MovieChat Forums > Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion > I'm confused, is this intended to critic...

I'm confused, is this intended to criticize fascism, or celebrate it?!!

posted 10 years ago by al666940-3
37 replies | jump to latest

Because the more I watch the movie (love Verhoeven), the more I'm unsure what it is that I'm seeing.

I know the director, coming from Denmark (or somewhere like that) clearly intended the film to be a satire of how absurd fascism can be, even in it's most appealing form (like in the movie where everything seems peachy, or Nazi Germany before the war if you were the right race and political affiliation). But I'm thinking the director clearly missed the mark (like those antiwar movies that have so awesome battle scenes that people end up cheering the action instead of being disgusted by it):
a) What the movie got right:
- The propaganda machine: the best and clearest part of the movie. I doubt anyone gets that wrong.
- The manipulation through the news and patriotism (that reporter being cut off when mentioning that humans started the mess in fact, not the bugs, Rico eating up and later acting out everything/anything Razjack said to him, etc).

b) What the movie got wrong:
- Unlike in real fascism, there were no oppressed minorities/political opponents here (you know, blacks, jews, indians, etc). The place is presented as literally heaven on Earth (no poverty, crime, suffering, etc). At the simple cost of giving up democracy? I'm pretty sure most poor unstable democracies on Earth would jump on that wagon in a split second. Which is simply impossible (like having a Nazi Germany without jew persecution, racism, forced labour of "inferior" races, invasion of other countries, etc).
- Unlike in totalitarian regimes (all fascist regimes end up becoming totalitarian), people were not being conscripted into the armed forced. In fact many people are seen living just fine as civilians without feeling the need to serve to secure citizenship (Rico's parents are against service and seem pretty well off). And even the privates in the showers are elated at all the incentives (bribes) offered at those who serve (free tuition, etc). The fact that most will die before collecting is never mentioned or even hinted at (the death toll at Khlendatu is presented as an anomaly that cost the sky marshal his job, thus we only get the idea that service is dangerous, but not a death sentence).
- The military leaders we get to know (Razjack and Zimm) end up giving the opposite intended impression:
Zimm: as sadistic as he may be, he's shown to be thoughtful, practical, even appealable (helping out Rico).
Razjack: the guy's fascist indoctrination is like Edward Norton's neonazi rants in American History X: as compelling as possible, coming from a likeable sincere person, and go unchallenged except by clear idiots. How many people don't end up wishing every military unit had a leader like him?
- The military intelligence officers (Doogie Howser playing Gestapo dress up) are shown callous and cold with people's lives, but are given unchallenged excuses (it's a numbers game, the bugs have more) and thus also end up getting the upper hand and moral high ground.
- People hungry for war/combat (Zimm) are actually rewarded and cary the day (he captured the brain bug), thus giving the impression that the warmongers are actually right and willing to fight their own battles (Hitler was indeed a veteran and when the chips came down he abided by his orders to others to resist until death, but in all honesty such example is not representative of these types. Dick "5 deferments/I had more important things to do" Cheney is).

So if this movie was supposed to dissuade people into thinking fascism (or totalitarism for that matter) is a viable option, it seriously misfired (current democracy already performs far worse and is more cruel in real life, just ask any Iraqi, Egyptian or Lybian how's that US made/backed democracy feeling right now).

[–] woodmage 10 years ago

I think the director presumes people will condemn fascism. On the other hand, the fascist elements in the movie are very cartoonish IMO (which is why I call the movie "Doogie Howser, S.S.").

From what I understand, the director never even read Heinlein's book; he probably just heard that some people think the book promotes fascism, and threw those elements in there because he thought he was making a point.

[–] Nikulturny 10 years ago

The film is clearly an anti-fascist critique, although the government shown is not seemingly as bad as the Nazis. It should be remembered that before the outbreak of WWII the Nazis were already seen as extreme, even for fascists. People like Mussolini of Italy or Franco of Spain were considered more in the mainstream of fascism. They may have had their opponents beaten up or executed at times but they never indulged in the mass murders the Nazis committed - Mussolini refused to round up Italian Jews for extermination, for example.

there were no oppressed minorities/political opponents

Probably not so, this is hinted at in the film. Remember the 'Mormon extremists' whose colony was wiped out by Bugs? This is a... strange description of Mormons, so what other groups are treated as extremists or subversives? And we only see this society from the viewpoint of a fairly privileged group of people, so who knows what is happening elsewhere?

people were not being conscripted into the armed forced

But if they didn't serve in some way they were politically disenfranchised. The British BNP (a neo-fascist party) had a fairly similar policy at one point.

In the movie there is nothing to suggest there is a civilian government - the military seems to be running everything.

The military leaders we get to know

seem to be honourable officers following orders and doing their best for their troops. I would guess most Wehrmacht officers during WWII were also decent men following their orders, although this was probably not very true of units like the Waffen-SS or Einsatzgruppen.

The military intelligence officers

are also simply doing their jobs, although bear in mind we do see Carl shooting a Bug in cold blood during one of the TV features, and mistreating the Brain bug with some sort of metal implement quite violently at the end. So he's probably not losing too much sleep about what happens to Bugs.

Essentially what we are presented with is a fascist society, if not one as brutal as the Nazis, which through simple economic growth has achieved a pretty high standard of living for probably the majority of its citizens. But it does have a sinister underbelly - probably-oppressed groups like the Mormons, televised executions, political indoctrination in schools (remember the class on political history Rasczak gives) and what seems to be a massive military establishment - the military base we see at the Moon looks like it completely encircles it.

There is no more human race. There is only.. the Master race!

[–] al666940-3 10 years ago

"although the government shown is not seemingly as bad as the Nazis."

That's an understatement. I would GLADLY trade the USA current government (all 3 branches) for the one in the film (current one seems to bleed the people just as much if not worse, but unlike the one in the movie, it gives us back nothing).

"Probably not so, this is hinted at in the film. Remember the 'Mormon extremists' whose colony was wiped out by Bugs? This is a... strange description of Mormons"

Couple problems with your statement:
- It's hinted to vaguely as to be completely lost.
- Since the existence of bizarre fundamentalist Mormons is well known (thanks to HBO's Big Love) and their extremism well documented, the expression "mormon extremists" can perfectly apply to them in the mind of most viewers.

"But if they didn't serve in some way they were politically disenfranchised."

Yet nobody is ever shown/mentioned suffering from it. Rico's parents were "disenfranchised", yet so wealthy that it sends the message that being "disenfranchised" is no big deal.

"are also simply doing their jobs,"

And I already said the widespread acceptance of sadistic behaviour was well represented. However in today's America (where American Sniper is widely perceived as a hero instead of a troubled loose cannon, and prison rape is overall accepted as "they get what they deserve") it's really not shocking at all.

"But it does have a sinister underbelly - probably-oppressed groups like the Mormons, televised executions, political indoctrination in schools (remember the class on political history Rasczak gives) and what seems to be a massive military establishment"

I agree. But you must admit that the underbelly was so underplayed and the benefits of such government so overplayed that whatever intention Verhoeven had to parody such society were utterly lost. For example: whatever critique you could levy against Rasczak is forgiven/forgotten the second he refuses to tell Rico what he would do in his place and instead encourages him to make up his own mind (what real fascist ever says that?!!!!).

[–] woodmage 10 years ago

"But if they didn't serve in some way they were politically disenfranchised."

Yet nobody is ever shown/mentioned suffering from it. Rico's parents were "disenfranchised", yet so wealthy that it sends the message that being "disenfranchised" is no big deal.

This is from the book and not the movie (so it's almost completely a whole other animal), but Rico's parents didn't consider the franchise that big a deal... and if they decided later in life they really wanted the vote (or to hold one of the jobs reserved for citizens), they could sign up then to earn it.

Also, though this is nitpicking, they weren't technically "disenfranchised", as that means depriving someone of the rights of citizenship; in the book (and movie), citizenship was something which had to be proactively earned rather than just awarded based on birth.

Heinlein could just as easily have written a story where citizenship was earned by getting a graduate degree, which would probably have been MORE restrictive in who was allowed to vote than the system described in Starship Troopers. But, I'm not sure how many people would be interested in reading a novel where the main action is defending your thesis (well, it does put "The Paper Chase" into another perspective, I guess).

[–] vosges1945 10 years ago

defending your thesis (well, it does put "The Paper Chase" into another perspective, I guess).

Funniest danged thing I've read here in ages!

Bravo.

Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order

[–] bluwrx7 10 years ago

It's critical, but yeah, the audience has to follow through on the implications.

The government in this movie has positioned itself so that it can pack up all the potential voters, put them into a bunch of metal tubes and blast them light years from any public influence. Since soldiers aren't entitled to things like freedom of association, information, speech, movement, etc, etc it's indoctrination time with the only news source being the military's own propaganda channel. Not to worry though, between burst of propaganda there's a big ugly alien meat grinder to feed any potential political enemies into, or hell, to cull your opponent's base before next re-election.

[–] criztu 10 years ago

- Unlike in real fascism, there were no oppressed minorities/political opponents here (you know, blacks, jews, indians, etc). The place is presented as literally heaven on Earth (no poverty, crime, suffering, etc).

The movie is a satire against American Fascism. Apparently it's a paradise, except Rico loses his lover, his parents, most of his friends, his teacher, his home, his life, for what? To maintain the system that is the very cause of the destruction of all those things that give meaning to life: a lover, parents, friends, teachers, a home, a beach.

What did Rico want to do with his life? He wanted love, a good relation with his parents, friends, visit that beach on that solar system, and enjoy life.
What was Rico forced to do with his life? No time for love - Rasczack gives Rico and Dizzy permission for a 20 minutes love making, and that's all the sexual intimity Rico and Dizzy had over their entire relation. He reconciled with his parents, just to have them killed by that asteroid, that apparently the military had no defense against, in spite of having a mega military fleet ready to go to war at any moment.

The oppressed minorities/political opponents of the system were the arachnids in the other part of the galaxy.
The oppressed minorities/political opponents of America, are goat herders in Iraq, buffalo herders in Vietnam, or llama herders in Chile.

What Starship Troopers shows you about America, is how the American Establishment, creates an external threat (the nazis, the commies, the terrorists, etc.) to force the American Citizens to cooperate with the Establishment. In this way, any internal threat to the Establishment is destroyed.
You erroneously consider the Blacks, Indians, Jews, as internal groups, but they are external. Once the Blacks or the Jews integrated into the American society, the Blacks or the Jews can no longer be that external threat the Establishment needs.
Sure, the American Establishment would happily use the Blacks as an external threat, but the American Citizens are no longer mobilized by that threat.
So, the American Establishment is forced to create newer and newer Boogie Men. As soon as the American Citizens will not be mobilized by the Arab Muslim Boogie Man, the American Establishment will be forced to create the "Aliens from Mars" or "Demons from Another Dimension" threat.

If America would not be constantly at war with an external enemy, the American Citizens would push for reforms and progress, diminishing the power of the Establishment.

What is the Establishment? The Establishment are a bunch of lazy fcvks who do not want to work. They have fun, enjoying life, fcvking bitches and partying, while the Citizens do all the work for them.

The Establishment is a parasitizing caste, and the Citizens are the hosting body (well, reality is a lot more complex, but that's the basics of the movie).

- The military leaders we get to know (Razjack and Zimm) end up giving the opposite intended impression:

The society Rico lives in, is a Caste Society:
Zimm and Rasczak and Rico are the exploited class, they go to die in the war.
The Sky Marshals are the oppressing class, they hide in the closet while the lower class die.

At surface level, the society Rico lives in, is split into Citizens and Civilians. That's the lie.
It's like saying that the American society is split into Lower Class, Middle Class, and Upper Class.

In reality, there is only the Oppressing Class, and the Exploited Class. Rico, Rasczak, Zimm, Dizzy, Carmen, Zander, will never accede into the class of Sky Marshal Meru or Sky Marshal Dienes.

- People hungry for war/combat (Zimm) are actually rewarded and cary the day (he captured the brain bug)

That's exactly what the Nazi propaganda did: they systematically created and rewarded "heroes": pilots who downed hundreds of planes, tank commanders who destroyed hundreds of tanks, snipers who sniped hundreds of enemies, and so on.

google Michael Wittmann - tank commander
google Ulrich Rudel - dive-bomber pilot

I can't dig up all the "heroes" of the Nazi propaganda, as it's hard to google for them. But you can google the "heroes" of the American army today, there's all sorts of marines who did "glorious" acts during American wars. The usual propaganda.

[–] al666940-3 9 years ago

"The movie is a satire against American Fascism."

But it clearly misfired if people keep asking the question I posed here.

"Apparently it's a paradise, except Rico loses his lover, his parents, most of his friends, his teacher, his home, his life, for what?"

The meteor is never spelled out (false flag inside job, true aracnid retaliation, freak coincidence), so the only explanation given is the official one: retaliation. But you can say the same for 9/11 (retaliation for sticking our noses in the ME), let me know how well that is received if you dare to make the connection/comparison in public (all our military "heroes" would be pawns and fools like Rico).

"What did Rico want to do with his life? He wanted love, a good relation with his parents, friends, visit that beach on that solar system, and enjoy life."

Who doesn't? But you're wrong: he has NO IDEA what to do prior to enlisting (why else would he ask Rasczak for advice).

And he ended up being good at being a jarhead, you cannot deny he even enjoyed it. So I don't see that much of a sacrifice.

"that apparently the military had no defense against, in spite of having a mega military fleet ready to go to war at any moment. "

True, but unless the military is purposefully sacrificing its fleet (they lose a great amount of ships to the aracnid's plasma cannons), that can be explained away as gross incompetence.

"What Starship Troopers shows you about America, is how the American Establishment, creates an external threat (the nazis, the commies, the terrorists, etc.) to force the American Citizens to cooperate with the Establishment."

Agreed, but again, it was badly represented. If you have to explain something over and over, then your message clearly went over the head of most people.

"The Establishment are a bunch of lazy fcvks who do not want to work. They have fun, enjoying life, fcvking bitches and partying, while the Citizens do all the work for them."

That's the dictionary definition for rich people everywhere and anywhere.

"In reality, there is only the Oppressing Class, and the Exploited Class. Rico, Rasczak, Zimm, Dizzy, Carmen, Zander, will never accede into the class of Sky Marshal Meru or Sky Marshal Dienes."

You missed the "buffer" class (middle class). That is what really keeps the lower class down: the illusion that they can somehow move up by a few exceptions propagandized to be the norm in people's minds. You should re-read 1984.

"That's exactly what the Nazi propaganda did: they systematically created and rewarded "heroes""

Every country does that. How is Chris Kyle (American Sniper) any different from the Nazi sniper from Inglorious Bestards?

You're missing the point. Anyone well read and without his/her head up his own @$$ can see this. But not most people. And that is the director's fault.

[–] pking-2 9 years ago

But it clearly misfired if people keep asking the question I posed here.
...
it was badly represented. If you have to explain something over and over, then your message clearly went over the head of most people.
...
And that is the director's fault.

No. You're just enamored with your own voice.

You clearly "get it." And got it before this discussion.

So, posturing as if withholding comprehension indicts the story told is self serving and not intellectually honest.

It didn't "fail" because you got it. You wanting to subsequently "ask the question" is now meaningless pantomime. You think (erroneously) that being a contrarian means you're offering cogent analysis.

A lot of folks think manufacturing personal offense or obfuscation implicates others for not avoiding their tactics. They are wrong. They are (often) rewarded by a pop culture that rewards self indulgence over reason or sound argumentation, so they develop screwed up priorities. You literally want to be right by finding fault so badly...that you will lie to yourself about what you, yourself, know. This movie didn't fail to get its point across to you and you know it.

It's simply a symptom of "cult of ME" modern "criticism." But it self refutes, inherently.

Saying you didn't get it when you did is telling...but merely about you, not the movie.

That's all.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] criztu 9 years ago

But it clearly misfired if people keep asking the question I posed here.

The mind has two levels:
the conscious,
and the unconscious.

Cinema works on two levels:
with the conscious - what you see is what you get
with the unconscious - what you get you do not see.

Once you get a hold of psychoanalysis, you start to see what goes to the unconscious.

Movies use a handful of techniques to communicate messages. One of them is "Identifying with the Protagonist". So, by identifying with lets say Batman, you will unconsciously behave like Batman. Since you don't have a Batmobile, you won't go vigilante, but you will live your life in anonymity, lurking in the shadow of your mom's basement, killing criminals in the new Batman video game, instead of planning a revolution against the Establishment.

You clearly do not identify with Rico. You consider him a jarhead, right?

Well, Rico is - on the conscious level, what the Establishment wants you to be. The Establishment hires directors like Verhoeven, to make movies promoting the Establishment's narrative: The Establishment is good, and knows better than you what is good for you. Sacrifice your life in service of the Establishment, and you will be respected, admired, loved. Rico does that, and gets respect, admiration, love, from fictional characters.

So, what Verhoeven does here, is reverse propaganda - he makes Rico utterly disgusting, on the unconscious level. When the agent of the Establishment watches Starship Troopers in the censorship room before release, he sees Rico shooting Arabs in the desert and giving speeches about being a responsible citizen, and getting respect, love and admiration from his fellow fictional characters. All Establishment propaganda requirements are checked, movie is good to go. The agent greenlights the movie, and the movie is expected to brainwash the young boys into becoming loyal citizens in service of the Establishment.
The agent, in his indolent incompetence, misses that the real life young boy, will NOT identify with Rico.

Once the young boy develops a rejection for Rico, the young boy starts to reject the Establishment all together.
So, after a while, the Establishment realizes what Verhoeven is doing, and gets angry, and exiles him from the cinema industry, like the subversive director that he is.

[–] ResVoCoder 9 years ago

I'm sorry, what?

by identifying with lets say Batman, you will unconsciously behave like Batman. Since you don't have a Batmobile, you won't go vigilante, but you will live your life in anonymity, lurking in the shadow of your mom's basement, killing criminals in the new Batman video game, instead of planning a revolution against the Establishment.

What a crazy assumption. Most people see a film and get on with their lives, forgetting most (if not all) of said movie. You are talking about a minority (mostly juvenile) who don't have real lives yet and simply pass time playing video games or maybe do some role playing. That's just growing up. There are others (mostly delinquent or mentally/ emotionally challenged), who continue this behavior in an unhealthy manner. They remain however a small minority.

The Establishment hires directors like Verhoeven, to make movies promoting the Establishment's narrative

A film studio has one agenda: making money. They do not care about anything else, let alone politics in a sci fi movie. They only care if it can potentially hurt their sales.
Somehow implying that Verhoeven was sabotaging their scheme from the inside out is ridiculous. I'm a big fan of his work, but his strength has always been his directness. He doesn't do subtle.

This film only exists because of a series of changes at the head of Columbia pictures (I believe) which meant the whole production went without much studio interference. It is the lack of control that made this film possible.

As for the OP. Verhoeven stated in the audio commentary that he's critical of fascism. But his language is comic book like and direct. Whenever you see Carl in his nazi like uniform, that means BAD! (As Verhoeven puts it so eloquently in the commentary 😉)
But why the hell would you assume he needs to shove his personal opinion down our throats? A good work of art sparks conversation and works best being dubious.

I'm not done convincing you!

[–] criztu 9 years ago

A film studio has one agenda: making money

Yes. And how do you sell your product, to someone who rejects your values? The studio is "educating" the clients into the Hollywood's "values" with each product.

Think of Starbucks and the likes. They write on the stuff they sell you things like "this bag is made of biodegradable material" or "this lunch box is made of recycled materials" or "10% of this cup of coffee's price, goes to charity".

Starbucks has one agenda: making money. BUT. By "educating" you about charity and recycling and biodegradable stuff, they hope that you will be loyal to them, not to the competition.

Or, imagine the car manufacturers. If Tesla manages to take over the market with its solar technology and electric cars, all traditional car makers, are out of business. So, companies like GM or Ford, have to make sure that their potential clients will find it easy to get cheap gas and gas stations, and have a hard time getting cheap electricity and electric stations.
The same happens to Tesla cars. If Tesla wants to make a profit, they need to make sure their potential clients have no problems finding an electric station to recharge their electric cars.
So, Tesla makes efforts in creating an easily accessible electric infrastructure, "educating" the public about their electric cars, and lobbying for increased taxes for gas and gas cars as they are more polluting than Tesla cars.
While Ford makes efforts in creating an easily accessible gas infrastructure, "educating" the public about their gas cars, and lobbying for increased taxes for electricity and electric cars, for all sorts of reasons.

Hollywood does something similar. They need to keep their audiences in a state of constant demand for their movies. BUT. Hollywood movies are dumb as fcvk, only kids can watch them without vomiting. What do you do? You "educate" the audiences to stay dumb and immature.

How can Hollywood "educate" the audiences to stay dumb and immature, you may ask. Well, it's a pretty complex process, but pretty simple in concept. And it's late, and you're not interested in understanding it anyway. So I'll go to sleep, and perhaps tell you about it tomorrow.

Take a look at Starship Troopers' revenue: $54 million in the US for a $105 million budget. Because Verhoeven does not follow Hollywood's recipe, audiences reject the product. So, Hollywood has to make sure Verhoeven doesn't destroy their market. No more sponsoring from the Pentagon for the next military movie directed by Verhoeven!

To understand how dangerous Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is, compare it to Robocop.

In Robocop, Robocop fights "evil" corporate and police mofos, but he never challenges the system. There are "good" corporate and police, who watch over us, to protect and blah blah us, against the evil forces. The Establishment is not challenged!

In Starship Troopers, Rico is destroyed by the very system he empowers! The Establishment is exposed as psychotic - the Skymarshall hides in the closet as the outpost is slaughtered to the last man. Yes, the Skymarshall was not a Skymarshall anymore, he was demoted for failing to protect and blah, but it is not implied that he had done anything evil. However, the system is challenged.

ok, good night, I know it's a tough pill to swallow, you are after all, the product of years and years of indoctrination, so being exposed so sudden to the truth, can be very discomfortable.

[–] ResVoCoder 9 years ago

Your examples are brand loyalty strategies.
The only strategy behind making toothless dumb movies is to reach the largest audience possible. It's not about any belief system or government controlled media.

If that were the case, there's wouldn't be an Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Casualties of War, Jarhead, ....
You would only have the likes of Bay's Pearl Harbor.
Of course those critical films will never be huge successes. People want to cheer and taste the enemy's blood, they don't want to look into the mirror.

By the way, I don't appreciate your condescending tone. You can discuss all you want, but you are in no position to make any assumptions about me.
It's one thing to sit on a high horse. It's another to be sitting on it in the wrong direction.

I'm not done convincing you!

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Your examples are brand loyalty strategies.
The only strategy behind making toothless dumb movies is to reach the largest audience possible.

Exactly! Because Hollywood makes dumb movies, their audiences have to be dumb too!

Ever wondered why doesn't Hollywood make smart movies? Like, seriously, think of a movie from Hollywood that you think is smart, and I'll show you how it's actually dumb, or, if it's indeed smart, made very little money.

The conclusion is simple: You have to cultivate a loyal audience, because that's how you maximize profit. And believe me when I tell you, Hollywood could educate a smart audience, but if you'd have enough education, you'd realize that would mean the end of the capitalist system.
Because, if you get the masses to wake up, and become aware of how the system works, they would simply reject the system. It happened before, in the past, I donno if you're familiar with the American Revolution. A nation of millions, rejected the rule of the monarchy, bringing the end of the feudal system in America.
Don't you hate it when you can't afford a new diamond necklace, because your royal coffins are empty, because those burghers over in Virginia just rejected the feudal system?

If that were the case, there's wouldn't be an Apocalypse Now, Platoon,

Aham, go to boxofficemojo, Apocalypse Now made $118,558 in the opening weekend. Compare to Jurassic World with $208,806,270 in the opening weekend.

I understand you are eager to convince me, but life is complex, and has many aspects :)

You have to understand that the system is built in such way, that one part of society is forced to force the other part of society into slavery. That's how things work. And for a slave to be docile, you have to anesthetize his mind, in other words, make him dumb.

It is not the people who want to be stupid. No. You have to prevent them from learning and educating. Education is not memorizing the formula for calculating the surface of the sphere. No. Education is developing critical thinking, valid reasoning, stuff that require a lot of resources. Just do your best to block access to those resources, and the slave will be forced to stay "dumb".

The very fact that you don't understand the concept of "dumb", shows how poorly educated you are...
You may feel like my tone is condescending, but you have no problem being condescendent towards all those people you're calling "dumb"...

[–] ResVoCoder 9 years ago

I can't take you seriously if you fail to read what I wrote and make ridiculous comparisons?

Aham, go to boxofficemojo, Apocalypse Now made $118,558 in the opening weekend. Compare to Jurassic World with $208,806,270 in the opening weekend.

First of all, I already said they are never box office hits so no need to prove my words.
Secondly, it's ridiculous to compare box office numbers of films 36 years apart. The added inflation plus the extras for Imax and 3D make your comparison unrealistic. Better to compare to Star Wars, which is of the same era.

I understand you are eager to convince me

Do you not understand sarcasm? My sig line is a joke. I'm not the one with the longwinding posts here.

you have no problem being condescendent towards all those people you're calling "dumb"...

Again, you fail to read correctly. I never called anyone dumb. I referred to toothless dumb MOVIES, not their audience.

I'm not done convincing you!

[–] criztu 9 years ago

First of all, I already said they are never box office hits so no need to prove my words.

You are also proving my words. You are talking in absolute terms. You want to paint me like I said "Hollywood is Sauron, and he sees all knows all, you can't make a smart movie if you work at Hollywood".

You give me the example of Apocalypse Now as a Hollywood movie that is smart. You are completely in error. Apocalypse Now is Francis Ford Coppola's movie, not a Hollywood movie. You pretty much don't understand the concept of "Hollywood".

Hollywood is not Francis Ford Coppola. Hollywood is an Institution, that uses humans to carry out the Institution's plan.
That is like having a bunch of dudes building a skyscraper that was projected by a computer. In the computer plans, everything is perfect to the millimeter. Go and measure what the humans did, and you will find an infinity of tiny and giant "errors", made by the humans building that house.

Get it? You think that if Coppola or Verhoeven managed to subversively insert their own virus message into the Hollywood's movie, you proved me wrong. No, you didn't prove me wrong, you only prove your lack of maturity. You're so eager to fight someone and win - like the adolescent that you are, that you're willing to ignore the fcvking truth.

Truth is, Hollywood is an institution of propaganda, and Coppola or Verhoeven are hired propagandists, who are trying to signal to whoever gets the message, that things are not how they appear.

Secondly, it's ridiculous to compare box office numbers of films 36 years apart. The added inflation plus the extras for Imax and 3D make your comparison unrealistic. Better to compare to Star Wars, which is of the same era.

I tell you what's ridiculous. You're ridiculous. Completely going off on a tangent, with ludicrous speed.

Hollywood is an Institution of Propaganda, Verhoeven is employed by Hollywood to create Propaganda, and Verhoeven subversively exposes the Institution of Propaganda, and Hollywood banishes Verhoeven from its ranks.

Can you talk about this gruesome reality, or are you still too squishy to face reality, and you invite me to follow you into the puffy world of fantasy, where truth can't hurt you?

Again, you fail to read correctly. I never called anyone dumb. I referred to toothless dumb MOVIES, not their audience.

Sorry dude, but when you say "Hollywood makes dumb movies to reach the largest audience possible" you're inferring that those audiences are dumb.

Don't bother spinning stuff for me, I'm not here to duel you, I'm not a young padawan...

[–] ResVoCoder 9 years ago

Ugh,
Why don't you just copy/paste your previous posts and save yourself some time.

You keep twisting my words around and omitting stuff I said to make a cynical and farfetched point.
I get it. I don't agree with it. I can't be bothered with this idiocy anymore.

And my god, by all means....YOU ARE THE WINNER OF THIS CONVERSATION!!!!
It seems to be important to you, since you're constantly projecting it on me.

I'm not done convincing you!

[–] BobbyDupea 9 years ago

There's nothing in the movie suggesting that it is satirizing only U.S. fascism or imperialism, contrary to your assertion.

My real name is Jeff

[–] criztu 9 years ago

Well, yes, but it's pretty much an American movie, and America is the hegemon. Europe is subordinated to America, and European intellectuals pretty much hate that. Verhoeven is one of the European intellectuals who don't like America. Him being expelled from Hollywood is pretty much a punishment for his provocations.

[–] Vicenzo-VV 9 years ago

Paul Verhoeven is Dutch. He was a child during WWII, and one of the first memories he has were of dead bodies in the streets. This should tell you that he is definitely not pro-fascism. It also tells you why he is a little funny in the head.

[–] refzem 9 years ago

Originally, neither. It was made to be a sci-fi action movie, with inspiration taken from fascism, when hollywood came along to make it anti-fascist. Laughable, really.

[–] kjk22956-545-667740 9 years ago

It was intended TO MAKE MONEY.

[–] werecow2003 9 years ago

- Unlike in real fascism, there were no oppressed minorities/political opponents here (you know, blacks, jews, indians, etc).

It seems to me that the bugs take that role. They are the target of the fascistic regime in this movie, and this is how fascists view their enemies; as bugs to be squashed. They're everywhere, they're creepy and gross, they're the embodiment of evil, they're inhuman (or dehumanized?), and the fight against them will never end. It's kind of funny, because it is simultaneously both a metaphor and a literal interpretation of viewing the enemy as vermin. They are also scapegoats; we don't know for sure that they sent the asteroid, and we never see them in the role of aggressors; it's the humans who are invading their world, not the other way around.

The place is presented as literally heaven on Earth (no poverty, crime, suffering, etc). At the simple cost of giving up democracy? I'm pretty sure most poor unstable democracies on Earth would jump on that wagon in a split second. Which is simply impossible (like having a Nazi Germany without jew persecution, racism, forced labour of "inferior" races, invasion of other countries, etc).

The utopian imagery is an allusion to fascistic propaganda, which tends to depict their society in idyllic ways, even in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary.