Review of Showgirls (1995) by Edgar C — 20 Jun 2014

"I like tits and ass. Mostly tits.".

- Factual philosphical wisdom by the deep Paul Verhoeven.

All post-Denmark Verhoeven flicks are, by thematic definition, satires. If one doesn't understand that intention, it is hard to grasp the ironic subtext that pervades his graphic Hollywood scandals.

Showgirls, in this sense, is a misunderstood "bad" movie, so bad it's underrated. The people's obsession with the All About Eve plot parallelism is hilarious. So here we have Verhoeven, as aggressive as the reputation that precedes him, attempting to propel adult cinema with a big-scale budget, resulting in a rather financial disaster and a simultaneous terrible reception that discouraged similar big-budget productions in the future. Was the outcome really that bad? Not really.

After all, in the middle of the 90s, nobody except probably Verhoeven realized that they had a movie of cult proportions in hands.

The first barrier that people must take off their minds is that this is intentionally bad. It was never meant to be a serious drama, like several false claims invading Internet are saying. The second barrier that must come off is that it wasn't meant to be an expensive softcore movie, either. The film just takes a (long) glance at the backstage of the adult Las Vegas entertainment scene, with a familiar mechanism of dog-eat-dog culture and a predatory environment, but that's just the cover up. The real issue is Verhoeven's ability to castrate "cinematic quality" standards and challenging them with a substance behind strong enough to be satirical and to be both laughed at and be laughed with.

Third, Verhoeven is renowned for pushing all celluloid boundaries possible and confidently displaying them within the widescreen capabilities. One of the intents was to be so over-the-top and shamelessly graphic that it would assure its permanent place in the mind (maybe not only in the mind) of the viewer. Intention accomplished! People are still talking about it, but not in a similar fashion that The Room (2003) receives discussion. No. The film's strength and core is its scandal. In a way, the terribleness of the delivery in the performances, dialogues, script and melodrama mirrors the terribleness of such a morally distorted world like the topless hell of Las Vegas.

Indeed, I cannot fully approve a project that also, intentionally, objectifies women for the purpose of entertainment, unless the camp behind is epic enough to justify its cheap, cult and trashy mega-suckness, like the tradition of a Jess Franco, a Sex & Fury (1973) or a Women in Cages (1971) would dictate. Either there is some artistry behind, or the aforementioned aspects. Unfortunately, for me, the level of satire does not reach the brilliance of Verhoeven's other projects, so my reasons are merely thematic, and not artistic. It was a project of great potential, even as a strong social critique and punch to the face of mainstream moviewatching standards, but the opening quote of this review is a proof that, at some point, Verhoeven stopped working and his penis decided to direct in his place.

Nominated for 16 awesome Razzie Awards, and getting home with 7, Verhoeven walkd out of the ceremony proudly. Just consider something: Paul Verhoeven turned up in person to accept Worst Director and Worst Picture. He was the first director to ever turn up to collect the Award. He was literally proud of himself, because such "triumph" was the proof that he had accomplished what he intended. Let's look at some facts and numbers, beautifully retrieved from IMDB:

? As of 2009, Showgirls is the highest grossing NC-17 of all time (U.S. $20,302,961) and the only NC-17 film to ever be given wide distribution in 1,388 theaters.

? Several high-ranking filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino have professed their appreciation of the movie.

? Elizabeth Berkley was paid only $100,000 for playing the lead in the film. When a special V.I.P. edition boxed set was released, she requested $2,500 to be interviewed. LOL.

? Despite its apocalyptic reception at the box office, it enjoyed huge success in home video market in the United States, generating more than $100,000,000 from video rentals and became one of MGM's top 20 all-time bestsellers.

? The movie has its fans today, and receives cult following even today.

? The only time actresses complained that they felt uncomfortable was during the scenes with the monkeys, who constantly stared at their bare breasts. Sure thing, that was more uncomfortable than anything they did during shooting.

Too bad that:

A) It didn't fully trigger my cult camp interests!

B) Its suckness was too much to handle, given the lack of a)!

C) Charlize Theron auditioned for the role of Nomi Malone!!

D) Pamela Anderson was a front-runner for the role of Nomi Malone!!

E) Angelina Jolie auditioned for the role of Cristal Connors!!

F) Gina Gershon declined to recreate the Sharon Stone leg crossing scene from Basic Instinct (1992)!

Damn it, Verhoeven, you bloody idiot!

63/100.