Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > ImageDom > Celluloid Kink |
|
Shortbus “Shortbus” (2006) – John Cameron Mitchell When released this film’s main claim to fame was that all the sex was “real”. The actors were not pretending to “get it on”, they were. This is a trend I explored in another review (9 Songs/ Intimacy). The second claim was that it was John Cameron Mitchell’s (Hedwig and the Angry Itch; 2001) second feature film. Both played key roles in the buzz about the film. The first five minutes of the film is a wonderful sequence. New York is established through a computer generated fly-through that attempts to look more like a vibrant three-dimensional expressionist painting rather than a digital realism recreation. The audience is introduced to each character by entering their windows to reveal them in various sexual encounters. Everything is established; solo masturbation; a dominatrix in action with a John; a run through of top-ten in the Kama Sutra by a straight couple; auto-fellatio to completion; and voyeurism all crisply cut to a sultry version of the jazz classic “Is You Is or Is You ‘Ain’t My Baby”. This establishes that sex is definitely going to be a major theme and that there is wry humour in how it will be treated. The ensemble cast each have their own lives, social and sexual, that cross paths at the Bohemian New York salon, “Short Bus”. There are two couples (one hetero the other gay) and two singles (the dominatrix and the voyeur). The straight couple is comprised of a “sex therapist” and her altruistic under-employed partner who seem to have a wonderful sexual relationship but one where she does not achieve orgasm (nor has she ever done so). The long-term gay couple, seem to have a strained emotional bond, although a strong one, and seek change through bringing others into their sexual repertoire. The dominatrix is void of any relationship, and is struggling with her occupation versus her desire to create art in a “normal” world. The gay voyeur is living his closeted life “out” vicariously through observing and documenting the gay couple’s life. As complex as that sounds, this is established very early on quite simply. The resolution to all their anxieties are sought at the Shortbus. The Shortbus salon is a wonderful enclave where talk, music, film, theatre, parlour games and of course, open orgies, create the free flowing environment where the ability to express thought, art, and eroticism is the road to personal growth. It is in these scenes where the visual humour is lessened and the play of words drives the humour. The best lines are delivered by Julian Bond the cross-dressing gay hostess of the Shortbus. Many reviews have quoted these lines, but they won’t be revealed/spoiled here. The film has all the nuances of a stage-play. It certainly could play on stage with ease, and the “live-sex” would be a kind of homage to experimental theatre of the late 60’s and early 70’s (the original production of the musical “Hair” (1967) became infamous for its’ nudity, drugs, sex and music). One can even see a nod toward “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (1975). “Shortbus” also features musical numbers, and music usage, that offers resolution and quirky humour compliments to the storyline. The homage is particularly clear in the final sequence of the film. Along similar lines, the film can also be viewed as an homage to the film “radicals” also of that era who were attempting to blend/blur the line between cinema and pornography so that the later was a compliment rather than a segment easily snipped from the story by censors. It could be why the opening of the film “gets it all in the open” in the first five minutes. Sort of a “here’s what the buzz is about, let the story begin” approach. The anxieties that the characters are seeking to resolve are somehow less than captivating. Although these issues are “huge” for them, the audience is not so drawn to empathy (possibly with the exception of therapist Sophia and her pre-orgasmic state). However in the real world, therapy or counseling is often for the “needy well”. By that I mean individuals often become focused on an issue that manifests itself as a huge barrier to growth or self-realization, while to an outsider the issue is miniscule. The characters who visit Shortbus require the “outrageous” free-flowing sexual expression to shatter the self-imposed walls they have constructed. Free-sex as a catalyst. The film is one that requires a few viewings for it to grow on you. This is not an issue however since it is one of those films you are less likely to talk about unless the other person has seen it. The storyline percolates in with each viewing as one’s “sensitivity” (however that is defined) to the depictions of sex is softened with repeated viewings. A caution should be offered in that if one really, really feels uncomfortable about portrayals of gay-male sex then this film will make one uneasy since the visuals are frank and comprise about 60% of the real sex in the film. This film is worth the watch and in the end does express the "joy" in sexual expression. ------------------------------------- Note: The intriguing Heather from the “Alternative” video store on Whtye Ave (Edmonton, Alberta) was of the opinion that the ideas and how they were expressed were somewhat “tame” in order to give balance to the “real” sex portrayed. That is definitely a valid perception. However, one could as easily invert the premise, in that the sex was so open and up front because the ideas expressed are somewhat less compelling. It is a tough call to make. Note: Two other films that approach the themes here are “Jeffrey” (1995) and “David Roche Talks to You About Love” (1983) although “David Roche” really focuses on the kind of verbal exchanges found in the Shortbus and “Jeffrey” takes the opposite approach in that the main character seeks understanding by avoiding sex altogether. Note: When we finally get to see the video that the character James has been working on throughout the film it reminded me of the auto-biographical film “Tarnation” (2003) by Jonathan Caouette. That film is a harsh but somewhat necessary viewing about a tragic life brought to cathartic resolution. It turns out that John Cameron Mitchell was one of the executive producers on “Tarnation”, and Caouette cameos in “Shortbus” as the salon guest who reaches in and grabs a handful of snacks off a server.  |
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
×
×