to kill off his experience being undercover. This movie was heavily edited and deleted scenes burned. You might wonder what Friedkin’s original would actually be. It is however a perfect giallo.

I am interested in where you saw the documentary.

[–] ReneeFindley (39) 9 months ago

I have the movie on DVD-one of the options is to watch it with the commentary playing as the movie plays. You should watch it if you ever get the chance-Friedman explains a LOT. Pacino's character's name was Jon Forbes, not Jon Lynch. I still never got the feeling that he killed him-I guess I need to read the book. Is it even still in print?

[–] letess (1789) 9 months ago

You are correct. It’s Forbes not Lynch. Lynch is in the novel. I don’t really know much about the novel except what I’ve read online and that it has a couple of things that are different from the movie. One is that the killer has heterosexual relationships and the other is he doesn’t frequent leather bars. Also I think in the book, it’s suggests Lynch/Forbes is responsible for Ted‘s death.

But you are right. Friedkin wanted to make this a murder mystery and by being ambivalent of who was doing the killing, not only Ted’s, but also who was really the killer, achieved this. According to him, the killer is portrayed by two actors some also playing the victim but all with the same voice that of the killer’s dad but who also was dubbed by a different actor not seen in the movie. I just think when you look at Sorvino‘s performance at the end, you know that he thinks that Pacino is responsible for the bloodbath of Ted Bailey. Pacino starts wearing the same clothes as the killer. And why would he ever be angry with the “roommate” with that violent break-in and confrontation. This movie is a giallo and one of the best giallos. Sorvino was the greatest one in this movie. Actually, all the actors inhabit their roles. I also loved the voice. I didn’t think Pacino was right in it and the movie suffered for it. But Pacino was brave for what was expected of him to be this conflicted character and for making something so controversial. Friedkin wanted Gere initially who did American Gigolo. Both in 1980.

[–] [email protected] (2042) 8 months ago

You can probably find a free ebook of it, internet archive.

[–] BugisStreetAnnie (1297) 8 months ago

I had this book, 'Cruising', by Gerald Walker and also 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar.' Awww... to be a teen again and actually read books, which I don't do too much today. With 'Looking for Mr. Goodbar,' it was a flashback because they didn't know ~ spoiler alert ~ who her killer was, which she met in a gay bar call, what else , "Mr. Goodbar." ON A SIDE NOTE: I could swear that back in the day the candy bar Mr. Goodbar had a tag line, "A mouth full of nuts in every bar." They are good, though, and have a whole bunch of chopped nuts in every bar.

[–] Melton (5497) 12 days ago

I don’t really buy Pacino killing Ted, it doesn’t make sense, they were pals.

Immersing himself in the gay bondage world clearly takes its toll on Pacino but turning him into a brutal killer? It just doesn’t map on to how the character was played and presented (and apparently Pacino doesn’t talk about this film for that reason, he hates the ending and felt betrayed)

I think Friedkin was just doing his usual ambiguous ending routine to troll the audience and keep them talking about the movie. He did the same with the ending of To Live And Die In L.A., it almost feels like an afterthought in the edit.

I like how the film never gives full closure and implies that there are multiple killers, but adding Pacino as one of them just seems too silly.

[–] MichaelJPollock (808) 12 days ago

"Immersing himself in the gay bondage world clearly takes its toll on Pacino but turning him into a brutal killer?"
"He did the same with the ending of To Live And Die In L.A., it almost feels like an afterthought in the edit."
***

> Well, if you consider that one of the main themes in almost all of Friedkin's films is contamination by evil, I think it's more than an afterthought on Friedkin's behalf if Pacino's character in 'Cruising' has his sexuality and morality challenged and becomes what he's chasing (not implying homosexuality is evil, but what's important is that it is perceived as a deviation by Pacino's vanilla-character at the beginning, and yet his sexuality at the end is ambiguous at best, and it's heavily implied he's become a murderer too).

By the way, having different actors play the same character (as in the murderer in 'Cruising') is also something Friedkin did again in 'To Live and Die in LA', where in some shots, Willem Dafoe's female lover is played by a man.

(Spoilers ahead).

'The Exorcist': Reagan, then Father Karras, being literally possessed by literal demon.

'French Connection': Popeye Doyle becoming as morally compromised as the criminals he chases and ending up shooting a cop.

'To Live and Die in LA': Chance's by-the-book partner, Vukovitch, becoming Chance at the end of the film (same methods, same informants, same style and demeanour...).

'The Cain Mutiny Court Martial': Maryk being manipulated and contaminated by Keefer's suggestion that Commander Queeg is insane, leading him to commit mutiny and depose Queeg.

'Killer Joe': Sharla and Ansel being contaminated by police-officer-cum-hired-hitman Joe (a thinly veiled allegory for the devil) and ending up destroying each other, murdering their son Chris and selling their daughter Dottie.

'Bug': Lost and vulnerable Agnes being contaminated by Peter's conspiracy theories and ending up lighting herself on fire with him.

'12 Angry Men': Juror No 8, although not evil, slowly changing the minds of all eleven other jurors.

[–] Melton (5497) 12 days ago

Good point well made. I bought all those transformations but Cruising didn’t sow enough character seeds to make me believe that wholesome young cop Steve would fairly quickly turn into a serial killer 🤷🏻‍♂️

Gay? Maybe. Kinky? Possibly. Serial killer!? Nah.

[–] MichaelJPollock (808) 12 days ago

I hear you.
Pacino's character turning into a serial killer is kinda far fetched.
But I could buy that he "only" killed the one guy out of frustration and resentment. He represses the fact he's starting to have latent homosexual urges, so it builds up his self-hatred and anger which he transfers onto homosexuals in general to the point of snapping and killing the gay roommate.
A theme I think is already made explicit early on in the film, with the gay-hating cop played by Joe Spinell who coerces sexual favours from transvestites and whom you later see at the leather bar...
But I agree the ending of Cruising is not exactly earned, and Pacino -though probably miscast- does most of the heavy lifting towards making the end work, with his final ambiguous look into the mirror.

I absolutely love 'Crusing', but I acknowledge its many flaws, mostly structural and writing wise (and Pacino's casting is... a brave choice) .
Strangely, I think it's precisely those flaws and that offbeat casting decision that make the film so bizarrely appealing to me. Not sure I can explain it.

[–] Melton (5497) 12 days ago

I largely agree.

See, if he’d killed the aggressive James Remar character I could just about buy that, he hated that guy, but Ted? They were pals, and only a few scenes earlier Pacino was telling the captain ‘you can’t harass a guy just for being gay’ (or words to that effect), he was actually a remarkably tolerant blue collar guy for the time, not the seething time-bomb of homophobia you could imagine exploding into a murderous rage.

I also like the film, though it’s not one I’d come back to often. It’s actually an uncomfortable and kinda gross experience as it plays but there’s a haunting mood to it, a creepy atmosphere, that brings me back. I think it’s actually a horror film disguised as a cop thriller.