|
There’s
little doubt that the film will be challenging for many; the perfect
example of this being the very opening sequence, as we’re introduced to
our main character James (Paul Dawson), as he fondles his penis in the
bath. With extreme close-ups throughout the some 30 seconds of the
initial opening, the sequence ends with a bubble of bowel wind rising
to the water’s surface. And I’ll go on to say that it gets
(immediately) a lot more explicit from here on in: I’m tempted to say
downhill, but I won’t assume that all movie goers are seeking the same
things from their viewing experiences.
The film cleverly follows
and intertwines multiple story lines, one of the primaries being that
of Sofia (Sook Yu Lee), a ’Sex-therapist’, or ‘Couples Counsellor’ as
she prefers, through a period of sexual awakening. Ironically, Sofia
has never experienced an orgasm, despite having, what we are all made
(graphically) a witness of, a very active sex life with her husband Rob
(Rafael Barker).
It isn’t until a gay couple, being James and
his partner Jamie (RJ DeBoy), who seek Sofia’s services for their own
relationship trouble, that her period of sexual awakening begins.
After
blurting out her secret of orgasm-less sex to the both of them, the men
introduce her to the Shortbus (named after the school bus for children
with disabilities or emotional problems), a secret New York club where
multisex is the chef’s recommendation.
The film also follows the
story of James and Jamie, through their own period of turmoil and
sexual exploration from the monotony of monogamy to the idea of
bringing in outside sexual partners to spice up their relationship.
The
fact that one partner in the relationship is more committed than the
other becomes evident and the motive behind the private film that
James’s is putting together for Jamie becomes predictably driven.
Should
its viewers remain until the end (and I was a little surprised to see
no early leavers), then the film succeeds in desensitizing its audience
to a world the majority would not be familiar with.
The director
does well to draw us into sexual explicitness through the use of
comedy. He attempts to develop character depth through similar
processes, but really only achieves partial success on this front.
As
each of the film’s characters – from the main characters all the way to
the extras – share each other’s bodies both openly and gratifyingly,
the film also succeeds in merging the entire spectrum of sexualities,
preferences, acts and positions into one mesh of pulsating flesh. It is
at these moments that one also can’t help but wonder about the merging
of infectious STDs as well.
Gritting through the explicit
visuals, with the help of some good humour (a little bit of sugar,
perhaps?), you can almost see somewhat of an interesting story
unfolding. But by the end you will perhaps feel a little disappointed
that Mitchell seeks with much less care to end the film well, than he
took to have us accept a world of taboo behaviours and a neglect for
responsibility.
The truth is, while watching the film, you also
can’t help but wonder where the line is drawn between film and
pornography, perhaps the only difference being pornography’s goal of
sexual arousal, as it is hard to get this feeling from Shortbus.
The
film often lacked discipline, and the feeling too much character
development occurred adlib was probably confirmed in the final credits.
Ultimately, Shortbus is a daring film that succeeds on many fronts, but falls short on many others. EXTRAS
Theres some deleted scenes on here, but nothing that will really set your pants on fire (or tingling!).
Conclusion:
Movie 65% Extras: 50%
|
