SCREEN-L Archives

November 1997, Week 3


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
edoneill <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:50:12 -0800
text/plain (26 lines)
One disturbing thing about popular critical discourse around Verhoeven
is that this discussion takes no serious account of the films Verhoeven
made *before* he came to Hollywood.  Anyone who has seen *Soldier of
Orange*, *Spetters*, *The Fourth Man* and *Turkish Delight* will readily
observe that he is a more complex, interesting and serious filmmaker
than observers of his American films might guess.
        The brouhaha over *Basic Instinct* took place as if the same man had
not directed *Spetters* and *The Fourth Man*, which are many
things--graphically sexual, vulgar, hilarious--but not homophobic.
        Paul Verhoeven is one of those oddities with whom critics would rather
not deal:  a director of enormous talent who also has incredibly bad
taste.  We are accustomed to directors whose talent is proportional to a
reasonable sense of etiquette.  Verhoeven has much of the former and
almost none of the latter. I for one find this refreshing.
        While I'm not sure if irony is an apt word for discussing the attitude
a viewer could profitably take towards Verhoeven's work, it might be
better than dismissal.  Verhoeven affronts us, but I for one don't think
he should be dismissed.
Edward R. O'Neill
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite