(A once-off in an occasional series...)
Oh no. Seriously.
I have just... er, okay - this is going to be the most. Right, I have thought about posting this and fuck-it.
Do you know what?
Okay, the thing is, is that you've mentioned it a few times and other people have gone "ohmygod, it's really good" but - can I be honest?
I have just watched Shortbus and I thought it wasn't very good.
Sitting down to watch it I hoped that I would like it but I just...
Okay - my main problem is the film seems to suggest that meaningful sex - in this case, group sex - is basically the cure for everything.
Take the gay couple - there was no development from him trying to commit suicide to them getting back together. Did the former hustler ever explain why he was stood naked in a window in the flat opposite surrounded by candles?
Why didn't we get to see any of that? We should have though...
Some parts were amusing; the nurse on suicide watch and the dominatrix's name, for example, but for the most part I just felt like it was being too profound for itself.
It was a little too ironic that the sex therapist had never had an orgasm. And as soon as she admitted it I thought; "right, so that's how the movie's going to end then..." And it did.
The sex scenes (all of them) I just thought were - okay, if you look at it the other way and removed all the biology from them, i.e. no erect willies / penetration etc. it would go from being a lame to an awful movie.
And that's not to say that the sex scenes spice it up / make it any good - I just mean that including them turns the movie into some sort of porno-style film with a meaning. And porn films are at their worst when they try to be anything other than a porn movie.
Maybe trying to categorise mainstream vs porn is doing exactly what the film suggests I shouldn't do. I.e. "hard-core sex on film doesn't mean porn", "straight is only a word" etc. but ... I dunno.
I'm kinda gutted that I didn't like it.
Who knows?
Aside from that - what also irritated me about it was that some bits were oddly edited.
The pacing seemed off and it also felt like they'd over-shot (filmed too much, from too many angles). It would seem that in the editing process they just couldn't bear / bare (!) to not include everything they filmed.
For example, in the scene where the sex therapist Sonia kisses the host of Shortbus - you see that from 7 angles in about 10 seconds.
One of the (obvious) themes in the movie is voyeurism and if you're going to be "voyeuristic" with a camera you can do it far more effectively than shooting something from many different angles.
Okay I'm going to stop. If you've seen this movie please convince me that I'm wrong and that I should be loving it.
But why? I just don't get it.
Sunday 23 December 2007
"Your husband's getting fucked in the ass..."
Written by Bobby Vanquish at around 23:42
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'll re-watch Shortbus for the 4th time tomorrow. I can't post a proper "10 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD LVOE SHORTBUS" comment at the moment, too wasted and uninspired right now.. so give me a couple of days, alright?
You are so going to change your idea after that...
I was in a room once while Shortbus was playing (please note - I was NOT watching Shortbus, I was just there) and I can think of one reason why it's a terrible film: everyone in it is ugly. Goodbye.
Andrea: You see that's the thing - you need a few days to explain why it's good?! I think I can sum all the ten reasons why you liked it into one reason:
i.e. I liked Shortbus because: "everyone else I know says it was the most amazing thing because it's the thing to be seen to be liking even though it's not very good." This film is the Emperor's New Clothes actually.
London P: Yes, an interesting point and actually there is a reason for the lack of hotness in the movie. (I watched "The Making Of..." extra on the DVD an in attempt to try and appreciate it (didn't happen.) The reason for the lack of hotness was firstly because actors were slightly too scared to sign up and appear in what is basically a porn film and secondly because when they did they kept dropping out - so it seems in the end the director just went with anyone he could find.
A completely tedious movie and so disappointing after having just watched "Latter Days". LP is right -- without attractive characters, it's hard to get past a poor story and bad movie-making, even with the explicit sex.
Ahoj
but what about the songs? Surely that's the point...isn't it??? Then again, I'm just a gay who can't say no to the sound of musicals.
Not that I considered the sex incidental to the music though!
BTW, loved your Christmas movie BV.
ahoj
Totally agree. The movie is just trying to shock a prudish US audience with unnecessary and not so attractive sex.
But I did enjoy watching a couple of straight friends squirm during the "star spangled banner" threesome. It was their idea to watch it anyway.
Post a Comment