Paul Verhoeven (1) (1938–)

Although it one of the worst reviewed films ever and has a (possibly) deserved reputation as one of the worst films of all time "Showgirls" idiotic song and dance shenanigans, bizarre story and all round diabolical acting has seen it developing something of a cult reputation as a bad-taste classic. The storyline follows the adventures of Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) a young woman with a shady past who hitchhikes her way to Las Vegas to make it big in showbiz. She ends up rooming with show more costume designer Molly (Gina Ravera) who is working on the show Goddess at the Stardust Casino. Gina takes Nomi backstage and she meets Cristal Connors (Gina Gershon) the star of the topless revue show. The bisexual Cristal takes a bit of a fancy to Nomi and is soon visiting her at the Cheetah Club where Nomi earns a crust as a stripper and arranging for Nomi to audition for the chorus line of Goddess. Nomi and Cristal are soon at loggerheads, however, and before long Nomi is off with Cristal's boyfriend Zach (Kyle MacLachlan) and is looking to supplant Cristal as star of the show. For a supposed erotic film, "Showgirls" is one of the least erotic but one of the funniest films ever. The dialogue, acting and set pieces are completely ludicrous and over the top and the whole thing is a trashy and absurd mess. Given that the script was by Joe Esztherhas and that the film was directed by Paul Verhoeven, both of whom are skilled technicians, it is difficult to see how the film turned out that way it did by accident; surely Verhoeven and Esztherhas knew what they were doing and took very deliberate decisions to make it the gaudy spectacle that it is? "Showgirls" is more in the tradition of Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", with ludicrous dialogue delivered with straight faces and with the acting deliberately amped up for effect. The film is dynamic and kinetic throughout, with Verhoeven moving breathlessly from one madcap situation to the next. The cinematography by Jost Vacano is excellent throughout, bright, gaudy and capturing the neon washed Vegas cityscape to perfect effect. The original music is by David A. Stewart and he serves up a wacky off-kilter soundtrack and a set of show tunes that compliments the mad dance numbers. It is difficult to know what to make of the acting performances – Gina Gershon appears to be in on the joke; Kyle MacLachlan sports a mad haircut that captures all the attention every time he's on screen and as for Elizabeth Berkley her career simply self destructs over the 128 minute duration of the film. That said she delivers a hugely memorable performance comprised of insane dance moves, eye-popping lap-dancing action and an unforgettable "thrashing dolphin" love scene in a neon-lit swimming pool with a stunned looking Kyle MacLachlan. "Showgirls" is awful, gaudy trash, but utterly fascinating and compelling all at the same time. It becomes more bizarre and awe-inspiring with each successive viewing and it's hard to shake the feeling that you're watching some huge and elaborate practical joke being played on critics and audience by the film makers – a film that you just have to simply sit back with and laugh at / laugh with, or both simultaneously. show less

The Jesus Seminar is a group of historical Jesus scholars that comes together to discuss and debate the authenticity of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus. Paul Verhoeven, a member of the Seminar but notably not an academic, follows in the footsteps of the general skepticism of the group. They're generally disaffected and anti-establishment, sometimes anti-church, theological liberals. The Jesus that gets formulated in their discourse can be said to have been made in their own image: show more with the 'dogma' stripped away, Jesus is a challenging radical who lived fast and died young. And as cynically as I am describing the Jesus Seminar, it really is a good group, academically honest and full of interesting interpretations of the socio-political aspects which form the matrix of Jesus' living situation.

Verhoeven both follows and deviates from the general approach of the Seminar. His Jesus is also demythologized. But he inserts some really unprofessional snippiness about miracles being impossible, and strips away a lot of the religious aspects of Jesus' ministry because they would've been influenced by later doctrine. Which is of course true, but Verhoeven rather throws the baby out with the bathwater: in his attempt to disentangle the historical Jesus from Christian doctrine later, he inadvertently also removes Jesus' Jewish religiosity. I find this unforgivable - it was odd and such an apparent gap in scholarship for Verhoeven to write about Jesus without writing about Judaism, the Kingdom of God as it would have been conceptualized in Jewish terms, or any messianic expectations. Better scholars who work with "Jesus the Jew" (Sanders, Levine, or Crossan, to begin with) emphasize that Jesus must be read within, rather than against, Judaism. To place Jesus outside of his own religion makes him an unrealistic singularity, akin to later Christian bias, and intimates either ignorance or deliberate disregard for Judaism.

Verhoeven contradicts himself in a few instances. He cannot make up his mind whether Jesus believed that the Twelve would or would not be authorities in Heaven. Even worse, he cannot decide whether Jesus intended to die or not. Many of his points are less grounded in scholarship and more in provocative "What if?"s. Several times he alters the language or structure of a saying or parable, without textual support for his alteration, just to make a point that he feels like making. At least he acknowledges when he does this, that's nice, but it's really not the way that academia works.

He also runs counter to most Jesus scholarship with his heavy dependence on the gospel of John. Generally we don't - John is so different from the Synoptics, much later (probably a good 35-40 years later than Mark, the earliest), with a questionable authorship but probably from a fringe or sectarian Christian community. By the time John is written, Christian theology is in full swing, and the text and stories can be heavily altered to reflect the beliefs of the audience.

Therefore you get things in John like the motif of Jesus escaping death until the 'proper' time, or the time that he so chooses, rather than being at the mercy of Romans. The Last Supper (the institution of the Eucharist) and the scene at the Temple therefore get moved to earlier in the gospel, to minimize the impression that Jesus got snatched up and executed in the middle of the night for causing a scene that was disruptive to both the Romans and the Temple authorities. But Verhoeven prefers John's chronology over the Synoptics - God knows why, it was meant to support John's theology that Verhoeven is trying to demythologize - that the Temple scene was early. I find this to be Verhoeven's greatest error. Without the Temple scene as the climax that leads directly to Jesus' arrest, there really is no catalyst to the crucifixion - therefore no coherence to it. Now why did Jesus get executed? By Verhoeven's timeline, Jesus caused trouble early in his ministry, went around talking to people, and got crucified in Rome months if not years later because authorities were just sick of him. In historical Jesus scholarship, coherence is one of the key criteria for deciding the authenticity of a saying or action, and Verhoeven's timeline of Jesus' ministry just doesn't work.

Ultimately his 'verdict' of Jesus is disingenuous. He takes away all of the religious aspects of Jesus' ministry, he takes away most of the political and social background, and he leaves us with a few sayings deemed authentic: 'Why are you weeping?' 'Whom are you looking for?' 'Peace be with you.' He intends to sound scathing when he judges that this bare-bones historical Jesus "sounds more like an automaton than a living person."

Here Verhoeven's Jesus Seminar background also shines through. When they voted upon the authenticity of the statements of Jesus, they came up with a figure of 30% undoubtedly authentic material. Most of these were very short and pithy statements - i.e. 'Peace be with you' - since they would have to be remembered over the 30-50 year timespan between Jesus' death and the composition of the gospels. However, this figure is the absolute bare minimum. Rigid adherence to these short statements would be misleading because Jesus didn't go around speaking in witty sound bites. Again, the criterion of coherence - that Jesus was a person and not an automaton - should flesh out historical Jesus studies.

So Verhoeven's unrelenting skepticism undermines his own portrait of the historical Jesus. As he carved away pretty much everything unusual and distinct about Jesus' ministry for fear of contamination by later Christian thought, he's left with a Jesus who is...nothing. I can't even characterize who Verhoeven might think that Jesus was, as he only wrote about who he was not. Skepticism and a critical eye for historicity is absolutely essential for historical Jesus studies - but a mere snarky close reading of the gospels is intellectually unsatisfying. Instead, the other component of honest scholarship is a building up and a definition of who the historical Jesus really was. Verhoeven failed to accomplish this, and as such, his book has neither direction nor any real reason to read it. show less

At first glance, the idea that Paul Verhoeven, director of Basic Instinct, Robocop, and Starship Troopers, wrote a book on Jesus strikes one as the set-up to a particularly tasteless joke. Fortunately, Verhoeven offers the reader his perspective on the Historical Jesus in his book, Jesus of Nazareth. Trained in mathematics and a prolific filmmaker, Verhoeven has been a member of the Jesus Seminar since he moved to Los Angeles in 1985. He occupies a unique intellectual position within the show more Jesus Seminar due to his status as non-academic, non-theologian, and non-believer. (But belief is not a prerequisite to historical investigation as evidenced by the plethora of books about Greco-Roman mythology and Hinduism, to take two examples, written by non-believers.)

Verhoeven the Filmmaker provides opportunities for deconstruction and reconstruction of events. Having made his career directing movies for a popular audience, he has expertise in creating stories. The Gospels are similar stories, written to captivate a general audience. Because the Gospels have four separate authors and offer biases from each other, the stories present a specific set of challenges. Verhoeven explores these many challenges, putting forward his assertions. Another challenge facing historians dealing with the Classical Era includes the scant historical and archaeological evidence. In order to reconstruct the period, one must use a blend of historical data, imagination, intuition, and imagination.

Verhoeven asserts the authors of the Gospels “overpainted” certain politically explosive scenes with miraculous events. One must not forget the dangerous political scene of first century Roman Palestine. Numerous messianic figures roamed the province, speaking out against Roman tyranny and collaboration from the Herodian dynasty. Speaking out against Roman rule was not only a political crime but also a religious crime. One worshiped the same gods as one’s monarch. Those in open dissent this truism met with torture and execution. Verhoeven also asserts that Jesus used his ministry to further the plan that God’s Kingdom was imminent. This platform aroused the ire of the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Romans. According to Jesus, all these corrupt institutions would be swept away and the Kingdom of God would re-establish itself.

The short book (only 200 pages of text in the hardcover edition) brings together Verhoeven’s reconstruction of events in the life of Jesus. On occasion, he writes how he would film certain events. These lively visual scenes supplied an otherwise dry and academic book with cinematic flourish. His understanding of a century of theological thought meshes with his take on movies made about Jesus. His takedown of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ is refreshing and commonsensical in its assessment.

For anyone genuinely interested in the Historical Jesus, Verhoeven’s Jesus of Nazareth brings an outsider’s perspective and an enthusiast’s passion to this endlessly fascinating topic.

http://driftlessareareview.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/jesus-of-nazareth-by-paul-ve... show less

Wow, who would have thought that the director of Robocop and Starship Troopers was a bible nerd of the first degree?

This is actually a very well informed and scholarly book. Verhoeven obviously knows his stuff. In some ways it is an overview of scholarly thoughts about "The Historical Jesus", but along the way Verhoeven presents some of his own generally well-reasoned speculations that are interesting and somewhat provocative, but not to the degree that you might expect.

It's a bit dry in show more spots but not long, so worth a close read to consider some of his points. He would like to make a film about Jesus, one wonders who would finance such an unorthodox project. His impression is not in any way lurid or titillating as one might expect from the director of Basic Instinct, but thoughtful and thoroughly researched.

So, if you're into books about the Historical Jesus (Verhoeven explicitly denies Jesus' divinity and the possibility of any miracles whatsoever), this is an interesting and unexpectedly thoughtful read.

As a bonus, I am pretty sure it is the only scholarly book about Jesus to include a reference to Monica Lewinsky. Seriously. show less