Review: Shortbus
| January 26th, 2007I went to see Short Bus tonight. There are a lot of good things you could say about this movie. It’s got lots of lovely and real moments, humour and wit, and, most importantly, it shows people having sex. Not just soft lighting and fading to black, but people having sex in a way that an actual person might actually have sex.
I’m not going to say any of these things, instead I’m going to explore why, despite these features, the movie left me cold.
The most obvious reason was that there was just too much non-consensual sexual activity for me. A professional dominatrix has sexual contact with a man who repeatedly steps over her boundaries, and she can’t afford to enforce those boundaries. A stalker stalks a couple for two years, and culminates this in touching one member of the couple sexually when he is passed out. The climax of both the major plots involve scenes with sexual contact that is clearly non-consensual.
I don’t have a problem with movies depicting non-consesual sex. What I need is for a movie that depicts non-consensual sex to take that seriously. To give the viewer space to be creeped out. I need to know that the director also believes that non-consensual sex is a problem, or else I can’t play in his world. I can’t switch from creepy non-consensual sex scene to happy orgy party scene, where one woman’s orgasm restores power to a city.
Shortbus sold itself, both during the movie itself and through publicity, as a broad view of life and sex. I think if I hadn’t thought of the movie like that I would have enjoyed it a lot more, becuase my other problem was what a limited world this movie showed.
Partly it was limited in the way films set in Manhattan are so often limited. Ridiculously rich people are meant to stand for us all. I realised while watching that I’m prejudiced against Manhattan movies, or at least that subset of Manhattan movies that believe that by showing us Manhattan they are showing us the world. If what I’ve been told is true, then if you can afford an apartment that looks spacious in Manhattan, then you have a reasonably to very high income.
But it was more than that, the extras in the scenes set in the club were remarkably similar for a movie that was supposed to show us a broad section of human experience. They were almost all young, conventionally attractive and white. The exceptions were tokenised to an extent that felt insulting. The old man wasn’t just an old man who might enjoy sex like everyone else, he was also the only old person in the building (and as a side-note I don’t think he deserved any forgiveness or absolution). The non-white characters were given pointed roles (one of the main characters or one of the few lesbians who was shown twice), which presumably was meant to make us forget how few of them there were. There were two fat people in there, but both were meant to show how weird and freakish this club was, and didn’t actually do anything (because that would be too much).
I discussed all this, as we were walking home afterwards. We agreed on the points I mentioned above, But my friends felt they had gained something from this movie, and many people gave it rave reviews. I understand why. We’re so deprived of anything resembling real images of sex and sexuality, that for so many of us a step in the right direction is really important.
I’m not sure that any movie can take the weight that the director and marketers tried to give this one. If films acknowledge sex as a part of our life then this could be a movie about a sex therapist, a depressed man, and the people they meet. But they don’t, and it’s not. I’m not saying you shouldn’t see it, because movies like it are rare - but we deserve better.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Well goddammit. I was really looking forward to this movie, but all of your criticisms are personal pet peeves of mine . . . so . . .
*sigh*
Maybe I’ll rent it.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
You know, I had a real problem with the movie too - I definitely felt like it painted this carefree sexual paradise that was actually very exclusive, or rather, exclusionary.
Also, the plot was so thin you could see through it.
And aren’t we a little over the whole notion of “frigid woman whose sexual problem get solved so all other problems in her life get solved too?”
This comment was written by Katie.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am
sorry to be that guy, but i really can’t help myself in this instance–it’s consensual, not consentual. the fact that this misspelling occurs so many times in your piece in this instance really detracts from what is otherwise a very thoughtful commentary.
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“But it was more than that, the extras in the scenes set in the club were remarkably similar for a movie that was supposed to show us a broad section of human experience. They were almost all young, conventionally attractive and white. The exceptions were tokenised to an extent that felt insulting.”
Exactly. In addition, I felt most of the characters in the film were shallow and poorly written — we end up with little understanding of their motivations. The film seems more interested in making its characters “quirky” rather than compelling, sympathetic, or even coherent. I really think all the flaws in the film outway any of the good features it has.
This comment was written by Tanooki Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I hadn’t heard of this movie before. What does the title mean in this context?
This comment was written by Blue.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Also, Manhattan has no E in it.
This comment was written by Alison.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Blue - Shortbus is the name of the club where everyone comes. The person who runs the club said something along the lines of “normal people ride the big yellow school bus, gifted and challenged people ride the shortbus.” Of course none of the people there were in any way physically disabled.
Thanks for the spelling corrections - that’s what happens when I write a post late at night.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I haven’t seen the film, but I saw an interview with John Cameron Mitchell. He said something to the effect that we all feel like we belong on a shortbus once in a while. We all feel that we just don’t belong with “normal” people. He wanted to explore that “otherness” that’s common to us all.
“Hedwig and the Angry Inch” is one of my favourite movies because it celebrates people in the margins. It makes me feel like everyone belongs. (It makes me feel normal). I’m hesitating to see “Shortbus” because I’ve read other bad reviews, and I’m not quite ready for Mitchell to fall off my pedistal.
This comment was written by Sage.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I share your criticisms, but you have to admit that scene where they were being chased by the cops and the bridge was out so they jumped the shortbus over the ravine totally rocked. I also enjoyed it when that one guy got a blowjob.
This comment was written by Tito.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
There are a lot of good things you could say about this movie. It’s got lots of lovely and real moments, humour and wit, and, most importantly, it shows people having sex. Not just soft lighting and fading to black, but people having sex in […] Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 8:20 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
February 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
[...] ▪ Feminist take on Shortbus (movie) ▪ Minimum wage rises, sky does not fall ▪ What it’s like to be married to/live with a chef ▪ If you can’t say something nice, what the hell do you say? ▪ “Guilt” and “Innocence” in the Duke lacrosse rape case ▪ Mary Tyler Ivins, 1944-2007 ▪ On Ruth Bader Ginsberg and female “sensitivities” ▪ The cement mixer gets it all ready ▪ TOMS [...]
This comment was written by Round-Up Sans Rodeo at Faux Real Tho!.Report this comment to the moderators
February 4th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Very interesting take. Like the first commenter, I may wait to rent it even though I’m trying to get my top-10 list finished…
This comment was written by Scott Lemieux.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I understand your issues with the casting, but don’t forget that everyone was cast based on their response to an open casting call to perform sexual acts on camera. Is it possible that more young, thin, conventionally attractive people are willing to do this? This review says a little about the casting, both of the extras and of the main character, played by Sook-Yin Lee (Who’s work I like, I admit it!).
This comment was written by Livy.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Livy - or it could be that the people who the director liked most were young, white thin and conventionally attractive.
In the end it doesn’t matter - if he could only get young, white, thin, conventionally attractive people then he should have made a move about young, white, thin, conventionally attractive people. Rather than sticking a few tokens in and pretend that it stood for everyone.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators