# Paul Verhoeven retrospective at IFC Center in NY **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 8, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214 "2010-01-08T22:34:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/61 "2010-01-12T01:23:39Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I think there’s some confusion here between satire and parody. I’d agree that to some extent ST parodizes those old films. But they’re not the target of its satire. The target of the satire is modern militaristic governments, and the marketing of war. The old propaganda are a source that informs the satire, but the film is not focused backward on them; it’s focused on the present, and the future, using the past as a lens, so to speak. Or something. > > We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Vehemently, in fact. I think it’s current relevance is utterly inescapable. And I think you’re focusing too much on the WWII resonances. Those are building blocks, not structure. To the extent that he’s “mocking” the old tactics (and “mocking” is not a word I’m comfortable with), his point seems to be, _“Plus ça change . . .”_ rather than limiting his theme so specifically to WWII, as you seem to assume. Is there anything besides setting the movie in the future that speaks to modern times? I get that the future backdrop is supposed to show how little has changed in the future. If that is all that speaks to our times then it isn’t much. > [@](#): > > Again, agree to dis. I don’t think ST would work as a satire–certainly no better than it does now–if the leads had been replaced with Johnny Depp and Julia Styles. But I’m a fan of John Waters, and Alfred Hitchcock, for a couple examples of directors who ave deliberately used bad actors as the best way to realize an intended character. As much as I love ST, my favorite Verhoeven remains Showgirls, which would ABSOLUTELY not work with a good actress in the lead. Yea, I don’t we can’t really argue about this. The only time I thought intentional bad acting worked in a movie was in Mulholland Dr. And Waters never really appealed to me. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/62 "2010-01-12T01:42:07Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Is there anything besides setting the movie in the future that speaks to modern times? I get that the future backdrop is supposed to show how little has changed in the future. If that is all that speaks to our times then it isn’t much. The movie is full of very clear parallels and resonances with modern American society. That’s largely its subject matter. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/63 "2010-01-12T06:11:43Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > I describe that at length to establish a baseline for looking at Showgirls, which operates on a similar level. However, it works much more subtly, because the setting seems to be recognizable as our own world. That’s a deliberate deception; basically, the movie sucks in its audience before shitting all over them. Or, well, to be more precise, not them as people, but rather their expectations as audience members. And this is supposed to be enjoyable? This is supposed to move me in some way? This is supposed to be interesting? Is this teaching me anything? This epitomizes everything I hate about elitism. The goal is to shit all over the average movie-goer (wait, not them, their expectations :rolleyes:) in order to provide those who “get it” masturbation materiel. I find this even more vapid than taking Showgirls at face value. If this is really is what Verhoeven is doing, sure, there’s meta stuff going on, but it’s ugly. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/64 "2010-01-12T07:49:13Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > And this is supposed to be enjoyable? This is supposed to move me in some way? This is supposed to be interesting? Is this teaching me anything? This epitomizes everything I hate about elitism. The goal is to shit all over the average movie-goer (wait, not them, their expectations :rolleyes:) in order to provide those who “get it” masturbation materiel. I find this even more vapid than taking Showgirls at face value. If this is really is what Verhoeven is doing, sure, there’s meta stuff going on, but it’s ugly. No uglier than real life. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/65 "2010-01-12T08:07:49Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > The movie is full of very clear parallels and resonances with modern American society. That’s largely its subject matter. Such as? Me, I don’t think Van Diem and Richards are as bad actors as people make out, so it kind of undercuts the “casting bad actors with intent” argument for me. They’re average actors, not disastrously bad ones. Yes, they are pretty people, but taking that as some sort of indictment of lookism is, itself, just reverse bias, both from Verhoeven and those why buy his defence of his casting choices. A purely \*post hoc \*defence, I might add, which makes him a pretty shitty ex-boss, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/66 "2010-01-12T08:21:13Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > The movie is full of very clear parallels and resonances with modern American society. That’s largely its subject matter. Can you give some examples? ---
**Author:** ![Promethea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Promethea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Promethea)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/67 "2010-01-12T09:22:24Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Verhoeven never tried and failed to pass off anything; he doesn’t get involved in post-release debate. He’s never defended any of his films to anyone. I’m a big fan of Verhoeven’s work and to agree with this and to add as an aside, I remember an interview he gave with Empire at the time of _Showgirls_ being slammed in which he didn’t defend his film but he emphatically defended the treatment of Elizabeth Berkley’s acting which was critically _slammed_, saying that ALL the responsibility for the failure of her performance, if indeed any there was, rested with him and Joe Esterhaz (his writer) because she delivered 100% what he asked of her. Mind you, I have always thought that there’s something a bit cruel about the business of not telling his leading actors the point of the film and that it’s entirely possible their boss is laughing at them (I agree with the reading that they are often not in on the gag). I can fully understand with the rationale of not doing so and I’m not hugely vexed about it in the scheme of things - it was still the lead in an A list film, but if I was an actor, I’d be unbelievably wary about working him him. Still, I remember thinking a lesser director would have taken the easier way out and pinned the blame on his star as he was all but being invited to do after _Showgirls_. I was also impressed by him turning up to collect all the Razzies _Showgirls_ won. If memory serves, this was the first time a major player had done so. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/68 "2010-01-12T16:38:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > turned “sacrificing yourself in order to earn your place in society” on its head in inane ways Well, yes, pointing out that Verhoeven did something in an inane way is rather like pointing out that Benedict XVI did something in a way consistent with Roman Catholic tradition. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/69 "2010-01-13T00:36:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I agree that Robocop is close to flawless. Even though it began life as a Christ story. Or, well, maybe, even because of that. I assumed that was a deliberate part of its genius. Robocop gets better every time I see it. At first glance it’s a cop action movie. Then you watch it a second time and realize it’s a satire of cop movies. Then you realize it’s a satire of cop movies AND it’s a criticism of white America’s panicking over crime. The use of Robocop as a Christ figure comes out on the fourth viewing. The movie’s hilarious, exciting, intelligent, and brutally satirical of middle America’s prejudices. I love it. You might say I’d buy it for a dollar. And it’s quite competently acted. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/70 "2010-01-13T00:53:59Z")
What I don’t get about _Robocop_ is how Bodicker survives in custody. He’s a known cop-killer and Robocop identifies him as such after bringing him in (after the drug factory shootout). Under the circumstances, you’d think four or five officers would gladly tune him up, to _death_. Heck, let him “accidentally” fall down the stairs a few times. Well, also, Jones getting all huffy about “You _involved_ me!” Well, geez, Dick, you got the guy coming to your office in broad daylight (and arguably it would takes Jones’s influence to get him sprung in the first place) and even your secetary knows him by name. This ain’t exactly a covert relationship you got going, here. Way better than _Total Recall_, though. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214/71 "2010-01-13T04:40:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No uglier than real life. The ugliness I’m talking about is the real life ugliness of Verhoeven and his attitudes and treatment of people (the actors and movie-goers). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-verhoeven-retrospective-at-ifc-center-in-ny/524214.md?page=3)