This film seemed to me to be a rather sick heterosexual fantasy of violence with little connection with reality. It was also very difficult to work out what was going on. Why did we have that (as usual, offensive) bit of heterosex at the beginning ? It seems that every film now has to include sex and violence (usually with guns).
I cruised in toilets in countries where homosexuality was illegal, and where there were occasional police raids. I cruised in East Berlin in 1986, which turned out to be a better experience than any I had in West Berlin.
Heterosexuals seem to be taking ownership of queerness as American cinema has taken over the whole world. I have met over 100 queers and none of them had had problems with the police.
There have been stories of police acting as agents-provocateurs in 'cottages', and certainly this did occur.
The main problem for queers (especially those who looked vulnerable) was drunken or homophobic or otherwise-disturbed youths and young men in twos or threes - or, occasionally, gangs.
I think that there is some tiny bit of truth in the fascist "Cold Winter Theory" as evidenced in the thousands of films that have issued and are still issuing from European (American, Australian etc) film makers whose films almost all contain enacted sex, violence and (slightly less often) firearms. This supposedly LGBTQ-supporting film had all of them...appealing not to LGBTQ people but to thrill-seeking heterosexual 'normals'.
This film seemed to me to be a cynical exploitation/exaggeration of situations that occurred on either side of the Iron Curtain. In my country (Ireland) 'homosexual acts' weren't legalised until 1987, and public toilets, such as 'mushrooms', 'cottages', 'tasses', etc were much used by men seeking partners, pals, friends for life - or instant relief. From 1966 to 1996 I never once encountered a policeman, except once or twice IN UNIFORM as a warning in Belfast's Botanic Gardens.
