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, ,d-cInt CANTERBURY STAGE COMPANY i " i