movie with sex yet not porn
Nov. 2nd, 2006 05:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ffloI'm starting to have quite a mental backlog of things to post about. Wonder which ones will actually make it here.
Now, though, this: Shortbus opens at the State tomorrow. Who's up for seeing it this weekend?
In my idealistic childhood, I bemoaned all kindsa stuff I perceived was terribly wrong with the culture I was born into (which I mighta called "the world" at the time). Part of that stuff had to do with strictures around gender, and part of it had to do with those around bodies in general and sexuality. My initial focus of complaint on the latter topic (which I didn't recognize at the time as connected to the former) was that it was scandalous to be nude. I was all about freedom for nakedidity, as I came to like to call it, and fascinated by nudists. The roots of a later cinematic woe may have evolved from that strain; surely it was furthered by a whole chain of observations, including a feminist "hell, yeah" reaction to John Waters's complaints about the (woman who was the sole) Maryland film censor and frontal male nudity (she cut every shot of it). Basically, I'm talking about sex in movies, and how movies don't seem to get at or have in 'em RL sex and sexual settings/issues/etc., probably mainly because of the conventions of "movie" sex, which is generally not much like sex (perhaps you agree).
So this film has ideas about busting things out a little in the direction I have always figured I'd like them to go, or at least be able to go sometimes. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much, but I care enough to have my fingers crossed, at least a little. You gotta figure that Hedwig guy has a shot at pulling it off.
Now, though, this: Shortbus opens at the State tomorrow. Who's up for seeing it this weekend?
In my idealistic childhood, I bemoaned all kindsa stuff I perceived was terribly wrong with the culture I was born into (which I mighta called "the world" at the time). Part of that stuff had to do with strictures around gender, and part of it had to do with those around bodies in general and sexuality. My initial focus of complaint on the latter topic (which I didn't recognize at the time as connected to the former) was that it was scandalous to be nude. I was all about freedom for nakedidity, as I came to like to call it, and fascinated by nudists. The roots of a later cinematic woe may have evolved from that strain; surely it was furthered by a whole chain of observations, including a feminist "hell, yeah" reaction to John Waters's complaints about the (woman who was the sole) Maryland film censor and frontal male nudity (she cut every shot of it). Basically, I'm talking about sex in movies, and how movies don't seem to get at or have in 'em RL sex and sexual settings/issues/etc., probably mainly because of the conventions of "movie" sex, which is generally not much like sex (perhaps you agree).
So this film has ideas about busting things out a little in the direction I have always figured I'd like them to go, or at least be able to go sometimes. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much, but I care enough to have my fingers crossed, at least a little. You gotta figure that Hedwig guy has a shot at pulling it off.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Nov. 7th, 2006 07:57 pm (UTC)But that kind of relationship isn't really what the rest of the show celebrates.
there ya go!
I think it was Brandon who suggested that my dabbling with that show by watching only the first few episodes---and snippets of others now that it's in syndication---isn't enough to appreciate it. I dunno, though. Maybe I'll try it again sometime.
Did see Shortbus. I liked it. Complaints that it was far from a masterwork of careful, tight construction don't mean much to my take on it. I think it's held together, such as it is, by two things: character (which does develop/change) and the model of NYC that steers us between settings. And a kinda cool and curious thing is that we meet most of our main characters when they're naked and having sex, when we know nothing about them, and then as we get to know them better they're more clothed, mostly.
Could talk about it more with you once you see it, if you do.
no subject
Date: Nov. 7th, 2006 10:23 pm (UTC)B has a point--when I first watched the show, I couldn't tell the girls apart and I was kinda annoyed; it took a few episodes. But/and I think there's a lot about SATC that would annoy you. To me, the girls became endearing after a while, and the show honestly [heart] NY, so you would appreciate that too. (In one episode, Carrie says she's swearing off men, that NY is her "boyfriend").
I'm in the final season, I think. Season 6. There are some cool developments with Charlotte in this season that actually do take some steps toward that kind of relationship.