When "Henry and June" was slapped with an X rating in 1990 by the Motion Picture Association of America, its director (Philip Kaufman) and studio (Universal), aided by civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz, forced the adoption of a new rating, NC-17. The public had long associated an X rating with cheap pornography, something which "Henry and June" certainly was not. The NC-17 label was created for films that adults would allegedly go see if the stigma of the X rating was not attached: soft porn for discerning filmgoers.
Universal allowed "Henry and June" to be released with this new NC-17 rating in the hope that moviegoers would not notice, or not care about, its unusual (and highly publicized) rating. "Henry and June" bombed, and the stigma of the old X rating was quickly passed on to the "new and improved" NC-17. Ever since, no major Hollywood studio has dared release a film with the dreaded NC-17 rating.
Until now, that is. After director Paul Verhoeven was forced by the MPAA to make 9 cuts in "Basic Instinct" (1992) to achieve its R rating, he obviously didn't feel like dealing with the censors again. Somehow he managed to convince MGM/UA to back him up with his concept of an NC-17 movie about Las Vegas strippers, and they did. They must have assumed that there are enough horny men in America that would rather pay $6.50 to see a high-budget soft porn in a crowded theater than spend $3 to view a XXX video in the privacy of their own home. Risky assumption. However, for the time being, it seems to have payed off.
Because of all the hype, because of the industry significance, because I'm a supposed "film critic," and yes, because I'm a young male, I packed into the theater to see "Showgirls," the aforementioned NC-17 free-for-all. Was there nudity? Quite a lot. Full-frontal? Indeed. Male? Of course not, this is a movie for men, remember? Was there sex? Yes. Between women? Somewhat. Between men? Don't get ridiculous. Was there "bad" language? Yes. Was it a good movie? Not by any stretch of the imagination!
Crammed into the theater like sardines were countless numbers of sexually repressed men, immature adolescent boys with their older brothers' IDs, and a few straggling girls who must have been misinformed "Saved By The Bell" fans (that point will become apparent in a moment). You could taste the testosterone in that room, as well as the surrounding parking lot, where pick-up trucks and Mustangs were the most abundant vehicles (I'm not even joking). The audience participation ranged from hoots and hollers to catcalls and cries of "Take it off!" In other words, there was no range at all.
It's difficult to review the film itself seriously, because the whole experience shaped my final feelings about the movie. However, I can say this: Unless you absolutely must see naked females and have no other means of seeing them, please don't see "Showgirls."
The film opens with Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley, all grown up after TV's "Saved By The Bell") hitchhiking her way to Las Vegas to become a dancer in the casinos' expensive topless clubs, the ones that purport to be quality art and entertainment but are essentially no different than the sleazy ones. She ends up at a cheap strip club called The Cheetah, where she is discovered by an aging (though still gorgeous) Vegas superstar named Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon). Cristal orders a private lap-dance for her companion, the entertainment director of the Stardust Hotel, Zack Carey (Kyle MacLachlin of "Twin Peaks" fame). Cristal watches as Nomi performs for Zack. Not long after, Nomi gets a job at the Stardust in their huge topless production "Goddess," mainly because Cristal is the star and seems to like Nomi. The rest is a look at the seamy side of Vegas topless dancing through the eyes of Nomi, the hard-edged vixen who will stop at nothing to get ahead.
The story above sounds as if it would make a decent film, if only someone else had written it, someone else had directed it, and other actors starred in it. Paul Verhoeven reteams with his "Basic Instinct" scriptor, Joe Eszterhas, the most overrated writer in Hollywood today (he recently sold a one-page synopsis of an unwritten movie for several million dollars), to create a tasteless, boring, cheesy, unintelligent, and otherwise ridiculous movie. Eszterhas' script isn't lacking so much in the dialogue (a few extremely stupid people might actually talk like that) but in the plot itself. There is a subplot involving Nomi and a dance instructor that has no value in the story, as well as too much attention paid to Nomi's best friend, who must be the nicest person on Earth to offer to take Nomi in after her suitcase is stolen upon arrival in Las Vegas.
Elizabeth Berkley doesn't have much room here to show off any acting talents that she may have. Instead, she is forced to overact in order to compensate for the unbelievable mood swings and emotional fragility of Nomi. Kyle MacLachlan is decent, as is Alan Rachins (as the sleazy owner of The Cheetah who turns out to be a decent guy), but they also have nothing to work with. Gina Gershon is the only standout, playing Cristal with a conniving, glamorous flair. The only problem is that her relationship with Nomi is confusing, and at times downright bizarre. However, in a movie where everything else is awful, she somehow stands out.
Beyond that, "Showgirls" does not appear to even have any discernible theme. It ends just as it begins, with Nomi hitchhiking out of Vegas after she has made it to the top. What are we supposed to make of this? That after experiencing the underbelly of Vegas dancing, she has somehow become a better person and will now move on to bigger and better things? If that was the intent of the filmmakers, they failed miserably. Nomi, in my eyes, will never escape the cycle of stripping, prostitution, and drugs that has been her life for so long. Done correctly, that would have made a decent ending to an otherwise horrendous film. Instead, Verhoeven provides a cheesy optimistic outlook that takes what little edge the movie had right off, making a horrible rape scene seem trite and unnecessary. This could have been a good movie.
"Showgirls" will probably be at the top of the box-office this weekend, causing other studios to seriously consider NC-17 features. And hopefully somebody will craft a very good film and release it as NC-17, erasing the stigma that "Showgirls" serves to increase, for I have nothing against explicit nudity and sex or related themes (maybe I'm part-French). However, "Showgirls" is just plain awful, and once the initial frenzy of young males subsides, it will die a brutal death. But although "Henry and June" was a good film, "Showgirls" deserves to die. MR