# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/101 "2004-04-07T06:00:31Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Your bandwagon has no passengers. Quote me being condescending. Show me what you mean and I’ll reconsider it in that light. How about: > [@](#): > > Your bandwagon has no passengers. :rolleyes: ---
**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 7, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/102 "2004-04-07T13:58:12Z")
> [@Snooooopy](#): > > Gee, thanks so much for speaking for me. Don’t you think you should take a vote first before making such claims? I’m sorry; I can’t parse this at all. ---
**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 7, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/103 "2004-04-07T14:00:15Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > How about: > > :rolleyes: You know, I wondered if you’d do this, but then I thought, Naw, Yook wouldn’t possibly be that cheap. Um, Yook? If you’re gonna call me condescending, and then offer for your only proof _my response to that accusation_, you got nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/104 "2004-04-07T14:08:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I’m sorry; I can’t parse this at all. Well, before you insist that the bandwagon has no one on it, perhaps you should take a vote? It might be a more populated bandwagon than you’d think. ---
**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 7, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/105 "2004-04-07T17:23:24Z")
It disturbs me a great deal that this thread has been hijacked into an entirely ad hominem exercise. It’s no longer a discussion of _Showgirls_; it’s a referendum on whether a particular individual is “condescending” or not. Nothing I had written up to the snarliest part of the clusterfuck that this thread has become was written with any feeling of condescension or superiority. Indeed, I have no memory of writing anything from any negative feelings whatsoever until the accusations started flying. I just went back and reread this thread from the beginning, trying to discover where it got derailed: looking for some clue that there was something that I inadvertently said that would give someone reason to feel patronize. Now, obviously I’m not the best judge of how I come off to a third party; I’m notoriously bad at that. Nonetheless, I can find nothing in my earlier posts that deserved such negative reactions. The first post that starts to slide off the track, IMO, is the one in which someone suggests that anyone who claims to see anything of value in Showgirls is just watching “the Emperor’s new movie.” You’ll note I let that slide, not wanting this thread to go sour. The next negative post was this one, the first one that accuses me of being condescending: > [@Lamia](#): > > . . . I don’t care about the movie either way (how could I if I’ve never seen it?), I care about film snobs who sneeringly dismiss all contrary opinions as the product of bourgeoise minds. > > You are not a better or more sophisticated person just because you liked a movie that many others did not. . . .Perhaps they’d change their minds if they gave it another chance, but playing the gloating, misunderstood-but-vindicated film expert because one critic happens to support your opinion is unlikely to convince anyone to change their minds. . . . Now, reading this again, I’m pretty damn pissed off. This is the post that, IMO, introduced a bandwagon that so many people have since jumped on, and turned this thread into the gangbang it’s become. Where, before this quoted post, Lamia, do you read anything that gives you the right to start flinging such incendiary phrases as “sneeringly dismiss” or “bourgeoise [_sic_] minds”? Where did I say that I was “more sophisticated,” or a “misunderstood-but-vindicated film expert”? If it’s your (perfectly justifiable) misunderstanding of my not-as-funny-as-I-thought-it-was tone in the OP, I’ve already addressed that and you’ve chosen not to respond. If that IS your only justification for turning this thread sour, then I wish you WOULD acknowledge my response to that and offer your own apology; I’ve offered mine for being unclear. It occurs to me that most of the accusations of snobbery in this thread are from a perspective of—wait for it—snobbery. There seems to be an attitude that since \*Showgirls \* is such a trashy film (no argument here), that it’s beneath the kind of scrutiny and analysis I’ve expended on it; that to read layered intentions into such a trashy film MUST be pretentious pseudo-criticism because, COME ON, IT’S A PIECE OF TRASH. Now THAT’S snobbery. ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/106 "2004-04-07T17:31:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > There seems to be an attitude that since \*Showgirls \* is such a trashy film (no argument here), that it’s beneath the kind of scrutiny and analysis I’ve expended on it; that to read layered intentions into such a trashy film MUST be pretentious pseudo-criticism because, COME ON, IT’S A PIECE OF TRASH. > > Now THAT’S snobbery. So you’ve spent a lot of time scrutinizing it. Would you like an “A” for effort? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/107 "2004-04-08T02:44:13Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I just went back and reread this thread from the beginning, trying to discover where it got derailed: looking for some clue that there was something that I inadvertently said that would give someone reason to feel patronize. Now, obviously I’m not the best judge of how I come off to a third party; I’m notoriously bad at that. Nonetheless, I can find nothing in my earlier posts that deserved such negative reactions. I believe more than one poster has already mentioned that they found the subject line itself obnoxious. So that’s where things started to go wrong, with the very first thing that anyone else would see. Maybe you meant it to be funny, but it set things off on the wrong foot. > [@](#): > > - > > This is the post that, IMO, introduced a bandwagon that so many people have since jumped on, and turned this thread into the gangbang it’s become. - That’s odd, I could have sworn just a little while ago that you said it was **Yookeroo** ’s bandwagon, and that it had no passengers. > [@](#): > > - > > Where, before this quoted post, Lamia, do you read anything that gives you the right to start flinging such incendiary phrases as “sneeringly dismiss” or “bourgeoise [sic] minds”? - Uh, how about the post the quoted post was in response to? You had just sneeringly dismissed _me_. And I see you’ve chosen to forget that all the way back on page 1 you were comparing other posters to dim-witted schoolchildren or replying with a large, bold, colorful “Whoosh!” if they said they didn’t like _Showgirls_. You don’t think maybe that last one rubbed **Snooooopy** the wrong way before I even entered the thread? > [@](#): > > - > > If it’s your (perfectly justifiable) misunderstanding of my not-as-funny-as-I-thought-it-was tone in the OP, I’ve already addressed that and you’ve chosen not to respond. > \* A _day_ later and I’ve “chosen not to respond”. Looking back on page two, there’s a three-day gap between one of my posts and your response to it. Why do you expect _me_ to fire off an immediate reply to _you_? Especially since I wasn’t sure how I _should_ reply to an “apology” like “Sorry, Lamia, if you didn’t get that my tone was meant to be funny”. I wanted to try to give you the benefit of the doubt…but as you took advantage of the interval to attempt to make me the scapegoat for the negative responses you’ve received from other posters, I’m no longer in any doubt as to your lack of sincerity. > [@](#): > > - > > If that IS your only justification for turning this thread sour, then I wish you WOULD acknowledge my response to that and offer your own apology; I’ve offered mine for being unclear. > \* Gosh **lissener** , I’m sorry the other kids don’t like you, but I really don’t think that’s my fault. I didn’t “turn your thread sour”, you did, but since you’ve chosen to place the blame on me I’ll be happy to “choose not to respond” from here on out. ---
**Author:** ![Thingol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Thingol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thingol)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/108 "2004-04-08T03:45:42Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > It disturbs me a great deal that this thread has been hijacked into an entirely ad hominem exercise. It’s no longer a discussion of _Showgirls_ Well, then, that’s easily remedied. If it’s been hijacked, let’s just lojack it back to where it belongs. I skipped most all of that junk anyway, and am happy to bring the post around to the original claim… that Showgirls is some sort of neglected gem, an El Greco lost in a Toledo of cinematic bigotry and benightedness. First off, I can’t recall any critical responses that howled with Victorian rage. They pretty much all said the film-making was terrible. And so it was. All these claims of tension between text and subtext are a load of codswollop. Subtext is the last refuge of scoundrels, deconstructionists, and critics with short deadlines and no copy. The reason this thread has deteriorated, L, is because its premise is laughable. Hell, I could make identical claims about “I Spit on Your Grave” or “Battlefield Earth”. There’s absolutely no barrier to making such claims. Which is why no one is inclined to give them any credit. And when you lauded this toss-off over Hitchcock… do you really expect people to take you seriously? Don’t get me wrong, I thought RoboCop kicked ass, and Total Recall is an A-1 mind-f\*\*k, but face the music, Boopsie. The reprisal of Showgirls is a tit offensive without a bang. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2004, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/109 "2004-04-08T05:56:20Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > You know, I wondered if you’d do this, but then I thought, Naw, Yook wouldn’t possibly be that cheap. > > Um, Yook? If you’re gonna call me condescending, and then offer for your only proof _my response to that accusation_, you got nothing. Well, I’d already mentioned that the thread title was obnoxious. And **Lamia** covered some other instances. I figured it was well covered. Then you gave me that hanging curve ball of a post. And you’re still sounding condescending. This may not be the intent, but if enough people are reading you that way… My opinion on whether or not **Showgirls** is some masterpiece? Even if Verhoeven was doing satire, I suspect he was going for a more Sirk-like film that was enjoyable with or without the subtext and failed. And if he was making a movie that was intentionally unwatchable, it a pretty boorish way to treat the people who have given you the money to make a watchable filmm and a piss poor joke to play on the majority of the audience who missed or don’t care about the subtext. ---
**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 8, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/110 "2004-04-08T13:56:18Z")
Sigh. I really need to learn when it’s time to stop. In this kind of thread the people who are prepared to maintain a reasonable discussion check in early, and then check out when I let the assholes who think this thread’s in the pit turn it into a personal pile on. I let it happen in my last Verhoeven thread, and I let it happen in this one. Too easily ruffled. No point in asking a passing mod to close it; if a mod had been reading it the personal attacks in this thread might have been noted. Time for another break I guess. But since you’ve already taken it there, Lamia, I’ll point out that you’re a stone liar. And Yookeroo, another sign that you got nothin is when you have to make shit up to object to it. If I feel superior to any of you it’s got nothing to do with Showgirls: it’s because I try to keep my discussions honest and relevant. And while I’ve got the thin skin of a sunburned three-year-old and I’m open to plenty of criticism for imbuing more than one thread with a negative note, I don’t have to resort to misdirection and dishonesty (if you’re honestly retarded, I apologize) like Lamia and Yookeroo. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/111 "2004-04-09T10:25:15Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > Well, I’d already mentioned that the thread title was obnoxious. I can’t join in on a discussion about Showgirls, because I haven’t seen it for years. I don’t understand why the thread title is obnoxious though. lissener HAS been saying for years that Showgirls would one day be re-evaluated, and I’m sure the OP article was thrilling for him. What is so bad about “I TOLD you! The reappraisal of Showgirls has begun” considering that he HAS been telling us that it would happen for a long long time? Who here has not said something along the lines of “See? I told you!” in a similar situation when something they’ve maintained would happen begins to happen? ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/112 "2004-04-09T19:26:26Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > I can’t join in on a discussion about Showgirls, because I haven’t seen it for years. I don’t understand why the thread title is obnoxious though. lissener HAS been saying for years that Showgirls would one day be re-evaluated, and I’m sure the OP article was thrilling for him. What is so bad about “I TOLD you! The reappraisal of Showgirls has begun” considering that he HAS been telling us that it would happen for a long long time? > > Who here has not said something along the lines of “See? I told you!” in a similar situation when something they’ve maintained would happen begins to happen? Depends on how it’s said. But usually “I told you” comments do come off as obnoxious…especially when shouted (isn’t that what all-caps tends to convey?). And so far all we have is one critic reappraising the movie. It’s not like some major shift in critical opinion. I find gloating obnoxious even when it’s justified (and I’m not sure it is in this case). I see that **Lissener** has gone beyond being condescending and has started name calling. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![Judith\_Prietht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b19c9b/32.png) [@Judith\_Prietht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Judith_Prietht)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/113 "2004-04-09T20:04:31Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > I can’t join in on a discussion about Showgirls, because I haven’t seen it for years. I don’t understand why the thread title is obnoxious though. lissener HAS been saying for years that Showgirls would one day be re-evaluated, and I’m sure the OP article was thrilling for him. What is so bad about “I TOLD you! The reappraisal of Showgirls has begun” considering that he HAS been telling us that it would happen for a long long time? > > Who here has not said something along the lines of “See? I told you!” in a similar situation when something they’ve maintained would happen begins to happen? Technically, I thought **lissener** ’s revised perspective on _Showgirls_ was more recently formed, as evidenced in his [Verhoeven Reconsidered](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=222557) thread last year. Thanks to the efforts of **Cervaise** , that thread does more to successfully offer a contrary opinion on Verhoeven’s films and directorial practices than this one. ---
**Author:** ![Talon\_Karrde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Talon\_Karrde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Talon_Karrde)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/114 "2004-04-09T20:08:05Z")
I don’t see what’s so obnoxious about the thread title either. I’m sure people were expecting him to say that type of thing if he turned out right. It wasn’t all caps either. The only word that wouldn’t usually be capitalized like he did is told. Lissener has received way more condesenscion than he’s dished out. ---
**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 9, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558/115 "2004-04-09T20:34:28Z")
> [@Judith Prietht](#): > > Technically, I thought **lissener** ’s revised perspective on _Showgirls_ was more recently formed, as evidenced in his [Verhoeven Reconsidered](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=222557) thread last year. Thanks to the efforts of **Cervaise** , that thread does more to successfully offer a contrary opinion on Verhoeven’s films and directorial practices than this one. I had intended not to return to this thread, but I’d like to add my appreciation for Cervaise’s far more convincing explication of Verhoeven’s value as an artist. FWIW though, **Judith** , \*\*Cervaise \*\* only reconsidered \*Showgirls \* because I convinced him to. And as \*\*Equipoise \*\* pointed out, I’ve been banging that drum for four years, since I re-viewed \*Showgirls \* in 2000, having been inspired to by this paper’s own Jonathan Rosenbaum, one of the growing number of critics who is in the process of reconsidering Verhoeven. (And on the subject of keeping an open mind, \*\*Equipoise \*\* related, earlier in this thread, her experience of finally coming to “get” _Night of the Hunter_. FWIW, she and I saw that movie the first time together. We both hated it. It kept nagging at me, though, and so I tried it again. Click. It went into my lifetime top ten. I convinced Eq to watch it again, she did so, and still hated it. And then she had a third opportunity to see it–projected this time–and guess what? Click. Not sure it’s in her lifetime top ten, but she’s finally come to understand what I see in it. Assuming she’ll correct me if I’m wrong; we haven’t talked a \*whole \* lot about it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-told-you-the-reappraisal-of-showgirls-has-begun/237558.md?page=5)