Casino Hille hat geschrieben: Neben deinen (auch sprachlich) großartigen Ausführungen zu dem Film, möchte ich noch darauf verweisen, dass Showgirls definitiv (ob man das dann mag oder nicht, ist eine andere Frage!) als Satire auf sexuelle Objektifizierung zu sehen ist. Zentral dafür ist ein Dialog des Films, den ich daher kurz zitieren möchte
Danke für die Blumen!
Ich sehe es auch so, dass die Objektifizierung einer der zentralen Aspekte ist. Das wird wie ich finde auch in meinem Showgirls-Lieblingszitat bestens wiedergespiegelt:
„First I get you used to the money, then I make you swallow.”
Und “schlucken” müssen ja nahezu alle Figuren auf die eine oder ander Weise.
Casino Hille hat geschrieben:Ich halte den Film für unterschätzt.
Ich denke das ist er auch fraglos, egal ob man ihn nun besonders gut findet oder unterm Strich als gescheitert ansieht. Aber generell unterschätzt ist er schon deswegen, da er gemeinhin lediglich auf den Exploitationpart reduziert wird. Obwohl Verhoeven wohl einer der intellektuellsten Filmemacher in Hollywood war, unterstellte ihm Kritik und Publikum eine reine Fleischbeschau ohne Hintergedanken „verbrochen“ zu haben. Wie ich ja bereits geschrieben habe tue auch ich mich bis heute damit schwer, seine Intention und teilweise auch den „Gehalt“ des Films zu erkennen bzw. zu destillieren in all der überzeichneten Extravaganz. Aber wenn man den Film mit offenen Augen und halbwegs wachem Geist anschaut lässt sich dies durchaus erkennen, unabhängig davon, ob nun gelungen oder nicht.
Die von dir und mir ebenfalls bereits angesprochene handwerkliche Qualität des Films lässt ihn wie ich finde eh über seinen Status als „Trash“ erhaben sein. Aber eigentlich ist das Schicksal des Films nicht wirklich verwunderlich, da Verhoeven es gerade in seiner Zeit in Hollywood sehr gut verstand den Tiefgang seiner Filme gut unter der ersten Zugangsebene zu verstecken, wodurch sein großer Erfolg erst möglich wurde (was aber auch zur Konsequenz hatte, dass vielen Liebhabern seiner Filme der Subtext komplett verborgen blieb, siehe Starship Troopers). In Showgirls ist das vermutlich sogar noch mehr der Fall aufgrund der bereits angesprochenen Tatsache, dass Vegas „in echt“ eben bereits maßlos überzeichnet ist. Verhoeven hatte wohl auch das Glück, in genau der richtigen Phase in Hollywood zu arbeiten, da zum einen die Ära der überlebensgroßen Actionstars und Filme ihm ermöglichten seine satirische Ader in vollen Zügen auszuleben und zum anderen er mit Carolco genau das richtige Studio im Rücken hatte, die seine Exzentrik bewusst und im ganz großen Rahmen förderte. Schwer vorstellbar, das jemand wie Verhoeven heutzutage in Hollywood noch den Status erreichen könnte, wo (vermeintliche) Kontrolle durch die Studios und Vorhersehbarkeit oberste Prioritäten sind.
Casino Hille hat geschrieben: Anatol, vielleicht ist dieser Artikel was für dich?
Vielen Dank für den Link! Eine sehr schönes Essay, die Idee der zentralen Bedeutung der Sex-Szenen klingt völlig logisch. Sehr schön finde ich auch den Schlussavsatz, der den ganzen Film perfekt zusammenfasst und auch deinen Gedanken bezüglich der Objektifizierung teilt:
Everyone in Showgirls is selling themselves like a cheaply-made but attractively designed product, and success comes with a price that not all (like James and Penny) are willing to pay. Whether or not you're willing to pay that price is irrelevant because you're getting fucked regardless.
Schade, dass es von Verhoeven keinen Audiokommentar zu Showgirls gibt, da die Kommentare zu seinen anderen Filmen äusserst ergiebig (und extrem unterhaltsam) sind. Immerhin gibt es auf imdb.com jede Menge wie ich finde sehr erhellender Zitate von Old Paul über Showgirls:
[on casting Showgirls (1995)] Charlize [Charlize Theron] also auditioned [for the lead], and I don't recall her having any problem with the nudity at all. She was good and wanted the part, but basically she was not well known enough at the time and just did not fit the part, so we said no. I have full respect for Charlize, but if she had been offered the part then she would probably have been chewed up in the same way they treated Elizabeth. She was very lucky that she did not get the part. 
[on attending the Razzies for Showgirls (1995)] I remember thinking 'nobody will expect it and it'll probably be unpleasant to do but why not, let's go and see what happens!' Nobody knew I was there at first and they kept playing scenes from the movie. Everybody was laughing, but when they started to give out the prizes, to their amazement, I stood up to collect them! (...) I had to walk up there seven times that night. I got Worst Director, Worst Movie, Worst Music, Worst Acting and it just went on...it was absolutely fantastic because by the end of the evening people were screaming and laughing and clapping, it was a really great experience for me. (...) On this occasion, I think attending the Razzies and 'turning the other cheek' was absolutely the right thing to do because it was like a catharsis for me and felt like the end of the whole negative spiral, like it had all been wiped away. As soon as I came out of that room I felt purified in some way. 
Nearly every character in the movie is a bad person except for one girl, Molly, and she is the one who gets raped. Molly is the only really genuinely supportive person and she is punished. The reason I did this was to show that Vegas is not a nice place and that is basically what the movie is all about. It is possible 'Showgirls' was lacking in closure. Even some of my closest collaborators felt that way and have said they thought the rape scene took the fun out of the movie.
We did exactly what we intended to do and we didn't stop at anything, we just went for it. There was never any problem, we just did what we were had set out to do. There was never any question about the nudity and we actually had a very pleasant shoot and everybody thought we were making an interesting movie. In retrospect, Elizabeth may have regretted being so heavily involved with the movie and being so vulnerable to her critics, but when we did it we never had the feeling that this would happen. I've heard a lot of people criticizing Elizabeth's acting, but they criticized everything about the movie so we will never say we were shocked. Also, half of the audience only ever had their eyes below her face, so of course they would say that! Hollywood was pissed off with her because she went further than any actress has gone or will go and I think they have never forgiven her. Her performance pushed the limits and that worried them. They were just so shocked by the movie that they hated her. Elizabeth could only have recovered from the movie by being offered a very different role, but that just didn't happen for her otherwise she would have taken the job. New roles were never offered, so it was impossible for her to make a comeback.
Showgirls certainly ruined the career of Elizabeth Berkley in a major way. It made my life more difficult, but not to the degree it did Elizabeth's. Hollywood turned their backs on her. If somebody has to be blamed, it should be me because I thought that it was interesting to portray somebody like that. I had hoped the end of the movie would explain why she acted that way, when it's revealed she has convictions linked with drugs, but that too turned out to be a big mistake. I asked Elizabeth to do all that - to be abrupt and to act in that way, but people have been attacking her about for that ever since. I did consider that people would think she had a borderline personality, but that was because her character had history of drug abuse, so I tried to express that through her abruptness.
I believe the problem with 'Showgirls' has always been that there is still a misunderstanding of the movie. We were making a film that was hyperbolic and an exaggeration and so my intention was always to use a style that was exaggerated in everything. Still to this day it is widely considered a bad movie, but I think that's because people still don't understand it. I used exaggerated nudity, colors and movement. I was trying to make it as exaggerated as Las Vegas is in real life. That is why the musical numbers are as bad as they are - I purposely tried not to make good music in those scenes, but obviously that turned out to be a big mistake. The idea was to make the same loud, sleazy, bad music that you hear in those Vegas shows, because that's how it actually is. That might sound weird and it might have been a mistake in the end, but that was the original idea. I tried to do that with everything and might have failed miserably at conveying that to the audience. I never watch any of my movies once I finish them, but the one exception is 'Showgirls,' which I watch 20 times over and that is because I truly think it is so elegantly made. I think the movement is elegant, the way it is shot is elegant and the use of color is elegant. The story is really not that good, but I think the movements and the way it is choreographed are a pleasure to watch. Even after all the bad reviews and lack of enthusiasm from the audience, I've always really liked the movie and still do. It's nice to see that certain audiences are now more positive than they were 20 years ago. For me, that's a reason to be happy, but it's not the most important thing in my life.
It would have been much more acceptable if I had asked the writer, Joe Eszterhas, to write it as a murder mystery instead. Audiences would be intrigued by the thrill of finding out who the villain is; so if they asked me to do 'Showgirls' again, I would ask them to write the script where somebody gets killed at the beginning. I think the nudity in 'Showgirls' would have been more acceptable to the public if there had been an underlying theme of 'Who did this? Who is guilty?' In 'Basic Instinct' there are some very long sex scenes and they were only possible because all the while the audience is asking if Sharon is going to kill Michael and that was the setup of the movie.
[on Elizabeth Berkley] I never thought this continuous bashing of the movie and of Elizabeth would happen. We're sitting with these ruins in front of us. I realized with the nudity and the fact that critics are essentially Puritan that there would be backlash and anger, but I never thought the movie wouldn't do well. So I never accounted that she would be put in such a bad position and I feel terrible about it. If somebody is to blame it's Joe [Eszterhas] or me. I think she did exactly what we wanted and what we thought would be good. And apparently we failed. Her performance that everybody is so against is based on a character. The hate towards her character - an edgy, nearly psychotic character - is actually a compliment to her performance.
I would not do a 'Showgirls' remake - one movie was definitely enough! But we had actually been working on the sequel to 'Showgirls' which was going to be called 'Bimbos' and was going to be 'Nomi does Hollywood', but after 'Showgirls' was released there was no way anyone was going to give me money for that. If we could just make Elizabeth Berkley 20 years younger now I would love to make 'Bimbos' today. Absolutely, absolutely. I think the world is ready for more.
Interessant ist hier auch, dass Charlize Theron in der engeren Auswahl für die Nomi-Rolle war und Verhoeven (wohl mit recht) vermutet, dass Therons Karriere hätte sie die Rolle bekommen wohl ähnlich desaströs wie die von Berkley verlaufen wäre.