“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.
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.
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, !?
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.
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.
Yes.
But I hated it the first time I saw it too. Are *you * satisfied?
Please elaborate on the seminar. I’m getting Netflix and would love to do that series.
[list=A]
[li]Yes, the animated bras are hilarious.[/li][li]Whoosh![/li][/list]
And are you going to enlighten me regarding the “Whoosh”?
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.
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.
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.
I’d never say so to your face, g.
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.
To be clear, when I said “chimera,” I intended this definition: “An imaginary monster made up of grotesquely disparate parts.” 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.
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.
Ah, but where does pastiche fit in? 
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.
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.
Wow. More from Ebert’s article:
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.