Satire - Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

This is very true, but at its core satire is generally intended to be humourous and entertaining.
Even if you don't completely get every joke, it can still entertain and so long as that happens, it's pretty good in most people's books.

reply

[–] frankspijker1994 11 years ago

Animal Farm was a satire, but definitely not funny or very entertaining.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

You watched the wrong version. Try the one that doesn't star Bodil Joensen!!

"Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society".

In short, satire can be both, but doesn't have to be.
I rather enjoyed AF, both as a novel to study in school and as a cartoon, with which we were entertained (as well as it being relevant to the overall class). Tastes vary.

reply

[–] Royalcourtier 9 years ago

Perhaps he meant the book! Try reading occasionally. It keeps the brain alive.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 9 years ago

Perhaps he meant the book! Try reading occasionally. It keeps the brain alive.

Take your own advice, boyo - I was talking about both. 

reply

[–] xenopharb 11 years ago

If Verhoeven meant the film to be satire, which is likely, he obviously did not understand the book. That would make this film much more like Spaceballs than an accurate adaptation of the source material.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

He was very familiar with the book, but chose to also satirise (or would that be parody) the military adoration that the book showed.
As mentioned on another thread, this film actually works on several levels, while also managing to remain a mindless action flick at the same time.

reply

[–] xenopharb 11 years ago

If he is using satire, he doesn't get it. The book did not show military adoration. In fact, the author did not trust the military brass any more than he trusted politicians without military service who sent men to die in war.

The film fails on several levels because the film was not written by people who understood the book. Being a mindless action flick is as far from the book as one could get because a major point of the book is that military action is not mindless, soldiers are not mindless, and society must not be mindless when considering to use force to resolve conflict.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

The book did not show military adoration. In fact, the author did not trust the military brass any more than he trusted politicians without military service who sent men to die in war.

It does glorify and gloss over things quite a bit. Some reviewer even called it "a book-length recruiting poster".
The brass are every bit as incompetent in both, but the film focusses more on the sorts of mindless bloodthirsty cannon-fodder their society brings to the battlefield.

The film fails on several levels because the film was not written by people who understood the book.

You could say that about EVERY book-to-film out there, pretty much. From Jaws to LotR to even the Millenium Trilogy...

Being a mindless action flick is as far from the book as one could get because a major point of the book is that military action is not mindless,

But this is not meant to be The Book. It's the director's take on it. If you want The Book, go read The Book.

soldiers are not mindless, and society must not be mindless when considering to use force to resolve conflict.

Rasczak does pretty much embody this thinking, even in the film, and yet what else would you expect from a somewhat fascist society in the first place?

reply

[–] xenopharb 11 years ago

It does glorify and gloss over things quite a bit. Some reviewer even called it "a book-length recruiting poster".

I believe Dean McLaughlin did not fully understand what the Heinlein was trying to say. Heinlein was stating that duty and service are important, but he also made responsibility and consequences of action important elements of a just society.

The brass are every bit as incompetent in both, but the film focusses more on the sorts of mindless bloodthirsty cannon-fodder their society brings to the battlefield.

I agree; the film does focus on the mindless bloodthirsty attitude. That is why it is difficult to support the argument that Verhoeven knew the book well because that is not what the book was about.

Heinlein glorifies the sacrifices and duty of the grunt, but he does not glorify war. Warfare is brutal, but it is neither mindless nor without cost.

But this is not meant to be The Book. It's the director's take on it. If you want The Book, go read The Book.

Paul Verhoeven did not even read the whole book. The film is not meant to be the book because the screenplay writers just wanted to take some elements of the story and add it to the screenplay ideas they already wanted to use for the film. The film gets the book wrong on so many points. If it does that, then why even call it Starship Troopers?

Rasczak does pretty much embody this thinking, even in the film, and yet what else would you expect from a somewhat fascist society in the first place?

I am not sure what you mean. Having military or civilian service as a prerequisite to voting franchise is a post Great War fascist idea, but it is not an idea of the common perception of Fascism that evolved into the Nazi party of the Third Reich. The former was a means to limit war, while the latter embraced war as a means to its own power.

The Terran Federation is a democracy, has universal franchise for those willing to get it, and has free markets, free speech, and free press. That is likely more than we will have soon.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 11 years ago

Heinlein was stating that duty and service are important,

And this is portrayed in the film at individual character level, but then also lampooned/satirised by the mentality of the overall culture that make it their primary focus. Makes sense to me. Kinda like how Communism at its root sounds pretty good, everyone working equally and all, but will always get twisted and abused by those upholding/enforcing it. Sort of an Animal Farm kinda deal.

but he also made responsibility and consequences of action important elements of a just society.

Again, that's what Rasczak's classroom lesson was leaning toward. That's why he wanted Rico to figure things out for himself, to learn the consequences and appreciate the responsibility that comes with holding a Citizenship, to perhaps even question whether society is really all that just.

I agree; the film does focus on the mindless bloodthirsty attitude.

On the surface, yeah. That's what sells tickets... that and Dina Meyer's breasts, of course!!
But I also see much deeper concepts and things going on as well. I admit it's been... oh, *many* years, since I read the book but the film kinda rang true to a lot of what I remembered. It is like a comic-book interpretation of the novel, but I'm seeing a lot of the same themes and ideas represented, albeit dumbed down for a more action-centric audience, perhaps.

Heinlein glorifies the sacrifices and duty of the grunt, but he does not glorify war.

Which is what the film's OTT militarised culture is supposed to reflect/send up, as I understand it. Follows along the 'old lie' of Dulce Et Decorum Est.

Paul Verhoeven did not even read the whole book.

I'm quite surprised to learn this... and somewhat annoyed, actually.

I am not sure what you mean.

"Soldiers are not mindless, and society must not be mindless when considering to use force to resolve conflict".
And yet those in command *are* mindless, particularly of the realities faced by the soldiers they're sending out to sacrifice themselves.

The militaristic approach is oppressive, dictatorial and aggressive, which is Fascist, to a degree. I would expect such a regime to result in a similar mentality among its people. Restricting democracy to those who serve also seems to breed an elitism and discrimination against those who, as is their right, choose not to serve. Also a little on the Fascist side.

Again, understanding this and the differences between Citizen and Civilian, what each one entails and the impacts each will have is what Rasczak was driving at, IMO. And yet, it seems he is encouraging this approach in a society where such thinking is discouraged, with serving being plugged as the only sensible choice - a la product advertising.
Smacks of all those, "What did you do in the Great war, daddy?" posters. You can choose not to serve... but society will virtually shun you.

reply

[–] sbb-imdb 11 years ago

Paul Verhoeven did not even read the whole book.

I'm quite surprised to learn this... and somewhat annoyed, actually.

Apparently he didn't read all the way through the Robocop script at first either & was going to turn down the film, until his wife convinced him to finish reading it.

reply

[–] m_hanson76 10 years ago

No, he wasnt familiar with the book. He admitted that he didnt even read it.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

He said he never finished it and that he found it depressing. He read enough to base a script on it though.

reply

[–] Gottagrin 10 years ago

Even if your argument holds, why does someone as smart as Verheoven have to agree with everything a nerd-like military fan said while he himself have a very good understanding about the fallacy of human history and the inept nature of humanity?

You do understand Verhoeven borrowed as much fun in propaganda movies like 'Triumph of the Will' or 'why we fight' as the original book? Because from the look of you, apparently you didn't get the joke.
_________________________
Superbus Via Inscientiae.

reply

[–] sbb-imdb 11 years ago

Why a majority of reviewers seemingly do not get this, YET LIKE THE FILM, is surely one of the greatest mysteries of modern cinema.

Outside of the "would you like to know more" sequences, it's played fairly straight as a big-and-dumb action movie. I'd imagine that people enjoy it on that level - that's my position, I think it works better as a popcorn flick than as a satire. Not because I don't "get" the satirical elements, but because I find the "satire" in the movie feels tacked-on and toothless.

I doubt anyone would call it satirical if the "would you like to know more" segments were removed. Even then, I think those segments are sarcastic more than satirical & they seem like something that was bolted onto a pre-existing script to make it feel more like a Verhoeven film (it's basically a gimmick copied from Robocop).

That it so blatantly and obviously and transparently parodies every military (propaganda) film trope imaginable should be a dead giveaway, in addition to the horrific hyper-militaristic dystopia which exaggerates many real life elements.

But it doesn't really do anything different from the films that it's supposed to be parodying. Outside of the "would you like to know more" bits, it's as reverential of the military as, say, Michael Bay's Transformer films - if not more so, because the soldiers are the main characters/focus in Starship Troopers. And they're mostly portrayed unambiguously as good guys, even the most brutal of them - compare the way Lt. Zim is portrayed compared to, say, Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket. For that matter, the whole boot camp sequence feels like a Saturday morning cartoon version of the first half of Full Metal Jacket, there's even an analog of the "Private Pile" character who dies from a bullet wound to the head.

I'm not even sure it was intended to be a satire. From what I've read, Verhoeven was primarily mocking the book because he disliked (what he read of) it.

I can only conclude Paul Verhoeven is a genius, because *WHOOSH*.

I don't know if "genius" is the word I'd use to describe the man who directed Showgirls. He's done some great sci-fi/action-schlock, but Joseph Heller or Stanley Kubrick he ain't.

reply

[–] martinusx 11 years ago

There are a lot of satirical undertones that can be seen even without the "would you like to know more"-sequences. Like Carl's nazi SS leather coat, the disrespectful testing of the brainbug, every one skipping the fact that it was the humans that invaded bug terratory with colonists, an African American whipping a white man, the legless reqruiter being proud the infantry made him that way. Going to war with the bugs without understanding them or even trying to...

I like the movie as an action movie and I can also see the satire in it.

reply

[–] sbb-imdb 11 years ago

Of those examples, the only one I can see as being arguably-satirical is the legless MI recruiter. The treatment of the brain bug or the actions of the human colonists/protagonists doesn't seem any more satirical than the actions of characters we're supposed to root for in other films. As for Carl's SS jacket and the whipping scene, I don't think that mere juxtaposition & using recognizable imagery count as satirical on their own.

reply

[–] martinusx 11 years ago

Wel I feel that the way they experimented on the bugs was so over the top evil, inhuman and single minded, it has to be satirical. Stick a probe in it, the equivalent of our alien's analprobe. Maybe i don't realy understand what satirical means. But no one can wear nazi-like leather coats anymore not knowing that it's so totally wrong! I felt it immediately and I am sure Verhoeven wanted to vibe this.

reply

[–] granitodiaz 11 years ago

saying this movie is satire is like saying Lord of the Rings is satire

reply

[–] bstormy 9 years ago

"I doubt anyone would call it satirical if the "would you like to know more" segments were removed"

So the bit where the limbless man signing up the Hitler Youth for war states "good for you soon, the mobile infantry made me the man I am today" was a straight line in your opinion?

Or when Obersturmfuhrer Doogie Howser says "its afraid" and everyone cheers?

Or when Radchek goes to shoot the terrified Officer when that officer says "I wish you would just shoot me"?

BTW Showgirls has its admirers these days.

reply

[–] granitodiaz 11 years ago

the book is satire but not this movie

reply

[–] cosmicfish 11 years ago

I am curious as to your evidence supporting this position. Both the author of the book and the director of the movie seem to disagree with you.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

reply

[–] rfeni-1 10 years ago

What makes you think the people (like me) who found this film tedious and repetitive didn't 'get it'? So it's satire, so what? Are all satires created equal? Is there no such thing as annoyingly heavy-handed, superficial, and ultimately pointless satire? I've read some critics insist that because it's satire, 'Starship Troopers' must have deep insights into fascism, but I don't find them. Others insist that because it's satire it must be hilariously funny, but I don't recall wiping any tears of laughter from my aching cheeks when I saw it.

Would a Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist come away from this movie with an altered opinion of his ideology? Satire, as you say, is intended to ridicule. A Fascist would simply dismiss it as blatant anti-Fascist propaganda. The only people who accept its statements as valid insights are the people who already believed those statements to begin with. Satire isn't an argument to persuade, it's entertainment that mocks what its audiences consider ridiculous. And 'Starship Troopers' just has too serious a tone to mock anything entertainingly. Hitler and his inner circle were real-life caricatures, but how entertaining (or 'hilarious') is it to watch them whip mobs into a frenzy?

'Starship Troopers' wasn't anymore entertaining as a sci-fi movie as it was as a satire. Every time they started another one of those long battle scenes with the soldiers firing round after round into creatures who hardly seem to notice the first five bullets that strike them, all I could do was drum my fingers impatiently until it was over, all the while wondering why they hadn't developed more effective weapons, why they hadn't figured out they couldn't outrun them, why they didn't just use long-range artillery against an enemy that could only kill them if it got close enough to bite them, etc.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

I've read some critics insist that because it's satire, 'Starship Troopers' must have deep insights into fascism, but I don't find them.

I thought it just presented itself as what it was and left the viewer to find the insights for themselves.
In that respect, it is also very cool, as it tallies with Rasczak's line about "figuring things out for yourself".

Satire, as you say, is intended to ridicule.

They certainly looked ridiculous to me...

And 'Starship Troopers' just has too serious a tone to mock anything entertainingly.

You think that was serious?
I think too much of the audience take it seriously perhaps... It was quite deadpan, but I'd never really consider it serious.

'Starship Troopers' wasn't anymore entertaining as a sci-fi movie as it was as a satire.

I don't know... it does contain a fair number of the Classic/Pure sci-fi elements that made the book so good. But it was also reduced down to more bite-size content - SST Lite, if you will - To appeal to a wider audience.
The whole philosophy behind Federal Service was restricted to a few lines of dialogue from Ironside and the results ill-described by Rico.

Every time they started another one of those long battle scenes

It had tits too. Naked tits. Tits you could actually see without freeze-framing your VCR!
Again, wider audience. Movie-making is a business. This made a few mil, at least.

all the while wondering why they hadn't developed more effective weapons

This is supposed to be early on in the war with a totally unprepared force, which was *really* lampooned by portraying them as mindless idiots with guns.
Powered suits come in the 3rd film, although it's a bit late by then.

Personally I thought Verhoeven was a bit childish in his treatment of the book and the film would have been far better if it was more faithful... but then I personally just view this as a switch-off-and-enjoy action flick with some great actors slotted next to some very bad ones and given a half-assed script.
Michael Ironside and Dina Meyer had the best roles and delivered the best performances of the whole bunch.

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

I'm not so sure Michael Ironside and Dina Meyer gave the strongest performances. Ironside wasn't bad, but he was better in Total Recall. Dina Meyer's character was likable, but the scene where she dies was pretty cringe worthy (at least I thought so). Denise Richards was hands down the worst since she actually didn't act in the film . Her face doesn't move, and they could've just made her an android. Casper Van Dien is perfectly fine here (not Oscar worthy of course, but he holds his own with everyone else). I wish they would've used Neil Patrick Harris more since he's a very good actor. Anyways, the over the top/cheesy acting really works for the film (as odd as that may sound). More serious performances would've thrown the tone way off. The cast looked like they were having fun.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

Ironside wasn't bad, but he was better in Total Recall.

This was one of my four favourite Ironside performances.
Jester in Top Gun is another and a very similar role.
Harry Stark in Neon City was possibly the only time he's played an outright good guy, probably ranking equal with Richter in Total Recall.
"The Overdog" McNabb in Spacehunter is just one I grew up loving.

What I liked about Rasczak was how he convincingly played both an engaging teacher and a soldier in command. He actually made both sides of the character one person, where many actors would have been too 'dual-personality'.

IMO, anyway... I'm an Ironside fan, heh heh!

Dina Meyer's character was likable, but the scene where she dies was pretty cringe worthy (at least I thought so).

Well... yeah... It's a Verhoeven film.
Having seen her other work, this cheese looked very intentional... like half the film, really.

Denise Richards was hands down the worst since she actually didn't act in the film [] .

Oh, she's awful in everything!!

Casper Van Dien is perfectly fine here

Too young and too pretty IMO.
His acting only exhibited very basic techniques that we learned back in school.

The cast looked like they were having fun.

I think the whole film was meant as a pissaround, really!!

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

Yeah, Ironside is great :). He's never actually been bad in anything I've seen him in. I agree with you on everything except Casper Van Dien. Yes, he was young, but they were playing high school graduates. He was actually playing younger than he was in real life. And, yes, he was pretty, but I don't get what that has to do with anything *shrug*. He's something for the women and gay men to look at. Just like Dina Meyer and Denise Richards were there for the straight men watching. Definitly an attractive cast for the most part. I thought everyone gave pretty much basic/chessy performances, but again it suited the tone of the film nicely. Even Richards one note, smile and look acting :p.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

Yes, he was young, but they were playing high school graduates. He was actually playing younger than he was in real life.

But he wasn't as convincing as the others.
His acting was of the same standard as the random extras who had to deliver a huge (usually overacted) performance in only one or two lines.
I was acting on that level when I was around 14-16.

And, yes, he was pretty, but I don't get what that has to do with anything.

It's that he was *always* pretty. He always looked like a hair gel poster boy. This is a war and everyone else looked messed up, dirty and knackered at some point.

Just my niggles, probably, but I felt a stronger lead would have been better.

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

What do you mean not as convincing as the others? How old he looked or his acting? He looked Denise Richards/Dina Meyer's age to me (in other words too old to play high school students, and that's what casting was actually looking for since they didn't want the cast to look that young).
Meh at the acting. If anything I thought Van Dien gave one of the more passable performances *shrug*.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

What do you mean not as convincing as the others?

He looked like an actor trying to act, rather than the character... as in, either over or underacting at inappropriate moments... mainly overacting, but without the presence to carry it off. Even Denise was good enough that I could believe Carmen would be just like her.

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

Trust me, nothing about Denise Richards performance was good enough. Your argument loses almost all credibility by saying that. Casper Van Dien wasn't great, but to say he was worse than anyone else in the film is ridiculous. Denise Richards face didn't move once (so she was hands down the worst), and everyone else was tied for 1st with plain old meh/semi bad acting. Still really, really enjoy the film though.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

Denise had 3 expressions (which is two more than Keanu Reeves, excluding a quarter-second in Constantine), and yet she is more convincing because she's pretty much playing herself. It works.

Casper looked like he had a copy of Acting For Dummies open between takes.
Ever seen that episode of Friends where the blokie (later in the Lost In Space remake) gives acting advice to a drama class? I saw the same thing going on here!

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

At you thinking Denise is playing herself in her films. No screenwriter on the planet wrote a film intending for Denise Richards to give absolutely no life into each performance. Nobody writes a film thinking "this will be a chance for Denise to play herself" (lol at you thinking she has absolutely no personality in real life. She'd probably be insulted) She seems like a nice person, and also seems like a supermom now, but get freaking real.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 10 years ago

She's the same in every film, man!!
She's basically a shorter, larger-chested, version of Elizabeth Berkeley!!

reply

[–] scorpion-52 10 years ago

I think she was good enough myself.

reply

[–] scorpion-52 10 years ago

I disagree on Richards and Meyer, I thought they both gave really good performances. I love Van Dien in almost anything and i'd really like to see get another lead role in a theatrical film.

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

Even Denise Richards scorpion? . She was ok in Wild Things, but she isn't much of an actress. I think she'd even admit that! :p. Dina Meyer was good outside that one scene, and that scene doesn't bother me much anyways.

reply

[–] scorpion-52 10 years ago

Yes, I think she's a great actress(you should check her out in Drop Dead Gorgeous if you don't believe me), I can't imagine her saying she's a bad actress, don't know why she would

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

There have been many actors who haven't liked their performances in films, and most of them are their own hardest critics.

reply

[–] scorpion-52 10 years ago

I know, but I can't recall Richards ever saying anything like that before.

reply

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

Also, would you still be a fan if she wasn't attractive? Just curious.

reply

[–] scorpion-52 10 years ago

Yes, though I really don't see what her being attractive has to do with anything.

reply

[–] idontevenno 10 years ago

Hey, sorry to cut in, but here is my thought.

Satire on certain topics works for some people and doesn't work for others because of perspectives.

I, for one, enjoyed this greatly. As a kid, just fun movie. As an adult, great satire that makes me laugh and a little uncomfortable how while ridiculous things like that can happen which is where people who have problem with this being satire.

For people who take topics in this movie seriously it is harder to laugh because they just can see this happening, and it is all too real as the previous poster has expressed as the movie being "too serious." It is just too sensitive and real for these people. Everyone has this one or two thing they just can't make light of.

For me, it is animal cruelty. I can't take satire concerning animal cruelty because I have seen it happen too many times.

Also, I think it also depends on the society the person is currently in. I'm currently in another country for a while, and I just can't take satire on women's rights here because in this country women's rights are well... basically if you are women, you basically lose your job after you are 30 or married.

Interesting thing is I was not what people would consider feminist by popular definition in the US and have felt many issues "feminists" bring up that women suffer can also be applied to man.

But, here... just no. Women's rights satires here feel too close to home that it is very hard to take it as one, and I suspect many don't see it as one. And, I feel that is how some people who thought the movie was "too serious" feel. I perfectly understand.

To each of his own, I think as it goes.

reply

[–] wulfthar 10 years ago

I've read some critics insist that because it's satire, 'Starship Troopers' must have deep insights into fascism, but I don't find them.

Don't you realise that all the uniforms and insignia of the military are clones of the Nazi uniforms from the 30s? For instance all the pilot officers wear an SS panzerwrapper jacket, that's blatant!

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

reply

[–] danzig138-668-939218 10 years ago

Why

Here's something interesting:

Just because you know how to quote a definition doesn't mean that you have understanding.

-----
WORDS MEAN THINGS!

reply

[–] npanou 10 years ago

He's just questioning why the film has a pretty mixed critical history despite so many critics somehow missing the fact the film was satirical.
All the Nazi uniforms should have given it away pretty quick, but even if you somehow missed the joke with the film, it was still a fun action romp.

That said, it's actually terrifying how many professional critics hated this claiming it glorified the military.

Some phrases from metacritic.

"In this bizarrely discordant mixture of ultraviolent action footage, bad acting, crisp special effects and futuristic camp, the remnants of Heinlein's rhetoric of military pride stick out like a grimy Marine uniform at a high-toned Hollywood party."

"An empty videogame of a movie about interplanetary pest control."

"It's exactly like "Star Wars" -- if you subtract a good story, sympathetic characters, intelligence, wit and moral purpose."

The stupidity in those quotes astounds me. Even if you thought this film was pox, to actually miss the joke is like mistaking The Naked Gun for a bad hard boiled detective flick.

"World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door"

reply

[–] carnifex2005 10 years ago

Exactly. Hell, Verhoeven copied the recruitment scene (where they were pledging allegiance in front of the Federation flag) from the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will
". It was rather obvious what he was doing but it flew over a lot of critics heads. I thought it was brilliant back then and even more so today after 9/11.

reply

[–] k434 10 years ago

Love the satire ! in the 90's, post 9/11, always ! Their militaristic society is portrayed in a balanced way, the director doesn't promote nor smear it. There are pros and cons. Its left to the viewer to figure it out.

reply

[–] DracTarashV 9 years ago

And RoboCop was somehow less subtle to them. I guess Paul is one misunderstood satirist to them.

You want something corny? You got it!

reply