Showgirls

Take a look at the wild side.

Every once in a while, a film comes along that strikes a chord with audiences in such a way that they react strongly; sometimes, because of this, the film can become a hit. The opposite can happen as well. "Showgirls" drew some venomous reviews from both critics and audiences, and it quickly gained a reputation as a bad movie--most likely among people who had never even seen it. For instance, an entire generation of filmgoers who were probably too young (or not interested) to see "Showgirls" were instructed that it was a bad movie when it was mentioned as such in the all-ages trailer for the big hit "Scream 2". A few years ago, people like Tarantino and a few respected film critics began to admit that they loved the film, and now the herd is reversing. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Yes, "Showgirls" is trashy and absurd, but we do enjoy those kinds of films. Are we saying that it's wrong to make them? I think the problem with "Showgirls" is that it's a joke the original filmgoing audience didn't get, a great looking, big budget film that is a pastiche at heart. Only after the film was released on home video did audiences start to understand it.

Elizabeth Berkley, a true hottie.

Yes, she's all blonde.

Whatever people were expecting at the time of its release, they were definitely not expecting a new "Beyond the Vally of the Dolls" (which, like "Showgirls", got the strongest possible rating at the time of its release). Also similar to Russ Meyer, Verhoeven takes Joe Esztherhas's crazy script and directs his actors to be straight faced at all times, saying these lines as if they mean it. Just like in 1970, most people don't seem to get it. This is what amuses me most of all about "Showgirls": even the people who claim to like it because it's "so bad" are missing the point just a little. The new MGM DVD features commentary by a 'fan' of the film who claims that everybody involved in the film has made the wrong decision, as if a movie like this gets made by accident. In fact, it seems to me that the only true bungling has been MGM's marketing. Even now, as they reap the benefits of it being a cult classic that has sold extremely well on home video, their idea of how to round out the DVD edition is to get somebody totally uninvolved with the film to deliver a sometimes amusing but otherwise unnecessary commentary about the obvious ("Oh, watch this part where Nomi throws her fries across the table!"). All this instead of paying Elizabeth Berkley a couple thousand dollars to offer her own insights into the film, which would have been a couple thousand times better.

Yeah, suck it babe.

the twat karate kick!

Eszterhas writes trashy movies intended to be a good time, and "Showgirls" is certainly that. But I can't imagine Verhoeven thinking that this movie would connect with audiences on a large scale basis; the trailers implied that "Showgirls" would be similar to "Basic Instinct", which it is not. Maybe if this movie had come later, after another failed attempt to recreate "Basic Instinct", people might have accepted it as its own type of film. The dialog is way over the top, and how utterly boring would the movie have been otherwise? Other parts of the film are marvelously conceived, and Verhoeven keeps the film in motion at all times. The only thing that truly spoils the fun is a violent rape scene, although it does fit with the reptilian tone of the movie, full of victims and victimizers; it is the one thing that grounds the film in the real world with real violence. It may not have been intentional, but it presents an interesting concept: if the rape had happened to any other character, it would not have been the same. Because it happens to the film's only sympathetic character, it carries a great impact. The cinematography is flawless, and the sets are always interesting and sometimes funny (like the bizarre stage numbers). Pay attention to the soundtrack as well, Verhoeven has an excellent collection of songs, many of them written specifically for the film.

Quality time.

Yeah, lemme rub my wet pussy on your body daddy.

Watching Elizabeth Berkley's career self-destruct on camera is one of the film's most morbidly fascinating pleasures. I beg to differ with people who call her performance "bad"; what actress could have played this part and made it anything other than what Berkley did? The truth is, she worked wonders with a character that was impossible to play. Her dancing is both ridiculous and a marvel. How she can bend herself into those positions and hit those marks, not to mention her famous lap dance gyrations, must be seen to be believed. Gina Gershon is great too, a leering predator who manages to be both vulnerable and invincible at the same time, and only because she seems to be the only actor in the troupe that's in on the joke. Kyle McLachlan is skeezy, with a haircut and a smile that make him resemble the creature from the "ALIEN" franchise more than a human being. You expect an inner jaw to emerge from his mouth at any moment.

Sexploitation returns!

Dance hides sex.

This is my working suit.

"Showgirls" is ridiculous, but to me it's also multifaceted and fascinating, appealing to the cynic in all of us. It fails as an engaging story, but the film itself doesn't fail to engage the viewer at all; you can laugh at it (or with it), and it accomplishes something subversive in the way it makes you consider the filmmakers and actors involved. I think most people just say "Showgirls" is a bad movie because they've already been told it's a bad movie. I revisit it more often than some of the other films in my collection, and it gets more absurd, funny, gross, and sometimes even beautiful, every time I watch it. Bad movies are boring movies. "Showgirls" is not.

Overall, a good B movie revisiting the old glory of the sexploitation genre only with a darker view.

here's the movie trailer: