Shortbus Movie Review
Jun. 3rd, 2007 11:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAh. I sent my review of The Waitress into that website - http://lucidculture.wordpress.com. We'll see if they post it.
And yes I know the site is mainly CD reviews, and I have no clue why Wales wanted me to write a movie review for them or why they wanted one. But whatever. It does not post negative reviews, which is something I appreciate. There is so much negativity online already - why add to it, if you can avoid it?
Speaking of criticism or negativity - have you ever noticed that the people who are the *most* critical are the most *sensitive* to it? Why is that? It's almost as if we are so critical of others and ourselves, that whenever anyone criticizes us - it's as if they've taken a highlighter and underlined all the things we are thinking and trying to ignore.
Saw Shortbus by John Cameron Mitchell on DVD via Netflix. Not at all what I expected. I expected it to have more sex and less talk, also to be more erotic and more focused on NYC's S&M and sexual underground. It's not. Very arty - with some innovative camera work but it at times feels like art for the sake of art, or like the filmmaker is showing off as opposed to trying to just tell a story.
Whether or not you like this film, may have a great deal to do with what type of presentation you prefer. Shortbus is an extreemly *talky* movie, except people didn't seem to be saying all that much and we spent a lot of time wandering about. There is a lot of sex in the film, but none of it is the least bit erotic or interesting, outside of the opening bit - where we watch a guy masturbating while doing yoga. He manages to do something I did not think was possible, which is give himself what amounts to a blow job. The film may be worth seeing just for that opening sequence.
It's mostly a film about people hunting *connection* and *enjoyment* through sex, yet not quite finding it or feeling satisfied by it. One character, Severn, even states at the beginning of the film that whenever she has an orgasm, she feels alone, completely disconnected. Later, we see this demonstrated - she has developed a fairly close relationship and burgeoning friendship with the main character - a Chinese-Canadian couples therapist - struggling with her own sexual identity. They met daily in a sensory deprivation chamber to chat. The relationship is going quite well until they visit Shortbus (a club specializing in sexual group activities and discovery), make out, and Severn ends up having an orgasm, while the couples therapist lies beneath her bored and frustrated. Afterwards, the couples therapist gives Severn the brush-off. Sex if anything distances the two women from one another as opposed to bringing them closer. Same thing happens with the couples therapist and her husband, they have a lot of sex - in every position imaginable at the beginning of the film. Graphic sex. Full frontal. Yet it is boring and unerotic. Like watching two bodies push at each other and grunt. Afterwards, we learn, that neither character was satisfied. The husband is a closet masochist, who needs to be dominated and beaten, not stroked. He feels inadequate in his working life - he delivers meals on wheels for a living as a nurse and hospice worker. His wife makes all the money. Apparently quite a bit as a couples therapist - from the size of their apartment. The woman hunts through the whole film for sexual release, masturbates, gropes with others and at the end seems to find it in her dreams, then returns to Shortbus to engage in a threesome with two people she watched having sex earlier in the film.
That's one story thread. The other, more central thread, is a homosexual love story between two men - one who is depressed and wants to die, and his lover. Their attempt to reconnect through sex and failure to do so. It is oddly a voyeur from the opposite apartment who aids in their reconciliation. This thread is harder to follow and has quite a bit of graphic sex, at one point we watch three men attempting to jerk each other off - it is very real, but also not all that interesting - at least it wasn't to me. Was it necessary? I don't think so. I think the filmmaker was doing it for shock value - look what I can do. I don't think it furthered the story or added to the characters - and I think he could have gotten the message across much faster. All we needed was the one sex scene between the three of them - witnessed by the voyeur. That was it. Instead we get a drawn out twenty minute section, in which nothing much happens. It's not until we jump to another story, then back again, that the action moves forward.
When writing fight or sex sequences for film or books - it is vital that you move the story forward or the characters forward. Otherwise the fight or sex scene comes across as gratuitous and the writer/director masturbating - not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that - I just find it boring.
What surprised me about Shortbus was the focus was on homosexual love and sex. And the homosexual love story at the center is rather bittersweet. You care about the two men.
You also care about the Asian woman who is struggling with her own identity, which to an extent is defined through sex. A rather amusing bit in the film is her assertion and assumption that organism can only be achieved with another person or in tandeum with that person. Not true. As Severn points out -stating she only achieves it alone. The difficulty being that the other person's needs may conflict or be opposed to yours. You may love each other, but not be sexually compatible.
It's a subtle question that Shortbus poses, and answers to a degree - should you stay with someone who doesn't satisfy you sexually? And if so, is it okay to find other ways to satisfy the sexual urge? What Shorbus states - is yes to both. You can love someone who can't satisfy you sexually, but should be allowed to explore other avenues if that is the case. The two gay men do this - as does the Asian Woman and her husband - all four are still together at the end, the only thing that has changed is they have found other people to satisfy that urge. Love in the world of Shortbus is not necessarily connected to sexual gratification. But if you love someone enough - you are willing to let them explore it elsewhere, knowing they still love you and will come back to you.
The DVD has a commentary on how to film a graphic group sex scene - it's not as interesting as it sounds. So far the only commentary that I've seen on a film that was interesting was Jane Campion's for In the Cut.
Odd film.
And yes I know the site is mainly CD reviews, and I have no clue why Wales wanted me to write a movie review for them or why they wanted one. But whatever. It does not post negative reviews, which is something I appreciate. There is so much negativity online already - why add to it, if you can avoid it?
Speaking of criticism or negativity - have you ever noticed that the people who are the *most* critical are the most *sensitive* to it? Why is that? It's almost as if we are so critical of others and ourselves, that whenever anyone criticizes us - it's as if they've taken a highlighter and underlined all the things we are thinking and trying to ignore.
Saw Shortbus by John Cameron Mitchell on DVD via Netflix. Not at all what I expected. I expected it to have more sex and less talk, also to be more erotic and more focused on NYC's S&M and sexual underground. It's not. Very arty - with some innovative camera work but it at times feels like art for the sake of art, or like the filmmaker is showing off as opposed to trying to just tell a story.
Whether or not you like this film, may have a great deal to do with what type of presentation you prefer. Shortbus is an extreemly *talky* movie, except people didn't seem to be saying all that much and we spent a lot of time wandering about. There is a lot of sex in the film, but none of it is the least bit erotic or interesting, outside of the opening bit - where we watch a guy masturbating while doing yoga. He manages to do something I did not think was possible, which is give himself what amounts to a blow job. The film may be worth seeing just for that opening sequence.
It's mostly a film about people hunting *connection* and *enjoyment* through sex, yet not quite finding it or feeling satisfied by it. One character, Severn, even states at the beginning of the film that whenever she has an orgasm, she feels alone, completely disconnected. Later, we see this demonstrated - she has developed a fairly close relationship and burgeoning friendship with the main character - a Chinese-Canadian couples therapist - struggling with her own sexual identity. They met daily in a sensory deprivation chamber to chat. The relationship is going quite well until they visit Shortbus (a club specializing in sexual group activities and discovery), make out, and Severn ends up having an orgasm, while the couples therapist lies beneath her bored and frustrated. Afterwards, the couples therapist gives Severn the brush-off. Sex if anything distances the two women from one another as opposed to bringing them closer. Same thing happens with the couples therapist and her husband, they have a lot of sex - in every position imaginable at the beginning of the film. Graphic sex. Full frontal. Yet it is boring and unerotic. Like watching two bodies push at each other and grunt. Afterwards, we learn, that neither character was satisfied. The husband is a closet masochist, who needs to be dominated and beaten, not stroked. He feels inadequate in his working life - he delivers meals on wheels for a living as a nurse and hospice worker. His wife makes all the money. Apparently quite a bit as a couples therapist - from the size of their apartment. The woman hunts through the whole film for sexual release, masturbates, gropes with others and at the end seems to find it in her dreams, then returns to Shortbus to engage in a threesome with two people she watched having sex earlier in the film.
That's one story thread. The other, more central thread, is a homosexual love story between two men - one who is depressed and wants to die, and his lover. Their attempt to reconnect through sex and failure to do so. It is oddly a voyeur from the opposite apartment who aids in their reconciliation. This thread is harder to follow and has quite a bit of graphic sex, at one point we watch three men attempting to jerk each other off - it is very real, but also not all that interesting - at least it wasn't to me. Was it necessary? I don't think so. I think the filmmaker was doing it for shock value - look what I can do. I don't think it furthered the story or added to the characters - and I think he could have gotten the message across much faster. All we needed was the one sex scene between the three of them - witnessed by the voyeur. That was it. Instead we get a drawn out twenty minute section, in which nothing much happens. It's not until we jump to another story, then back again, that the action moves forward.
When writing fight or sex sequences for film or books - it is vital that you move the story forward or the characters forward. Otherwise the fight or sex scene comes across as gratuitous and the writer/director masturbating - not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that - I just find it boring.
What surprised me about Shortbus was the focus was on homosexual love and sex. And the homosexual love story at the center is rather bittersweet. You care about the two men.
You also care about the Asian woman who is struggling with her own identity, which to an extent is defined through sex. A rather amusing bit in the film is her assertion and assumption that organism can only be achieved with another person or in tandeum with that person. Not true. As Severn points out -stating she only achieves it alone. The difficulty being that the other person's needs may conflict or be opposed to yours. You may love each other, but not be sexually compatible.
It's a subtle question that Shortbus poses, and answers to a degree - should you stay with someone who doesn't satisfy you sexually? And if so, is it okay to find other ways to satisfy the sexual urge? What Shorbus states - is yes to both. You can love someone who can't satisfy you sexually, but should be allowed to explore other avenues if that is the case. The two gay men do this - as does the Asian Woman and her husband - all four are still together at the end, the only thing that has changed is they have found other people to satisfy that urge. Love in the world of Shortbus is not necessarily connected to sexual gratification. But if you love someone enough - you are willing to let them explore it elsewhere, knowing they still love you and will come back to you.
The DVD has a commentary on how to film a graphic group sex scene - it's not as interesting as it sounds. So far the only commentary that I've seen on a film that was interesting was Jane Campion's for In the Cut.
Odd film.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-03 05:18 pm (UTC)That's exactly right. People tend to criticise in others the things they are most critical about in themselves. (Which fits in with your comments regarding body size too.) The most critical people I see are also extremely critical of themseves, often unnecessarily. If we don't like ourselves, for whatever reason (I blame the parents of course), we force down those emotions, which then become so strong that when we see the same faults in others we are overwhelmingly driven to lash out at them. The more someone refuses to face his fears, the greater the fears become and the more violent the actions when they do leak out.
Regarding the movie, it's so strange to see people try to make up for what is lacking inside through relationships and especailly sex. Our society has buit up sex to be this huge thing, yet we so often don't understand why it can be so unsatisfying in the wrong circumstances.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-04 11:30 am (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/salon_virtuel/16572.html