MovieChat Forums > Shortbus (2006) Discussion > I have no idea what kind of message this...

I have no idea what kind of message this movie was trying to send.

posted 13 years ago by subtlesilverlinings
7 replies | jump to latest

This movie was clearly intent on exploring sexual psychology, yet unlike most other psychological films, it ended with me knowing the characters even less than I had at the beginning of the film. I don't know who ends up with who, I don't know the answers to any of the problems the characters had...it was just two hours of unresolved issues, which makes for an utterly unsatisfying movie.

Let's start with the more "normal" couple. Sophia couldn't orgasm with Rob, so she went in search of other outlets to try to achieve the Big O...but in the end, what was it that finally made her orgasm? It was pretty predictable from early on that Sophia was going to get off with the hot chick, but was it actually the hot chick who got her off, or the combination of hot chick and hot guy? Would she have been able to get off with Rob if they were in a threesome, or is Rob just unable to sexually satisfy her? So is Sophia gay, or does she only get off on more "deviant" sex acts than simply one guy and one girl? The reason for Sophia's orgasm is completely unexplained after an entire film of watching her try to figure it out. I usually don't mind films with more open endings, but when I'm made to sit through two hours of trying to solve a problem, I expect at least somewhat more of an answer, not this crap resolution of "a woman spent her whole life unable to achieve an orgasm and then she suddenly got one." I'd also like to know what happens with her and Rob - do they stay married? Do they have an open relationship? Sex hardly seemed to be their only problem in the movie, so I wish the end of the film had explored their relationship more.

Then there's Severin. It seemed like she was making real progress with Sophia when it came to trying to have a normal relationship, but then the vibrator incident occurred and...what happened after that? Did they resume having sessions with each other? Or did they never speak again? Did Severin's progress halt? Did she backslide into only superficial dominatrix relationships? We don't even know if she's still with the john at the end of the movie. Again, for a plot point that was major in the movie, it has virtually no resolution whatsoever.

I was most bothered by Jamie and James's relationship. (And before anyone starts, no, it's not because they're gay.) James was shown to be incredibly unhappy in the relationship - all it took was the scene in the shrink's office to understand that. Jamie kept talking over James and calling him "Jamie" even after he explained that he was going by "James" now, and Jamie seemed more intent on making the shrink like him than in actually working on his relationship with James. Of course, the most obvious sign that James was unhappy was the fact that he planned his own suicide for six months. So why is it that after at least six months of being miserable enough to want to kill himself, having sex with a random stalker suddenly made James okay? How could that possibly be the solution? James admitted to Severin that he never let anyone *beep* him, so why would he allow his first time to be with a complete stranger? Why not Jamie? And how can it be seen as a good thing for their relationship that James was only able to go back to Jamie after cheating on him? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And I don't see how sex with a stranger will make Jamie any more tolerable to James since James seemed to hate how Jamie was always clinging to his "I'm an albino!" thing and the way he always seemed to need to be in control. It was just not portrayed as a good relationship, and I fail to understand why I should be happy at the end when they wind up back together.

If you think you can explain any of the above things to me, please, feel free to try. As it is, I was severely disappointed in this movie. It just seemed completely incapable of really addressing any of the issues it raised. I was left with way more questions than answers, which is really not the way a movie should end. Like I said above, I don't mind open-ended movies, but this film was left WIDE open. It's like it stopped in the middle and I'm waiting for part two to load so I can find out if any of the characters managed to make any actual progress with their problems.

Thoughts? Comments? Anyone agree with me, or did everyone else feel satisfied with that ending?

[–] Krustallos 13 years ago

It's a while since I last watched it, but here's my take, briefly:

I don't think we need to know exactly why Sophia was able to orgasm with the "beautiful couple", the point is that she needed something other than what Rob could provide. Sex is irrational and mysterious in a lot of ways, I think we just have to accept that, in the film as in life. Showing what happened with her & Rob later on would have damaged the structure of the film I think. Sometimes it's OK to leave things open (personally I think they would have broken up).

Severin's story is less resolved, but we see her at least beginning to grope towards a way out of her isolation. I think that's as far as it goes.

James was unhappy in the relationship but I think because he was unable to 'let go' fully rather than a lack of love for Jamie. Jamie may have been talking over him due to anxiety at his own inability to understand. The guy James has sex with is less "a random stalker" than the person who's just saved his life, and in terms of it being "the solution", Cameron Mitchell has said in interviews that penetration in this film has a symbolic significance, about open-ness to 'the other'. In that respect a complete stranger makes more sense. Plus it may be an extension of the common phenomenon that people will tell complete strangers things they would never tell their loved ones. I think J&J genuinely love one another but have problems expressing that so we are supposed to be happy they find a way through the blockage.

As for "I was left with way more questions than answers, which is really not the way a movie should end.", that's a seriously debatable matter of opinion. Some people would say that asking questions is the whole purpose of art.

It seemed to me that mostly the stories were intended to work in that Raymond Carver way of depicting small moments in people's lives when something shifts - not always in a dramatic way but subtly, yet with lasting significance.

And the broader meaning of the film had to do with inclusivity and love as opposed to their opposites, a post 9/11 statement of what "our freedoms" mean for Cameron Mitchell and his friends. 9/11 itself being a pretty colossal example of sexual repression, in some analyses.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity."

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I was satisfied with the ending and I thought Justin Bond delivered the message very aptly: to connect. For example, James didn't want to connect with who he was because of what happened to him in the past - hence why he didn't want to be f/cked. Sophie was not connected in any sensual sense to her body - her attempts to orgasm were more like assaults on her own person, likely connected to her father given the conversation she had with Severin/Jennifer. And Severin didn't want to be Jennifer.

As Justin Bond sang towards the end and as your last breathe begins, you find your demon's your best friend. Embrace, connect with the demonds, your fears and rejections. It's not an unusual or esoteric message of reparation.

I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl

[–] bboinnng 12 years ago

Okay, the folks who have responded already have provided some pretty good analyses of the film, imo, and I'm just going to add a bit here if you don't mind. With regards to James/Jamie, I was showing the film to a friend the other day, and took note of what the actor who plays James says in the DVD extras about the sex between his character and the stalker. This is pretty much word for word:

"The sex in the film, particularly for James, being penetrated is a moment of existential submission, if not divine submission. His existence truly depends on it because he needs to access this core, this strength that has been buried."

And this is from an interview with the same actor from 2007:

"James' submission to Caleb is more existential than physical, to a person who has made a divine intervention into his life. At this life or death moment, James sees that there is value in allowing himself to be penetrated, and when that occurs, he is finally able to feel the love from Jamie and knows that he should be with him. James' intercourse with Caleb truly involves a shift in his consciousness."

So I gather that James, as embodied by the self-fellatio, which I think is supposed to symbolize that he can only relate to himself, and even then, barely can - he bursts out sobbing as soon as he does it - has been damaged to his 'core', as also evidenced by the scene immediately proceeding the sex with the stalker - James trying to fight the guy off when he makes advances, and screaming at him "you don't understand -I don't wanna be this way !" Ie gay. James has internalized the message that being gay/being penetrated means that there is something deeply & profoundly wrong with him, a mistake, an error that needs correcting or smothering (still to this day there persists things like 'gay conversion therapy'.) Which is why he never let anyone penetrate him, not even his boyfriend. When the stalker saves his life it's a pretty monumental moment for James (would be for anyone) and when the guy tenderly touches his arm when he thinks James is asleep, James is deeply moved by this - by everything the guy has done for him - and is maybe beginning to feel things for the first time, ie opening up. As frightening and hugely baggage-laden as the penetration is to him, as evidenced by his face during it, he's reached a point where it's something he needs finally to do, to be open to, in order to maybe find self acceptance and heal the damaged inner core, and it perhaps feels safer, less risky with a caring stanger who's just saved his life, somebody with whom he doesn't have any baggage/background issues with, vs his own bf.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

Yeah i was also in the dark about what this movie is about .the acting wasn't all that great .so i guess in this case the sex scenes are very useful at filling in the gap's ..The movie just seemed to be one of those cheesy PBS flicks .without much of a message.Does it have to do with excepting the gay culture more openly?>???? ..please explain/elaborate for me

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

The point of the film was disgusting exploitation. There's nothing else to be said for it.

[–] rzarectum 8 years ago

Sexuality is usually never a problem for me, but I was shocked and appalled that this mainstream film had real pornography in it. Pornography is not a problem for me either, but I strongly oppose it being in a film like this (made for public consumption).

I agree that it is disgusting exploitation - of sex and the actors. There are some people out there that suggest it is simulated sex, but there are plenty of shots where you can see the male actor penetrating the female. And that says nothing for the guy seen fellating himself and ejaculating into his own mouth on camera.

The article in this link specifically describes the sex as un-simulated
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cseas/article/56146

Article Stub:
When writer and director John Cameron Mitchell asked Lee to perform un-simulated sex and masturbation as a lead actress in his latest film Shortbus, Lee was up to the challenge. “It’s really telling to reveal characters through the way they make love or *beep*,” says Lee.

APA: The Shortbus characters and script were created by Mitchell and his cast. How much did you know about the film when you were cast?

Sook-Yin Lee: I knew that John wanted to create a narrative about the search for love and connection that pushed the boundaries of on-screen sex. He wanted a movie where the sex was real -- and defied pornography and the wave of underground European and American cinema that has been using un-simulated sex in recent years. As opposed to those movies that are quite serious or have a lot of violence towards women, he wanted to do something that was more life-affirming, that explored sexuality in a way that he has experienced it in life. It can be funny sometimes, or completely awkward, nerve-wracking, all those different things. He wanted to make a comedy, and I loved that idea.

APA: How did you feel about doing the un-simulated sex and masturbation scenes? Were you ever nervous?

SYL: In the very beginning, on a theoretical level, I was so excited about the project as an artist, but when it came down to it, it was very anxiety-filled for me. There are many different difficult passages that I had to work through. Even when we [the Shortbus cast] avoided talking about our anxieties, John would say, “Come on, let’s talk about them and process them.”

APA: Kind of like therapy sessions at the Shortbus rehearsals…

SYL: Yea, and I gave him a long list of things that I wouldn’t do, and we were never forced to do anything that we didn’t want to do. The movie took a few years to develop. The only way that I could do the sex was because there was a lot of friendship and camaraderie built between myself, the actors and John, so by the end of the whole process, it was like I was working with a group of my closest friends in a very small set.

APA: Had you seen the movie previously?

SYL: Actually the first time I had sent the movie in its entirety was at Cannes.

APA: What was it like to watch yourself on screen?

SYL: It’s a huge screen. It’s like a jumbotron, and I don’t really enjoy the process of watching myself act, clothed or not clothed, so it’s like staring at the mirror, and it makes me self conscious. So I was ducking my head, every time I was on screen. Especially the sex stuff, I remember turning to John and saying “My gosh, there is a lot of sex in this movie,” and he couldn’t stop laughing at me.

APA: Have your parents seen the movie?
SYL: No. My parents are banned from the movie.

The article in the next link describes the sex as non-simulated
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Sex-Real-Sex-is-star-of-Shortbus-2468609.php

Article Stubs:
John Cameron Mitchell believes that American cinema has a problem with prudishness, and he has done something about it. His second film, "Shortbus," features lengthy and nonsimulated sex scenes -- the kind traditionally found on porn videos.
Indeed, "Shortbus" has been called "unquestionably the most sexually graphic American narrative feature ever made outside the porn industry" (Variety)

Mitchell's ambitions for the film also include a desire to save sex from porn. "Kids today only learn about sex through porn," he says. "Purely formulaic, joyless sex. I wanted to remind people that sex can be very human."
But Mitchell is the first to admit that "sex is the star of our movie. It is our Jennifer Aniston."

Still, he admits he made the movie not for a mainstream audience but "for my friends,"
^This quote makes me think he made this movie so they could have sex during a production.

Overall, I wouldn't have such a problem if this was intended to be porn and I sat down to watch it as porn (and I would've considered it a good one). But as a regular movie, I think this movie offends my sensibilities. I think the sex scenes could have been more tasteful and I truly feel the sex should have been simulated and perhaps less graphic. Hollywood is turning real actors into prostitutes and porn stars in front of our eyes.

[–] brooklyn-de-106-924826 8 years ago

Just enjoy the softcore sex scenes in the mainstream movie.