Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Five Minutes With Steve McQueen About "Shame"

by Sergio
September 13, 2011 4:52 AM
  • |

Since he's apparently the man of the moment with the film that has everyone talking (both pro and con - well two con and they haven't even seen the bloody thing yet), here's a brief interview with filmmaker and visual artist Steve McQueen dicussing his film Shame:

  • |

More: Director's Spotlight

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Kele | September 16, 2011 11:27 AMReply

    Never seen any of Steven McQueen's work but look forward to seeing both of his works and upcoming projects with Chiwetel Ejiofor. I do respect what he has been able to accomplish with just two films but I disagree on his perspective on what actors are about. Life is basically about choices. Some people have no problem in baring it all while for others its extremely difficult. An actors refusing to do certain things in film doesn't make him less an actor, he is only working within the principles of that which he is COMFORTABLE doing and comfort is one the key factor in acting. You have to be comfortable to be believe and its a directors duty, most times, to make his actors comfortable if they aren't.

    On the other hand, I have always had the feeling Chiwetel Ejiofor as FELA with McQueen's directing style could be one of the reason why its in hiatus. Once read that McQueen was not satisfied the final draft by Biyi Bandele and got involved in writing it, but his need to "push the limit" might be a great problem for Chiwetel Ejiofor. Anyone who is conversant about Fela's life style, would agree that a film portraying him can not be complete w/out laying emphasis on his sexual life and McQueen's depiction of that vis-a-vis Chiwetel Ejiofor's work of line might be an issue. I could be wrong though, but having followed Chiwetel's career he strikes me as non-nudist type of actor.

  • CareyCarey | September 16, 2011 3:02 AMReply

    Okay, I just watched this clip and I watched Hunger, so now I’m ready. I’m going to hold my thoughts on Hunger but if Mr. McQueen does not think he’s pushing the limit he’s self delusional or he believe we are a bunch of naive fools.

    Additionally, there is no way he should take the liberty of adding the “sex addict“(his words) in the same cannon as alcoholics and heroin addicts. Anyone remotely familiar with those addictions will tell you that someone who desires an abundant amount of various types of sex will not fall in the paramenters associated with alcohol and heroin addiction. It’s simply outrageous to suggest such.

    I believe Mr. McQueen has simply packaged his film under an “addiction” to try and dupe the movie going audience into accepting what is essentially a dressed up, bow tied skin flick. I’ve come to that conclusion by the NC-17 rating of Shame and watching his movie Hunger, and watching his defensiveness in regards to him pushing the limit.

    Oh, and not to mention his idiotic interpretations of what defines an actors. Come on Steve, so actors should have not limits? That makes no sense at all.

    Steve McQueen is only bamboozling those that want to be pimp slapped. Sex addiction my ass! If this “sex” film is one half as graphic in scope and visual imagery as Hunger’s brutality (head gun shots and beatings), nudity, shit on the walls, close up of sores and lesions cavity searches, I am having a hard time wrapping my arms around the anticipated excitement of this movie. Some have said it’s all about the black man, Steve McQueen. Others have said they are interested in learning more about “sex addiction”. Yet others have said their interests can be found solely in their admiration of Fassbender. Now that I can understand because he did a wonderful job in Hunger. But the rest of that mess is nothing but game (imo).

    Listen, no pushing the edge (graphic imagery) no nudity, no sex, no Fassbender, no guy name Steve McQueen.

  • BondGirl | September 15, 2011 8:54 AMReply

    @CareyCarey: Thank you for saving me from a longer response. You summed it up fairly nicely. Now for the rest...shall I?

    @Reg: I realized the landmine I was stepping on by bringing up Forbes' Richest Man in Entertainment, but I expected better of you than to take my statement out of context. What I compared of the 2 men was their polarity with this particular audience on Shadow & Act. Nothing else. How you took it and ran on some other agenda is disappointing.

    In regards to McQueen's dismissiveness on sex, he is oversimplifying. If I see someone digging in their nose in public, that's shocking. I know that everyone does it, and is normal human behavior. However, it's repulsive and shocking because you don't see it every day. I can go weeks (well, in NYC days) without seeing a man doing when it happens, there is a nauseating reaction. Does that mean Denzel should do it on camera bc it's "normal"? Nah. It's easy for him to tell some no-name actor, who has already told the world that he owes his career to McQueen, to go the limit. But he's not going to tell Russell Crowe, that's for damn sure. Not without wearing a helmet at least.

    And here's the other common scenario: Russell takes the role knowing what he has to do in the scene...pretend to masterbate or whatever. Then they get on set, and McQueen doesn't like how it looks, and asks Russell to improvise some dialogue or movement. It happens. Or change a line; making his character even less sympathetic. Then the studio doesn't like how he's making their 3-picture deal actor look because he's supposed to do a family film next. This is when you read about the director getting fired for "creative differences". (See: Albert Hughes)

    So all this crap about if you're an actor, you go full throttle is ridiculous.

    Now when you said this-->>" I guarantee you that in time, with the reputation he’s building, actors will be lining up to work with him on future projects, and not because of the money (as is the case with some of the better black actors who work in Tyler Perry’s films)...", <<---what "better black actor" is working for Tyler just for the money, and who told you that only black actors did that? That's Hollywood my friend...they gotta get those Ferrari payments made somehow!

  • CareyCarey | September 15, 2011 6:04 AMReply

    Reg, I’m sure BondGirl will be back, however, before her return I believe a voice looking in from the outside is warranted.

    I believe practically everything you’ve said has made BondGirl's point. Check this..

    “In most cases actor would have read the script, met with director, talked about the character, raised any issues, and squashed them sometimes before they even sign on to do the film. Besides there’s also something called trust between actors and directors” ~ Reg

    Isn’t that exactly what BondGirl implied? She basically said many of those scenes would not have been asked of the actors in question. That was her point.

    Also... you minimized and/or misinterpreted the word “shocking”:

    You said: “His point being that none of this should be so *shocking* because he isn’t depicting anything that we aren’t already familiar with. It’s called sex, or more explicitly, fucking. Most of us who can, do it, and with some regularity; some in a variety of ways” ~ Reg

    Reg, a person does not have to be a prude, nor fake prude to be shocked by the actions of others. To imply such is woefully missing the point and rationalizing shocking behavior. Yes, most of us have sex, but the way each of us do our thing, can be shocking to others that do not view that particular form of pleasure as enjoyable. Take for instance S & M, bondage, golden flows or sex snuff films, to many individuals (not prudes) those actions are shocking behavior. It's not wise nor fair to depict others as the bad guys if they have morals and principles that do not emulate your standard of living.

    To expound on that ideology, we all die, right. But the way we meet our demise can come in a shocking manner.

    In the following you again missed the point, shift the issue and championed BondGirl’s opinion. Check this, you said ---> “Also not liking a film or filmmaker for being too minimalist or their storylines moving along too slowly isn’t really a criticism. It’s more of a preference. Saying that suggests that there’s something inherently wrong with a film that’s shot in that style or with a story that moves along “too slowly.” It’s more of a personal choice than what I’d call criticism” ~ Reg

    Reg, now come on... preference vs. criticism... really?! If the person in question (the critic) says a movie moved too slow for them, it IS a criticism (look up the word). Consequently there is something “wrong” with a movie if it moves too slow! “Too” slow, like too fat and too much debt, implies that there is something inherently wrong. Slow is not the same as “too slow”. And yes, we’re talking about personal preference and that’s exactly what BondGirl was suggesting... everybody ain’t hanging on Steve McQueen jock.

    Lastly, her mention of Steve’s physical problem was merely an observation and suggestion. What’s the big deal?

  • reg | September 15, 2011 3:57 AMReply

    @BondGirl - we're now putting McQueen and Tyler Perry in the same boat? I would argue that whatever staying power McQueen sees won't be for the same reasons as Tyler Perry's staying power. It's also too early to tell.

    Also not liking a film or filmmaker for being too minimalistic or their storylines moving along too slowly isn't really a criticism. It's more of a preference. Saying that suggests that there's something inherently wrong with a film that's shot in that style or with a story that moves along "too slowly." It's more of a personal choice than what I'd call criticism. If you don't like it, you don't like it. It's like white meat and dark meat. Plenty of films shot that way by many different filmmakers, and not just McQueen.

    And you called attention to his "Tourette's-like twitching," saying that "He could certainly benefit from some media training and a stylist." So now you're taking personal shots at his physical presence. WTF? To what end?

    You clearly misinterpret what he said about pushing the limits. He went on to say that what happens in the film isn't anything that doesn't happen in real life. We all have sex, we all have our likes in the bedroom, the things that turn us on; we all have sexual organs. His point being that none of this should be so *shocking* because he isn't depicting anything that we aren't already familiar with. It's called sex, or more explicitly, fucking. Most of us who can, do it, and with some regularity; some in a variety of ways. He depicts it all on screen. Big deal. We are the ones making a big deal out of it, when it really shouldn't be. We're a nation of prudes - fake prudes, but prudes nonetheless.

    And lastly, as for how Denzel or Meryl Streep might act if he asked them to do a scene a certain way, come on, are you serious? As someone who knows so much about the industry, I'd think you'd know that, more often than not, by the time they've even gotten to the set, something as important as this would have looong already been discussed. It won't be some on the set decision. In most cases actor would have read the script, met with director, talked about the character, raised any issues, and squashed them sometimes before they even sign on to do the film. Besides there's also something called trust between actors and directors. Obviously Fassbender trusts McQueen as he did in "Hunger." If Denzel or Meryl had any reservations about working with him, especially after seeing his past work, then they probably wouldn't.

    McQueen seems like a forthright, shoot-from-the-hip kind of person and director and I like him for that. He's building a repertoire of work with his own personal, unmistakable stamp on it. And for that reason, he's a budding auteur. I guarantee you that in time, with the reputation he's building, actors will be lining up to work with him on future projects, and not because of the money (as is the case with some of the better black actors who work in Tyler Perry's films), but because he's producing engaging, memorable work that will be talked about far longer than any of Tyler Perry's films will.

  • BondGirl | September 15, 2011 2:33 AMReply

    The fact that there's so much polarity for McQueen says that he has staying power...if we were indifferent about him, that would attest to his mediocrity. Same is true with Tyler Perry. I absolutely loved Hunger, however, what made that film is Fassbender. Another actor would've made that movie less interesting. I do enjoy McQueen's shooting style, but many folks don't, so trust that it's not just Carey or JMac who has a problem with McQueen. They've criticzed him for being too minimalistic and his storylines moving along too slowly.

    One thing that stood out is his idiosyncratic nature...what's with all the Tourette's-like twitching? He could certainly benefit from some media training and a stylist. Outside of that, he is in a great position to grow as a director.

    This though--->>"I don't feel I push the limits at all" and "...why are you an actor..why you attempt to sort of portray reality or humanity if all you’re gonna do is some things and not the other things." is pure bullshit. First, you are pushing the limits when you are straddling an NC-17 and X rating. When only a handful of films in the past 20 years have gotten that rating, that means you are going beyond the boundaries...he can't see that?? I thought that was a fair question to ask, and he could've admitted it and answered why, but he got defensive. Second, the whole an actor isn't an actor if...sorry to tell you, but some of the greatest actors in film history would not do what Fassbender does...that speaks to Fassbender's intensity, his idea of truth in storytelling, and his threshold of commitment. It doesn't speak to what any other actor won't do.

    I would LOVE for McQueen to say that on set to Denzel or DeNiro or Meryl Streep if they chose not to do a scene in a certain way, or say a particular line. They would eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

  • Jug | September 14, 2011 9:25 AMReply

    LMBAO Well since I've seen neither movie by McQueen/Fassbender, I can't comment yet. But I definitely will offer my thoughts once I do.

    Oh, a tell a personal secret. One of the reasons I want to see it is because aside from the Turturro Bros & now Ethan Hawke, I don't know of a white actor who says "I'm gonna roll with you, you're the shit" to a black director.

    Rackin' my brain to think of one, but I can't. Says a lot on all fronts...

  • CareyCarey | September 14, 2011 9:05 AMReply

    "It’s Carey who just can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that other folks are interested and want to see it" ~ Reg

    There you go again, Reggie. Why do you persist in speaking for me. Where did I ever say I don't understand why other want to see this? Come on man! I believe I've consistantly said do your thang, but I don't want to see it.

    "From his perspective, there’s something wrong with having any interest in seeing the film, for his own reasons." ~Reg

    Damn man, there you go again, where in the hell did I say there was something "wrong" with people who want to see this? In fact, if you care to look (3 comments down), jug just said "I love me some movies where there’s ultra-violence or ultra sex" and I championed his words/decision. So my brotha, WTH are you talking about? Stop playing the arm-chair psychologist. Pandering and simpin' for votes is so unmanly. Besides, if you're so damn good a reading peoples minds, what am I thinking right now? Yeah, you don't wanna know either.

    Jug, this whole debate started with BondGirl and I questioning what appeared to be a double standard (which some has termed as hypocrisy) when it came to "black" movies, or movies with a few black characters. On one hand some where all about black pride and "rah-rah-rah.... tell our stories with truth and passion... and we're tired of black women pllaying the part of maids and hoes. Yeah, f**k art, this is about the issues within the storyline. Black women need better postive roles"

    But yet, some of the same voices seem to turn a bliind eye on Nicole's part of the black girl who's essentially a jumpoff with limited lines. Oh yeah, now it was about "art". Forget the subtle messages.. forget about the black woman's struggles, past and present. Who cares about that sh*t -huh? This is about "ART".

    Consequently, through all of the exchanges, only you've come by and said exactly what you enjoy and expect to see in the movie, and again, I understood that and had no problem with it. Now Reggie's crying simpin' whinning ass is up in here and he has never stood on his. Nope, he's been good at talking for others, but not once has he said what pleasures he hopes to achieve from watching Shame, and how that compares to his feeling about The Help.

    Fake-ass negros are a shame and can't be trusted.

  • Jug | September 14, 2011 8:52 AMReply

    Oh, I was just curious. I came back and it sounded like folks had torches and were frothing at the mouth LOL

    It's all good. S&A is always good for a dust up err now & again.

  • reg | September 14, 2011 8:13 AMReply

    @ Jug - yeah I suggest going back and reading the last maybe 2 or 3 Shame posts and then you'll see what's really going on here. It's not that anybody has any problem with Carey saying it's not for him, or he doesn't want to see it. It's Carey who just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that other folks are interested and want to see it. From his perspective, there's something wrong with having any interest in seeing the film, for his own reasons. Nobody has challenged his right to not want to see it. It's Carey who's been shooting off at others who've expressed any interest in seeing it. Even though nobody has seen it yet. So don't feel sorry for Carey. He started this mess and wouldn't let it go, now he's trying to act like the victim here.

  • MulletLove | September 14, 2011 4:59 AMReply

    Oh yeah, Carey, I've seen Hunger. An amazing film that I think breaks some coffee grounds in a few ways, but that's just me. And I will be sure to put on my two cents about Shame as soon as I am able to find a computer. At least you can experience the queasy bits somewhat vicariously. No need in getting one's hands dirty.

  • Jug | September 14, 2011 3:56 AMReply

    DAAAMN! I come back & y'all got my man Carey surrounded like The Alamo LMAO

    I might have missed the earlier debate or another posting, but what is the deal with him saying it's not for him?

  • CareyCarey | September 14, 2011 3:01 AMReply

    In reference to my next comment, I said all that to say I believe the both of you (Jug & BondGirl) have similar "communication skills" and mindsets. Both of you seem to be very comfortable/secure with who you are and have little fear of disagreeing with popular opinion, nor do you fear/run from agreeing with "unpopular opinions".

  • CareyCarey | September 14, 2011 2:28 AMReply

    “They do say this game ain’t nuthin’ but pimps & hoes, and you’re a hoe until you can pimp yourself. But check it, I love me some movies where there’s ultra-violence or ultra sex. But is it warranted? How is it handled? Is it there “just cuz we could”?” ~Jug

    Jug, I gotta say this again, you are a breath of fresh air. Listen, as apposed to most who are championing this film - by using goopy, shallow and ambiguous terms - you came right out and said hey, “I love me some ultra-violence or ultra sex, but...”. And, the pimps & hoes line speaks volumes. It’s not always about “art”.

    I’ve noticed that you’re always listening for “qualifying” words and you love facts. Also, I"ve noticed that you don't voice too many assumptions and you seldom use absolute statements.

    In short, you’re a rare find on a discussion board. And many may not agree with this (and I believe I know why), but there’s another person, imo, that exhibits similar qualities - BondGirl. Your styles of debate are quite different, however you guy’s have similar "listening" and writing skills. Now, because of the negative connotations associated with the adjective “anal retentive“, I’m gonna throw out the bad and just call the both of you “Thinkers”.

  • Sergio | September 14, 2011 1:46 AMReply

    What is the constant fascination that Carey has calling me "Sergio from the South Side of Chicago"? Yeah I am and so what? What is that supposed to mean? That I'm from "da hood" and I'm supposed to "keep it real" or what? Whatever he's implying is totally lost on me.

  • CareyCarey | September 14, 2011 1:19 AMReply

    Yeah MulletLove (still love that name) I'll be waiting. In fact, someone asked me the other day if I finished watching "Hunger", and if they still want to know what I think about it, I coulld drop a few words on it. Jug said he was going to chech it out as well. Have you seen it?

  • misha | September 14, 2011 1:17 AMReply

    "No, he's (Michael) an actor...part of being an actor you usually use your body. Otherwise, why are you an actor..why you attempt to sort of portray reality or humanity if all you're gonna do is some things and not the other things. It's nonsense."

    Ha! I like this guy!

  • CareyCarey | September 14, 2011 1:13 AMReply

    Thanks reg, I needed that b/c you've saved me a little money. I mean, I'm on the phone with my therapist. I'm telling him that I'm not going to see him anymore because you've figured me all out and fixed me up. Who knew you were a arm chair psychiatrist, psychologist, sooth·say·er and kumquat: slow-growing, shrubby man?

    But GAWDDamn, the was a brilliant deduction. But look, if someone tells you that you’re witty, funny and very intelligent, I want you to slap the shit out of them because they’re lying to you. That’s right, they’re probably playing you for a fool b/c what kind of educated fool would repost that lame retort of yours? Really man, I trying to put you up on a little game. But damn, now you’ve turned into Tutor Turtle talking that same old slow drag about what you wanna be or who you think you are. Face it, you’re a potato head, who can’t wait to see Shame.

    But see, it time... “Twizzle Twazzle Truzzle Trone, time for this boy to come home“. Go rent some game and leave the driving to a few good men, Reggie. *LOL*

    But seriously Reg, you do realize I was called out and so I had to respond, right? Didn't you see the code words (two cons & "some" people)? So don't get upset with me.

  • MulletLove | September 14, 2011 1:01 AMReply

    Ah man, when the ish hits the fan around here, betta be sure to put that raincoat on, hahaha! October 7th can't come soon enough now. Carey, I'm gonna post my own review of the film after I've seen it, just for you. And I'll be sure to put a black band over all the stuff that comes up that might not sit too well on the freaky side of things. The least I can do as a fellow poster round these parts. You just keep your eyes open.

  • Neziah | September 13, 2011 12:58 PMReply

    Great interview, McQueen knows exactly what he's talking about and speaks it with so much authority and self confidence, always a pleasure.

  • Nia | September 13, 2011 12:50 PMReply

    He came off a bit drier than I would have hoped in the interview, but I still believe in what he is trying to express. I think the biggest point of this film is to be refreshingly honest. I'm sure alot of people deal with addictions daily they are seen as funtional to most people, but they must grapple with their demons privately. I haven't seen many films which deal with the issue of sex addiction head on. I was shocked when I saw Hunger as well because the subject matter went against much of the public's opinion of the IRA, but it paid off in this instance. I hope the same can be said for Shame. I can't wait to see it.

  • reg | September 13, 2011 12:31 PMReply

    Damn. I think I've learned what Carey's "freak" is. I done learned what gets that old Negro's blood flowing. It's clear now. Carey is a straight up masochist. You know how i now know this? Homeboy likes punishment. He gets off on pain and humiliation because he just doesnt know when to shut up, let something die and move on. Even when he says his through, he just can't help his self-denial self.

    Yeah i got you all figured out now Carey. Go 'head and get your masochistic freak on. I see you brah.

    And since you seem to have already forgotten let me just copy and paste my same exact response to you from our last uh "session" together since you keep coming with the same weak-ass arguments.

    Here it is:

    @Carey - It's still pretty absurd that I have to lay it all out for you like this Carey. That's one thing you seem to be missing that I think others get. But a "dissertation" isn't required for them to "get it." So that, and what follows, is all for you babe ;)

    You and I go back, so I assumed were just playing devil advocate, which, I'm sure you'll agree, has long been part of your shtick because you feel it creates controversy and debate. For some reason you seem to think that there's a problem if most folks agree on something. That does happen from time to time and shouldn't be looked upon as something that should be challenged.

    But back to what seems to be your issue with this film, which you laid out in the last paragraph. I gotta say Carey, you're projecting here, and it doesn't look good on you. And in projecting, you're judging others and their values. You say you've consistently laid out your reasons for not wanting to see the movie, based on the little you've heard (that justifies your stance), and the sentence that apparently sums it up for you - the NC-17 rating and the fact that there are "graphic depictions" of various sex acts.

    Can you not see how this highlights your own personal prejudices and hang-ups with regards to sex and sexuality? You've already deemed these depictions somehow unworthy and even taboo, and can't understand why they should be included in ANY context within any work of art. What if this was a documentary on sexual addiction, and it documented on camera how people with the addiction (they do exist) go about their daily lives, including their sexual proclivities - after all, that would be central to the documentary. Would you still dismiss it as unworthy? If you've read up on "Shame" you'd know that McQueen and his co-screenwriter performed real research on the subject they have made a film out of. They spoke to expert doctors on the subject, and more. And what they learned influenced how they went about making the film. This isn't just some filmmaker being sensational and gratuitous for the sake of entertainment (that's Quentin Tarantino's job).

    Guess what man? Some folks out there like to swing; some go to orgies; some engage in 3-way, 4-way, 10-way; some like to get shit on; some liked to get pissed on; some like to get whipped; some like to screw goats and cows; some like to get screwed by goats and cows; some (and I'm sure you're in this group) like to give themselves a good old wanking every now and then while watching porn.

    I think you get my point. Nothing wrong with any of that. Do you. And if I may say that those who turn to publicly condemn these things, or depictions of them, tend to be the ones who have most to hide, because they engage in their own brand of freakiness, or whatever you want to call it. You're projecting your own values onto others. Not everyone sees the world as you do, and that's perfectly fine. That's what makes the world go round.

    Yes, you've consistently given reasons why you don't want to see the movie. I don't agree with your reasons, or think you have enough of a reason to dismiss it completely. But you're entitled to that. I don't think anyone here has challenged that. You're the one challenging others' reasons for wanting to see it. And others, at least those of us who are debating this with you on this thread, have also consistently given reasons for why they want to see the movie. BUT, the problem is Carey, you don't seem to think those reasons are valid enough, because, in your head, you've already summarized why you think folks want to see it. Nevermind that they've given you their reasons, but, no, you want "the real truth" because you seem to think we're all hiding some deep issues, or that we want to live out some sexual fantasy on screen by watching the movie, or whatever other silly reason you've got cooked up. If you're still not clear why those of us who are responding want to see the movie, go back and read our comments again.

    And if you're still not satisfied with the answers, who's problem is that but yours?

    What you're doing here Carey is some bible belt shit. Some good old fashioned socially conservative evangelical prejudice and judgment. Not only that, but you're taking bits and pieces of information about the film and only hanging onto those that suit your agenda and value system (even if they are debatable or just wrong, and even though others have given you a fuller picture of the film's content and intent). And you're and making up your mind on the film's merits based on that limited amount of information. That's wrong dude. I prefer to get a much fuller picture before dismissing a work.

    But do you, just don't do others. Let them do that themselves.

  • Keith | September 13, 2011 12:12 PMReply

    Great post Sergio. One of the reasons I read this site are for gems like this.

    To hear a director talk with such authority and nuance about the actor process is so great to hear... and honestly his understanding of it sounds deep and is actually very rare (maybe others have it but just don't talk about it like he does here).

    AND to hear him (after the interviewer was clearly signaling it was time to go) speak about story, character/relationship and setting and how those are used in this film was illuminating. For me it spoke to his ability to direct and elevate challenging material. He seems to have a firm grasp on the really tough parts of storytelling in film... and as a viewer that's exciting.

    Thanks again for posting.

  • CareyCarey | September 13, 2011 11:47 AMReply

    ,“McQueen can accomplish sex scenes with an emotional impact that stirs all your senses, but does not arouse you in the physical sense. Steve McQueen makes films for intelligent, artistic people. He said so himself in an interview for “Hunger.” Hence, for *some* this is difficult to understand. I love what he said about sex not being “exotic” - Vanessa Martinez on September 13, 2011

    Now wait a minute Ms. Marinez, slow your roll b/c you have “some” of us f’up, twisted, confused and MISUNDERSTOOD!

    Who said anything about eroticism?! And what are you talking about “not aroused in the physical sense? If as you say, this film is for intelligent, artistic people, “some”body is missing the boat b/c to be aroused physically, is not relegated to ones loins, consequently, you've straddled the fence my good friend.. I mean check this, what’s erotic or exotic about being pissed on, or watching a man pull his pud, or watching someone commit a gruesome suicide - huh? That's surely going to stir up a few sense, and maybe, according to ol' Reggie, arose some in a freaky kind of way. And you know that's right. I mean, I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t get a kick out of watching 2 dudes bumping sweaty balls - do you?. Oh, that’s right, that’s for the intelligent and artistic crowd, not the freaky sexy crowd.

    Come on baby, you can miss “us” with that mess.

    But go ahead, knock yourself out and get your intelligence on... with yo fine artistic self. But if you get aroused at any time during the film, you gotta promise to come back and tell us where you got it, okay? **BIG SMILE**

  • Vanessa Martinez | September 13, 2011 10:35 AMReply

    According to EVERY CRITIC that has reviewed this film, there is NOTHING sexually titillating about this film. Graphic and shocking yes, but it is not of a pornographic nature. Only a true artist like McQueen can accomplish sex scenes with an emotional impact that stirs all your senses, but does not arouse you in the physical sense.

    McQueen and Fassbender have complete trust in each other. Fassbender understands his vision and the context in which the sex scenes are meant to be in.

    Steve McQueen makes films for intelligent, artistic people. He said so himself in an interview for "Hunger." Hence, for *some* this is difficult to understand.

    I love what he said about sex not being "exotic" but extraordinarily human in every sense of the word.

    I can't wait.

  • Jug | September 13, 2011 10:25 AMReply

    LMBAO HAHAHA Carey you are a fool! But I agree with you. They do say this game ain't nuthin' but pimps & hoes, and you're a hoe until you can pimp yourself :-P

    But check it, I love me some movies where there's ultra-violence or ultra sex. But is it warranted? How is it handled? Is it there "just cuz we could"? In BROWN BUNNY, Vincent Gallo letting his real life ex-girlfriend ACTUALLY suck his dick on film (100% sure on that) & cum in her mouth (still not 100% sure on that part LOL) is a hustle on her, not me cuz I wouldn't see that shit LOL The movie has now become porn because I'm viewing it PRECISELY for the titillation factor of "Did she or didn't she??..OH MY GOD she DID!!" No longer for the art or the story of it. What am I "learning" from it, except now I'm horny? Pleezzz.....

    I hated LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-pure torture porn-but loved 28 DAYS LATER, TOTAL RECALL & even enjoyed DAWN OF THE DEAD (remake). If you look closely enough, you can tell the filmmakers intent & if THAT rubs me the wrong way, you've lost me off the picture-regardless of the content.

    I still want to see SHAME & I have HUNGER on my TiVo, but if it's a big bag of "ass, ass & more ass" (doubt it), then I'll be royally put out. LOL

  • CareyCarey | September 13, 2011 10:06 AMReply

    “everyone talking (both pro and con - well two con and they haven’t even seen the bloody thing yet)” -- Sergio, from the South Side of Chicago

    Well, one of the cons (again)has a little something to say about that bloody thang. :-)

    “Clayton-I agree too, but it’s not as simple as “you’re an actor, you do it”. Think about being an actor like being married. Just because you’re the spouse of someone, doesn’t mean you just let that person abuse you. Same with acting. A lot of things asked of you are purely masturbatory for the filmmaker or your acting partner.
    ” --Jug

    See, that’s what I’m talking about. My man Jug always brings the hot shot from the mouth of an actor. The relationship between the actor and the director is basically an employer/ employee relationship.

    Now hold on, let me draw an analogy to wrap this together: A man purchases a “lady” of the night (employee vs. employer), and takes her to a 3 hour motel, right. Now it’s just sex, but the man wants to get the fullest bang for his buck, right. None of us knows what’s going to happen inside that but it’s safe to assume each of them have their own agenda. Okay, one thing for sure is there’s going to be some freaky deaky decay going on, right.

    Now I’ll be damn, that’s all me and my con friend have been saying. I’ve personally said on many occasion that I don’t need my viewing pleasure enhanced by watching naked ass on the screen. And I don’t go to strip clubs either because if I want to pay to see round mounds of heaping black buttocks, I’ll give the money to my woman and then she can act like she’s an actor and break it on down.

    But nooooooo, when I said I didn’t want to see Shame, some Bo-Bo’s accused me of being a closet super freak and sexual pervert. Yeah, that accusation is as preposterous as someone being accused of being a serial killer because they don’t like slasher type flick or SAW IV & V, of someone being a closest horse thief because they don’t like westerns.

    And THEN, when my BondGirl friend said she had read the script, and based on the script, she thought the NC-17 rating might be justified, someone had the nerve to come by and argue about the finer details of scripts, as if he could turn a sex laden script into a gentle rom-com of innocent love on that first night of sexual bliss (loss of virginity). Dude, it received it’s rating because of explicit sexual content. But noooooo, ol’boy pushed the hair back from around the bottom of his shaft to make it appear as if his pecker was longer than it was. Guess what, it didn’t work, BondGirl made fun of him.

    In short, none of us has seen the film, but I’d bet one of Sergio’s glass eyes, his pom-poms and his audio scratch n sniff Hustler collection that there’s going to be some “male and female full-frontal nudity.... and some.... graphic depictions of straight sex... and some.... gay/threeway sex... and some... masturbation & urination and a gruesome suicide attempt.

    Now again, none of us has seen the movie, but what fool wants to bet that some of that ain’t up in Shame? Come on, what damn fool wants to bet that pork IS p***y?

  • darkan | September 13, 2011 9:58 AMReply

    Well said Jug... Well said.

  • MulletLove | September 13, 2011 6:13 AMReply

    I shall see for myself what McQueen and Fassbender have in store for us when I attend the New York Film Festival's screening of Shame next month. Surprised I was even able to get a ticket, what with all the anticipation and buzz surrounding this film (and there weren't a lot left, apparently when I did purchase one), but it is most definitely something I look forward to. If 'Hunger' is anything to go by, it promises to be an exceptional feat of filmmaking.

    Something tells me, though, that even if it's mediocre, in McQs hands it will still rock.

  • Jug | September 13, 2011 5:47 AMReply

    @Clayton-I agree too, but it's not as simple as "you're an actor, you do it". Think about being an actor like being married. Just because you're the spouse of someone, doesn't mean you just let that person abuse you. Same with acting. A lot of things asked of you are purely masturbatory for the filmmaker or your acting partner. It's why so many great actors try to work with the same people over & over. It's a trust issue. The filmmaker has trust that he will get the best from his actors & the actors trust the filmmaker has their best interest & the best interest of the piece at heart. Also develops a shorthand & a great relationship-like a good marriage.

    In my mind, if you don't want to do something, then don't do it. Don't take the role. Don't bitch & moan once you took the job, often for the money, that you now have to get naked or do a sex scene, or rape someone etc etc. You know ahead of time what this is about. Especially when you're big time.

    But that doesn't mean that because there are some things you won't do that you are no longer an "Actor", because when this is all said & done it IS make believe, dress up, pretend. And when it's over, in the Real world, all you have left is your pride & dignity.

    Can you be proud of what you've done, all in the service of having someone label you an "actor"?

  • darkan | September 13, 2011 5:45 AMReply

    Goose pimples? That's a first. :-) I want to see this.

  • Jug | September 13, 2011 5:38 AMReply

    Loved listening to him. Because everything he said, his description of his process & what they were going for, let me know he was invested in what the ACTORS were doing, not just what the camera was doing. And second, he didn't spend time talking about any extra "isms" except what was connected to the direct humanity of the characters. No extra agendas for the film. Sometimes "we" get bogged down in that stuff

    Good shit indeed!

  • Clayton | September 13, 2011 5:28 AMReply

    The thing he said about actors who are superficially selectively on the roles they play, which begs the question (why are you an actor), is so true. I agree: "nonsense".

    McQueen comes off as so outspoken yet stern. I wonder when is his birthday... lol.

    Please join us on Pro-Black Sheep the movie Facebook page. Thank you.

Follow Shadow and Act

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Caribbean Film VOD Platform STUDIO ANANSI ...
  • Muted, Black & White First Trailer for ...
  • Exclusive - Watch 1st Trailer for Nefertite ...
  • Review: Amma Asante's Brave 'Belle' ...
  • Omar Sy Takes a Dramatic-Romantic Turn ...
  • Is a Pulse-Pounding, International Espionage ...
  • 'Life After Death' (Conflicting Portrait ...
  • The 1st Movie That Made You Laugh? Steve ...
  • Boris Lojkine’s Critically-Acclaimed ...
  • 'Funk, God, Jazz, and Medicine: Black ...