I feel like Leaving Las Vegas works really well as a bipartisan metaphor for what capitalism can and cannot give you as well as a love story.

Las Vegas (Capitalism itself) offers Ben and Sera acceptance that they can’t get from other people who judge them or seek to harm them but takes that away as soon as they can no longer fulfil their end of the bargain.

It’s a lot more nuanced and more willing to admit that capitalism can in fact have positive elements for some, particularly those who for whatever reason cannot maintain interpersonal relationships, then something like showgirls.

It allows Sera to live what appears to be a comfortable life, provided she doesn’t run afoul of those higher up on the ladder, or be visibly affected by her work in a way that narrows her value or upsets others.

It allows Ben to be given what he physically needs without judgment or shame. However that’s only because it doesn’t care that it will eventually destroy him.

Capitalism can’t cure the characters but can give them momentary happiness and function. Love is far harder and in a way less reliable. Capitalism does not offer love but offers an order and organization that love can’t.

There are fewer cities more open about their values “be who you are, do what you want, just make sure you sell and/or pay”

Unlike stuff like Casino there is no divide between the “old” mythical Vegas and the new tacky commercialized one. It’s all the same whether it’s run by the mob or by corporations. For better and worse.

This ties in to the central relationship and it’s question “Is love accepting someone else as they are, or trying to help them change?”

Capitalism as represented by Vegas in a way accepts people as they are. There’s no class structure to it, no snobs, just people who can pay and people who can sell.