100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 24, 1980 - Image 7

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-02-24

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Bush hit for debate stance

From UPl and AP
NASHUA, N.H.-A debate between
Ronald Reagan and George Bush
exploded into a political free for all last

night when four rival GOP candidates
condemned Bush for excluding them
from the meeting.
"It was Mr. Bush who refused to go
on with the debate unless we were
excluded," said Rep. John Anderson of
Illinois. "Clearly the responsibility for
this whole travesty rests with Mr.
Bush."
UNDER THE FINAL rules, four
candidates invited by Reagan were
denied, debate seats. Sens. Howard
Baker Jr. and Bob Dole and Reps.
Philip Crane and John Anderson got a
moment on the stage behind the seated
debaters then left and roamed the
Nashua High School accusing Bush and
-the debate sponsor, the Nashua
Telegraph of "arrogance" and "closed
door politics."
Before the questions started, Reagan
insisted on making a statement saying,
"I am paying for this microphone."
He paid $3,500 to sponsore the debate
after the Federal Election Commission
would not permit the newspaper to pay
for the debate between Bush and
Reagan under campaign laws.
He recounted his dispute and said in
as - much as he was "technically the

sponsor and sponors are entitled to
some right," he had invite.d the other
candidtes.
Reagan said he had been willing to
drop out of the debate himself if the
other candidates were ruled out but was
prevailed upon to continue.
Reagan issued the invitation to his
GOP rivals earlier in the day while
campaigning in Andover, Mass.
In a series of events that could
seriously damage Bush's hopes to win
Tuesday's New Hampshire primary,
the four candidates held a joint news
conference and called the former U.N.
ambassador arrogant for wanting to
only debate fellow front-runner
Reagan.
"He wants to be king," charged Sen.
Robert Dole of Kansas.
"IS THIS AMERICA?" asked Dole.
"So fir as George Bush is concerned
he'd better find another Republican
party."
But Reagan and Bush remained
exceedingly, polite to each other despite
the rocky start of the debate.
They disagreed in substance or detail
on a handful of issues-the kind and size
of tax cuts they would propose, the

Bush
.. harshly criticized

Tuition hike of 11-13% proposed

(Continued from Page 1)
requires about $1,650,000, and a one per
cent increase in the non-salary budget
requires approximately $368,000.
Although the legislature traditionally
approves a higher education budget
above that of what the governor
recommends, the University is not an-
ticipating a larger increase.
The higher education budget was the
main beneficiary in a year which wit-
nessed recommendations for cutbacks

and small increases in other parts of
the budget. Several administrators said
there have been indications that the
legislature is unhappy about Milliken's
proposed state resource allocation.
The University's 9.5 per cent
proposed increase was also far above
that of any other college or university in
the state, causing several other in-
stitutions, including Michigan State
University, to complain that they were
slighted by Milliken's proposal.

ACTING VICE-PRESIDENT for
Academic Affairs Alfred Sussman said
last week those considerations have
"hurt us a bit."
Laverty said there was a feeling
among committee members the
recommended appropriation will not
increase, adding that the 9.5 per cent
figure was something of a surprise it-
self.
Assuming the state comes through
with a 9.5 per cent appropriation in-

'Cruising' is frigid thriller

(Continued from Page 5)
director, even though he has less
genuine style and personality, and
more reliance on sheer technical skill,
than any other well-known filmmaker
at present.
He treats the gay milieu of Cruising
with the same disturbing'
detachment-the camera zooms in for
close-ups of grinding hips and
smacking lips with a leering
fascination, yet the vision is wholly
sexless. For friedkin, it's just another
freak show. We fear for the victims and
feel sympatliy for at least a couple of
the.more personable among them, but
our fear is based solely on the fact that
we dread more of the director's clinical
shots of knives plunging deep into
naked backs and blue-grey corpses with
all-too-visible wounds. For all of its
horrors,the movie leaves the viewer
cold. You can wince through all the
violence and still emerge from the
theatre unpestered by unpleasant*
memories, because in a film so totally
devoid of humanity, the violence
becomes nothing more than a series of
momentary shocks.
The bar scenes make- the decadent
atmosphere of Looking for Mr.
Goodbar, its heterosexual companion
piece, seem tame by comparison.
Steaming bodies entwine in every
corner, and as filmed in- Friedkin's
usual cold, precise cinematography,
they're clearly presented for the
audience to ogle and snicker at.
THE ACTUAL sex acts in the movie
don't go much further than a lot of
briefly glimpsed pelvic thrusts, but this
veiled prudishness makes the
atmosphere a seem even more
unnatural, unclean. The director plays
God, an omnipotent observer, and sees
this gay subculture as Sodom. One
suspects that-he'd love to take that role
one step further and bring - it all
crashing down. He's as spooky as a
poker-faced adult who can't resist
telling children horror stories.
If 'the leather milieu is viewed as
something that crawled out from under
a rock-all gaudy, nightmarish, dark
colors-then Burns' experience in the
straight world are crudely painted in
tones of sunlight and "normality." The
contrast is despicably simplistic, but at
least it might have had some basic
emotional effect of the director had
been able to work up a little warmth for
the heterosexual world. But Friedkin's
point of view is so frigid that Burns'
lovemaking with his all-American
girlfriend seems just as perfunctory
and unappealing as all that bumper-
humping in the bars. The only glimmer
of sympathy that a straight character
shows toward the gays in the film is

pathetically condescending: Capt.
Edelson generously writes the whole lot
of them off as "scard, wierd little guys
who don't know why they have to do
what they do."
THE PERFORMANCES, locked into
this fatally undefined viewpoint, are all
as muddled and tentative as the movie.
Pacino's usual expressions of
intellectural confusion and disturbed
conscience are at home in such a vague
film, but they don't help to answer any
of the questions it raises. The only actor
who is miraculously allowed to get
away with a little charm and
believability is Don Scardino as Burns'
likeable, well-adjusted gay neighbor.
Scardino's relaxed style is more
interesting and more clearly defined
than anything else in the movie, yet
Friedkin seems almost afraid of this
one breath of genuine emotional clarity
and stability: he clumsily drops the
character entirely for nearly an hour,
then brings him back in corpse-form for
the totally convoluted finale.
While Cruising is certainly a sick and
unflattering view of homosexuals that
is likely to have a tremendous negative
influence on the opinions of
conservative viewers, it's really no
more stereotypical a look than the
picture of gays as adorable little
eccentrics in La Cage au Folles, as

brittle sit-com-ish queens with soft
hearts in Friedkin's own 1970 version of
The Boys in the Band, as consumed
psychopaths who will do anything to lay
the straight heroes and heroines in
Windows and other bad thrillers, or as
raving camp performers in Rocky
Horror.
Cruising is a wierdly regressive
statement on homosexuality, a kind of
shocked 1950's observation with lots of
up-to-date violence and menace.
Movies are a long way from dealing in
any kind of realistic or truly
sympathetic way with gays; ironically,
television, an even more conservative
medium in most ways, is likely to beat
theatrical films to that particular gates
through one of its artlessly "fair," well-
intentioned "problem dramas."
What's really threatening about
Cruising isn't its negative, limited
view-that's upsetting enough, but it
isn't really a surprise-but its total lack
of affection for any persons, gay or
straight. As a thriller, Cruising is often
flat and suspenseless, scarcely worth
remembering aside from the startling
ugliness of its graphic violence, but its
cold view of humans lingers
unpleasantly in the mind. William
Friedkin has created a movie that's
even more murderous in its chilly
overall indifference than in its surface
action.

'eatuts

:}AVE '( 5' CED
HOW TME 6ARG3YfE
1,6 m, <N6 A COME-
V.AC< fiS ,-' i

1
i

;HA'E You NoTsC~D b40'
,rAE 6,wGO /-E ist4AKiG
A COAE213ACK AT TAE
Uy 11E StT CF ,CGAN?
1\

ORIGINAL CARTOON GANG 63
Cop. 1162 by U' .d F1o',. 5.d>,d-cInt

CANTERBURY
STAGE
COMPANY
i "

i

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan