Shortbus Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Voyeurism is Participation
You've got to get on to get off
Open Your Mind. And Everything Else.
Numerous New York City-dwellers come to the exclusive club Shortbus to work out problems in their sexual relationships. Rob and Sophia are a happily married couple, except for the fact that she has never experienced sexual climax. This irony follows her to work, because she is a couples counselor who frequently has to deal with the sexual issues other couples have. Two of her patients are Jamie and James, a gay couple who have been monogamous for five years and counting. James wants to bring other men in to the relationship, and his own history with depression may hint at an ulterior motive. Ceth (Pronounced like Seth) may be the perfect addition to their family, but Caleb, a voyeur from across the street, may have his own ideas about that. Sophia visits Severin, a dominatrix with secrets of her own to reveal.
| Paul Dawson | James |
| PJ DeBoy | Jamie |
| Raphael Barker | Rob |
| Peter Stickles | Caleb, the Stalker |
| Jay Brannan | Ceth |
| Alan Mandell | Tobias, the Mayor |
| Adam Hardman | Jesse, the John |
| Ray Rivas | Shabbos Goy |
| Justin Hagan | Brad |
| Jan Hilmer | Nick, the Beautiful Couple |
| Stephen Kent Jusick | Creamy |
| Derek Jackson | Derek |
| Paul Oakley Stovall | Magnus |
| Justin Bond | Himself |
| David Pittu | Jacuzzi Hunter |
6.80 out of 10 (9109 votes)
Visitor Reviews
voyage towards PROFOUND LOVE
posted on 28 Aug 2009There is so much sex in this movie …that my face was turning red during half of the film. Though ultimately this film is about relationships and LOVE. It let's us know that we are all interconnected in this life through SEX and LOVE. Despite what your views are about sex …it what makes us not only feel alive but also allow us to be part of nature. It really surprised me how much of Sofia and the other couples show so much of themselves out into the open. The film is about two couples and 2 other people, but one of the most interesting people is Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), a married sex-therapist who have never achieved orgasm and along with her husband Rob (Raphael Barker) …they embark in this quest by going to the free-thinking- place called Shortbus. Even though Sofia visits it first, this place changes their lives. Plus the lives of a gay couple Jaime (Paul Dawson) & Jamie (PJ DeBoy) who's relationship may have lost some spark (who is joined by a third/fourth party) and a dominatrix Severin (Lindsay Beamish) who doesn't allow herself to be touched by others. It seems like the true answer for everyone in the film is Shortbus, a place where they come to feel connected, to feel appreciated and free to explore what truly frighten them …which is a true sign of being ALIVE. Otherwise you might as well die.
Surely he can't hit two homeruns in a row, can he?
posted on 22 Aug 2009John Cameron Mitchell had a lot to live up for after his debut film, Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Since that film was based on a play and a character he created and perfected over many years, one had to wonder whether he had anything besides that left in him. Fortunately, his second film, Shortbus, lived up to my nearly impossible-to-attain expectations. It centers around several New Yorkers and their sex lives. Among the main characters are Sofia, a sex therapist who has never achieved orgasm, a gay couple both named Jamie, and a dominatrix who goes by the name Severin (the revelation of her real name is one of the film's funniest moments). These people meet at a sex club called Shortbus. The film is already infamous for featuring unsimulated sex scenes. It's easily the most graphic film I've ever seen (not counting actual pornography), but because of Mitchell's humanism and the love which he and his cast (who co-wrote the screenplay) have for the characters, it never seems exploitative. I'm not sure I would say it was absolutely necessary, but it's possible the film wouldn't quite carry the same weight that it does without it. By depicting the acts for real, Mitchell is showing that there is nothing at all to be ashamed of. Watching Shortbus, I realized how strangely every other movie that is explicitly about sex treats its subject. Sex is supposed to be something that's joyous, but think of any other movie featuring a lot of sex – In the Realm of the Senses, Breaking the Waves, Salo, even Last Tango in Paris – sex is always something that is painful, something that, at its core, is about hurt. It's either about inflicting pain or trying to heal emotional scars – and in the latter case it pretty much always fails. Even actual pornography depicts sex as something that is about violence. While most of the characters in Shortbus are unsatisfied in one way or another, the sex they have is not depicted as a false sense of hope. The movie unabashedly treats sex as something that is good for people. I once knew a man who told me that sex and love have nothing to do with each other. Shortbus is about the connection between the two. It's the rare movie, perhaps the only movie, that actually sees a connection between them. The movie's most famous line may turn out to be "It's like the '60s, but with less hope," but, for the life of me, I haven't seen a more hopeful film in a long while. It's a breath of very fresh air, and a fantastic source of inspiration. Hedwig and the Angry Inch was a revolutionary film about gender identity in the 21st Century. Mitchell's second film may turn out to be a revolution on the 21st Century's attitude toward sex. A masterpiece.
The hippie lifestyle is back
posted on 18 Aug 2009Shortbus is a movie that explores the life and the sexual orientations of young people living in New York , with so many problems and dissatisfaction in there relationships , everybody is looking for something deferent ,something new, or even something old from the past , like the hippie lifestyle , or for a change , but they do have so many frustrations in achieving what they looked for . They all share one place were they meet and have fun , it is a club called Shortbus which is the name of the movie… Despite all the problems these young people are facing , the movie has a happy ending and everybody is satisfied. The love scenes were so rich and true , that you think you are watching a hardcore movie , with real penetration and ejaculation sometimes , all the actors did a great job.
What's new ?! Get an adult movie instead.
posted on 16 Aug 2009I expected a lot more from this movie, based on news and comments I read. Apart from some sexually explicit scene it is really boring and a "nothing new" collection of people relationships and sexual pulsions. The main character is a woman that cannot reach orgasm and works as sexual therapist, i do not find this very original at all. Sexual New York scene have been described and fully exploited in the past, homosexual attitudes and clichés ... and bet what, the woman reaches her first orgasm at the end making sex with another young couple of lovers. Maybe the plot was a good idea but again the screenplay could have been a lot better. I would suggest anyone to get a real adult movie instead of this, you will get better sex and better scenes.
The Courage of John Cameron Mitchell
posted on 12 Aug 2009Finally there is a film that rises to the intelligent choices of European cinema! In a giant leap forward John Cameron Mitchell has broken the taboo of frankly cinematically captured sexuality that has so long embarrassed American filmmakers. What he has created in this important experimental film SHORTBUS is not only a fascinating probe into the complexities of contemporary sexuality but also a group of relationship stories that stand on terra firma and are not merely a matrix for the frank sexuality from which they are derived.John Cameron Mitchell visits the relationships of several couples: a Canadian Chinese couples therapist/sex therapist (Sook-Yin Lee) who describes herself as "pre-orgasmic - she has never had an orgasm - married to a stay at home man (Raphael Barker): a young gay couple Jamie (PJ DeBoy) and James (Paul Dawson) who are considering opening up their monogamous relationship; a Dominatrix (Lindsay Beamish) and her long time male client among others. The location is New York City and in this melting pot is a club called 'Shortbus' where all manner of people visit to observe and participate in orgiastic activities, all with the goal of improving their libidinous experiences and heightening their pleasure zones And it is in this club that each of the couples meet and interface and change and grow.The film shows just about every form of sexual activity, none of it hidden from the camera at all. Mitchell has the courage and skill to draw from a cast of unknowns some particularly strong characters and he is able to show full frontal tumescent men and uninhibited women like no other American filmmaker has dared. The rewarding aspect is that Mitchell has finally succeeded in making a quality film for the open minded intelligent public who will not shy away in pilgrimesque fright. Mitchell's first film was 'Hedwig and the Angry Inch' which has become a cult favorite. With SHORTBUS he steps further into the arena of successful American experimental cinema with a courageous and wholly enjoyable little work of art. He is a standard bearer and hopefully will open the gates for other directors to bury the fear of filming the sexual being - especially the ages long phobia of male frontal nudity! Grady Harp
Great movie, not for the prudish
posted on 06 Aug 2009Coming (literally) at you like a steamroller, Shortbus blasts onto the screen with some incredibly explicit sexual acts as it introduces the main characters. And as the film progresses, the opening sequence makes sense. Exploring many aspects of sexuality (both hetero, homo and whatever), this no holds barred film also explores tenuous relationships and the sexual bond that holds us together or pushes us apart. This is not sex as eroticism, but as a part of the human condition. The acting evinces a realism that was achieved by a collaboration between the actors and the writer/ director of the film. Shortbus is a worthwhile film experience if the viewer is open minded and able to see it as commentary about the human condition.
A Juicy Good Time...
posted on 25 Jul 2009Shortbus is not a movie for the weak at heart or the narrow-minded. It is, however, a movie for those of us who embrace alternative lifestyles, and sexuality as a complex and wondrous thing.Shortbus is explicitly sexual, and very real, set against a surreal backdrop of New York that adds visually to the film in so many ways. I have yet to find a mainstream American film that attempts so directly to open the public's eyes to the sex-positive culture.Sure, the main character (Vancouver media personality, Sook-Yin Lee) is a sex therapist ("I prefer the term couples counsellor…") who, although enjoying a rather uninhibited sexual relationship with her husband, has never had an orgasm.Sure, the other main characters - a gay couple seeking an open relationship and a pro-domme who only wants to create art - are not exactly living examples of well-balanced, sexually fulfilled adults.Sure, there is blatant desperation in the way they seek to achieve their individual goals.However, the message Shortbus is hoping to make, is that there's a place for everyone in this world, no matter how offbeat, or damaged we may be, if we can just stop trying so hard to reach for it. Everyone has a right, and the ability, to seek human comfort and sexual satisfaction…but success only comes - no pun intended - when we slow down and find peace within ourselves.It's an important message for those of us hoping to get the most of this new sexual revolution. As Sook-Yin's character, Sofia, points outs, it isn't something someone can give us, it's something we have to claim for ourselves.Shortbus is both beautiful and agonizing to watch. The psyches are as bare as the bodies in this film, and just as contorted as they struggle to reach satisfaction. These awkward moments make the film's scenes of human compassion and compersion all the more sublime to watch.Sook-Yin Lee, is, in turns, lovely, funny and horrible to watch, as she labours to reach what she is beginning to think is, at best a mythical thing, and at worst, a conspiracy to make women feel inadequate.Jay Brannan is especially engaging as Ceth; his sweet charismatic face and musical talent strike a lovely graceful note in this movie. His performance left me hungry for more of him. He's a sweet piece of fag candy, that boy! The infamous Justin Bond, playing himself, is the proprietor for this "salon for the gifted and challenged" and his wisecracking, quirky humour is a nice sub-note to the whole movie. I especially love his bittersweet performance of the song In The End that underscores the climax of the movie.In fact the music through-out the film is just fantastic. But after all, the director of Shortbus is John Cameron Mitchell (of Hedwig fame) so I expected no less.Of course, many people won't grasp the concepts Shortbus seems to be making, but for those of us who do, it's a celebration of sex as a healing force, and an orgy of delight for the eyes and the ears.Gather your favourite sexy friends together, with your favourite beverages, and rent Shortbus. It's a juicy good time, and deserves to be shared.
Plot less porn
posted on 15 Jul 2009If you like gay porn, this is your movie. The opening sequence with a young man fellating himself sets the tone for the rest of the movie. There is a loose and improbable plot device revolving around a sex therapist in a orgasmless relationship whose clients get her to a sex club. There is an attempt to intertwine various stories ala Guy Ritchie. Mitchell, however, is no Ritchie. The story meanders between failing relationships with gay orgies as the background (this is not judgmental -- the sex scenes in the club tend to be orgies, and the participants tend to be the same sex), interspersed with such bon mottes as vaginal orgasms are impossible -- this from a drag queen. Eventually, the movie comes to an end, apparently because everybody making the movie got tired and went home.
Very Admirable, but Not Very Good
posted on 13 Jul 2009I wanted to like Shortbus, really I did. I admire the film enormously. In spirit, it's an important, even a beautiful film. But only in spirit. As an actual movie you have to actually sit through, it's pretty damn bad. The main characters are shallow, the performances decent at best*, and the writing offers little beyond sitcom-level inanities.Nevertheless, I do sincerely admire the film's approach to sex, life and love. In Shortbus, sex is universal and universally positive, sexual pleasure is essential to the experience of a meaningful human life. The sex we see is, for the most part, unashamed, happy, generous and life-affirming. Depending on your tastes and thresholds, it may be kinda gross at times, but it's never immoral, shameful or "wrong". This, I think, is part of the difference between the very explicit sex we see so much of in Shortbus and the "hardcore" content of commercial pornography: the appeal of porn depends on the idea that it offers something illicit, something dirty. Shortbus, on the other hand, is the most celebratory, wholesome and affectionate portrait of human sexuality I've ever seen on screen. And that's fantastic.But it doesn't save the film. It doesn't save the stock characters from the hackneyed plotting. It doesn't make the cornball soul-searching and terribly unfunny slapstick any more interesting. And it doesn't make the lead actors any less one-dimensional. I just wish the movie were half as good as it is brave and honorable. Take out the explicit stuff, and what you're left with would barely cut muster as an episode of Sex and the City. And that's a shame.* Except for Justin Bond. Justin Bond is god, and can do no wrong. Every moment Justin Bond is on screen, Shortbus is the best movie in the universe. Plus "the Mayor" too.
Profoundly tedious, deeply boring and seriously disappointing. Quasi- art/porn that neither titillates nor engages the brain.
posted on 13 Jul 2009The film was extremely disappointing...Cameron Mitchell seemed to be going through the motions here, I can't believe that the same person who wrote and directed the amazing "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" made the ridiculously bad "Shortbus," essentially a pseudo-porn film selling itself as a character study. In fact, from the first sequence onwards, JMC's movie delivers sexually graphic scenarios — erections, money shots and all – illuminated by awfully contrived dialogue, horrid performances and a plot that is as preposterous/pretentious as it is tedious.As the characters struggle to express "profundity" through dialogue, they instead slip into triteness and cliché, and the emotional catharsis that seems to be JMC's goal feels absolutely staged and as cold and dettached as some of the acting.JMC is apparently trying something serious. He seems to want to show how certain New Yorkers are coping with the numbed-out sense of disconnection they've been feeling since Sept. 11. Mitchell takes us into a world in which sexual behavior is abundant but not always satisfying, and in which it may be easier to find willing bodies than genuine intimacy, but it would have helped had the characters in Shortbus been a little more interesting and appealing than the sexual positions in which they find themselves."It's just like the Sixties, only with less hope," a character tartly declares at one point. Actually, it's just like the Sixties, only more clichéd. In a sense it's commendable that JMC wants to promote the joy of sex, but the movie is a big, pretentious, drawn-out drag, and not even very original; aspects of its plot can be found both in Oh in Ohio and Michael Winterbottom's equally hardcore (and more efficient) 9 Songs. JMC really needed to spend a lot more time developing these characters and their story, because a soap opera with sex is still only a soap opera. And a sex film without a heart or a brain or compelling characters is basically, a porn film.
The First Ten Minutes Are Like Nothing You Have Ever Seen, Then It Gradually Loses Its Boner
posted on 11 Jul 2009This movie is, as far as I know, the only movie ever distributed in the USA not considered strict pornography that contains both erections and money shots. Yes they are really in this thing, together with an actual plot and fairly nuanced acting.I won't reveal what happens during the first ten minutes of this movie (all I'll say is its commonly said if most men could do it, they would never leave the house), but it alone is worth the price of a ticket to see. The problem with "Shortbus," is that after that initial rush of jarring novelty, the whole thing gradually, though pleasantly, starts to fall apart. A movie of this sort should not have used an urban swinger's sex club run by a stereotypical drag queen as its central unifying device. This is a cope out; rather the filmmakers should have used a more complex and organic episodic flow like what the late Robert Altman pioneered, and Linklater used so well in "Slackers" to tie the relevant diverse and alienated characters together."Shortbus" also seems to be essentially a "gay" movie with just enough straight sex in it to lure in a broader audience. About 75% of the character driven graphic interactions are homosexual depictions. I have no problem with graphic homo-sex in a movie that is supposed to be about the variations of human sexual experience, but I would have preferred at least a more varied mix of the hardcore stuff.Since this movie so clearly crossed the Rubicon on sex, I wish it had kept going. More about the dominatrix and her odd relationship with the trust funder would have been nice. The only time I got even a seminal erection watching this movie was when she whipped him into shooting his rich money clear onto the hotel room wallpaper over the bed. The filmmakers had a predictable socioeconomic class bias about these two characters. Her dysfunction was pitiable and sympathetic, and extensively explored, but his was simply pathetic and degrading, too bourgeois, and therefore without need of any development.The movie also needed some bisexuality besides its socially acceptable limited lesbian exploration. Something like a gay couple, one guy butch, the other like the endearing and naive Ceth. The butch guy gets turned on arranging and watching sex between his passive partner and women who like to seduce "gay" men. The passive guy goes along because the sex with his lover afterward will be enhanced by doing so. Also, why not a "gay" man giving the main female character her first orgasm. With his penis, his mouth, his fingers, a dildo, a vibrating cucumber*, an anguished discourse on the relevance of Gertrude Stein's writings for unrealized lesbians, I don't care. Just something unexpected. The way she finally gets one is too disappointingly artsy for an otherwise quirky, sweaty hardcore sex movie with a real plot. Maybe the reason male bisexuality, unlike female bisexuality, was off limits in a politically correct art movie like "Shortbus," is that it is likely to offend the movie's core audience. To acknowledge any level of authentic bisexuality in "gay" identified adult men is taboo and heretical in high culture because it undermines and demeans the activist (if not yet exactly scientific) concept that sexual orientation, particularly among men, is wired entirely one way or the other from birth, or earlier. A concept that gay men have worked diligently through political action for over one hundred years to have wider society accept as absolute. Women are given more freedom in this area. Just as they were exempt from most 19th century European "sodomy" laws, they get the benefit of the doubt now when it comes to bisexual "exploration" in both movies and life. For men, it's supposed to be all over by puberty. You are either one way or the other, or you are kidding yourself. Here's to you, Magnus Hirschfeld. The closeted Nazi brown shirts may have burned your books, along with your files about them, but you get the last laugh from the grave.The best chance the filmmakers had to go for broke with the gay theme they highlighted, and really make a bold statement was their wasted opportunity for angelic Ceth to give wistful, old Ed Koch a pity blow, not just a kiss. Imagine seeing a 23 year old character, representing the sunny and forgiving sincerity of a young gay man for whom being Out and about in NYC is effortlessly transparent go down on an 80 year old actor who could actually get it up and get off (maybe the actor they cast couldn't).The old mayor, lying blissfully naked except for his socks pulled up tight, and finally exposed for who he really is could ramble on in an increasingly fevered way about his guilt over doing nothing about AIDS when he had the chance, and for wasting his life in the closet while sweet, understanding Ceth earnestly scoffs his aged, withered member to shocking attention. Just before we see the incredible money shot spray all over the ebullient Ceth's cherubic face (even if a stunt double is required for this task), or hear the young man's squeal of innocent glee at a mercy mission accomplished, we see teary rivers of cathartic redemption cascade down the old politician's face. No cash would change hands for this indulgence, just an artistic license granted. For the audience, they would be playing the role of a fly stuck to the soiled wallpaper in countless DC and Northern Virginia hotel rooms, after-hours legislative and executive inner offices, and Middle American pastoral counseling parlors. Where voyeurism would be real participation and bear actual resemblance, if somewhat artistically warped, to our times. It would definitely beat being stuck in a 'Seventies sex club, without hope, and with a drag queen right out of an old Mel Brooks play book. *They make a perfect wedding/civil union shower gift.
Look beyond the obvious and have an open mind...
posted on 09 Jul 2009This commentary appears also as postings on two different posting threads, and the text contained within is virtually the same except some small differences...This is definitely not a movie for all audiences, but it is rather targeted at a specific audience i.e. people that can think coherent thoughts, can speak in clear, complete and concise sentences, are not inhibited to the point of self-torture, and can retain for more than 10 minutes a train of thought without playing with...their Blackberries (you perverts thought I was gonna say something else didn't, you admit it!), namely normal people. The viewing of this movie requires an open mind free of prejudice, preconceptions and righteous indignation, so on so forth.It is a shame that all everybody seems to be fixated on is the sex. The sex scenes are indeed somewhat intense and I hate to use the word, graphic, for a "mainstream" movie. However this movie marks a trend in feature films that have been released during the past couple of years, where the boundaries of simulated and actual sex are being crossed and in some cases obliterated. Actually this movie is quite mild considering some foreign and North American movies of a few years ago. On another thread one poster mentioned some of these, e.g. "Baisse-moi" (roughly translates to "Kiss Me", which is really explicit, even though the two leading actresses are adult movie stars in Europe, still it is a really rough movie), then there is "Romance", "Irreversible" with Monica Bellucci (that is a hard movie to watch indeed and you got to have a strong stomach for it...be forewarned), even the movie "Kids" released in 1995, then more recently there is "Brown Bunny", with Chloe Sevigny and a few more... even one of the best TV series ever, HBO's "Oz" was pretty explicit with the depiction of sex and nudity.If one sees past the sex in "Shortbus", the stories and characters that the movie presents are actually very interesting and touching. I took this movie to be about relationships, interaction, connections or lack thereof. It touches upon what it means to be/exist in the twenty-first century, an age which is increasingly impersonal, alienating, broken and fractured, just like the people and relationships portrayed in the film. It shows how alienated we are from one another, and how desperate for a warm-blooded, real connection we all are, gay, straight, man, woman and all in-between. It shows how we all hunger for a real sense of belonging, and yes for love. Technology, industry, commerce and the never-ending race of modern life, as well as the incessant and unstoppable march of progress have taken their toll on the human race; that terrible after effect has had an impact on ALL of us, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Budhist, Hindu, agnostic, atheist, white, black, Asian, Native etc., whether we like to admit it or not.For me at least, the sex in the movie, represents an attempt by the characters to fill-up that hole they all have within themselves, the emptiness that we ALL feel to some extent. It is like they all try to feel alive, to kick that dull-ache they can't shake and since they are all so damaged, isolated and lost, sex is the one thing that acts as a temporary high, a replacement of some kind.Though the movie makes it clear that sex is an essential and important part of any human being it, is NOT the only thing, and it cannot possibly feel the void within ourselves nor quench that sense of longing we have or have had.The high-point of the movie, and by far the best scene, is at the end of the movie when all the patrons of the club, Shortbus, as well as the host (excellent voice by the way, and really good music) and all other guests end up singing. Since part of the movie takes place during the 2003 massive blackout that left most of the eastern parts in North America in complete darkness (both in the US and Canada), the scene makes perfect sense. In that complete darkness, where all or most of technology and other trappings of modern life are rendered useless, it is candlelight, music and the human touch that carries all of the characters through and gives them, if even for a brief moment, that realness and that sense of belonging they so desperately seek.This sense of belonging, that the last scene imparts, is one born out of our commonalities, our fears, hopes and our desires, that ultimately are all the same...love and be loved.Anyways that is my two cents.
So much sex and so unsexy
posted on 01 Jul 2009This movie is not about the sex. It is, however, very graphic. In fact, one of the characters pops a wad into his own mouth in the first five minutes. So if that's going to puncture your serenity, don't rent it. And especially don't rent it and then whine about how you were offended by it. The sex, however, is only titillating for about five minutes before the mood of the film really becomes clear. It's much more about despair than it is about lust. The characters in the film are grasping for life and meaning in their lives and John Cameron Mitchell uses sex as a metaphor for that. It's really very sweet in a bonerlicious kinda way. There's suffering and redemption. There's sodomy and sex toys. What more do you want?
Not perfect, but ravishing
posted on 25 Jun 2009"Shortbus" director John Cameron Mitchell is one to watch. His goals for film-making are lofty, and although he doesn't always make it over the bar he sets for himself, when he does clear it, the results approach iconic status.The actors in "Shortbus" are mostly new and untrained, and sometimes their lack of experience comes through in unfulfilled moments or stumbly line readings. (If they don't believe what they are saying, how will we?) That said, there are breakthrough moments when you are treated to the absolute absence of artifice, when you see someone you know is just not acting, and you connect.Mitchell, through a lengthy workshop process, has fostered a sense of improvisation that can drag into unnecessary exposition or the occasional left-turn dialogue. But when it works, as it does often in this film, the sense of edginess can be thrilling.Ultimately, what we have here is a true creation- the sense is that these are artists at work, searching creatively for truth through storytelling. That sensibility is what makes this a terrific film: there are so many revelations. An bouncy or unexpected edit, a vivid daydream sequence, a fantastical flight over a cartoonish miniature- and you haven't seen them before in any other film in memory.What people may talk about most is the sex. Typically, it is not the most interesting thing about this movie, not by a long shot. What is surprising about the sex is not how pornographic it is, but to the contrary, how real it is. Dealing with a leg cramp while masturbating, orgasm that descends into sadness and ennui, sex meant to communicate emotional states- when have you ever seen that in porn? Finally, a movie centers on sex but doesn't simplify or glamorize the sweaty, uncomfortable, ecstatic, elusive carnal act.There is one shot in this film- its emotional nucleus- that I found devastating. The sheer technical beauty of its timing and composition aligned with the characters' desperate passions and emblazoned the screen, leaving me haunted by a raw, naked angel peering through a tenement window. It was breathtaking- I couldn't have asked for more, no matter what came before or after.
Decent
posted on 19 Jun 2009Shortbus (2006) ** 1/2 (out of 4) John Cameron Mitchell's controversial film, which just happens to have hardcore sex scenes. I guess most of America was shocked by this film but I guess I'm jaded from seeing so many Jess Franco movies. It's rather amazing how upset sex still is in this country. Anyways, 'Shortbus' is a club full of various sexual weirdos. The film centers on a homosexual couple who are thinking about involving other men, a female sex therapist who can't have an orgasm and a female dominatrix. The film really doesn't have much of a plot, although I'm sure the director would have you believe there is a plot here. However, if you take away the actual sex scenes then you really aren't left with much. I guess you have to give the actors credit for doing what they did but from looking at the making of featurette, it seems most of them have their own share of problems so doing this kind of stuff really isn't out of their range. The director has said that people shouldn't be shocked by the sex because it's natural and I agree but I've got to question a few of the sex scenes, which seem to be going for something more than natural. It seems the director wanted controversy with sex but wanted added controversy with some of the heavier stuff like the self given blowjob. The film isn't bad, it's mildly entertaining but nothing original like the director would want you to believe.
Filming sex, actually showing sex.
posted on 17 Jun 2009Filming sex, actually showing sex. Innovative? A lot, especially if you consider that most directors use lighting and blankets to hide and put some make up on what happens in bed when a couple makes out. Give me a break, who on Earth makes love under a blanket without showing not even a bit of the toe - besides Siberians without heating? Shortbus is not solely about sex, it's about questioning the world, our fears, our guilts, our flaws. Even though sex is shown graphically, the director is rather subtle when it comes to representing the characters'doubts. Some scenes are extremely memorable, especially the one with in which a character (presumably an ex New York mayor), describes the city as one that people come to to get laid and to be forgiven.Skip it if you can't stand sex off the blanket.
Very good film
posted on 11 Jun 2009I saw the film this past weekend in Kansas City. I found the film to be usual in the sense that the sexual content did not shock me. It was refreshing to see real sex in a real movie, it definitely made everything believable. I did find myself brewing up tears from sadness and from joy. I immediately wanted to see the film again. Unfortunately I'll have to wait for the DVD. The thing that kept passing through my mind was how natural sex is. In all its configurations, sex is really about nature and expression. Living in the heartland, I can attest that most adults are not openly expressive about sex, and most have negative points of view about it...but I am sure that everyone has sexual interests and needs to span far beyond the Christian constraints. Good stuff. Good sex. Good characters. Justin Bond - beautiful and talented.
Excellent but not completely satisfying
posted on 11 Jun 2009Story of the sexual troubles of various people in New York City. There's a sex therapist (Sook-Yin Lee) who loves her husband (Raphael Barker) but has never had an orgasm with him. There's the gay couple--one is completely in love (PJ DeBoy)--the other is suicidal (Paul Dawson) and doesn't know why. There's a dominatrix (Lindsay Beamish)who WANTS a relationship but doesn't know how. They all end up meeting at a place called "Shortbus" which seems to be a sex club for any sexual orientation.The movie starts right off with hardcore explicit sex scenes with all the main characters. This is actually a good thing--it gets the anticipation of seeing sex out of the way so we can concentrate on the characters and their feelings. In some ways this has been done before--there have been plenty of movies about sexual relationships and their problems. But this one is much more truthful than any I've ever seen. Director and writer John Cameron Mitchell developed the plots and characters with the actors themselves--it works brilliantly. The actors are very at ease with the material and characters. It also helps that Mitchell uses virtual unknowns for the roles (for some this is their first movie). All the actors are good--there's not a false note among them. They also are all very attractive and give the graphic sex scenes everything they got--a three way between Boy, Dawson and Peter Stickles REALLY goes overboard--but it's never offensive. The sex scenes are shown as being enjoyable and are (purposefully) quite funny.My one complaint about this is the end--EVERYBODY is given a happy ending (more or less). Some of the them I believed but a few (one in particular) came across as so unlikely that it dampened my enjoyment a little.Still this is a truthful, painful but always fascinating movie full of graphic sex, language and truth. No one under 18 is being admitted to this (for good reason) but for adults who want an intelligent look at sex this is a great film. I give it a 9. WELL worth seeing.
a road story with a difference.
posted on 09 Jun 2009There are a couple of features about this movie that will hit you. Yes there is some rather graphic sex, but to anyone after hitting adulthood it works purely to support the film, erotic would be too strong a word for it. It is to everybody's' credit that this was possible. The model of New York works great and is a real devise for the movie.As we progress through the film we see the lives of a small group of New Yorkers grow as they develop their relationships or indeed the quest for a relationship. The medium for bringing these lives together is the "Shortbus" club. A rather carnal club which they all drawn to becomes a focus for their development. Each confronts their own particular daemons. As heavy as this sounds, it is quite a light hearted film. The closing scenes are fantastic. As you watch this film you will feel yourself being dragged in, until the end when u feel almost as if you are part of it.A great movie, one which should become a cult classic (only because it might be a bit too "graphic" for mainstream cinemas, but certainly a classic. Any attempt to sanitize and edit it would surely destroy the film.This movie will make you laugh, cry and sing; you will leave the movie theatre affected by this film.
A brave and harrowingly unique vision
posted on 28 Aug 2009Shortbus is probably going to become one of, if not the, single most sexually explicit film released in the North American mainstream that is not considered hardcore pornography. Its release was met with obvious controversy, but probably even more curiosity.The film, titled after a sex club featured within it, is about four people and their search to be understood. And of course, there is some overtly sexualized about them. Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee) is a sex therapist (or as she likes to be called, a couples counsellor), who has never achieved an orgasm. Severin (Lindsay Beamish) is a dominatrix with a few too many underlying issues. James (Paul Dawson) and Jamie (PJ DeBoy) are a couple who love each other, but need strengthening.Instead of the graphic and gratuitous sex fest that the movie was hyped up to be, director John Cameron Mitchell has delivered one of the most unique films of the new millennium. And that is not just because of how sexually depraved the film is. Through the twisted editing and raw performances, Mitchell has created a very emotional, at times hysterical and somewhat deep ode to real life. These are real people, dealing with real problems. They are not simple caricatures invented to help entertain the audience. In that attempt, the film feels inundated with authenticity and genuine human emotion matched only by the most independent films in the cinematic sphere.The intense amount of sex on-screen may turn some viewers away, and even more when they realize that it is not just heterosexual sex. But it is shown in such an artistic and visually appeasing way, that it feels much more candid and personal than a pornographic film (which unfortunately, is the only real notable comparison that can be used). The film does deliver plenty of intense depictions of unsimulated sex, but in watching it, does not feel offensive or threatening. I assumed that I was going to be disturbed by the perversity of the actions taking place on screen, but I actually found myself just enjoying the movie like any other (although I will say that hearing the Star Spangled Banner being sang out of a certain orifice is nothing short of an experience). The graphicness and grim reality that the film paints just feels too poignant and too affecting to not look at it as anything but.The performances, no matter how amateur, are strong and brave. The realism that these actors strive for is simply astonishing. Watching them perform is almost heart-breaking for how genuine these characters are. The four main performers just seem very open to everything their characters are doing, and are very honest in their portrayals. You can see how desperate Lee slowly becomes to realizing her goal. You can see how hurt Dawson and DeBoy are in how fragile their relationship is. Beamish's need for a real relationship is tender and real. And watching them interact with all of the many supporting characters is just a treat because they too, are putting themselves infront of the camera shamelessly and fully immersing themselves within the story. Their language, through both their body and their voices, is just something extraordinarily true to life, and does not feel at all like it is being acted out. I keep saying it, but it is true: these actors are just acting out real life.Unfortunately, the film has a few fatal flaws.But what the film does not delve into is how unabashedly sexual these people are. It is one thing for the many extras to be involved in all of the sexual undergoings the film showcases, but what about the main characters? The four of them go to the Shortbus club in what can only be imagined as a regular basis, and at times, take part in the sexual acts being displayed in front of them. And when they are not discussing the sexual tension in their lives, they are watching an intense amount of people have sex. The four of them seem fairly kinky to me (as the eye-opening introduction suggests), but not to the point that they would accept these graphic demonstrations in front of them. How do they not go running in fear of what they are seeing before their eyes? Why are they accepting it as normal? Their search for understanding is obviously taking them to very different places, but their general acceptance of the swinger lifestyle just does not totally click, especially for Lee's character who is supposed to be devoted to her husband.As well, by the time the final frame runs, the film does not feel complete. Beamish's character is never truly explored, and the randomness of the final actions by some of these characters just feels a bit off. In fact, the entire finale of the movie just does not jive at all with the rest of the film proceeding it. Its deepness and raw emotion just seem to have been the last thing on anybody's mind when they were putting it together. It feels out of place, and in a way, ruins the entire experience of seeing the film. It just does not feel totally satisfying. It instead, just feels like a bit of a random add-on that just makes for ambiguity, and not much of anything else. The film has so much going for it before these final moments, and has a ton of deeply emotional grounding leading up to it. But it just feels like it just wants to advance to a finale that is not there.Shortbus was a brave film to make, and for the most part, works very well. It unfortunately has a lot of build up to nothing, but for how controversial the film was, I actually was pretty impressed. It is a genuine and harrowing vision by a gifted director, and even more gifted actors. I just wish everyone in the film industry had so much courage.7.5/10.