Despite all the nudity and provocative sexuality on display in this film, Showgirls is quite possibly the least sexy film I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. Pile on top of that a wretched script, abysmal acting and a plot that’s been rehashed dozens of times before, you get one of those “holy grails” of bad cinema that make movie history.Naomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) is hitchhiking her way to Las Vegas. She’s tough as nails but still a naïve country girl and quickly finds herself alone in the heart of Las Vegas. She is taken in by Molly (Gina Ravera), a costumer at the Stardust Casino for one of Vegas’s elite showgirl productions. Naomi has stars in her eyes and dreams of being a showgirl but has to settle for working as a stripper to make ends meet. Molly introduces Naomi to Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon), the star of Vegas’ hottest show but they do not get on well with each other.
Sure enough, Cristal and her boyfriend (Kyle MacLachlan) turn up in Naomi’s strip club the next night. Both are impressed by her and give her an audition as a background performer in Cristal’s show. Naomi swiftly learns the ins and outs of being a showgirl as well as the dark secrets to success. Friendships and rivalries blur together as Naomi becomes determined to become the top star in Vegas, whatever the cost.
So many films have been made around the concept of the “dark side of the industry” that it’s nearly impossible to keep track of them all. It also makes it very difficult for a new film taking that same angle to make itself standout. Showgirls does so by fully embracing the presumed negative stigma of an NC-17 rating. In some ways, this makes sense. How can you realistically showcase the underbelly of Las Vegas and the sadistic backstage antics of showgirls without nudity and vulgarity?
The trouble is that director Paul Verhoeven doesn’t seem to understand the concepts of restraint and moderation. (This is, after all, the man who gave us the ultra-violence of RoboCop and the hyper-sexuality of Basic Instinct.) While I believe that some nudity and swearing are appropriate for certain films when used artistically or for dramatic or comedic impact, the gratuitous use of either is a detriment to a film. Showgirls isn’t just gratuitous with its sexual content and vulgarity, it’s downright gluttonous.
This brings about a critical problem for any film. Determined as she may be to succeed, Naomi is a despicable person. Sure, she’s a victim of circumstance, having to work in a strip club and all, but she comes to embrace her job and wields her sex appeal like a weapon. She uses sex and sexuality for personal gain and revenge. If she were just a little rough around the edges, she might get more sympathy from audiences. But instead, she’s liable to turn on a dime and shove a knife to your throat if you say the wrong thing. Her alpha-female tendencies, combined with her ability to curse like a sailor, is a major turn-off. This is not the story of an innocent girl getting dragged into the shadows of society. Naomi is already a bad girl and goes all too willingly into the darkest depths of pride, greed and self-interest.
Perhaps they thought audiences would be fooled into thinking Naomi was just a sweet, misunderstood girl by casting Elizabeth Berkley. Saved by the Bell had ended in 1993, but was still very popular in syndication, so the news of her being cast in a stripper movie caused quite a stir. On Bell, she was a smart, hard-nosed feminist who only ever had an issue with caffeine pills one episode, so her role in Showgirls was the polar opposite of what everyone was used to seeing her as. I can understand wanting to break away from type-casting but this certainly wasn’t the way to do it. Just like her character, Berkley is trying too hard to prove something to us and to herself. This leaves viewers with more awkward and amusing moments than anything else.
If Verhoeven is trying confront us with the grim realities of the Las Vegas entertainment industry, artistic and adult, he may have succeeded. If it’s in any way accurate, it paints a bleak picture of Vegas on the whole. But all the catty behavior, wild mood swings and hedonistic decisions are all too much to be real. Sure, there may indeed be a dark side of being a showgirl but I have to think that it is much less bipolar than what is on display in this film.
The script is pretty awful, throwing sexual puns and double entendres around like candy. You can almost see the actors rolling their eyes as they deliver their ridiculous lines. Only Berkley seems truly committed to her performance, thinking it will break her of her past and pave the way for future success. We all know how that turned out.
You can’t help but compare Showgirls to other backstage dramas. The Broadway Melody showed us the ins and outs of Broadway musicals in the 1920s. All About Eve showed us the drive it takes to succeed and usurp in theatre in the 1950s. And then there’s Showgirls with its strippers and skanks. There are countless other films about rising to the top of any given industry, so I guess a film about showgirls was inevitable. That doesn’t mean it was necessary though. If you happen to watch this stinker of a film, you’ll quickly find out that it wasn’t.
Sure enough, Cristal and her boyfriend (Kyle MacLachlan) turn up in Naomi’s strip club the next night. Both are impressed by her and give her an audition as a background performer in Cristal’s show. Naomi swiftly learns the ins and outs of being a showgirl as well as the dark secrets to success. Friendships and rivalries blur together as Naomi becomes determined to become the top star in Vegas, whatever the cost.
So many films have been made around the concept of the “dark side of the industry” that it’s nearly impossible to keep track of them all. It also makes it very difficult for a new film taking that same angle to make itself standout. Showgirls does so by fully embracing the presumed negative stigma of an NC-17 rating. In some ways, this makes sense. How can you realistically showcase the underbelly of Las Vegas and the sadistic backstage antics of showgirls without nudity and vulgarity?
The trouble is that director Paul Verhoeven doesn’t seem to understand the concepts of restraint and moderation. (This is, after all, the man who gave us the ultra-violence of RoboCop and the hyper-sexuality of Basic Instinct.) While I believe that some nudity and swearing are appropriate for certain films when used artistically or for dramatic or comedic impact, the gratuitous use of either is a detriment to a film. Showgirls isn’t just gratuitous with its sexual content and vulgarity, it’s downright gluttonous.
This brings about a critical problem for any film. Determined as she may be to succeed, Naomi is a despicable person. Sure, she’s a victim of circumstance, having to work in a strip club and all, but she comes to embrace her job and wields her sex appeal like a weapon. She uses sex and sexuality for personal gain and revenge. If she were just a little rough around the edges, she might get more sympathy from audiences. But instead, she’s liable to turn on a dime and shove a knife to your throat if you say the wrong thing. Her alpha-female tendencies, combined with her ability to curse like a sailor, is a major turn-off. This is not the story of an innocent girl getting dragged into the shadows of society. Naomi is already a bad girl and goes all too willingly into the darkest depths of pride, greed and self-interest.
Perhaps they thought audiences would be fooled into thinking Naomi was just a sweet, misunderstood girl by casting Elizabeth Berkley. Saved by the Bell had ended in 1993, but was still very popular in syndication, so the news of her being cast in a stripper movie caused quite a stir. On Bell, she was a smart, hard-nosed feminist who only ever had an issue with caffeine pills one episode, so her role in Showgirls was the polar opposite of what everyone was used to seeing her as. I can understand wanting to break away from type-casting but this certainly wasn’t the way to do it. Just like her character, Berkley is trying too hard to prove something to us and to herself. This leaves viewers with more awkward and amusing moments than anything else.
If Verhoeven is trying confront us with the grim realities of the Las Vegas entertainment industry, artistic and adult, he may have succeeded. If it’s in any way accurate, it paints a bleak picture of Vegas on the whole. But all the catty behavior, wild mood swings and hedonistic decisions are all too much to be real. Sure, there may indeed be a dark side of being a showgirl but I have to think that it is much less bipolar than what is on display in this film.
The script is pretty awful, throwing sexual puns and double entendres around like candy. You can almost see the actors rolling their eyes as they deliver their ridiculous lines. Only Berkley seems truly committed to her performance, thinking it will break her of her past and pave the way for future success. We all know how that turned out.
You can’t help but compare Showgirls to other backstage dramas. The Broadway Melody showed us the ins and outs of Broadway musicals in the 1920s. All About Eve showed us the drive it takes to succeed and usurp in theatre in the 1950s. And then there’s Showgirls with its strippers and skanks. There are countless other films about rising to the top of any given industry, so I guess a film about showgirls was inevitable. That doesn’t mean it was necessary though. If you happen to watch this stinker of a film, you’ll quickly find out that it wasn’t.
RATING: 0.75 out of 5
