Shortbus
As someone who has a deep interest in both pornography and cinema, when the two intersect it gets special attention. A few years ago John Cameron Mitchell set out to make an American film that contained explicit sex, and the result was Shortbus, which I just got around to seeing.
Mitchell was certainly going against all manner of common sense. Any film that is made in this country that has performers openly having sex with each other is immediately labeled pornography and ghettoized as such. Of course, the labels are misleading, and Mitchell, during the making of segment on the DVD, stresses that Shortbus is not pornography. He is quite correct. Pornography, or "adult films," has a long history and the styles of changed over the years, but the primary purpose of them is to tittilate. Shortbus is a film that just happens to contain explicit sex.
The title Shortbus refers to a pansexual club in New York City that is in turn a reference to the smaller schoolbuses that cart around "special" children. "A salon for the gifted and challenged" is how it's described by its androgynous host. The club would seem to exist only in Mitchell's imagination, as it is frequented equally by gay men, lesbians, and straight people, who show their performance art and have orgies.
This is the meeting place for a few people who make up the story. Sophia is a Chinese-Canadian sex therapist who can't have an orgasm. James and Jamie are a gay couple who decided to invite a third person, Ceth, into their relationship. Meanwhile, Caleb watches all of this from across the street. And Severin is a professional dominatrix who has trouble relating to anyone at all. All of this was formed by workshop, as Mitchell cast the film first (understandably it was a delicate process) and then wrote the script after improvisation.
As indie movies go, it wasn't bad, but wasn't particularly remarkable. Clearly the sex angle sets this movie apart. This film features overt hetero and homosexual acts, including ejaculation (which you usually can't even see on cable). Mitchell, who also wrote, directed and starred in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, has clearly carved a niche for himself as the chronicler of the sexually-marginalized. The film is also pretty hot at times, though if you're interested in getting off you're better off watching something called Fuck Sluts.
I don't know if this film made any money, but I applaud the effort, despite the mixed results. Europeans have a bit more license on this kind of enterprise, but you will never a see a film like this at your local multiplex, at least not in my lifetime. This is a country that was first settled by Puritans, after all.
Mitchell was certainly going against all manner of common sense. Any film that is made in this country that has performers openly having sex with each other is immediately labeled pornography and ghettoized as such. Of course, the labels are misleading, and Mitchell, during the making of segment on the DVD, stresses that Shortbus is not pornography. He is quite correct. Pornography, or "adult films," has a long history and the styles of changed over the years, but the primary purpose of them is to tittilate. Shortbus is a film that just happens to contain explicit sex.
The title Shortbus refers to a pansexual club in New York City that is in turn a reference to the smaller schoolbuses that cart around "special" children. "A salon for the gifted and challenged" is how it's described by its androgynous host. The club would seem to exist only in Mitchell's imagination, as it is frequented equally by gay men, lesbians, and straight people, who show their performance art and have orgies.
This is the meeting place for a few people who make up the story. Sophia is a Chinese-Canadian sex therapist who can't have an orgasm. James and Jamie are a gay couple who decided to invite a third person, Ceth, into their relationship. Meanwhile, Caleb watches all of this from across the street. And Severin is a professional dominatrix who has trouble relating to anyone at all. All of this was formed by workshop, as Mitchell cast the film first (understandably it was a delicate process) and then wrote the script after improvisation.
As indie movies go, it wasn't bad, but wasn't particularly remarkable. Clearly the sex angle sets this movie apart. This film features overt hetero and homosexual acts, including ejaculation (which you usually can't even see on cable). Mitchell, who also wrote, directed and starred in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, has clearly carved a niche for himself as the chronicler of the sexually-marginalized. The film is also pretty hot at times, though if you're interested in getting off you're better off watching something called Fuck Sluts.
I don't know if this film made any money, but I applaud the effort, despite the mixed results. Europeans have a bit more license on this kind of enterprise, but you will never a see a film like this at your local multiplex, at least not in my lifetime. This is a country that was first settled by Puritans, after all.
Hell, you're unlikely to see straightforward homosexual (unless it's lesbian) sex even in European film. Considering the leaps and bounds that these kinds of depictions have made over the last couple of decades, I'm pretty sure it can't be that far off.
ReplyDeleteShortbus looks mediocre, though.