databank said:

I'm glad to see some love for the film here, because I think it's a masterpiece

According to Tyka it was -

Seriously, as a former dancer I loved the movie but it's sometimes too real. Dancers doing coke to stay toned and humiliating auditions, I've seen all that in real life and it wasn't glamorous.

databank said:

Now something much, much more puzzling did happen some years later, in 2001: my mom died from cancer and she spent the last few days of her life, and died in... room 319! I was like WTF?! Now if someone can explain that to me!

violetcrush said:

EB had no career after that film

That really depends on how you define "career". EB is an actress. She continued to act after Showgirls, in movies and television. People wrongly equate "career" with being a household name or super famous or on magazines every week. It's simply not true.

I interviewed Dave Holmes, formerly of MTV's Say What? Karaoke. Within a year of our interview (just as a timeline), he happened to do a Ford commercial. A few people gave him crap about doing a TV ad. He got on YouTube or wherever and said, "Guys, I'm a TV personality. I talk, I comb my hair to be seen, I read text or a script. It's what I do. So when I did the Ford ad, I'm doing my job. This is what I do." The same goes for an actor. Remember when a film star doing TV seemed to be the bottom of the barrel work? They were still acting - they were simply doing what they have formed their lives to do - they are acting.

So EB working in a lesser role in a TV series, or having a smaller part in a Woody Allen film is just her still doing what she did before Saved By The Bell - she's acting. She's doing her job.

By the way, Tiffani-Amber Theissen (sp) went through years of drugs and being arrested, and now she's doing a cooking show on the Cooking Channel. Mark-Paul did what before NYPD Blue or Franklin & Bash? Can anyone name was Lark did after SBTB? Lopez built a career on his muscles, but he wasn't winning any Golden Globes for his post-Slater years.

The point is that yes, EB suffered a bit after Showgirls, but she's doing quite alright.

CatB said:

databank said:

Seriously, as a former dancer I loved the movie but it's sometimes too real. Dancers doing coke to stay toned and humiliating auditions, I've seen all that in real life and it wasn't glamorous.

How can it be too real?

I don't know that it's glamorous. I mean there's a dramatic/epic dimension to it, it describes a world that pretends to be glamorous and looks like it from the outside so yeah, it has glamorous aspects to it, but the reality it depicts is, for the most part, awful and disgusting.

TrivialPursuit said:

violetcrush said:

EB had no career after that film

That really depends on how you define "career". EB is an actress. She continued to act after Showgirls, in movies and television. People wrongly equate "career" with being a household name or super famous or on magazines every week. It's simply not true.

I interviewed Dave Holmes, formerly of MTV's Say What? Karaoke. Within a year of our interview (just as a timeline), he happened to do a Ford commercial. A few people gave him crap about doing a TV ad. He got on YouTube or wherever and said, "Guys, I'm a TV personality. I talk, I comb my hair to be seen, I read text or a script. It's what I do. So when I did the Ford ad, I'm doing my job. This is what I do." The same goes for an actor. Remember when a film star doing TV seemed to be the bottom of the barrel work? They were still acting - they were simply doing what they have formed their lives to do - they are acting.

So EB working in a lesser role in a TV series, or having a smaller part in a Woody Allen film is just her still doing what she did before Saved By The Bell - she's acting. She's doing her job.

By the way, Tiffani-Amber Theissen (sp) went through years of drugs and being arrested, and now she's doing a cooking show on the Cooking Channel. Mark-Paul did what before NYPD Blue or Franklin & Bash? Can anyone name was Lark did after SBTB? Lopez built a career on his muscles, but he wasn't winning any Golden Globes for his post-Slater years.

The point is that yes, EB suffered a bit after Showgirls, but she's doing quite alright.

I should have stated that differently. I think it negatively affected her career in that, going forward, she would not have a shot at more prominent roles. It's also possible that had she chosen another film she still would not have had larger film roles. Can't know for sure, but the nature of the film caused problems for her. Even Demi Moore, who had many prominent film roles under her belt by the time she made Strip Tease, had a bit of trouble after making that film, which was released just one year after Showgirls. The film was a flop, but Demi was paid 12.5 mill.

*

Maybe the lesson there is that films about strippers don't usually do well with critics and audiences??

*

I don't think we can compare actors' careers being afffected by bad film choices and drug addiction. Two completely different things. Many actors - both A-list or less - have come back from addictions.

databank said:

CatB said:

How can it be too real?

I don't know that it's glamorous. I mean there's a dramatic/epic dimension to it, it describes a world that pretends to be glamorous and looks like it from the outside so yeah, it has glamorous aspects to it, but the reality it depicts is, for the most part, awful and disgusting.

Exactly for that reason I said it's too real. Cause I know that world all too well and that's why I can't enjoy the movie just like other movies. To me it's not "just a movie".

CatB said:

databank said:

Exactly for that reason I said it's too real. Cause I know that world all too well and that's why I can't enjoy the movie just like other movies. To me it's not "just a movie".

I see. Well, it's another argument in favor of the film's greatness. If it makes you uncomfortable, it's that it works all too well.

violetcrush said:

I should have stated that differently. I think it negatively affected her career in that, going forward, she would not have a shot at more prominent roles. .... Even Demi Moore, who had many prominent film roles under her belt by the time she made Striptease, had a bit of trouble after making that film...

*

Maybe the lesson there is that films about strippers don't usually do well with critics and audiences??

Good points. EB was dropped by her agent, etc., after the hullabaloo around the film. The makers of Striptease worked hard to distance themselves from Showgirls in theme and tried to market it differently.

I think the lesson is often missed in cases like this. The lesson isn't that the film is about strippers or dancers or Vegas acts. The lesson is that men and society at large are still trying to control women's bodies. There are more laws and restrictions against women's bodies than men's, by 100:1. Women are taught that their bodies are equally desirable and controllable. "You can be sexy, but only when we say so and how we say so." Add to that the U.S.'s penchant for ignoring sexuality in general or trying to politicize it, and it was doomed from the start, despite the script or acting. Same with Demi's film. But still, to get a film made like that in the mid-90s was a feat.

TrivialPursuit said:

violetcrush said:

I should have stated that differently. I think it negatively affected her career in that, going forward, she would not have a shot at more prominent roles. .... Even Demi Moore, who had many prominent film roles under her belt by the time she made Striptease, had a bit of trouble after making that film...

*

Maybe the lesson there is that films about strippers don't usually do well with critics and audiences??

Good points. EB was dropped by her agent, etc., after the hullabaloo around the film. The makers of Striptease worked hard to distance themselves from Showgirls in theme and tried to market it differently.

I think the lesson is often missed in cases like this. The lesson isn't that the film is about strippers or dancers or Vegas acts. The lesson is that men and society at large are still trying to control women's bodies. There are more laws and restrictions against women's bodies than men's, by 100:1. Women are taught that their bodies are equally desirable and controllable. "You can be sexy, but only when we say so and how we say so." Add to that the U.S.'s penchant for ignoring sexuality in general or trying to politicize it, and it was doomed from the start, despite the script or acting. Same with Demi's film. But still, to get a film made like that in the mid-90s was a feat.

Both films were panned in Europe, too. Striptease, however, from what I recall, was truly terrible, at least that was my impression back then but it was 22 years ago...

.

Showgirls on the other hand was clearly misunderstood: people assumed from the begining it was a mere exploitation film and refused to see any more to it than that. I know George Romero's "dead" series, as well as the first Evil Dead and most horror classics such as the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre are often misunderstood like that by some casual viewers, who expect a dumb horror film and fail to see anything else in those masterworks.

.

But like some said above, Showgirls has been rediscovered and is now enjoying a much more positive reception. Sometimes it takes a while. I guess in the mid 90's we'd been through so many "sexploitation thrillers" that critics and audience alike were just suspiscious towards any film that was marketed as such, and unfortunately Showgirls was marketed as such, not at all as an arthouse drama. I myself was extremely surprised at how smart it was when I first saw it in the theatre: I had loved Basic Instincts but the marketing of Showgirls hadn't given me high hopes.

.

Showgirls is a moral tale first and foremost. It's about ambition, greed, lust, power, fame and how far one is willing to compromise their principles to enjoy the glamorous life (or the illusion of it). Particularly remarkable is that this Las Vegas world, despite all the money, is depicted as being, in fact, quite cheap: it's not Hollywood and its stars and studio moguls, it's not the MTV Music Awards world of pop stars and producers, it's not even Broadway because it's not even arts: in the end it's just strip-tease bars, only some are more expensive than others. Nothing very exciting about it. And yet, this cheap version of fame and wealth is enough to drive some people crazy.

.

Another film from that same time that was highly misunderstood was Waterworld: for some reason people seemed to expect something deep à la Blade Runner and said it was just dumb action, but at the end of the day it was a comic bookish, cartoonish, pulp, postapocalyptic epic in the vein of Mad Max 2, highly enjoyable as long as you accepted not to take it too seriously.

databank said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Good points. EB was dropped by her agent, etc., after the hullabaloo around the film. The makers of Striptease worked hard to distance themselves from Showgirls in theme and tried to market it differently.

I think the lesson is often missed in cases like this. The lesson isn't that the film is about strippers or dancers or Vegas acts. The lesson is that men and society at large are still trying to control women's bodies. There are more laws and restrictions against women's bodies than men's, by 100:1. Women are taught that their bodies are equally desirable and controllable. "You can be sexy, but only when we say so and how we say so." Add to that the U.S.'s penchant for ignoring sexuality in general or trying to politicize it, and it was doomed from the start, despite the script or acting. Same with Demi's film. But still, to get a film made like that in the mid-90s was a feat.

Both films were panned in Europe, too. Striptease, however, from what I recall, was truly terrible, at least that was my impression back then but it was 22 years ago...

.

Showgirls on the other hand was clearly misunderstood: people assumed from the begining it was a mere exploitation film and refused to see any more to it than that. I know George Romero's "dead" series, as well as the first Evil Dead and most horror classics such as the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre are often misunderstood like that by some casual viewers, who expect a dumb horror film and fail to see anything else in those masterworks.

.

But like some said above, Showgirls has been rediscovered and is now enjoying a much more positive reception. Sometimes it takes a while. I guess in the mid 90's we'd been through so many "sexploitation thrillers" that critics and audience alike were just suspiscious towards any film that was marketed as such, and unfortunately Showgirls was marketed as such, not at all as an arthouse drama. I myself was extremely surprised at how smart it was when I first saw it in the theatre: I had loved Basic Instincts but the marketing of Showgirls hadn't given me high hopes.

.

Showgirls is a moral tale first and foremost. It's about ambition, greed, lust, power, fame and how far one is willing to compromise their principles to enjoy the glamorous life (or the illusion of it). Particularly remarkable is that this Las Vegas world, despite all the money, is depicted as being, in fact, quite cheap: it's not Hollywood and its stars and studio moguls, it's not the MTV Music Awards world of pop stars and producers, it's not even Broadway because it's not even arts: in the end it's just strip-tease bars, only some are more expensive than others. Nothing very exciting about it. And yet, this cheap version of fame and wealth is enough to drive some people crazy.

.

Another film from that same time that was highly misunderstood was Waterworld: for some reason people seemed to expect something deep à la Blade Runner and said it was just dumb action, but at the end of the day it was a comic bookish, cartoonish, pulp, postapocalyptic epic in the vein of Mad Max 2, highly enjoyable as long as you accepted not to take it too seriously.

I think, possibly the reason why Showgirls was lambasted is because most already were aware that Vegas was/is not "artistic" performing - that it was just sex being sold to men. So, then it became just an average film without much discovery of anything new - ie: just actors getting paid to demonstrate, via a bad script, what we already knew about Vegas. Just a thought...

like Prince's movies...u may hate it ..but the comedy is off the hook

violetcrush said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

IT’s a terrible movie, but it’s so well made. Verhoven is a good director, so all the technical stuff is amazing. The cinematography is amazing. The women are amazing to look at. The script and story...are awful. But now it feels campy and fun. It’s The glossiest, most technically proficient D-Movie ever made. [Edited 11/18/18 13:30pm]

Yes, it's become a "cult classic" film, which is in a very different category than a "classic" film.

violetcrush said:

I remember reading in "E!" magazine that P saw the upcoming trailer (for "Showgirls") in a Minneapolis movie theater..They said he enjoyed the trailer so much that he got up, ran to the projection booth and made them replay it a few times. Then he had his people reach out to the director and asked if he could contribute some material........I do remember the fallout and backlash towards EB after the film was released...I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

TrivialPursuit said:

violetcrush said:

Trivial, I'm torn because of the timing. I'm thinking the Rm 319 in the film and Prince's song are too much of a coincidence. Okay, some of my detective work:

[els snip]

I think Prince may have written and recorded those songs for the film, or chosen them because they fit the storyline.

The timing has weight because people are giving it weight. It's a 'yeah, but", nothing more. Because the "timeline" fit doesn't mean it's inherently evidential to the argument. It's like playing Dark Side of The Moon to The Wizard of Oz and thinking there is a deeper meaning. It's a funky coinkydink, but it's not enough to be convincing.

You believe it's just a random thing that her room number is 319? No possible way. It may have been as simple as them changing the room number in post production to tie in with the song. But it's not a coincidence.

sro100 said:

TrivialPursuit said:

The timing has weight because people are giving it weight. It's a 'yeah, but", nothing more. Because the "timeline" fit doesn't mean it's inherently evidential to the argument. It's like playing Dark Side of The Moon to The Wizard of Oz and thinking there is a deeper meaning. It's a funky coinkydink, but it's not enough to be convincing.

You believe it's just a random thing that her room number is 319? No possible way. It may have been as simple as them changing the room number in post production to tie in with the song. But it's not a coincidence.

I never said that. Him giving them songs for the movie obviously influenced the room number. It was a nod back to him.

SPYZFAN1 said:

I remember reading in "E!" magazine that P saw the upcoming trailer (for "Showgirls") in a Minneapolis movie theater..They said he enjoyed the trailer so much that he got up, ran to the projection booth and made them replay it a few times. Then he had his people reach out to the director and asked if he could contribute some material........I do remember the fallout and backlash towards EB after the film was released...I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

Yeah, he said when it premiered and he saw it for the first time he realized how bad it was.

SPYZFAN1 said:

I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

I was absolutely gobsmacked. I said, “This is horrible. Horrible!” And it’s a very slow, sinking feeling when you’re watching the movie, and the first scene comes out, and you’re like, “Oh, that’s a really bad scene.” But you say, “Well, that’s okay, the next one’ll be better.” And you somehow try to convince yourself that it’s going to get better… and it just gets worse. And I was like, “Wow. That was crazy.” I mean, I really didn’t see that coming. So at that point, I distanced myself from the movie. Now, of course, it has a whole other life as a sort of inadvertent… satire. No, “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.

more here

SPYZFAN1 said:

I remember reading in "E!" magazine that P saw the upcoming trailer (for "Showgirls") in a Minneapolis movie theater..They said he enjoyed the trailer so much that he got up, ran to the projection booth and made them replay it a few times. Then he had his people reach out to the director and asked if he could contribute some material........I do remember the fallout and backlash towards EB after the film was released...I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

Interesting but a little hard to believe. Is E Magazine a reliable source? (never heard of it)

databank said:

SPYZFAN1 said:

I remember reading in "E!" magazine that P saw the upcoming trailer (for "Showgirls") in a Minneapolis movie theater..They said he enjoyed the trailer so much that he got up, ran to the projection booth and made them replay it a few times. Then he had his people reach out to the director and asked if he could contribute some material........I do remember the fallout and backlash towards EB after the film was released...I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

Interesting but a little hard to believe. Is E Magazine a reliable source? (never heard of it)

An entertainment rag...

purplethunder3121 said:

databank said:

Interesting but a little hard to believe. Is E Magazine a reliable source? (never heard of it)

An entertainment rag...

So I guess not

SPYZFAN1 said:

I remember reading in "E!" magazine that P saw the upcoming trailer (for "Showgirls") in a Minneapolis movie theater..They said he enjoyed the trailer so much that he got up, ran to the projection booth and made them replay it a few times. Then he had his people reach out to the director and asked if he could contribute some material........I do remember the fallout and backlash towards EB after the film was released...I read somewhere that co-star Kyle Maclachlan supposedly has distanced himself from the film and refuses to talk about it.

I can absolutely see Prince doing this. It's well known that he would close theaters down so he and his crew could watch movies in peace. This film would totally satisfy the "voyeur" in him - I mean, after all, he does thank "Voyeurism" under the "thank yous" on his D&P album

*

I can also understand why Kyle M distanced himself from the film. After the cool quirkiness of Twin Peaks he was sort of the "it" guy. Here's what Wiki says about his opinion of the film:

*

In 1995, MacLachlan starred in Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls. The movie was heavily panned by critics^[23] and it collected a record seven Golden Raspberry Awards.^[24] MacLachlan recalls that when he watched Showgirls for the first time before the premiere, he thought it was "horrible". But he later realised that the movie was "inadvertently funny" and embraced for its campiness.^[20][25] According to MacLachlan, although he skipped the movie's press tour, he had sat through the whole screening, contrary to reports that he walked out.^[25]

"E!" (Entertainment Magazine) is a popular U.S. publication...they own the "E!" network channel too...Read many cool stories about P in the late 80's and 90's in their mag...I wouldn't lump them in with the "trash rags" like "The Star", "The Globe" or "The National Enquirer".

SPYZFAN1 said:

"E!" (Entertainment Magazine) is a popular U.S. publication...they own the "E!" network channel too...Read many cool stories about P in the late 80's and 90's in their mag...I wouldn't lump them in with the "trash rags" like "The Star", "The Globe" or "The National Enquirer".

Yes, the E mag has more clout than the crappy trash rags. It's more about the upcoming projects/records of actors and musicians - not the "Kim Kardashian Cheats On Kanye" type stories.

NouveauDance said:

I forget but I thought that part about being inspired by her dancing was in the CB booklet about Ripopgodazipa? Either way it's bunk I'd say, some of the self-perpetuated origin stories of certain songs are just that, stories. See also 'Cream'. I think it's just part of the self-made mystique sometimes.

Agreed.

kewlschool said:

NouveauDance said:

I forget but I thought that part about being inspired by her dancing was in the CB booklet about Ripopgodazipa? Either way it's bunk I'd say, some of the self-perpetuated origin stories of certain songs are just that, stories. See also 'Cream'. I think it's just part of the self-made mystique sometimes.

Agreed.

For Ripopgodazippa, the CB booklet states that it was inspired by "an episode on my weight bench"...

*

"This bench that I normally use for the weights
My girl, she lay me down and try my soul to take
And devilish this night she was before as I'm laying there
She take it all the way down her throat, right down to the hair
She wouldn't move a muscle for what seemed like days
My heart stop beating and I died this way"

*

Wowza!! Who else, but Prince, could describe getting a blow job like this??!!

*

For 319, Prince stated "Elizabeth Berkely" when he was asked what inspired the song.

*

I believe Prince's story about Cream too - the whole "I wrote this when I was looking in the mirror" bit, because while recently watching the old video of him performing this on the Arsenio Hall show in '91, he actually held his hand up in front of his face as though he was looking in the mirror. This was well before he made that comment about the song.

*

No question that he often liked to create the mystique or drama, but I think he was honest with his music and lyrics most of the time.

[Edited 11/20/18 5:28am]

violetcrush said:

violetcrush said:

kewlschool said:

Agreed.

I believe Prince's story about Cream too - the whole "I wrote this when I was looking in the mirror" bit, because while recently watching the old video of him performing this on the Arsenio Hall show in '91, he actually held his hand up in front of his face as though he was looking in the mirror. This was well before he made that comment about the song.

Guys, seriously. The mirror thing is a metaphor. He wasn't literally looking at himself in the mirror

But yeah, of course Prince was talking about himself in Cream (as well as in Daddy Pop), it didn't take the 2004 statement to realize this.

databank said:

violetcrush said:

I believe Prince's story about Cream too - the whole "I wrote this when I was looking in the mirror" bit, because while recently watching the old video of him performing this on the Arsenio Hall show in '91, he actually held his hand up in front of his face as though he was looking in the mirror. This was well before he made that comment about the song.

Guys, seriously. The mirror thing is a metaphor. He wasn't literally looking at himself in the mirror

But yeah, of course Prince was talking about himself in Cream (as well as in Daddy Pop), it didn't take the 2004 statement to realize this.

Yes, of course it's a metaphor!!! My point was more to the fact that Prince first made the comment about writing the song "while I was lookng in the mirror" during the 2004 VH-1 accoustic set, but during the 1991 performance of the song on the Arsenio Hall show he mimicked looking at himself in the mirror - as reference that he wrote the somg about himself, or a discussion with himself.

*

He references it again during the last P&M show by stopping the song and saying "every once in awhile you got to have a conversation with yourself". Then a bit later in the song he says "seriously, when you go home tonight look at yourself in the mirror and say these things to yourself"...or something close to those words. He had the crowd laughing. Great moment.