There is no strict categorical distinction between pornographic and non-pornographic fictional movies. The most useful definition of filmed pornography is a work made with the intention that the audience will masturbate while watching it; the graphicness of the sex simply serves that end. This intention does have an enormous practical effect: does anyone with XXX discs at hand pop Basic Instinct (1992) or Wild Things (1998) into the DVD for a five-minute whack before work?
At the same time, people have always derived private "pleasure" of whatever kind they choose while thinking about certain Hollywood stars they've seen in movies. Rudolph Valentino, Clara Bow, Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, Jane Russell, Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Robert Redford, Raquel Welch, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie would scarcely have had the careers they've had if this weren't the case. It breaks down to a binary distinction: supposed non-pornography is no more than any movie the makers do not intend you to masturbate over while watching it.
Bruce LaBruce's The Raspberry Reich (2004) crossed this non-existent line by mixing hardcore sex with political satire of western terrorist cells. (His approach was like the Marquis de Sade's in Philosophy in the Bedroom — alternating genres in order to turn you on to the characters' ideas, despite yourself.) John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus crosses the same line, but starting from the other side.
Shortbus interweaves the stories of three New York City couples with sexual-emotional dysfunctions — i.e., it's a "relationship" movie — but it begins with explicit scenes of the characters having sex. There's full nudity, wood, real in-and-out, and cumshots, all the bits you usually don't see at the movies, from nuts to soup. These interludes are not shot in such a way that you wish you were at home and more "comfortable," however. Mitchell worked with the actors to develop the characters and storylines and the sex is tied directly to what they came up with. In other words, the sex is "justified."
Probably too justified. The problem with explicit sex in a supposedly realistic work of fiction is that the sex is almost always too emphatically informational. In movies, I have never seen anything else that approached Bernardo Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris (1972), in which the characters hole up for a three-day sexual escapade. They indulge fantasies, which turn out to be decidedly unsustainable once the demented holiday ends; there's no road back to daily living, not together. In Last Tango the emphasis is warranted because it's about a man acting out his conflicts in sex games, and the conflicts are developed with a minutely realistic acuity. And it can't be called naïve because it dramatizes the limitations of those games.
In Shortbus, Mitchell and his actors may have started out with the determination to show us a side of character we don't generally see, but their notions of character turn out to be so conventional that the sexual proclivities are reabsorbed and neutralized. The sexual acts we witness are simply too coordinated with these conventional characterizations.
Even if you have not seen these specific characters before, they have a very "Hollywood" shape: the former hustler who's suicidal because he can't feel his boyfriend's devotion; the dominatrix who longs for unmediated, unstaged contact with other people; the couples counselor who has never had an orgasm. These three, and their various partners, come together, so to speak, at an orgy house called Shortbus presided over by a semi-transvestite hostess (played by Justin Bond, the drag half of the retro lounge act Kiki & Herb), where they learn about themselves, find the help they need, and get past false breakthroughs to real ones.









Article comments
1 - Ty
This movie sounded much better before I learned in this review that there is male gay sex and rim jobs.
BUT if the hetero sex is hot, and the movie is interesting, I'll check it.
God knows it has to be better than the last "non-porno" to have full on sex, "Nine Songs." That movie was horrible (and I love indie flicks!)!!!!!
2 - Ty
"does anyone with XXX discs at hand pop Basic Instinct (1992) or Wild Things (1998) into the DVD for a five-minute whack before work?"
For Basic Instinct, yes to the Michael Douglas scene that dark-haired chick (not Sharon Stone) that almost looks and feels like a doggy-style rape, but is totally hot. The rest of the movie is not spank worthy.
Wild Things is NOT spank worthy, especially because we don't see that prude Neve's Campbell's breasts.
Neve Campbell and Sarah Jessica Parker are the biggest prudes when it comes to nudity. F*** them.
3 - Alan Dale
Thanks for the comments, Ty. I couldn't lose with Basic Instinct and Wild Things, because if I was wrong, and people do beat off to them, then it only proved my larger point that it's all porno.
4 - Alan Dale
Speaking of porny Brad Pitt, here's Robert Wilson's "Video Portrait" of him, released in conjunction with the December 2006 issue of Vanity Fair.
5 - handyguy
Out of 102 minutes, maybe 20 or so minutes are sex scenes, most of them at the beginning. [Mitchell, with commendable bluntness, has said he "wanted to break the audience's hymen" and deliberately shake people up a little.]
And, yes, sorry, Ty, but at least 2/3 of it is gay sex. The marketing campaign has done a fairly good job of preventing this from being 'ghettoized' as a gay movie. It's pretty charming and enjoyable - certainly more so than Nine Songs, which was a respectable dud but still a dud.
6 - Alan Dale
Thanks for the stats and the quotation, handyguy. I checked out your site and want to second your praise of the Janus Films collection--essential viewing for any dedicated movie lover.