The satire is readily apparent, but it's entertaining. There's inspiration in their heroism, respect in their sacrifices, glory in their victories. The over the top nature of everything adds to its charm.
In order for the satire to turn the audience against the Terrans, they needed to make them evil, hypocritical aggressors, which they weren't. The bugs attacked, wiped out the characters' family, friends, and home.
Not to mention, the enemy were gross, violent, terrifying bugs.
Were the audience SUPPOSED to side with the murderous bugs over humanity?
Well, some Democrats just might, but that's not satire, and it's not funny, but horrifying and very telling of their values.
Allow me to also suggest that the folks who do get (dare I say 'grok'?) the novel, those who respect the military and the duties of citizenship, are also quite capable of laughing at themselves, in satire or other humor, and embrace honest and playful self-criticism more easily than the dedicated revolutionary.
Oh yes, that is a key point. We're able to laugh at ourselves and even use that mirror for self-reflection.
There's no sense of humor whatsoever over there. Narcissism, insecurity, and a deep need for moral superiority mean that no imperfections can ever be allowed and everything is always so serious and dramatic.
Came here to post something along the lines of what you said, except you did it so much BETTER than I would have, lol. Agree totally with your comment.
My favorite Heinlein, out of several I like quite a bit. The movie is corny and yes he clearly meant to mock the text - he clearly did not understand it. His mockery is inept because the actual philosophical underpinnings of the book shine through anyway.
An alternative perspective: Verhoeven made the fascism look evil - in his eyes. The bugs are not a real threat, since the true enemy is always the internal class enemy. The Mobile Infantry are genuinely heroic - which is evil, force not in the service of the Revolution. The government is fascist - illegitimate - because it is not a Leftist government.
An echo-chamber perspective for Verhoeven… interesting idea - that he made the exact film he intended to but was simply so far out-of-touch with his audience that the signal was lost in the noise….
I don’t know if that’s the case, and the movie clearly failed on several levels while still being entertaining….
Part of the reason the satire fails to hit fully is that Verhoeven himself was clearly confused about the secret message of the movie and the ultimate target of his satire.
Verhoeven spent a large part of his childhood experiencing Nazi atrocities, but at the same time he was seeing American atrocities; he lived near a Nazi missile base in the occupied Netherlands and was constantly being bombed and seeing random Dutch people blown to shreds by US bombs.
In interviews privately during filming and for publicity, he has given the answer that the bugs were the Nazis, but also that the Federation were Nazis, implying his understanding of the violent, ruthless, atrocious nature of WWII no matter whose side you’re on. I think he actually got confused about the movie he wanted to make while he was making it, and accidentally made a masterpiece of right wing cinema.
In exposing that ultraviolent behavior is actually just the default state for all sides, a simple part of the human condition, the idea that it could be a tool to support a state and provide underpinnings for more freedoms is something considered anathema today but wouldn’t have been 250 years ago.
"Shines the name..." I first read the book in Jr high and so wanted to drop form orbit. Closest I got was 17 years on jump status before I admitted it was a young man's game. Starship Troopers and Tunnel in the Sky had a big impact on me. By funny coincidence I am sitting here in a "Service guarantees citizenship" shirt. Looking at Verhoeven's career, he gets more things wrong than right. [cough] showgirls [cough].
I think it would be really easy movie to make, the few gate scenes would require sets and the Stobor would take some special effects, but the rest is pretty straight fwd and it does not use a huge cast or need to film in any cities that would raise the costs with closed roads.
I appreciate your understanding of both the book and the movie, but you're definitely wrong about:
"We were lucky Paul Verhoeven didn’t know how to direct a satire movie properly"
Did you forget Robocop?
More to the point, I think ST is effective satire, but it is satire not of military service, but of a militarist government, which seems to be Verhoeven's idea of what "fascism" is.
I think the best view to take of the film is that it is meant to be seen as "in-universe" propaganda. The Mobile Infantry are depicted with genuine heroism because that's how military service is depicted in government propaganda films. That the left didn't/doesn't recognize it is a separate issue, and not part of Verhoeven's plan. He wanted it to look like over-the-top heroism.
FWIW, I was at a screening of Total Recall that he was present for. Someone asked him if the fact that he got his start making propaganda films for the Dutch marines was a factor in wanting to do ST, and he said yes.
I enjoyed the book and the movie. The book asks a critical question: "what are you going to do when the enemy lands and starts bombing you? What is your response?'
Despite Verhoeven's best efforts, the film asks and answers the same question.
What are you going to do when the alien army descends and bombs your cities to rubble?
Lie down and die?
Or fight back?
The first option guarantees you'll die.
The second one -- even if you still die -- gives you a fighting chance.
The right, whether conservative or libertarian, knows people are always deciding whether they will live with society’s institutions in good faith. They know what it looks like to disavow order, just as they know what it looks like to respect it.
The left believes there’s such a thing as intrinsic moral innocence. Any contact with institutions is corrupting to them, and civilization is not a product of institutions but is inborn in good people and constantly under threat from selfish power. That’s been their defense for centuries.
I used to believe it myself, and that’s the only thing keeping me from concluding that they’re insane.
wow man - watching it the first time was a high bender - then watching it on video tape slowed it down. i'm gonna watch it again with this refreshed view
For entertainment purposes alone, check out the animated ROUGHNECKS: STARSHIP TROOPER CHRONICLES (1999). Set in its own continuity, it borrows elements from the live action film and Heinlein novel. The greatest tragedy is it was canceled with its final episode arc unfinished.
Thinking this director fell into the common-enough trap of being seduced by his actors’ charismas and ultimately was unable to guide them into his vague vision. The world heals…
This will come across as funny, but film critics need to watch more pro wrestling.
In pro wrestling, viewers regularly identify with heels (the evil characters) despite them being portrayed a certain way. It's most obvious with Canadian wrestlers, but you can see it with Iranians, gender and culture different, and lots of demographics. This occurs even when the character is 1. A send up of their culture 2. Not even portraying the culture correctly.
I'm making no value statement on the above, but I have a strong belief that the same theory applies to movies and media. People pull out their beliefs from even satirical texts. It isn't that Starship Troopers wasn't "obvious enough" and that these people would be converted to a different political belief if it was more obvious; the people are simply picking out parts of texts they enjoy, agree with, or it makes them think of some wisdom.
Movies in particular are awful for political philosophy. At best, movies are a gateway to consider a topic. You simply can't fit dense material into a film. Starship Troops in no way provides a strong critique of right-wing values or fascism any more than The Matrix lays out a case for Simulation Theory.
Indeed it is all about the lens you bring to it though. And there are a few "conclusions" casually thrown in the article I can't but push back on though.
Most of those conclusions boil down to "The left can't see it, the right see it as common sense" ... but isn't it fascinating that you also clearly show how the author of the book Starship Troopers travelled left and right , to then escape that spectrum completely? The duality between left/right and thinking it's the only way is the problem that both sides are locked into.
I would state that the left and the right both can't see the escape actually... and the book Starship troopers shows that very deeply. And so does the film. It's not that Verhoeven's European mind "can't make satire" ... to my European mind he made it perfectly actually. I was in my teens when I first saw the movie, and it immediately made me read the book for more depth... In Europe... this movie had the effect of showing the complete insanity that America is falling into... exemplified by its reality today which is hard to ignore.
In Europe... we all saw it very clearly as I remember it. It did not "recruit" or confirm anyone their left/right ideas... Perhaps... It's simply the American educated mind that can no longer see the exit out of this senseless mental mode of constant warfare just because there isn't anything else they can of.
It is also shown in the fact that America was very easily taken over by fascism ... but that the same tactics simply don't work or land in Europe at all.
I find both the movie and the book great lenses to see the differences in thinking between the two continents.
And please note the differences in warfare between the two.
In the book, the starship troopers are few and far between... massive arsenals and machines at the fingertips of elite individuals that go out all on their own destroying entire continents and even planets if they would be ordered too.
In the movie... It's basically a massive hoard of ants that just run around crazy shooting plenty of bugs.
I disagree.
The satire is readily apparent, but it's entertaining. There's inspiration in their heroism, respect in their sacrifices, glory in their victories. The over the top nature of everything adds to its charm.
In order for the satire to turn the audience against the Terrans, they needed to make them evil, hypocritical aggressors, which they weren't. The bugs attacked, wiped out the characters' family, friends, and home.
Not to mention, the enemy were gross, violent, terrifying bugs.
Were the audience SUPPOSED to side with the murderous bugs over humanity?
Well, some Democrats just might, but that's not satire, and it's not funny, but horrifying and very telling of their values.
Allow me to also suggest that the folks who do get (dare I say 'grok'?) the novel, those who respect the military and the duties of citizenship, are also quite capable of laughing at themselves, in satire or other humor, and embrace honest and playful self-criticism more easily than the dedicated revolutionary.
Oh yes, that is a key point. We're able to laugh at ourselves and even use that mirror for self-reflection.
There's no sense of humor whatsoever over there. Narcissism, insecurity, and a deep need for moral superiority mean that no imperfections can ever be allowed and everything is always so serious and dramatic.
It has to be exhausting.
Came here to post something along the lines of what you said, except you did it so much BETTER than I would have, lol. Agree totally with your comment.
Thanks, friend.
Are you new here, or just catching up on old posts?
New. I had never seen this Substack until yesterday, when it blew up and appeared all over my home screen feed out of nowhere.
My favorite Heinlein, out of several I like quite a bit. The movie is corny and yes he clearly meant to mock the text - he clearly did not understand it. His mockery is inept because the actual philosophical underpinnings of the book shine through anyway.
An alternative perspective: Verhoeven made the fascism look evil - in his eyes. The bugs are not a real threat, since the true enemy is always the internal class enemy. The Mobile Infantry are genuinely heroic - which is evil, force not in the service of the Revolution. The government is fascist - illegitimate - because it is not a Leftist government.
This is the perspective of modern Hollywood.
An echo-chamber perspective for Verhoeven… interesting idea - that he made the exact film he intended to but was simply so far out-of-touch with his audience that the signal was lost in the noise….
I don’t know if that’s the case, and the movie clearly failed on several levels while still being entertaining….
Thank you for the fresh perspective.
Part of the reason the satire fails to hit fully is that Verhoeven himself was clearly confused about the secret message of the movie and the ultimate target of his satire.
Verhoeven spent a large part of his childhood experiencing Nazi atrocities, but at the same time he was seeing American atrocities; he lived near a Nazi missile base in the occupied Netherlands and was constantly being bombed and seeing random Dutch people blown to shreds by US bombs.
In interviews privately during filming and for publicity, he has given the answer that the bugs were the Nazis, but also that the Federation were Nazis, implying his understanding of the violent, ruthless, atrocious nature of WWII no matter whose side you’re on. I think he actually got confused about the movie he wanted to make while he was making it, and accidentally made a masterpiece of right wing cinema.
In exposing that ultraviolent behavior is actually just the default state for all sides, a simple part of the human condition, the idea that it could be a tool to support a state and provide underpinnings for more freedoms is something considered anathema today but wouldn’t have been 250 years ago.
"Shines the name..." I first read the book in Jr high and so wanted to drop form orbit. Closest I got was 17 years on jump status before I admitted it was a young man's game. Starship Troopers and Tunnel in the Sky had a big impact on me. By funny coincidence I am sitting here in a "Service guarantees citizenship" shirt. Looking at Verhoeven's career, he gets more things wrong than right. [cough] showgirls [cough].
Glad to see some love for Tunnel in the Sky! It and ST are two of my three favorite Heinlein novels.
I think it would be really easy movie to make, the few gate scenes would require sets and the Stobor would take some special effects, but the rest is pretty straight fwd and it does not use a huge cast or need to film in any cities that would raise the costs with closed roads.
I appreciate your understanding of both the book and the movie, but you're definitely wrong about:
"We were lucky Paul Verhoeven didn’t know how to direct a satire movie properly"
Did you forget Robocop?
More to the point, I think ST is effective satire, but it is satire not of military service, but of a militarist government, which seems to be Verhoeven's idea of what "fascism" is.
I think the best view to take of the film is that it is meant to be seen as "in-universe" propaganda. The Mobile Infantry are depicted with genuine heroism because that's how military service is depicted in government propaganda films. That the left didn't/doesn't recognize it is a separate issue, and not part of Verhoeven's plan. He wanted it to look like over-the-top heroism.
FWIW, I was at a screening of Total Recall that he was present for. Someone asked him if the fact that he got his start making propaganda films for the Dutch marines was a factor in wanting to do ST, and he said yes.
I enjoyed the book and the movie. The book asks a critical question: "what are you going to do when the enemy lands and starts bombing you? What is your response?'
Despite Verhoeven's best efforts, the film asks and answers the same question.
What are you going to do when the alien army descends and bombs your cities to rubble?
Lie down and die?
Or fight back?
The first option guarantees you'll die.
The second one -- even if you still die -- gives you a fighting chance.
I would have loved this in 1997 (I've never seen it). I was a totally retarded Democrat then.
Watch it now, with a new perspective. It is a fun movie.
The right, whether conservative or libertarian, knows people are always deciding whether they will live with society’s institutions in good faith. They know what it looks like to disavow order, just as they know what it looks like to respect it.
The left believes there’s such a thing as intrinsic moral innocence. Any contact with institutions is corrupting to them, and civilization is not a product of institutions but is inborn in good people and constantly under threat from selfish power. That’s been their defense for centuries.
I used to believe it myself, and that’s the only thing keeping me from concluding that they’re insane.
wow man - watching it the first time was a high bender - then watching it on video tape slowed it down. i'm gonna watch it again with this refreshed view
thanks
For entertainment purposes alone, check out the animated ROUGHNECKS: STARSHIP TROOPER CHRONICLES (1999). Set in its own continuity, it borrows elements from the live action film and Heinlein novel. The greatest tragedy is it was canceled with its final episode arc unfinished.
Thinking this director fell into the common-enough trap of being seduced by his actors’ charismas and ultimately was unable to guide them into his vague vision. The world heals…
This will come across as funny, but film critics need to watch more pro wrestling.
In pro wrestling, viewers regularly identify with heels (the evil characters) despite them being portrayed a certain way. It's most obvious with Canadian wrestlers, but you can see it with Iranians, gender and culture different, and lots of demographics. This occurs even when the character is 1. A send up of their culture 2. Not even portraying the culture correctly.
I'm making no value statement on the above, but I have a strong belief that the same theory applies to movies and media. People pull out their beliefs from even satirical texts. It isn't that Starship Troopers wasn't "obvious enough" and that these people would be converted to a different political belief if it was more obvious; the people are simply picking out parts of texts they enjoy, agree with, or it makes them think of some wisdom.
Movies in particular are awful for political philosophy. At best, movies are a gateway to consider a topic. You simply can't fit dense material into a film. Starship Troops in no way provides a strong critique of right-wing values or fascism any more than The Matrix lays out a case for Simulation Theory.
All fair points and well posited.
Indeed it is all about the lens you bring to it though. And there are a few "conclusions" casually thrown in the article I can't but push back on though.
Most of those conclusions boil down to "The left can't see it, the right see it as common sense" ... but isn't it fascinating that you also clearly show how the author of the book Starship Troopers travelled left and right , to then escape that spectrum completely? The duality between left/right and thinking it's the only way is the problem that both sides are locked into.
I would state that the left and the right both can't see the escape actually... and the book Starship troopers shows that very deeply. And so does the film. It's not that Verhoeven's European mind "can't make satire" ... to my European mind he made it perfectly actually. I was in my teens when I first saw the movie, and it immediately made me read the book for more depth... In Europe... this movie had the effect of showing the complete insanity that America is falling into... exemplified by its reality today which is hard to ignore.
In Europe... we all saw it very clearly as I remember it. It did not "recruit" or confirm anyone their left/right ideas... Perhaps... It's simply the American educated mind that can no longer see the exit out of this senseless mental mode of constant warfare just because there isn't anything else they can of.
It is also shown in the fact that America was very easily taken over by fascism ... but that the same tactics simply don't work or land in Europe at all.
I find both the movie and the book great lenses to see the differences in thinking between the two continents.
And please note the differences in warfare between the two.
In the book, the starship troopers are few and far between... massive arsenals and machines at the fingertips of elite individuals that go out all on their own destroying entire continents and even planets if they would be ordered too.
In the movie... It's basically a massive hoard of ants that just run around crazy shooting plenty of bugs.
And both deliver the exact same message though.
It's fascinating material... that's for sure.
Perhaps the thing that infuriates people the most about libertarians is that their ideology can be very confusing for the uninitiated.
💯