No, but something like that. I vaguely remember that her character being revealed at the end to have been a phony (she had committed some crime she hadn’t revealed earlier in the picture, and was running away to Vegas) reinforced this theme, whatever it was.
Your missing his best work.
- Soldaat van Oranje.
- Turks Fruit
- De Vierde Man
Those are way better than anything he made in Hollywood.
He was part of a small Dutch golden age of movie making in the ‘70s - Rutger Hauer, Tim Krabbé, Monique van der Ven, Jan de Bont
As someone who has watched all his works multiple times- Showgirls tried to be more than a movie with a lot of “functioneel bloot” but it failed.
The plot is an afterthought, the characters are flat.
As a lifelong Heinlein fan I disagree with the former – at least as a Heinlein film. He* could have just stuck with his original name and concept – Bughunt at Outpost 7 – but no-o-o-o, he* has to acquire the rights to Starhip Troopers then use scarcely anything from it, plotwise or themewise. That and Showgirls pretty much soured me on VerHoeven, putting him in the same league as Spike Lee and M. Night Shyamalan.
(pant, pant)
Oh, and I saw Showgirls mainly for the curiosity factor. At about the three-quarters point the film slipped off of the platter, wrapped itself around something, and pulled the projector off its foundation! – that polyester film base is strong. Needless to say, that stopped the show and we got the ticket refunded, which suited me fine. I did ask the manager how it ended.
Spoiler
“She beats the shit out of the guy, apologizes to her comatose friend, and goes back to L.A.”
*TriStar actually, but it’s his face on it.
I would not use “flat” to describe at least some of the characters in Showgirls.
Somebody was gonna say it.
I don’t think Showgirls is a great or even particularly good film, but I do think Verhoeven is an interesting filmmaker. I have never read anything from him to confirm this, but I think that his goal with making a film is to produce something that some people will enjoy as a
that other people will think a little more deeply about and find to be much deeper–a
I think that Robocop and Total Recall are the most successful at doing that. Starship Troopers I think was pretty successful at being both a fun popcorn movie and a meditation on the roots of fascism, but Internet discussions about it are weighted down by the title.
I think that with Showgirls he was trying to make a soft-core porn film that would be enjoyed as such, but was also a satire. I mean, c’mon, its A Star is Born, that most American of musicals, set in a Las Vegas strip club. Unfortunately, as soft-core, it is an utter failure, being too boring to be enjoyable, though I did laugh my ass off at the sex in a pool scene.
So, my read on Showgirls is ambitious failure.
Until I got to the end, I thought yu were making a metaphor for the quality, not recounting an actual event.
Could be both I suppose, but unless the theater staff lied – I didn’t peek into the projection room – it really, truly happened.
From someone much smarter than me:
Don’t forget Keetje Tippel, which is basically a 18th century dry run for Showgirls
His intention was not to make a softcore porn movie, but to violently subvert it in service of enraged and disgusted social commentary. The studio’s marketing department is where those wires got crossed. They decided to sell it as a raucous titfest without warning audiences about the punishment they were about to endure.
Hi, Lissener, welcome back! Your hill to die on is right over there!
I think you were replying to me, not to Just Asking Questions, but my argument is that his intention was to make both a softcore movie and a biting, cruel satire on America and American entertainment. Two movies in one!
Now I will have to schedule a viewing of Keetje Tippel sometime.
Should have typed 19th century