Showgirls.

Review #2246: Showgirls.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berkley (Nomi Malone/Polly Ann Costello), Kyle MacLachlan (Zack Carey), Gina Gershon (Cristal Connors), Glenn Plummer (James Smith), Robert Davi (Al Torres), Alan Rachins (Tony Moss), Gina Ravera (Molly Abrams), Lin Tucci (Henrietta "Mama" Bazoom), Greg Travis (Phil Newkirk), Al Ruscio (Sam Karlman), Patrick Bristow (Marty Jacobsen), William Shockley (Andrew Carver), Michelle Johnston (Gay Carpenter), Dewey Weber (Jeff), and Rena Riffel (Penny/Hope)  Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers, #2046 - Flesh and Blood, #2069 - Turkish Delight)

Cast: 

"I always felt that it was what you might call a hyperbolic approach to filmmaking. Yes, it was over the top. And that was on purpose. The environments were very flashy. There were too many lights, too many idiotic things, and too much Vegas — not only in the surroundings, but “Vegas” in the way the people behaved, in the dialogue, in the acting. As for the finished product: I thought it was perfect. Otherwise I would have changed it. I had time to change it. I could change whatever was there. Even now, when I see the movie, I think it’s shot in an extremely elegant way." - Paul Verhoeven

“I’m not going to spend a lot of time on that moment, because why do that? We don’t live in the past. But I found my own resiliency and my power and my confidence – not only through what I had to find out, but because of you guys. I want to thank you guys for giving me this gift of truly getting a full-circle moment of experiencing the joy with you. You guys and the love you have for this movie have made this the cult film that it is.” - Elizabeth Berkley

Undeniably, I have been waiting to find the best time to finally do (no pun intended) this movie. How could one resist the first and only film with the NC-17 rating to be given a wide release in all the big theaters. A long time ago, one could think of the X rating and think, okay, sure, its unsuitable for kids, but it could be good for the rest of the public to think about watching. But it did not take long for others to use the X rating as a way for certain type of films...ones related to skin flicks. This would work out in the favor of films such as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989), which the filmmakers decided was better off released "unrated" rather than accept the MPA's X-rating. As such, the MPA was spurred on to get rid of the X and go with a NC-17 rating for "No children under 17 admitted" (a few years later, they changed it to "No one 17 and under"). Henry & June (1990) was the first film to get the rating, but Showgirls got a release in over 1,000 theaters. I think I mentioned all of this first because I didn't really feel like talking about Joe Eszterhas. He had his first filmed screenplay was F.I.S.T. (1978) on the way to a steady career of scripts that ranged from the known such as Flashdance (1983), Big Shots (1987), and, well, Basic Instinct (1992), which was directed by Paul Verhoeven. While they didn't exactly get along in making that film, they reconciled and eventually came onto an idea of doing a film in the "world of Vegas" (Verhoeven stated that the debates with the MPA on Instinct spurred him make Showgirls with an intended N-17 rating). The fact that Carolco Pictures decided to drop Verhoeven's Crusade project helped in spurring him along to work with Eszterhas in doing stuff such as going to Vegas and talking to people around the sex industry that spurred some of the storyline (that, and a bit of All About Eve). Interestingly, the $40 million dollar project was not a major success with audiences, but it attracted quite a following on the home video market. No, I mean it was really popular on the home video market (first with a slightly edited R-rated cut by Verhoeven), complete with a "V.I.P Edition" that reminds one that DVDs used to have collector things...of things not related to dolls or shirts, because what else could have suction-cup pasties.

Generally, one worries about films that have some sort of camp appeal on the level of Rocky Horror, because sometimes it could subject you to insufferable mediocrity in the name of "attempted satire" or "something deep". And since I found little to really hold in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, the worry/curiosity was considerable. And we have an over-the-top lead performance (acting, dancing, nudity) that had considerable influence by Verhoeven (to get the "element of style" he thought would work for the film). He aimed for hyperboiic over-the-top stuff, not camp. To understand the movie is that the cult status that arose from it comes in people that either enjoyed it as irony, drag performers/midnight movie people, or, well, guilty pleasures. Eszterhas stated that the film was intended to be something dark in amusement. But really, this is a movie with little eroticism (but plenty of flesh), and, well, the ethics of a soap opera that is totally not surprising from the guy who directed Turkish Delight (1973), which had dream sequences and thrusting frustrations. Satire this, camp that, I actually had fun watching the movie as a heightened piece of exploitation. By the halfway point, the question on my mind, was, well who gives a shit if the film "is what it is" on purpose or not? Who cares if it is some sort of "satire" or something to do re-thinking on? It is a silly movie that basically takes All About Eve and throttles it right into the gutter in a way that would make Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970) proud. Granted, it isn't as *entertaining* as the aforementioned Dolls film, but it sure has the guts to go where it thinks it needs to go. It really is an elegant type of movie when it comes to presentation of its numbers beyond just being a vehicle of skin that, well, you just don't see in movies today.

Berkley had Saved by the Bell as her big credit prior to this film, which basically killed off her chances to be a leading star in mainstream stuff. It is a pity too, because her abrupt timing is actually pretty cut-rate in entertainment value. One is watching a viper that simply believes they can dive right into a pit and not get something left on them. Is it really so bad to be so goofy just because one is showing a bit of skin? Far be it from me to criticize her performance for being what it aimed to be: a riff on the "star is born" trope that should be watched with clear interest rather than just lumping it as just one-note. Her passion is to not have the seams unravel on her little act, and there is something amusing about her attempt at trying to look like a good dancer along with tough that hides a hollowed-out soul. Undeniably though, Gershon (who thought the role was from the get-go as, well, was something fun) is devilishly charming in a role that could've just been fodder for cheap jokes, because only a person of her caliber could handle lines involving the good ol' days of Doggy Chow or the duality that really is apparent between her and Berkley in terms of opportunistic people wrapped in a meat market (known as show business). Her allure carries the film in a way that is easy to see why she received good marks for her role back then. MacLachlan (best known as the star of Twin Peaks that happened to receive less than 1/10th the slams of Berkley for this) apparently chose this film because, well, Verhoeven. Sure, he might call the film "inadvertently funny" now, but I think there is something quite amusing about his performance when it comes to the cascade of devious artificiality (particularly with that mop-hair he wears). If the women re-invent themselves to stay alive, surely the men have their own "re-inventions" in store (bribery, extortion, etc.). Consider how one would see the scenes of the unerotic eroticism (as one might put it) between him and Berkley in the club (which has the eyes of Gershon right there) and the one by themselves at the pool before it all ends with an "intended compliment"  Really though, I fail to see how people took a film seriously that has a character played by Tucci that basically plays a mentor to strippers that does an act with popping..skin or having Davi basically play a wisecracking pervert saying lines like "It must be weird not having anybody...on you". Ravera is seemingly the only normal one of the whole bunch, which is only more amusing to see her continue to interact with Berkley (because again, gotta have a friend to a would-be star). Plummer's opportunistic wisecracks (a sort of chorus when saying everyone "got AIDS and shit") pop up from time to time with amusement, particularly with the last punchline involving his intended choreographed dance.

Admittedly, the most controversial scene in the film probably will affect the mood of those who watch it because, well, the rape scene comes out of nowhere. It may serve the point that no one really can just claw innocence in a place of sin, but it surely won't be the easiest thing to try and stomach. The fact that it serves as the impetus for both a soap opera-twist alongside a pretty quick resolution that may or may not ring true in the last marks of elegant exploitation is surely a strange one. While the hint of a sequel (supposedly set in Hollywood) did not come to pass, Showgirls is a surprise to the viewer who dares to see it, regardless of if they expect something with "camp" or for supposed terrible quality. I see a strangely alluring exploitation film that shows that some people really, really, really, should not take themselves that seriously. If you watch the film with an open mind for elegant exploitation rather than just going on a checklist, you might find a strange gem worth holding up. Sleazy and absurd, I find no shame in calling this a winner for those with the interest in skin-deep elegance. Lord knows if I come back to it sometime and like it (or don't like it) as much or even more the second time around.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Okay this one is not quite on the theme, but Alien: Romulus was anticipated by me anyway.