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. 3rd, 2006 12:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Nov. 3rd, 2006 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Nov. 7th, 2006 01:39 pm (UTC)About SATC: I like how it shows women as "sexual agents," or whatever you want to call them. I don't like how it celebrates slimness and skimpiness and eyeliner. I mean, none of those women are really attractive to me.
As far as the sex scenes, i think they show some of the awkward possibilities, but one thing they don't show enough is how awkward the first time can be. Every week someone is having a first (and often only) time with someone, and it's not awkward at all.
In one scene I recently watched from the 5th season, I saw something that kinda sums up how I feel about that show: Carrie is in Atlantic City, sitting alone on the Boardwalk, gazing at the ocean and eating saltwater taffy. She's wearing foundation makeup on her face. She has just spent the weekend with her three best friends feeling frustrated, because she has felt that they hve not connected: they are more focussed on men and gambling, whereas Carrie is feelng off men at the smoment, and has also done the math and realized that women tend to live longer than men....so if what you'll be left with at the end when you're old is your "girlfriends," why not skip to that now? Dating is so pointless. But then the camera moves from heavily made up Carrie to an older African American couple sitting on the next bench. The camera lens becomes softer, and suddenly everythign is different. It's like the director just picked a couple from the public and put no makeup or special clothes on them. The man jokes: "Are we gonna go swimming?" or something like that. The woman says: "Yeah, I got a bikini on under here." And they laugh about that, then he says, "I thought we were gonna go skinny dipping." And Carrie watches them and realizes she wants that kind of relationship. But that kind of relationship isn't really what the rest of the show celebrates. So this moment really stands out, both thematically and stylistically. Reminds me of the time a drawing teacher pointed out that I was using two different techniques in a drawing-- hard line and use of shading.
http://www.hbo.com/city/episode/season5/episode69.shtml
Anyway, watching episodes of SATC can be like eating potato chips. But the writing is snappy and funny, and the acting is great. I especially love Kim Cattrall.
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.