What about Basic Instinct? Hollow Man? Total Recall? Flesh+Blood? Also satires?
Look, it’s not as if we missed the satirical elements in the movie - the weren’t that subtle. The propaganda clips? Come on. But there was obviously supposed to be a straightforward action film under there, and as such, it just doesn’t work. Personally, I think Verhoeven’s a con man. He’s a fundamentally shallow filmmaker who manages to fool viewers into thinking he’s deep. The thing is, once you look below the surface, there’s nothing there.
Part of what makes Heinlein interesting (and annoying to some) is that he plays with various ideas, his interests (and personal beliefs) changing over time with his own life experiences. The society in Beyond This Horizon isn’t the same as in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and it isn’t the same as the post-Interregnum stories and it isn’t the same in Starship Troopers and it isn’t the same as in Stranger in a Strange Land and so on. To the degree that Heinlein believed in the ideas behind any of those societies is a matter of biography as much as anything. And while he did write to make arguments at times, I think some of his detractors either misunderstand or ignore what was actually written.
Because Heinlein, troubled though his politics may have been, was a far better writer than Rand. The worldview he put forward in SsT (the book) may be garbage and unable to withstand scrutiny, but it’s at least a fun story.
So… as an alternative to Atlas Shrugged.
As to the movie, I thought it was a fun action movie (still do). Just not a very good adaptation of the novel. But then I endorse the notion it wasn’t meant to be a straight retelling of the novel.
Heinlein has said that if you want to understand his worldview, the three books that you need to read are Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He didn’t see them as contradictory at all.
The way I read that: Libertarian civil society protected by a respected voluntary armed force, and freedom from sexual and religious hangups.
His politics reflected that. He was a strong cold warrior who was very supportive of the military and of an agressive stance against America’s enemies, while also being strongly opposed to the draft. At home he was a libertarian - almost a libertine. He believed in the separation of military duty and civilian life. And he wasn’t all that fond of an unlimited franchise, but rather that it should be earned by, if not service, at least an attempt to be educated on the issues you vote for.
The world in Starship Troopers is often portrayed as Fascist, but it’s not. the civilian society is close to libertarian, and among many membersmofmthat society it was a mark of pride to NOT have citizenship. The military was looked down on. Service is entirely voluntary, and you can rise to the highest heights of society without ever serving. The government is small and interferes very little in civilian life.
But because the book focuses on military life, and the military is one in which you voluntarily surrender your freedom for a time in order to serve your country and gain citizenship, it comes across as at least glorifying the military, which confuses some people. Heinlein was totally in favor of glorifying the average soldier and their sacrifices for the good of all, while also being vehemently opposed to any sort of military rule and being very aware that the military as an institution can be domestically dangerous.
A close archetype for an ideal Heinlein character would be the various ‘quiet man with a gun’ roles Clint Eastwood played. Heinlein’s perfect citizen is someone who minds his own business, is a good neighbor who doesn’t judge and who allows people to be whatever they are, but is always ready to pick up a gun if he or his family or country is messed with. ‘Thou Art God’, a common phrase in SIASL, is also echoed in this heinlein quote - the important part of which is at the end:
To Heinlein, freedom also bears the responsibility of accepting that you alone are responsible for your actions. There is no collective guilt or collective absolution from guilt. ‘Following Orders’ is not an excuse, nor is following the herd. It is never moral for a group to do what is immoral for an individual to do.
Heinlein was the furthest thing from being a fascist or a populist. He was an individualist. Works for me. And getting back to the OP, he wasn’t a ‘Randite’ as he called Objectivists back then, but just like the Prof in TMIAHM, he could get along with them. I don’t know if Ayn Rand ever mentioned him, but knowing her she would have hated him like she hated other libertarians and conservatives.
I read quite a number of his books at a fairly young and impressionable age. I found many of the worlds he created to be fascinating, but it was SIASL that I really felt was more of an argument for his preferred society while ST and MIAHM seemed more cautionary tales.
The book of his that I think I enjoyed the most, “Have Space Suit, Will Travel”, had very little political commentary. Of course it was more geared towards a younger audience than most of his works.
The book I think I enjoyed the least would be “Friday”, and that one was very heavy handed in the social commentary.
Said another way … In this context, Objectivism is one of those rare things that is its own self-satire. Any attempts to take it seriously immediately trip over their own metaphoric shoelaces.