What do you think?
Rate this book
Pop Classics #1
It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls
Enough time has passed since Showgirls flopped spectacularly that it’s time for a good, hard look back at the sequined spectacle. A salvage operation on a very public, very expensive train wreck, It Doesn’t Suck argues that Showgirls is much smarter and deeper than it is given credit for. In an accessible and entertaining voice, the book encourages a shift in critical perspective on Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls, analyzing the film, its reception, and rehabilitation. This in-depth study of a much-reviled movie is a must read for lovers and haters of the 1995 Razzie winner for Worst Picture.
196 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2014
18 people are currently reading
556 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
July 27, 2016
Comes out today!
Ahhhhh Showgirls...winner of just about every Razzie it was nominated for in 1995. Eight in total I think. Did it deserve the bad rap it got? Adam Nayman thinks no. What do I think? Probably not...but I am not a critic so I will leave that to the experts.
When Showgirls was first released on video- I was kind of excited. A glitzy movie about a Vegas Showgirl's rise to the top of the Showgirl hierarchy.
It had a wonderful poster...
It had two lovely and talented main female characters- Elizabeth Berkley- unknown to me at the time- I had never watched Saved by the Bell, and Gina Gershon- who I had previously watched in Bound- and thought she was wonderful.
It was written by Joe Eszterhas with movies under his belt like- Jagged Edge, Flashdance, and Basic Instinct. Directed by Paul Verhoeven famous in America for- The Fourth Man, RoboCop, Total Recall and Basic Instinct.
...and last but not least (in my eyes) -It had Kyle "That is a DAMN fine cup of coffee" MacLachlan aka Agent Cooper from Twin Peaks.
So where oh where did it go so horribly wrong? Did movie goers and critics take Showgirls too seriously? Was it actually a masterpiece of camp? Satire that was judged too harshly at first glance? Or did it just suck?
IT DOESN'T SUCK: SHOWGIRLS by Adam Nayman- sets out to convince the reader that Showgirls is somewhere in the middle- not the best movie out there...but not the worst either. A movie that didn't deserve the absolute panning it received. I tend to agree with him on most of his arguments, but I also disagreed with him on a few as well. I almost abandoned this in the first chapter- because I was worried maybe it was going to be waaaaaaaaaay beyond my knowledge of movies- with all his references to French critics and French directors, but he quickly snapped out of it. This book probably won't change a lot of minds- in my opinion- If you hated Showgirls and thought it was a piece of crap- you probably won't be swayed to the other side- but it is an interesting read with some fascinating stories and tidbits about the making of this controversial film.
Thank you and goodnight ladies and gentlemen- Elvis has left the building!
*I received an advanced readers copy of this book on First-reads.
September 2, 2014
Toronto critic Adam Nayman's defense of the artistic merit of Showgirls is a noble pursuit, because even the cult audience it finally attained is wrong about it.
First things first, Susan Sontag's definition of "camp" has, in my view, lost its relevance in recent decades. If camp was once defined as a work that's so bad it's good, it now denotes a self-conscious jokey style. In camp, gags aren't allowed to unfold as straightforward drama. They're underlined with a wink and a nod and an irritating "isn't this wild?" flamboyance. Showgirls has been adopted by this circuit, as though it were TV's Glee, a Charlie's Angels movie, or the training sequences in Kill Bill: Volume 2, all of which fit the modern 2014 understanding of camp.
But calling Showgirls camp is as blind a misreading as the film's initial critical dismissal. It's startling because it really isn't a complicated movie. Or, its technique is complicated, but its overall aim is clear. Nayman does a good job of illustrating how audiences may have been misled by the Verhoeven/Eszterhas habit of revelling in the behaviour they seem to condemn--to declare the film either intelligent or stupid is to miss half the picture. By necessity, it's both those things.
It's just hard to imagine how a thinking audience can miss the cultural-disgust that's central to the movie (was its Fall 1995 release when thoughtful criticism finally made way for an era of pure snark?) The view of soul-sick America is a continuation of threads begun in director Verhoeven's RoboCop and continuing into Starship Troopers. Aspiring dancer Nomi (Elizabeth Berkley) hitches to Vegas, and learns to survive in a world populated by a**holes by becoming one.
Ascending the food chain of Vegas "dancers" (she's repeatedly seen scarfing down fast food, subsisting on a diet of corporate cancer) becomes a lesson in underhand dealing and backstabbing. Berkley's plastic look and performance were criticized, but she's absolutely as good as Showgirls demands her to be, an emblem slowly losing her humanity.
In questioning the film's poison reception, though, Nayman loses sight of the simple truth: Showgirls for all its glitz, nudity and trashy dialogue is often deeply unpleasant to sit through. Verhoeven and Eszterhas knowingly pile on scenes of human degradation in the movie's first half, as though they're making an American pop culture equivalent to Pasolini's Salo. It's a movie that lives in extremes, and doesn't care if you like it. (Frankly, many of its more straightforward attempts at humour fall flat.)
What Nayman's book does right is express that while Showgirls is no buried masterpiece, it continues to not be given the benefit of serious consideration. Had that happened years ago, big budget movies would be more interesting, and might have reason to think more highly of us.
First things first, Susan Sontag's definition of "camp" has, in my view, lost its relevance in recent decades. If camp was once defined as a work that's so bad it's good, it now denotes a self-conscious jokey style. In camp, gags aren't allowed to unfold as straightforward drama. They're underlined with a wink and a nod and an irritating "isn't this wild?" flamboyance. Showgirls has been adopted by this circuit, as though it were TV's Glee, a Charlie's Angels movie, or the training sequences in Kill Bill: Volume 2, all of which fit the modern 2014 understanding of camp.
But calling Showgirls camp is as blind a misreading as the film's initial critical dismissal. It's startling because it really isn't a complicated movie. Or, its technique is complicated, but its overall aim is clear. Nayman does a good job of illustrating how audiences may have been misled by the Verhoeven/Eszterhas habit of revelling in the behaviour they seem to condemn--to declare the film either intelligent or stupid is to miss half the picture. By necessity, it's both those things.
It's just hard to imagine how a thinking audience can miss the cultural-disgust that's central to the movie (was its Fall 1995 release when thoughtful criticism finally made way for an era of pure snark?) The view of soul-sick America is a continuation of threads begun in director Verhoeven's RoboCop and continuing into Starship Troopers. Aspiring dancer Nomi (Elizabeth Berkley) hitches to Vegas, and learns to survive in a world populated by a**holes by becoming one.
Ascending the food chain of Vegas "dancers" (she's repeatedly seen scarfing down fast food, subsisting on a diet of corporate cancer) becomes a lesson in underhand dealing and backstabbing. Berkley's plastic look and performance were criticized, but she's absolutely as good as Showgirls demands her to be, an emblem slowly losing her humanity.
In questioning the film's poison reception, though, Nayman loses sight of the simple truth: Showgirls for all its glitz, nudity and trashy dialogue is often deeply unpleasant to sit through. Verhoeven and Eszterhas knowingly pile on scenes of human degradation in the movie's first half, as though they're making an American pop culture equivalent to Pasolini's Salo. It's a movie that lives in extremes, and doesn't care if you like it. (Frankly, many of its more straightforward attempts at humour fall flat.)
What Nayman's book does right is express that while Showgirls is no buried masterpiece, it continues to not be given the benefit of serious consideration. Had that happened years ago, big budget movies would be more interesting, and might have reason to think more highly of us.
Read
August 27, 2025I love Showgirls! I’m a devoted believer that those who consider Showgirls to be “the worst movie ever” either need to 1) get a life (kidding), 2) watch more movies, or 3) give Showgirls a second try. It’s absolutely one of the best examples of a film which demands multiple viewings in order to truly appreciate its brilliance.
The main conundrum that plagued Showgirls upon its release back in 1995, largely spurring the torrent of criticism and downright animosity it received is—was this mess intentional? Nayman explores this question quite earnestly and extensively throughout It Doesn’t Suck. Specifically, can Showgirls be considered a sincere movie, blissfully unaware and unconscious of its ridiculous excess and artifice that launched it straight into the depths of so-called “bad” cinema (many thought yes!)? Or was Verhoeven in on the joke the whole time, the film “self-consciously overwrought or deliberately stylized by its auteur,” as Nayman writes? Does this distinction even matter if the film, on some (gargantuan) scale, failed to achieve what it set out to, a caustic satire that was inevitably misunderstood nearly universally by audiences?
Nayman would argue it does! Placing Showgirls firmly in the camp (no pun intended) of intentional, outrageous satire, Nayman remains a loyal proponent of Sontag’s original definition of "pure camp," arguing that self-consciousness negates a film from receiving such a categorization. However, I think this approach fails to acknowledge a broader understanding of camp that has inevitably shifted with the cultural tides. In many ways, our modern conceptualization of camp is somewhat predicated on “being in on the joke.”
Whether it’s camp or not, good or not, where this line of thinking matters most is understanding Verhoeven as a deeply intelligent and intentional filmmaker (and Eszterhas as a writer, though he’s a bit weird). Nayman does well to position Verhoeven within his larger canon of work as a director who did, and continues to, create incredibly critical and satirical films with a distinctive hyperbolic flair. We can appreciate that the same level of ambition was at play with Showgirls and understand that his films have always, in some way, represented many different ideas and contradictions at the same time. Per Nayman, in comparing Starship Troopers and Showgirls, “they simultaneously fully inhabit and mercilessly satirize their respective genres, duly delivering the goods while playing up their toxicity.”
After some extensive soul searching, I’ve concluded that Showgirls is camp, and it’s damn good camp! It’s also satire! Verhoeven is also a fantastic and immensely skilled director! It is both so bad and so good that such conventional measurements of taste no longer carry meaning. What I appreciate about Nayman’s book is that he so warmly champions the value of accepting a film’s ability to be many things at once—lovelingly referring to Showgirls as a “masterpiece of shit.” A reminder and an urging not to write off a “trash” movie entirely (especially when coming from a director like VERHOEVEN), or else risk missing out on a meaningful appreciation of its many quirks, charms, and cultural value, for the queer spaces that have championed its renaissance so wholeheartedly and for film lovers more broadly.
A lovely (and often quite academic) read, and a lovely reminder that Showgirls is worth celebrating!
The main conundrum that plagued Showgirls upon its release back in 1995, largely spurring the torrent of criticism and downright animosity it received is—was this mess intentional? Nayman explores this question quite earnestly and extensively throughout It Doesn’t Suck. Specifically, can Showgirls be considered a sincere movie, blissfully unaware and unconscious of its ridiculous excess and artifice that launched it straight into the depths of so-called “bad” cinema (many thought yes!)? Or was Verhoeven in on the joke the whole time, the film “self-consciously overwrought or deliberately stylized by its auteur,” as Nayman writes? Does this distinction even matter if the film, on some (gargantuan) scale, failed to achieve what it set out to, a caustic satire that was inevitably misunderstood nearly universally by audiences?
Nayman would argue it does! Placing Showgirls firmly in the camp (no pun intended) of intentional, outrageous satire, Nayman remains a loyal proponent of Sontag’s original definition of "pure camp," arguing that self-consciousness negates a film from receiving such a categorization. However, I think this approach fails to acknowledge a broader understanding of camp that has inevitably shifted with the cultural tides. In many ways, our modern conceptualization of camp is somewhat predicated on “being in on the joke.”
Whether it’s camp or not, good or not, where this line of thinking matters most is understanding Verhoeven as a deeply intelligent and intentional filmmaker (and Eszterhas as a writer, though he’s a bit weird). Nayman does well to position Verhoeven within his larger canon of work as a director who did, and continues to, create incredibly critical and satirical films with a distinctive hyperbolic flair. We can appreciate that the same level of ambition was at play with Showgirls and understand that his films have always, in some way, represented many different ideas and contradictions at the same time. Per Nayman, in comparing Starship Troopers and Showgirls, “they simultaneously fully inhabit and mercilessly satirize their respective genres, duly delivering the goods while playing up their toxicity.”
After some extensive soul searching, I’ve concluded that Showgirls is camp, and it’s damn good camp! It’s also satire! Verhoeven is also a fantastic and immensely skilled director! It is both so bad and so good that such conventional measurements of taste no longer carry meaning. What I appreciate about Nayman’s book is that he so warmly champions the value of accepting a film’s ability to be many things at once—lovelingly referring to Showgirls as a “masterpiece of shit.” A reminder and an urging not to write off a “trash” movie entirely (especially when coming from a director like VERHOEVEN), or else risk missing out on a meaningful appreciation of its many quirks, charms, and cultural value, for the queer spaces that have championed its renaissance so wholeheartedly and for film lovers more broadly.
A lovely (and often quite academic) read, and a lovely reminder that Showgirls is worth celebrating!
November 26, 2015
This is a very slim book. Just sayin'.
Unconvincing in the same way that people who try to convince you that Starship Troopers is a brilliant fascist satire and, therefore, a good movie, are unconvincing. I mean yeah it's making fun of fascism. It's also a dumb movie.
Unconvincing in the same way that people who try to convince you that Starship Troopers is a brilliant fascist satire and, therefore, a good movie, are unconvincing. I mean yeah it's making fun of fascism. It's also a dumb movie.
July 8, 2023
overall i think this is a well-packaged argument for the film's merit (definitely feels a lot less circular than the documentary this is mentioned in) though i must say we are well overdue for analysis that goes beyond just technical prowess and intermediate film theory. it is beyond me how much of the critical reappraisal and other writings on showgirls are by straight men. even acceptance of the movie wholesale as Sontagian Camp feels a little incongruous with the film's genesis as well as the crew and actors' experiences at the time. i enjoyed the section on rena riffel in the afterlife of the film along with the comparisons with her counterparts, and i think that the chapter pondering the lurid pointlessness of the rape scene is probably one of the strongest. there are mentions of the racial dynamics but again it's just not enough to do more than scratch the surface. also i can't really agree that anything is avenged by what nomi does to andrew carver and i would likely argue that it feels more like a further display of narcissism...
anyway i sound like i hated this but it was actually fun to read and definitely worth reading for anyone interested in showgirls -- i just feel as though this already feels dated in ways that i think we were ready to explore further, even at the time
anyway i sound like i hated this but it was actually fun to read and definitely worth reading for anyone interested in showgirls -- i just feel as though this already feels dated in ways that i think we were ready to explore further, even at the time
April 28, 2024
Showgirls is a masterpiece. A movie that should be celebrated and not defended. Anyone that has any negative thing to say about this movie has no place in my life…GET OUT!!
Of course I loved this book.
Of course I loved this book.
November 3, 2019
Paul Verhoeven is a favorite director of mine, and Adam Nayman is a sharp film critic. Nayman's long essay here is an excellent look at a film with a complicated history. It doesn't take much to make me want to watch Showgirls again ("I used to love doggy chow") and this book articulates many of the thoughts I had when I first discovered the movie.
December 14, 2017
"It’s about surviving in a world populated by assholes." - Jacques Rivette
May 6, 2023
Since my tastes cross over right along the line of high culture (Shakespeare, Sondheim, Austen, Tolstoy) and low culture (reality tv, campy 80s horror, girly shoujo anime, rom coms) one of my favorite genres is the “this bad thing is good actually” essay. For this reason, I’ve always been super intrigued by the Pop Classics series.
I wasn’t impressed with the previous book I’d read in the series (“Gentlemen of the Shade”) even though it’s based on my favorite film (“My Own Private Idaho”), so I hesitated to pick this up, but I’m so glad I did! This was a delightful reading of The Worst Movie of All Time™️ that tries to examine it as a legitimate work, and it succeeds! If you love “Showgirls” or just want to see someone cleverly go to bat for a deliciously tacky trash-terpiece, I HIGHLY recommend this little book!
I wasn’t impressed with the previous book I’d read in the series (“Gentlemen of the Shade”) even though it’s based on my favorite film (“My Own Private Idaho”), so I hesitated to pick this up, but I’m so glad I did! This was a delightful reading of The Worst Movie of All Time™️ that tries to examine it as a legitimate work, and it succeeds! If you love “Showgirls” or just want to see someone cleverly go to bat for a deliciously tacky trash-terpiece, I HIGHLY recommend this little book!
December 10, 2024
Three quarters of this book is just summarizing the movie. But the interview with Verhoeven at the end was good and some of the discussion of the movie’s connection to Busby Berkeley films was interesting.
June 28, 2020
it doesn't suck
April 11, 2024
Thankyou king really helped my essay
Read
November 4, 2025Nayman is my favorite movie critic working. Even when I disagree with his him, his reasoning is always compelling.
November 5, 2015
Yeah. Nice try. It does so.
Speculation about director Paul Verhoeven's motives cannot redeem what he actually put on the screen. If Showgirls was supposed to be a clever satire about America, or some such thing, we'd see that with out having to read 120 pages of maybes and what-ifs. The author also seems to forget that autueur theory doesn't rule out the fact that sometimes auteurs make films that suck. Trying to fit this film into a wider Verhoeven ouvre drags the other films down more than elevating this one. Mr. Nayman's attempt to find depth (Nomi = No Me or Know Me? - wow, mind blown by all the layers) where there is none is entertaining, but it's a wonder he didn't break his neck.
Still, reading this and then re-watching the film with friends (and maybe some adult beverages) could be more fun than whatever else your book club might do next month.
Speculation about director Paul Verhoeven's motives cannot redeem what he actually put on the screen. If Showgirls was supposed to be a clever satire about America, or some such thing, we'd see that with out having to read 120 pages of maybes and what-ifs. The author also seems to forget that autueur theory doesn't rule out the fact that sometimes auteurs make films that suck. Trying to fit this film into a wider Verhoeven ouvre drags the other films down more than elevating this one. Mr. Nayman's attempt to find depth (Nomi = No Me or Know Me? - wow, mind blown by all the layers) where there is none is entertaining, but it's a wonder he didn't break his neck.
Still, reading this and then re-watching the film with friends (and maybe some adult beverages) could be more fun than whatever else your book club might do next month.
March 14, 2014
Prior to tonight's Showgirls screening at the Lightbox in Toronto: Finished reading this on the subway today. Nayman's defense of Showgirls is not just an analysis done by a fan, but by a film critic who knows what to look for in cinema. His insights are sharp and valid, but may have been too forgiving of Verhoeven's over-styled auteurism. There's not denying Verhoeven has a "touch," and that his subversiveness is born of intelligence and cleverness. However, I enjoy Showgirls not because of its smartness; I enjoy it because of the naivety. It's like Eszterhas and Verhoeven are big teen boys visual geniuses.
Nayman has provoked me to look at the film closer though, which I'll be doing tonight.
Nayman has provoked me to look at the film closer though, which I'll be doing tonight.
March 23, 2014
i liked this book, but I also liked the movie.
And it didn't really matter to me that it won a ton of razzies. I thought it was an entertaining movie that showed the difficult and often seedy life of showgirls.
So the book didn't change my mind about the movie, but it gave me an interesting new perspective and included many thoughtful and thought-provoking insights
And it didn't really matter to me that it won a ton of razzies. I thought it was an entertaining movie that showed the difficult and often seedy life of showgirls.
So the book didn't change my mind about the movie, but it gave me an interesting new perspective and included many thoughtful and thought-provoking insights
December 4, 2020
Over the past few weeks, I have been slowly making my way through the extended essays on Generation X Pop Classics book series by Canadian publisher ECW Press. I might not have ever picked these up were it not for their availability on Hoopla through my library and it popping up with a quick search for one of my favorite things in the world, Twin Peaks. From there, I realized that there was a series of books that explored some of my favorite obsessions, and I burned through all of the ones that were available that caught my attention. Below, find my reviews of the books I read this year in the order that I read them, starting with Twin Peaks...
WRAPPED IN PLASTIC” - Andy Burns on TWIN PEAKS (#4)
Andy Burns’ Wrapped in Plastic is the first of the Pop Classics series that I read, and entirely the reason I read them. I am a fan obsessed with Twin Peaks, as is Burns, and in the slim 100 pages of this book, we are treated to a beautiful love letter to Twin Peaks. Here is the thing... I started with this book, and I am already a complete fanatic of the series, so I found this to be a fun read and I loved Burns’ work only for a review and admiration of a lot of material I was already aware of... It wasn’t particularly illuminating to me, but to lesser fans might be. I loved it only because I appreciated it in the way Burns and my friends love the series. Plenty enough for me to read, savor, and enjoy this slim book. The books I followed it up with, however, were much more enjoyable in depth, scope, and craft.
“GENTLEMEN OF THE SHADE” - Jen Sookfong Lee on MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO (#7)
One of my favorite films of all time, Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho was a piece beautifully lost to time that was finally re-released by Criterion when I got to see it. I am glad I waited, as my knowledge of what the piece was attempting would have been lost to my ignorance of the world and Shakespeare and everything else. It’s clear that Lee had the same feelings about the film, and this book contextualizes and studies the wonder and spectacular nature of Van Sant’s work that places it in a universe of its own. Lee manages to pick up the reins for all of us of the same generation and age – the gen-xers barely on the cusp that missed it but rewatched and experienced what is amazing about it, and are able to walk back into a piece that seems to wander through musical, pastiche, Shakespearean sendup, intercut sketch story, striking documentary, and wonderful gay prostitution drama. The dream world of Idaho is a dream world of the renaissance, and we live in a slant among all of the elements mentioned in my previous sentence where all of them can exist at the same time. It is a really cool movie, and while I felt like I understood it, Lee is able to partly attach her own biography to the piece and project her own experiences on this beautiful work of art that she then teases apart for us in the context of the film itself, life in the times it was released, and in the world she lived in. Overall an excellent book and a beautiful study on one of the most underappreciated films of our time.
“IT DOESN’T SUCK” - Adam Nayman on SHOWGIRLS (#1)
This was easily the best of the series - and surprisingly it was the first of the series. The book explores and contextualizes the film SHOWGIRLS – it's genesis, how Verhoeven constructed an extremely dry-as-a-saltine farce on par with his other films that were received in the manner that they were meant to: BASIC INSTINCT, ROBOCOP, TOTAL RECALL, and STARSHIP TROOPERS. In this book, Nayman does a stellar job at defending the film as a work of art that is intentionally, almost brilliantly bad and works as a satire for American life and culture as a whole. There are gorgeous examinations of the film scene-by-scene, but also in comparison to the contemporary films trying to do the same thing (Mulholland Drive) and its ill-fated, director-endorsed sequel that turns up the farce to ridiculous levels while dropping the budget to an inconceivable $30,000 (and is different than the film’s original sequel set in LA, BIMBOS). An excellent book that helps to understand one of the greatest flops in cinematic history, vindicating its very existence as what the author calls “A Masterpiece of Sh**.” The book ends with a lengthy and illuminating interview between the author and Verhoeven.
WRAPPED IN PLASTIC” - Andy Burns on TWIN PEAKS (#4)
Andy Burns’ Wrapped in Plastic is the first of the Pop Classics series that I read, and entirely the reason I read them. I am a fan obsessed with Twin Peaks, as is Burns, and in the slim 100 pages of this book, we are treated to a beautiful love letter to Twin Peaks. Here is the thing... I started with this book, and I am already a complete fanatic of the series, so I found this to be a fun read and I loved Burns’ work only for a review and admiration of a lot of material I was already aware of... It wasn’t particularly illuminating to me, but to lesser fans might be. I loved it only because I appreciated it in the way Burns and my friends love the series. Plenty enough for me to read, savor, and enjoy this slim book. The books I followed it up with, however, were much more enjoyable in depth, scope, and craft.
“GENTLEMEN OF THE SHADE” - Jen Sookfong Lee on MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO (#7)
One of my favorite films of all time, Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho was a piece beautifully lost to time that was finally re-released by Criterion when I got to see it. I am glad I waited, as my knowledge of what the piece was attempting would have been lost to my ignorance of the world and Shakespeare and everything else. It’s clear that Lee had the same feelings about the film, and this book contextualizes and studies the wonder and spectacular nature of Van Sant’s work that places it in a universe of its own. Lee manages to pick up the reins for all of us of the same generation and age – the gen-xers barely on the cusp that missed it but rewatched and experienced what is amazing about it, and are able to walk back into a piece that seems to wander through musical, pastiche, Shakespearean sendup, intercut sketch story, striking documentary, and wonderful gay prostitution drama. The dream world of Idaho is a dream world of the renaissance, and we live in a slant among all of the elements mentioned in my previous sentence where all of them can exist at the same time. It is a really cool movie, and while I felt like I understood it, Lee is able to partly attach her own biography to the piece and project her own experiences on this beautiful work of art that she then teases apart for us in the context of the film itself, life in the times it was released, and in the world she lived in. Overall an excellent book and a beautiful study on one of the most underappreciated films of our time.
“IT DOESN’T SUCK” - Adam Nayman on SHOWGIRLS (#1)
This was easily the best of the series - and surprisingly it was the first of the series. The book explores and contextualizes the film SHOWGIRLS – it's genesis, how Verhoeven constructed an extremely dry-as-a-saltine farce on par with his other films that were received in the manner that they were meant to: BASIC INSTINCT, ROBOCOP, TOTAL RECALL, and STARSHIP TROOPERS. In this book, Nayman does a stellar job at defending the film as a work of art that is intentionally, almost brilliantly bad and works as a satire for American life and culture as a whole. There are gorgeous examinations of the film scene-by-scene, but also in comparison to the contemporary films trying to do the same thing (Mulholland Drive) and its ill-fated, director-endorsed sequel that turns up the farce to ridiculous levels while dropping the budget to an inconceivable $30,000 (and is different than the film’s original sequel set in LA, BIMBOS). An excellent book that helps to understand one of the greatest flops in cinematic history, vindicating its very existence as what the author calls “A Masterpiece of Sh**.” The book ends with a lengthy and illuminating interview between the author and Verhoeven.
December 13, 2023
Publicado em 2014 pelo jornalista canadense Adam Nayman, este ótimo livro se propõe a fazer uma análise sobre o fenômeno "Showgirls", o polêmico filme do cineasta holandês Paul Verhoeven lançado em 1995.
"Showgirls" foi o primeiro filme com classificação etária NC-17 (proibido para menores de 17 anos, mesmo que acompanhados de um adulto) a ser amplamente lançado no circuito comercial por um grande estúdio (a MGM). O filme foi universalmente massacrado pela crítica no seu lançamento, e foi também um fracasso de bilheteria, passando a ser considerado como um dos "piores filmes de todos os tempos" e sepultando a carreira da atriz Elizabeth Berkley.
Com o passar do tempo, contudo, o filme começou a ser reavaliado, inicialmente se tornando cult com base na ideia "tão-ruim-que-é-bom", para depois, começar a ser defendido por respeitados críticos e cineastas não mais como uma divertida bobagem, mas sim como o que ele sempre foi desde a sua concepção: uma sátira feroz e sem limites ao "american way of life".
Ao longo do livro, o autor disseca a obra e seus bastidores, mostrando ainda como ela traz todos os elementos que marcaram a carreira de Paul Verhoeven, implodindo os argumentos de que o filme é "não-intencionalmente engraçado". Fica claro que o diretor tinha plena ciência do que estava fazendo, e que todos os exageros, tanto nas atuações, como nos figurinos, cenários, diálogos, cenas de sexo e nudez estão lá a serviço da história e da ácida mensagem transmitida pelo filme.
O veredicto final do livro, já implícito no título "It Doesn't Suck", e com o qual. no geral. eu concordo, é que "Showgirls" está longe, muuuito longe de ser a bomba que muitos dizem, ainda que também não seja a obra-prima que os fãs mais ardorosos tentam vender. É, sim um EXCELENTE filme (embora não o melhor da carreira de Verhoeven), feito por um diretor que tinha carta-branca de Hollywood, na época, para chutar o pau da barraca - o que ele fez com muito gosto.
No fim das contas, a profecia de Verhoeven, dita em entrevistas à época do lançamento do filme, de que "talvez levasse uns 15 anos para que o filme fosse compreendido", se cumpriu. Quase 30 anos depois, ainda estamos aqui discutindo "Showgirls", indecisos se ele é uma "Piece of Shit", uma "Masterpiece" ou uma "Masterpiece of Shit". A verdade é o que o espectador quiser ver nele. E é por causa dessa magia que eu nunca me canso de assistir às peripécias de Nomi Malone e recomendo a obra para qualquer fã de cinema.
"Showgirls" foi o primeiro filme com classificação etária NC-17 (proibido para menores de 17 anos, mesmo que acompanhados de um adulto) a ser amplamente lançado no circuito comercial por um grande estúdio (a MGM). O filme foi universalmente massacrado pela crítica no seu lançamento, e foi também um fracasso de bilheteria, passando a ser considerado como um dos "piores filmes de todos os tempos" e sepultando a carreira da atriz Elizabeth Berkley.
Com o passar do tempo, contudo, o filme começou a ser reavaliado, inicialmente se tornando cult com base na ideia "tão-ruim-que-é-bom", para depois, começar a ser defendido por respeitados críticos e cineastas não mais como uma divertida bobagem, mas sim como o que ele sempre foi desde a sua concepção: uma sátira feroz e sem limites ao "american way of life".
Ao longo do livro, o autor disseca a obra e seus bastidores, mostrando ainda como ela traz todos os elementos que marcaram a carreira de Paul Verhoeven, implodindo os argumentos de que o filme é "não-intencionalmente engraçado". Fica claro que o diretor tinha plena ciência do que estava fazendo, e que todos os exageros, tanto nas atuações, como nos figurinos, cenários, diálogos, cenas de sexo e nudez estão lá a serviço da história e da ácida mensagem transmitida pelo filme.
O veredicto final do livro, já implícito no título "It Doesn't Suck", e com o qual. no geral. eu concordo, é que "Showgirls" está longe, muuuito longe de ser a bomba que muitos dizem, ainda que também não seja a obra-prima que os fãs mais ardorosos tentam vender. É, sim um EXCELENTE filme (embora não o melhor da carreira de Verhoeven), feito por um diretor que tinha carta-branca de Hollywood, na época, para chutar o pau da barraca - o que ele fez com muito gosto.
No fim das contas, a profecia de Verhoeven, dita em entrevistas à época do lançamento do filme, de que "talvez levasse uns 15 anos para que o filme fosse compreendido", se cumpriu. Quase 30 anos depois, ainda estamos aqui discutindo "Showgirls", indecisos se ele é uma "Piece of Shit", uma "Masterpiece" ou uma "Masterpiece of Shit". A verdade é o que o espectador quiser ver nele. E é por causa dessa magia que eu nunca me canso de assistir às peripécias de Nomi Malone e recomendo a obra para qualquer fã de cinema.
May 31, 2024
Principle takeaway: more [analytical] aesthetics reexamination of 1995 feature, than investigative deep-dive of film(s)'s making & distribution.Nayman's subjective retread isn't a total waste; His research is exhaustive and I appreciate the focus isn't narrowly on Showgirls' initial backlash. The author spotlights director & screenwriters' [non-]working relationship; I also valued his thesis:
Critically, Showgirls (1995) paid for the sins of Basic Instinct (1992);à la, with some distance, and the release of SG, a lot of critics later acknowledged their gushing accolades towards Verhoeven and Eszterhas' debut team-up was really just over-stylized exploitation and Neo noir schlock. In other words:
Basic Instinct sucksand
Joe Eszterhas really sucksbut, Paul Verhoeven, not so much.
- - - - - - -
I'm a sucker for making-of (motion pictures) documentaries -- especially feature-length ones. So when I stumbled on Jeff McHale's essential Showgirls doc feature: You Don't Nomi (2019). I was genuinely surprised by what I learned about Team Verhoeven/Eszterhas' 1995 bomb and how much its theatrical exhibition was unjustly maligned.
Then I recently queued Showgirls monograph, It Doesn't Suck, presuming they were affiliated or by the same author (i.e. publishers producing doc feature only to promote their book, or vice/versa, e.g. promotional tie-in book).
But, It Doesn't Suck, kinda sux (especially if compared to aforementioned doc); I very quickly discovered the book and doc are wholly unrelated [with five years between initial debut].
Probably the best thing about this (2nd edition) Pop Classics-single is it made me want to rewatch McHale's remarkable You Don't Nomi .
April 26, 2025
I’ve been meaning to read this book for years now. I watched the documentary adaptation, ‘You Don’t Nomi,’ years ago, and frankly, it’s a terrific adaptation that does justice to the source material. I’d say that the only things the book expanded on were the legacy of ‘Showgirls’ as the start of a failed franchise (did you know that there’s a Showgirls 2 out there?) and several filmic references that contextualize the film in the history of cinema. For instance, choreographer Busby Berkeley (and I’m surprised author Adam Nayman didn’t research whether or not there was any relation to Elizabeth?!?) figures into this examination, as well as Stanley Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola, and other filmmakers.
Despite its in-your-face attitude, ‘Showgirls’ remains to me an elusive, enigmatic work of art/shit (Nayman’s words, not mine!). The film itself is almost like Nomi Malone herself—just a person who is in your face but you can never truly know. I’ll always be fascinated by this movie, and I’m so pleased to see that others are still talking about ‘Showgirls’ all these years later. In ten years, the film will be 40 years old — “At 40, you get the face that you deserve” (p. 118). Maybe at that time, we as a collective fandom will be able to settle the debate about whether or not ‘Showgirls’ sucks.
This book is a very quick read by the way. I can’t say that I’d prefer the book over the documentary though, especially since film reviews pretty much require seeing the image on screen, and the documentary pretty much does that. In other words, I don’t know if I’d say I learned anything profoundly extraneous from this book that I didn’t necessarily learn from the documentary. This book felt more like a very long Criterion Collection accompanying essay, and that’s not to say that it’s bad. On the contrary, it’s a wonderful exploration of the film.
But I still give this book 3 out of 5 stars simply because I came to it with a suitcase of personal history (i.e., having already seen the documentary), which somehow went missing à la Nomi Malone’s arrival in Las Vegas.
FIN!
EDIT (April 26, 2025; 16:00 CST): Oops, Elizabeth Berkley and Busby Berkeley spell their names differently, so my bad, Adam Nayman — I see now why you didn’t research any relation between the two, LOL.
Despite its in-your-face attitude, ‘Showgirls’ remains to me an elusive, enigmatic work of art/shit (Nayman’s words, not mine!). The film itself is almost like Nomi Malone herself—just a person who is in your face but you can never truly know. I’ll always be fascinated by this movie, and I’m so pleased to see that others are still talking about ‘Showgirls’ all these years later. In ten years, the film will be 40 years old — “At 40, you get the face that you deserve” (p. 118). Maybe at that time, we as a collective fandom will be able to settle the debate about whether or not ‘Showgirls’ sucks.
This book is a very quick read by the way. I can’t say that I’d prefer the book over the documentary though, especially since film reviews pretty much require seeing the image on screen, and the documentary pretty much does that. In other words, I don’t know if I’d say I learned anything profoundly extraneous from this book that I didn’t necessarily learn from the documentary. This book felt more like a very long Criterion Collection accompanying essay, and that’s not to say that it’s bad. On the contrary, it’s a wonderful exploration of the film.
But I still give this book 3 out of 5 stars simply because I came to it with a suitcase of personal history (i.e., having already seen the documentary), which somehow went missing à la Nomi Malone’s arrival in Las Vegas.
FIN!
EDIT (April 26, 2025; 16:00 CST): Oops, Elizabeth Berkley and Busby Berkeley spell their names differently, so my bad, Adam Nayman — I see now why you didn’t research any relation between the two, LOL.
August 15, 2022
It's not only an astute analysis of Showgirls and the filmography of Paul Verhoeven, it's also an examination of the "it's-so-bad-it's-good" mindset, the way we tend to elevate and reevaluate things we hated in earlier years, and how the passage of time shifts perception.
I thought a lot about Mark Fisher's idea of "the slow cancellation of the future" while reading this, and in some ways it's brought up: this idea that we've already run the gamut of discourse on a movie before it's even come out in the internet/social media era, the predetermination of whether something is going to suck or be great months before the actual release date, and then a critical reappraisal weeks after release. Fisher's ideas resonate here because the cycle of time has hyper-accelerated in regards to popular culture: something new is generated every three months.
An underlying thesis here builds on this: that in order for something to be truly great and worth reappraising, time has to pass. Works only become epochal with distance from their present. It's important that we slow down in our consumption of media.
I thought a lot about Mark Fisher's idea of "the slow cancellation of the future" while reading this, and in some ways it's brought up: this idea that we've already run the gamut of discourse on a movie before it's even come out in the internet/social media era, the predetermination of whether something is going to suck or be great months before the actual release date, and then a critical reappraisal weeks after release. Fisher's ideas resonate here because the cycle of time has hyper-accelerated in regards to popular culture: something new is generated every three months.
An underlying thesis here builds on this: that in order for something to be truly great and worth reappraising, time has to pass. Works only become epochal with distance from their present. It's important that we slow down in our consumption of media.
November 26, 2017
If you have a strong opinion that Showgirls is a horrible film with no redeeming qualities, this probably won't convince you otherwise. I needed no convincing, as I immediately considered it to be a pretty good, but imperfect satire. It is criticized for being over-the-top and crass, but that is what it was trying to be. Elizabeth Shue is criticized for bad acting here, but I think she was doing exactly what the director wanted her to do. He's never been a subtle director, and his ironic approach isn't recognized by every viewer.
I've never accepted the idea that some works of art can be "so bad it's good". But some works can be bad and good at the same time. There are many, many films worse than "The Room" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space", but we enjoy those films because there is something good there along with the bad.
This book is not making the claim that "Showgirls" is a masterpiece, but rather that it isn't as bad as many claim it to be. That it is neither a "piece of sh**" nor a "masterpiece", but more of a "masterpiece of sh**".
I've never accepted the idea that some works of art can be "so bad it's good". But some works can be bad and good at the same time. There are many, many films worse than "The Room" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space", but we enjoy those films because there is something good there along with the bad.
This book is not making the claim that "Showgirls" is a masterpiece, but rather that it isn't as bad as many claim it to be. That it is neither a "piece of sh**" nor a "masterpiece", but more of a "masterpiece of sh**".
January 27, 2021
Nayman offers a thorough and well-considered evaluation of a film that I'm frankly shocked I remember as well as I do (although doubtless the many times I stayed up late at night to skim through in on HBO or Cinemax left an impression). I haven't revisited it with a critical eye in some time, but I certainly think it's worth reconsidering at the very least.
What I read was technically the second edition, which includes an intro by Nayman and a brief interview with Paul Verhoeven himself at the end (at least, I *think* that's new).
Verhoeven remains one of our most under-appreciated filmmakers, I think, and even his most-heralded work (Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers) is often under-examined by those heralding it. In a way, all of his films are as under-served by the critical establishment as Showgirls was, even when they "get" what he's after. Mostly because no one seems as willing to reckon with Verhoeven's acute and unsparing eye for American depravity (or to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating said depravity). as he is.
What I read was technically the second edition, which includes an intro by Nayman and a brief interview with Paul Verhoeven himself at the end (at least, I *think* that's new).
Verhoeven remains one of our most under-appreciated filmmakers, I think, and even his most-heralded work (Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers) is often under-examined by those heralding it. In a way, all of his films are as under-served by the critical establishment as Showgirls was, even when they "get" what he's after. Mostly because no one seems as willing to reckon with Verhoeven's acute and unsparing eye for American depravity (or to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating said depravity). as he is.
October 19, 2020
SHOWGIRLS, one of the most notorious and hated films in American cinema, deserves better! Adam Nayman deep dives into its filmmaking and screenwriting, while examining director Paul Verhoeven's ouevre in search of what exactly happened, and if whatever did happen should be classified as "camp" by Susan Sontag's definition. Despite the film's x-rated connotations, Nayman aims high with a studied approach and only subtle snark and cheekiness. Paired with the recent 2020 doc YOU DON'T NOMI, cult-ed minds (like mine) will find researched affirmation that this movie has endured in the zeitgeist because it's actually pretty good.
June 23, 2024
While I appreciate the author’s candor and enthusiasm for the film (and the conversation surrounding it), I felt this book was too padded with long-winded descriptions of the film scene by scene to be saying anything substantial—at least to warrant a book, even one this slim. He makes some great points in a few places, but I’d have preferred he hone in on those and enter into more direct conversation with these critics he keeps referring to, refuting their accusations. This probably should have been kept to the length of an essay, maybe to be included in a Criterion edition or something, rather than blown up into a 148-page book.
January 17, 2026
In this clever (though at times excessively cutesy) reclamation of Verhoeven's Showgirls, Nayman does not pull back the curtain so much as draw a circle around what Verhoeven already reveals to any viewer who cares to look. By contextualizing the film in Verhoeven's oeuvre and amongst canonized masterpieces, Nayman makes space for the shadow of Showgirls, or rather its reflection, in film history. As a huge and unironic fan of the film, I could not be more supportive of his reading of the film as a mirror to explain its dual masterpiece/piece of shit status and am obligated to underline his ultimate point: it doesn't suck.
January 12, 2022
Sept. 22, 1995 was a red letter date for me because I show Showgirls opening night. Since there was barely an internet and no social media, I went in having absolutely zero idea what I was in for. You all know or know OF the rest and this book may be for you. Nayman draws an interesting line between what is camp and what is just bad. It’s a fascinating look at an infamous movie that manages to neither condescend nor crawl up its own ass.
December 19, 2024
Adam Nayman not only makes a compelling and convincing case for why Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls, a movie I very much enjoyed, is a true work of art. But the true mastery of Nayman's writing comes down to analyzing the messiness and exaggerating nature of the work. Judge the work for itself. We wouldn't be talking about Showgirls today if they cast somebody other than Elizabeth Berkley in the lead. Her performance is exactly what makes the film special and fun to talk about.
October 2, 2019
A surprisingly detailed, researched and scholarly look at a much-maligned movie (which happens to be a favourite of mine). Some of the comparisons are a ridiculous stretch, but the writing is entertaining and provides a very interesting point of view. It also introduced me to my new favourite porte-manteau, "Masterpiece of $#!t."
November 28, 2020
This book has well-thought out arguments. The author brings up great points about the director’s intentions and the definition of camp. The book is well researched with comparisons to a range of film & literary works.
There was one minor mistake, the song Walk into the Wind was cited to have been by Eurythmics. It is actually by Vegas, a project by Dave Stewart of Eurythmics and Terry Hall of Fun Boy Three. Siobhan Fahey of Bananarama and Shakespears Sister appears on this track too.
Highly recommended for fans of Showgirls and those passionate about cinema.
There was one minor mistake, the song Walk into the Wind was cited to have been by Eurythmics. It is actually by Vegas, a project by Dave Stewart of Eurythmics and Terry Hall of Fun Boy Three. Siobhan Fahey of Bananarama and Shakespears Sister appears on this track too.
Highly recommended for fans of Showgirls and those passionate about cinema.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews