I’ve said this before, but I think it’s brilliant. Very Sirkian, and I just eat that stuff up.
I don’t know what “we” you’re referring to but with what I wrote, I had in mind the people in this thread who have explicitly denied that it is satire.
Is there a good film by Sirk that illustrates what you have in mind that’s available to stream, preferably free?
One big difference, though, is that you never hear people go to great lengths to explain why “Jack” was actually a good movie. People recognize it as a true piece of shit and move on.
Coppola should have claimed it was a satire.
Again, I absolutely will not defend Showgirls as a “good” movie. It is a horrible movie. The only people who should watch it are people who think it might be interesting to watch Paul Verhoevan deliberately ruin his Hollywood career. What makes a man do that? Why is Verhoevan such an asshole? How much does he hate women? Showgirls is custom-designed to give a middle finger to the people who would go to see Showgirls, so it reveals Verhoevan’s conception of what he thinks of the audience. Just like the anti-gay preacher who believes that without strict and swift punishment of homosexuality everyone will start butt-fucking their best friends and the human race will go extinct, because nobody would have sex with a woman unless God commanded it. The guy who designs a bear-trap for jerks reveals a lot about himself by what he thinks would be perfect jerk-bait.
And yes, just because it’s satirical doesn’t mean it’s good, or that the satire is done well, or that the movie works on any level. It is a trainwreck, for sure. If you’d like to watch a trainwreck of a movie because you like trainwrecks, then go ahead. If you want to watch movies about girls who take off their clothes, absolutely do not bother. If you just want to watch a decently made movie, do not bother. There are literally thousands of other movies you’d be better off seeing, lots of them really good, and even the lowbrow ones usually have something to offer, even if it’s just laughing at a guy who gets hit in the balls, it takes a lot of work to make a crappy lowbrow comedy or sexploitation movie.
Really, this idea only works with Verhoven, who made two satires that are pretty well-regarded (RoboCop and Starship Troopers) and another pretty good action movie that he slapped the satire tag on years later (Total Recall). I’m sure if I do some digging, I could find a few “IT’S SATIRE!” claims about Hollow Man.
So naturally, you have people wondering if everything the man does is satire. It’s not, but he’s got a pretty good batting average going at the very least.
I tend to go with the idea that Voerhoven, like Micheal Hanneke and Lars von Trier, are living examples of snotty Euro film types, mocking and despising their audience and humanity in general through the medium of film. I wouldn’t give any of them the time of day.
I wouldn’t call **RoboCop **a satire. Sure, it had some satirical elements, but at its heart it was a straightforward Frankenstein variation with a solid emotional core. You emphasized with Murphy - you didn’t sneer at him.
It saddens me that Verhoeven fell from wanting to tell stories to wanting to make statements.
You’ve hit on the reason I enjoyed Showgirls: although it was marketed as an edgy, bold, daring film, it’s weirdly old-fashioned. It has the sensibilities of a 1940s-50s melodrama. It amazes me that somebody made a movie like that in the 1990s.
I’m not surprised to see the Verhoeven pile-on here, given that this is the SDMB, where people think The Princess Bride is the greatest movie ever made. Personally, I consider Verhoeven a very talented director; although he is prone to occasional excesses, he stages action setpieces with amazing energy and gets intense performances from his actors.
Basic Instinct and Total Recall are on my all-time favorite list. I also like Robocop, which has one of the tightest screenplays ever written; there’s not a single wasted word in there. I’m more meh about Starship Troopers, although I like how Verhoeven simultaneously glorified and ridiculed Heinlein’s fascist ideas.
Personally, I think just about everything in that post is totally, completely wrong.
Oh, well. As my grandfather once noted: “Everybody’s tastes differ. Otherwise they’d all be hot for your grandmother!”
To me that’s almost ( not quite, but almost ) like saying Ken Russell is prone to ‘occasional excesses’ :D. Love him or hate him, Verhoeven seems to love him some excess.
How about Far From Heaven
Seems to me that most in this thread acknowledge that he’s made good movies.
Imitation of Life is the classic, and seems to be streaming on Netflix. It is a similar take on the “star is born” genre, played as a plausible melodrama which, if you squint your eyes juuuuuuusy right, is also pretty clearly some serious biting commentary.
**Why did the movie Showgirls do so badly?
**throws drink in OP’s face out of the blue, bursts into tears DIFFERENT REASONS !
Bravo.
A while back my daughter came into my office and told me there was something on TV I had to see. Turned out she had happened across Showgirls on one of the standard (non-pron) cable channels, but instead of pixellating or obscuring everyone’s boobs it looked like someone had gone over each frame and drawn bras freehand with a black magic marker. Since I had never had the dubious pleasure of seeing the film au naturel (as it were) I have no frame of reference, but I can say it was one of the more surreal things I’ve seen in a long time.
Starship Troopers was a movie I enjoyed and got the point that mindless patriotism, violence and genocide are just f’in stupid. I’ve never read the book, so have no axe to grind on that point. Basic Instinct was a very good movie for what it accomplished. A grim view of humanity indeed.
The part of Showgirls I saw was completely unsexy, it wasn’t even tawdry. It was banal.