शोगर्ल्स

Is it a satire of bad film making? Is it a knowing take on Showbiz sleaze ? Or was it a totally sincere project, and thus in Ed Wood territory for it's compleat terrible hilarity, as cliches pile upon cliches upon horrible acting, set amongst the gaudiest, most resplendently hideous set design in film history ? Some say it MUST be satire, as NO-ONE makes films this bad, this obviously bad, with this much money behind them, in such a garish, tacky way...and expects to be taken seriously. Except for the man responsible for "Starship Troopers", that is...

Whatever it is, this thing is genius, that's all I can say.

There are lots of reasons, but the one that most strikes me in the funny bone is it's depiction of strippers. I, for one, have had to endure far, far too many "Dancers" who take themselves utterly seriously, for sex and for other reasons, for this to be anything other than roll-on-the-floor funny. And that is only one small level of the humor contained herein. If this film is self-deprecating satire, and I suspect that it is, than that is enough right there to earn it a place in MY "Desert Isle Five." If not, than that makes it even better !

Just watch it with your own tongue firmly planted in cheek, and it starts to make sense...

Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" is the last great exploitation film. Sure there's T&A, but big deal, the main attraction here is watching the over-the-top characters be sleazy and screw each other over for their own general good, and for the actor's over-the-top performances, especially that of Elizabeth Berkley. The Stardust entertainment guy looks like the singer of The Undertones, I thought that was pretty cool. But seriously this film is non-stop fun, watching the actors obviously having a good time is a blast!

Back in 1995 I felt like it was one of the best films I have ever watched, it helped to embrace that what people don't wish to see, there's more life to this film than films like Terminator, ironically so cause it portrays the fakeness of people and the whole showbiz in the film, that contrast of revealing the truth in a fake world is what I believe draws people subconsciously to this film, it's a breath of fresh air.

This is more like an art film that demands the audience to think for themselves by being removed from the familiar archetypes or messages, it removes the anchor for anyone looking to relate to anyone in the fim at a surface level, the same is true about Bunuel or Fellini films, this film doesn't use neorealism to portray the world of the film, it uses the aesthetics of the American cinema, a language under the language, it's not a genre film to thrill in a basic commercial way like Robocop, Basic Instinct or Flashdance, it offers questions and ambiguity, as a little example, what does it suggests with a scene like Nomi and Crystal kissing at the end? What should we feel? For me it demonstrates glimpses of how much different their lives could be, how much there's more to these characters who long for something else, yet everyone seems to show glimpses of how deceptive can be at the same time, people are an enigma here, unaware of their own identity, and lost innocence, nothing is what seems to be, it is a facade that's breaking apart through Verhoeven's lens, using the naked bodies and Goddess show to portray the surface hiding their authentic heart and soul. Nomi's rebellious nature in a sense represents an outsider's look into this world that refuses to be seduced by it, yet it is at one point. There is also a cartoony playfulness and beauty in the way it is made, mainly visually, that appeals to the senses as well, but for me that style represents the seductiveness of this world that Nomi enters.

Another aspect I appreciate about it is how innocently and openly it shows nudity and sex, it shatters our inhibitions. The film goes against expectations often, it subverts the conventions, and that always is bound to be embraced more later in time, cause the conventions have changed, so in a later time the film has lost its potency to challenge our attachments to conventions, once it reaches the safe zone when such conventions/standards being gone years later, the film gets embraced, however its pure function as a medium made for a particular time to shock or make us uncomfortable is no longer there. The same is true for anything that flopped but got embraced much later, Citizen Kane, Wizard Of Oz, Vertigo, Blade Runner, Alexander, Fight Club, etc, none of these films serve the same function years later for the human collective.

Yes Showgirls seemed to be hated by some people at the time, the truth is the more we hate something the more it reveals some aspect of us that we can't stand, it's all a projection, anything that triggers hightened emotions. Some of the most despised art shows me more accurately the greater picture of our collective conscousness, or perhaps subconscious. Often the hated movies reveal the truth of how much people lack the surrender or openness to the unknown, the unexpected, the breaking of their beliefs or standards, the change, etc. It challenges the ego, and the willingness to look into our own shadow side, hence why I love to watch more often things that most people hate, there's always something that shows more originality or individuality of perception than in films that are largely embraced.

This film in particular was daring, going narrativelly forward in unpredictable ways, even though the plot seemed basic.

This is expertly made trash, with over the top characters and scenes that don't even have a toe in reality. There's loads of nudity and everything is amped up to 11. That said, it was intended to be sexy and adult and daring but it falls flat on its face. BUT the way it falls flat makes it something to see.

I read through a few of these reviews and the general analysis seemed to be that this movie sucks more than the lead character does in the back room of the Cheetah Club. Well, I guess if you take it at face value, it does.

However, it's not meant to be taken that way (internally, with a glass of water?), and it's a shame that so many people did. Really, 'Showgirls' is a campy, funny movie. It's a riot. And it's supposed to be.

Elizabeth Berkley, in the lead role, plays her part like an actress on one of those day-time soaps - which is probably exactly what Verhoeven wanted. She does everything dramatically. She sits down, dramatically; she takes off her jacket, dramatically; and if you watch closely enough you'll even see her eating fries dramatically.

Gina Gershon as femme fatale/lead dancer Cristal gives the best performance of the film. She obviously is in sync with the director and has a lot of fun with the part, and if you only watch it for one reason, watch it for her. Because, in the words of L'Oreal, she's worth it. She's a great talent and it's a shame she's not recognised more widely.

Would I recommend it? I don't know. It depends on your taste. If you're looking for a drama, go elsewhere. If you're looking for a quirky, funny movie, and you don't mind lots of naked ladies running around all over the place (yes, even if you're female - I am, and I liked it), go rent it. It might surprise you.