Shortbus

I have a feeling there will be more than a small number of walkouts
within the first ten minutes of Shortbus, John Cameron
Mitchell's new film. To my knowledge, it is the first mainstream
movie with a fully developed plot and non-porn actors to have explicit
sex in it. Not implied, not soft-core. The real thing. We're treated
to a husband and wife trying out more positions than you thought
existed, a guy aerobically trying to fellate himself, and a dominatrix
with a new client. Again, that's in the first ten minutes.

Look at me, I'm blushing. I'm staring at a computer screen, second
paragraph in, blushing. And I didn't even get to the part about the all-
male three-way and the manner in which they perform the National
Anthem.

How about I focus on the story instead? Great. It's actually quite
well-done, telling the interlocking stories of six or seven people.
Front and center is Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), a sex therapist
("couples counselor", she corrects us) who has yet to have an orgasm.
Two of her clients, Jamie and James (PJ DeBoy and Paul
Dawson), with troubles of their own, tell her about the Shortbus,
an underground club for every gender, orientation, and fetish
imaginable. There, among other people, she befriends Severin
(Lindsay Beamish), the aforementioned dominatrix.

Wow, I just realized that even that much of the plot still sounds very
much like a porn film. It's not. The movie is concerned much more
with its characters than the sex, and most of the dialogue is quite
well-done. A visit to Shortbus (named for the buses in grade school
that were always used by the challenged) reveals it to be not a scary
place at all but a friendly, welcome haven for off-center people
everywhere. (Is the real underground NYC sex scene as harmless and
fun as this movie makes it out to be? I'll let you decide.)

Many passages of the movie are quite good. A monologue spoken by an
elderly gay man who says he was the former mayor of New York is
actually very graceful, and achieves for the movie a certain eloquence
that's hard to deny. The opening credit sequence (in between the sex)
is a colorful 3D-model of Manhattan that looks either computer-
generated or made out of papier-mâché. Either way, it's quite simply
very cool-looking, and, coupled with the soundtrack, inspires a sense
of magic. Also done cleverly (and unexpectedly) is how the events in
the film are framed around the Northeast Blackout in ’03.

Unfortunately, the movie’s faults can sometimes be as naked as its
characters. (Wow, that was terrible.) The character of James, probably
the second lead after Sofia, is not only a bore but terribly unlikable. He
considers

suicide. He cries at random times. He constantly has a
depressed expression on his face. And why? No reason. His life, as we
see in the film, is actually quite good. His personality is insufferable,
but the movie portrays him as sympathetic. Sorry; I’m sick of being
asked to feel sorry for someone else for no reason except that they
chronically feel sorry for themselves.

Then there’s the question of the sex. Undoubtedly this will be the most
divisive point in the film. Most liberal critics will probably either gloss
over it or applaud it, and you could make those arguments, but why,
exactly, is it so necessary? In a recent article I read that director Mitchell
wanted to break the audience into the reality of the film immediately (or
“break the audience’s hymen,” as he put it, in a metaphor that I suppose
speaks for itself). Undoubtedly I will be accused of missing the point
here: after all, sex is what the movie is all about. But why hardcore? A
general rule of filmmaking is that showing something point-blank
makes it less interesting. The shark in Jaws. The briefcase in
Pulp Fiction. Sure, you could say it would be to try to take away
the mystique, but the mysteries and paradoxes of sex are what the
movie is all about.

Of course, I’m sure Mitchell wanted these discussions. He’s clearly a
talented filmmaker, with a sharp eye for character (and collaboration:
the movie credits the cast for coming up with the story with him).
There’s a lot to admire if you get through it, but I doubt Mitchell will
gain any real converts. He’s preaching to the choir.

Movie Grade: B

Synopsis:

Written and directed by Mitchell (who previously starred in and directed the film adaptation of his international stage hit, “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”), “Shortbus” explores the lives of several characters living in present-day New York as they navigate the comic and tragic intersections between love and sex. Male and female, straight and gay, the characters find one and other "” and eventually find themselves "” when they all converge at a weekly underground salon called “Shortbus,” a mad nexus of art, music, politics, and polysexual carnality.