Shame (2011)

One of the most critically acclaimed films of the past year, Shame, directed by Steve McQueen, is finally making its way to theaters here in America!

It's a heavy drama that picked up two awards at last year's prestigious Venice Film Festival—taking home both the IFJ prize and Best Actor!

Brandon is a New Yorker who avoids intimacy and genuine connections with women, instead spiraling into a compulsive sex addiction. The only person who can truly get close to him is his sister, Sissy. While Brandon manages to maintain a facade of being an ordinary guy in public, Sissy gave up on that charade long ago. Broke and impulsive, she crashes at Brandon's place on the brink of self-destruction. It's a grim look at how brother and sister pull the absolute worst out of one another.

Starring: Michael Fassbender & Carey Mulligan

...I can't believe this film doesn't have its own thread yet, forcing me to start one...

Thoughts, please? I'm planning to catch it this weekend...

Personally, I thought it was a fantastic movie, especially with those two leads delivering such stellar performances.
Most people seem to think it’s just mediocre, if not a total flop altogether.

The movie isn't terrible, but I really expected more from it. It felt a bit monotonous to me, though maybe I should give it a second watch to see if it actually clicks 🤷

I’m obsessed with how McQueen handles the camera, specifically those long takes where he just clings to the actor so intensely it basically forces you to shut your brain off and actually process what the character is going through... like that one scene where his sister is singing to him. 😁

Then there's that restaurant scene—it's shot as one long stretch too, but it feels like you're just eavesdropping from the next table over, watching two people meet without any intrusive close-ups. It's pure genius.

But honestly? My favorite part is the way McQueen captures that underlying "brokenness" hanging over everyone; it's this constant, creeping trauma that just keeps unfolding in all its horror. He nails it. The tension between them is so thick you could cut it with a knife, starting from that bathroom scene all the way to that pivotal "talk on the couch" where you realize their shared trauma... it's heavy. 🙂

3 PM was just boring. Honestly, one of the worse movies I've sat through, but then again, this kind of garbage isn't really my thing anyway. It was such a chore watching the whole thing—just a bunch of nothing, waiting for them to finally get to the point and actually have sex.

Kevin Hayes83 said:3 PM was just boring. Honestly, one of the worse movies I've sat through, but then again, this kind of garbage isn't really my thing anyway. It was such a chore watching the whole thing—just a bunch of nothing, waiting for them to finally get to the point and actually have sex.

Well, he didn't exactly pull it off...

The movie is awesome, though. These types of characters are getting so much more popular lately—the guy is a total badass. 👍

The movie really should have wrapped up about 10 minutes earlier, right when things go south in the subway because someone jumps under a train. Basically, his sister should've been the one meeting her end under those tracks.
Everything that follows that moment doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the story, especially the way it all winds down. 🤷

Those "long distance wide shots" are fine enough when they're talking in a restaurant—you know, having to sit there and take the bosses being total creeps to his sister, or while he’s sprinting through the city while she's busy in bed with that guy.
But that marathon close-up sex scene? Seriously, why on earth did we need such extreme, "politically correct" angles? 🙄 🙄 It was just nonsense. Honestly, it felt more like a bathroom break for the audience than actual cinema.

The kissing scene with the guy isn't even that impactful, though maybe that's just because I hadn't fully bought into him as the embodiment of heterosexuality by that point.

I mean, look, it's a decent film, but the director went a bit too "daredevil" with the camerawork, I think.

Regarding the incest question, people are fighting over whether it actually happened or if they were both victims of childhood abuse. As for the arguments, I won't get bogged down in the weeds; let's just say both sides have merit 🤷
Personally, I’m leaning toward it being incest.

New York is portrayed as this cold, alienating city—which is likely accurate. Unlike the typical "dream city" trope, it fits perfectly with the internal demons of Fassbender's character.
The psychological profile of the character is masterfully executed. It starts with those metaphorical cracked doors and builds until everything is wide open, revealing the true depth of his suffering. Most people might just think, "Oh, he's a sex addict, big deal," but it's much more profound than that. It's all wrapped up in one phenomenal andante.

The way the city works here is special because it’s basically a sub-plot for the movie itself...

Using Manhattan as the business hub is such a perfect move for showing a classic metropolis where Brandon thinks he can just vanish from his own "shame" and bury that deep, repressed craving for intimacy.

But honestly, a city like that is just a mirror image of Brandon—he’s basically a modern-day Casanova. 😁

It puts on one face during the day and a completely different one once night falls... just like the city does. During the day, it's this cold, detached playground for big capital, but once darkness hits, it's all lined with casual bars ready to host every sexual predator looking to unwind...

Chloe Jackson95 said:The movie really should have wrapped up about 10 minutes earlier, right when things go south in the subway because someone jumps under a train. Basically, his sister should've been the one meeting her end under those tracks.
Everything that follows that moment doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the story, especially the way it all winds down. 🤷

Those "long distance wide shots" are fine enough when they're talking in a restaurant—you know, having to sit there and take the bosses being total creeps to his sister, or while he’s sprinting through the city while she's busy in bed with that guy.
But that marathon close-up sex scene? Seriously, why on earth did we need such extreme, "politically correct" angles? 🙄 🙄 It was just nonsense. Honestly, it felt more like a bathroom break for the audience than actual cinema.

The kissing scene with the guy isn't even that impactful, though maybe that's just because I hadn't fully bought into him as the embodiment of heterosexuality by that point.

I mean, look, it's a decent film, but the director went a bit too "daredevil" with the camerawork, I think.

The kissing scene with a man isn't particularly impactful either, though maybe I just failed to see him as the embodiment of heterosexuality until then.
Clearly, I missed it! Michael Fassbender kissing a guy.🤣🤣

Chloe Jackson95 said:The movie really should have wrapped up about 10 minutes earlier, right when things go south in the subway because someone jumps under a train. Basically, his sister should've been the one meeting her end under those tracks.
Everything that follows that moment doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the story, especially the way it all winds down. 🤷

Those "long distance wide shots" are fine enough when they're talking in a restaurant—you know, having to sit there and take the bosses being total creeps to his sister, or while he’s sprinting through the city while she's busy in bed with that guy.
But that marathon close-up sex scene? Seriously, why on earth did we need such extreme, "politically correct" angles? 🙄 🙄 It was just nonsense. Honestly, it felt more like a bathroom break for the audience than actual cinema.

The kissing scene with the guy isn't even that impactful, though maybe that's just because I hadn't fully bought into him as the embodiment of heterosexuality by that point.

I mean, look, it's a decent film, but the director went a bit too "daredevil" with the camerawork, I think.

For me, even after that, I didn't see him as straight. Instead, I saw that whole scene as the peak of how far a sex addict will go just to find release—especially since, immediately after that brief kiss, he redirected all that energy toward oral sex. At that point, it doesn't even matter who the partner is; he just needs that release...

But then again, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe he *is* straight? It honestly confuses me why he couldn't get turned on by Marianne, yet here he is without any issues. Great, now I'm even more conflicted! Still, the fact that I'm still dwelling on this movie two days later tells me it really stuck with me. Especially all those long, lingering scenes...

Grace White4 said:For me, even after that, I didn't see him as straight. Instead, I saw that whole scene as the peak of how far a sex addict will go just to find release—especially since, immediately after that brief kiss, he redirected all that energy toward oral sex. At that point, it doesn't even matter who the partner is; he just needs that release...

But then again, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe he *is* straight? It honestly confuses me why he couldn't get turned on by Marianne, yet here he is without any issues. Great, now I'm even more conflicted! Still, the fact that I'm still dwelling on this movie two days later tells me it really stuck with me. Especially all those long, lingering scenes...

Fair enough.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say the movie was translated as a shame rather than a disgrace?🤔

At the very least, this is a film defined by a question mark. It leaves so much unsaid, which I suppose is baked right into the title itself. The unspoken truth here is that the protagonist is haunted by something from his childhood—something that refuses to stay in the past and continues to bleed into his adult life. If you ask me, the root of all these traumas is Brandon himself; he’s a sexual addict, and that’s a heavy diagnosis to carry. When Nevolko lets Sissy move in, it feels less like hospitality and more like a sense of obligation—as if he simply owes her that much. As for the underlying incestuous undertones between them, you don't really need to spell it out; their casual nudity suggests a physical intimacy that clearly existed before. I don't think anyone forced their hand; it feels more like Brandon was the one who initiated things with his younger sister. That's what’s destroying him. He fled to New York to escape it, he carries the shame of it, he avoids Sissy’s calls, and he breaks down whenever she starts singing New York, New York. But he just can't help himself. Let's be honest: he's deeply unwell. His drive is so primal that he could probably find gratification in anything, and that one gay scene doesn't change the fact that he isn't necessarily gay or bisexual—his libido is just pure, raw mechanics, devoid of actual emotion. That explains why his budding relationship with Marianne fails to stir him. On the flip side, you have to wonder why Sissy would repeatedly attempt to take her own life, judging by the scars on her arm. Why does she go back to live with her brother? Does she feel she has no other choice, or is it pity? Is she forgiving him? Is she trying to save him? Their closeness feels far too intense for a typical sibling bond, and I almost get the impression that Sissy is the one constantly pursuing him. I don't know, but regardless, the lead actor delivers an absolutely brilliant performance! This is definitely a film worth watching a second time 🙂

Christian Cook6 said:Wouldn't it make more sense to say the movie was translated as a shame rather than a disgrace?🤔

Our translations are always questionable, if not outright hilarious.

I think Hunger was actually a much stronger film when you look strictly at the script. If you swapped Brandon for any other actor, the movie wouldn't even be an Oscar contender—it would just be some mediocre flick. McQueen knows that pairing his scripts with Michael Fassbender is a winning formula. I read the script before the film came out, and honestly, it didn't hit me nearly as hard as the actual movie did. Michael is one of those actors who can pull magic out of thin air, and the two of them have had that chemistry since 2008.

Kimberly Mendoza66 said:At the very least, this is a film defined by a question mark. It leaves so much unsaid, which I suppose is baked right into the title itself. The unspoken truth here is that the protagonist is haunted by something from his childhood—something that refuses to stay in the past and continues to bleed into his adult life. If you ask me, the root of all these traumas is Brandon himself; he’s a sexual addict, and that’s a heavy diagnosis to carry. When Nevolko lets Sissy move in, it feels less like hospitality and more like a sense of obligation—as if he simply owes her that much. As for the underlying incestuous undertones between them, you don't really need to spell it out; their casual nudity suggests a physical intimacy that clearly existed before. I don't think anyone forced their hand; it feels more like Brandon was the one who initiated things with his younger sister. That's what’s destroying him. He fled to New York to escape it, he carries the shame of it, he avoids Sissy’s calls, and he breaks down whenever she starts singing New York, New York. But he just can't help himself. Let's be honest: he's deeply unwell. His drive is so primal that he could probably find gratification in anything, and that one gay scene doesn't change the fact that he isn't necessarily gay or bisexual—his libido is just pure, raw mechanics, devoid of actual emotion. That explains why his budding relationship with Marianne fails to stir him. On the flip side, you have to wonder why Sissy would repeatedly attempt to take her own life, judging by the scars on her arm. Why does she go back to live with her brother? Does she feel she has no other choice, or is it pity? Is she forgiving him? Is she trying to save him? Their closeness feels far too intense for a typical sibling bond, and I almost get the impression that Sissy is the one constantly pursuing him. I don't know, but regardless, the lead actor delivers an absolutely brilliant performance! This is definitely a film worth watching a second time 🙂

I'm with you on everything—especially about Sissy hitting on him. In those scenes where he walks into the bathroom while she's showering, or when she climbs into his bed... I got that exact same vibe. She's pushing him, and he's clearly enjoying it even while he's fighting himself. He's caught in this loop of loving it and hating himself for loving it at the same time. 😁
The movie was okay, but the ambiguity bugged me a bit. Reading the synopsis didn't really grab me, but I watched it because I love Carey Mulligan and Michael Fassbender.
That restaurant scene was the highlight for me—just a classic, super awkward first date 😁 I think anyone can relate to that scene.
As for the part where he couldn't get it up with her—I took that to mean he's become so used to sleeping with strangers that actually liking her was what threw him off.

Honestly, this movie was such a massive waste of time, I’d have been way better off just watching some adult film instead of sitting through this garbage...🤷

The very first thing that jumped out at me while watching this flick is how much it seems designed to give guys with perfectly normal equipment a massive inferiority complex...

I thought the movie was incredible—honestly, probably McQueen's best work yet. I get why some people might find those long takes a bit much or the whole vibe too gloomy, but for me? It hit perfectly. Plus, it’s easily one of Fassbender's most intense performances ever.

It does such a killer job showing that total emptiness you see in satire (specifically regarding male nymphomania) and that complete inability to actually connect with anyone else... whether it's family stuff, like how the lead deals with his troubled sister, or just messy romantic relationships. It really captures that modern American struggle with isolation, chasing careers, being hyper-individualistic, narcissism... You name it.