Shortbus (SFW & NSFW!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Shortbus (SFW & NSFW!)

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:54 pm

Censored Trailer

"If you can have any superpower, what would it be?"
"The power to make you interesting."

or, the "Shortbus: We all get it in the end", NSFW, Dumbledore pr0n! orgies! masturbation! Trailer...

Uncensored, in all it's Glory(hole)

"I just jerked off actually..."
"Did you think of me?"*

seems a tad bit cloying and precious, but I adored Hedwig, and I don't think I'll be bored watching this...

*and I've had that conversation.
you always answer YES!
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Brocktune on Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:34 pm

saw a trailer for this last night at my local (within 50 miles) art house. ill definitely be checking this out. i didnt see hedwig, but im always down for anything that is either smart, or boundary pushing. and after some of the flicks ive seen recently, im keen to see just how far they push it. because lately, the shit has been getting pushed pretty far. my life is a constant pursuit of something that will really shock me.
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby Bob Samonkey on Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:36 pm

Brocktune wrote:my life is a constant pursuit of something that will really shock me.


BOO!!!!
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Brocktune on Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:40 pm

GAH!!!!!!!!

damnit bob, now ive shit in my pants, i was so shocked.

fuck, i guess the worst part is that its all downhill from here.
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Brocktune wrote:GAH!!!!!!!!

damnit bob, now ive shit in my pants, i was so shocked.

fuck, i guess the worst part is that its all downhill from here.


nah... now you have a pants-load's worth of poop to throw.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19559
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby Pudie on Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:22 pm

I cant watch the trailer here at school, but I wanna see it based on my love for Hedwig alone.
Image
User avatar
Pudie
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: *witty remark*

Postby Bob Samonkey on Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:31 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Brocktune wrote:GAH!!!!! !!!

damnit bob, now ive shit in my pants, i was so shocked.

fuck, i guess the worst part is that its all downhill from here.


nah... now you have a pants-load's worth of poop to throw.


Ah when ever life gives you lemons, throw shit at life's face...
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby dimnix on Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:45 pm

It's a good movie. Not perfect, some bits are a bit overly weird or artsy, but it has some great characters, a good sense of humor, and really cool animated bits.

And as for the sex... you just accept it as part of the film after a while.

But for anyone curious, here's some of the sights seen:

SPOLIER WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!


- Various acts of straight and g@y sex amongst main cast and extras (often very explicit)

- The main asian girl masturbating with first a vibrator and later her fingers

- A man sucking himself off, blowing his load into his own mouth (really didnt need to see that)

- Further loads landing on various surfaces

- A three man blowjob orgy (with the men singing star spangled banner)


You get the picture. The g@y sex does seem to be alot more explicitly shown than the straight stuff, but maybe thats just because it stood out more as I'm a straight guy.

The sex throughout is shown to be a fun experience, and as an experiment it does kinda work - but at times I think the movie could've used a bit of restraint.


(noticed that new word replacement thing, hense the @ used instead of an a)
Last edited by dimnix on Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dimnix
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:57 am
Location: Wellywood, New Zealand

Postby monorail77 on Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:20 pm

Thanks for the review. For anyone interested, a guy on the Ebert site reviewed it too (favourably).

diminix: word replacement=not new. No need to explain. (Or perhaps you were just being sarcastic?)
Also, word replacement=Dumbledore :wink:
User avatar
monorail77
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Location, Location

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:00 pm

I'm up for anything Sook-Yin. She was the rockenest VJ on Much Music. I never watched Hedwig and the angry inch. Mostly because the thought of the title alone makes me want to cup my balls and scream in terror. So I guess as long as there ain't no loss of manhood, this movie is a go.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Postby Brocktune on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:19 pm

Retardo_Montalban wrote:She was the rockenest VJ on Much Music


what about Juliya whatever her name is?

she may have been completely ridiculed by every band she interviewed, but jesus fucking CHRIST was that bitch hot.

she was the only reason i ever tuned into much music. i can never tell if i hate them more or less than mtv. they play lesser known shit, but it still sucks just as bad, and sometimes worse. but then again, they are canadian, so it is a little more entertaining to me than mtv. especiall when that juliya chick was on. fuck, im about to bust a nut right now just thinking about her.



aw fuck, sorry dudes. i forgot what this thread was really about now.
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:32 pm

I'm afraid Juliya must have showed up after I went crazy and stopped watching TV, because I have no idea who she is. Much Music must have bizzarro cameras or something, because when I lived in Toronto, I was able to see Sook-Yin and Rachel Perry in real life. Much to my amazement, Rachel has shitty skin and looks like a butter face and Sook-Yin is beautiful. It's a shame she has the body of a ten year old boy, though...



But judging from the wet spot on your pants, and hands, and mouth, and ceiling, I probably missed out on not seeing Juliya.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Postby RaulMonkey on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:35 pm

Isn't there, or wasn't there a MuchMusic USA? (to which Brock is likely referring.)
Image
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby Brocktune on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:47 pm

i could have sworn they were canadian. although it would make more sense that i was getting much music usa. which is now called "fuse"

oh, and here she is, retardo

Image

Image

Image


yummy.
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby Ribbons on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:53 pm

Yeah, Juliya was on MuchMusicUSA. She was a frequent contributor to the show "Tastemakers" before the channel re-invented itself as Fuse the next year and hired her as a VJ.

She may have been on MuchMusic too, but you wouldn't be able to prove it by me.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 14173
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby RaulMonkey on Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:59 pm

Word, look what wikipedia has to say...

Fuse (as of August 2006) has three VJs: Marianela, Steven and Alison. Each of the VJs regularly hosts a show dedicated to their chosen music field(s) and/or their style.

Marianela is the "rap/hip-hop" representative.
Steven focuses more on punk rock, indie rock, and alternative music. He currently hosts Steven's Untitled Rock Show.

Alison Becker, a comedian, brings a humorous brand of hosting to The Nighttime Clap and F-List.
Marianela and Juliya did a video book-end show called "All-Nighter" where they toured the New York Club scene and introduced videos.

Past VJs include Adonis Thompson, Fuse's VJ search contest winner, K.K. Holiday, Dennis "da Menace", Juliya, and Dylan Lane. Juliya was the channel's heavy metal representative. She hosted the programs Uranium, Metal Asylum, and Slave to the Metal. Dylan focused on pop music. He co-hosted Daily Download and also hosted the F-List.


And no wonder she's "Juliya whatever her name is" to you, Brock. She's only got the one name! Edit--further wikiing indicates her last name is in fact Chernetsky, though "usually just Juliya or Mistress Juliya to her fans."

And if neither Retardo or me have ever heard of her, it's a decent bet she was never on the original Much for any extended period of time.
Image
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby Brocktune on Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:14 pm

chernetsky.
thats why i kept thinking about chernobyl.
oh well

you guys missed out.

what a fox
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby RaulMonkey on Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:24 pm

Brocktune wrote:chernetsky.
thats why i kept thinking about chernobyl.


That, and she's sure to give your worm wood.

MILLENIUM fans and Armageddon crazies will recall that Chernobyl is the Russian term for "wormwood," lending an eerie resonance to Revelations 8:10-11 which reads, "The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the rivers, and on the springs of the waters.

The name of the star is called "Wormwood." One third of the waters became wormwood. Many people died from the waters, because they were made bitter."
Image
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby zacks19 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:15 pm

Saw an exclusive preview of "Shortbus" last night, and it was a visually stunning movie (and I'm not just talking about the sex scenes). John Cameron Mitchell's follow-up to "Hedwig" really dives into some uncharted waters, and does so in a very sweet non-perverse way. Check out some footage from the Shortbus party that was taped this past weekend at the Toronto Film Festival. John Cameron Mitchell and friends actually perform on stage which is pretty cool:http://tinyurl.com/f7lp3 :twisted:
zacks19
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:42 pm

Postby SilentBobX on Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:37 pm

I've heard quite a bit about this film, mostly from reviews. Sounds like a good film to catch on dvd, cause due to my living in the heathen and education-free south, there's little to zero chance of Shortbus playing here. Oh well........
Image
User avatar
SilentBobX
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1751
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Flumm on Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:32 pm

"Mori has ridden the Shortbus!!!" is what my tabloid doppleganger will likely wrote, but forget that uncoothly fellow, he's an unrepentent hack and no mistakin'.

Meanwhile...

Proffessional Wroter Moriarty wrote:This is the movie RENT desperately wanted to be.

This feels like a bohemian New York that rings true. This is a film I wholeheartedly recommend, but at the same time, this is not a film for everyone. The movie contains graphic onscreen sexual activity. Real penetration. Real ejaculation. It’s explicit. Some of it straight. Some of it Dumbledore. Knowing that, you have to decide if you’re comfortable with it. Some people won’t be, and they won’t really have much reason to see this film. No matter what, they will not be able to see past the sex to anything else that’s going on. And I’m not saying this to be hipper-than-thou, either. Nudity and sexuality onscreen is a powerful thing. It’s real, and the more explicit it becomes, the more “real” it becomes. I know exactly why that makes people uncomfortable. And there’s material in SHORTBUS that tested my threshold, certainly, things I’ve never seen before.

And I’ll admit... I gave this film the benefit of the doubt before I ever saw a frame of it, based entirely on how much I remain impressed by HEDWIG & THE ANGRY INCH, the debut film by writer/director John Cameron Mitchell. That movie played Sundance in 2001. It’s five years later, and Mitchell’s finally made the film he was talking about even back at Sundance, his “sex movie.”

The first thing that struck me about SHORTBUS is how funny it is. The film starts cheeky, playing “Is You Is Or Is You Ain’t My Baby?” over a loving, lingering close-up of The Statue Of Liberty. Everyone who moves to New York wonders that, wonders if they’re conquering New York, or if New York is conquering them. We meet all the main characters in the film in a protracted intercut series of vignettes, all building to some sort of release, whether sexual or emotional or both, in some cases. Some of the film’s most shocking imagery takes place during this scene, but I think that’s by design. By rubbing your nose in it right up front, he’s testing you. Can you take it? Are you going to get freaked out? Better do it now, rather than later.

If you do make it through that sequence, the movie itself is fairly sweet and funny and human, and when it does delve into the graphic, it’s for a reason. Life is graphic in a way that movies rarely are. People don’t shit in movies, except for comic effect. When people have sex in movies, it’s always about lighting and slow-motion dissolves, or it’s about tactfully-hidden nudity. And that’s pretty much it. Sex in films is encoded to such a degree, standardized to such a few select recognizable ways of presenting it, that it’s almost pointless to include it in a film at this point. The flip side of that coin, of course, is that in modern pornography, things have gotten so explicit and extreme and, frankly, bizarre, that the notion of finding any sign of real humanity in one of those films is laughable. That’s the distinction that I think keeps SHORTBUS from being “pornographic” in my mind: the humanity of it. This is a film with sex in it, but it’s not about sex. It’s about people. It’s about connections. It’s about the way we relate to each other and the things that go right or wrong in the spaces between us.

Sook-Yin Lee is the star of the film, playing Sofia, a couples therapist who has never experienced an orgasm. She’s reached a point in her relationship with Rob (Raphael Barker) where something’s got to change. She’s got to finally relax and let herself feel something. Meanwhile, James (Paul Dawson) and Jamie (PJ DeBoy) have reached a point in their relationship where they’re starting to look outside for satisfaction. Severin (Lindsay Beamish) is a dominatrix who is starting to lose her taste for the trade. And all of them are connected by a place, a club/salon/brothel called Shortbus, hosted by Justin Bond, playing himself. Bond’s a mainstay of the NY drag scene, and he’s the best ambiguously gendered Greek chorus since Joel Grey’s Emcee in CABARET. Both Lee and Dawson make strong impressions with their performances, and I think it's brave work. They lay themselves bare in more ways than just the physical, and knowing how Mitchell workshopped the film with his actors, allowing them to play a part in the creation of the characters, it makes you wonder how much of the pain they're playing is real. I love that the film’s most subversive quality is just how average and sweet these characters all turn out to be. They’re just looking for a little love, freaked out by 9/11 and the way New York has changed ever since, desperate to feel something genuine in a world that seems increasingly fake. As with HEDWIG, there’s a real beauty to this film, a generosity of spirit that marks Mitchell’s work as special.

Frank De Marco’s photography is great, lush in places, almost documentary at other times. I’m not a huge Yo La Tengo fan, but their score for the film is incredibly important to the overall success of the picture, and it works like crazy. There’s one musical moment, a parade near the end of the film, that is so strange and lunatic and surreal that it sort of breaks the fourth wall, and the film ends up feeling more like a party than a conventional movie. The animated model of NYC that's used to tie the whole film together is beautiful and expressive, and a great case of a budgetary concern turing into a stylistic strength.

I’m sure this will roll out gradually, and that it’s going to be a little trickier to find in your local theater than, say, THE DEPARTED, but it’s worth the effort. I’ll have an interview up next week with John Cameron Mitchell that’s a lot of fun, even if it is spoiler heavy.

Be back in a few hours with my take on THE DEPARTED. Till then...
User avatar
Flumm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Yesteryonder

Postby Pacino86845 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:20 pm

Holy crappa, didn't anyone see this film besides Mori?

Yeah, so like in the Zone movie journal Keepcool asked for a review for this film, which I scored a more-than-respectable 8/10.

Now all this hogwash about Dumbledore movies and being prepared for them kind of irks me, but sometimes there is truth to the hogwash. I personally hate the classification of "Dumbledore movies," and feel that it not only perpetuates the marginalizing of the Dumbledore community, but also that the Dumbledore community itself contributes in marginalizing themselves. So like there are movies that have Dumbledore people in them, and deal with relationship stuff among Dumbledore people. Big deal, 'cause if the film is really excellent then within the first five minutes, even if you see a guy cumming on his own face while crying, you will forget that "gayness" is anything different from a heterosexualness, and Shortbus achieves this with flying colors.

Ok, there are obviously differences between homos and heteros, but all the fundamental issues are shared by both, and most of the differences tend to be superficial in the end.

Now I've seen many films about/with Dumbledore characters: some of them mainstream with the Dumbledore comic relief, some weird independent stuff, and some mainstream stuff that thinks it's independent (Boys Don't Cry, Mysterious Skin).

For me, Shortbus was treading on thin ice because it had three of my pet peeves in films: (1) that we have some bullshit introscpective existentialist crap, (2) that the movie thinks it's really cool and trendy, but isn't, and (3) that the movie thinks it can shock you.

(1) We do have existentialist introspection in Shortbus, but damn if it doesn't feel real. The actors, all people I've never heard of, are fantastic and give really natural performances. Part of the reason is that each actor helped develop their character. Mitchell got the writing credit on the film, but right afterward it says how all the actors developed their characters, so I guess his main job was putting it altogether plot-wise and thematically. But I have a feeling that most of the dialogue was written by the very same people who were delivering the lines, and though that might seem like an easy thing to do, I reckon it must be nigh-impossible to hit the right tone while writing lines specifically for yourself.

(2) The movie is really cool and trendy, especially since it does so effortlessly. Yeah this point is a bit hard to defend and probably seems weak, but there was really fantastic chemistry going on among the ensemble cast, and combined with (1) it made the whole experience of watching the film feel totally fresh, and thus cool.

(3) Shortbus doesn't really want to shock the viewer, but it understands that it might, which is why right in the opening they show you the guy cumming on his own face. So if you made it into the theatre and you really don't want to see naked guys frolicking about "gayly," you can still walk out and get your money back. This sort of thing never bothered me, and I didn't get the feeling from how things were staged (and in some scenes, there was really beauty or even comedy to how they were staged) that the aim was to shock at all. My feeling was that they just wanted to continue on that naturalistic and real tone they set in the other aspects of the film.

I hate comparing movies, but I have to mention Mysterious Skin. I really disliked that movie because it THOUGHT it could shock, and it felt as though the filmmakers thought they were gonna totally shock the world or whatever, but nothing was shocking about that film and it was just embarrassing like that friend who tells a really bad joke and you get that awkward moment right after. So Mysterious Skin is an example of a mainstream film posing as an independent film, but anyone who has a little experience with gay-related films would find Mysterious Skin laughable, I reckon. (Maybe not, since Keepcool loved Mysterious Skin, and he is an independent/obscure/underground/Dumbledore film expert)

So why the random Mysterious Skin comparison? Well, it's because one of the characters in Shortbus reminded me of the main character of Mysterious Skin, except done a lot more realistically and sincerely. It nearly brought tears to my eyes (real men don't cry!!! *grunting sounds*).

I think Mori nailed the general aspects of the film: there were some really interesting design elements, and it was filmed really well. I also dug the soundtrack, but I'm no music connaisseur, so I can't provide further comment there.

At the end, you get kind of the sad clown feeling in the vibe, like joyful sadness, but that's life I guess. It's always hard to feel completely happy, there's always something lingering inside.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby TheBaxter on Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:29 pm

i really want to see this movie, i loved hedwig.

just waiting for the dvd
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19559
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:32 pm

Maybe I missed the true meaning of it but, to me, it just seemed like a arthouse porn movie crossed with a feature length Scissor Sisters music video.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Pacino86845 on Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:44 pm

TheBaxter wrote:i really want to see this movie, i loved hedwig.

just waiting for the dvd


Shortbus definitely made me think of looking up Hedwig.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby stereosforgeeks on Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:33 pm

The movie seemed to atleast have aspirations of being completely honest about sex.

I think it got it most right. Much better than most.
User avatar
stereosforgeeks
Re-Wound
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:46 pm
Location: DCish

Postby Brocktune on Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:40 pm

Fried Gold wrote:Maybe I missed the true meaning of it but, to me, it just seemed like a arthouse porn movie crossed with a feature length Scissor Sisters music video.


and you didnt go see it because?...
Image
User avatar
Brocktune
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6490
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:32 pm
Location: Pico & Sepulveda

Postby Fried Gold on Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:01 pm

I did see it. That's how I know.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13931
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:02 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:I hate comparing movies, but I have to mention Mysterious Skin. I really disliked that movie because it THOUGHT it could shock, and it felt as though the filmmakers thought they were gonna totally shock the world or whatever, but nothing was shocking about that film and it was just embarrassing like that friend who tells a really bad joke and you get that awkward moment right after. So Mysterious Skin is an example of a mainstream film posing as an independent film, but anyone who has a little experience with my lover-related films would find Mysterious Skin laughable, I reckon. (Maybe not, since Keepcool loved Mysterious Skin, and he is an independent/obscure/underground/my lover film expert)
\

can you name me one film that portrayed childhood sexuality in a more frank and realistic manner than Mysterious Skin? The only thing that was "shocking" about MS was the acknowledgment that childhood sexuality does exist, that, much like Nabokov displayed in Lolita, some children "awaken" or are in touch with their sexuality at a younger age than most adults "remember", or expect...that kids can be sexual predators as well.

I never thought the Dumbledore subject matter was meant to shock, never thought Araki was peddling in shock value, especially when compared to his earlier works, sorry you felt that way.

thanks for the review though. I'm not positive, it's been a while since I read up on Shortbus, but I'm fairly certain he tried to use non-professional actors.

seeing how your taking requests, could ya' get me a job? Sucking dick for weed money just ain't cuttin' it for me anymore...:cry:
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:48 am

Keepcoolbutcare wrote: can you name me one film that portrayed childhood sexuality in a more frank and realistic manner than Mysterious Skin? The only thing that was "shocking" about MS was the acknowledgment that childhood sexuality does exist, that, much like Nabokov displayed in Lolita, some children "awaken" or are in touch with their sexuality at a younger age than most adults "remember", or expect...that kids can be sexual predators as well.


About child sexuality? Nothing comes to mind right now. Ok, I'll give it to Mysterious Skin that it was probably honest in that sense, but the execution felt a little over the top and polished to me (all the kid parts). The teen and adult years, there was really nothing special there. It was a coming of age story that maybe started a little earlier than others.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby tapehead on Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:01 am

A few Spoiled notes on Shortbus.

I liked Shortbus - In the beginning it's a film setting out on a short journey of discovery but already waiting to burst with unabashed, guilt-free joy. It's often pretty camp, occasionally a little theatrical, but almost always fun. The shocks for me are there, but mostly in seeing things up on the big screen, rather than seeing something you've never been involved in, wondered idly about doing or heard of (ok except for the scene where they sing the National Anthem)

I'd like it much more if not for the character of Sophia, so it's kind of unfortunate She was so central to it. I think by listing a few of the things that troubled me about her story and the relationships she was portrayed as having, I can illustrate well how i felt about the movie as a whole.

This is a relationship counseller, a sex therapist if you will, who has never had an orgasm. Who in conversation, starts off as enthusiastically talking about how much she enjoys sex, what a great work out it is, how much she enjoys loving her partner, and ends talking about trying to keep a smile on her face and survive.
It kind of bugs me that this movie all comes down to a woman having her orgasm. I was kind of annoyed by the fact that the straight guy in that couple is portrayed as the thoughtless, uncaring one (unless you delve into the deleted scenes, which also features scenes of a very wisely excised sub-plot involving Caleb, the stalker) who, as we see at the Shortbus meetings, seems utterly disinterested in anything but the straight hetero-sex (and it's ensuing psycho-babble couples therapy sessions) he already knows.
I disliked that the only possible reason given for Sophia's problem, involved, somehow, the feeling that her Father was always watching her, but then that somewhat conveniently Fruedian piece of logic was discarded when she got to sit and watch someone else. So it didn't really work for me, perhaps on a subsequent vewing I'll get past it. Most of the rest of it did.
I loved the gorgeous, shiny cardboard construction paper cgi version on New York, after awhile, as a device to tell the story, it seemed a little shiny and cardboard. It kind of made this movie to the audience I was with not so rooted in a place called New York (even this was stressed again by character, setting and plot) but a kind of idealised, pretty, sexed up Oz. I think this effect might be contrary to the filmmakers wishes, which is a shame because I think they could have countered it with a few studly or unphotogenic members of the main cast - they were all a little conventional sense, and a few, like Ceth, look as though they've wandered off a Calvin Klein underwear shoot.
I wonder what happens to Severin at the end - the angry, funny Dominatrix / prostitute who seems to rarely enjoy her job, occasionally shows great insight and surprising vulnerability when it comes to the mechanics of human relationships, and gets no kind of progression or even conclusion to her story; she's just left to put it all aside and join in the chorus.
I understand a film like this with a queer agenda is always going to imply that straight relationships generally and monogamy specifically are never going to lead to a happy, long term sexual life, but it doesn't seem to give some of the characters any direction to go in at all. At least the Dumbledore male characters in the piece get to switch it up and pair off at the end. So I wonder what becomes of Sophia's partner too - I guess at least that He and Severin have both together moved towards breaking out of their old bad habits and are free at least to make new ones.
And I have to admit that quite a few of these qualms didn't come to me until thinking about the movie, and talking about it with friends later - while I sat in front of it, the colours, the fun mood and vivacious ensemble cast the great score by Yo La Tengo and Justin Bond's 'climactic' musical number, made most of it work.

7/10
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:03 am

tapehead wrote:A few Spoiled notes on Shortbus.

I liked Shortbus - In the beginning it's a film setting out on a short journey of discovery but already waiting to burst with unabashed, guilt-free joy. It's often pretty camp, occasionally a little theatrical, but almost always fun. The shocks for me are there, but mostly in seeing things up on the big screen, rather than seeing something you've never been involved in, wondered idly about doing or heard of (ok except for the scene where they sing the National Anthem)

I'd like it much more if not for the character of Sophia, so it's kind of unfortunate She was so central to it. I think by listing a few of the things that troubled me about her story and the relationships she was portrayed as having, I can illustrate well how i felt about the movie as a whole.

This is a relationship counseller, a sex therapist if you will, who has never had an orgasm. Who in conversation, starts off as enthusiastically talking about how much she enjoys sex, what a great work out it is, how much she enjoys loving her partner, and ends talking about trying to keep a smile on her face and survive.
It kind of bugs me that this movie all comes down to a woman having her orgasm. I was kind of annoyed by the fact that the straight guy in that couple is portrayed as the thoughtless, uncaring one (unless you delve into the deleted scenes, which also features scenes of a very wisely excised sub-plot involving Caleb, the stalker) who, as we see at the Shortbus meetings, seems utterly disinterested in anything but the straight hetero-sex (and it's ensuing psycho-babble couples therapy sessions) he already knows.
I disliked that the only possible reason given for Sophia's problem, involved, somehow, the feeling that her Father was always watching her, but then that somewhat conveniently Fruedian piece of logic was discarded when she got to sit and watch someone else. So it didn't really work for me, perhaps on a subsequent vewing I'll get past it. Most of the rest of it did.
I loved the gorgeous, shiny cardboard construction paper cgi version on New York, after awhile, as a device to tell the story, it seemed a little shiny and cardboard. It kind of made this movie to the audience I was with not so rooted in a place called New York (even this was stressed again by character, setting and plot) but a kind of idealised, pretty, sexed up Oz. I think this effect might be contrary to the filmmakers wishes, which is a shame because I think they could have countered it with a few studly or unphotogenic members of the main cast - they were all a little conventional sense, and a few, like Ceth, look as though they've wandered off a Calvin Klein underwear shoot.
I wonder what happens to Severin at the end - the angry, funny Dominatrix / prostitute who seems to rarely enjoy her job, occasionally shows great insight and surprising vulnerability when it comes to the mechanics of human relationships, and gets no kind of progression or even conclusion to her story; she's just left to put it all aside and join in the chorus.
I understand a film like this with a queer agenda is always going to imply that straight relationships generally and monogamy specifically are never going to lead to a happy, long term sexual life, but it doesn't seem to give some of the characters any direction to go in at all. At least the my lover male characters in the piece get to switch it up and pair off at the end. So I wonder what becomes of Sophia's partner too - I guess at least that He and Severin have both together moved towards breaking out of their old bad habits and are free at least to make new ones.
And I have to admit that quite a few of these qualms didn't come to me until thinking about the movie, and talking about it with friends later - while I sat in front of it, the colours, the fun mood and vivacious ensemble cast the great score by Yo La Tengo and Justin Bond's 'climactic' musical number, made most of it work.

7/10


But how is Sook Yin Lee as Sophia...?

Was she any good...?
Was she hot...

She used to be a VJ for MuchMusic up here in Canada....so I'm always willing to give our national "celebrities" a chance...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby tapehead on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:22 am

She was good - did quite a bit of masturbating, voyeurism and fucking, eventually got her rocks off. If the story that the filmmaker developed much of the story with the actors is true, then I guess some of the annoyances I had about the movie are kind of her responsibility.
It's a good movie overall - I just didn't buy her stroyline on a logical or emotional level. Lots of students study psychology with an interest to analysing themselves, I just can't see someone in her situation going into practice without at least some real experience of 'hitting the high notes'.
It might have been intended as symbolic or even 'absurdist', I still just couldn't really get into it.
Hot? I don't really find her hot in that role -attractive? hell yes.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:28 am

tapehead wrote:She was good - did quite a bit of masturbating, voyeurism and fucking, eventually got her rocks off. If the story that the filmmaker developed much of the story with the actors is true, then I guess some of the annoyances I had about the movie are kind of her responsibility.
It's a good movie overall - I just didn't buy her stroyline on a logical or emotional level. Lots of students study psychology with an interest to analysing themselves, I just can't see someone in her situation going into practice without at least some real experience of 'hitting the high notes'.
It might have been intended as symbolic or even 'absurdist', I still just couldn't really get into it.
Hot? I don't really find her hot in that role -attractive? hell yes.


Cool...thnx...

And I'll take an attractive (naked???) Sook Yin over an annoying "Here's the latest from The Dandy Warhols - and look at me!!! I'm so independent and artsy!!!" Sook Yin anyday...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby tapehead on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:37 am

To answer that unanswered question, I think all the major characters, except maybe Severin and the character Justin Bond plays, are naked and fully engaged in actual - or near as - sex at several points during the movie.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:39 am

tapehead wrote:To answer that unanswered question, I think all the major characters, except maybe Severin and the character Justin Bond plays, are naked and fully engaged in actual - or near as - sex at several points during the movie.


That's what I figured...I had heard something like that...
And it keeps staring back at me from the rental shelf...So I might have to pick it up...

But I first have to try and finish Battle In Heaven one of these days...

Speaking of sex...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:28 pm

tapehead wrote:I'd like it much more if not for the character of Sophia, so it's kind of unfortunate She was so central to it. I think by listing a few of the things that troubled me about her story and the relationships she was portrayed as having, I can illustrate well how i felt about the movie as a whole.
This is a relationship counseller, a sex therapist if you will, who has never had an orgasm.
I disliked that the only possible reason given for Sophia's problem, involved, somehow, the feeling that her Father was always watching her, but then that somewhat conveniently Fruedian piece of logic was discarded when she got to sit and watch someone else.


i had a blast, least until Mitchell forced the magic realism in the final third.

co-sign everything you said about Sophia, but I'll add this...40% of women (or roughly thereabout) cannot achieve orgasm, a salient fact that goes unmentioned throughout the entire film. This isn't to say they can't/don't enjoy sex, but rather that they simply aren't hardwired to achieve orgasm, be it clitoral or vaginal.

It's not a matter of psychology, but rather physiology. You would think a fucking relationship counselor might at least acknowledge that at some point.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby tapehead on Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:33 am

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
tapehead wrote:I' d like it much more if not for the character of Sophia, so it's kind of unfortunate She was so central to it. I think by listing a few of the things that troubled me about her story and the relationships she was portrayed as having, I can illustrate well how i felt about the movie as a whole.
This is a relationship counseller, a sex therapist if you will, who has never had an orgasm.
I disliked that the only possible reason given for Sophia's problem, involved, somehow, the feeling that her Father was always watching her, but then that somewhat conveniently Fruedian piece of logic was discarded when she got to sit and watch someone else.


i had a blast, least until Mitchell forced the magic realism in the final third.

co-sign everything you said about Sophia, but I'll add this...40% of women (or roughly thereabout) cannot achieve orgasm, a salient fact that goes unmentioned throughout the entire film. This isn't to say they can't/don't enjoy sex, but rather that they simply aren't hardwired to achieve orgasm, be it clitoral or vaginal.

It's not a matter of psychology, but rather physiology. You would think a fucking relationship counselor might at least acknowledge that at some point.


40%!? While I'm aware of the occurence, I'm stunned at that figure. I was kind of hoping that She's never get there, but demonstrate somehow that sex could be good and satisfying anyhow. It makes the vaguely Freudian explanation of Sophia's hang-ups and the slightly trite sentiment of the final song's double entendre chorus - 'We all get it in the end', seem a little more shallow, as evidently, not all of us do.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:44 am

hey tapes, know that myth that Sex and the City perpetrated on the public, that women have this voracious sexual appetite and that they like sex as much if not more so than men?

bullshit as well.

I'd Rather Eat Choclate

or, summed up rather succinctly by the greatest sex advice columnist the world has ever known, Savage Love

a Big Lie picked up on and promoted by self-serving female "sexperts" eager to tell straight men what they wanted to hear. Women have naturally lower sex drives, Sewell writes. It's a hormonal thing. Testosterone makes humans horny, men have way more than women, so men are hornier—and all the Sex and the City repeats in the world aren't going to change that.


and to all the ladies in the Zone who doth protest, ya'll can come to Oakland and have sex with me to prove this all wrong.

I don't mind, I'll take one for the team.
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby tapehead on Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:08 am

Not the hot bitches I roll with... uh, yep, this confirms my basic beliefs - women don't want to have sex as often, but when they do, there's little point in trying to negotiate. Candid admissions like the one's you have linked also underscores the porn indutry's existence and orientation.

But 40 per cent never have an orgasm? indeed cannot? That is still a tough one to come to grips with, pun intended. I guess when you find a partner who matches your speed, hang on to that girl. And if you can't, get your kicks on the down low.

Having said that, Joan Sewell does seem to have a few hangups, at least regarding cunninglingus and the like.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Shortbus (SFW & NSFW!)

Postby DennisMM on Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:19 pm

On the recommendation of someone I know from the web, I rented Shortbus, the comedy/drama about relationships which features a variety of hardcore sex scenes, Dumbledore and straight, vanilla and slightly kinky. Many, what a dull picture. I wound up skimming both the sex scenes and the nonsex scenes just to get to the finale. Kind of like fucking while drunk ... hard to recall and not very memorable in the first place. The film wasn't awful, though it was no Hedwig. It just bored me to death. Sad, ennit?
Image
User avatar
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16813
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round


Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron