Xixax Film Forum

I remember hearing about John Cameron Mitchell doing an open casting call for this a few years ago, but I have since not heard a thing about it... Sounds interesting though... Anyone have any idea on its status?

Just this week, the NY Times had an article that will fill you in on everything you might want to know: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/movies/19mitc.html

Can you copy/paste?

It's asking for subscription and all that...I'd like to just see the article.

A Movie Full of Sex, With Nothing Simulated About It
By DINITIA SMITH

Published: August 19, 2004

Correction Appended

John Cameron Mitchell, the creator and star of the drag hit "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," would like your money to make a sex film, please. No, it's not pornography, Mr. Mitchell says. It's a comedy with real live sex taking place on camera. There'll be none of those fake encounters found in films like "Monster's Ball" or "In the Cut."

Come on, Mr. Mitchell. You've got to be kidding. What's the difference, really, between this and pornography? He's got an answer: The purpose of pornography is to arouse, whereas here, he said, "the priority is the emotional life of the characters."

Sex, said Mr. Mitchell, "has been cheapened by porn."

"Why can't we not focus on sex, as porn does, but make sex part of the film?" he asked.

If it were not for the success of "Hedwig," (the film won directing and audience awards for drama at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival and became a cult classic) it would be easy to dismiss Mr. Mitchell.

At this point, after a year and a half of rehearsals, he has raised about $60,000 from friends and supporters, including the musician Moby. He needs only $2 million. But so far, several potential funders have turned him down. "They really want to see it made, but they don't know how they can successfully market such a sexually explicit film, and one without a rating," he said. And, he pointed out, a number of sexually explicit movies have been successfully marketed to mainstream audiences without a rating. The Mexican film "Y Tu Mamá También" was distributed without a rating and, according to Variety, it took in more than $13.6 million in just 20 weeks. The jury on "The Brown Bunny," released this month, in which Chloë Sevigny performs oral sex on the director and star Vincent Gallo, is still out.

The working title of Mr. Mitchell's film is "Shortbus," from the name of a salon where the characters meet to give readings and performances, and sometimes to have public sex. It is modeled on real-life salons in Downtown Manhattan.

The movie takes place after 9/11, in a city haunted by terrorism and too expensive for artists anymore. "Escorting is the new temp job," Mr. Mitchell said. The story features a dominatrix who lives in a ministorage unit because she can't afford an apartment, a sex therapist who can't have an orgasm and a gay man who feels trapped in his relationship. They attend the salon "to find redemption," he said.

"They are desperate to connect," Mr. Mitchell said, "but their circuits blow." At the end, the city is shrouded in a blackout.

Like "Hedwig," which featured a highly praised rock score by Stephen Trask, "Shortbus" will have original music. Discussions are being held with Rufus Wainwright, Justin Bond of Kiki and Herb, and Yo La Tengo. Mr. Mitchell called it " a love letter to New York."

Sitting in a coffee shop in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Mr. Mitchell, 41, looks the soul of innocence, with the smooth complexion of a choirboy. He played Dickon, the Yorkshire boy who communes with nature, in the 1991 Broadway adaptation of Frances Hodgson Burnett's Victorian children's book "The Secret Garden."

But this is a face that can turn demonic in a moment, as it did in "Hedwig," where Mr. Mitchell, in big blond wig, false eyelashes, glittering lipstick and tight-fitting dress, became the personification of rage, thwarted love and insinuating humor: Marlene Dietrich on steroids. And Mr. Mitchell, who is gay, had never even been a professional drag queen.

Although Mr. Mitchell has raised very little money for "Shortbus," his actors are already rehearsing.

Sook-Yin Lee, host of an arts show on the Canadian Broadcasting System, is playing the sex therapist. Lindsay Beamish, an actress and dancer, is the dominatrix. Paul Dawson, an actor and writer, plays the gay man.

When Mr. Mitchell sent out a casting call asking people to send in videos describing their sex lives, he got 500 submissions. Some people had sex on their videos. Only a "smattering" were porn stars, he said, adding, "They trusted I wasn't doing something sordid because of 'Hedwig.' " So far, only the men have had real sex in the film's long-running rehearsals, Mr. Mitchell said. "These gay men will have sex at the drop of a hat."

As for himself? "I'm totally not a public sex person," Mr. Mitchell said.

At the moment the script calls for Sofia, the sex therapist, to have an unsuccessful sexual encounter with her boyfriend, and to masturbate on camera. "It's rather moving," Mr. Mitchell said. "It's in Central Park in winter." Sian, the dominatrix, witnesses another character masturbating. The script is still evolving, he said.

One day recently, rehearsals were held in the bedroom of one of the producers - in Howard Gertler's, apartment in Williamsburg. Sian, the dominatrix and Sofia, the sex therapist, meet in a sensory deprivation tank to discuss Sofia's problems having an orgasm.

Sian: "So, you're a sex therapist?"

Sofia: "I prefer the term 'couples' counselor.' "

Sian: "But you've never had an orgasm?"

Sofia: "I'm an idiot savant.' "

Mr. Mitchell said: "Trying to get an orgasm for two hours every way she can, is farcical at times. But if you look at the underpinnings of the search, there is poignancy and pathos."

Ms. Lee said she was prepared to have sex on camera if necessary. Her boyfriend has no objection, " 'cause he trusts me," she said, adding: "John is a fantastic creator. This is a gift."

Ms. Beamish, however, said, "I have no desire to have sex on screen." The reason: "I think I'm an ugly cow." And her boyfriend also objects.

Still, she said, "acting-wise, aside from the sex, this is by far the best project I have ever had."

Mr. Mitchell is creating "Shortbus" in much the same way he made "Hedwig," with little money and through improvisations - in "Hedwig's" case, in downtown clubs and workshops.

Mr. Mitchell, whose father, Gen. John H. Mitchell, was United States military commander in West Berlin from 1984 to 1988, based the character of "Hedwig" on an East German baby sitter who also worked as a prostitute in her trailer. In "Hedwig," she became a rock singer who undergoes a sex change operation that goes awry, leaving the character with "an angry inch." Hedwig then falls tragically in love with a man who becomes a rock star using Hedwig's music.

Mr. Mitchell said he grew up hating himself for being gay and furtively read books about homosexuality in the library.

"I read this book 'Seduction of the Innocent,' by Fredric Wertham," Mr. Mitchell said. "He was talking about how debauched Batman and Robin were. I was like: "Wow! I got all the Batman comics.' "

At 20, he finally came out to his parents. He recalled: "There were tears from my mom: 'What have I done!' I said, 'It's not about you.' My dad had a stiff upper lip."

"It took them a few years to get up to speed," Mr. Mitchell continued. "My dad has been very supportive, and supportive of gays in the military. He's a very humane guy."

As far as "Hedwig" is concerned, Mr. Mitchell said, "Dad hasn't really discussed it, though he did wear a foam wig at the opening."

Mr. Mitchell's mother, Joan, however, "was scandalized" by the new project, Mr. Mitchell said. "She said: 'Why do you have to do that? Couldn't you just not?' To her, real sex was pornography. I told her: 'I have to say that you, as a Catholic, always told me the body is sacred. You believe sex should be kept in marriage. But I, as a gay man, don't have that option."'

"I believe sex is sacred, too," Mr. Mitchell continued. "But it's not being respected by the American cinema."

Correction: Aug. 21, 2004, Saturday

An article in The Arts on Thursday about the film "Shortbus,'' a comedy in which actors have sex on camera, referred incorrectly to the filmmakers' continuing attempts to get financing. They said they had been turned down by a few potential backers, not "about 25" or "several." The article also misstated the name of the network on which an actress in the film, Sook-Yin Lee, has an arts show. It is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not the Canadian Broadcasting System.

The article also misidentified the project that John Cameron Mitchell, the director of "Shortbus,'' said had scandalized his mother. It was the drag hit he created and starred in, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch,'' not "Shortbus.''

Because of an editing error, the article also referred incorrectly in some copies to the amount earned in 20 weeks by the film "Y Tu Mamá También,'' which Mr. Mitchell cited as an unrated sexually explicit movie that was successfully marketed to mainstream audiences. It was $13.6 million, not $136 million.

Woohoo  :-D Looking forward to it.

My mom will never let me see this. If it gets made, that is.

But man, I had an idea for the longest time to shoot a movie with live sex. So this pretty much shoots that idea down.

Why?  There's a few films out there that have already shown real sex.

theres more than a few, guys.....

No, just a few. I counted.

Can someone give me the names of them?  I've never seen a film like that.

Ai no corrida for one.  But it's not that good.  Lies is another, but it's not too good either.  I'm not sure if it shows penetration, though, but I know corrida does.  These films take all the passion out of sex, and turn it into something disgusting, so it's nothing to get excited about.  The Piano Teacher also has some graphic sexual content (the only real sex is clips of porno the heroine - if you could call her that - is watching), but that movie sucks, too.  See a pattern here?  I do, unfortunately.  See also: http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3152&highlight=disturbing+films&start=90

Quote from: hacksparrowCan someone give me the names of them?  I've never seen a film like that.

spoilerssssssss{{{{{{{{{



.well if you watch irrevesible you will see a fantastic rape scene complete w/ a cgi penis....his "love" is real but his penis is not...... :(

....if you rent or buy six feet under you will see the underrated homosexual steadicam anal sex .......season one.[vegas episode]

buy by brackhage criterion for "hot live real sex"

...if you are into freaky things....and by the fact that your username has 3 vowels...you fit right in....but i suggest you buy talk to her....even though the "love" scene is done offscreen the impact is very sensual and will make you feel alive...plus you will be able to see a gargantuan vagina about the size of a castle drawbridge during medevil times....

....you should also rent ...the unrated "the dreamers".......its got a little bit of everything...you can see michael pitts penis [which would put you in exsclusive company] and you can see breasts  , and asses and vaginas ......plus they bleed..... :yabbse-thumbup: ...

My (original) name had 8 vowels.  What does that make me?

*Adds Brakhage to the list*  It's for research.  Yes, research.  Nothing more.

Quote from: ono.My (original) name had 8 vowels.  What does that make me?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bowlingshop.de%2Fbilder%2Fbaelle%2Ftrack%2Ftrack_superfreak.jpg&hash=e2c471ee24368277cab4a7742355c057daf37a19)

Quote from: NEON MERCURY.well if you watch irrevesible you will see a fantastic rape scene complete w/ a cgi penis....his "love" is real but his penis is not...... :(

GT won't let me watch this.

That's odd.  He called it brilliant.  Or some variation of that.

I don't know what he's thinking. I showed my girlfriend merely as a "See what could happen if you piss me off?" kind of thing.

http://www.ifilm.com/bigpicture/sundance2004#2532433

Scroll down to see an interview in which JCM discusses "Shortbus."

(The sex film project, of course)

Director Tests Boundaries With 'Shortbus'

The scene inside the cavernous warehouse on the banks of the East River looks something like a bohemian circus. Perched in front of makeup mirrors are lesbians with dreadlocks, ripped jeans and knee-high boots, drag queens wearing violently colored wigs and a man in a fleshy fat suit covered with plastic doughnuts. A buxom blonde in a floor-length evening gown adjusts the pink flower pasties under her top, while members of a marching band mill about warming up their trumpets and trombones.

It's just another day on the set for director John Cameron Mitchell, who glides through the crowd in a spray-painted leather jacket, kissing hellos and making final preparations for a party scene in his sophomore film, "Shortbus."

Regardless of what the actors are wearing on this day, it's what they're not wearing in much of the film that has generated all the early buzz. Four years after Mitchell put on a coifed blond wig and punk rock T-shirt as an East German transvestite singer in "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," the director is pushing new boundaries with an unfiltered look at sexual relationships that promises to make "The Brown Bunny" and "Mysterious Skin" look tame by comparison.

Despite initial problems getting money for the project and the prospect of being slapped with an NC-17 rating, the 42-year-old filmmaker says he's unwilling to hold back on any of his vision to depict (real) sex in as realistic a fashion as possible.

"I wanted to make a film about sex that had humor, emotional weight and metaphor all at the same time," Mitchell says at his production office. "That's how I've experienced it in my life."

"I have seen so few films in which the sex felt really respected by the filmmaker," he says. "Hollywood too often shies away from it or makes adolescent jokes about it. ... Sex is only connected to the negative because people are scared of it."

To keep the sex real, Mitchell says he avoided casting professional actors "stars don't have sex" and instead placed ads in alternative weeklies inviting people to send in audition tapes. After selecting a cast, he began holding "structured improv" workshops about two years ago to work out a rough sketch of the plot.

The film revolves around a salon of the Gertrude Stein model from the early 1900s, where artists, writers, musicians and intellectuals converged to share their works and discuss new ideas in art and politics. Mitchell's version attracts an updated assortment of regulars culled from New York's burlesque and gay performing arts communities or, as he says, the kinds of people who belonged on the "shortbus" for gifted and challenged children in elementary school.

Though the cast includes actors with varying backgrounds and sexual orientations, the thing connecting them is their humorous and frustrating explorations of sexual relationships. One character, a sex therapist, has never herself experienced an orgasm. A gay couple is thinking about opening up their relationship to include other lovers.

"It travels the fence between tragic and comic, and that's where my life teeters," Mitchell says.

To make everyone comfortable from the start, Mitchell says he kept the improv sessions light, playing "spin the bottle" to help the cast open up. He formed the movie's couples by having the actors watch each other's audition tapes and vote on who they were most attracted to.

Although the cast knew what they were getting into when they signed up, some still had trepidation about having sex in front of a movie crew, let alone a camera.

One actress, who goes by the name Capital B and plays opposite her real-life girlfriend in the movie, says before shooting began earlier this year that Mitchell allowed them to state their own boundaries.

"It was an interesting quandary of mine," she says, adding that initially she didn't see a problem but then didn't want anyone to see her naked.

Adds PJ DeBoy, who plays part of the gay couple exploring an open relationship: "We're lucky because it is a small crew, and we've known each other for over two years, so there's a real great comfortability between all of us."

"Most people get self-conscious being naked in front of other people, but we're really concerned with the story, what's going on within these characters," DeBoy says. "The fact that we're naked having sex in front of each other, it's just a variable that's very easy to deal with."

It wasn't so easy for potential financial backers to deal with, though. Mitchell says he initially approached about 50 to 60 investors, with little luck. Even envelope-pushing HBO, which filmed parts of the audition process, eventually backed away from the project.

"Regular financing companies were scared because they have parent companies," he says. "A lot of investors said they were interested, but they didn't trust their guts."

In the end, most of the budget, which Mitchell estimates at $1 million to 2 million, came from a new gay and lesbian TV network called Q Television. The network, headed by Frank Olsen, will retain the film's cable rights.

The next hurdle will be finding a distributor, which Mitchell hopes won't be difficult after "Shortbus" premieres in 2006 at a film festival, such as Sundance or Berlin. He's going to allow the film to be unrated, rather than take a chance on receiving a potentially stigmatizing NC-17 rating.

But Mitchell believes there's an audience for his film. He says many people around the country are concerned about the recent influence of conservative mores on arts and entertainment and would welcome a movie to challenge that.

"This is an act of resistance," he says. "There is such a reluctance to address sex as an inherent part of the human experience in this country. ... The true perversion to me is crushing it and hiding it."

fuck yes.

that's a cool article. hopefully this'll be great and a display of JCM's versatility. this country definitely needs an american filmmaker who's willing to deal with sexuality like that. :bravo:

do you think, in 20 or 30 years, cocks/pussy/breasts/oral sex/penetration/ass and stuff like that will no longer result in films being "stigmatized" by the NC-17 rating?

I will.  If John Cameron Mitchell doesn't, I will.  But this film definitely sounds brilliant so far.  The only thing I worry about is its inevitable contrasts with this philosophy (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=37178#37178), so eloquently described by GT way back when.  There are two ways to look at this -- that the US is so puritanical, and that should change, though it will take more than a few films for that to happen -- or that sexuality can be addressed without depicting images explicitly.

In other words, some level of abstraction is important.  In horror, things are much scarier when they aren't spelled out.  This allows the mind to work, and anything that the mind can create when given a few distinct images to run with will be much scarier than something specific created.  This tenet is used widely in horror films, where just a bit of whatever "monster" that lurks is revealed at a time, to maintain that level of abstraction.  And so it is with sexuality.  If you give us the whole picture, it removes some of the eroticism.  If that's your goal, fine.  If not, ask yourself as a director what you're trying to accomplish by painting too much of a picture, so to speak.

Quote from: onomatavivaI will.  If John Cameron Mitchell doesn't, I will.  But this film definitely sounds brilliant so far.  The only thing I worry about is its inevitable contrasts with this philosophy (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=37178#37178), so eloquently described by GT way back when.  There are two ways to look at this -- that the US is so puritanical, and that should change, though it will take more than a few films for that to happen -- or that sexuality can be addressed without depicting images explicitly.

In other words, some level of abstraction is important.  In horror, things are much scarier when they aren't spelled out.  This allows the mind to work, and anything that the mind can create when given a few distinct images to run with will be much scarier than something specific created.  This tenet is used widely in horror films, where just a bit of whatever "monster" that lurks is revealed at a time, to maintain that level of abstraction.  And so it is with sexuality.  If you give us the whole picture, it removes some of the eroticism.  If that's your goal, fine.  If not, ask yourself as a director what you're trying to accomplish by painting too much of a picture, so to speak.

Yes, but this is more of a "where-you-point-the-camera" thing, which actually I don't think is where the envelope is being pushed with this movie.  We've all seen everything there is to see of the human body in movies.  I think it's really more the TONE of the sex scenes.

The tone of most sex scenes don't match the tone of real sex.  They're either hyper-erotified, too delicate in a sissy way, or sort of... raunchy for the sake of ranchy.  It sounds to me like this movie is trying to show how people DEAL with sex, above and beyond just how they have sex, in a realistic manner, and it's that which is missing from most movies.

I'm sure there's a lot of sex in this movie, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than we'd initially think based on the buzz.  The focus could be more of what the human mind makes of sex.

And perhaps it could be more... sexy to not show something in the same way that it's scarier to not show something, but I'd imagine that the movie is going for a sense of realism, and not cinematic sexiness.  Something more straightforward.  It would PROBABLY be a wider shot, one take, with a couple of cameras running, and you'd be able to see everything as it plays out, and as the viewer, you get to decide what you want to see by where you guide your eyes.  At least that's how I'd approach it, based on what it sounds like he's trying to achieve with this movie.

But I'm glad filming is finally underway.  I agree that there's an audience for it.  It shouldn't have taken so long to raise the money.  It'll gross back its money.  I think it's actually quite a safe investment, the buzz and built-in audience more than makes up for the budget, I believe.

This is wonderful news, wonderful news.

Real sex in movies will soon be passe. What Matt says is very true - it's the approach, the style and the intent that is more important than the content, which, once one gets past the shock value of it, is mostly irrelevant if there's not a dramatic point to it.

Did any of you see 9 Songs? I was surprised at the fact that, although it was very graphic and chock full of dripping genitalia, the sex was portrayed in an extremely romantic, fanciful way. This contrasts with what Winterbottom said about how he wanted to show sex at its most unglamorous.

I'm very curious as to how Mitchell goes about the graphic material (and it's nice to see that he's not choosing to focus on any one orientation); and I have little doubt that it'll merely be a cause to a (hopefully) greatly substantial effect.

Quote from: onomatavivaI will.  If John Cameron Mitchell doesn't, I will.

i think u need to know what babes are before u can tackle such a babelicious theme.

Quote from: GhostboyDid any of you see 9 Songs? I was surprised at the fact that, although it was very graphic and chock full of dripping genitalia, the sex was portrayed in an extremely romantic, fanciful way. This contrasts with what Winterbottom said about how he wanted to show sex at its most unglamorous.

I haven't seen it, no.  And from the reviews, I'm not very interested.  But I do wonder if it's a coincidence that the official running time is 69 minutes.

Quote from: matt35mmBut I do wonder if it's a coincidence that the official running time is 69 minutes.

It's deliberate.

Real sex in 'Shortbus' an 'act of resistance'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Authentic onscreen sex has long been reserved for hard-core porn or the occasional cutting-edge European drama, but almost never comedy. That's one reason "Shortbus," writer-director John Cameron Mitchell's follow-up to 2001's "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," is sure to generate buzz. Cameron Mitchell spoke with The Hollywood Reporter's New York film reporter Gregg Goldstein about how he set about how he presents sex as just another a fact of life while chronicling the intersecting lives of straight and gay New Yorkers.

The Hollywood Reporter: What were your goals for the film?

John Cameron Mitchell: I wanted to create something through improvisation with the actors and explore sex as a cinematic language in a way that I hadn't seen, where it wasn't trying to be erotic or horrifying or negative or dreary. The experience has taught everybody involved how it is to connect, and, as I suspected, sex is just one way of describing that desire. It's also a love letter to New York and a small act of resistance against Bush and the America we live in because it's trying to remind people of good things about America and New York, i.e. a refuge for those who aren't accepted elsewhere, a place of personal expression, not just tolerance but acceptance of diversity, individual freedom and different ways of dealing with conflict than just brute force. After the last election that I worked on in Ohio, there was a great deal of disillusionment, and all I could think to do was put it in my work. For me, it's a very patriotic and political film even though it's not overtly so. It's much more personal.

THR: How did you recruit the cast?

Mitchell: Three years ago, we asked people to send in audition tapes. We avoided agents and professional actors because of the sex. Most people are just worried about their sitcom career or whatever, so I reached out to alternative weeklies and magazines all over North America, asked for them to do articles on the project in return for printing our audition Web site address, which described what we were trying to do, and asked people to send in 10-minute videotapes where I suggested they let me get to know them somehow, maybe by telling me a story of a sexual experience that was very emotionally important to them. We got about 500 submissions, called back 40 people, chose nine and began our improv workshops, which lasted about 2 1/2 years until we shot. One of the reasons we worked for such a long time was because I wanted them to create the characters and the story and be as comfortable as possible in being that exposed. Certainly, some were more relaxed about it than others. Their safety was important, so there was a lot of dialogue about that. On the day we shot there had to be a lot of processing and talking and Viagra. In the end, it was the guys who were more nervous about it because they felt they had to keep it up.

THR: Where did the financing come from?

Mitchell: This film kind of sprang out of a friendship with Howard Gertler, who was a producer in his own right. We were looking for money for a very long time -- a year or so. Of course, all of the studio-connected places politely showed us the door. They just couldn't believe what we were trying to do or that it would make any money. I'm sure they also were thinking about their parent companies being sensitive to someone freaking out about it and then dropping it. But they all wanted to see it. Fortissimo just believed in me. They knew that "Hedwig" did well in other countries, did presales and, theoretically, they've already made their money back in commitments. There was also some private money and some money from a gay cable channel called Q Television, which seems to be in transition. We kind of kept the bigger territories back so we can sell them at Cannes in the heat of the moment. It's very low budget, and because we shot it in New York, we got a lot of credit that comes from me and my producers having been around and made other films. You get deals when you're a hometown boy. We could've shot it in a very cheap country, but it's a New York story. We really didn't want to go anywhere else, even though much of the exteriors of the city are actually animation. It's CG, but when people see it, they think it's a model. John Bair did a fantastic job on it.

THR: What can audiences expect from the film?

Mitchell: If you liked "Hedwig," you'll like this. It's kind of like a Woody Allen movie, but sex is involved. In the film, there's a weekly underground salon at which the characters converge, which is sort of inspired by real-life salons here where there's art and food and sex sometimes. It's accessible to an intelligent audience, but it's also pretty soft-hearted. There's darkness in the film, but it's not cynical in any way. Usually, when a filmmaker deals with a difficult, intense and very multifaceted subject like sex, they're detached and somewhat cynical about it, which to me smacks of being as eroti-phobic and having a Christian fundamentalist view of sex. This shows a responsible kind of freedom.

THR: Responsible in what way?

Mitchell: It's not just pure hedonism. It's about community and being reminded that everybody is on the same lifeboat. We're all in it together, and that's the feeling we had in New York during the blackout, which we incorporated into the film. They turned off our phones and e-mail, and we had to go out in the street and find a stoop to have a party on. That's a feeling that's very much part of the film: New York banding together in the best way.

THR: How have people responded to the film?

Mitchell: We've just shown it to friends and a couple of investors. It's been very emotional. Some people are very disturbed because it talks about deep, emotional imperatives as far as love and relationships go, so it makes them think about their lives very intensely. Others feel very much a part, or wanting to be a part, of the community. I guess people think of sex in a certain way because in America, it's eroticized or consumerized. I specifically wanted to explode that and remind people that sex is a metaphor for all parts of our life, and those metaphors involve humor and emotion. The most interesting thing that people say is, "By the end of it, sex was the last thing I thought about." The sex scares some people at first. In fact, it sometimes took a second viewing for them to get over it. But they did come back and, emotionally, they felt they needed to.

THR: What do you want to convey most in the movie?

Mitchell: Everyone thinks, "It's not what I expected." It makes me want to say, "Well, question yourself. What do you expect from sex in life?" And maybe that's what should be examined in art about sex. It's very loaded with emotion, and it's often the funniest thing anyone can think of, too, but it's rarely presented with much humor. It's sort of become another consumer item, like, "Oh, he's making a porn movie." Well, why is sex on film by definition porn? There's nothing erotic about the sex in the film. When people see it, no one gets hard-ons, but they do find that sex is demystified, and some people don't want to demystify it because then it's not hot to them anymore. But to me, it's as much a part of life as appetite for food or necessity for shelter. It's something we all can experience, and it's a language we all know some words of, so why avoid using it in film except in an erotic or negative way?

'Shortbus' sex bonanza a slap to Bush, Cannes director says
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/20/060520202355.b51639uz.html

A US film featuring actors performing real sex is a "call to arms" against President George W. Bush, the director told journalists at the Cannes film festival.

"Shortbus," an explicit, largely improvised arthouse flick that includes a rendition of the American national anthem during a gay sex scene, is a direct provocation, director John Cameron Mitchell admitted.

"It's a little bit of a cri de coeur to us, a little bit of a call to arms" against the prevailing conservatism, he told a media conference, adding that his country was living in "the era of Bush, which is about clamping down, being scared."

The 43-year-old, whose previous work was "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," about a transsexual rock singer, said the film was his own small act of defiance against Bush.

"If you can't do elections you might as well do erections," he said.

Although the first half of the film is filled with sex, including orgies and masturbation, the act itself is not meant to be erotic but rather to challenge the audience and make it confront issues such as loneliness, the illusion of self-sufficiency and other seemingly unrelated problems, Mitchell said.

One scene likely to create controversy in the United States and some other countries shows a gay threesome in which one participant joyfully bellows "The Star Spangled Banner."

The actor with the singing voice, PJ Deboy, said he did the scene to show that he was as American as anyone, despite resistance to gays in parts of the country, including Washington.

"I thought to myself: 'Can I do it...?' And I decided I could, because it is a patriotic act.... There's nothing un-American about gay sex and there's nothing unpatriotic about it," he said.

He also joked that "I am now touring and singing every country's national anthem," and called for volunteers to assist.

Mitchell pointed out that the movie, filmed in New York City, also made pointed references to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Near the end of the movie, the lights flicker out as they did during a blackout that briefly occurred in 2003, provoking fears of a terrorist attack -- and then relief and a sense of togetherness that is likened to an orgasm.

"This film is in the shadow of 9/11, but it shows we're still alive, y'know?" the director said.

"Sex is not that interesting unless it's put into an artistic context, or you're having it yourself," Mitchell said.

"And sometimes not even then," added a cross-dressing actor called Justin Bond who played himself in the movie.

I am so (not sexually) excited to see this. I think this sounds fantastic and Mitchell's discussion about the film is very candid and honest, I like the direction he's chosen. Very pure and personal, I can't wait.

Now, I guess we'll all have to get multi-region players and wait for a region 2/3/4 disc to come out because we're not getting this anytime soon in the US.

A sex buzz arrives on `Shortbus'
Source: Los Angeles Times

CANNES, France — There's usually a film here that kicks up dust with boundary-pushing sexuality. In 2003, it was "The Brown Bunny," which included a graphic oral-sex scene that writer-director and star Vincent Gallo took great pains to tell everyone was real, not staged.

This year's provocateur is "Shortbus." And it has everyone buzzing.
 
In one scene, a man is lying in a tub of water making a video of his, um, privates. In another, a naked young man belts out "The Star-Spangled Banner" while engaged in three-way sex with gay lovers.

And in still another, a sex therapist walks into an underground sex club in New York and into an orgy. The "mistress" of the club, in one of the film's most memorable lines, tells her: "It's just like the '60s — only with less hope."

Whether it's viewed as art or not will, of course, be up to the audience, but writer-director John Cameron Mitchell, whose previous film "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" attracted critical attention, doesn't see his latest work as pornographic.

"I actually like pornography, but I don't consider this film pornographic," Mitchell told a festival news conference over the weekend. "I define — and most people do — pornography as devoid of artistic intent. The purpose of pornography is to arouse. I don't think anyone got [sexually aroused] watching this film."

That's not to say he didn't intend the sexuality to excite. "There is a certain provocation we had in mind with this film, but more important than that, we wanted to use sex as a metaphor for things that were, perhaps, universal, themes like connection and love and fear. We just thought the language of sex could be used the way the language of music could be used in a musical."

And the film is not just about sex. It is also about relationships, such as the character James, who is suicidal and quietly preparing his lover for his death, and the dominatrix prostitute Severin, who takes Polaroid photos of strangers captured at their most vulnerable moments.

Sook-Yin Lee, who works for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., told reporters that there was initially "confusion and fear" when her bosses learned about the movie, but she said they eventually supported her choice to play the character of Sofia, the sex therapist, who is wildly experimental in her exploration of the terrain.

"It was fascinating to me to see all my individual bosses up the corporate hierarchy, and each individual would say, 'You know what? This movie sounds amazing, and I want this movie to exist in my world, but I'm afraid the guy above me will put on the brakes and I'm going to get in trouble.'

"Their fear was the fear that the public would be outraged, that we would be talking candidly about our sexuality.... What happened was, in reality, the backlash was people ... saying, 'This should exist. This should happen.' "

The young cast includes Paul Dawson, Lindsay Beamish, PJ DeBoy, Raphael Barker, Jay Brannan, Peter Stickles and Justin Bond, all of whom attended the news conference, which was relatively friendly. Not like the boos and hisses that greeted Gallo at his.

One of the bigger laughs occurred when DeBoy responded about how it felt to sing the national anthem while having sex.

"It was a hard decision ... within me of what that meant," he said. "The beautiful image of gay men having sex is a very personal thing to me, and I am an American, and I think that it represents who I am as well and how I express myself.

"So when I thought to myself, 'Can I sing my country's national anthem while [having sex]?,' I decided I could. Because I think it is a patriotic act ... and I think there is nothing morally wrong with gay sex or un-American about gay people."

DeBoy joked that they'd be touring "and singing every country's national anthem."

The film may have people talking, but it doesn't have a distributor yet.

'Shortbus' has a driver
ThinkFilm gets rights to explicit pic
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- John Cameron Mitchell's comedy-drama "Shortbus," which features scenes in which actors engage in actual sex, has parked itself at ThinkFilm. The indie company has picked up North American rights to the feature, which premiered Out of Competition at last month's Festival de Cannes.

The largely improvised film explores the lives of seven straight and gay New Yorkers seeking an emotional connection with one another. The sex is presented as one part of the characters' complex lives, which intersect at the Bohemian salon Shortbus.

ThinkFilm plans to give the $2 million "Shortbus" a platform release in the fall, eventually bringing it to specialty theaters across the country. But the unrated film's several sexually explicit moments present a marketing challenge.

"TV sales are out, and it probably can't be sold at Blockbuster or several other chains," said one competing distributor, whose company was a final contender in the negotiations to acquire the film. That distributor, who declined to be named, bowed out when, he said, the filmmakers sought a $500,000 price tag for North American rights.

Nevertheless, a number of indies expressed interest in the finished film, for which the filmmakers spent more than a year raising financing. "We had 11 other offers on the table, including video companies who would allow us to use the advance for a service deal and a pay cable network we're continuing to talk with, who may talk to ThinkFilm about licensing TV rights," said Mitchell, directing his sophomore feature after the 2001 musical "Hedwig and the Angry Inch." "Then we were getting calls from studio specialty divisions wondering why they were out of the running."

While Mitchell said the divisions eventually got cold feet over the content, execs from two of those companies said they had the go-ahead from their corporate parents to pursue the movie but that the economics of the deal didn't make sense given the high price tag and limited revenue streams.

According to sources close to the production, ThinkFilm, Magnolia, IFC Films and Roadside Attractions in conjunction with Netflix were the final contenders.

"ThinkFilm just kept coming at us and had the best offer," said Mitchell, though the filmmakers declined to specify how much the company offered. According to Mark Urman, head of ThinkFilm's theatrical division: "We all saw it together, and were unanimous about it. It's quite groundbreaking, and we were all impressed with how natural and normal and comedic the extreme sex became without being offensive."

Urman doesn't appear daunted by the marketing challenges. "Maybe we won't take TV ads," he said cheekily. "I'll save money." He plans to release the film as soon as possible. "There'll be enormous pre-awareness, and once you let the cat out of the bag, that cat should be allowed to prowl," he said.

Mitchell pointed to several alternative marketing strategies, including a "virtual salon" Web site where people can upload their films, music, art and literature; a competition for "best performers"; and "Shortbus"-themed salons and concerts at colleges around the country.

The film has been sold to more than 20 international territories, which producer Howard Gertler said will cover the film's budget.

The deal was announced by ThinkFilm president and CEO Jeff Sackman with producers Gertler, Mitchell, and Tim Perell of Process. It was negotiated by CAA on behalf of the filmmakers, and by executive vp acquisitions and business affairs Randy Manis on behalf of ThinkFilm.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cineblog.it%2Fuploads%2Fshortbus.jpg&hash=934c8734f2ea2cac9524765e3e5022c07781a634)


Trailer here. (http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2755200_300.mov)

and that is how you sell a high class porn film

Sex film "Shortbus" finds distributors world-wide

Hard core sex in a mainstream movie? No problem.

Three months after John Cameron Mitchell showed his sexually explicit film "Shortbus" out of competition at the Cannes film festival, he said it had attracted distributors in dozens of countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan, France and Singapore.

"People are ready for change. There is a thirst for something different," Mitchell told reporters on Friday at the Toronto International Film Festival, where "Shortbus" was set for its North American premiere before an October opening in the United States.

Mitchell aims to use sex as a metaphor to tell a story about people looking for solace and searching for something more in their lives in a post-September 11 world.

"What pissed me off was that it was ... generically identified of as porn," Mitchell said of his film. "We are not trying to do anything salacious here. That is just the language which we speak."

The film is graphic: Scenes include a man being whipped by a dominatrix as he masturbates and a straight couple having sex in a variety of positions.

But pornographic? Mitchell argues not.

"Porn is really to arouse. This film explores the other areas of sex," he said.

The story revolves around two couples, one straight and one gay, accompanied by a few other lonely souls.

One couple seeks counseling from a sex therapist, played by Sook-Yin Lee, who works for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. as on-air host of a show about popular culture.

It turns out Lee's character has never experienced an orgasm, which leads the couple to invite her to a salon called Shortbus, where everything goes -- from group sex and voyeurism to cabarets.

Lee said there were initial reservations at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. about her being in the film.

"Once they were re-educated, they allowed me to do this movie," she said at a press conference.

"I don't know if I would have been able to do this if I was working at CNN."

Longer, uncensored, somewhat explicit trailer here (http://www.iklipz.com/Movies.aspx?MovieID=3afbc32d-6c6c-46de-bc2a-507fa425ab22).

The reviews are getting me really excited (!)

'Shortbus' steering clear of controversy
Source: Hollywood Reporter

It's got sex, lots of sex. In fact, the whole movie is about sex and, from the start, was conceived to test boundaries. But as John Cameron Mitchell's sexual opus "Shortbus" readies to roll into movie theaters next week, it hasn't hit any speed bumps. The media might have reflexively dubbed the movie controversial -- Google the words "controversial" and "Shortbus" and 46,500 references appear -- but the real surprise surrounding the movie is that it hasn't provoked any genuine controversy at all.

Since ThinkFilm, its distributor, is not an MPAA signatory, the ground-breaking movie is being released without a rating, but even that potential stigma hasn't prevented it from buying advertising or securing theater bookings.

"We've booked the film in the top 40 major markets without incident or obstacle," ThinkFilm's head of U.S. theatrical Mark Urman said. "It's been screened everywhere: press screenings, trade screenings. Everyone knows what the film is. It's fair to say that the horses have not been frightened."

Three years in development, "Shortbus" is Mitchell's self-proclaimed sex project for which he auditioned actors, professional and nonprofessional, who were willing to tell stories about their sexual experiences. He turned some of those stories into the script, which revolves around a group of young New Yorkers who navigate the intersections between sex and love in and around an underground salon called Shortbus. Mitchell, the director of "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," asked a number of the actors to trust him as he filmed them in actual sexual encounters that figure in the movie's story line.

In May, the film bowed at the Festival de Cannes, where it was met with a warm reception. The first wave of reviews on RottenTomatoes.com was running 56% positive Thursday. ThinkFilm will open the film exclusively Wednesday in New York before expanding to Los Angeles and San Francisco on Oct. 6.

Urman said the film will primarily play in Landmark theaters. "The company has been a great fan of the film since Cannes. They are our full partners on a national basis," Urman said. "We're only choosing to not play Landmark theaters where there is a better theater geographically."

Landmark's head film buyer Ted Mundorff agreed that he was sold on the film at Cannes. "It was the best film I saw in Cannes and a perfect fit for Landmark," he said. "Our customers certainly know John Cameron Mitchell, and I think this will be the high point of his career."

To reach out to Mitchell's more cutting-edge fans while not alienating mainstream media outlets in the process, ThinkFilm devised a dual track campaign. For example, it created two posters. The one intended for general audiences shows the smiling cast, clothed, sprawled on the ground together -- Internet commentators have compared it to happy, shiny posters for such TV series as "One Tree Hill" and "Beverly Hills, 90210."

A second piece of key art, designed for use in alternative weeklies and gay publications, takes a more provocative pose, with the same cast shot framed by a phallic outline.

Additionally, the indie film company created three trailers: a teaser, a theatrical trailer in which Mitchell describes the back story of how the film came together; and an uncensored version, which includes brief glimpses of the naked couplings. And to ensure it doesn't trigger any unintended outrage, ThinkFilm plans to keep the film out of traditional multiplexes where it could offend anyone who encountered it unawares.

While the distributor isn't hiding the film's subject matter, it isn't flaunting it, either. And, for the moment at least, that appears to have inoculated it against controversy.

"It is surprising to me that (that there's been no controversy). We have over 20 runs on the film as it rolls out across the country," Mundorff said. "The Southern locations generally may be the theaters where community groups become more active. But we haven't had any push back at all from any community at this point."

"Shortbus" isn't the first serious-minded film to attempt to put real sex onscreen. French director Catherine Breillat, with an assist from Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi, ventured into explicit filmmaking in 1999's "Romance," while British director Michael Winterbottom took two actors through a series of intimate encounters in 2004's "9 Songs." But those films, playing to art house audiences, flew below the cultural radar -- while "Romance" grossed $1.3 million domestically, "9 Songs" had to settle for only $67,000.

Mitchell, on the other hand, is likely to garner a good deal more attention. A denizen of New York's East Village scene, he might not be a household name. But thanks to "Hedwig," which earned a sizable cult following -- first as a stage show, then as a film that grossed $3.1 million domestically, and then on video -- Mitchell has developed an ardent fan base, which he is courting with "Shortbus." And, so far, nobody is raising any objections.

I saw it today. It's got it's problems - some clunky exposition and character development at the beginning - but overall it's good. John Cameron Mitchell has this wonderful way of weaving pathos and humor together into a single intrinsic emotion, and it really makes the film effective. I had tears in my eyes at the end, and the woman sitting next to me was openly crying.

Riding the Shortbus
Source: ComingSoon.net

John Cameron Mitchell, the filmmaker behind the Sundance favorite Hedwig and the Angry Inch is back, and his latest movie Shortbus is all about sex. Or that's what you might be led to believe, because the real sex between Mitchell's little known actors is a big talking point of his new movie.

Really, it's a drama/comedy about a group of New Yorkers, gay and straight, who come together to deal with their sexual issues in a New York salon called "Shortbus," where art and music collide with a non-stop orgy that anyone can watch or participate in as they wish. The characters include Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), a sex therapist who has never had an orgasm herself, and her clients, a gay couple (Paul Dawson, PJ DeBoy) whose sexual problems lead them to thoughts of introducing other people into their sex lives.

It's a pretty daring endeavor, one that not everyone will get, let alone like, but it's certainly the less safe route for Mitchell to take after making a rock musical. CS Indie spoke with the cutting-edge director about the whys and wherefores of Shortbus.

(Warning: Because Shortbus is an NC-17 movie about sex, anyone uncomfortable with frank discussions about sexuality may want to find something else to read here on ComingSoon.net.)

CS: The actors mentioned that you didn't have much of a script, but what you did have, they didn't see that much and you let them improv a lot. How much of that is true?
John Cameron Mitchell: Well, you know, I wrote the script from the material of their improvs. No, they saw it a great deal. It's just that I asked them not to learn the words verbatim. The way we rehearsed was the same way we shot, which was we would read a scene, discuss whether it made sense, made some adjustments if it didn't make sense for their characters, and then they would sort of do it from memory in their own words. Then, if they missed some beats, I'd tell them and sometimes there'd be full improv, but it was always in their own words, even when we were shooting.

CS: But it wasn't so much about cutting and stopping if they messed up, but just keep going as much as possible?
Mitchell: Yeah, we did a lot of things over, but we kept rolling. We shot much more footage than most films.

CS: How long was this process in terms of how long ago did you decide you wanted to make a movie that addressed the issues of sex?
Mitchell: During Hedwig times, I was like "Hm, what might be next?" Hedwig started with a formal decision like "Oh, rock 'n' roll and theatre musicals, can they come together and still keep their authenticity?" and the same was like [with this], "How do I use sex in a film? I've seen a lot of people using it lately, but I'd do it differently." So it was purely formal first, and then it was, "Oh, if we're going to do sex, the actors will probably feel the most safe if they create their own characters." It really started more as an esthetic exercise. I just got around to the audition part at the beginning of 2003, and we shot two and a half years later.

CS: When you were auditioning people, did they know that the movie was all about them having real sex?
Mitchell: Yeah, we had an audition website that discussed what we were trying to do. It was a long process. I did a lot of press to publicize the website because we didn't have any money, so I'd call L.A. Weekly and ask if they could do an article on this and mention our website, it might be an interesting article for you, and then in the website, it discussed what we were trying to do esthetically, and just talk about giving sex... it's a coat of many colors and I'd only seen porn or French movies, which usually ended in castration. It seemed that there was more in between those two things. So they knew what it was up front, and they also knew that they would be creating their characters.

CS: What went into the decision when striking the balance between same sex and heterosexual sex?
Mitchell: It was really more that's the world I live in, it's pretty mixed and it seemed interesting to keep it varied. That's just the circles that I live in. There's a certain Bohemian New York that I wanted to explore to, and it seemed in some ways the best of New York in my view. Naturally, Justin Bond, who is sort of a reigning figure in that seemed to be right to be the reigning figure in the salon. Also, I wanted to challenge audiences of all kinds to see something maybe they weren't used to seeing outside of pornography.

CS: Has anyone asked you about the Woody Allen influence on this movie? The mix of comedy and sex seemed to mirror some of his earliest films.
Mitchell: Yeah, that was in the website, too. I talked about filmmakers who would be influences on this film, and "Annie Hall." I mean the pure schtick, yeah, I mentioned Woody Allen, I mentioned Cassavetes, Albert Brooks a little bit...

CS: A lot of directors when they do sex scenes, they do it on a closed set, but you have a huge group scene in the movie. Was that just everyone taking off their clothes and doing whatever they wanted?
Mitchell: It was, actually. (laughs) It was arranging them and saying, "Do whatever you want," keeping cameras far away. Obviously, there's some dramatic moments in those scenes where the woman sees the beautiful couple and there's some contact. There's things that have to happen, but as far as the "sextras," they were really preexisting couples who could do whatever they want. I actually jumped in for the last shot, just because it was my Hitchcock moment. (laughs) There's a shot of me in there, and there's another shot of me in another scene actually performing oral sex on a woman for the first time. I was dared. I was pushing myself, just like the actors were.

CS: Do you ever have any fantasies of the "Shortbus" environment taking on a reality and existing or does it already?
Mitchell: Well, there was a salon. It was an amalgamation of salons I'd been to. There was one, the guy who plays Creamy, the guy in the sex room with the brownies and the condoms? He had a salon called Cinesalon that was a cinema salon that he would only play 16mm films in his house. He served brownies and food, and there'd be sex later in the evening, which wasn't really my scene. I'm not really a group sex person, but I was just fascinated at this buffet of art and sex. I was going to this salon for a year, like every week, so that was much more interesting than what I imagine Plato's Retreat was, which was Jersey couples coming in for a non-artistic transgressive experience. I differentiate the salon from sex club, which is only sex, a salon which equates all of these important things in our lives: art, food, drink, society, politics and sex. They all are to be tasted. I think it's a healthier way to present it than just a pure sex environment, because that can be a little bit, sometimes catered to addiction more because it's just one thing? Certainly, people have used it in a healthy way. I've just never felt that a bathhouse, for example, is a very comfortable environment. You're not allowed to laugh, you know what I mean? Maybe in the Bette Midler days, when she was doing a show, and there was dinner and then there was sex, that seemed kind of more balanced.

CS: Were you trying to harken back to the days of Andy Warhol's Factory a bit?
Mitchell: I was interested in Warhol as a boundary breaker, but I never got a warm and fuzzy feeling from The Factory. It just seemed so harsh and mean and more connected to fashion. They were anti-hippies in a way, and this is closer to a post-punk hippy vibe, if you know what I mean, and it's not so much bent on fame. He was really just trying to create his own Hollywood, and I don't like Hollywood. A lot of the films were formally interesting like "Blow Job" and those are just cool, great ideas, but I don't ever want to see them again. It's like superstars who all ended up with a needle in their arm. The "Shortbus" world is not riddled with drugs. There's certainly desperation at times and you need to connect, but it doesn't quite have that same relentless self-promotion needed for fame and the whole drug thing. I've seen it and I'm just not interested.

CS: Where did safe sex come into play while making the movie?
Mitchell: It is mentioned actually. Whenever there's a couple that's not a long-term couple, there's a condom if there's penetration i.e. the sex room, he offers her condoms and when the boys have a three-way, there's a condom passed from the lover to the lover, but except for that encounter, all the sex is actually pre-existing couples, in fact long-term couples or that's implied. At least in the sex room, and in fact, they're all played by long-term couples in that room. Again, I guess you see tropes of certain things in a New York film like this, like drugs and smoking. A lot of [the decisions] were just made on pure economics. If one of the actors wanted to be dealing with HIV, we probably would have gone there. All the actors decided what their characters' emotional arc was, and for example, Sook-Yin, when she was growing up, she was very afraid of her body, and I exaggerated that into a non-orgasmic woman, so I would have followed whatever journey they wanted to go on. Just HIV didn't come up, though we were very careful when shooting. All the leads were tested, and obviously, you can't police everyone every step of the way and get them tested every week, so at a certain point, I said, "Whoever is having sexual contact, we want you both to discuss it and both feel comfortable about what you're doing." So it really came down to that.

CS: What about the National Anthem scene? Who came up with that? (Note: You'll just have to see the movie to find out more details on that.)
Mitchell: Well, we were doing a sexual improv with the three of them. Someone started singing and that was interesting, and everyone who's participated in such sexual activity knows that when there's vibration down there, it's very interesting. I'm sure it's the same with oral sex with a woman. I wouldn't know. I didn't sing when I did it. It was just funny and then I was just like, there really should be a song that is somehow germaine to the scene, and to be honest, the first thought was, "Well, the Star Spangled Banner is public domain so we don't have to pay for the rights." But then it became politically germaine. We started [the movie] with the Statue of Liberty, and it seemed like a nice new way to be patriotic again. Because I am patriotic.

CS: Is it true that they cheered that scene at Cannes?
Mitchell: They did. I don't think it's happened since 1945.

CS: Have you covered all you've wanted to cover on sex or is there more to come... so to speak?
Mitchell: With "Hedwig," stylistically experimenting with drag and musicals with rock 'n' roll, there's elements of that in "Shortbus" and I'm sure there's elements of what we learned from "Shortbus" that's going to be in other things. My next thing is a children's film so it won't have any sex in it, but I won't be as afraid of it, I don't think. But you're always thinking about budget, and the financers in a way kind of welcome the explicit sex, because that is the star. Budgetarilly, you have to think about where the movie is going to play, that is why the film is very low-budget. A hundred million dollar film, no one's going to give us the money if there's real sex in something like that because they can't figure out how to get their money back.

CS: Is this children's movie an original story or something based on a preexisting book?
Mitchell: It's an original story. I was working on this and that at the same time. It's definitely a children's film, for adults too, that will be unusual. I like to play around with form, and this is about a little boy that's never been told a bedtime story, and there's an animated world. It's called "Nigh."

CS: Have you ever been tempted to call up Michael Winterbottom and trade war stories about making a movie featuring real sex?
Mitchell: Well, I met him and I invited him to a screening, and I wanted to talk about it. It was like at a party and he said he'd try to come but never did. Sook-Yin and I ran into Vincent Gallo in the subway, and I was like, "Hey, I'm actually making a film with real sex, too." And he said, "Just don't star in it or they'll come after you." And then he got off on the next stop.

Shortbus opens on Wednesday, October 4 in New York.

this seems like it should've come before hedwig.  it has the energy and passion of a freshman attempt but all the mistakes.  the missteps are sometimes unbearable, but the peaks made me want to forgive them more than i should--there's no writing this film off.  its flaws are the kind you'd expect from a film as viciously personal as this one.  the scene with the former mayor of new york and the ending... jesus.

I interviewed John Cameron Mitchell the other day, and one of the most intersting things he talked about was the Mayor character. I'll have it online sometime next week. It was a great conversation, except that he was eating lunch throughout it.

Quote from: Ghostboy on October 05, 2006, 03:44:33 AM
It was a great conversation, except that he was eating lunch throughout it.

and not sharing (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Femoticons%2Ffood.gif&hash=d87348595d035d26c5478ca9fb2836fa3650e201) :yabbse-angry:

Quote from: samsong on October 04, 2006, 10:33:20 PM
this seems like it should've come before hedwig.  it has the energy and passion of a freshman attempt but all the mistakes.  the missteps are sometimes unbearable, but the peaks made me want to forgive them more than i should--there's no writing this film off.  its flaws are the kind you'd expect from a film as viciously personal as this one.  the scene with the former mayor of new york and the ending... jesus.

i think you're making fun of me, but this may well be a reasonable review.  :ponder:

This is definitely one of the best films of the year. Everyone go see this.

After some delay, my review of the film (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cgi-bin/2006/10/shortbus_pt_1.html) and interview with JCM (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cgi-bin/2006/10/shortbus.html) (minus the sounds of him eating) are online.

john cameron mitchell appeared as a "special guest expert" in dan savage's recent Savage Love column.

an excerpt: "While I knew he'd give good advice, I didn't expect that Mitchell, a gay man, would have firsthand—or first-face—experience with learning to love vag."

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/53943

Spoil.

He said:  "It's like the 60's, without the hope" and then later someone sang the Star Bangled Banner into another man's ass, and there was a woman trying to destroy her vibrating vagina egg with a fake plastic leg.

And things like that.  I don't know.  When I left the theater with my friend he said, "There was too much" and I think maybe he was right.  At times it was overwritten and overacted.  It focused on the idiosyncrasies more than it should have.  I found myself losing the characters and straying from the emotional core.

*edit
I kind of like Star Bangled Banner better, so I'll leave it.

Interview: John Cameron Mitchell
The writer-director of Shortbus talks about tackling real sex on the silver screen.

John Cameron Mitchell may seem like the unlikeliest guy to make a mainstream movie, but he has done so already -- twice. His first film, Hedwig and the Angry Inch combined a tragically hilarious love story with some kick-ass rock and roll and offered audiences a surprisingly straightforward tale of love and redemption. His latest movie, the highly-anticipated Shortbus, features actual on screen intercourse, but manages only to make the audience uncomfortable when the characters are sharing their feelings.

Mitchell recently spoke to IGN about Shortbus, which is currently in limited release. In addition to talking about the process of getting actors to bare their souls (not to mention bodies), the filmmaker also explained how his films manage to overcome niche marketing and potentially off-putting material and find the emotional truth lurking beneath their sometimes twisted tales.

IGN Movies: It's a testament to your direction that the only uncomfortable moment in the movie comes not when there is graphic straight or gay sex but during a scene where two characters share false emotional intimacy. What was the process of putting this movie together so that it wasn't exploitative of the adult content?

John Cameron Mitchell: 'Exploitative' is in the eye of the person being exploited. You can go into an experience trying to exploit.

IGN: Or prurient maybe?

Mitchell: Well, prurient is more about perception. Exploitative is the people being exploited -- maybe an actor feeling exploited. Prurience is the viewer, us saying it's for pure titillation's sake. Of course, prurience has a negative connotation; in porn, the purpose of it is to be stimulated. In our case, it's not porn because that was not our priority. Anyone can be stimulated by a water bottle, but that's not my job. In this case I wanted to de-eroticize the sex and see what was left over, and there's a lot. You're panning for gold and you've got a lot left over. You've got a lot of emotion, there's even political ramifications, and you have a lot of humor. When the eroticism fades, it's pretty ridiculous positions you find yourselves in and I think a lot of films that have used real sex lately have shied away from [that], almost dehumorized sex -- which is one of the funniest things there is -- and only focused on the negative aspects of sex. Porn ignores all aspects except for the erotic, and a lot of art films only show the negative. So I thought, okay, there's more here -- there's a range of things that happens that are connected towards sex, that are connected towards childhood, connected to politics, connected to the question we have to ask ourselves of whether we're going to be alone or not alone. What does that mean? Does sex help us? Does sex help us get out of the house? Is sex just a ridiculous way of doing it, and everyone has to answer it in a different way.

In our case, all of the sex is necessary for exposition for the characters, to move plot along, to bring up theme. We have the National Anthem portrayed in a way that's not very common in films, but it's a patriotic film; for me, it opens with the Statue of Liberty and old-fashioned American values that I value like this is the land of the outcasts. This is where you went when they kicked your ass somewhere else and you wanted to find some place of your own. You can say Puritans set up camp in the Northeast too, but they were looking for their own world just as much as any of us, and we have the right here to find our own way as long as we're not hurting anybody. So in this case I want to like tweak American prudery, remind people that it's not easy to compartmentalize sex, and when you do it becomes dirty, it becomes bad, and you don't have as much respect for people in a sexual or sometimes amorous way when you hide it away.

Look at the whole Catholic church; it's all about crushing it and it can pop back in unusual forms when you try to crush it. They did a study recently and the countries that have the most proscriptions against sex are the ones with the highest rates of sexual violence, domestic violence, and even war. Think about the cultures that invade other cultures; they're usually not okay about sex. There's usually misogyny involved. There's usually some sort of hatred of the sexual -- female circumcision, whatever. There's all of these weird connections between violence and fear of sex, and in this case we want to clear the air, integrate sex back into story. It's not for everyone, but in our case it's for people who can handle sex in their own lives, too. Maybe it actually will help you if you can't handle it in your own lives, just to remind you that it's as much a part of life as anything else.

IGN: Was the political aspect of the film, including 9/11, the basis for this film, or was it something you synthesized to that core concept of getting underneath sex?

Mitchell: The idea of using sex as language, I thought about in the late '90s when I was working on Hedwig. Certainly 9/11 changes everyone's point of view - you know, should change everyone's point of view about a lot of things. I mean, it was not too long after 9/11 that Jerry Falwell blamed sexual minorities and illegal immigration on 9/11 as God's punishment. You know, who the hell knows? I do know that people equate things that they are equally afraid of as dangerous -- the terrorist, the illegal immigrant, the gay guy wanting to get married. They're all equally dangerous to a lot of people on the religious right, and it's stupid. It's really not respectful of diversity of life. I hope that with this film there's a dispelling of fear, or at least a facing of it. There's a lot of fear in the film; the characters feel a lot of fear. We see it through a comedic prism and then we go into darker places and come out hopefully in an optimistic way. But that's the exact feeling I felt in New York after 9/11 -- that there really was a connection among people there. New York became a community. It reached its apotheosis during the blackout, when at first we thought we're all dead and then it was just, no, we're just using too much electricity, we're using our cell phones too much. We're using all of this technology that's supposed to connect us, but it feels like it's separating us. We've blown the system, we've overloaded the system with this desire I believe to connect, and it was when everything failed is when people looked in each other's eyes again instead of on a computer screen. They walked around the streets that they couldn't tell were their own because it was dark, and you saw little parties on stoops with people and candles and people meeting each other in their own buildings that they had never met before, marching bands and bonfires. That was the spirit of this film.

IGN: What was the challenge in getting these actors to be comfortable not only in the sexual situations but also emotionally exposed at the same time?

Mitchell: The key to making this film was allowing the actors to be the co-creators, so we cast interesting people first. I wanted smart, funny charismatic people first, then we went into improvisational workshops and through all kinds of theater games we created the characters and elements of the story in workshop. Then I would go and write the screenplay, we'd rehearse back and forth for two and a half years before shooting -- two and a half years! I mean, I cast people who I liked as well as who were talented. I knew I was going to spend a lot of time with them, and it goes a long way; a lot of people don't think of friendliness as a criteria for casting and they have a miserable time. A lot of artists think that the more miserable the time is making the art, the better the art, but I never thought that. I've always thought that was bullsh*t, and abusing their actors to get the right emotion? Bullsh*t. You know, the experience is as important if not more than the result. So in this case we went through and processed a lot -- you know, there was a lot of nerves and boundaries and talking about stuff. I always told them I never want you to do anything you don't want to do, but I want you to challenge yourselves and challenge the audience -- and we're all really good friends. It's like we got through the tenseness of shooting sex because it wasn't easy, you know? It's awkward, but it wasn't easy doing the crying scenes either, you know? They had their own challenges.

IGN: Is there a secret to being able to render these stories in a way that elevates them above the designation of being a 'gay movie'? Because a lot of the films that center around that subject focus so intently on the idea of being gay that they fail to create a sort of emotional identification with the audience that is universal.

Mitchell: Well, in this case, I don't know if you would say that it centers on the gay experience, though I think it has a queer sensibility, which is something else, which I think you can have when you're straight. A queer sensibility I would define where you were an outsider, and you somehow saw your difference in terms of gender or sexuality whether you were straight or gay. I could say that all of my films have a certain queer prism that you look through, but none of them are particularly gay films. They just have elements, like for example there's a drag element that came into Hedwig but I married it to rock & roll, which is traditionally linked; Little Richard was kind of both. But Hedwig's wasn't a coming out story; being gay was the least of her problems. It's the same with Shortbus, you know? It's about all sexualities, but there is this sort of queer feeling of we're all in this together and we can laugh at it in a certain way. Justin Bond plays this androgynous Gertrude Stein figure, mistress of the salon, certainly has an ironic and queer point of view about life, but I've always felt I've never felt comfortable in a group of just gay men or just straight women or whatever. Diversity is always [essential] and the best part is it has everybody. Agewise, we didn't have as many older people as I'd liked for this cast because they didn't audition. I opened it to anybody who wanted to send in audition tapes, and I had fewer lesbians for example, fewer women; I think women are more nervous about sex in general in a film because guys can separate sex from everything more easily. Maybe it's a little bit less common for women to separate it from intimacy or an emotional dynamic, though ultimately the women were much more comfortable on the days that we were shooting than the men, because they had already processed it all out and the men were like, "I don't need to talk about it. Let's just do it," and then they freaked out at the last minute, which does happen and our friend Viagra was helpful. So yeah, to me it's like it's a big gay and straight world; I mean, it's whatever and I'm much more relaxed about -- once you know who you are, you can kind of be in any environment. I hope this film is a sophisticated film, sophisticated defined as adaptable, having been around, assuming that people are people and everyone's in the same boat.

IGN: We're sure you've been asked many times what was toughest to shoot, but what was the most fun?

Mitchell: Well, the big orgy scene turned out to be the easiest because I was just putting in pre-existing couples into a big room full of mattresses and put them in certain spots and just said, 'Go!' And put the cameras far away with zoom lenses and it was just great. I jumped in actually with someone I was dating at the time and at the last minute I certainly couldn't get aroused. I was way too self-conscious, because group sex is not my thing, but I'm fascinated by people who are comfortable in that environment. And I did perform oral sex on a woman for the first time in one shot because I felt like I had to; it was a gesture of solidarity. So that was actually easiest even though one character actually, I don't know if you remember -- Sofia looks in the sex room and sees a woman having an orgasm. They have a moment of connection, as if the woman knows what she's going through and that was fascinating to shoot because she was actually having sex and having this very emotional moment and she was a f*cking pro, you know? I was able to direct her while everyone was having sex with her, and we created an environment with the crew and the cast were all relaxed enough for that to happen, and it was a very powerful experience. It felt very healthy, the fact that it was mixed sexualities - because people do separate themselves by sexuality - and everyone really felt energized and excited after. It blew a few people's minds as we were working on it.

IGN: There were a number of movies that I was reminded of in terms of the approach and the look of the movie, including 9 Songs and Midnight Cowboy. At least the party scenes from that film. Were there specific influences that inspired you when shooting this movie?

Mitchell: Not a lot of films that I had seen that used real sex are really up my alley. Most of the most recent ones are very negative, even though they're great in and of themselves. Like Fat Girl I thought was fantastic. But they're all so bleak -- always despair is right around the corner, which seemed a little bit disingenuous or perhaps shows how unliberated a lot of these directors might actually be. Granted, they're only going there because they grew up in a repressive environment and they're trying to rid themselves of guilt -- as I am, growing up very Catholic. But to not admit that there's humor and hope in that kind of connection seems a little bit myopic. [But the film] that I thought had a really nice tone because it was sweet and funny too was a film called Taxi Zum Klo, which is a German film from 1980, which is a very autobiographical film about this kindergarten teacher who also had this double life as kind of like a leather queen, and it was very sweet and funny and very real. That was the most influential. I have a joke in the film that refers to In The Realm of the Senses, which is a Japanese film about sexual obsession and ends badly too, but there's one point where a woman puts a hard boiled egg up her and then lays it for the man. I have this vibrating egg which is called "In the Realm of the Senses," so it's like an homage to that humorless but compelling film. But not many [others]; I mean, for tone, Woody Allen was more of an antecedent, or Cassavetes, like Minnie & Moskowitz, which is like his romantic comedy but has this depth to it. Those were more examples of tone, or of a film whose tone I was interested in -- or Nashville. And there's a short film by Jean Genet called Un chant d'amour which was made in the '50s which is very sexually explicit in a prison, which is very poetic and was kind of more moving to me than, say, Warhol's kind of -- well, Warhol always felt a little bit thin to me, like formally interesting but not very emotionally deep and kind of distanced. So his films, even though I always thought they were interesting formally were all kind of like felt a little bit mean and kind of thin when it came to emotions and ideas.

IGN: You've now done these two movies that are very idiosyncratic in terms of what mainstream audiences might want to see. Do you have an action movie bursting to get out from inside you, or some kind of mainstream vehicle that everyone will automatically see?

Mitchell: Maybe. I like formally trying different things. Sex is for me a language, genre I love to work with. I love to mix genres. But I'm working on a children's film; I wrote it years ago and I'd love it to be one of the next things that I do and it very much uses the tropes of children's stories and there's a lot of animation and it's about a little boy who was never told a bedtime story. It's called Nigh, and it could be -- I don't know. I can't tell, and I don't think it's very healthy to decide what your audience wants to see, because you just start to forget what felt special about it for you. You're blinded to what moved you about it when you're worrying too much about what they want to see. As soon as someone is asking that question -- what do they want to see? -- it's a problem for me. Sometimes you can ask it and kind of play with that. Like they may want to see that, but you give them something else and then it's what they need to see rather than what they think they want to see. Those are the films that moved me. You know, it's like unexpected moments like, 'Wow. I didn't know I could relate to such a person because you're so different from me.' But it's in the very specificity of their difference that you find a universality. Going for the lowest common denominator doesn't last; it becomes a sugar burst and then it kind of disappears. It doesn't stay with you. So for me, I do like to play with genre and I certainly will make films that some will consider more commercial, but I have to think of them in their own terms rather than just commercial things.

There were parts of this movie that... did what cinema is supposed to sometimes be able to do, a certain ability to transcend.  It's always difficult to define, and that's fine because I never want to pin them down.  The whole film ranged from good to some of those moments.  I thought those New York exteriors were completely amazing.  I'm just really happy that this film got made, because all of what has been written about this film before and during the making of it just can't say what the film is able to say for itself.  I'm glad it got to.

There aren't really any bad moments, but some pedestrian ones.  But the good thing about forgettable parts is that you forget them and then you're just left with great memories.

...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fec2.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB000LAZDQA.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V34001781_.jpg&hash=6b3f1a0b4ee5425984f4a192716025ba3dfa63f0)

Additional Release Material
Audio Commentary Cast & Filmmaker Commentary
Production Interview Conversation With John Cameron
Trailer Gallery

March 13, 2007

lame cover but i'm glad they didn't use the poster image. :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

I think the poster you're referring to was a fake one (at least... I think it's fake) posted in this thread along with the trailer.

But I think this poster is pretty awesome:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmyspace-603.vo.llnwd.net%2F01339%2F30%2F61%2F1339731603_l.jpg&hash=273fcfcb3d18b2a2592b560461c78f70f1478696)

Plot Keywords for Shortbus (2006)

Leg Spreading
Male Frontal Nudity
Exhibitionism
Orgasm
Skyline
Fake Orgasm
Bathtub
Kama Sutra
Suicide Attempt
Independent Film
Loneliness
Ejaculation Scene
Sadomasochism
Male Nudity
Depression
Homosexuality
Couples Therapy
Masturbation Scene
Transvestite
Controversial
Male Prostitute
Female Nudity
Hustler
Explicit Sex
Gay Sex
Cum Shot
Dominatrix
Power Outage
Brooklyn
Lifeguard
Hardcore
Orgy
Three Some
National Anthem
Fellatio
Title Spoken By Character
Kinky
Rimming
Erection
Voyeur
Gay Love
Anal Sex
Bisexuality
New Yorker
Vaginal Sex
Gay Relationship
Sex
Lesbian
Monogamy
Sex Therapist
Gay Kiss
Drag Queen
Ex Prostitute
Star Spangled Banner
New York City
Urination Scene

...