They have?
“If you love a film and people say, “Well, it sucks. and it sucks so bad it’s not worth discussing,” my guess is that you’d find that frustrating and/or annoying. And that would be reasonable response, imo. No?”
Thank you.
Excellently directed performance by Verhoeven and controlled performance by Berkley…I mean, a junk food meal of soda and fries and ketchup doesn’t just eat itself that hysterically on its own. There was clearly INTENT there (this goes for the neon-palm pool sex scene too). It doesn’t have to look like REAL life, it just has to catch your eye as an IMITATION of life, a likeness that folks are going to hate or be intrigued by (regardless of whether that hate or intrigue inspires a reaction of laughter or sadness or both).
Lets get some facts straight:
It does not matter what genre film belongs to, if it touches audiences hearts and minds. Of course you can touch audience in many different ways, and get either hatred or love in return; but in any scale, movie that touches some strings and wakes strong feelings, is better compared to the boring, predictable, dull staff ,which no one would remember next morning.
If movie you have seen is bad, you’ll just forget it most of the times, and will move on.You would’t follow up directors interviews to find out what he was intended to say,you would’t watch it several times to confirm to yourself how bad it is, you wouldn’t passionately hate it. Passionate response is a sign of excellency. And, by the way, love and hatred often go hand by hand.
That means Showgirls isn’t a bad movie. Controversial like hell, yes, but excellent in it’s making.
For the people who insist that film is plain bad, and there is no shadow of doubt about it, please allow me to offer a small,simple test. Please let us know what you think of following statements:
-Human fate is determined merely by money, power and sex, each playing equal role.
-People mostly see each other as a sex objects.
-Somebody wants to use you, somebody wants to be used by you-this is a key aspect of understanding any human relations.
-To make it high in the arts and entertainment one often has to prostitute himself or herself.
-Same applies to many other business.
-Man know nothing about themselves.
-Whats natural – is acceptable, there I nothing wrong with any physiological aspects of human life, would it be female periods, homosexuality or else.
-There is no justice or purpose in life; it is simply constant struggle for survival without a rules; what does not kill you makes you stronger.
-Girls from violent families often end up being bi polar
-Desperate teenage runaway’s often fall as low as eating dog food.
-Rough people from edgy backgrounds use the obscure language in their natural environment. And that’s majority of population
-No one knows you when you down and out; everyone loves you when you are a star.
-The Las Vegas sex and gambling industry perfectly resembles Western society and corporate economy in whole
-Celebrities are often criminally mistreating ordinary people, especially gruppies; and get away with it.
-Most people would not stop on anything to get rich and famous.
Now, if you agree or at least accept things above, and still thinking that Showgirls is a bad film, I will be very interested to hear your arguments.
If you hate this list and consider it a rant, it proves my point.People hate an idea, but there is nothing wrong with a film.
It is Ok to reject this statements above on religious, moral, ethical, or patriotic grounds, but this is discussion about philosophy. And if one old movie is able to generate the debate of that scale, it eventually makes this film great, right?
And just for the record.:Showgrils is a huge commercial success on home video market, and is one of 20 bestselling home video films ever. Check stats for yourself.
However, can we agree that these derisive toss off statements can be annoying and that asking for clarification—with the intention of having a meaningful discussion—is reasonable? If you love a film and people say, “Well, it sucks. and it sucks so bad it’s not worth discussing,” my guess is that you’d find that frustrating and/or annoying. And that would be reasonable response, imo. No?
This is one the biggest reasons I like to post more about films largely hated that I loved. It’s easy to agree with someone when you love or hate a film – and sharing that with another person. But when it comes to finding a film most bash good to great, it’s really something that makes me hungry for discussion. I mean, if I loved Showgirls and Gigli and Southland Tales and I Know Who Killed Me and can explain why I do, why is it so difficult to actually talk with those that hate the films with such passion? I would think it would be eye-opening if two buffs on opposite sides of the opinion would be capable of learning something if they went beyond “it’s great” or “it sucks” and could actually, you know, understand yet still disagree in the end.
Hey now, this ain’t the place fer yer armchair intellectualism. No going beyond “it’s great” or “it sucks”. The intellect is worthless.
Yes, there is a ridiculousness in SHOWGIRLS that people tend to regard as “campy” or simply put “horrible” – but this ridiculousness is truly vital. Here is where the film’s “satiric” elements (though the handling of its theme is not satiric) come into light – there is a ludicrousness in the way that Nomi Malone mirrors the rise of Cristal Connors so perfectly even though we know how much of an amoral and unethical mess it was for Nomi to get there; it is ridiculous that when Nomi escapes the spectacle of Las Vegas she is one again trapped in another place of spectacle: Hollywood; and even more telling is the way in which the film makes conventions we take for granted into something outright absurd, namely the typical story of a young woman’s rise to stardom, how through the selling of the body, playing into the hands of the rich and powerful, Nomi can get from the low end of the chain into a superstar in a blink of an eye. In this film, the chain of spectacle-money-power is IN ITSELF absurd and ridiculous; the film wants us to look at these spectacles (already things that are taken for granted) in a more revealing light. However, director Paul Verhoeven knows that the ludicrousness of these spectacles holds a terrifying latency, as is signified by to my mind one of the most horrifying scenes in film history, the rape of Molly, and this horror also holds true for the honest character of James whose disgusting nymphomania costs him his dreams of an artistic future. In the end, no one goes unscathed in SHOWGIRLS (or in any Paul Verhoeven film).
Just some of my thoughts for now… Keep this discussion going! SHOWGIRLS IS A MASTERPIECE!!!
“The plot is kind of All About Eve from Eve’s point of view (but without making her the least bit sympathetic).”
I don’t perceive that as a flaw, it allows Verhoeven to cut deeper.
But really I should let I.L.’s words above speak for it. Bravo, good sir.
Between finding out that Lady Blah Blah is a colossal fraud and “Showgirls” isn’t as deep and profound as he first thought, Douglas probably got himself buried.
“This is one the biggest reasons I like to post more about films largely hated that I loved. It’s easy to agree with someone when you love or hate a film – and sharing that with another person. But when it comes to finding a film most bash good to great, it’s really something that makes me hungry for discussion. I mean, if I loved Showgirls and Gigli and Southland Tales and I Know Who Killed Me and can explain why I do, why is it so difficult to actually talk with those that hate the films with such passion? I would think it would be eye-opening if two buffs on opposite sides of the opinion would be capable of learning something if they went beyond “it’s great” or “it sucks” and could actually, you know, understand yet still disagree in the end.”
Keep it up Douglas. I find your threads refreshing. I don’t have the guts to start threads like them. I’m still waiting patiently for you to start a Halloween II thread ;)
Wish granted, Jack. ;)
“-Human fate is determined merely by money, power and sex, each playing equal role.
-People mostly see each other as a sex objects.
-Somebody wants to use you, somebody wants to be used by you-this is a key aspect of understanding any human relations.
-To make it high in the arts and entertainment one often has to prostitute himself or herself.
-Same applies to many other business.
-Most people would not stop on anything to get rich and famous.”
Um, GOD no. No. No. No.
For SOME people that may hold true, sometimes, at some point in their lives. To say this as a sweeping generalization of ALL people, at all times, I’m sorry, it’s as valid as any sweeping generalization, and that is, it’s not valid at all.
Let’s not get carried away here. People and their personalities, their lives, are NOT so goddamned black and white. Nor so Darwinian.
Eh, I agree with most of the above, except that I think in terms of big business, a lot of people do either prostitute themselves or pimp out others. It’s just that it’s a subtle, gradual selling out. Bit by bit it doesn’t seem too blatant, but if you look at the sum of all things that one does to make it in big business or whatever it may be, there’s usually a lot of whoring involved, either of the self or of other people. Y’know, I could cut my hair really short, wear a suit, kiss arse, tote a mobile phone to be at some prick’s beck-and-call, and do a bunch of really dishonest things to “make it” in the corporate world. In theory, anyone could. It doesn’t take a particularly large amount of mental power. I’m a bit worried that nowadays, people see “making it” in big business as a noble thing. Women are encouraged to see female CEOs, prime ministers, tycoons, what have you as examples of “powerful women” and “feminist role models”. When in reality, they’ve just whored themselves out as much as their male counterparts. A female selling her soul for the almight dollar bill is no better than a male doing the same thing. But in any event, I don’t think Showgirls really explores these things on a profound level. The question was asked as to why this film was made if not to encompass all the messages and themes discussed elsewhere. I think we’re all honest enough to admit that Showgirls was primarily created for the same reason that Joe Eszterhas came up with Basic Instinct: he’s in the entertainment business, and he saw an idea that he thought would entertain people and make him some bread. But to go searching for some sort of deep meaning about an exploitation film full of backstabbing and bitchiness and hissy fits; to me it’s much like Black Swan—I think people read way too deeply into it.
“-Human fate is determined merely by money, power and sex, each playing equal role.
-People mostly see each other as a sex objects.
-Somebody wants to use you, somebody wants to be used by you-this is a key aspect of understanding any human relations.
-To make it high in the arts and entertainment one often has to prostitute himself or herself.
-Same applies to many other business.
-Most people would not stop on anything to get rich and famous.”
Um, GOD no. No. No. No.
For SOME people that may hold true, sometimes, at some point in their lives. To say this as a sweeping generalization of ALL people, at all times, I’m sorry, it’s as valid as any sweeping generalization, and that is, it’s not valid at all.
Let’s not get carried away here. People and their personalities, their lives, are NOT so goddamned black and white. Nor so Darwinian."
Well, proves my point.People don’t hate the film, or Elisabeth Berkley’s excellent performance. They hate a philosophy behind it. And some people aren’t able to admit that someone was acctually bold enough to present this idea straight to their faces, through the mainstream Holllywood production, and are blaming their own frustration on the “bad filming and bad acting”.
There is whole school of phislosophy based on the cinical, sceptic and nigilist approach to mankind, from Plato to Nitzsche, including Macciaveli, Hobbs and many others. If you disagree with this-put forward a thesis and join aacademic discussion. But what you have here – is a masterpiece successfully presenting the dark side of human philosophy to the general public in a form of motion film.
This alone deserves huge appreciation.
Yes, it’s a film. There are theories. And that’s it. It’s making a statement about something. If there is a reality there, it’s an aspect. That’s all I’m trying to say.
" I think we’re all honest enough to admit that Showgirls was primarily created for the same reason that Joe Eszterhas came up with Basic Instinct: he’s in the entertainment business, and he saw an idea that he thought would entertain people and make him some bread."
Absolutely disagree. If they wanted a short term profit, they’d do something Robocop or Totall recall alike. Or would just put up an acctual cheezy story people like to see at this subject matter, like: poor but talented girl from country side trying to make it big in show business, there are many bad people around, but with a help of good friends and Mr Good guy, with whom she fells in love with, our girl overcomes the troubles,beats up the crap from the corrupt executives, sexist bosses and rapist maniacs, and becomes a huge star. Bad guys go the jail, good girl goes to Hollywood. Big round of applaus, and some cash in a box office, before film goes into obscurnity.
They did something different, and did it on purpose. In the climax of the film, I mean last 20-15 minutes they have put this purpose straight to audience face, without any ""-buts," if"s, or ""why’s. If some people still prefer to beleive that this is a Cinderella style melodrama, it is only because not everyone can accept a naked trouth.
“Keep it up Douglas”
Yeah, Doug, I can’t follow where you’re leading on a lot of these threads, but it makes for interesting discussion.
""Showgirls" is seriously one misunderstood film…"
That it is. I never understood how it got made at all.
Just watched BOOGIE NIGHTS last night for the first time since projecting it at least over a decade ago, and thought about SHOWGIRLS during it, both because they are cautionary satires (depending on who you ask) of the sex entertainment industry as perhaps some kind of surreal microcosm of America. But while SHOWGIRLS puts its characters through crueler experiences—maybe Eszterhas and Verhoeven place them in a tougher, crueler universe—I think Anderson is a lot more hateful in his conception depiction of his characters…definitely made me think of the debates that developed over in the NASHVILLE thread.
Looking at this thread, I find myself surprised that, while someone has the right too to feel Showgirls is a bad film, most of the arguments against the defenders of it ended up being cheap jokes and between-the-lines name calling. There are some films I don’t ‘get’ and dislike immensely, like Southland Tales, but I would attempt a debate about it. Sadly there seems to be a herd mentality where people are automatically dismissed as contrarians, and take this far seriously even though film is an important art, than actually think about even if they still think the movie is terrible.
I’m also incredibly angry of how ‘armchair intellectualism’ is an inherently negative term. It sounds incredibly elitist, suggesting that any person, who watches films too like critics, are not allowed to ponder serious issues about what they’re watching from their armchairs and openly discuss them because they’re not “true” intellectuals with degrees or a critic’s job. A critic can have the advantage of their knowledge to work from, but at times someone like us, or even more so someone who didn’t take a film studies class or watch the same sorts of films like us, like my close relatives, can say something about a film more to the point and clearly thought out than a vague review with overcomplicated words a lot of criticism is now sadly.
And why is camp considered a bad thing too? Camp is not kitsch, and kitsch is not necessarily a bad thing either, and as Susan Sontag and films like Jack Smith’s Flaming Creatures have shown, it can be far more subversive and useful a tool to get an idea or mood across then a “serious” film is able to.
“Looking at this thread, I find myself surprised that, while someone has the right too to feel Showgirls is a bad film, most of the arguments against the defenders of it ended up being cheap jokes and between-the-lines name calling.”
Should I link to the definition of hypocrisy, or is that unnecessary?
And, using Sontag’s own definition of camp, Showgirls is not camp. A true definition of camp subverting cultural values to comment upon them would be something like Tsai Ming-liang’s Rebels of the Neon God.
I’m not necessarily suggesting Showgirls is camp. I’m merely annoyed how its dismissed as a bad concept while, as what you’ve suggested, it is a far more potent concept then it is usually viewed as.
As for hypocrisy, it all comes down to personal opinion, If you view a film as good, or view it as bad, it doesn’t matter as long as you have a clear defined idea why and don’t just say it ‘sucks’ or is merely ‘great’ without saying a bit more and without being a bully. Maybe I could have typed the former post with a more neutral tone, which is bad on my part, but it came from just looking at these posts from one or two years ago and wishing it had actually been an actual debate rather than arguing about it.
In hindsight the line “while someone has the right too to feel Showgirls is a bad film” is an utterly cringe worthy sentence and should have been written a lot more better.
“…but it came from just looking at these posts from one or two years ago and wishing it had actually been an actual debate rather than arguing about it.”
Welcome to Mubi.
We debated on theauteurs, we argue on Mubi. It’s a sign of the declining standards on this site, where there were dozens of thoughtful regular posters 3 years ago, there have only been two or three in the last year that stayed on.
“I’m merely annoyed how its dismissed as a bad concept while, as what you’ve suggested, it is a far more potent concept then it is usually viewed as.”
Actually, I suggested it was a horrendous concept, executed with equal horridness. One of the most thoughtful posters I’ve ever met on this site once defended this film by claiming that the people depicted in this film didn’t deserve good acting, they didn’t deserve a decent depiction of their working world, their life.
To me that either suggests this is the most anti-humanistic, even nihilistic, film I’ve ever seen, or the audience for it is. That’s a very difficult “concept” to justify.
Still on the fence with Showgirls. I can see why people would defend it and why you would view it as a horrendous film. Its completely uncompromising in its mindset, and its difficult for me to completely get the film despite finding virtues in it. Unlike Starship Troopers, the earlier film is a lot divisive in just its tone let alone whether it has any depth to it or not. The idea that it is either an extreme parody or ‘the most anti-humanistic, even nihilistic, film [someone could see’ is not going to go over with a large group of film viewers, and I’m not surprised it doesn’t have a middle ground in opinion on it.
“We debated on theauteurs, we argue on Mubi. It’s a sign of the declining standards on this site, where there were dozens of thoughtful regular posters 3 years ago, there have only been two or three in the last year that stayed on.”
Having seen the switch from theauteurs to MUBI myself as well, I’ve also seen both very intelligent posts and a fairshare of arguements. Looking at the forum more often, it’ll be interesting to see what has changed in a year or more.
When you get an ‘internet service name’ like MUBI or Bing or Google or Fliblub or Goobytraf then you can expect a serious drop in etc.
But in the end, its up to the members invested to determine if they want a quality site or not. Nobody forced anyone out with the name change and I have to think that if those original members really cared about maintaining the spirit of The Auteurs, they’d still be here.
Yes, it’s rare when the quality of a service or whatever is dependant on the participants. People too often expect the product to get them.
Actually that makes no sense. Everything sucks if people let it.
House of Leaves
Either side you fall on, please at least start being civil to each other, lest we have to start moderating this thread every other post.