shortbus.jpg


Sex on the Brain

Shortbus / Jeremy C. Fox

Film Reviews | October 15, 2006 | Comments (27)


Americans are weird about sex, and our passionate ambivalence toward this most basic function manifests itself nowhere more clearly than in our movies. Over the past hundred years, movie theaters have served as an essential site of courtship and of more than a few surreptitious assignations, but more importantly, the movie screen is a billboard for our fantasies, the place where the most beautiful products of human evolution and cosmetic surgery strut, saunter, and — if we’re lucky — sprawl for our delectation. But our natural prurience is counterbalanced by our society’s compulsion to quash any healthy enjoyment of sexuality. From the beginning, films that dealt with sexual subject matter have been subject to protests, censorship, and outright bans. As the recent documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated demonstrated — confirming what we already knew — the MPAA ratings board is far more permissive about scenes of violence than of sexuality, particularly if those scenes depict homosexual acts or — God forbid — a woman experiencing pleasure.

Fortunately, our prudery has a new counterbalance of its own: John Cameron Mitchell. Those who know Mitchell at all know him as the writer/director/star of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, the play and, later, film, about a transsexual East German glam rocker. Hedwig embraces a complex web of sexual identities and desires, but it is essentially a romantic and — forgive me — “life-affirming” allegory about someone who sets out to find the person who will make him whole and ultimately finds himself. After Hedwig, Mitchell wanted to go in another, bolder direction — a film that examined several sexual relationships between young people in New York and depicted explicit, unsimulated sex acts. Without a script or any specific agenda, he assembled a cast of attractive, uninhibited performers and began a two-year process of developing their characters and improvising scenes, from which he developed a final screenplay. The result, first shown last spring at Cannes to raves from audiences and critics alike, is Shortbus.

So let’s get this out of the way: It ain’t porn. Yes, you can see countless acts of fornication, bondage and domination, a gay three-way, cunnilingus, analingus, and any other lingus you might like, but these are the garnish, not the meal. Mitchell is after the ways that young people today use sex — as a way to connect, or to feel a fleeting illusion of connection, or to simply feel something in a world benumbed by terrorism, war, and rampant political corruption. When moral watchdogs and elected officials seek to tell us what we can do with our bodies, when our options for sexual fulfillment and even our access to basic information about contraception and abortion may be dictated by partisan gamesmanship, sex becomes a political act. And in this sense as well as others, Shortbus is a political film.

The title is the name of a sex-club-cum-artists’-salon where the characters gather to talk about art and politics, to listen to music and poetry, and to engage in enormous, polymorphously industrious orgies. The characters consist of three “couples” and others who become entangled in their relationships: There are Jamie (PJ DeBoy) and James (Paul Dawson) a gay couple slowly disintegrating as James succumbs to depression; they pick up Ceth (pronounced “Seth,” played by Jay Brannan) and take him home hoping he can reinvigorate their unfulfilling sex life. James and Jamie are seeing a couples’ counselor named Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee) who is drawn into the Shortbus by her own sexual problem: She and her husband Rob (Raphael Barker) have elaborate, acrobatic sex, but she has never had an orgasm. She discusses her frustration with the hostess of the club, Justin Bond (his real name, though he’s better known as Kiki of the New York cabaret act Kiki and Herb) and also with a bitter dominatrix named Severin (Lindsay Beamish), who’s trailed everywhere by her needy new client Jesse (Adam Hardman).

The several narrative threads interweave through loosely structured sequences that are more about character than plot. Though a few scenes are slow or seem unessential, the ratio of hits to misses is better than two to one, and the insights, when they come, are worth the wait. Shortbus is a corrective to typical movie sex, in which two people are possessed by a powerful mutual passion that vanquishes any embarrassment or clumsiness and the parts snap together like Legos. Mitchell’s sexual frankness allows for a rare depiction of the awkwardness of trying to adapt to another person’s desires or preferences. Sex comes cheaply in this world, but actual understanding of someone else’s needs, or even one’s own, is a rare commodity.

The issues Mitchell addresses aren’t new — Antonioni and Godard were dealing with many of the same ones 40 years ago — but he has a rare eye for the unease, obsessiveness, loneliness, and desperation that can often characterize our romantic relationships in this millennium. And the film is very particularly addressed to the current age, with terrorism and war on everyone’s minds. Every period of violence and uncertainty awakens our basic human need to connect with another person, but the alienation of a post-industrial society — where so many interactions are virtual, and sex doesn’t even require a partner in the same room — makes such connections more than usually fraught with uncertainty: How can we be sure if another person’s feelings are real, or even if our own are? And as a generation that largely views feeling as synonymous with hurting, are we even sure we want them to be? Mitchell doesn’t have any simple answers, but he goes farther than anyone yet has in asking these questions. Breaking the taboos of movie sex allows him to set them aside and get at a deeper understanding of the ways that sex can connect us and the ways that, no matter how we might wish otherwise, it never can.

Jeremy C. Fox is a founding critic of Pajiba and a member of the Online Film Critics Society.You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.

ofcs.gif


Jackass: Number Two | Little Children



Comments

First, liberal bitches!

Posted by: Me at October 10, 2006 11:02 AM

I wonder. Is this a sad movie? It seems that almost every artistic (non-Employee of the month) movie that involves a frank discussion of sex and interpersonal relationships ends up being unhappy. Can't the person ever REALLY enjoy being bent over.......

I keep getting flashbacks of that movie "Kids".

Posted by: NYSailorScout at October 10, 2006 11:17 AM

But Kids wasn't about the sex, the sex was part of what the movie was about.

Great review, now I want to see this. Hedwig didn't impress me all that much honestly, but this sounds good.

I also like that he doesn't try to answer the questions he raises (at least from what Mr. Fox says near the end), too often films try to answer the questions they raise, and only end up failing to give a good answer and ruining the movie. The best are those that ask questions and leave it up to the audience to think and hopefully discuss the questions (ie Kids).

Posted by: SteveA at October 10, 2006 11:39 AM

Innovative, frank, open-minded...I will never be able to see this in a theater in Kansas City. Damn you cow-town!

Posted by: Matty at October 10, 2006 11:47 AM

Sounds interesting. Plus Hedwig really was "life-affirming"..well in my opinion. It'll be cool to see what Mitchell does with this movie.

Posted by: em at October 10, 2006 12:34 PM

I first saw Hedwig in college with a room full of immature jocks (I'm not saying that the two are corollary, they just happened to be in this case). I loved Hedwig, and I'm excited to get the chance to select my viewing partners for a second Mitchell film. Hooray!

Posted by: Bec at October 10, 2006 4:22 PM

I thought Hedwig was pretty damn impressive myself. However, I'm pretty leery of seeing this - call me a prude if you want, but it's an incredibly tough sell to get me to pay to see a movie with an explicit gay orgy scene, regardless of how good the film may actually be in every other respect. Not that every gay-themed film has to be visually limited to say, Gods and Monsters, but I don't think I'm off in believing that the vast majority of people just won't care to see this movie for similar reasons.

In the age of widespread, ultra-hardcore and free internet porn, breaking cinematic taboos to get more explicit sex (straight, gay, whatever) into the movie houses seems somewhat... quaint, as well. If that was in fact a point of this.

Posted by: Anonoguy at October 10, 2006 6:06 PM

Fucking fantastic review. I will be seeing this.

"When moral watchdogs and elected officials seek to tell you what you can do with your body, sex is a political act."

Amazing. You put into words something I've felt for a while.

Posted by: Vi at October 11, 2006 3:46 AM

Excellent review. I loved Hedwig and the Angry Inch. I heard about this film before reading your review, but now I really want to see it.

Posted by: patty at October 11, 2006 3:04 PM

Hedwig is one of my favorite movies. I actually got the same tattoo as Hedwig in the movie because it moved me so much. Okay, so I'm fanatical. I'll admit it. =)
So obviously I'm a fan of Mitchell and I WILL be seeing this movie, as it sounds completely amazing.

Posted by: Kim at October 11, 2006 10:45 PM

I actually just saw this last week at a special screening in Boston in which John Cameron Mitchell attended and he answered questions for the audience after the movie. I really liked it (except for the ending).

NYSailorScout, you mention that you thought it might be a sad movie and that it would be nice to see a film about sex that doesn't have to be so negative in the end. Well, without giving anything away, this movie happens to end with an ultimately positive and overly cheerful conclusion. So yes, ultimately, everyone walks away having learned something and progressed a little with a better understanding of their relationships and sexuality. JCM even said at the question and answer session that the few explicitly sexual non-porn movies that ever get made usually come from Europe and they always end with violence or death. He said that's what motived him to want to make the film and show sex as a positive thing.

As much as I liked the film (especially Sook-Yin Lee as the non-orgasmic sex therapist), I actually hated the feel good ending. Maybe I have been conditioned to witness movie sex in a certain way, but I really felt like the end was a big cheat and a little too artsy fartsy for my tastes. Although I appreciate the fact that it didn't end on a negative note, I also felt like all the characters still had a long ways to go to get to a place where there relationships were healthy and weren't going to continue to be plagued with serious problems. I especially feel like the depressed character's story got tied up in a little bow a little too neatly. It sort of shortchanged the real issues that people with depression go through.

All in all, I think it was a good movie that is unlike anything else out there and deserves to be seen, but ultimately the end left me a little disappointed. I'm curious as to what others will think about it after it gets released.

Posted by: Tallsonofagun at October 12, 2006 1:11 PM

This is one of the few reviews on this site I have ever agreed with, although I usually enjoy the writing anyway. I saw Shortbus this summer at a special screening in Olympia, and adored it. I was leery that it would be too over the top arty and stylized for me, but it absolutely wasn't. The characters are incredibly real and multidimensional, they seem like people you would know rather than characters in a movie. There are so few films that reflect back to us our actual experiences with life and sex in a way that is useful- most filmmaking is just about fantasy. I feel like our generation is lucky to have this film. Mr. Mitchell was so intelligent, thoughtful, and modest during the Q&A, I really respected his intentions with the film and felt they were beautifully realized. I REALLY REALLY encourage people to go see this movie opening weekend- travel if you have to! We need to make sure it stays in theatres as long as possible, and send hollywood the message that we want more of this sort of film.

Posted by: tina at October 13, 2006 2:37 PM

"When moral watchdogs and elected officials seek to tell you what you can do with your body, sex is a political act."

This is nothing new. I'm a high school English teacher, and my 12th graders have just finished reading George Orwell's 1984. That book, in case you're not familiar with it, was written in 1949 and describes a futuristic world in which a totalitarian government controls all aspects of human behavoir and thought. Sex with one's spouse was your "duty to the Party" to create more Party members. Extra-marital affairs were absolutely forbidden. In Orwell's own words, "Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act."

It's a brave new world, ladies and gentlemen...

Posted by: Ariel at October 13, 2006 9:58 PM

Interesting review, but I'm puzzled by the comment about "moral watchdogs and elected officials" seeking "to tell you what you can do with your body." Who, exactly, is telling you what to do with your body--aside from the debate about abortion, if you frame it in those terms? If anything, people are freer with their bodies these days--not just sexually, but in terms of self-expression--than they were just a decade or two ago. For example, remember when only bikers and ex-cons were supposed to have tattoos? Now you see teachers and librarians and even suburban soccer moms with them.

People can invoke Orwell all they want, but I don't see anybody actually outlawing, or even attempting to outlaw, sex itself. Even those who don't want gay couples to legally marry aren't actually preventing them from having intercourse. A lot of people seem to construe any moral code that doesn't wholeheartedly endorse the "anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" sexual ethic as an attempt to actually control other people's sex lives. This is absurd, not to mention a little paranoid. Saying that that you don't think people should do something isn't even remotely equivalent to enacting legislation that forbids them to do it. There's a considerable distance between differences of opinion (even publicly expressed) and actual oppression.

Posted by: KG at October 14, 2006 10:46 AM

Sorry to run this excellent (so far) thread off the tracks of actually discussing the actual movie, but I can't let KG's comments go without pointing out a few obvious examples of modern legislation that directly affects our sex lives.

Caveat: I'm not about to spend a half hour looking up the precise laws and states where these laws are being pushed through, but I've read enough about it through Dan Savage, Bust Magazine, etc. and I would think other people would be aware of these things too.

HPV vaccination - right-wing groups have spent months, if not years, trying to prevent the FDA from approving a vaccination that can prevent ovarian and uterine cancer because HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, so in their minds, to provide a vaccine is to encourage sex.

High school sex education (or the lack thereof) - studies are now showing that in many of the school districts where the only sex education is abstinence-only, the teen pregnancy rate is going up. These abstinence-only programs are federally mandated.

Morning-after pill - this has been all over the news so much I really shouldn't have to even bring this one up. At least some states have approved dispensation with ID, although that still restricts minors from being able to purchase without notifying their parents (who could be responsible for the situation!).

I believe there are also a number of states that consider sodomy a criminal offence, and then of course there is the draconian resistance to abortion.

Sounds to me like you are a straight male, KG, because women and queers are more than aware of the politicians still trying to control the most private aspects of our lives.

Posted by: Karina at October 16, 2006 1:58 PM

Thank God for JCM. He is incredibly thoughtful with topics that are easily cartoonish in our society (transsexual rockers with heart anyone?!?) Hedwig is a fantastic film, funny and emotionally moving at the same time. You don't have to be female or gay to appreciate it.

I look forward to seeing this film, and I hope this is the sophomore effort in a long and illustrious directing career.

Posted by: Britt at October 16, 2006 2:31 PM

Karina, I'm actually a straight woman. But you point out a lot of things I hadn't taken into account--many of which gave me some pause for thought. Thanks for your comment.

Posted by: KG at October 16, 2006 8:12 PM

I just came from seeing Shortbus and I'm totally in awe. It's a great film. The sex was handled wonderfully, so rather than seeming prurient and pornish it came off intimate, beautiful, fun and a refreshing change of pace from all the other sex-dreck we usually see in movies.

Huge kudos to Mitchell for creating such a wonderfully honest film. And big thanks to the actors who weren't afraid to let us see them masturbate themselves and have sex. I have to say, that was a lot of fun to watch! It didn't give me a hard on but it did give me more than a few big smiles as the film progressed.

It's good stuff - so worth seeing.

Posted by: Tom Clark at October 17, 2006 1:59 AM

You know what's refreshing? Those who have an open enough mind to consider someone else's POV. Kudos to Karina and KG for not resorting to petty insults over an interesting topic. Yay!

Posted by: Daphne at October 17, 2006 10:59 PM

I haven't seen this film or any of the other "mainstream" films with unsimulated sex (Brown Bunnies and Nine Songs come to mind), and while I do not have any problem with the idea of people having sex (on or off camera), I am always a bit suspicious of films (or other media formats) that incorporate explicit sex into stories that claim to be about something more profound. I guess my point boils down to the question of whether the depiction of sex itself is necessary to the exploration of the underlying ideas.

Older films that were made at a time when social norms were much more restrictive still managed to incorporate sex and to be "sexy" without putting the sex in your face. Is watching other people have sex a prerequisite to a meaningful discussion about sex and sexuality?

What annoys me is the use of some pseudo-intellectual discussion as the excuse to show people having sex. I am thinking of the late night television "documentaries" about "alternate life styles" or the sex trade that are really just a way for people to watch porn while convincing themselves that they are not watching porn.

Maybe the explicit sex in this movie really is necessary to the story of alienation that it is ostensibly exploring. Then again, maybe it is just that sex, as always, sells. And it sounds like the sex in this movie is way better than the sex between semi-flaccid men and women who can't even moan convincingly found in the typical porn movie.

All that said, I still want to see the film: that Sook-Yin Lee is hot!

Posted by: GC at October 18, 2006 9:00 AM

I'm just going to say that this movie was boring as all get out for having so much sex in it. As far as it being better than porn sex - I don't think so. Neither are convincing, but at least porn sex is funny sometimes, this movie was just incredibly yawn worthy and trite.

Posted by: YAWN at October 19, 2006 7:05 AM

If Kiki *ahem* Justin Bond is in this, I'm seeing it. Remember, "A white man'll fuck you, but he won't take you to dinner"

Posted by: Adam at October 20, 2006 11:50 AM

This movie was amazing. It doesn't allow for a pornographic feel because the characters are real. There is a heavy depth to them that prevents the audience from objectifying them sexually. That is what makes this movie significant and better than pornography. The sex is real (not in the sense of unsimulated, in the sense of being flawed and emotionally complicated), the relationships are imperfect, and the discussions are frank.

I don't see how this effort to bring healthy and realistic depictions of sex into mainstream theater could be considered quaint. When an individual's only source of information about sex is pornography, sexual dysfunction will abound -- objectification is often not the best way to approach intimacy in a relationship. Shortbus shows people having sex, not body parts and high heels. It shows the struggles of sexual satisfaction, of pleasing your partner, of maintaining emotional connections. None of which is pornography capable of tackling or even mentioning.

This movie is almost anti-pornographic. It's a movement in the opposite direction on a sexual spectrum. In the audience, I was so caught up with understanding the characters, and watching their lives unfold that I was not aroused by their sex acts. You're not allowed the distance of voyeurism (and therefore arousal), because you're not watching body parts, or objects, you're watching veritable individuals engaging in the issues that are endemic to contemporary relationships. Issues that anyone in the audience will be able to relate to, gay, straight, male, or female. Issues that should be opened up for discussion in non-pornographic ways.

Posted by: DV at October 26, 2006 1:29 PM

SEX

Posted by: SHAHAB at October 26, 2006 3:56 PM

SEX

Posted by: SHAHAB at October 26, 2006 3:57 PM

KG, another example is that in Alabama it is illegal to buy or sell sex toys. As well as all the things Karina said.

As for the film, I can't wait to see it!

Posted by: amanda at March 14, 2007 12:25 PM

Amanda,
Technically not. I live in alabama and i can promise you that there are places where the bible thumpers don't go where one can in fact buy sex toys....
we just can't call them that ;-) Personal massagers, Marital Aids, plus there are all sorts of rules about how many miles they can be located from schools and churches and all sorts of stuff. Not arguing your point, just stating that if you do live in alabama you can find them, you just have to be willing to look!

Posted by: Lindsay at March 28, 2007 6:06 PM