# I TOLD you! The reappraisal of Showgirls has begun. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558 "2004-03-31T16:44:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/41 "2004-04-01T13:21:56Z")
“Showgirls” is interesting because it’s the only titty movie that IMPROVES when it is censored for network broadcast. Watching it on VH-1, with those ridiculous animated bras spray-painted over the topless dancers’ chests, is a whole new level of funny. And it’s such an incredibly UNSEXY movie that it’s kind of a relief to be spared from all of those breasts. Now, I should mention that I really LOVE breasts. LOVE breasts. And naked breasts are my favorite kind of breasts. But this movie shakes them in our faces so mercilessly and so relentlessly that even I, a proud lover of breasts, wind up on my knees, begging and pleading for the breasts to go away. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/42 "2004-04-01T13:45:42Z")
> [@Zap\_Rowsdower](#): > > I like the fact that the main character is so unlikeable and doesn’t really change (as far as you can tell) in the end. It’s nice seeing something that doesn’t have a traditional Hollywood type happy ending. Y’know, that WAS one thing I found interesting about it. The ending shows Nomi as being, apparently, back where she started only now embracing it. And **lissener** , indeed I must agree that the way this movie was presented to the public was all wrong. Maybe if they had not made clumsy attempts to give it mass appeal it would have been looked at differently. It’s interesting that the Verhoeven/Eszterhas collab has such different effects between Showgirls and Instinct. The latter is much more popular and a sort-of-classic already; although the Media Big Deal and First Thing Mentioned is, of course, Sharon Stone’s blink-of-an-eye crotch-shot, even _that_ has been seen through, as an affirmation of the Power Of Woman. But to the audiences the package made more sense: a violent, sexy thriller is something they recognize. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/43 "2004-04-01T15:22:40Z")
> [@Interrobang!?](#): > > By the way, if you haven’t read Taylor’s review, it’s interesting to note that while he and **lissener** agree about _Showgirls_, they don’t similarly value Verhoeven’s career: Which gives me hope, actually. I agree that Verhoeven is not just a hack (at least, not all the time), and that comparisons to Sirk are not unwarranted. But while I get that _Troopers_ is a parody, it doesn’t make me like the film much more. But Taylor’s ability to credit Verhoeven with skill and complex opinions without always agreeing that they result in a good movie makes me think I should give _Showgirls_ a chance. (Well, I’ve always had it on my “to be rented” list, but haven’t gotten around to it.) > > I’m renting _Showgirls_ on the way home. Time to pop my Nomi cherry. I’ll post some opinions when I’ve decided what they are – could be a couple of days. > > It also sounds like Hollywood picked exactly the wrong director on exactly the wrong project to try and establish NC-17 as a commercially viable rating. Even Brian de Palma, who famously shares audience affection for sex and violence while being unable to actually attract an audience with his sexy, violent films, might have been a better choice. I agree. At least, \*Showgirls \* was the wrong movie at the wrong time, re: NC17. And though I disagree with his assessment of ST, I certainly understand his position. It’s possible that I share a misanthropy with Verhoeven that Taylor doesn’t. Not that this doesn’t bother me; it’s just that I’m old enough, I think, to understand that misanthropy is probably a part of my personality that I will always struggle with. But then I don’t have to tell many Dopers that . . . Looking forward to your reactions, !? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/44 "2004-04-01T15:33:01Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Hot damn, now this is a thread I can get into. > > I’m of two minds about Verhoeven. On the one hand, I’ve always been fascinated by the levels of satire and subversion he works into his films, which generally, at least on the surface, follow the conventions of Hollywood genres such as action, _policier_, space opera, two-hander melodrama, etc. On the other, I share with some other posters a certain revulsion for the themes he tends to pursue, as well as a feeling that he tends to bury his clever bits under what often seems like ham-handedly obvious direction. Also, just as an aside, several of his films, particularly _Robocop_, _Total Recall_ and _Hollow Man_ have some of the ugliest production design and most garish palette of colors I’ve ever seen. > > Nevertheless, I’ll go against the majority and state that I think that both _Troopers_ and _Showgirls_ are minor masterpieces. > > Re: the film under discussion, I feel that _Showgirls_ reworks, reasonably successfully, many of the same themes as Brian de Palma’s version of _Scarface_, which seems to be mostly revered as a latter-day classic. OK, so nobody gets hacked up by a chainsaw in _Showgirls_, but both movies, to me at least, have a lot to say about what, for much of American society, constitutes personal success and how little it has to do with anything resembling morality or worth. > > Both films present unsympathetic main characters who start from nothing, have no education or sense of taste, set aside any sense of morality as a hindrance to their efforts to claw their way up in a world that is decidedly set against them, and eventually, IIRC, betray their most trustworthy friends for fairly pointless reasons. While their endings diverge wildly, (_Tony Montana_ gets his comeuppance in spades while Nomi gets, or so she thinks, pretty much everything she ever wished for), I find a lot more similarities than differences, and I believe that Verhoeven’s take on this theme is interesting enough to stand up alongside de Palma’s film. > > One more point, which I’ll admit is probably too much of a personal thing to justify an objective rating. Again just an aside, but for one reason or another I’ve known a number of women who have worked as strippers at some point in their lives, and the early scenes in _Showgirls_, and particularly Berkeley’s admittedly vacuous character, make this the only film I’ve ever seen that managed to catch aspects of lap-dancing culture (the ambitions and concerns of the dancers, as well as the deeply weird nature of the typical customer-dancer interaction) with anything like reasonable accuracy (OK, laugh if you will, but what I’ve seen of _Stripperella_ is pretty astute about that as well). Anyway, I know I’ll probably get get thumped for this, but I have no problem placing _Showgirls_ alongside other classics of _Grand Guignol_ such as the aforementioned _Scarface_ and hell, _Johnny Guitar_. > > Thanks, as always, for the chance to gas on at such length about a light entertainment. OK, this is my favorite post in this thread so far. New insights for me: Of course, _Scarface_, why didn’t I think of that? Ditto _Grand Guignol_. My affinity for \*Showgirls \* comes into greater focus: \*Sweeney Todd \* is my alltime favorite musical, and the original \*Scarface \* is one of my cinematic touchstones (haven’t seen the remake since I thought Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio and Michele Pfeiffer were the same person). I’ve been contemplating a Showgirls seminar: a film series, culminating in Showgirls, that would put in a proper context; to help people who are interested in doing so in “getting it” from the same perspective I do–or at least getting what I get in it. I’ll add Scarface to that series, which so far includes _Baby Face_, _All About Eve_, _Written on the Wind_, _The Birds_, _Keetje Tippel_, and _Breaking the Waves_. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/45 "2004-04-01T15:49:50Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > So let me see if I have this right. If a movie is good, then it’s good. And if it’s bad but it was intentionally bad, it’s a parody, so it’s good. And if it’s bad but it was unintentionally bad, it’s camp, so it’s good. Which I guess means all movies are good. > > If you want a stripper movie with layers, I’d recommend Atom Egoyan’s _Exotica_ or Michael Radford’s _Dancing at the Blue Iguana_ - two movies that don’t require an explanation of how they’re good, because they actually are good. This reminds me of a book report another kid gave in seventh grade. He’d read _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_, one of the leadfootedest allegories anyone’s ever been hit over the head with. He stood in front of the class and went, “It’s about this seagull? Named Jonathan? He wants to fly really, really high but his parents won’t let him? so he keeps practicing and practicing and finally one day he flies really really high, higher than anyone ever thought he should ever go. I guess it’s an OK book if you like birds.” Nemo, I’m not on a lifelong search for “stripper movies with layers.” It’s not the strippers that makes \*Showgirls \* a good movie. Yes, the other movies you mention are good movies, but also not necessarily because of the strippers. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/46 "2004-04-01T15:52:36Z")
> [@Who\_me?](#): > > I don’t know… maybe _Showgirls_ was a great movie. I guess it’s possible. > > I only know that I hated it. > > Are you satisfied? Yes. But I hated it the first time I saw it too. Are \*you \* satisfied? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/47 "2004-04-01T15:54:03Z")
Please elaborate on the seminar. I’m getting Netflix and would love to do that series. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/48 "2004-04-01T15:55:54Z")
> [@Snooooopy](#): > > “Showgirls” is interesting because it’s the only titty movie that IMPROVES when it is censored for network broadcast. Watching it on VH-1, with those ridiculous animated bras spray-painted over the topless dancers’ chests, is a whole new level of funny. And it’s such an incredibly UNSEXY movie that it’s kind of a relief to be spared from all of those breasts. Now, I should mention that I really LOVE breasts. LOVE breasts. And naked breasts are my favorite kind of breasts. But this movie shakes them in our faces so mercilessly and so relentlessly that even I, a proud lover of breasts, wind up on my knees, begging and pleading for the breasts to go away. [list=A] [li]Yes, the animated bras are hilarious.[/li][li]_Whoosh!_[/li][/list] ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/49 "2004-04-01T16:04:36Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > [list=A] > [li]Yes, the animated bras are hilarious.[/li][li]_Whoosh!_[/li][/list] And are you going to enlighten me regarding the “Whoosh”? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/50 "2004-04-01T16:44:05Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not the strippers that makes Showgirls a good movie. THey’re not strippers, they’re dancers, and _I’M NOT A WHORE!_ God, I love that movie. As enjoyable as I find **Showgirls** to be, I don’t buy **Lissener’s** argument that the movie is a subtly clever satire. Satire of what ? Tits? In other movies in which he consciously employs satire, **Robocop** and **Starship Troopers** , Verhoeven’s direction is about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face, so I really do not accept the theory that he and Eszterhas have spun a satire so subtle that most people can’t detect it. He just isn’t that clever. IMO, it’s subversive critics who are seeing elements in the film that were not intentional, which is not to say that those interpretations are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/51 "2004-04-01T18:15:15Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > THey’re not strippers, they’re dancers, and _I’M NOT A WHORE!_ > > God, I love that movie. > > As enjoyable as I find **Showgirls** to be, I don’t buy **Lissener’s** argument that the movie is a subtly clever satire. Satire of what ? Tits? In other movies in which he consciously employs satire, **Robocop** and **Starship Troopers** , Verhoeven’s direction is about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face, so I really do not accept the theory that he and Eszterhas have spun a satire so subtle that most people can’t detect it. He just isn’t that clever. > IMO, it’s subversive critics who are seeing elements in the film that were not intentional, which is not to say that those interpretations are wrong. I agree that Esterhas wasn’t in on the joke, but trust me, it’s there. I certainly accept that you don’t see it that way, but watching all of Verhoeven’s work, chronologically, in one sitting, made it pretty clear to me that the themes I read in the subtext are definitely intentional on Verhoeven’s part. Think of how unsubtle Douglas Sirk was, visually, and how uncannily subtle his subtexts were. That the vast gap–the tension–between the surface and the subtext is so extreme is what I love, personally, about Verhoeven. I love that \*Showgirls \* is Verhoeven’s “most American film,” as Taylor points out, AND, his most ANTI-American film at the same time. The jaundiced eye of the jaded foreigner, raised in wartime, a guest in a warlike land, where (see Cronenberg and Ballard, two other outsiders looking in) sex and technololgy and violence have merged into the nightmare chimera of the American soul. Or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/52 "2004-04-01T19:05:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Think of how unsubtle Douglas Sirk was, visually, and how uncannily subtle his subtexts were. The difference between Sirk and Verhoeven is that Sirk was alluding to themes that simply could not be discussed or even depicted in respectable films in the 1950s, but his encoding is not hidden if you’re looking for it. Verhoeven’s work really lacks that degree of clandestine communication to a subset of the audience. Then again, I could be wrong. If we take your interpretation, I’d say the key to the whole movie is the party scene at the climax of the film. Throughout the movie, different people have told Nomi that she should really hear Caesar sing, but when she hears him, he’s just an old man in a silly costume singing offkey. On the surface, it signals Nomi’s realization that the life she has attained is hollow and empty, but at a deeper level it’s the filmmakers’ signal to the audience that the movie itself is a _trompe l’oeil_ illusion, that the American Dream of success and rising to the top is itself a mere chimera. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/53 "2004-04-01T19:33:34Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > The difference between Sirk and Verhoeven is that Sirk was alluding to themes that simply could not be discussed or even depicted in respectable films in the 1950s, but his encoding is not hidden if you’re looking for it. . . . Not necessarily; he was just, like Verhoeven, preaching subversively to the unconverted. \*All That Heaven Will Allow \* is an indictment of social conformity packaged in such a way that it was likely to get in under your average conformist’s radar. _Imitation of Life_’s racial issues are right on the surface; no subtext there. The subtext is more about friendship and hypocrisy. Again, massaging the ego of the audience while tweaking them a little under the surface. _Written on the Wind_’s surface treats the misery of wealth and privilege: an idea that was cliche LONG before Beverly _Hills 90210, Dynasty_, or even _Written on the Wind_. Its subtext is much more subtle, dark, and nasty: it’s clear by the end of the film that Sirk “sides” with the bad guys–his sympathies lie with the trashy brother and sister (Dorothy Malone is a clear model for Nomi Malone, IMHO), and the goodhearted goody-goodies have become insipid parodies. > [@gobear](#): > > . . . Verhoeven’s work really lacks that degree of clandestine communication to a subset of the audience. Then again, I could be wrong. . . . I’d never say so to your face, g. > [@gobear](#): > > . . . If we take your interpretation [which is quickly gaining credence 😉], I’d say the key to the whole movie is the party scene at the climax of the film. Throughout the movie, different people have told Nomi that she should really hear Caesar sing, but when she hears him, he’s just an old man in a silly costume singing offkey. On the surface, it signals Nomi’s realization that the life she has attained is hollow and empty, but at a deeper level it’s the filmmakers’ signal to the audience that the movie itself is a _trompe l’oeil_ illusion, that the American Dream of success and rising to the top is itself a mere chimera. I’d say that \*leads \* to the key sequence, and the true climax of the film; it certainly opens the door to it. It’s the first real crack in the mirror. The \*true \* climax, IMHO, is when she kicks his entire ass: she has embraced her inner monster and decided to go with her strengths (amoral rage and sociopathy) rather than keep trying to make a life based on her weaknesses (humanity and decency). Come to think of it, \*Showgirls \* is almost a comedy version of _Ladybird, Ladybird_; another film for the seminar. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/54 "2004-04-01T19:52:29Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > . . . at a deeper level it’s the filmmakers’ signal to the audience that the movie itself is a _trompe l’oeil_ illusion, that the American Dream of success and rising to the top is itself a mere chimera. To be clear, when I said “chimera,” I intended this definition: “[_An imaginary monster made up of grotesquely disparate parts_](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Chimera).” From your context, I think you meant something else? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/55 "2004-04-01T20:03:43Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > To be clear, when I said “chimera,” I intended this definition: “[_An imaginary monster made up of grotesquely disparate parts_](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Chimera).” From your context, I think you meant something else? You’re referring to the monster from mythology, but the word nowadays refers to any figment of the imagination. But I’m easy either way. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/56 "2004-04-01T20:35:55Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > You’re referring to the monster from mythology, but the word nowadays refers to any figment of the imagination. > > But I’m easy either way. Hmm. In my experience, the word is usually used to imply that whatever figment of the imagination referred to is implicitly duplicitous in nature. I’ve often seen it used that way, and it’s the inference I draw when I see the word. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/57 "2004-04-01T23:03:16Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > sorry, hit send too early: meant to include definitions, as to my understanding of the difference. From [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > > \*\*parody: \*\* A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. > > \*\*satire: \*\* A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. > > The difference being, to my understanding, that a parody is reference to a particular work; a caricature; a pastiche. Weird Al Yankovic does parodies OF songs. Ah, but where does _pastiche_ fit in? 😉 > [@Snooooopy](#): > > > [@lissener](#): > > > > a) Yes, the animated bras are hilarious. > > b) Whoosh! > > And are you going to enlighten me regarding the “Whoosh”? You said before, " But this movie shakes them in our faces so mercilessly and so relentlessly that even I, a proud lover of breasts, wind up on my knees, begging and pleading for the breasts to go away." That’s at least part of the point, I think. The in-your-face meaningless sexuality portrayed by the film is a condemnation of the way the crassness of American society cheapens true affection and beauty. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/58 "2004-04-02T02:42:49Z")
Exactly, Home. Thanks; I’d forgotten to respond. Meanwhile, he’s a quote from Roger Ebert. I’m pasting it here with gobear in mind. It’s from a review of Sirk’s Written on the Wind, and it says some things about Sirk’s approach that could be applied practically word for word to Verhoeven. > [@](#): > > To appreciate a film like ``Written on the Wind’’ probably takes more sophistication than to understand one of Ingmar Bergman’s masterpieces, because Bergman’s themes are visible and underlined, while with Sirk the style conceals the message. His interiors are wildly over the top, and his exteriors are phony–he wants you to notice the artifice, to see that he’s not using realism but an exaggerated Hollywood studio style. The Manhattan skyline in an early scene is obviously a painted backdrop. The rear-projected traffic uses cars that are 10 years too old. The swimming hole at the river, where the characters make youthful promises they later regret, is obviously a tank on a sound stage with fake scenery behind it. > > The actors are as artificial as the settings. They look like Photoplay covers, and speak in the cliches of pulp romance. Sirk did not cast his films by accident, and one of the pleasures of ``Written on the Wind’’ is the way he exaggerates the natural qualities of his actors and then uses them ironically. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/59 "2004-04-02T02:48:12Z")
Wow. More from [Ebert’s article](http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/wind.html): > [@](#): > > Rainer Werner Fassbinder, another German obsessed with American forms of melodrama, said Sirk was the greatest influence on his work. Certainly Sirk was the father of prime-time TV soaps. `I have seen `Written on the Wind' a thousand times,'' the Spanish director Pedro Almodovar said, `and I cannot wait to see it again.’’ Sirk’s style spread so pervasively that nobody could do melodrama with a straight face after him. In countless ways visible and invisible, Sirk’s sly subversion skewed American popular culture, and helped launch a new age of irony. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/60 "2004-04-02T05:04:10Z")
I remember the movie as utter rubbish but having discovered that this thread is not an April Fools joke I will make the effort to see it again. However I am mindful of Verhoeven’s own comments about the movie : “It was more like ‘How can we be more outrageous than Basic Instinct?’, which was probably not the best motive to do a movie! Our glee in saying that now we were going to be so offensive that nobody could believe what we’re going to do - that was probably me pushing. And Eszterhas probably, because of the guy he is, was pushing me at the same time to do something which would be beyond boundaries, which he does a lot.” Which makes me wonder whether the critics are seeing the emperor’s new movie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558.md?page=4)