… the HELL?
You take that back!
There is nothing that the appropriate amount and application of titties cannot make better!
So Verhoven’s satirizing the film industry with his take on T&A, and satirizing filmgoers by intentionally making a bad movie?
In that case, my continued derision of the film is actually a clever satire of film critics.
I haven’t seen Showgirls so for all I know it’s the finest masterpiece in Western cinema, but judging from comments here I’m not sure if ranking Verhoeven up there with Sirk is justified. Part of what made Sirk great was that films like Written on the Wind worked as both Hollywood melodramas and ironic satires of Hollywood melodramas. People who didn’t “get” the irony could enjoy them as trashy good fun. More sophisticated viewers could enjoy the same movies as a criticism of Hollywood trash, or even double their pleasure and experience trashy good fun and a critique of Hollywood trash at the same time for one low price!
It sounds like no one enjoyed Showgirls on its surface level. If that’s true, then I don’t think Verhoeven can be credited with being as entertaining or complex as Sirk.
I do have to credit “Showgirls” with another great moment: When Nomi says, “Ver-sayce.” I can’t help but pronounce it that way any more than I can help talking about Bill and Ted’s favorite philosopher, So-Crates.
. . . or it sounds like maybe Sirk and Verhoeven are two different filmmakers with two different ways of making movies. No one is saying they make exactly the same kind of movie; only that understanding Sirk can be helpful in understanding Verhoeven.
It’d be lame indeed if, 50 years later, Verhoeven were making movies exactly like Sirk did. Instead, with Sirk as one of many starting points, Verhoeven is without question a filmmaker working in a modern context. Their layering is similar; their layers are not. There idiom is similar; their themes and messages are not.
OK. Officially tired of the whole “so he’s intentionally making a bad movie? it’s still a bad movie.”
Is a movie about a murder the same thing as a murder? Is The Sot Weed Factor, John Barth’s novel about a bad writer, a bad novel?
By continuing to insist that Showgirls MUST be bad if it’s about bad movies is–
[ul]
[li]Wrong; it’s about a lot more, it just borrows some hollywood cliches in the telling[/li][li]to insist that it would be *ipso facto * impossible to make a good movie about bad movies[/li][li]which of course is ludicrous.[/li][/ul]
And it looks like the crucial difference, at least when it comes to Showgirls, is that Sirk made movies that many people actually enjoyed watching whether or not they “got it” on both levels.
Again, the layering appears to differ in that Sirk managed two layers that worked, while Verhoeven with Showgirls seems to have had at best one. A movie that’s unenjoyable rubbish on the surface (and it doesn’t look like even Showgirls defenders are willing to argue that the surface was anything more) but has a functional and entertaining ironic layer underneath is surely superior to a movie that’s pure unenjoyable rubbish. Showgirls was treated as the latter upon its release. If it’s really the former then it didn’t deserve the kind of bashing it received. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a particularly good film. For all I know it is a good film, but nothing I’ve seen here has convinced me that it would be worth my time.
Now, I’m as postmodern as the next gal. I did my thesis on postmodernism in contemporary Hollywood musicals, a niche film topic if e’er there was one. I’ve defended ironic films, intentionally bad films, and plain old so-bad-they’re-good films plenty of times in the past. It’s possible that I personally would think Showgirls was great if I ever got around to watching it. But not everyone shares such tastes. What I think several other posters here who’ve seen Showgirls have been trying to tell you is that they think it is a bad movie because they did not find anything to enjoy in watching it…even if it was meant to be ironic satire of some sort. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion and it doesn’t deserve haughty dismissal.
However good Showgirls may be, it probably would have been better if Verhoeven could have made it more entertaining on its face. In the course of researching my thesis I came across mention of Showgirls as having been planned as a full-out musical. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it might have been both more fun and more successful that way!
Yes; thanks; interesting as abstract theory.
I know this marks me as an utter Philistine, but Showgirls totally works for me on a surface level. I find Nomi’s struggle to claw her way to a papier-mache volcano of her own to be an utter hoot. The arc of Nomi’s character, from her flight from her past to her conflicted sexuality (Ohhh, I just HATE that Crystal, and yet her full and pouty lips make my hoo-ha all wet and quivery, and Zach knows how to treat a girl, buying me dinner and and taking me out BUT I’M NOT A WHORE!) make the film an absolutely camp delight.
Isn’t that what we’ve been talking about? That’s certainly what I was talking about, and I thought you were following along. 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. The reason people didn’t like *Showgirls/i] wasn’t because they’d never heard of Sirk or because they’re not as cool as you or something. They didn’t like it because they didn’t think it was entertaining. 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 that sounds like something that mighty actually be fun to watch! From other descriptions it sounded like Showgirls was a grim parade of unpleasant characters, bad writing, and bad acting, with nary a campy giggle to be found.
Just the kind of thing you might discover on your own if you watch the movie under discussion. Otherwise, you’re limited to abstract analysis of third-party impressions, each of which (surprise) will be different.
I can’t watch every movie in the world, lissener. I don’t have the time, I don’t have the money, and since I live in a small city in Japan I often don’t have the access. So how am I to decide what is worth the effort? Why, by using my own judgement to evaluate the available third-party impressions! This has generally worked out well for me, and I don’t think it’s a system you really have a problem with since you’re hoping that people will see Showgirls once/again based solely upon third-party praise of the film.
Dude, I don’t know where your attitude is coming from. You ascribe intentions to me that I have not in any way intended.
I’m a bit riffed that you would express disdain for a movie you haven’t seen; curiosity would be more, I would think, apt. But whatever.
So your intention wasn’t to encourage people to watch or re-watch Showgirls with an open mind? What was it, then?
I don’t think I’ve expressed much in the way of disdain for Showgirls at all. I have said that it doesn’t sound all that good to me and that many people didn’t enjoy it (both true), but also that for all I know it’s actually quite good indeed and it’s certainly possible that I might enjoy it myself. But I haven’t been discussing the movie, I’ve been discussing discussion of the movie in this thread. I’m surprised you can’t tell the difference.
What I feel disdain for is the condescending way you’ve chosen to express your opinions here. I have read the thread, after all. People are allowed to watch Showgirls and not like it. It doesn’t mean they didn’t “get it”, and it doesn’t mean they’re not intelligent or cultured. It just means they didn’t like it. Believe it or not, dark satire indicting Hollywood/American culture is not everyone’s cup of tea. Indeed, for many viewers I think such a film would be far less entertaining than a straightforward lousy movie about strippers. You’re entitled to your opinion and interpretation of Showgirls, but so are people who thought it was unpleasant and unenjoyable regardless of Verhoeven’s cleverness, complexity, or intended message.
I find that I have to deal with the same nonsense from a lot of soccer fans. If you do not worship “the beautiful game,” then you obviously are an ignorant clod who probably doesn’t understand the rules anyway.
No, but if a person is killed in the course of making the movie, then it’s still a murder. Similarly, if in the course of making a movie about bad movies, a bad job is done in making the movie, then it’s still a bad movie.
I haven’t said that it must be bad because it’s about bad movies, I’m saying it must be bad (to me, at least), because it’s a poorly-made, poorly-acted movie, regardless of its subject matter.
I’m sorry: Showgirls is simply not a work of any kind of genius, evens the mad kind. It’s not kitsch, it’s not tongue-in-cheek, it’s not arch, deliberate in its awfulness, and so on. It’s simply the film equivalent of a steaming turd, and to love it is to be a cinematic coprophiliac. It’s just plain awful: Poorly written, acted, paced, filmed, you name it. Dreadful, so bad it’s, you know, bad.
This thread is an April fools. It’s got to be. Tell me it is, please.
You know, Lamia, it’s a good thing I’m being condescending. Please find once single quote anywhere in this thread where I’ve been anywhere near as condescending as this above quote, or had anywhere near the balls you’ve had in dismissing a movie you haven’t watched, and using as your only excuse for the lameness of your opinion that you haven’t seen it. What kind of bullshit is that? You can’t have it both ways.
You act like not having seen it excuses an ill-considered, poorly thought-out opinion–meeting every challenge to your opinion with “don’t attack me, I haven’t even seen it”–when in fact it merely deepens your opinion’s irrelevance.
That’d be like me, a sports illiterate, chiming into a conversation on the designated hitter rule with “Well, I don’t follow baseball, but the whole idea seems suspect to me,” and then defending that with “Hey, don’t attack my opinion, I don’t even pay any attention to baseball, I’m just sayin.”
All you’re doing is reiterating the critical history of the film–rehashing all the third-party opinions–which are, of course, a given in this discussion from the outset.
In effect, all you’re saying, is “Why should anyone reconsider it? a lot of people hate it,” and then acting like that’s a defensible position. It doesn’t even have the value of an opinion you’ve formed yourself and can thus elaborate on and defend; all you can do is reiterate and rehash third-party bullshit we’ve all heard.
p.s.
Yes, I know, I used a quote from Loopy to address my point to Lamia: not a mistake, just not very clear.
I really wasn’t trying to be condescending. Honest. Seeing “Showgirls” opened my mind to the possibility that the “badness” of a purported artwork could actually transcend subjectivity and achieve a kind of objective reality. Some human acts and creations are simply heinous from any perspective. Ergo, I consider it possible that sincere love for such an abomination could actually be classified as an illness of some sort; at the very least, it indicates some potentially identifiable pathology, and there is perhaps hope for treatment.