Archive for Deborah Lipp

Monday Movie Review: Shortbus

Shortbus (2006) 10/10
Sofia (Sook-Yin Lee), Severin (Lindsay Beamish), James (Paul Dawson), Jamie (PJ DeBoy), and their friends and lovers struggle to find pleasure, love, and connection in New York City. Written and directed by John Cameron Mitchell.

Let’s start by acknowledging that this is a sexually explicit movie. As in, very. The opening sequence makes that abundantly clear, so that anyone uncomfortable with the sight of penetration, domination, and masturbation is going to turn the movie off in the first few minutes. The movie doesn’t simply include sex; sex is its primary metaphor for communicating about its characters, and the main setting is the private sex club that gives the movie its title.

Sofia is a sex therapist (“I prefer the term ‘couples counselor'”), the fact of which is the movie’s greatest weakness. Sofia is “pre-orgasmic;” despite an active and athletic sex life, she has never had an orgasm, and she is lying to her husband about it. Her story is poignant, and indeed, forms the centerpiece of the movie. But I absolutely despise movies that give people professions as a prop, or a placeholder, or as ironic commentary. There is simply no way that Sofia is a sex therapist. It’s not just that she’s bad, and inappropriate, it’s that she seems to have no education about sex at all. And I’m pretty sure that’s a requirement. The unprofessional professional is an irritant whenever it shows up in films, never more so than here.

Despite that, I adored this movie. I was stunned by its beauty, by the delicacy with which people’s needs and sorrows emerge, by the tenderness with which the film views their loneliness and desire.

In her first counseling session with “the Jamies” (actually James and Jamie), a gay couple considering exploring open relationships, Sofia has an outburst and reveals she is pre-orgasmic (wherein Jamie gets off one of the movie’s funniest lines, reminding us that gay men really don’t know all that much about female sexuality). Believing it will help her, the Jamies invite her to Shorbus, a sex club for misfits and people exploring the outré within themselves. There Sofia meets Severin, a “pro-domme” (professional dominatrix) who has never had a real relationship. The two form a friendship.

Meanwhile, the Jamies meet Ceth (Jay Brannan), but there is more troubling the relationship than any of them know.

I was trying to think of what movie Shortbus reminded me of, and I realized it was Bubble. The characters and events have absolutely nothing in common, but the tone, the authenticity, the simplicity of letting the characters just be themselves, and the overwhelming sense of truth and wonder are similar. Bubble, of course, uses ordinary life, mostly work. Shortbus uses sex, including kinky, unusual, and perverse sex, but that, too, is a part of life.

Shortbus is funny, touching, occasionally erotic, often sad, and extremely entertaining. It is such a remarkable achievement that I’m giving it 10 out of 10 despite its one irritating flaw. I recommend the “making of” feature included on the DVD as well, which gives a lot of insight into the complex problems of creating a sexually explicit feature film.

Property of a Lady is Two Years Old

My blogiversary date is fuzzy, as I explained on my one year Blogiversary. In addtion, the Name the Blog contest wasn’t until December of 2005, so I wasn’t actually Property of a Lady at first.

Yet, there must be a date, and October 14 is it. I celebrate the me that is me. Also forcing myself to write a lot. Also having fun chatting with folks who come and visit.

Yay me.

To prevent abortions, prevent unwanted pregnancy

This is really Amanda‘s hobby horse, but hello to being proven right. Here’s what greeted me when I turned on the computer this morning (emphasis added):

LONDON – Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe

“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.

“The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity,” Fredrick wrote.

So, if you think that abortion itself is morally wrong, then obviously you want to prevent it, right? And legal obstacles don’t prevent abortion. So you’ll obviously want to work to make birth control accessible and affordable, right? And to inform women about it?

And if you’re pro-life, then the high rate of death from illegal abortion concerns you. Obviously. So keeping abortion safe and hygienic is vital, and keeping it legal helps ensure that.

This sounds like sarcasm, but as snide as my tone is, I’m not being sarcastic. It is absolutely true that if you want to prevent abortion and preserve life, then safe, legal abortion combined with safe, legal, accessible, inexpensive birth control is the way to make that happen. The fact that the “pro-life” (snort) movement doesn’t favor any of those things doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’re not pro-life. No matter what a “pro-life” person says, if they don’t support policies which are proven to reduce abortion rates and preserve the lives of women, then they have a different agenda.

I understand they are changing their name to the “Punish Slutty Women” movement. Okay, that was sarcasm.

Friday Catblogging: Noogies

Arthur gives Mingo noogies.

Mingo takes it.

Noogies

Gay rights are religious rights

Today is National Coming Out Day. Last year, I wrote about gay rights as relational rights. This year, I’d like to talk about how gay rights are religious rights.

Gay rights, yes, are civil rights, and are amply justified in the Constitution under “equal protection,” not to mention “pursuit of happiness.” But we tend to bury the fact that religious liberty is also at stake.

The entire notion that there’s something wrong with being gay, something unacceptable, is a religious one. It’s based in the Bible or the Koran or some other bookish thingy. So why should those who do not follow those books be bound by their laws?

There is lots of room for gay people, and indeed for gay marriage, in most Pagan religions. As a Wiccan Priestess, I would be happy to perform a handfasting (marriage) ceremony for a gay couple. But while I can perform such a ceremony for a straight couple and have it legally recognized, the same-sex handfasting cannot be recognized. Since they are equal in the eyes of my religion, isn’t that State interference with religion?

You’ll see them say it. You’ll see them say marriage is “sacred.” If it’s sacred, it belongs to religion and religion alone; keep the State out of it. If it’s not sacred, if it’s civil, then everyone should have an equal shot at it.

Quote of the Day

I just got an email from Isaac; I don’t know where he picked up his new sig line, but it’s glorious:

Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest,
educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done
a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.

—Craig Carter, The Oregonian, 5/22/05

Early Decision

Arthur has decided to apply for “Early Decision” to his chosen school. It’s a smart choice. He knows where he wants to go, and if he gets in he’s saved the hassle of applying elsewhere; we’ll know before standard application deadlines. If he doesn’t get in, we’ll have time to regroup and choose the next course of action.

About a year ago, I read an article on the trend of kids applying Early Decision or Early Action. (Early Decision means you commit to attending if you get in, Early Action you do not.) The whole thing was that it used to be just exceptional students who applied early, often for special reasons, or because they were particularly driven. Now there are so many more super-ambitious students that early decision/action has actually changed the ability of everyone to get into selective universities; so many slots are filled early that more and more students have to apply early in order to compete.

Thinking about this made me think about how the Presidential Primaries are in virtually the same sort of situation. There used to be one or two or three early primaries, but then, the states with later primaries started to feel like they were out of it, so they moved their primaries forward, which pushed other states to move theirs, which pushed New Hampshire earlier, and so on. Now we’re all suffering by this incredibly extended campaign season.

Listen, I’m from New Jersey. Our primary was in June. It’s miserable to go cast a primary vote when there are no candidates left. So I empathize with the urge to push forward. But you know we would be better off if the whole thing took less time, and earlier primaries make the campaign season longer and more grueling.

I see a relationship between these two “early push” phenomena, that speaks to how we, as a culture, are pushing further harder faster sooner now now now. It doesn’t serve us to be the least patient people on Earth. We’re pushing the boundary of “early” so hard now, that soon we’ll have to start before we start. Babies will be competing for schools in utero. And the next Primaries will begin as soon as the current election is over.

So could we all just TAKE A FUCKING BREATH?

Just saying.

Name That Actor: Solutions!

All solved in one day.

» Read more..

Tuesday Trivia: Name the Actor

I’m still having fun with this, and you all seem to enjoy it as well, so here goes.

1. A hooker who slept with a preacher, a farm girl in love with a cowboy, and a librarian.
Solved by Melville (comment #7).

2. A butler, a hotel clerk, and a transvestite.
Solved by Melville (comment #1).

3. The traitorous wife of the head of British Secret Service, a nun, and the adulterous wife of an Army Captain.
Solved by Melville (comment #10).

4. An influential newspaper columnist, first officer on a submarine, and an accused Nazi war criminal.
Solved by Melville (comment #2).

5. A terrorist/revolutionary, an FBI investigator, and a porn star.
Solved by Melville (comment #1).

6. A hairdresser, an angel, and a ghost.
Solved by Hazel (comment #14).

7. A murderious poet, a television reporter, and an evil witch.
Solved by lunofajro (comment #11).

Monday Movie Review: Sideways

Sideways (2004) 5/10
Miles (Paul Giamatti) takes his friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church) on a road trip to wine country the week before Jack’s wedding. There they meet and become involved with two beautiful wine connoisseurs (Sandra Oh and Virginia Madson).

Gods, did I hate this movie.

Okay, that’s kind of strong. There’s certainly a lot to commend. Giamatti’s performance is nuanced and rather brilliant. Madsen and Oh are radiant and sharp. There were some decent laughs, and the movie is intelligently written. For all of that, it pretty much made my skin crawl.

First, can we talk about Thomas Haden Church? He looks like the Claymation version of a handsome man. His face is soft and sort of semi-formed. I was totally on board when he was cast as the Sandman, a character who turns into sand, because he kind of looks like that all the time. It’s very distracting to watch his squishy face, which is consistent with his squishy character. It’s a child’s face, and Jack behaves like a child.

The problem with Sideways is that Miles and Jack are detestable men with barely any character arc. I’m all about dislikable characters, but give me something. Within the first fifteen minutes of the movie, Miles has lied to his friend Jack, dawdled when he was already late, and stolen from his mother. Really, by this point I absolutely despised Miles, and didn’t give a shit what his fucking character journey was. But I stuck with the movie in the hopes that things would shape up.

Silly me.

Giamatti has one absolutely stellar monologue, in which he talks about the wonders of the Pinot grape. How it’s thin-skinned, temperamental, not a survivor, but has the most brilliant and thrilling flavors if it’s grown correctly. It’s very clear that he’s describing himself, but wonderfully, neither he nor Maya (Madsen) spell out the simile; the viewer can know it without having it hammered home. The thing is, though, that Miles is thin-skinned and temperamental, but I never really bought that he was thrilling and brilliant.

A negative protagonist works when you sense there’s something good within that is unexpressed. You root for the character in the hopes that the good will come out, or that the character will survive the adventure to perhaps find that goodness at a later date. But neither Miles nor Jack evince any decent qualities at all. Miles is smug and disdainful in every conversation, he feels sorry for himself, he whines, he pontificates, and he is seething with anger. Jack is a philanderer and a big ol’ baby. Despite everything these men go through, they just persist in being their small-minded, nasty selves.

You know, when you read that, you can think it’s intelligent, or realistic, or whatever. Mostly, whiny depressive snots don’t much change. But everything in the script and presentation sets you up to expect the heartwarming moment. There is a heartwarming moment at the very end, but it’s tepid, and entirely too small in proportion to what has gone before.

Hollywood, including “indie” Hollywood, has too many goddamn movies about self-pitying middle-aged white men with delusions of intellectualism and fear of commitment. Yeah, I get it, they write what they know. But all that does is make me feel irritated that they don’t know anything else. If I met Miles or Jack at a party I’d chat with them for ten minutes and then walk away, annoyed. Instead, I was stuck with them for two hours.