Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (2021)

17. Benedetta

All throughout his career, Paul Verhoeven has harbored an obsession with Christian iconography. For years, he's kicked around making a film about Christ as a historical figure. He became such an expert on the subject that he was the only non-scholar member invited to a council on the topic. His films, sometimes blatantly and sometimes more subtly, have explore his thoughts and feelings about Christianity as a religion centered around an act of violence. Ultimately, it was only a matter of time before Verhoeven's fascination with religion resulted in a movie directly dealing with the topic. This desire would finally take shape with “Benedetta,” a modern day nunspoloitation film that Verhoeven would fill with the sex and violence devotees of the director have come to expect. 

Our setting is 17th century Italy, at a small abbey in Tuscany. Benedetta Carlini joins the abbey as a young girl. Even at this youthful age, she's already experiencing intense religious hallucinations, which continue into adulthood. This causes her to rise through the ranks of the abbey. By chance, a young woman named Bartolomea comes to live at the convent. The girl stirs new feelings of lust and love in Benedetta, whose visions are soon accompanied by stigmata. Deemed a miracle by church officials, She is given the role of mother superior. This already controversy decision is compacted by the encroaching plague and the discovery that Benedetta and Bartolomea are lesbian lovers. 

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of “Benedetta” is how the title character considers romantic love and religious awe as one and the same. Her visions of Jesus almost always have a romantic, if not sexual, tinge to them. She repeatedly refers to herself as the “bride of Christ.” She takes this very literally, devoted to Christ the way a loving wife would be. At the same time, when she gives into her attraction to Bartolomea, she goes into throes of pleasure that seems identical to the ecclesiastic awe from her visions. Later, when she's put on trial for her sapphic actions, she defends herself by making this exact point: Love is love to her, whether it be love for her God or love for her fellow sister. She expresses the loving message of Christ by loving everyone. The film seems fairly sincere about this, suggesting that religious beliefs are a deeply personal matter.

It's an interesting contrast, which brings with it a certain degree of ambiguity. Does Beneditta actually believe any of her claims? Throughout the film, she has stigmatic episodes. Debate rages over whether these are genuine or if she cuts herself to replicate Christ's wounds. The film eventually provides an answer to that question but still leaves something up to the audience to decide. Is Benedetta another in the long line of Verhoevenian women, whose previous ranks include Katie Tippel, Catherine Tramaine, and Michelle? A women cast in a masculine world who has to be just as ruthless and duplicitous as the men around her to survive? Or is she a true believer, convinced or maybe even unaware of what she does to make her religious visions reality? It's something to chew on, adding a layer of beguiling unclearness to the entire film.

“Benedetta” is not an anti-religion film, which definitely disappointed some viewers. The film seems to agree that the title character should be allowed practice her beliefs however she wants. However, Verhoeven and his team certainly have less ambiguous views on the institution of the church itself. Early on, Benedetta is not admitted to the abbey until her parents promise to contribute a sizable financial donation. Later, Bartolomea is granted entrance when someone agrees to pay for her. The Abbess and the papal ambassador to the abbey spend most of their screen time arguing among themselves and trying to ensure that they maintain their power. It's clear that faith and religious matters is not actually on church officials' minds here. “Benedetta” may portray faith as something deeply personal but it clearly condemns the power structures, hypocrisies, and backstabbing of the church itself. 

It doesn't go unnoticed that the main target of the church's prosecution throughout the film is women. We see multiple examples of women struggling to survive in a world that marginalizes and persecutes them. Bartolomea's past as a victim of sexual abuse is briefly detailed. It's noted that some of the nuns had past lives as prostitutes. And it's certain that the reason the Abbess holds onto the power she has so fiercely is because this one of the few ways a woman, in this time, could have any power at all. The men in the papacy are aghast at the mere idea of lesbianism, some being completely unfamiliar with it. Never mind that the warmth between Benedetta and Bartolomea is preferable to the coldness of the systems, religious and patriarchal, they are both trapped in. Feminist readings of Verhoeven's films are tricky, sometimes, but “Benedetta” is clearly about the constraints put in place long ago to keep women oppressed. 

While Veroheven's modern day work definitely feels classier than his iconic output, “Benedetta” does recall one of his earlier films in a specific way. Much like “Flesh + Blood,” “Benedetta” is set in plague ridden Europe and seems determined to show us how filthy that time was. Within minutes of the movie starting, we see a bird shitting in a man's open eyes. Shortly afterwards, there's a stage show involving a man setting his farts on fire. Later on, a key conversation takes place between Benedetta and Bartolomea while they are using the toilets. It's evident what Verhoeven is doing here. These moments fit right in with the idea that Benedetta's sexual desires and her religious awe are linked. These everyday, lowly acts take place alongside the stately affairs of nuns and elected officials. It's all linked, all part of the same body.

Much like “Flesh + Blood,” “Benedetta” is set in a Europe ravaged by plague. The creeping fear of the infection lurks at the margin of the film's first half. The brief glimpses we get of the city outside the abbey, we see panicked mobs barely clinging to life. Later, the sight of black buboes on people's skin signals that they'll soon become a victim of the plague, spreading it to others. Alongside these grotesque images of disease, Verhoeven throws in some apocalyptic visions of a white comet in a red sky above the abbey. It all adds to capturing a feeling of a world absolutely on the brink of destruction, spinning out of control. This is a mood befitting both 17th century Italy and 2021.

While “Benedetta” may be a seemingly classy costume drama, this is still a Paul Verhoeven movie. The director has never lost his love of sex and violence, of outrageous visuals. This is most obvious during Benedetta's bizarre religious visions. One has Christ, on horse back, swooping in to rescue her by cleaving heads in half, before the figure is revealed as less Christ-like and with more Earthly desires. Later in the film, before deciding to consummate her passions with Bartolomea, she has a vision of Christ on the cross... That concludes with him revealing feminine genitalia. Does this mean Benedetta isn't even aware of the biological differences between men and women? I have no idea but it's nuts. What other director would dare show us forbidden images like these?

Of course, there's the sex scenes too. These are less lurid than the presence of a dildo carved from a statue of Virgin Mary would suggest. Oh, there's plenty of nudity, lots of shots of naked flesh on naked flesh. Yet there's a genuine passion here, a romance around the eroticism of the female form, that separates this from the lurid humping we saw in “Spetters,” “Basic Instinct,” or “Showgirls.” This certainly befits Beneditta's inability to distinguish religious awe from earthly sexual desires. And it must be said, the sex scenes still represent a level of eroticism that has become pretty much totally unseen in mainstream American cinema at this point.

Further supporting the film is a strong cast. Virginie Efira, who previously had a small role as the neighbor's wife in “Elle,” stars as Benedetta. Efira invests Benedetta with the absolute conviction the character needs. While the audience is never certain, even up to the end, if the character has ulterior motives, we never doubt the intensity of her beliefs. Efira can create moments of serenity and religious clarity and also pairs them with fiery outbursts. Daphne Patakia plays Bartolomea as a creature of pure instinct, who does what she feels is right or what feels good. Never has a fart ever been a character establishing moment before. Patakia is very good at summoning up that wild, untamable energy. The two compliment each other nicely. 

The supporting cast is strong too. Charlotte Rampling, whose character is only known as The Abbess, is intimidating. She is steely, hard and unforgiving, in her early scenes. Early on, when haggling about money with Benedetta's parents, it's made apparent that this women is a hard negotiator. Yet, as the film goes on, Rampling is allowed to reveal some humanity under this steely exterior, to confirm that this hardened persona protects a vulnerable person. Lambert Wilson essentially plays the story's villain, the unnamed Nuncio. While it's not the over-the-top performance we've come to expect from Wilson, he still brings a level of venom to the role of a man happy to judge others for his own motivations.

Even at the age of 83 years old, Paul Verhoeven is somehow still pissing the right people off. “Benedetta” would attract small protests from Catholic organizations, who seem to consider the movie blasphemous and an offensive depiction of the Virgin Mary. I guess you can still offend some people in this world. Otherwise, “Benedetta” has been praised by the majority of critics. The film manages to sum up many of the themes and obsessions Verhoeven has carried with him his whole career. It is, simultaneously, more thoughtful and tasteful than you'd expect while never lacking for the outrageous content you would hope for from this director. In other words, Verhoeven and his team hit another one out of the park. “Benedetta” is a fascinating, layered, and hugely entertaining motion picture. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (2016)

16. Elle

In-between 2000 and 2016, Paul Verhoeven only made two movies. Considering he was making a film about every other year for the first three decades of his career, that's a major slow down. Yes, “Black Book” was a hit in Holland and well reviewed internationally but, to many eyes, Paul Verhoeven was semi-retired. Until last year. With the release of “Elle,” Verhoeven would court conversation and controversy in a way that he hadn't in years. The film would generate discussion all over the world. Isabelle Huppert's lead performance would win multiple awards and universal acclaim. Unsurprisingly, “Elle” has been hailed as Verhoeven's comeback vehicle.

Michele, a successful video game producer and daughter of a notorious mass murderer, is raped in her own home by a masked intruder. Michele, at first, seems unchanged by the assault. She is as ruthless as ever at work and in her personal life. She bosses around her lover, belittles her employees, argues with her son, and begins some intense flirting with her next door neighbor. However, her attacker is not done. He leaves vulgar text messages and even enters her house when she's not home. After a second assault, Michele discovers the man's true identity. And then things get really complicated.

“Elle” was going to generate controversy, regardless. The cultural environment of 2017 is more sensitive to the subject of sexual assault than ever before. With Verhoeven directing, a filmmaker with a not always tasteful attitude towards sexual violence, “Elle” became especially contentious. Yet “Elle” grants a rape victim the greatest gratitude: Complexity. Too often in film and television, people who have been assaulted are depicted as weeping victims. Not too mention all the media that uses a woman's rape strictly to motivate a man's story. “Elle” is strictly Michele's story. Moreover, her reaction to being raped is complicated. She goes about her life, yet hides psychic scars. The assault might even awaken something in her. “Elle” is a multi-faceted portrayal of someone living through something horrible. And it deserves major kudos for that.

Some of that complexity is thanks to the director. Michelle is, in many ways, the quintessential Verhoven-ian woman. She's ruthless in her professional life, hard in her romantic and family life, and absolutely determined to succeed. However, I have no doubt that Isabelle Huppert is primarily responsible for making the character come alive so beautifully. Huppert's exterior is chilly. The only vulnerability she shows is a dark sense of humor, an occasional sarcastic aside to her cat. Even after wrecking her car, Michelle remains stoic. On the page, Michelle is almost a mystery. Huppert turns her into a complex, fully formed character. With her body language, a vocal intonation, a glance or a gesture, she hints at the layers within. No wonder some call Huppert the greatest actress alive.

“Elle” was based on a novel by Philippe Dijian. Despite this, the director makes the material his own. In many ways, “Elle” continues the themes Verhoeven has been developing since at least “Basic Instinct.” This is another story about an uncompromising woman and the clueless men in her life. Michelle's son, Vincent, is pushed around by his pregnant girlfriend. He quits his fast food job, despite needing the money. When the baby comes out black, Vincent still assumes the child is his. Michelle's ex-husband, an unsuccessful novelist, is in the grips of a pathetic mid-life crisis, dating a younger woman and desperately trying to stay relevant. Michelle's lover is a complete buffoon, a constantly horny dweeb. Even the rapist is clueless. After being fatally wounded, he asks Michelle “why.” As if she needs another reason to hate him. The film's heroine may be uncompromising, even cold, but the film's men are all totally clueless assholes.

“Elle” doesn't feature the graphic violence of Verhoeven's Hollywood movies. Attitude-wise, it is just as brutal. The film begins with Michelle's assault. The very first scene shows her struggling under her attacker, in an isolated wide shot. Which then cuts to her cat, watching dispassionately and uninterested. This characterizes the world of “Elle.” The later rapes occur just as suddenly, just as unforgiving in their violence. At times, it feels like the universe is conspiring against the protagonist. Because of her infamy as the daughter of a murderer, random people on the street toss food at her. A deer leaping into the road forces Michelle to swerve into a tree, another example of things going badly for her. But Michelle isn't a victim. Only hours after the first assault, she goes to work and oversees a video game cut scene featuring a rather literal mind rape. The world is cruel. She must be cruel to survive it. 

“Elle's” brutality is also present in the way it depicts Michelle's mental state. Outwardly, she shows little sign of trouble. Inside is another matter. During the middle of the day, we are treated to an extended flashback of the opening rape. This is a good portrayal of how random events can trigger traumatic memories. Further on, Michelle has a daydream about the assault going differently. She imagines a scenario where she successfully turned the tables on her attacker. This is also an accurate depiction of the mindset of someone who has survived a traumatic event. That the film cuts between the protagonist's memories and fantasies without warning further shows how an assault can fracture someone's thoughts.

During a dinner party, Michelle casually explains her father's rampage. How he went door to door through their neighborhood, shooting and stabbing twenty-seven people. And, she adds grimly, their pets too. An image of a young Michelle, in her underwear and covered in ash, became the symbol of the attack. No explanation is provided for Dad's killing spree, the same way no explanation is provided by Michelle's rapist. Despite his violent history, Michelle proves stronger than her father. In another example of the film's men being feckless, Michelle promising to visit him in prison prompts her father to suicide. Michelle doesn't have a good relationship with her mom either, an elderly lady who is engaged to a much younger stud. (Who, it's heavily implied, is only marrying her for the money.) Mom insists Michelle visit her father, a notion she rejects. This raises several issues, such as Michelle's reluctance to commit to traditional roles and the question of whether or not anti-social instincts are inherited.

As I said, “Elle” probably would've generated controversy no matter what. Yet one aspect of the script seemed especially contentious. Midway through the film, we discover that the masked attacker is Patrick, the neighbor that Michelle has begun an affair with. Even after discovering this, she doesn't call off the relationship. He helps her out of the car wreck. They have a peaceful dinner. Later, he assaults her again at Michele's insistence, which seems to give her a powerful orgasm. This is another layer of complexity atop “Elle.” Human desire isn't simple. Maybe Michelle is attracted to Patrick because he's different, in a horrifying way, than the spineless men around her. Or maybe it's just another senseless quirk of the universe. The film provides no easy answers, in its striving towards a human-like sense of complexity.

In the lead-up to “Elle's” release, Paul Verhoeven began describing the movie as his “rape comedy.” Which is probably another example of his shock value-laden sense of humor. Indeed, calling “Elle” a comedy is misleading, to say the least. However, one can see the darkest of humor within the film. After a tense conversation, Michelle's mother immediately keels over from a stroke. While mom's in the hospital, Michelle outright asks if the stroke was real or if she's just faking it. As her comatose mother begins to flat line, Michelle is more preoccupied with a malfunctioning TV. That same black humor is present in Michelle's interaction with her clueless son or meatheaded lover.

“Elle” is clearly Isabelle Huppert's film. Still, an excellent supporting cast was assembled. Laurent Lafitte as Patrick has the difficult job of playing a man who is charming in his normal life but, secretly, hides an evil perversity. Jonas Bloquet as Vincent, Michelle's son, also has a tricky role. Vincent must be enough of an idiot that he takes Josie's infidelity without question. He must also have something like an innocent side, coming off as not much more than a big kid. Both actors achieve these goals. Judith Marge as Irene, Michele's mother, displays a weathered sense of humor, having lived a hard life. Alice Isaaz, meanwhile, is perfectly bitchy as Vincent's girlfriend.

Another sign “Elle” is unmistakably a Verhoeven film is the way he litters the story with religious iconography. “Elle” begins around Christmas time. We see the neighbors set up a Nativity, where Patrick's wife comments on how much she loves the image of Baby Jesus. Later, during a party, we see Christmas mass playing on television. This is what spurns on Michele recounting of her dad's murders. All of these references to the Christ child play in contrast to Josie's pregnancy, as she's no Madonna and her child is clearly not the offspring of a virgin birth. I have no idea how this religious imagery plays into the movie's overall themes, other than Verhoeven seeing an excuse to indulge in another of his favorite habits.

Paul Verhoeven's return to Europe has produced some quality films, with “Black Book” and “Tricked” both being very good. “Elle,” however, is sure to stand up as one of his best films. It's a challenging motion picture but in an altogether different way then his other films. It presents a more mature perspective without loosing sight of what made the director special in the first place. Buoyed by an amazing Huppert performance, “Elle” impresses and lingers in the mind, haunting the viewer with the numerous questions – and no easy answers – it raises. [Grade: A]

The critical praise that greeted "Elle" has re-energized Paul Verhoeven's career. His next film has already been announced. "Blessed Virgin" is a fact-based story about a lesbian nun in the 17th century. A story of forbidden sex and religious imagery couldn't be more perfect for Verhoeven.

This Director Report Card has been exhausting at times - covering the RoboCop and Starship Troopers sequels was a mistake - but it has reaffirmed by belief that there's no other filmmaker out there quite like Paul Verhoeven.

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (2012)

15. Tricked
Steekspel

“Black Book” was a success, both in Holland and abroad. Despite this, Paul Verhoeven still seemingly disappeared from the film world for quite some time. Occasionally, you'd hear about an upcoming project. Such as a long gestating (and controversial) film about the life of Christ, which would eventually take the form of a book instead. In 2012, out of nowhere it seemed to us Americans, a new film popped up on Verhoeven's IMDb page. Entitled “Tricked,” there was very little information about the project. Eventually, the mysterious movie would get a U.S. DVD release, allowing fans of the director to finally figure out what the heck this thing was.

So what is “Tricked,” anyway? It's a fifty minute film that Verhoeven created as part of something called the Entertainment Experience. The idea behind the project was intriguing. The first four pages of the script were written by Dutch screenwriter and actress, Kim van Kooten. After Verhoeven filmed that beginning, the story was opened up, via the internet, to fans. Scripts for the next installment – totaling eight all together – were submitted from all over the country. The director and his team would consider which set of pages were best and proceed from there. In other words, even the filmmakers and actors making the movie had no idea where it would end up.

To boost the fifty minute short to feature length, “Tricked” is packaged with a documentary about its own making. Which, in what might seems like an odd move, plays before the actual movie. Honestly, my favorite thing about this opening documentary has very little to do with “Tricked” itself. Just watching Paul Verhoeven be himself is a lot of fun. Included is footage of the director on the set of “Starship Troopers.” We get to see him running around, yelling and screaming, impersonating the giant bugs that would be added later with CGI. “Tricked's” first half concludes with the director speaking about what the project meant to him, personally. He compares it to Felini's “8½,” saying this is only his 14½ movie. When the interviewer asks him to clarify this, he refuses, with a mischievous grin. No wonder actors talk about how much fun it is to make a film with Verhoeven. The guy clearly enjoys his job.

As with any documentary about making movies, the first half of “Tricked” gets into the challenges every production deals with. There's a lengthy sequence devoted to finding the right house to shoot in. Even after finding the perfect location, there's the trouble of shooting inside a residential building. Houses are made for families, not so much for film crews and all the required equipment. We see the challenges in casting, in auditioning many actors and narrowing it down to the right ones. Verhoeven discusses making a movie with a smaller budget than what he was used to on his Hollywood blockbuster. It's interesting, though the kind of stuff other docs have covered.

More compelling are the challenges unique to this project. Verhoeven quickly discovered that directing a crowd sourced movie was more difficult than expected. The original plan was to use the best submitted scripts. Verhoeven, however, wasn't satisfied with any one script. Instead, he compiled the best ideas from multiple submissions. This was an exhausting endeavor, considering thousands of potential screenplays were submitted. And they did this eight times! He struggled with writers who didn't stick to the tone set by the first four pages. More than one submission apparently dissolved into gun fights. Eventually, Verhoeven gathered some of the writers and gave them simple lessons about structure, construction, and pacing. Which is Writing 101 but, clearly, not all the amateurs knew this.

Eventually, the director discusses how freeing he found the experience. He talks how, without a massive Hollywood budget hanging over his head, he was able to lightly storyboard a film for the first time in years. This led to a more improvisational shooting style, which was further supported by the handheld cameras the crew used. That kind of free wheeling energy is evident in “Tricked” itself. The documentary proceeding “Tricked” is fun, if inessential, yet still give us plenty of insight into the movie's unique production.

Which brings us to “Tricked” itself. The film revolves around Remco, a Dutch businessman, on his fiftieth birthday. Several unexpected events happen at the party. There's some strange tension between Remco and Merel, the best friend of Lieke, his teenage daughter. Two of Remco's business partners are clearly plotting something, burning an important document in the bathroom. Most pressingly, Nadja – one of Remco's former mistresses – shows up pregnant. The next day, Remco discovers that his partners have conspired to sell his own company out from under him. And if Remco signs off on this, Nadja will deny the baby is his. Merel and Tobias, Remco's son, end up sleuthing into this scheme.

Going into “Tricked,” I had no idea what to expect. Very little has been written about the film, so I didn't even know what genre it fell into. All the posters and DVD covers suggest “Tricked” is a thriller. This is misleading. “Tricked” is, in fact, a comedy. Now, certainly, it's a dark comedy. As the title indicates, deception is the primary theme of the story. Each of the eight main characters are misleading each other. Remco is screwing around on his wife. His wife hides how much she knows about his affairs. Tobias is hiding his feelings for Merel. Merel, meanwhile, is hiding her secret lover from Lieke. The story constantly turns, revealing new information every few minutes. Yet the tone remains light and zippy. By the conclusion, “Tricked” is laugh-out-loud funny. A hilarious incident involving a pair of scissors brings the web of lies crashing down. The final frame is an uproarious switcharoo.

At the center of the story is an extremely dysfunctional family. Ineke, Remco's wife, is fully aware of his infidelity. She's always balanced his extramarital activity with their home life. Lieke,  the daughter, is a budding addict. She snorts a few lines of cocaine in one scene and is rarely seen without a glass of wine the rest of the time. Tobias, meanwhile, shows his affection for Merel by photoshopping her head onto pictures of nude models. The patriarch seems totally unaware of these problems. During a tense dinner, he mostly discusses his job, while his children argue with one another. It's clear that there's some problems at home.

You might expect “Tricked” not to feel like a Paul Verhoeven movie, due to its crowd sourced screenplay. Think again. “Tricked” doesn't lack the director's trademarks. There's sleazy sex, male frontal nudity, and a vomiting sequence. Meanwhile, you can easily draw a line from “Basic Instinct” and “Hollow Man” to “Tricked.” All three films deal with macho men being led to doom by their libidos. Remco has a long line of mistresses. The film, however, depicts his philandering behavior as pathetic. It's clear that Rembo is overcompensating for the lack of control in his life by manipulating vulnerable woman. That the character is such a blank makes the implicit criticism clear. “Tricked” is another Verhoeven film devoted to assassinating the fragile male ego.

It's also another Verhoeven film about women using their wiles to succeed. There's two unlikely heroines in “Tricked.” Merel, at first, appears to be another one of Remco's conquests. As “Tricked” goes on, Merel ends up uncovering Nadja's deception. Afterwards, in one of the film's most delightful sequences, she dumps Remco before he can dump her. The second heroine is Ineke, the put upon wife. She takes the action necessary to save her husband's job. The wife and the young mistress come out on top in “Tricked,” surprising and amusing the audience. This puts the film in line with Verhoeven's “Katie Tippel” and “Showgirls,” though its portrayal ends up being more positive than either of those.

“Tricked” has a pretty good cast too. The stand-out performance is Gaite Jansen as Merel. She has an unobtrusive sexuality, slowly charming the audience with her youthful good looks and unassuming attitudes. As the story progresses, Jansen's performance also reveals a skillfully hidden intelligence. Carolien Spoor, as Lieke, is one of the film's funniest performances. Upon discovering her best friend's affair, she has a massively amusing freak out.  Ricky Koole as Ineke has a cooler exterior, only hinting at how cunning she is. The men, almost intentionally, don't seem as well developed. Peter Blok plays Remco as almost goofy, a hopelessly unaware guy. Robert de Hoog as Tobias, meanwhile, plays up the younger brother's bizarre habits.

Paul Verhoeven might have had mixed feelings about the Entertainment Experience. He still succeeded in making “Tricked” his own. The result is an undeniable trifle that still manages to be highly entertaining. At least one more film has emerged from the Entertainment Experience project. Another Dutch film, called “Lotgenoten,” was made from the same material as “Tricked” but by different directors. A Chinese version, possibly helmed by John Woo, has also been kicked around. Though destined to be overlooked, Verhoeven fans should check out “Tricked,” a really fun, if brief, film. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (2006)

14. Black Book
Zwartboek

Following his personal dissatisfaction with “Hollow Man,” Paul Verhoeven would return to the Netherlands. Twenty years had passed since Verhoeven had made a film in his home country. The director would re-team with Gerard Soeteman, who wrote many of his Dutch films. While the two had been writing “Soldiers of Orange,” they uncovered a number of interesting stories from World War II. Instead of putting them into an already long film, they decided to craft a stand alone film from this material. It took the duo fifteen years to finish up the script. Like many of the director's European films, “Black Book” would become the most expensive Dutch film made up to that point. Likewise, it would become a huge box office and critical hit in Holland. In many ways, “Black Book” belatedly wraps up thematic points Verhoeven had begun in his earliest films.

The year is 1944 and the Netherlands is under Nazi rule. Rachel Stein, a Jewish singer, is hiding out with a sympathetic but strict Christian family. After the farm is bombed by the Germans, she attempts to sneak out of the country with her family. The barge is ambushed by Nazi soldiers, who murder every Jew on the boat. Except for Rachel, who barely escapes. Dying her hair and changing her name to Ellis de Vries, she begins to work with the Dutch Resistance. After several underground fighters are captured, she is given the mission of seducing Ludwig Muntze, a Gestapo officer. As she grows closer to Muntze, the two develop real feelings for each other. Ellis' true alliances quickly come under scrutiny.

“Black Book's” status as a companion piece to “Soldier of Orange” is obvious. Aside from arising from the same project, both films are about the Dutch resistance during World War II. While widely beloved, “Soldier of Orange” struck me as slightly cold. “Black Book” doesn't have this problem. By explicitly making its main characters Jewish, “Black Book” gives a far more personal perspective on the conflict. Ellis is fighting against the extermination of her people. Yet we also see a Christian resistance fighter who has a mental breakdown after taking a life. Or a shot of starving children grabbing food from a crashed truck. Little details like this ground “Black Book” in history and reality, making its story feel more alive and vital.

That Verhoeven hadn't made a film in his home country in two decades is quite apparent in “Black Book.” Visually, the film looks like one of the director's Hollywood productions. The cinematography, provided by Karl Walter Lindenlaub, is sweeping and gorgeous. The musical score, by Anne Dudley, is highly theatrical. “Black Book” may look like one of the director's more expensive American production, Tonally, it feels like one of his original Dutch pictures. The film balances between an important historical story and free-wheeling pulp, resulting in an atmosphere that's polished but zips along at a speedy clip. Time had past but you can draw a direct line between “Spetters” or “The 4th Man” and this film.

Moral ambiguity is a topic Verhoeven has played with throughout his entire career. Even in his Hollywood films, most of his protagonists have been anti-heroes of some sort. This morally gray area emerges as the main point in “Black Book.” Ellis believes she's fighting the Nazis to get revenge for her dead family. Yet she winds up falling in love with a Nazi. That man turns out to be negotiating with the Dutch underground, keeping captive fighters alive. Another Nazi officer has been breaking his country's own laws, by keeping the gold and jewels taken off the dead Jews. As the story progresses, we discover that no one's alliances are easy to determine, that double agents and traitors are everywhere. The message seems to be that war changes everyone, no matter how upright they may appear.

Carice Van Houten stars as Rachel/Ellis. From her earliest scenes, Van Houten characterizes Rachel by a sense of rebellion. After her Christian land owner insist she read prayers from the Bible at the dinner table, she mockingly draws a cross in her oatmeal. She thinks on her feet. When German officers ask for tickets on a train ride, she finds clever ways around the problem. That same quick thinking keeps her alive through several scenarios. Inside, Ellis has a fiery need to stay alive. Outside, she often bottles up her emotions. Early on, she tells a friend that she still hasn't cried over the death of her family. Until a powerful sequence, where her grief, sadness, and anger overflows, leading to anguished tears. Van Houten's performance is extremely controlled, each movement and action well thought.

At the center of “Black Book” is the most unlikely of love stories. A romance between a Nazi officer and an undercover Jewish spy sounds like the stuff of exploitation picture. Despite this, there's an understated quality to “Black Book's” romance. Muntze and Ellis' earliest scenes have an unspoken chemistry to them, when the two bond over an interest in stamps. This, naturally, leads the two into bed together. Muntze quickly deduces that she is Jewish. Even after he figures out that she's a spy, Ellis remains attracted to him, asking for a kiss while a gun is pointed at her head. In return, he takes extra measures to protect her. Their honest affection for each other is displayed in a moment right after the end of the war is announced, where they dream about their future. It seems the Verhoeven woman – who uses her sex appeal to survive – has finally grown up into someone capable of genuine love.

Even in a prestige film like “Black Book,” Paul Verhoeven finds room for his favorite subjects. The violence in “Black Book” is brutal and intense. When people are executed, the resulting gunshots wounds are massive, weeping, and bloody. Two especially vivid deaths involve a spurting jugular vein and splattering brain matter. The film often features extended sequences of crowds being gunned down. We see victims collapse in gory piles. There's a graphic torture scene too, a man being drown in a sink and kicked in the balls. Yet there's an extra sense of gravity to these deaths. When we're shown Nazis executing unsuspecting Jews, it's impossible not to feel the seriousness of these actions. Verhoeven's love of excessive violence ends up making the film's gruesome content more powerful, the impact of the deaths being fully felt by the viewer.

The director doesn't skimp on the sex and nudity either. Van Houten is frequently nude. A lengthy scene is devoted to her dying her pubic hair blonde. Later, a different woman distracts some soldiers by pouring wine over her naked chest. Verhoeven's return to the Netherlands also means a return of the male frontal nudity that was commonplace in his earliest films. Even the unseemly interest in bodily functions seen in “Turkish Delight” makes a come back, as feces and urine both play a role in two scenes. This isn't just exploitation for exploitation's sake. It adds a natural, earthy reality that was sometimes absent in Verhoeven's American movies.

Van Houten's performance isn't the only impressive one. Sebastian Koch is surprisingly sensitive as Ludwig, gifting the part with a great deal of complexity. His eye seem to speak to the character's hidden depths. At the opposite end is Waldemar Kobus as Franken. A monstrous Nazi officer, Franken is characterized by a vulgar thirst for sex and power who is utterly ruthless with his enemies. Thom Hoffman appears as Hans, a member of the Resistance who isn't all he appears to be. Hoffman is very good at appearing benevolent one minute and devious the next. Lastly, Dolf De Vries has a notable part as Rachel's lawyer, a man who speaks matter-of-factly. De Vries previously had small roles in “Turkish Delight,” “Solider of Orange,” and “The 4th Man,”  making him something of a Verhoeven regular.

Like “Soldier of Orange,” “Black Book” has an epic run time. Instead of adding on an extended epilogue like that film, “Black Book's” story propels itself after the end of the war. Continuing the film's theme of moral uncertainty, Verhoeven does not portray the Netherland's post-war actions as right. German soldiers are marched through the streets, holding signs identifying them as traitors. Women associated with Nazis have their heads shaved and are called whores. Ellis is striped nude in a warehouse and has a barrel of excrement poured on her. Even in victory, war remains ugly and unfair.

It's very obvious that Verhoeven and Soeteman spent twenty years writing “Black Book.” The script is brilliantly constructed. Throughout the film, small details pay off in big ways. A bag of diamonds given to Ellis become important later, once we learn where they came from. An opening detail concerning people hiding in caskets later becomes an important way for Ellis to defeat an enemy. A factoid about insulin and chocolate, mentioned in passing during an early scene, ends up saving her life later on. This makes “Black Book” a really satisfying viewing experience, as the viewer never expects what details will become important later.

Raw sentiment is not something you usually expect from Paul Verhoeven. He often cloaks his emotions in a sarcastic sense of humor or satirical detachment. Yet this is the same director who made “Turkish Delight,” a heartbreaking romance. “Black Book” shows that Verhoeven could make an important film without sacrificing the quirks and obsessions that made him a cult favorite. Despite the success of “Black Book,” the director wouldn't make another proper film for quite some time. I'm glad this wasn't his last feature but, if it had been, “Black Book” would have been an impressive send-off. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (2000)

13. Hollow Man

When “Hollow Man” hit theaters in 2000, it would become Paul Verhoeven's biggest hit since “Basic Instinct.” It would gross over 100 million at the global box office, a big step up from “Showgirls” flopping and “Starship Troopers” just breaking even. I even have a personal anecdote about the film. Back in high school, a female friend of mine said the film gave her a reoccurring fear of Kevin Bacon. Yet Verhoeven himself would express disappointment with the film. He complained that anyone could've made this movie, that it didn't reflect his personal idiosyncrasies enough. That bitter reaction would cause Verhoeven to leave Hollywood. Seventeen years later, how does “Hollow Man” hold up?

Sebastian Caine is a scientist who has successfully designed a serum that can turn living matter invisible. After a late night bolt of inspiration strikes, he figures out how to make the invisible visible again. He's working on the project in a secret facility with a motley crew of scientists, including his ex-girlfriend, Linda. Caine refuses to report their success to their military backers, hoping to test the serum on a human subject. He allows himself to be injected. Once invisible, Caine realizes humans can't be restored to flesh-and-blood so easily. The longer Caine stays unseen, the more his morality and sanity begins to slip. Soon, Caine is committing ghastly acts. When his research partners suggests shutting down the project, Caine locks up the facility and starts to pick them off, one by one.

The defenses I've read of “Basic Instinct” frame it as critical of its male lead's blustering macho bullshit. “Hollow Man” takes the same point even further. Sebastian Caine is a frat boy scientist. He drives around in a sports car while blaring terrible hard rock. His default mood is cocky self-assurance. He manipulates and emotionally blackmails everyone around him. The only person he can't bully is Linda. That she rejected him in favor of another man deeply infuriates him. Once invisible, his macho ego is given full reign to reek as much havoc as it wants. In H. G. Wells' “The Invisible Man,” the unseen madman hopes to rule the world. In “Hollow Man,” Caine uses his ability to rape and settle petty grudges. That's the most elaborate scheme his swollen, dickhead mind can think of.

The film teases with the idea that the invisibility serum is what causes its subjects to go crazy. The gorilla they test it on is more aggressive before rendered visible again. Verhoeven himself seems to reject this. The film's cynical and ugly – but not entirely unreasonable – assumption is that any man, if granted invisibility, would become an amoral monster. He emphasizes this point by often shooting scenes from Caine's perspective. Most everyone has probably fantasized about being invisible, a scenario these sequences entertain. Yet Verhoeven follows this fantasy to its most horrific conclusion. Caine rapes his shapely next door neighbor, who he used to spy on. The sequence is tasteless and shocking. But the rug is successfully pulled out from under the viewers' feet. “The Invisible Man doesn't seem so fun now, does he?” Verhoeven says with a shit-eating grin.

Verhoeven's insistence that “Hollow Man” doesn't reflect his personality isn't baseless. The film, at times, feels like a genre exercise that could've been directed by anyone. Yet it seems unlikely that anyone else would take the subject matter as far as Verhoeven does. The director's peculiar obsession is evident in other ways. Sebastian Caine has a serious God complex. It's set up early on, when another scientist on the project jokes about being God. Caine corrects him, claiming he's a deity. Once granted invisibility, Caine's complex goes into overdrive, believing he's above societal morality. This is a natural evolution of the Christ obsession the director has displayed previously. If Verhoeven believes Christianity is a religion rooted in violence, casting a God-like figure as a murderous maniac is a natural extension. God's violent too.

When “Hollow Man” came out, most of the attention it received was directed at its elaborate special effects. This continues a proud tradition, as the Universal “Invisible Man” films push effects as far as they could in their day. Instead of simply shooting scenes without Kevin Bacon, “Hollow Man” goes to the effort of digitally removing him from every scene. When you see diodes, blankets, or molding cream stuck to his unseen skin, it's not simple trickery. Probably the most impressive sequence involves Bacon shifting from visible to invisible and back again. He doesn't just fade out. We see everything bone, nerve, vein, muscle, and organ slowly reappear or vanish. The CGI doesn't look as cutting edge as it once did but the sheer attention to detail is still insanely impressive. The effects crew received an Oscar nomination for their troubles.

Like most Invisible Man stories, “Hollow Man” doesn't explore the nitty gritty details of becoming unseen. Caine's eyelids are invisible, yet his sleeping habits are only marginally affected by this. We don't see partially digested food floating inside him. Or sweat collecting on his skin. Or dirt under his fingernails. However, “Hollow Man” does have fun dousing its invisible man in various fluids. A stand-out scene has Caine diving into a pool, revealing himself as a watery silhouette. Throughout the film, the Hollow Man is draped in steam, splashed with blood, or set ablaze. That's when the movie isn't utilizing infrared cameras to make the unseen seen. It's elaborate visual showmanship but I appreciate that.

“Hollow Man's” script is a bit unbalanced. Placing that ghastly rape scene so early in the film makes Caine's eventual transformation into a raving murderer less shocking. By that point, he's already a monster. Yet you can tell the murder-filled last act is what screenwriter Andrew W. Marlowe, previously of “Air Force One” and “End of Days,” really wanted to write. In that second half, “Hollow Man” becomes an expensive slasher film. Victims are garroted and strangled by invisible hands. Necks are snapped. An especially grisly kill involves impalement with a crowbar. The film resembles the slasher genres in other ways. Shue's Linda begins to act like a final girl of sorts. Caine proves difficult to kill, taking more damage than the human body should physically be able too. No mater how much he's electrocuted or beaten, he always returns for one more scare.

Some reviewers have complained about “Hollow Man” degrading into such a low genre so suddenly. Yet I can appreciate a good slasher flick, even if it stars Kevin Bacon's musculature system. The film doesn't really loose me until its climax. Linda and her current boyfriend are positioned in a collapsing elevator shaft. They end up dangling on a ladder, below a careening elevator box and above a poorly CGI'd ball of fire. The situation becomes more and more preposterous, leading up to the moment when Caine falls into the fireball. At that point, the movie becomes too overheated, too silly, for my taste.

There's another reason “Hollow Man” is worth checking out. This is Kevin Bacon at his hammiest. From a screenwriting perspective, Sebastian Caine begins the film as an insufferable dick bag. By the end, he's a murdering, raping monster who kills dogs and gropes sleeping women. Despite this, Bacon keeps the character charismatic, if not likable, throughout. He has a way with dialogue that's amusing. His cocksure smile is charming, in a greasy way. Caine is absolutely despicable but at least you understand why he's doing these things. Bacon's strength for approaching unlikable characters in a complex, sympathetic manner made him the ideal pick for the part.

Bacon ultimately owns the film but other actors emerge as interesting. Elisabeth Shue plays Linda McKay as a woman immune to Caine's sleazeball ways. She can, ironically, see right through his macho bullshit, making her a perfect foil to the villain. Shue is solid in the part, sexy and strong when she needs to be. Josh Brolin plays her new lover, making him a target of Caine's rage. Brolin is nowhere near as compelling as Bacon, his character being rather weakly written. Of Caine's victims, the only one that emerges as memorable is Kim Dickens' Sarah, a feisty veterinarian who puts her animals' well fare above people.

After his excellent “Total Recall” and “Basic Instincts” scores, Jerry Goldsmith returns to provide another overachieving score to a sleazy Paul Verhoeven movie. His “Hollow Man” score begins with a throbbing, metallic baseline, as if to emphasizes the coldness of the lead character. He builds upon that with low woodwind and piano, creating a melodic if subtly off-putting atmosphere. But Goldsmith knew when to lay on the bombast too. He adds sweeping strings and shrieking cords from time to time as well. It's a mysterious score that you'd expect more from a classy, early nineties political thriller than a trumped-up sci-fi slasher.

“Hollow Man” would , naturally, be poorly received by critics. Most dismissed it as badly written, if not morally repugnant, and too focused on its special effects. (Though its box office popularity led to a direct-to-DVD sequel starring Christian Slater, which sounds about right.) Oddly, fans generally agree that “Hollow Man” is one of Paul Verhoeven's weakest films. Despite having some fairly clear flaws, I still have some fondness for “Hollow Man.” It's an expensive, mainstream horror picture full of graphic content that would certainly not get made today. I'm not sure how it got made in 2000. Despite Verhoeven dismissing it himself, the film is still full of his quirks and trademarks. Ultimately, it's a minor work but one I can enjoy. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (1997)

12. Starship Troopers

Following the “Showgirls” fiasco, Paul Verhoeven returned to the comfier realm of sci-fi/action. Re-teaming with Ed Neumeier, his “RoboCop” screenwriter, the two took another satirical stab at the genre. “Starship Troopers,” an adaptation/evisceration of Robert E. Heinlin’s seminal novel, was a moderate box office success but widely misunderstood by critics. Far too many dismissed it as a brain-dead action flick. Some declared the picture to be fascist. Yet, in the intervening decade, “Starship Troopers” has been reevaluated as a subversive cult classic. It’s a movie that I’ve heard a lot about over the years. My sister’s husband is a die hard Heinlin fan and has often complained about the movie over the years, to the point where I’m well sick of hearing about it. Especially since he manages to miss the point every time.

The world is at war. The planet Earth and an insect-like race known as Arachnids have been locked in battle for quite some time. In sunny Buenos Aires, high school student Johnny Rico is eager to enlist, gaining citizenship in the process, despite the protests of his parents. While in basic training, an asteroid, apparently launched by the bugs, absolutely destroys Buenos Aires. The war intensifies. Carmen, Rico’s high school girlfriend, becomes a pilot. Dizzy, another female friend, joins the Mobile Infantry. Soon, all three are in the center of the conflict, facing the bugs on the battlefield and circling the Arachnids’ home world. Would you like to know more?

There’s a reason Heinline faithfuls have rejected Verhoeven’s “Starship Troopers” so violently. Initially, the script wasn’t even based on Heinline’s book. It began life as an unrelated screenplay, entitled “Bug Hunt.” It was only after a few similarities were noticed that the studio bought the right to the book. Verhoeven attempted to read the book but quickly discarded it, declaring it “boring and depressing.” Instead, the director rejected the original author’s intent, choosing to parody and satirize his themes. “Starship Troopers” is, instead, an indictment of fascism. The film depicts a perfect fascist world, exposing the disturbing inclinations of such a society by presenting them as totally justified.

It’s fairly clear that Ed Neumeier wrote both this film and “RoboCop.” In many ways, “Starship Troopers” is a better thematic follow-up to “RoboCop” than any of that film’s actual sequels were. Both films make extensive use of news programs. “Starship Troopers” begins with an interactive news broadcast, informing viewers of the state of the war. These clips advance the story, showing the weakness of an Arachnid warrior or introducing a debate about a “Brain Bug.” Primarily, they develop the film’s world. They reveal that psychics are active in this military. They depict this society as one that censors the slaughter of a cow but airs executions in prime time. Mostly, the films-within-the-film are hilarious. Their chest-thumping patriotism is amusingly overblown. The way the programs switch between grim depictions of the war and cutesy scenes of kids stomping cockroaches provides intentional tonal whiplash. Moreover, the ads remind the viewer of the condescending self-importance of eighties PSAs.

In case the audience missed the point, Verhoeven also employs fascist imagery all throughout “Starship Troopers.” Several shots, of cheering citizens eager to enlist or rows of prepared soldiers, are directly lifted from “Triumph of the Will.” The insignia of this society heavily recalls the Imperial Eagle of Nazi Germany. By the end of the film, Neil Patrick Harris is marching around in an S.S.-style trench coat. Aside from the visual references, the movie’s absolute military dictatorship is vividly displayed. High schools are used as recruitment centers, teachers talking openly about how violence is the only thing that can change the world. In basic training, the drill instructors are unnecessarily brutal. Recruits have their arms broken, are strangled into unconscious, or impaled through the hand with knives. Punishments are violent and put on display for all to see, when Rico is publicly whipped ten times. This world may look shiny but it’s really, really fucked up.

Yet Verhoeven’s critique of fascism goes deeper. In many ways, “Starship Troopers” plays like a parody of American war movies. The brutalizing drill sergeants take the training sequences of “Full Metal Jacket” to their natural conclusion. We have soldiers talking tough in the battlefield. One shell-shocked veteran blasts a dead Arachnid for far too long. The climax concludes with an officer sacrificing himself to deliver a killing blow to the enemy. Any viewer familiar with war movies will recognize these clichés. This farcical portrayal of combat extends to the high school scenes. In high school, Rico plays a ridiculous combination of football and gymnastics called “Leapball.” The clichés of high school cinema, like a student getting sick during science lab or a dramatically fraught dance, are also on display. By making war and school look ridiculous, Verhoeven is making the very concept of war look ridiculous.

The satire is obvious but many critics totally missed the point. One detail that was often misconstrued was the casting. Verhoeven filled the film with fresh-faced young actors, most of them from teenie-bopper TV shows. Casper Van Dien and Dina Meyer were best known for parts on “Beverly Hills, 90210.” Denise Richards was already established as a sex symbol, in addition to appearing on several episodes of “Melrose Place.” Patrick Muldoon, as the perfectly insufferable Zander, was also a graduate from “Melrose Place.” And none other than Neil Patrick Harris, Doogie Howser himself, shows up as the primary psychic. This casting serves two purpose. First off, the director wanted younger actors to reflect the actual age of most newly recruited soldiers. Secondly, it's part of the movie's big joke, of celebrating a shiny, but fascist, future. Thus, the hunky but blank Van Dien and the lovely but vacant-eyed Richards are perfectly cast as more meat for the meat grinder, Aryan ideals but hollow humans. That Van Dien and Richards don't seem entirely aware of what kind of movie they're making only adds to this affect.

For the record, Meyer and Harris are obviously aware of the movie's intent, as their performances are intentionally funny. Harris' introductory scene does begin with him talking to a ferret. Jake Busey was already following in his father's footsteps, with memorably unhinged performances in “The Frighteners” and “Contact.”  He brings a certain good ol' boy charm to the part of Ace Levy. When not casting fresh-faced up-and-comers, the film employs grizzled character actors. Michael Ironside, reappearing from “Total Recall,” has a memorable part as General Owen. First, a teacher extolling the virtues of taking freedom by force, he later becomes the leader of Rico's unit. Ironside makes being a massive hardass look so entertaining, you hardly notice that he's also playing the part for exaggerated humor. The second “Highlander” villain appearing in the film is Clancy Brown, as the absurdly named Sgt. Zim. Brown is also playing a huge asshole but is more obviously charming.

As tongue-in-cheek as much of the movie is, “Starship Troopers” still treats its alien threats totally seriously. The various Bugs race are impressive. The Warrior Arachnid has an eye-catching yellow and dark green coloring. They are mostly composed of a set of giant jaws, snapping through the air like enormous scissors. This massive head takes up most of their body, leaving little room for the spindly legs. This emphasizes the alien's status as a creature designed to kill. There's also a winged “hopper” variation of the classic warrior. Nearly as impressive a creation is the massive Tanker Bugs. Looking like an especially pissed-off dung beetle, the Tanker is as big as a house. From its lower abdomen, it shoots huge plasma blast. From its head, it sprays skin-rending napalm. Every thing about the insectoid creatures – from the scurrying sand beetles to the grotesque Brain Bug - is finely designed.

“Starship Troopers” was made long after the era of awesome creature effects – the eighties – end. Yet the movie's special effects are still impressive. Phil Tippet, the daddy of ED-209 and “Jurassic Park's” dinosaur, oversaw the Bug designs and effects. The film makes heavy use of CGI. Despite this, the effects hold up extremely well. Maybe it's because non-humanoid creatures are more believably animated in CGI. I believe it's because the film often crosses between mechanical props and CGI creatures. The space ship effects, which are also excellent, are brought to life with a similar technique.

When I first saw the film, I was fairly young. At the time, I actually found the film's violence to be too intense. Watching now, I find this initial reaction funny. “Starship Troopers” is, of course, packed full of grisly violence. Troopers are torn apart by bugs, limbs and guts tossed into the air. More than once, soldiers have their arms or legs chomped off. Massive jaws and stabbing legs slash through chest and tear through bodies. The Brain Bug sucks a head hollow. As graphic as the gore in “Starship Troopers” is, I actually found the film less explicit than Verhoeven's other action films. The veneer of satire, of comedy, pushes the gory action to cartoonish levels. That most of the characters are such one-dimensional caricatures also renders the gore less startling. It's actually a perfect opportunity for Verhoeven, as it allows him to pack the movie with as much gratuitous bloodshed without alienating or disturbing audiences.

After the back-to-back sexploitation of “Basic Instinct” and “Showgirls,” Verhoeven rears back on the sex and nudity. But only a little bit. “Starship Troopers” still features the infamous communal shower scenes. Carefully placed shower stations prevent the full frontal nudity, of both genders, that was so common in his Dutch films. Rico and Dizzy's interrupted love scene even features the lightest of light bondage. Yet that's not the exploitation elements that really amuse me. When the fearsome Brain Bug is revealed, there's something obviously gynecological about its facial features. After being captured, the military shoves a massive probe into this opening. (In a sick joke, the news broadcast censors this forced entry.) This moment continues to paint the humans as the aggressors while also satisfying Verhoeven's rape obsession without horribly offending the viewer. I guess human-on-bug-monster assault is okay.

Further selling “Starship Troopers” is another magnificently powerful score from Basil Poledouris, a pounding and sweeping piece of music. The brilliance of “Starship Troopers” has survived its initial naysayers. Now the film is rightly regarded as a classic, a beautifully assembled piss-take on fascist sci-fi troupes and a fantastically entertaining action picture. The film's success would spawn several spin-offs. Two sequels, an anime follow-up, and – following “RoboCop's” lead as a hard-R flick sold to kids – a cartoon show and a series of toys. Yet the original stands alone. Verhoeven considers it his favorite of his own films. And it's a favorite of mine too. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Paul Verhoeven (1995)

11. Showgirls

With the massive success of “Basic Instinct,” Paul Verhoeven and Joe Eszterhas proved that Americans would line up for a movie loaded with graphic sexual content. Galvanized, the two went to work on an even more extreme follow-up. “Showgirls” would pile on the sex and nudity to such a degree, that an NC-17 was the only rating the MPAA could ever conceivably hand out. It would be the first major studio release to go to theaters with the adults-only rating. It would also be the last major studio release with that distinction. “Showgirls” would be a fiasco, flopping at the box office and receiving reviews that could only be described as apocalyptic. The failure contributed to Eszterhas' professional meltdown and totally torpedoed Elizabeth Berkley's career. Yet over the years, the film would acquire a passionate cult following, being reclaimed as a camp masterpiece. Some have even hailed it as a serious satire. So which is it?

A girl calling herself Nomi hitchhikes into Las Vegas. She considers herself a dancer and dreams of becoming a star. After a guy steals her suitcase, she makes her first friend in a parking lot. That friend works as a seamstress at a casino, home of the glamorous “Goddess” dance show, starring Crystal Connors, the queen of the showgirls. While Nomi toils away in a super seedy strip club, she dreams of dancing in “Goddess.” Soon, that dream comes true, when she catches Crystal's eye. Nomi, however, craves more success. She won't stop sleeping with powerful men and hurting other people until she's the star of the show.

“Showgirls” takes place in an excessively trashy world. Everything about the movie is loud. The music, colors, and production values are over-the-top. The characters are in your face. Joe Eszterhas' dialogue is even more ridiculous and self-aggravatingly outrageous than in “Basic Instinct.” And at over two hours long, “Showgirls” is determined to squeeze in as much trashiness as possible. Some people embrace the awful dialogue and ridiculous aesthetic. Personally, I found the dialogue obnoxious. The movie's constant garishness quickly exhausted me, within the first half-hour. And there's still more than an hour left after that.

One of the reason I find “Showgirls” to be irritating is Nomi. In the opening scene, she repays an act of kindness with threats of violence. When she first meets Molly, who becomes her only real friend, she attacks her too. At a pivotal moment, Nomi pushes her professional rival down the stairs, getting the lead role in the stage show. And this is after that rival repeatedly tried to help her. The movie draws attention to her white trash roots – her love of cheeseburgers and potato chips, her obsession with getting her nails done, her inability to pronounce foreign words – which, frankly, I don't know how to interpret. Nomi is single minded, totally unscrupulous, and only cares about herself. She doesn't care who she hurts on her way to the top. Elizabeth Berkley's performance is utterly tone-deaf but you knew that already.

“Showgirls” is, in many odd ways, Paul Verhoeven's attempt at making a musicals. There's no actual singing but there's lots of dancing and songs. Something that's especially unbelievable about the film is how often Nomi's dancing abilities are praised. Pretty much every time she gets on-stage, someone complements on her raw talent. I don't know much about the art of dance but I feel confident in calling Nomi's dance moves awkward, at best. At worst, they look fucking dumb. She gyrates wildly, bends over at weird angles, spasmodically thrashes her hips, and waves her arms around in ridiculous ways. Even when dancing with a friend, a bouncer who attempts to romance her, Nomi maintains this goofball style of dance.

If you think Nomi's dancing skills are laughable, wait until you see the stage shows. The professional showgirls dance in a manner no less convulsive than Nomi, sliding across the stage in ways that look really goofy. Crystal Connors' “Goddess” show features a bizarre volcano set, with vaguely caveman like dancers. There's another set with white pillars, that feature Crystal floating off on wires. Later, there's an even stranger routine that feature leather outfits, motorcycles, and a metal set that spews sparks. I've never been to Vegas but I doubt a hotel would grant a topless dance routine production values that lavish. In general, these scenes look utterly ridiculous.

Then again, maybe thrashing around like a decapitated chicken is considered normal in the world of “Showgirls.” Observe, if you will, the film's various sex scenes. When Nomi is first introduced to Zach, the hotel's production manager, she's paid to give him a lap dance. She dry-humps him with frantic gyrations, twisting her body about in bizarre ways. This is merely a precursor to when Zach and Nomi consummate their relationship. You don't need me to tell you about the improvable positioning in the notorious dolphin pool sex scene. If the effect was to be erotic, it failed. Berkley's wild thrashing in the pool simply causes the viewer to exclaim in bafflement.

“Showgirls'” treatment of all things sexual is farcical for most of its run time. Until Nomi invites Molly to a party, where she meets Andrew Carver, a rock star she lusted after earlier in the film. Andrew takes Molly back to her room. What follows is an absolutely ghastly rape scene. Molly is  assaulted so brutally, her legs are bloody afterwards. She is beaten into unconsciousness. What the fuck does one make of this scene? The intimate, sickening way it's shot recalls a similar moment in “Spetters.” Yet even the sick humor you could possibly see in that moment is absent here. It's just an ugly, brutal sequence. Verhoeven's obsession with rape is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. 

If you give the director and writer the benefit of the doubt, that hideous rape scene might serve the film's themes. Andrew Carver's connection protect him from the law. While Molly is recuperating in the hospital, Zach learns the truth about Nomi. That she has an extensive criminal record, showing a previous life as a literal crack whore. He then brutally rejects her. In this moment, Nomi seems to show remorse for her ruthless actions. And the film's themes start to mirror “Katie Tippel,” stating that a man's world is so brutal that a woman must be equally brutal if she hopes to succeed.

Yet “Showgirls” immediately tosses this interesting point out to become a facile revenge fantasy. Nomi tracks Andrew Carver down and beats him up. That's it. She doesn't kill. She doesn't even cut his dick off. That wouldn't have made up for the ugliness of the rape but at least it would've provided the viewer with some catharsis. Nomi does nothing to stop Carver from abusing somebody else. Nomi then apologizes to Crystal and Molly, both of whom forgive her. It's a whimper of an ending, that does nothing to redeem Nomi or truly avenge her only real friend. Nomi's attack against Carver is shot like an action movie too, confirming that the filmmakers' seemingly believed this to be a satisfying conclusion.

So what of the performances? Most of the cast does not seem to know what sort of movie they were making. Elizabeth Berkley reads her lines in a totally clueless way, responding to everything stimuli with self-righteous annoyance. Kyle MacLachlan was vocal about his disapproval of the movie. His performance is deeply sleazy, playing against his somewhat wholesome image to odd effect. A few of the supporting players, however, are on Verhoeven's trashy wavelength. Gina Gershon, sporting a ridiculous Southern accent, hams it up as Crystal. She vamps effortlessly through her scenes. Robert Davi has a hilarious bit part as the extremely seedy owner of the strip club Nomi works in. Alan Rachins is similarly sleazy as the stage manager who insists Nomi's nipples aren't perky enough. 

In the years since its release, “Showgirls' has become recognized as a cult classic, one of those “so bad, it's good” type of movies. It's fairly obvious to me that “Showgirls” was supposed to be ridiculous. I don't know if all the humor was intentional but the film's excessive, over-the-top atmosphere was obviously on purpose. Other writers have gone even further, in their attempts to reclaim the film. Some see a satire of American values, that Nomi's ruthless ways is indicative of how our remorseless, capitalistic society. Some have even gone so far as to call “Showgirls” sorta feminist, seeing Nomi's status as a totally feckless anti-hero as representative.

All of these elements are clearly inside the film, to varying degrees. To me, this subversiveness doesn't make up for “Showgirls” being so insufferably obnoxious. I hate the characters, especially Nomi. The ridiculous dance routines don't make me laugh. The rape scene goes too far. By piling excess upon excess, Verhoeven just made sure I got tired of the film very quickly. Despite my problems with the picture, “Showgirls'” place in the pantheon of cult movies is secured. Unsurprisingly, there have been multiple DVD releases, quote-alongs, stage adaptations, and even a direct-to-video sequel. And fans are welcomed to them. [Grade: D]