User reviews

I watched 'bugcrush' last night and had such mixed feelings about it. I went online tonight and tried to find the short story by Scott Treleaven. It was one of the gay horror stories in Queer Fear 2 published in 2003. I was surprised by a few of the overly negative comments posted here. Yes, I was a little shocked and disturbed by the ending of the story, but it was a horror story. How many horror stories have we seen using the same seductions and with the same outcome. As a gay man I must have a thicker skin than most. I was spellbound by the direction. The acting was good and sometimes better than good. I had to re-watch the ending several times to come to grips with what just happen. Looking back in the story I realized that the author/director had warned us several times of the coming doom. How many of us have been lured by the danger in the quest for fulfillment. A lesson for all who take the risk with expectations of delight.

Sex involves fear. Sex can be, in fact, terrifying; but nothing could be more frightening than the first sexual experience between Ben and Grant.

Both boys attend high school and meet in detention after one of them is caught smoking. Grant's sloppiness and roughness are a major turn on for Ben. Since the first minutes, there is a clear division between these characters. Ben idly chats with a friend while sitting on his car, while Grant arrives to school on the bus. Ben's harmonic features place him in traditional beauty canons while Grant's physical harshness and neglected self-care are almost enough to ostracize him.

Nonetheless, Ben will feel attracted to Grant from the very beginning. And out of this attraction, he will accept to give his new friend and two other boys a ride home. Night falls as they reach an isolated house in the middle of the woods. During the long hours driving, the other boys make fun of Ben, trying to make him feel guilty for owning a car and living in a good neighborhood. None of this matters to Ben, who is fixated on Grant and the possibility of spending time with him.

When Claude Levi-Strauss, father of Structuralism, described the socialization process in tribes that had never been visited by Western people, he came to a conclusion. When describing the organization of the shelters, some of the inhabitants would lay out a map of sorts in which all placements were equally distributed, close to the river and somehow in an orderly manner; while the others would describe this organization in two opposing arrangements, in which a group of power would have a privileged location near the river while the rest was confined in peripheral settlements. For Levi-Strauss, this was irrefutable evidence that people have a certain mental structure, and they build their view on the world upon those structures; it doesn't matter if they have been raised according to Western values or not.

This structure of social unfairness is present in the beginning of Carter Smith's short film, but it only gets heightened at the end. Grant's friends are clearly society's rejects, even at such a young age, they're resentful and envious. But not Grant whose mind and goals are entirely somewhere else, far away from society's faults.

Grant tells Ben a rather unpleasant story. Before moving into town, he used to go to the woods and jerk off while looking at the stars, until one night, just before climax, he feels a pinch in his leg and all of a sudden his nervous system paralyzes. Grant confesses that even though he understood he could die, that was still the best and most intense sexual moment of his life.

As he intends to repeat this experiment with Ben, one thing remains clear: this is not about sex, and it was never about sex, it's all about the Lacanian phantasm. The peculiar joy of flirting with death is marked by the economy of the excess, and it will fuel the strengthening of the phantasm as a screen that veils the lack in the other. Despite being beautiful, Ben is, after all, just a good, normal boy, possessing nothing that could ignite depravity in the eyes of Grant. In "Bugcrush", this moment is marked by the emergence of sexual excitation when the two boys sit together in bed; the real irrupts in Ben's body producing a fracture at the level of the narcissistic capture of his bodily image; perhaps akin to Grant's anecdote on immobile limbs. Anything that filters, that appears through this structural fissure – the privilege point for the appearance of the phantasmatic object- will provoke angst. The perverse phantasm is expressed by the neurotic as a way of containing, covering his angst before the other's desire, while at the same time it permits the neurotic to situate the realization of his desire at a distance. One way of understanding the ending, which I won't spoil, is to accept that while Ben looks for companionship Grant seeks only that which will fulfill its fantasy; and it's not a sexual fantasy, it's a fantasy that appears to be sexual but depends only on the phantasmatic reenactment of that near-to-death experience he talked about. And that is why Lacan says that the phantasm's function is to support desire, to sustain it and maintain, but to never satisfy it.

Few times have I seen such an unexpected and bone-chilling ending. A truly remarkable work, especially keeping in mind the intensity reached after only half an hour. Now we know the phantasm, after all, cannot function in terms of love or sex, and that is what Ben will come to understand… only too late.

I saw Bugcrush this evening as a part of the Palm Springs Short Film Festival. It was the final movie in the series of gay shorts, with the other movies (for the most part) being funny & interesting. This was the last movie - and was dark, disturbing, grotesque, and bizarre. Perhaps if I was prepared for a creepy, scary movie I would have enjoyed it - but I gasped in all the same parts that the rest of the sold-out gay crowd did. When the Q&A's came at the end, more than half the crowd got up and left, saying things like "Let's get out of here, so I don't have to hear anything about Bugcrush." Of the eight movies shown, Bugcrush was the most memorable - but not in a good way. If that was the point of the movie - it succeeded.

This film was disturbing. Plain disturbing. The short starts clear- it centers around a gay teen who is fascinated and/or obsessed with the new kid at school. The beginning was comprehensible enough, and I was interested in it. But then it began to get weird. About 3/4 through, it began to get disgusting, and I mean disgusting. The film was continually inconsistent (an oxy moron, i know) it shifted from romance to drugs to sex to drugs again, and I began to lose track of what was going on. Another issue: There was barely any plot, any that was at least recognizable, and I was extremely confused by the end. pretty pointless.

Something positive about the film- although it was really confusing (which should have shattered my interest in the movie) it managed to keep my attention. The fact that it shifted from story to story continuously was not great in terms of what expectations a film should live up to, but it still managed to keep me (i suppose the correct term is) absorbed the entire time, with the exception of during pointless intervals filled with bad dialogue. Another good thing about the film was the acting. It wasn't excellent, but the actors were able to play the parts well even though they weren't written well.

Over all, I wouldn't exactly recommend it. It's a chore to understand it, though it was interesting. It was disturbing, and did have a couple WTF moments. It had no clear plot and the writing wasn't good, but I can't completely discourage anyone from watching it because it's not on that level of terrible.

I got a chance to see this at CineVegas this year and I have to say I was very impressed.

The performances all around were well executed with a standout job by Josh Barclay Caras as Ben. He delivered a subtle performance that embodies the uncertainty of youth, coupled with the desire to fit in and find connection.

Writer/Director Carter Smith creates such a wonderfully dark and heavy atmosphere throughout the film. He really does an excellent job of creating a sense of foreboding in unique and original ways.

This is definitely a film worth seeing if you get a chance to do so.

I like the idea of having whispers in the background, it's very clever. What annoys me is that what could have been a good story is screwed up by making it all freaky and weird.

It is made and performed well, but it's just not really my thing. There's something kind of sexual about it in a weird fetish type way though.

Terrible ending, I need closure!!! And bugs are gross!

Look, nihilistic films aren't all bad. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the great films of the 70s. The difference is it actually had something to say - or at least felt like it did. This short was engaging, and decently acted, but the utter pointlessness and meanness of it was uncalled for. Basically, because he's attracted to guys and makes a bad decision to hang out with the white-trash school hottie, a young kid is tortured and (presumably) executed - for no apparent reason. Wow, talk about a fun time at the movies!

I agree with those who felt this was an anti-drug PSA. The ironic thing is that I wouldn't berate anyone who, after watching, felt the need to toke up, down some pills, or go on a bender. I felt the same way after watching "Requiem For a Dream", and not because it was depressing, only because people actually liked it.

I watched this tonight as my inauguration to Amazon Instant Video. Never heard of it or the series before, so I went into it having no idea what it was about. I thought it was fantastic and the negative reviews from members of the "gay community" don't surprise me (yes, I am gay.) As another reviewer said, "if you demand that LGBT films provide some kind of cheerful morality tale or insist that every movie with LGBT characters must have some universal gay community message, you'll be disappointed with what you get with this film." All the more reason to watch in my opinion. I don't think the gay community will ever get how self-destructive and detrimental it is to itself.

The short story that BUGCRUSH is based on was originally written by the artist/filmmaker Scott Treleaven (not Steve). The story, which is also entitled 'Bugcrush', originally appeared in the horror anthology 'QUEER FEAR 2', edited by horror writer/essayist Michael Rowe, and was published by Arsenal Pulp Press (2003). The film follows the story very accurately, creating the same kind of lingering threat of sexual violence/fulfillment, and using a lot of the stilted, crushed-out teen dialog that made the story so effective. Although he's mostly known as a visual artist, Treleaven also wrote, and directed, the cult films QUEERCORE (1996), and THE SALIVATION ARMY (2002), as well as a number of other scripts and stories.

Awful short. It's about this gay high school kid who's attracted to a new kid in the school. The new kid is tall, smokes and is in good shape. The new kid invites him to his house (in the middle of nowhere) one night and thinks just turn dark and ugly.

Seriously WHAT is this about? I have no problem with dark movies but a coherent plot would be nice too! The film is shot in a fragmented style that makes what little plot the film has hard to follow. It SEEMS to be saying something totally negative about being gay and being attracted to the wrong guy--that's all I could get out of it. It ends like a horror movie--a bad one. The acting is (I suppose) good--it's really hard to tell do to the awful dialogue and directing. A sick, disturbing and ultimately pointless short. Skip it.

I understand people finding it disturbing, but that is the point of a horror film, isn't it? Part of it being scary is that you can see where this could happen. I believe it's great that we can have a gay horror story. I've seen far more disturbing films, and it is easy to feel isolated in high school. We all want friends. We all want to feel attractive to someone we like. We all want to feel like we fit in. As for the negative reviews, if you do not like horror films, then do not watch them.

Dark. bitter. chilling. a film about dark side of an age. not surprising. only admirable precise. the characters are well known. the atmosphere - created in inspired manner. the loner guy - reflection of the viewer in many cases. because each of us is defined by questions. and expectations. short - a solide film. not a lesson. not a pledge. only a precise, honest portrait. about fascination and secrets, need to be accepted and the answer who is not exactly a reasonable one.