Pcge 4-Friday, February 22, 1980-The Michigan Daily Does 'Cruising' push free speech to the limit? 6 In 1970, American movie houses were graced by William Friedkin's The Boys in the Band, a largely faithful screen transcription of Mart Crowley's Tony-winning Broadway play. The film, a Virginia Woolfish tableaux of a birthday gathering of seven homosexuals (plus one potential convert) all edging past the bloom of youth, proved mildly successful both critically and financially. It was accepted as a serious, if somewhat stereotyped, examination of the social traumas of upper-middle-class gayness, and remained free at the time from any howls of outrage from gay groups who then by and' large regarded the play as a sympathetic pipeline to co-existence with straights. ::Three years later the times and principles a altered drastically. No longer was Boys in e Band a benign, useful chronicle of omosexuality-it was now a bigoted, homophobic obscenity, a piece of defamation to ie ~censured and, more ideally, censored 4henever and wherever it raised its ugly head. Vien an Ann Arbor film group attempted to show Band in 1973, it was met not only by placards and demonstrations but by a shouting, chanting gay sit-in in front of the Angell Hall *movie screen-a tactic which noisily and ef- fkeiently cancelled the scheduled show. : IN THE VIEW of the protest's spokesman ( vho three years earlier had starred in a stage pyoduction of Boys in the Band-how un- c~itating are the pillars of morality!), the screening of such a film went beyond the iropriety of mere First Amendment con- siderations: Band was in truth a work of libel end slander which defamed an entire cultural group and was thus entitled to no constitutional protection. This was hardly an original argument (I know Wat's filth, Iknow what's dangerous), yet this articular case was alarming in that it never reached the sanction of the courts at all. Local iy militants, realizing the de-fusing nature of lengthy legal battle and also the near- p possibility of convincing all potential, 4viegoers of the rightness of their crusade, i stead went the simplest and most direct rpute: Through a mixture of moral persuasion and veiled threats, they swiftly succeeded in udgeoning all local film co-ops into simply iminating the film from all schedules present ' d future-effectively cutting off the ob- s enity at its source. Thus was Boys in the and briskly censored out of Ann Arbor. It has t surfaced here since. jI continue to resent the defacto exile. Though. I. sJE lMidi 8 Ninety Years QJ Vol. XC, No. 118 I. .,.. this middling, artistically routine movie might well be my bottom choice in available film fare for a given evening, I resent the ongoing fact that my choice in the matter has been negated. No one came and asked me to exercise my moral judgement on Band's presumed heresies; no one urged me to consider a boycott as a useful ethical protest. The ultimate decision was silently and imperiously made for me-and for everyone else-with every bit the self- righteous impunity of the Iowa book banners who recently exorcised The Grapes of Wrath from their local school's bookshelf. Must we fear ideas and words to the point of officially vaporizing them? HOW NOBLE THE above sentiments sound! They neatly capsulize the standand civil- libertarian catechism in the ancient snare of artistic freedom vs.artistic license-a legal and moral quagmire which randomly jux- taposes both the political Left and Right, depending on whose ox is being tem- porarily gored. It's a battle which will likely be waged forever-its roots both pro and, con sim- ply run too deep, its emotional branches are too thorny to achieve any form of abiding irationale. I like to think of myself as fervently By Christopher Potter . committed to Justice Douglas' principle that the First Amendment literally bars all forms of censorship. However ferociously our legion of misguided, often messanic moral arbiters of any socio-political stripe might condemn un- bridaled freedom of expression, I've yet to en- counter a book, play, or film which plainly violated the "clear and present danger" prin- ciple, or which was simply too risky to allow people to exercise their own brainpower over. Crude though Boys in the band may be, as an incendiary polemic it clearly flunks the test. Yet can it be said that such a principle always outweighs the potential for disaster in a seethingly contradictory society? What is one now to make of Cruising, William Friedkin's newest film ten years removed from the re- lative innocence of Band, and a work so sophisticatedly, brutally mischievous that it shakes my cherished liberalism to its roots? It was easy to dismiss the recent local campaigns against Birth of a Nation and Misty Beethoven as overzealous social protectionism; Cruising is an entirely different animal-a seductive, aesthetically overpowering malefactor which could very believably fuel and ignite the fur- nace of mistrust and hate which inherently exists between straight and gay. Friedkin's film tells the dark tale of a New York cop (Al Paclino) who descends into the S & M subculture of the city's homosexual com- munity in order to track down a psychotic killer who preys on gays. Stylistically, Cruising is brilliant-a visually stupefying trip into a voluntary, orgasmic hell. Friedkin's leather- boys undulate through nightmare waterfront bars in an endless series of Fellini-lit vignettes so horrifyingly, pulsatingly rhythmic that you find yourself captivated into a state of irresistible, appalled fascination. Cruising allows one to palpably taste violent, forbidden fruits of a counter-universe while all the while secure in the dark anonymity of a movie house; it is an experience at once terrifying and exhilarating, traumatic and unforgettable.. YET IT IS the very genius of Cruising's technical virtuosity that makes its thematic content so profoundly disturbing. Friedkin's storyline is frightfully, amorally ambivalent; the film is a writhing mass of logical and ethical loose ends which leave its traumatized audience grasping at a leering, cackling void. Like Primal Scream therapy, Cruising drags you through the pitsh of Hades, then unsuppor- tively, cravenly dumps you to work out your acquired turbulations utterly on your own. Just what is Friedkin trying to say, anyway? Are his S & M tableaux meant to epitomize mainstream gay - society? What alternatives are presented to the unenlightened viewer? Is homosexual life inherently fraught with violen- ce and murder? Is the film's psycho killer a dissaffected gay or a demoniacally-bent heter- sexual? Is protagonist Pacino psychologically metamorphosized into the community he has infiltrated? Has he now become a sex- murderer identical to tie maniac he just cap- tured? Is anyone who turns gay susceptible to the same sadistic flowering? Should straights band together before it's too late? Like an artfully-gilded sheet, Cruising im- plicates everything and clarifies nothing. Holding gratuitously forth at a post-premiere press conference, Friedkin asserted almost proudly that he has no answers to such questions, that he chose to make the film solely because of its "absolutely fascinating" subject matter. Having effectively absolved himself as a kind of blameless creative virgin, the direc- tor added almost as an afterthought that he certainly never meant to offend or defame anyone-heavens, perish the thought. Thus was a newly-orphaned cinenatic rough beast born into a world that is already affected with enough anti-minority venom to tear the fabric of society apart if given enough incentive. AND WHERE DOES it all leave me and my principles? It would be so easy to reiterate the litany that we need not fear words and ideas, that we must leave the artist to pursue his own truths, however arcane they might'be. Yet I'm haunted by the words of an audience member interviewed at The Briarwood Movies: "As long as they (the characters in the movie) get rid of the gay community, I'm for it." How many viewers are registering comparable sen- timents? Is cultural genocide an attractive viable solution in the American psyche? Such attitudes, both surface and subliminal, lead me touthink thesunthinkable-that the Clear and Present Danger standard has indeed been breached by this film. So should r now drop whatever I'm doing and join in the anti- Cruising pickets at Briarwood? The very con- cept of such action still bristles with know- 'not'hing myopia, of an incipient, rigid totalitar- anism intolerable in a free society. Yet can such pious liberal absolutism always hold sway in a treacherously shades-of-gray world? Cruising has surely sacrificed its claim to artistic immunity: At best it is a -formless, amoral piece of huckster exploitation; at its worst it is a subtle, sinister call to arms to the darkest, most bigoted recesses of the human soul. I hold nothing dearer in life than the quality of freedom. Yet if the lifelines of freedom and of love must occasionally, regrettably cross, I would rather err on the side of love. We just don't need a cunning malignancy like Cruising- to teach us new ways to hate; if one can boycott - Anita Bryant with a clear conscience, one can also boycott Friedkin's film with a comparable absence of guilt over hastening an oncoming police state. If you're not of a mind to walk to the local picket line, at least honor it. If doing so insures a- more humane society, then this' small sacrifice of entertainment will have been well worth the price. Christopher Potter is a Daily film critic and frequent contributor to this page. AL PACINO (LEFT) and Richard Cox in a scene from "Cruising," a recently-released film that has met with much protest from the gay community. Many believe the movie raises difficult questions about free speech and artistic license. i rigan iBailQ f Editurial Fr eIdonm News Phone: 764-0552 Bill would curtail civil r: I.- Edited and managed by students at the University of Mighigan GENDAS ARE made to be broken, or so some Regents would seem to b ylieve. Last Friday, in a move which s rprised spectators and even one R pgent, the Board voted to grant a local developer the option to buy a very c ntroversial piece of land. the developer, John Stegeman, h pes to build a 32-story apartment- cqndominium-office structure at the corner of Washtenaw and South Forest A enues. The University land, which Stegeman now has an option to prchase, is adjacent to the building shre and would. provide space for a connected parking structure. Despite the fact that the Regents did nit even second a motion on Sfegeman's proposal in December; d spite the City's almost certain o position to the proposed building; a d despite a Board precedent for d laying controversial matters until a 1 Regents are present, the Regents v ted 3-2 to grant Stegeman the option tc buy the land. uch a boter The motion to approve the purchase option was introduced by Regent Thomas Roach;, it was not on the agenda. Innocent as Roach's motives might have been, the circumstances surrounding the vote are certainly curious. Two Regents-Paul Brown and David Laro-were not present at the meeting when the vote was called. A third-Deane Baker-who is a long- time opponent of the Stegeman project, was out of the room when the matter was brought to vote. Atrepresentative of a neighborhood group, a city councilwoman, at least two professors, and several students-all of whom watched helplessly as the land agreement was approved-have assailed the apparently railroaded vote. The merits of the proposal are not even the issue at hand, although there appear to be ample reasons for opposing it. What is to be condemned is the hasty, unscheduled vote taken without any public warning. The federal criminal code defines the activities for which people are subject to prosecution by the U.S. government. As Criminal Code Revision Bill S. 1722 nears a final vote in the U.S. Senate, PIRGIM has escalated its commitment to sound reform of our criminal laws. PIRGIM opposes S. -1722 because the bill would needlessly curtail civil liberties. The death of legendary Justice William O. Douglas represents a grave loss to all who share his wish to live in peace and freedom. The threat of repressive government, which Douglas ex- posed so oftep during his thirty- six year judicial tenure, will now challenge the resolve of his allies. Perhaps the most significant theme of Justice Douglas' career concerned the danger of op- pressive criminal law. His eloquent rejection of a state's at- tempt to prosecute users of con- traceptives, for instance, has provoked fundamental recon- sideration of the degree to which government may restrict per- sonal autonomy. Another legal expert who has long advocated vigorous defenses of individual rights is Zolton Ferency, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State Univer- sity. Ferency recently warned that the authors of S. 1722 hope to exploit a defeat which Douglas suffered while on the Court. S. 1722 proposes that a person who possesses documents that incriminate someone else be required to deliver them to police. According to Douglas and Ferency, however, the Con- stitution protects us from coer- cive acquisition of "mere eviden- ce." They contend that gover.. nment may seize only those items which an individual has no right to hold. . Seizable goods, they argue, should include the fruits and in- struments of crime, contraband, sawed-off shotguns, rabid dogs, etc. Police should not be allowed 'to search a person or his home solely to assist in a criminal prosecution, except with the con- ceonff-te cnihnrt _med1 the act of "obstructing a gover- nment function by fraud" has perplexed even the most studious observers, but it appears to allow criminal prosecution for deed such as "giving a postman the wrong directions." Professor Ferency cautions that the. proposed law "runs contrary to ordinary social discourse, and has a tendency to punish innocent behavior." Ferency compared the "ob- struction by fraud" provision to an ordinance not long ago found unconstitutional. The latter, at first glance seem similar to control of perjury, Ferency stresses the distinguishing features. "There (in perjury cases) you've created a circum- stance whereby a person knows what the obligations are," pur- suant to an explicit oath. Courtroom questioning dissuades lawyers from witness abuse, through regular procedures and precise records. Stationhouse in- terrogation, however, cannot match these guarantees. Deter- mination of a witness' intention, which often must reflect nuance, 96TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 1722 To codify, revise, and reform title 18 of the United States Code; and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 7 (legislative day, JUNE 21), 1979 Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. DECONCINI, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To codify, revise, and reform title 18 of the United States Code; and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States liberty sexism and of large-scale unem- ployment would reduce prostitution far more than any criminal procedure. The most frightening aspect of S. 1722 may be its abridgement of the citizen's right to com- municate ideas. We have learned from Justice Douglas that such threats strike at the heart of our nation's heritage. "Full and free discussion has indeed been the first article of our faith. We have founded our political system on it. We have counted on it to keep us from embracing what is cheap and false." 5. 1722 would render criminal the "physical obstruction of, a government function." Since any cluster of people tends to retard movement in its vicinity, Professor Ferency concludes that S. 1722 would "interfere with picketing, demonstrating, and4 other types of informational ac- tivity." Such a policy might eliminate our capacity to receive diverse messages. Justice Douglas has, counseled awareness of exactly that possibility. "Those who do not control television and radio, those who cannot afford to adver- tise in newspapers or circulate elaborate pamphlets, may have only a nmgre limited type of ac- cess to public officials. Their methods should not be condem- ned as tactics of obstruction." Additional First Amendment issues include S. 1722's rein- statement of McCarthy-era laws about disclosure of government activities, and its excessively broad plan to shield servicemen from hearing or seeing criticism of military operations. . Justice Douglas reminded us . that "Under our Constitution it is: 'We the People' who are sovereign." This statement does not suggest an eternal security for our privileged condition, but rather. it conveys the imperative that we limit government to its proper role. If we abdicate our respon- sibility to protect liberty, then awesome power will transfer to an unconcerned elite. Congress has somewhat modified the in- . famous S. 1, of course, yet in S. 1722, its essential character remains. That Congress con- tinues to work from Nixon's blueprint for criminal law demonstrates the urgent need for citizen involvement. r Zolton Ferency will discuss rriminsal nderevr~ision this o .s -., ..: -' 4 'i' : . #, 1 4^ J l~e / ' A 2 3 4 of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Criminal Code Reform Act of 1979". TITLE I-CODIFICATION, REVISION, AND REFORM OF TITLE 18 5 SEC. 101. Title 18 of the United States Code, which may be cited as "18 6 7 8 9 10 U.S.C. -" or as "Federal Criminal Code -", is amended to read as follows: "TITLE 18-CRIMINAL CODE "TABLE OF CONTENTS "PART I-GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES "CHAPTER 1-GENERAL PROVISIONS 11 "Subchapter A-Matters Relating to Purpose and Application "Sec. "101. General Purpose., "102. General Principle of Criminal Liability. :- .;; , .. -_ -.,, f j . /r . 1 l designed to limit prostitution, prohibited any person on or near a street from gesturing to a passing vehicle. Because the statute's language also encom- passed efforts to secure taxi ser- vice, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed convictions based ., +c v ,n- .,tvnrs..c Althnuo11d should not rely on an uncertain foundation. Predictably, S. 1722 includes an- arry of non-complaint crimes. "The only way to enforce these laws," Professor Ferency ex- plains, "is to have undercover police go into the community to cnalth ffi S " z7 ince such a