Right - I always confuse the two.
I also believe that satire is the last refuge of the incompetent. Bad dialog? Satire! Bad acting? Satire! Film full of Nazis? Go prove it isn’t satire!
Yeah, I did read the book around the time the movie came out, but i also did some other research as well, so I couldn’t remember if the other battalion’s action was part of Moore’s book or something I’d just looked up at the time.
I would like to find that ABC show- it sounds interesting!
I kind of feel like Verhoeven sort of missed the point of the book; I don’t think that it was actually fascist, but something else. Nobody was forced to serve, and most of those who did weren’t soldiers. In fact, IIRC the MI were all volunteer, and there was a non-trivial amount of book devoted to why. The only part of the book that was particularly foreign was the notion that to vote, you had to serve first, thereby proving that you could put the welfare of society ahead of your own. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially assuming (like the book explains in detail) that the opportunity to serve was universal- unfettered by race, creed, physical ability, age, etc… . If you wanted to, they’d find some way for you to serve within your capabilities.
And the book goes into why soldiers fight in great detail. But Verhoeven’s movie glosses over all that and makes some sort of allegory that has very little to do with the actual book and its themes.
I respect your opinion.
That was my first thought
Given how many Marvel Cinematic Universe movies end with the Good Guys valiantly shooting the Bad Guys with lazers and missiles and bullets and whatever, I’d offer them up as unashamedly pro-war. Iron Man 3 spent some time asking the question “What if a billionaire got PTSD?” and the conclusion ultimately was “He’d build even cooler killer robots that murder people even better.”
How many superhero movies have ended with something other than violent conflict? How often does deescalation and peaceful resolution come up as a plan? The whole thing is built around the concept of it being fine to kill your enemies as long as they’re the Bad Guys. This readily translates into “These real life people are the Bad Guys so it’s fine to blow the shit out of them with drone strikes instead of opening a dialog and addressing the material conditions that lead to this conflict.”
I think I’d call them “pro-fighting”, more than “pro-war”, in that the majority of the fighting/conflict is outside of the context of warfare, and is rather along the lines of heroic adventure.
It’s the same concept of how cop shows and cop movies may have a lot of violence and fighting, but they’re not war movies.
That’s fair, but a decent number of MCU movies deal with war specifically as well. From the very beginning Iron Man has been contending with his technology being used for war, and the message has always been “I shouldn’t be contributing to these conflicts” rather than “These conflicts are inherently wrong.” Captain America: The First Avenger is perhaps the most pro-war any WWII movie has been since contemporary propaganda. Each of the Avengers movies has ended with an epic battle with Good Guys against an invading army of one form or another, and all of these are considered battles in a war, even if they’re never a particularly long war. The enemy in these movies is always othered in some way, you don’t see The Hulk smash a dozen enemy soldiers and think about their families back home, because they’re robots or weird bugmen.
The fact it doesn’t easily read as “pro-war” is perhaps the most insidious part, all the most pro-war movies have tried to show war as a heroic adventure, because being a hero fighting villains is an easier sell than being a soldier fighting other soldiers just like you.
I would bet that any Captain America property being pro-WWII is a direct borrowing from the source material, since “Captain America Comics” #1 was released in March 1941.
I’d also be willing to bet that the Avengers’ sort of epic good vs. evil group battles are derived in part from that Captain America history, combined with the fact that for the longest time, comics were very starkly good vs. evil.
And finally, for my third bet, I would wager that the very defined good vs. evil nature of the MCU movies is a large part of why they’re so popular. People can go and root for the good guys without having to think about whether or not the good guys are good, or whether the bad guys are all that bad.
Well yeah, no doubt. It’s the same reason why Star Wars has color-coded lightsabers and every time someone attempts to inject some nuance in the “Light Side vs Dark Side” conflict it gets paved over by the next story to come along. Starkly drawn good and evil sells, because it’s inoffensive and easy to understand.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is while that simplified “Good vs Evil” narrative isn’t inherently pro-war, it’s often used in current pop culture depictions of war, and it’s often weaponized to get the public to support a cause. Look no further to how “Terrorists” were the go-to evil for a decade and used to justify the invasion of two countries and the mistreatment of their people, or the constant stream of moral panics where “Woke” has become synonymous with “Evil.”
Never watched Black Panther or heard the debates about the motivation of Thanos? Not all of the MCU villains are nuanced but the best ones are.
They’re nuanced, but they’re definitely still unambiguously villainous. There wasn’t any real doubt that T’Challa was the good guy, while Killmonger & Klaue were the bad guys. Same with Thanos vs. everyone else.
Klaue was definitely bad but there was a lot of audience discussion that Killmonger was right.
As a wise man once said, " It’s such a fine line between stupid, and uh…clever."
For all their advanced technology, Wakanda is a very backward and insular culture. Leadership is based on a combination of hereditary succession, single combat, mythology, and magic totems. And Wakanda is very quick to use violence and espionage over diplomacy both internally and externally.
While I believe T’Chalia was a good man, by Wakanda’s own laws and customs, Killmonger probably had just as much right.
Are you referring to Starship Troopers? Because I feel like Verhoeven laid the satire on pretty thick. Heinlein’s original story played it straight as a war story with strong themes of militarism, social Darwinism, and morality based on tradition, honor, discipline, and strength. Verhoeven satires this with hammy acting by an absurdly attractive cast and a fascist utopian setting interspersed with jingoist shorts evoking old wartime newsreel footage.
Even the reason for the war is ambiguous. The “Want to learn more…” newsreels describe incidents of violent encounters between the Arachnids and Humans, exclusively due to Humans encroaching on their territory. While the Arachnids are shown to be interplanetary, they don’t appear to posses any advanced tech. And yet we are supposed to believe they somehow pulled an asteroid out of it’s orbit and somehow targeted Buenos Aries, S.A., Earth, Sol System from a hundred light years away? Or did the Federation use a random asteroid collision as a pretext for war?
Of course the captured brain bug at the end of the film “afraid”. It’s fallen into the hands of this weird, brutal species of advanced xenophobic apes, with their guns and metal ships and nuclear weapons and who consumes all the available resources wherever it goes. A species that so intent on expansion that it’s willing to sacrifice millions of it’s own sentient citizens (not purpose-bred semi-autonomous drones) to wipe out anything different.
Showgirls OTOH was just a bad movie
Let’s put it this way - is there any criticism anyone can make of the movie, that you can’t respond to by saying “it’s a satire”?
Are satires above criticism? Or conversely, can a movie be a satire and still be a bad movie?
I get it. But saying it’s a satire doesn’t make it a good satire.
I’d say a satire is successful if the viewer finds it amusing/enjoyable. If they don’t, then it fails to be good satire for that audience.
Like if I get the concept behind a joke, but I don’t find it funny, then it’s bad joke to me.
I met Adam Makos the author of the book along with Clarence Smoyer who is the subject of the book Spearhead. Makos finds real human stories within times of war and writes about them. In Devotion it was about the bond of the two real life pilots. In Spearhead it wasn’t just about the famous tank duel in front of Koln Cathedral it was about the two soldiers on either end of the battle and how after the war these two enemies found each other and bonded over their shared experiences and tragedy. I haven’t found anything that Makos has been involved in to be pro-war but he does write about people in extraordinary circumstances.
Good satire tends to also send a clear satirical message and still has to tell a compelling and cohesive story. I think that is where Starship Troopers kind of falls flat in that it ultimately just sort of plays like a standard 90s action/war movie told in a somewhat satirical tone. There’s no “punchline”. Johnny Ricco doesn’t ride an orbital nuke into a bug hole screaming like a cowboy.