My Eyes Can Stand No More Than Four Minutes Of Marc Vorlander's SHOWGIRLS: EXPOSED.

Founder and Editor; Toronto, Canada (@AnarchistTodd)
to Vote
My Eyes Can Stand No More Than Four Minutes Of Marc Vorlander's SHOWGIRLS: EXPOSED.
Oh, good god. German director Marc Vorlander is back with a new, four minute promo clip from his Showgirls: Exposed - the unofficial Showgirls sequel previously known as Showgirls 2, Showgirls The Story of Hope and Showgirls The Return - and I'm thankful four minutes is all it is because I couldn't take much more.

Vorlander claims to have made this film with a twenty million dollar budget and if that is true then he is surely the worst director on the face of the planet or, perhaps, the most expensive director ever to be saddled with such cheap equipment. It's perplexing, surreal, not at all sexy despite being filled with nudity, strangely compelling and virtually unwatchable, all rolled in to one poorly edited package. The title cards are good for a giggle, though.

Not even remotely safe for workplace viewing, you can check it out below.

to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.

More from Around the Web

Visit the official website
via Equilibrium

More about Showgirls: The Story of Hope

Ard VijnJune 6, 2010 9:29 PM, he's got Mark L. Lester as "Movie Title Creator"! Ehm...

I didn't think I'd see trailer texts this year that were more stupid than "shot with the same camera as Avatar!" but this promo (what is a "photoplay" anyway???) adds a complete top 10 on top.

For starters, "The Original" is an odd text to describe a sequel.
But apart from that, what was up with that comet? Or the cheapest headshot ever? Isn't this thing supposed to promote something?

Agent WaxJune 6, 2010 11:02 PM

Question: What exactly is a Photo Play?

Question: Who exactly would still invest $20 million in this filth after watching this footage? Especially considering any film or art student can shoot the same thing with $50,000 or less?

Question: How many hardcore porn films that look better than this crap can be filmed with that budget?

Question: Why would anyone pay to watch this garbage instead of hardcore porn? I'm sure porn has better stories and production values, even.

Daniel FerrazJune 7, 2010 2:15 AM


MarcJune 7, 2010 4:23 AM

The difference between controversial art and crap is very easy: controversial art is hated, panned, discussed..., crap simply dissapears into nowhere immediately, exactly like Rena Riffels project, that is also based on Showgirls and can be used in this case perfectly to demonstrate the difference.
Dear Todd Brown, I'm looking forward the moment when you will review the film itself and you start writing on your computer another hate tirade against my work and you will slap-bang realize that you are using the same phrases like critics did 1995. You will look around and find out that you are sitting in a test tube with a label on it: "How to create the same promotional phenomenon like Showgirls 1995. Test #1".
Thanks for passionately hating my work so less objective. I can not take this serious, but I appreciate it since it fits perfectly in the calculated behavior of self-styled movie critics that would not even detect art if you would engrave the word in their glasses to help them with it.
It's demontrative that my work is acclaimed by many professionals from the industry and other artists and hated so much by folks that never made it there.

Marc Vorlander

mathlarsJune 7, 2010 5:12 AM

That truly was disturbing. Provoking. Completely shaved.

BlakberiJune 7, 2010 6:56 AM

Ha ha!

Priceless... This surely is one amazing piece of "art". But I thought you were trying to make a commercial film? You know, one that would make money the back that was invested in it AND entertain. Watching stuff for free on the interwebs does not equate to people paying for this garbage in the cinema.

Here, Marc, pass the rest of the cash on to me and I will show you how it is done.

edeteinJune 7, 2010 8:25 AM

My Mom can make a better sequel to Showgirls than this clown.

brbro4June 7, 2010 8:50 AM

I laughed to tears! ZAPP! Headshot! This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while. Distrubing. Proving. Completely shaved. Priceless! This is truly a gift.

JayJune 7, 2010 10:06 AM

this is the worst music video ever

TomJune 7, 2010 10:40 AM

Allow me to paraphrase. "People not like original Showgirls. People not like my blurry knock-off of Showgirls. I happy about this because Step Three: Profit!"

shonokinJune 7, 2010 11:32 AM

If James Nguyen is too busy to work on Birdemic 2: Squawk of the Quack, then I think we've found the man for the job!

Todd BrownJune 7, 2010 11:37 AM

Marc: Bad lighting, bad editing, and low grade camera gear do not make 'art'. All they make is a film that is difficult to watch. A good script and good performances can sometimes transcend those problems but I'm seeing no indication that that's the case here. Sure, people are talking about your film but mostly they're trying to figure out A) if it could possibly be real, rather than a hoax, because the quality is so low, B) what the hell you could have spent that budget you've been bragging about on, and C) Who in their right mind would have given that much money to you in the first place.

If you're making art here, you're doing it the same way Ed Wood did: Incompetently and by accident. And if the film has a lasting shelf life I suspect it'll be for the same reason. Because people enjoy laughing at it. Being a joke - even a very, very funny one - is not the same thing as being an artist. Right now, everything you've released from this film is a joke, not art.

I'll be happy to take a look at the completed film once it's finished and if it turns out that you've made something worthwhile I'll happily come out and say I was wrong with my earlier comments. I've done it on films before and I'll do it again. But I'm pretty confident I won't need to here.

Todd BrownJune 7, 2010 11:37 AM

'The Original' is meant as a shot at Rena Riffel's competing sequel project, I'm sure.

anémiqueJune 7, 2010 11:49 AM

i smell oscar!!

oscar viltski. key grip.

ranyltJune 7, 2010 12:13 PM

Best thing about this: the "title creator" of "Commando" and "Firestarter" apparently hasn't updated his look since, you know, "Commando" and "Firestarter."

MarcJune 7, 2010 5:35 PM

Todd, at first thanks for beeing so extremely fair to publish my statement in an own topic...!

The uneven look of the footage is intention. All footage was shot between July 2009 and April 2010 with the same type of camera, a Canon G1.
Let's not forget that Showgirls is known as "one of the worst movies ever"..., if you want to continue this cult legend, you would'nt be smart to ignore the trashy aspects of this cult.
The sometimes poor picture quality is intention, if you take closer look, you will detect some known effect filters that were used to create that style intentionally. Some effects I created by filming with an open aperture...
Yes my work is crazy and not even remotely mainstream of any kind..., but who cares? I don't! I'm doing this because this is my own original style, I never thought about to satisfy any expectations of someone.
It's a dark surreal pop musical - cult trash crossover, you don't have to like it, but you should respect that this art, even if you don't like or understand it.

"Love the footage" (Geoff Schaaf)

"Stunning Images" (Mark L. Lester)

"Great project" (David Carson)

Are this 3 known filmmakers wrong, or are you, Todd? I think nobody is right or wrong, good art has to be controversial. My film definately is controversial.

@ ranylt: To know at least a bit about movie history helps a lot, careful reading also. Mark L. Lester is a legendary movie director, not a title creator, but he created this title.

KamenJune 7, 2010 6:27 PM

Your arguments are a disgrace to human intellectuality .

KamenJune 7, 2010 6:29 PM

And you confuse controversial with stupid.

BenJune 8, 2010 12:58 AM

What I love about this is that Mr. Vorlander himself is entertaining the present conversation. So I address this to you, Marc:

First, regarding your defense. Admirable as it may be, if you want to be taken seriously as both a director and an artist (your numerous claims to this film as 'art' suggests this), then you need to form a coherent apologetic for your work. In other words, your grammar belies your artistic ability. You can't be taken seriously writing sentences like "I never thought about to satisfy any expectations of someone," or "Thanks for passionately hating my work so less objective." Coherence is key, my friend. I know that English is not your first language, but you present a film to American audiences, you get an American response.

Secondly, while the first Showgirls film - nauseating and flat as it is - embarrassed itself with its gratuitous budget and own particular brand of Hollywood self-absorption, it was these things that made it such a 'successful failure.' Your film, if the trailer is any indication, clearly lacks the budget you claim it has, and in your attempt to mimic the sort of 'humor' you saw in Showgirls first go-round, you missed the sort of cynical laughter with which the audiences responded in '95. That is to say, the Showgirl cult's ironic adoration of Verhoeven's film was completely lost on you, and you've dedicated yourself to propounding a joke you yourself so clearly misunderstand.

Thirdly, just because B- and C-list 'celebrities' commented on the supposed quality of your film, it does not follow that the film is good, or that the film is art. You say "good art has to be controversial." Since when? Thousands of directors have shot blurry images of nude women and filmed 'violent' death scenes. This is nothing new. That is, what you have created is far from controversial. In fact, it is expected, ordinary, bland, unoriginal, cliche. Need I continue? From what I understand, "good art" is none of these things. It appears, Mr. Vorlander, you have made another piece of trash that will thrown onto the pile of trash that will be forgotten under the next mountain of trash made by everyone else who has the same aspirations as you.

And, to echo what Agent Wax wrote, what exactly IS a 'photo play?'

MatiasJune 8, 2010 12:59 AM

It reminds me a lot of the aesthetic worked on I.K.U., the japanese sci-fi-porn-actually-wanting-to-be-sophisticated-but-it's-actually-just-really-bizarre.
Still, posting it in here may be misunderstood by Vorland. It really doesn't deserve to be on twitch.

Momo the CowJune 8, 2010 5:11 AM

Mr. Vorlander, I applaud you for coming here and standing in the presence of your harsher (harshest?) critics. I applaud you for having the will and resourcefulness to work in the industry of your choice, participating in an artform you clearly love (something that most of us here cannot say).
You've clearly made something that is not 'mainstream', and you claim you don't care. That's great, I'm happy for you and your film. You seem to have produced exactly what you were hoping to accomplish and you should be proud of this, no matter what others say of it or you.

However, when you come to places like this and, in response to poor or harsh feedback, start throwing around quotes from other filmmaker friends and colleagues of yours about how much they enjoyed your project, you sound desperate for approval, whiny, and I'm sorry to say it, a bit pathetic. Uwe Boll went through a similar period too, but he started to find his place in the industry when he began to embrace the (very strong) criticism of his work and continue working regardless, often pre-emptively addressing his critics' opinions in the movies themselves.

You claim to not care that your film is idiosyncratic and utterly different from other films being made (and you're correct), but I question your genuine comfort with this fact when you begin to attack your critics when they are vocally negative about your film, and claim that they "would not even detect art if you would engrave the word in their glasses to help them with it".
Is Todd Brown a great critic? No, not really. Speaking personally, he's introduced me to some great films and I admire the access he's gained with some filmmaking figures, but I also think he sometimes appears too buddy-buddy with industry connections and his objectivity has been a source of discussion with other web critics I've encountered. Yet, when he tears apart the footage from "Showgirls: Exposed", he is being absolutely what he should be, a critic with an unfiltered, intensely personal opinion that he is not afraid to share, and one that he is clearly not alone with.

You need people like Todd, Mr. Vorlander. They bring attention and, sometimes, prestige to productions like yours, and giving their opinion is their passion and profession. And audiences come to critics to find out what films they should and shouldn't be seeing. They can be part of an invaluable dialogue between filmmakers and their audiences.

Todd is your audience. He is opinionated, he loves film, and he just so happens to hate yours (thus far). If you can't endure the opinion of one film blogger on this little site, then get the hell out of this business before it breaks your heart and damages your soul.

Personally, I'm glad to have you making movies, because like Mr. Boll, Mr. Mann, Ms. Bigelow, Mr. To, Ms. Hui, you actually go out and *make* something and it's yours, no matter what others say. Just don't come here in a pissy mood when some of your audience doesn't share your enthusiasm for what you made.

VikarJune 8, 2010 5:17 AM

I'm not a known filmmaker, but i've been invloved as executive and co producer in the following:
Dogville, La comunidad, El crimen ferpecto, 400 balas, Juana la loca, Dawn of the dead (remake, i took care of some legal issues), Plague, Tamara, Manderlay and more...

so i felt i had to say something as well, or at least i have some credit to leave a comment, something i usuallyy don't do even if i'm checking twicth daily to keep myself informed on world cinema and obscuirties; i actually signed to leave this first post cauz' couldn't take it no more.

my comment quoting a line from john carpenter's the thing:

MarcJune 8, 2010 5:28 AM

@ Todd: You are right, "The original" is a shot against competing sequel projects.

Folks, I'm reading every post here and I have fun with it no matter if you love, respect or hate my work.

About what a "photo play" is..., a photo play or photoplay is a old word for film, like motion picture and was used in the silent era in the US. I liked it and since I'm playing with Images, so I thought it fits to my work.

About the budget..., Verhoeven is still suspected by his own cast and crew (I know this from first hand) that he let dissapear most of the 40 million budget in his own pocket in 1995.
He did Showgirls without A-listers, only exception were Soundtrack producer Dave Stewart and DP Jost Vacano.
Hmmm..., I have David May for Soundtrack (and 3 other number 1 music producers...) and I have Geoff Schaaf. Verhoeven had a stage, I have a luxury hotel..., I thought 25 million is not so expensive in relation to that.
I don't know the budget in detail, I'm not primarily interested in money. I had all the money I needed, all crew has contracts that they are satisfied with and I'm still trying to let disappear some millions into my own pocket like Verhoeven (LOL).

SjeksterJune 8, 2010 5:43 AM

"good art has to be controversial. My film definately is controversial"

So you're saying that because your film is controversial, it's art?
Also, whether your film is art or not, that's for other people to decide, no? Or at the very least it's something that everyone has to decide for their own. You coming in here ranting that your film is art and thus we must appreciate it, or if we don't we're stupid for not understanding it, is a bit sad, really. You claim a budget of 20.000.000. I see a budget of 20 bucks...I wouldn't even have guessed it was footage of a movie, if it wasn't for a few shots here and there.

You should respect someone's opinion, even if you do not share them.
Also, the point you make that not being in the industry does not entitle you to have an opinion about the quality of a movie is ridiculous. If you think like that you should also not appreciate anything GOOD we say about your work. How can we know somethings good if we're not in the industry, right? I'm no singer and scare the crap of everyone around me when I do sing. That doesn't mean I can't tell when someone's singing really bad.

kiy1955June 8, 2010 7:43 AM

Mr. Vorlander, I'm not in the biz, never even owned a camera for taking pictures, I only "watch" [and enjoy] movies -- even some bad ones. Yours, from this 4 minutes, looks bad, crappy. As a viewer, I want something to draw me in and so far, I see nothing here to do that. Care to release some more footage that "may" show me this film is not utter junk? If not, sorry . . . Deal me out!

MatiasJune 8, 2010 8:17 AM

What a jerk, he can't be serious!
Now I wouldn't be surprised if in the next post he quotes Uwe Boll as "another controversial artist".
Give me a break.

Todd BrownJune 8, 2010 10:36 AM

A little off the main topic here but I wanted to throw in that I am very much of the opinion that objectivity is an out and out myth and does not exist at all. Anyone who claims it is blind to their own bias. Yeah, I have made some friends in my years of doing this - as has anyone who has been around for any length of time - but the only reason anyone knows who mine are is that I try to declare them up front whenever they may impact what I write rather than maintaining the false illusion of objectivity. And I would like to think that my friendships do not stop me from calling crap crap. For instance, I know a lot of people at Sahamongkol pretty well and like them a lot - and need them to like me back because I book a lot of their films for festival screenings and would like to not get gouged on fees - but that has not stopped me from covering the Tony Jaa meltdown from a very critical perspective or call Ong Bak 3 out as the heartless, contractual obligation movie that it is. I am sure there are instances where relationships have a larger impact than I may be consciously aware of but I try to be right up front and honest about things and I think that is all you can really ask of anyone.

ranyltJune 8, 2010 12:50 PM

Now I see it--MV is the king of trolls, what with his non sequitur responses to us here etc etc. We're all falling for it. He's just launched his trollerama with 'film' instead of a post. THERE lies his genius, you guys. Admire it, embrace it. That said, we've given him too much attention already.

zinjoJune 8, 2010 1:44 PM

The whole "If you don't understand my art, it's YOUR fault" attitude is common among "Fine Arts" college graduates. I know this intimately as my brother was a fine arts graduate and had the attitude in spades. The arguments we had regards whether the "arts" should be commercially viable or publicly funded were epic... ;)

The reality is that until we've seen the finished work and are able to judge it on it's own merits all of this is speculation. A music video labeled a "Photo Play" is not the trailer for the film (is it?) and as such tends to confuse any potential audience and dissuade them from wanting to see the film when it is released. Essentially, "Quit showing off" and give us a proper trailer...

If I were an investor and I invested part of the $20M budget to this film only to hear its director say:

"Yes my work is crazy and not even remotely mainstream of any kind..., but who cares? I don't! I'm doing this because this is my own original style, I never thought about to satisfy any expectations of someone."

I'd be worried. I didn't invest in "Art", I invested in a film, expecting to "at least" get my money back!

Art films do not tend to cost $20M, since they are not mainstream works designed for mass appeal.

However, I have to agree with "momo the cow", in that Mr. Vorlander should take a few notes from Ewe Boll (who I had the privilege to hear speak prior to the release of "Postal"), in that Mr.Boll knows what kind of films he makes and has resigned himself to the fact that the only ones he needs to impress are himself and his investors. The rest will take care of itself. He knows his films are not the best out there and has no illusions about his work.

Roger Corman and his colleagues in the US and Australia all had no illusions about their work. They filled a niche market and made careers out of it.

So lets be honest with ourselves shall we? If Showgirls 2 is meant to be a "B" movie, then celebrate it for what it is and not for what "you think" we (the audience) should appreciate it to be.

Kit SungJune 8, 2010 1:51 PM

"About the budget..., Verhoeven is still suspected by his own cast and crew (I know this from first hand) that he let dissapear most of the 40 million budget in his own pocket in 1995.
He did Showgirls without A-listers, only exception were Soundtrack producer Dave Stewart and DP Jost Vacano."
Comments like these show how little you know about filmmaking. Do you really think the slick look of "Showgirls" is created for free? You obviously have no idea about the costs of shooting a film that looks as good as "Showgirls", no matter if there were A-list stars in there or not.
And to claim that your "film" (I hesiatate to call whatever it is that you're doing film) has a budget of $25 million dollars is just absurd. I know home video footage that looks more interesting than your stuff.

You truly make Uwe Boll look Oscar worthy.

Highly SuspiciousJune 17, 2010 12:24 AM


Excuse me, Mr Vorlander? There's a Fail waiting for you on line 1.

Highly SuspiciousJune 17, 2010 12:26 AM

Yes, but Mr Vorlander i believe he said it's urgent.

"Fine, put him through. Hello? Who is th-"

AndrewJune 17, 2010 1:39 PM

This should be relabeled as what goes through your mind when you're trying to jack off but you can't get your brain to focus on anything good

VikarFebruary 20, 2011 12:47 PM