ROTTEN TOMATOES: Interview: Picking Up on William Friedkin's Cruising

Interview: Picking Up on William Friedkin's Cruising

Page | 1 2 3 4

Like the Red List during the 1950s. In the 1980s it was the "Pink" List.

WF: It was that, indeed. And I remember that. It was around then, but now it's gone. To find someone in the closet, or to find a communist, today you have to go to a museum. Cruising was released during the early stages of gay activism, and progress toward understanding, or at least accommodation. So it was viewed by a different audience. Now, to have Warner Brothers create a DVD that looks and sounds better than the original ever did, it's a filmmaker's dream. Someday some of the films that are very popular today will disappear completely off the radar and then come back perhaps when a new technology is invented, and a new generation will be able to see and appreciate them. I applaud this technology. It has saved the legacy of international cinema.

In Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls he quotes you as saying, "The thing that drove me and still keeps me going is Citizen Kane. I hope to one day make a film to rank with that. I haven't yet." So, do you have a Citizen Kane in pre-production?

WF: No. No, that's unattainable. I haven't read Peter Biskind's book, I know about it. It's made up largely of facts, lies and rumors, as near as I can tell. What he chose to do more than interview the subjects themselves was to talk with ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, whatever. In any case, I probably said that, and I meant that. Citizen Kane is the film that inspires me. It's like a composer saying, "I hope to one day write a symphony that rival's Beethoven's Fifth." It's impossible. It's just not possible to do that anymore. It becomes a watermark. It's because of those kinds of symphonies that symphonies continue to be written. It's because of films like Citizen Kane, or the paintings of Rembrandt or Vermeer, that people are continually inspired to create. There are only two responses if you're a filmmaker and you see Citizen Kane: One is, 'that's how I'm going to measure my work,' the other is, 'I quit.' That's it. Imagine looking at a Rembrandt portrait and you want to be a portrait painter. What're you gonna do?

Take up photography.

WF: Take up photography, or give up, or commit suicide. And that's true of all the iconic works of art: They're to be aspired to. Unlike baseball's home run record, they will never be exceeded. There will be others that may join them in the pantheon of great works, perhaps, but they will never be exceeded.

Hopefully through DVDs Citizen Kane will not be forgotten and will continue to influence directors.

WF: Hopefully, yes. Now, Citizen Kane is very much of its time. It influenced everything that came after. It was like a quarry for filmmakers. Like Joyce's Ulysses or Proust's In Search of Lost Time are quarries for writers. It's all there. In Citizen Kane the very finest screenplay, acting, lighting, editing, cinematography, music, it's all at its highest level in that one film. It's all together. Maybe some day that'll come together in an American presidency. We'll have another president like Lincoln or Roosevelt.

Do you think that's possible with modern media culture?

WF: You live and hope.

The deluxe collector's edition DVD of Cruising is out next Tuesday, September 18.

Related Items

Movie:	The Exorcist
	The French Connection
	Bug
Celeb:	Al Pacino
	William Friedkin

Page | 1 2 3 4

(1-20 of 55 posts) | Reply

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 14 2007 06:53 PM

Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years.

Talk about falling off.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:08 PM

Geez, way to be the most negative human being on the planet. Even with a spotty filmography, the man made The French f***ing Connection and The Exorcist.

(Reply to this)

lostharvestmovie writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:41 PM

maybe Friedkin hasn't made a great movie in 30 years but let's see: "to live and die in la" is pretty cool and that was made in '83 or '84; i remember thinking "jade" was pretty good and "the hunted" was a really neat movie and "the hunted" is fairly recent.... the 1980s were not really a Freidkin type of decade anyways... I remember sitting in the theaters in the 1980s and just wishing for the kinds of '70s films that Friedkin was making.... Friedkin is a pretty cool filmmaker.

www.lostharvest.com

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1124204)
You've never made a good film.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 14 2007 09:17 PM

Listen....do you hear that???

Sounds like a bunch of babies crying.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Sep 15 2007 09:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124461)
Using a baby crying simile for an insult is more commonly employed by children. If you are going to make a come-back make it intelligent, please...

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 10:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124461)
Enough from you, son.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 15 2007 11:04 AM

To proclaim Friedkin hasn't done a good movie in 30 years is a proclamation of your own unawareness. While Friedkin's filmography isn't miles long, what it does encompass is a variety of provocatives. Sure, his modern stuff may not match up to his earlier promise, but there are inklings of it throughout. I thought Bug was very effective, probably his most consistent film since To Live And Die In L.A., an unsung '80s film (one of the few gritty ones from the Reagan years). I think someone needs his diaper changed.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 11:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124967)
O....I'm sorry....he hasn't made a good film in 23 years.

My bad.

lol

30 years to 23 years....whatever....the guy is irrelevant.

That's like praising Steven Spielberg if he had only done DUEL and JAWS (late 70's) and then didn't do anything since then.

The guy's not exactly kicking over in his grave....so why don't he step up to the plate and get on some good scripts again?

You tell me that.

All the interviews I've seen him in he comes off as a pompous, arrogant know-it-all.

This, after he hasn't been relevant in 30 years.

Bitter, maybe?

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 15 2007 01:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#1125007)
Who's bitter exactly? For whatever reason, you came out of the gates swinging at Friedkin. Did you discover authenticity issues with the leather bar scenes in "Cruising" or something?

Aside from box office receipts, has Spielberg really done anything as good as Duel or Jaws?

And, in all seriousness, do you think any of the serious dramas of the 1970s would be greenlit in today's commercial film market? Friedkin and many other directors from the bygone days could be sitting on some good scripts and just can't receive the time of day because of the newbies who control the purse strings in Hollywood. When lauded filmmakers such as Herzog, Lynch, Scorsese, Allen, etc., struggle today to get financial backing for their films, something ain't right. Does that make them irrelevant too?

Your associating Friedkin to being pompous, arrogant and a know-it-all says more about you than him. Why is sharing knowledge a detriment? Yep, thinking and learning are so 20th Century. At least his knowledge base is deeper and more broad than most directors', which is typically based upon bad television shows from the last 10 years. So, yes, you've made it clear you don't like the guy. Some of us wish Friedkin could be given more opportunities to express himself through cinema. Why the scorched earth vitriol?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 02:32 PM

Hmmm.....Spielberg has done little movies like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, etc.

Have you heard of them? : )

And how does Scorses struggle to get financial backing? Ever see a movie called The Gangs of New York (and its monumental sets of old New York), as well as The Aviator?

Herzog is underrated and doesn't get the respect he deserves, but that doesn't stop him from making quality projects, no matter the financial backing, year after year.

And I never said I didn't like the guy.

It's called stating facts.

Look up the word: Fact(s)

The equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.

I'm just amazed at the utter lack of knowledgable posters on here who actually know film history (and it shows in the posts above, concerning Scorsese, etc.).

Consider yourself served, sir.

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 03:16 PM

There are billions of people on this planet.

Only a few will ever make a great film.
Even fewer will ever make a horror masterpiece like 'The Exorcist'.
Even fewer will ever make an additional three great films.

The great 12 Angry Men remake, directed by sir William Friedkin was made only 10 years ago. Not 30.

The man has made four great films. Most people struggle to make one. The man has earned atleast some respect.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 03:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1125582)
Very true, Bruce.

He does deserve respect.

I'll get him credit where credit is do.

Read my first post--all I wrote was: "Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years. Talk about falling off."

And that was a statement of fact.

It can't be denied.

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 04:14 PM

12 Angry Men.

All I'm saying.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 04:58 PM

12 Angry Men was a freaking television movie remake of Sidney Lumet's classic 12 ANGRY MEN (Henry Fonda).

It wasn't even an original piece. It was Lumet's classic filmed for 1997 TV.

Get your facts straight.

My god.

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:17 PM

It was great remake though.

So... What's your point? Are you saying no (TV) remake can be good?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:36 PM

It's basically exactly like the remake of Hitchcock's classic, Psycho, which came out in 1998 starring Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.

It used the exact same script (and even imitated the original in camera-flow and shot sequences).

It wasn't original, and it's far from creative.

Friedkin took the script from Lumet's classic and made it into a direct-to-television remake.

Thing is, the Psycho remake (1998) sucked, but the tv movie 12 Angry Men (1997) remake was watchable.

My beef with not crediting Friedkin for it is:

#1-It wasn't original
#2-Same script
#3-Tv movie

And #3 sets it in motion.

It's a TV movie.

Should I care that Quentin Tarantino wrote AND directed a two-hour long episode of CSI?

Yes. It was decent.

But it was still just TV (though more original than a remake) and SHOULD NOT be equated with ANY of his film work (Pulp Fiction, etc.).

Though TV and film have many ties and relations (think about all the mini-movie episodes of shows like THE SOPRANOS, etc.), they are still two different mediums.

Copy? : )

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:42 PM

Wow... You are picky.

Or were you just looking for a loophole?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1126244)
Haha...nah, I'm not picky, I just actually know what I'm talking about, compared to others around here.......

Any experienced filmmaker will tell you the same thing. Go ask.

Btw, I think all that baby crying finally died down....

(Reply to this)

Bruce Campbell writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:55 PM

I am an experienced filmmaker though.

I did direct classics like 'Man with the Screaming Brain' and 'Fanalysis' afterall.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com