Compliments on a thoughtful post. Honestly. Kudos. And for what it’s worth, the quality you describe is (though I would articulate it differently) what I appreciate about Verhoeven’s work.
This demonstrates, I think, two things: First, it is possible to objectively evaluate an artist’s work, and grasp its themes and underpinnings, without necessarily liking or disliking the work, which is what you’ve done (or, in other words, you can “get it” without enjoying it); and, second, the entirely subjective question of enjoyment is purely a matter of personal taste, aside and apart from the objective evaluation.
I wouldn’t say that I didn’t enjoy the films. I did. I didn’t “trust” them or “like” them, if you know what I mean.
I thought Troy was a terrible film. I had no trouble trusting it though. It just sucked.
What I don’t like about Veerhoeven is the sense that he’s fucking with me or insulting me.
I think he was able to pull off his message and criticisms through satire in Basic Instinct without directing in bad faith or fucking with me. I think it makes it pretty powerful. He takes the Femme Fatale to such an extreme (though legitimately) that it seems to me he actively reveals it to be wishful thinking and a creation of the men surrounding such a woman, who both wish to succumb and blame her for succumbing. That way they get to sin while claiming vicitimhood. Sharon Stone’s character reveals a moment or two of genuine feeling by the printer when she tells Douglas that he’s dead, because she wrote him that way. In that instant, you can “get” what Veerhoeven’s message is, IMO. That is, men want women to be that way. If they are, then there’s no guilt. Her revenge is to truly be the way they want her to be, without considering the consequences. She resents being viewed in a particular fashion, but by going with it the men she destroys create her and are destroyed by her. This form of self-destruction they perform against her is her revenge.
I like the message against the worship/villification of women which is really just a way to use them in disguise.
In other films it seems he’s a bit more ham-handed and less faithful and honest to his characters, actors and audience.
Though, if you’re making fun of me, you’re being a bit of a dick as you’ve been here long enough and interacted with me enough to be able to figure out what the issue is.
Wow. Very cool. I agree with pretty much everything you say, to varying degrees. I’ve said before that while John Waters and Paul Verhoeven both like to used bad actors intentionally, Waters generally gets a pass on this because, bottom line, his genuine affection for these characters comes across pretty strongly, while Verhoeven clearly hates just about everyone. I definitely acknowledge the misanthropy in his work (while I will utterly deny any misogyny). And there’s little doubt in my mind that that’s where I jibe with him.
That said, I give Verhoeven a pass because I think his outlook was formed by living under Nazi occupation as a small child; ultimately all his movies are about how easily a neighbor will sell you out to save his own skin, and just how deep into the muck you have to be willing to go to survive, well, other humans. Certainly these are interesting points in today’s world, as much as they were to someone surviving WWII Europe.
Also excellent points. This is why I think Verhoeven, though he portrays misogyny in his films, is not a misogynist himself: it’s ultimately clear who the victim is, and who’s using the “bad guy’s” own faults against him. Men have helped to create Catherine Trammell, but she’s smart enough to turn it back on them as a weapon.
I was not aware of his childhood under Nazi Germany occupation. That adds a lot of context, especially to Starship Troopers, and what I saw as the disconnect between what he was trying to demonstrate and what was actually coming across. He’s making such strong comparisons between the Federation and Nazis that he’s not aware of some of the sympathetic elements he’s placed into Federation society.
Anyway, interesting films. They are especially good for running on the treadmill, because you can watch them mindlessly, and then think about them later. Not many films are layered like that (although Flesh and Blood didn’t seem all that deep. I’ll have to think about that in relation to the new information provided on his recurring themes. Now that I think about it seems a thematic precursor to Basic Instinct)
Kudos to you for turning me on to him as a director and looking at his films as a body of work. Credit isn’t often given here, but I owe you a measure of it for this.
Anything else in his filmography that stands out, or I missed?
Uh . . . I just wrote like a page and a half, and then dropped the phone on my keyboard and crashed it all away.
Anyway.
Flesh and Blood is a little clumsy, as compared to his later work. But the themes are all there. Try to find a copy of Keetje Tippel if you can. It’s the first film he made that focuses on what I think of as his driving theme: real world feminism. Basically, the classic Verhoeven story is about a woman who undergoes some kind of trauma, and comes out of it a warrior. What stood as an obstacle for me, for a long time, is that in the typical Verhoeven, that trauma is usually rape. But, whereas in most movies and TV shows (see L&O:SVU), rape is presented strictly as an ingredient in the entertainment: the woman is victimized, and remains victimized while the “good guys” hunt down the rapist. Lather, rinse, repeat weekly. The Verhoeven rape victim, however, is cauterized by this trauma: it suddenly throws the world into perspective for her as she realizes what the world is like: the world rapes you. And you’ve got no one to count on but yourself. (See, Verhoeven, Childhood, Nazi occupation.)
In F&B, it bothered me for a long time that when JJL is raped, she attaches herself to her rapist romantically. I mean, come on, you just don’t do that, Paul. But then I saw it again, and I saw what I had forgotten the first time: she had been abducted, and quickly determined who the Alpha Dog was. So she used what he wanted from her in order to gain his protection from the rest of the dogs; she knew the only thing that would save her from a neverending gang rape was if the head guy thought of her as his property. So she “gave” herself to him. But at the crucial moment, she used him to effect her escape. By showing him what he wanted to see—her supposed “weakness”—she gained the upper hand, and remained in control long enough to save herself. This theme plays out in most of Verhoeven’s movies with a female protagonist. (All but his scifi trilogy, actually:* Robocop, Total Recall*, and Starship Troopers.)
This is what’s so brilliant, IMO, about Showgirls: it starts out with a slew of clichés—to the extent that you know what’s coming: it’s gonna be just like every other ripoff of 42nd Street. But then Nomi’s friend is brutally raped, and suddenly it’s I Spit on Your Grave: Nomi’s been cauterized by her friend’s rape, and becomes an avenging warrior. And only then does she really find herself: the fake goody two shoes was never gonna work; she had to get her monster on. (And this is why Verhoeven coaxed such a horrible performance out of her: she had to be fake, until suddenly she was real.)
Anyway, thanks again Scylla for bringing these up in a serious effort to discuss. Funny how it has to happen in the Pit . . .
There’s another element in there as well. His female characters seem to actively participate in their rape, literally in Flesh and Blood more figuratively in Showgirls. Where Berkely/Nomi is actively seeking out her degradation/exploitation I’m not sure what to make of this.
I didn’t see what you saw in Showgirls. Berkley’s acting doesn’t get better when she becomes disillusioned and vengeful. For me, the rape was just another plot element as in tv, as you say. In this case it’s Nomi who’s the good guy, not the SVU guys. Ultimately I think it fails as satire. I felt bad for Nomi/Berkley (I think Vehoeven works hard to make the actess playing Nomi an actual character in the movie herself. He brings out this awareness in the audience through the bad acting,) but I didn’t sympathize. A good satire needs to somehow transcend or rise above or become outside of its subject matter in order to comment on it, while at the same time remaining faithful. Showgirls gets kind of stuck in its subject matter. The whole “Hey look at me exploiting/ruining this formerly wholesome actress and look at her help, isn’t it droll?” doesn’t give him much cred.
What I found really fascinating was the maiming theme in Starship Troopers. The theme that is constantly repeated is maturation through maiming. The wise adults early on are all missing body parts. Ibanez matures after she gets maimed (tiny little scar in Denise Richards’ pefect brow.)
For Rico though it’s a series of maimings, Loss of Ibanez, loss of family in Buenes Ares, Whipping, Leg skewering, loss of mentor. He is shown to mature after each.
Even the sports they play as kids are brutal to the point where you’re sure somebody’s getting maimed all the time. You sense a theme of this parent society deliberately maiming its children into maturity.
I’ll check out Black Book and look for keetje Tippel
Dayum! This has turned into a fascinating discussion! Scylla’s and lissener’s posts should be in Cafe Society.
Edit to add a hearty recommendation for Black Book (Zwartboek). It was one of my favorite films from 2007. Carice van Houten is by far the best actress Verhoeven has worked with and IMO should have been nominated for an Oscar.
Why am I reminded of Ghost Busters all of a sudden?
Rhymers don’t hug. We lose our tempers, say stupid things, get spanked for it, and admit it in a manly fashion involving no hugging whatsodamnever. Then we take our irrattional vexation at the spaking out on Montevideo.
