I was quite impressed. My partner and I have acquired the sporadic hobby/campaign of watching as much non-fake-fingernail/boob-porn cinema that has lesbian/gay content as we can possibly find, and this was a pleasant surprise in a genera/topical area that includes such utter and complete tripe as April’s Shower.
That isn’t a an apple to apple comparison though, as there is comparatively a lot more “art” (imho) in Short Bus, but you get my meaning.
I’m curious as to what others thought of the scene towards the end with the park bench and the lamp post. It was the only time where I felt like I had missed something.
I assumed it was meant to be symbolic of the therapist character’s inner courage/ability to achieve orgasm.
I liked it all right…but I found it a bit pretentious. It was porn, but trying to be important/arty. Maybe I’m feeling put off because I saw some program about the difference between “art” and “porn” on IFC that was a bit too navel-gazey.
I really liked Shortbus. I saw it on the big screen. When the two Jamies look across at each other through the windows, I do believe I teared up a little. There was something really emotionally powerful about the way that was shot.
And I will never hear the Star Spangled Banner in quite the same way again.
I adored that movie, but I’m a big fan of John Cameron Mitchell, and I was looking forward to that movie for a long time. We too saw it on the big screen, and I too was really moved by the two Jamies see each other through the windows. In fact, even though it’s been about a year since I’ve seen it, the memory of it still kinda makes me misty.
And I disagree that it was porn. John Cameron Mitchell set out to make a movie with life sex acts that is not porn. I don’t think any of that sex was meant to be stimulating. I surely never felt like getting off to it, and I really enjoy porn…
I don’t think it was porn either. And I’ve been known to enjoy a porn flic or two as well.
Another reason I enjoyed this movie was that it resonated with my one New York City experience, back in '98/'99, as a roadie of sorts for a group of drag king performing dykes. We caravaned from Columbus, OH to Manhattan for the weekend with a one-night-only performance at Meow Mix. Mo B. Dick was in attendance in the audience.
I guess any time they show actual, non staged, sex on screen, I tend to assume it’s for pornographic purposes. I mean, all of the acts could have been done just as effectively without showing it explicitly. I’m just not sure why they opted to show it.
So I guess precisely because people do see performances of sex on screen has nothing more than titillation or pornography, even though there’s also humor, emotional weight, and metaphor. Sex is probably just about the fundamental human experience–why shouldn’t there be a serious, emotional movie about it?
I loved “Shortbus,” and it’s really annoying and lazy to call it “porn.” It’s a great date movie - a hilarious movie, a ridiculously heartbreaking movie at parts, and ultimately a ridiculously resonant and touching film…that just happens to have full penetration in it. Seriously.
Yeah, I think one of JCM’s goals was to help break that connection. This was definitely not porn. And the “they didn’t have to show it” attitude bugs me. It can feel real artificial when filmmakers go out of their way to hide it (i.e. those special Hollywood sheets that only cover the female chest).
I liked the move. I can understand why the pretentiousness would be a turnoff for some, but I usually don’t mind if the film is trying to do something interesting.
I loved the moment where Jamie says (paraphrased from memory) “I see happiness all around me, but it doesn’t go under my skin.” I thought it was a beautifully succinct summary of clinical depression.
But some elements of the movie just seemed lazy and contrived, as when a group of lesbians had to explain how to do Kegel exercises…to a sex therapist.
