The Sex Film Project - Shortbus

[ono]

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

[Chest Rockwell]

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.

[hedwig]

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

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

(The sex film project, of course)

[MacGuffin]

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."

[hedwig]

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.

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?

[ono]

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, 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.

[matt35mm]

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, 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.

[Ghostboy]

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.

[Pubrick]

I 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.

[matt35mm]

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 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.

[MacGuffin]

But I do wonder if it's a coincidence that the official running time is 69 minutes.

It's deliberate.

[MacGuffin]

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?

[elpablo]

'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.

[Gamblour.]

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.

[grand theft sparrow]

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.