(United Artists / MGM Pictures)
To answer my own question right off the bat, no, no it isn’t. Obviously art is subjective, but if you were to ask a lifelong movie lover like myself if Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls (1995) deserved the hate it got upon release, I would say yes it did. Seeing the narrative go from “This is a terrible movie,” to “This is so bad it’s good” to “This is actually a feminist masterpiece and you’re misogynistic for mocking it” the past three decades has been asinine as hell. A couple of weeks ago Showgirls trended after the popular internet personalities of Red Letter Media covered it on their webshow “Re:View.” When I saw the title pop up on my YouTube notifications, I thought, “Oh no, please don’t let these guys be Showgirls defenders…” Fortunately, that wasn’t the case, and hosts Jay Bauman and Rich Evans agreed with me that the film doesn’t work as drama or satire. Verhoeven can do quality satire, like his action flick Robocop (1987); and he can do straight action, like Total Recall (1990); and he can even do erotic thrillers, like Basic Instinct (1992). But with Showgirls…that’s a different story.
Let’s go back to 1995. I’m in 1st grade and naturally have no idea what Showgirls is. But I do remember seeing that famous poster/cover art of star Elizabeth Berkley silhouetted with one leg exposed [cueing many jokes about her missing a leg] every time I entered the video store. What was inside this VHS box was an attempt by a major studio, in this case MGM, to legitimize the NC-17 rating. Recruiting the duo who made a huge hit like Basic Instinct, Verhoeven and screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, seemed like an appropriate move. The casting of the female lead for the down-on-her-luck drifter who moves to Las Vegas to be the next big showgirl ended up being Elizabeth; who was most famous for playing good girl Jessie Spano on NBC’s “Saved by the Bell” (1989-1993). The supporting cast was made up of interesting faces such as Kyle MacLachlan, Gina Gershon, Robert Davi, Glenn Plummer and Gina Ravera. Everyone was on board to show audiences the seedy, dark underbelly of showbusiness. What everyone wasn’t prepared for were the jokes, laughs and judgment toward Showgirls upon release. 13 Razzie nominations with 7 wins. Lousy reviews, including critic Gene Siskel famously calling the movie “All About Eve with a G-string.” Underwhelming box-office returns [although it became one of MGM’s biggest sellers on home video]. Elizabeth’s plans of breaking away from TV and into film were shattered. Kyle famously distanced himself from embarrassment after premiere night. Verhoeven and Eszterhas were called hacks. The only one who seemed to make it out alive was Gina Gershon, who followed up with the cult hits of the Wachowskis’ Bound (1996) and John Woo’s Face/Off (1997).
For the next thirty years, Showgirls went from being everyone’s favorite movie to make fun of, to the gay community embracing it as camp and amusing, to Verhoeven fanatics claiming it’s intentional satire and everyone missed the point. What’s the truth? Well, probably a little bit of everything [but mostly the former two]. The problem with viewing the movie as intentionally comedic is that it doesn’t feel like a comedy. It’s a whooping 131 minutes of nudity, sexual harassment, sexual violence, backstabbing and bitchiness. Of course dark comedies can have all of these elements. Michael Lehmann’s Heathers (1989) or John McNaughton’s Wild Things (1998) come to mind. But instead, Showgirls is very similar to Mark Robson’s Valley of the Dolls (1967) and Frank Perry’s Mommie Dearest (1981), in which it’s clear the creators were aiming for legitimate success and majorly backfired. All three movies are now definitive examples of a cult classic and have endured niche followings for decades. Not to sound like a hipster so soon after my anti-childhood nostalgia piece from last month, but if I’m being honest, cult films have virtually no impression on me either. Watching something bad for entertainment is pointless in my mind, though I understand everyone has different tastes. With Showgirls, I can easily see why people think it’s unintentionally hilarious. The acting is bad, particularly Elizabeth, who doesn’t have the range for dramatic material. The script is even worse, with clichés, tropes, awkward dialogue [“Where are you from?” “Different places!”]; and the male gaze is up the wazoo with every stripping and burlesque sequence. The thing is all the funny and memorable parts are in the first 90-100 minutes. Once we get more of Gina Ravera’s character Molly, roommate of Elizabeth’s Nomi, it gets really, really dark. Out of place and uncomfortably dark. Laughing at the hysterically unrealistic pool sex scene between Nomi and Kyle’s Zach, and all of the bizarre dancing in the club and concert scenes is suddenly cut short when we see Molly experience a graphic and prolonged gang rape in a hotel room. All of the film’s flaws are heightened even more once this moment occurs.
(United Artists / MGM Pictures)
Verhoeven shooting sexual activity as over the top as he shoots action isn’t surprising. I can’t say I’m surprised a rape scene is included in Showgirls either, since I think every Verhoeven movie I’ve seen features at least one woman getting assaulted. Eszterhas also does not have a great track record with female characters, usually portraying them as psychotic or mentally unstable with a penchant for weapons. During RLM’s Showgirls retrospective, Jay hypothetically asks what fans of the movie are doing during Molly’s rape, since you can’t laugh at it because it’s so disturbing. I have to agree, no woman or forward-thinking man would shoot that sequence and anyone insisting their film is satire wouldn’t bother trying to make the ending land straight. It’s the same issue I have with Mommie Dearest. Am I really supposed to find Faye Dunaway’s hammy performance entertaining when so much time is spent on Christina Crawford getting abused? In more recent years Verhoeven and Eszterhas have embraced Showgirls’ camp legacy and insist the movie was always supposed to be a dark comedy. No. No, no. The director’s fans will point to this, as well as Robocop and Starship Troopers (1997), as proof general movie viewers ‘didn’t get it.’ But that’s not what initially happened. Verhoeven and Eszterhas were trying to repeat the success of Basic Instinct. Only this time, more boobs! More sex! Catfights! Dancing! NC-17!! Eszterhas was also a writer on Adrian Lyne’s romantic drama Flashdance (1983), which has a similar theme and male gaze heavy sexualization. What people don’t seem to realize is that the satire in Robocop and Starship Troopers is more because of screenwriter Edward Neumeier. The tone of Showgirls is completely different from the other two movies because of the writing, not the direction. There’s a reason Eszterhas spent years bragging about being the highest paid screenwriter of the 1990s and not the most awarded.
(United Artists / MGM Pictures)
If Showgirls was always supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, why was the cast caught off guard by the final product? Why did it take 20 years for Verhoeven to defend Elizabeth and say he asked her to perform over the top during production? Why did Kyle take so long to accept the movie’s impact on pop culture? Gina Ravera says the movie’s never been funny to her because the rape scene was so brutal to shoot. I get liking the feature [to an extent] as an unintentional comedy, but insisting it’s literally a masterpiece is a bit much, in my opinion. The most baffling to me are the female fans who enjoy Showgirls and some even thinking it’s a good representation of what it’s like to be a woman…????
Personally, I don’t find Nomi an intriguing character. She’s just angry and horny the whole time and as selfish as the men taking advantage of her, along with some hokey acting from Elizabeth. She avenges Molly by beating up her rapist, even though she wasn’t a great friend to her to begin with. Molly is the most endearing character in this mess, yet undeservingly receives the worst fate. One thing I’m surprised isn’t brought up more is how outdated the portrayal of the black characters are. Nomi gets to be the ‘white savior’ for Molly and Glenn Plummer’s character James is an urban cliché too. Ironically, Gina G. is the only person a part of Showgirls who seemed to realize the material wasn’t going to be treated seriously; delivering a performance I would say is the only thing in the film that is legitimately camp, hilarious fake southern accent intact. I guess to its credit, Showgirls did pave the way for future kitsch, trashy movies such as Andrew Bergman’s Striptease (1996), David McNally’s Coyote Ugly (2000) and Steve Antin’s Burlesque (2010). Ultimately, I can reluctantly accept Showgirls as a cult classic, but just can’t buy into the narrative that it’s a genuinely good film. I’ll end this piece with a quote from Kyle during a 2012 interview with AV Club, which I think sums up everything about the picture: “‘Satire’ isn't the right word. But it's inadvertently funny. So it's found its place. It provides entertainment, though not in the way I think it was originally intended. It was just…maybe the wrong material with the wrong director and the wrong cast.”
Thank you!