Before you claim that most critics didn’t get the satire in Starship Troopers when it came out, you should at least try to make a survey of what the critics said at the time. Here’s the page from IMDb that links to the reviews of the film:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/externalreviews
I went through a few of them, and mostly they did get the satire.
I liked the movie. I got it. I just don’t think it worked.
It was pretty clear it was making a statement about American politics, and I got all the Nazi fascist comparisons. I thought he propaganda parodies in the film were so overdone that it was difficult to take them seriously. If you have to work that hard to make it satirical, it isn’t. Good satire doesn’t have to tell you it’s satire. With good satire your left with the uncomfortable feeling that it maybe it wasn’t satirical. There’s no question that the propaganda stuff isn’t. It’s impossible to view it straight up.
The whole fascist comparison didn’t work for me, because as was pointed out in the OP, there society works, and it works well. You can’t make somebody evil, or a fascist just by putting them into a Nazi costume, they have to act like Nazis, there has to be a deeper tie than just costume. The main tie outside of the uniforms seems to me that both the Nazis and The Federation were a society on a war footing.
The Federation did things militaristically, but they really didn’t anything that is fascist, and there’s a difference between the two.
The overreaching Nazi comparison and the uniforms seemed pretty silly to me, as if you were to perform Hamlet naked, or something. Pointless.
I guess the thing for me is that the satire and social message is contrived. It’s not a part of the movie, it’s added in.
If you took out the propaganda pieces and the Nazi uniforms, there is no comparison to fascism. It doesn’t really fit.
Has anyone in this thread actually read the book? It would clear up a lot of the BS being put about in here.
First, the societ was definitely militaristic…but not ‘facist’. Hell, they had democracy for gods sake. Basically it was a limited franchise type democratic system, where folks had to EARN the franchise through service to the state. That could be in the form of military service OR civil service. People could and did choose not to get the franchise and lived as fully empowered citizen…fully empowered except they couldn’t vote nor run for office. Nothing else was barred them though. Freedom of speech was one of the basic tenents in the book. In addition it was a very strict punishment system for various crimes (sort of like some of the Asian Tigers type ‘democracies’) where a person could, say, be publically caned violating certain civil codes, or even hung for more serious crimes.
The reason for the militant government was because this was a society that had reformed after ‘the final war’. The government itself was formed by the various war veterans when them came home to the home countries which were uniformly in a state of chaos. Thats why military or civil service was manditory to get the franchise.
Political science and philosophy (I forget the exact title of the class) were taught in school, but it wasn’t even graded, and you only had to show up for the most part. Most folks (especially those who chose not to go for the franchise) basically ignored it. The main characters father (again, I forget the name…its been years since I read the book) was extremely wealthy and did NOT have the franchise, and basically urged his son not to bother either. Most folks that bothered were those that had an interest in a political career.
As for the ‘bugs’, they were a highly technological race (in the book) with star travel capability, and certainly did not shoot bolts of whatever out their ass to take out star ships. 
In the story the ‘bugs’ had attacked earth first out of the blue by dropping meterors into earths gravity well…and killing the main hero’s mother though he didn’t find this out until later. In the story humans and the ‘bugs’ fought a series of raids on each others planets, culminating at the end of the book by a drop on the ‘bugs’ home system.
As for the movie…it was poorly done and wasn’t even close to the spirit or substance of the book. I was highly disappointed in it. To me, it was a feeble attempt to make a political statement in a movie…sort of like attempting to open an egg with a hammer…very subtle.
My recommendation, if you haven’t already done so (and its appearent that some/most of you haven’t) is read the book then compare it to the movie. We aren’t talking about some small changes in plot or verbage (like LotR) here…we are talking about a radical shift in the intent and spirit of the book, IMHO. I’d be interested in someone who has read the book and seen the movies views on if they think this is the case or not, btw.
-XT
I read the book, and as i alluded to above, there was a different film where people fight bugs running around, and they bought the Starship Troopers property to get more box office bang. It was never really Starship Troopers, they just retooled the script slightly after they got the rights (character names, citizen stuff, planet P, etc). The book bugs were scary opponents deserving of good sci-fi, the movie bugs were stupid animals, who fought among themselves, and had leaders with faces looking like infected vaginas. Hardly good villians, or even good comedy.
And the sequel has Sandrine Holt in it, maybe they’ll throw in another co-ed shower scene…
I just thought the movie was goofy. Plus, the Federation News announcer sounded just like Kurtwood Smith (in fact, I was quite surprised to learn that it wasn’t Smith). When I see Troopers now, I keep expecting to hear:
“Would you like to know more… dumbass?”
Anyhoo, the fact that an idea is deep doesn’t mean it can’t be stupid. Striving for crudity doesn’t make you a genius. It might make you a schmuck.
Of course, there was one amusing reversal that no-one has yet mentioned. In this movie, the aliens get probed.
That’s some fairly tortured logic, Ilsa_Lund. You should be a defense attorney.
There was a time when satirists hid their criticisms in works of fiction for fear of reprisal. Verhoeven doesn’t have that excuse. Whatever message he may have been trying to get across–and I’m unconvinced he’s not just putting on airs: go rent Flesh and Blood and tell me he doesn’t have a penchant for violence–is drowned out by the ridiculous lampoon (e.g., the mother cackling insanely while the kids stomp bugs).
Contrast that with the pointed satire in Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers.
I guess one of the other reasons why the satire doesn’t work, IMO is that the society doesn’t have any of the repressions of freedoms or lack of integrity that we associate with fascism. There is no sense of totalitarianism, or an empowered minority seeking to hold onto power and decieve through propaganda.
For example, after the catastrophic attack on Klendathu(?) the bugs’ homeworld where the Federation takes a beating, everybody knows it. There is no attempt to hide it, or report it as other than reality. It’s on the news as a catastrophic loss.
This same arm that is throwing out all this propaganda is willing to admit it has made a catastrophic error. The skymarshal who implemented the failed strategy is replaced willingly, and a knew strategy is implemented “To fight the bug, we must first know the bug.”
Similarly, the two scientists discussing the bugs’ intelligence on tv, states to a society that is very open and welcomes the challenging of preconceptions. In fact, really the only traits that STs society and the fascists intrinsically share in common is that they are both militaristic.
What I actually thought was the subtle understated meaning of ST was an argument about overspecialization. Compare Rico to a warrior bug, and Carl to a brain bug.
I’m not familiar with Sirk or Morrissey, so this might not apply to them, but the difference between Verhoeven and John Waters or Alfred Hitchcock is that they cast bad actors in roles appropriate for their limited talents. Rikki Lake is never going to be confused with an actress, but she was able to hit the required notes to make her character in Hairspray interesting and engaging. Verhoeven could have picked anyone off the street for the role of Johnny Rico, and they’d have done a better job than Caspar Van Diem.
This is the sort of idea that sounds great on paper, but has the unfortunate side-effect of making the resulting movie virtually unwatchable. I won’t say that a movie without good characters can’t be good (2001 springs to mind) but you’ve got to have something fantastically fucking interesting to replace them, or you’ve just crippled your film. “Fascism is bad” isn’t interesting enough to carry the weight.
Yeah, I really want to pay ten bucks so I can listen to a lecture about how I’m so greedy and selfish, as performed by amateurish sock puppets. You are arguing in favor of this movie, right? I’d always considered “contempt of audience” to be a bad thing in an artist, but what do I know?
Does someone have to like the movie to “get” the movie?
Does someone have to agree with everything you say to not be a “jerk”?
“A Man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” – Robert A. Heinlein
I thought it worked in some respects and not so well in others; the whole unquestioning process of political-patriotism, how emphasis on beauty in modern day America mirrors Nazi Germany, as a remake of the white-man’s-burden Zulu, the parodies and send-up’s that even I (sometimes) got . . .
Trouble is they were having a lot of fun; too many layered themes results in too much traffic, and, in the end, that means the message(s) get lost and cross-over so you’re putting oranges with apples . .
Fun though, and sometimes thought-provoking. Could do better, especially in relation to clarity.
The movie failed on every level, clearly.
If Verhoeven truly intended to make it a facist propoganda piece, it was a very BADLY DONE facist propoganda piece. If he intended to make it a satire of facist propoganda, it was horrible in that capacity as well.
Apologists for this truly awful turd of a movie can make up any excuse they want, but the fact is, the movie was an abject failure.
I agree with Husker Dude in that if it was the intention of the filmmaker to give some deep, brilliant message via a hammy, camp-ish medium (fascism a la propaganda film parody), and the message was missed by most or all, then the filmmaker failed.
Is he some sort of Andy Kauffman laughing at his own pranks that no one gets?
Certainly, Starship Troopers works as a parody of propaganda films and is enjoyable in that light, plus the CGI was pretty damn good for the time. And Robocop’s overall message was pretty clear. (I don’t see much message to Total Recall other than it’s just a twisty action/thriller. Haven’t seen Showgirls).
But to read these patterns and deep meanings to these movies and tout them as being brilliant and no one ‘got’ them seems a little much.
You could do the same with Wizard Of Oz, but in the end it’s just a fun fantasy.
Paul Verhoeven seems to hang out in coffee shops too much, breathing second-hand joint smoke. Dude, your navel isn’t the key to the universe.
[ul]
[li]Doogie Howser is a Nazi![/li][li]Everyone is as spineless as the bugs![/li][li]War is just like 90210![/li][li]Ridiculous over the top performances can be fun to the right people[/li][li]The special effects are awesome[/li][li]And most of all: BOOBS! BOOBS! AND MORE BOOBS![/li][/ul]
I think everyone got the “hidden subtext” to Starship Troopers. It wasn’t that deep and most people that argue that it was come off sounding worse than the worst art house only movie goer. The problem with the subtext of Starship Troopers is that a lot of people just don’t give a crap. I realize that and other fans of the movie have to realize that as well.
It’s a nice movie to watch when you are in the mood for a cheesy movie.
Yes I got the satire. As has been stated before you were practically beat over the head with it. The “would you like to know more?” things were almost masturbatory.
Every time I see this movie though I think were the hell is the heavy cavalry and why all of the light infantry?