No, Starship Troopers Is Not Brilliant Satire

I think we have to use objectivity to try to unpack why we have the personal experiences we do. Otherwise we'd literally never change our mind about any film and like it any more or less than we did the first time we saw it, which is obviously absurd.

If someone says they hate a film because of X, but they love a film that also has X, that cannot be "truth" no matter how much they insist they felt that way. Their feeling can be real, but if so there must be a distinction explaining why they felt one way watching it in one context, and another in another. And their explanations for this can be wrong, or inconsistent with one another. And far from attacking our personal experiences, I think these situations are special opportunities for growth and insight.

If someone says "that's how I felt" to any seeming contradiction or inconsistency, no communication takes place and nothing is elucidated. I've had confusing or surprising reactions to art many times, and every time it served me very well to pay extra attention to those surprises and try to figure out why they had that effect. I would be less of a person, emotionally, if I had just stopped there and said "that's just how I feel, no reason to question it further."

Emphasis on subjectivity, I think, correlates far more with lack of experience and a lack of thoughtfulness. "I just liked it" or "I just didn't like it" are the kinds of things we hear from people who think of films as entertainment more than art. Having a personal experience with something may not mean you can scientifically isolate or mathematically reconstruct your reaction, but that's a straw man if used to dismiss questioning altogether. You don't need a Y-axis to have a "why."

The key part being "if we argue from." In other words, as part of a good faith argument. Not as a curt, standalone dismissal.

There's an old Dave Barry quote that philosophy class is where "everybody decides there's no such thing as reality and then goes to lunch." In any discussion about art we all agree there's no such thing as objectivity but then find a way to judge things anyway, because otherwise there's no point. Otherwise we starve.

If someone wants to go full relativist (never go full re...lativist), whatever, but that also precludes them from meaningfully participating, at least in a way that purports to offer any real persuasion. The moment someone tries to persuade, they are conceding that they believe there to be a shared premise somewhere.

In keeping with part of the original argument, the part that I essentially agree with, is that it's true if something (in this case satire) goes over absolutely everyone's head, it is irrelevant how good it is. Just like if someone is an artisitc genius beyond all human comprehension, to the point they may as well be speaking an invented language all of their own, then their genius has been a waste. It may as well never have even been. Because, as said, art needs an audience. And if there is no audience, there is nothing. And what an audience brings, which is particular to them, is their subjective experience. Not any kind of consensus over what is objectively good or objectively bad. That's all just an enormous distraction.



If no subjective experience occurs, if no one emotionally reacts or if no one understands what has been communicated, what value does any kind of scientifically observed and calculated objectivity have?



Answer: None.

See? My opinions are objectivity right. Your opinions are subjective, therefore worthless. Am I doing this right? Of course I am!

It seems obvious that thinking of subjectivity as binary is both reductive and unhelpful.

It's a lot more useful to think of it as a sliding scale: something is less subjective if it's explainable, coherent, consistent across examples, etc. It's more subjective if it's inconsistent, impossible to articulate, seems to change with the subject's mood, and so on.

And for my money, we went from talking about the movie to talking about words the moment "subjective" was invoked as a magic discussion ender.

It's more useful to think of the discussion as a sliding scale: something is about the movie if it's directly addressing one's viewpoint of the film. It's more about semantics the moment it becomes about the nature of watching the movie.

I think we can go a little upstream of that and say the simplest way to determine whether something is about the movie is whether it's about things actually in the movie.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Nah. I'm just taking the piss because I feel like after a certain point, as I anticipated, I'd be the only one interested in talking about the movie itself rather than a semantic debate (which surprised me by being about subjectivity! I really thought it would be about defining satire/fascism/brilliant until all meaning of the words cease to have value).

Given that no one has taken me up on my initial ask for Corax (or anyone) to rewatch the movie with my analysis in mind, I don't feel particularly inclined to humor anyone else in their own interests outside of the film itself.

So, I continue to treat the discourse like Verhoeven treats Hollywood blockbusters.

*Hops into co-ed showers*

Yeah, I don't think this is an accurate summary of how the discussion has devolved. It's pretty clearly been a joint venture.

Given that you didn't take me up on my initial ask to respond with any specificity to the essay, I don't feel particularly inclined to rewatch the film a ninth time just to report back to you, either. And my ask was a more reasonable one, for at least a couple of reasons.

Oh, I avoided that because it seemed to be part of the Corax discussion.
I don't think I've done the viewing of, "what if the entire thing is just one big propaganda video, much like all of the other videos it jumps to in the movie," though I've heard it put forth in two other separate discussions I've either had or heard about the movie. And the ending, where you are explicitly seeing a propaganda video doesn't make the take seem unreasonable. And it's not like Verhoven wasn't playing around in those exact same waters with his last sci-fi outing of Total Recall.


In both of those other cases, I don't think I've heard them get down into the details of it being, "starting at the failed assault at the one bug outpost," though.
Possibly.


Admittedly, I'm also content with the movie being the type of movie showing the values of a fascist society after giving you enough key hints here and there that those types of stories you get invested in can be easily nefarious in their simplistic worldview and the propaganda video at the end is highlighting that after what was actually a pretty horrible win, your protagonists will then be part of the propagandist churn that recruits the next generation - the school civics lesson in the beginning makes me think of the school recruitment scene in All Quiet on the Western Front for some reason.


One those type of reads that isn't necessarily the same plot-wise as the entire movie is a constructed pure propaganda movie, but the themes of both readings at least rhyme.

I meant to make the Total Recall comparison so thanks for bringing that up. I think you're right on the money in that whether my interpretation is accurate to what Verhoeven intended (I will certainly dig up more supporting evidence when I rewatch it), or that the film works as you describe, much of the same meaning in how the film uses fascism and manipultes the audience is functionally the same.

I just find it rare for a film that is a superficially appealing and "fun," to ultimately be as thought provoking or complex as the movies Verhoeven put out during his stint in Hollywood. I think his foreign work especially makes me inclined to side with more cerebral interpretations as they clearly show where his interests are outside of the more commercial expectations and trappings of Hollywood.

I'm debating on hosting a 4K Verhoeven triple feature for my friends and screening Total Recall, Robocop and Starship Troopers and see if I notice any more shared DNA and concepts between them.

Given that I've interacted with Yarn for the better part of a decade before either of us arrived at MoFo, I'm going to trust my own instincts on this one.

You asked me to go back to the initial essay after wading through 13 or so pages of this thread before I decided to type a defense that pointed out elements that even Corax agreed were novel and unique. You didn't have anything to say about those so why should I feel inclined to go rehash with specificity your original claim?

Yes, the baggage in every interaction was evident early on (and I said as much). Of course, the problem with thinking a discussion isn't worthwhile is that it's self-fulfilling. And, in this case, seems to have easily transferred over to other people who have no such history, anyway.

I did have something to say about those: I pointed out that some of them were addressed in the essay, so you were basically just asking me to quote myself in order to have a conversation with you, which seems like a weird hoop to make someone jump through. It's customary, when disagreeing with something, to build on it and reply in a way that accounts for it somehow, rather than make me parse and regurgitate it so each part aligns with however you decided to phrase your generalized response.

Re: Verhoeven's ambitions, skill, etc, and why his other works imply there's more going on in films like Troopers.

I think he's smart, and talented, and I don't think he just made a giant bug movie and then pretended afterwards, out of whole cloth, that it was satire (which I mention preemptively because there's one part in the essay where I could reasonably be misconstrued as implying this).

But I do think it's too clever by half, if not too clever by two-thirds. The best example of this I can come up with elsewhere is Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Van Sant is also serious, also talented, but most people agree that this was a pointless exercise. I have little doubt Van Sant can (has?) hold (held) forth on all the metatextual reasons it was a great idea. In my experience only smart and capable people have the ability to rationalize things that seem silly or simple on the surface. It's only those kinds of people, the boundary-pushers, who can go so far in pursuit of sophistication that they come out the other end back on simple. Horseshoe Theory, but for cinematic experiments.

TL; DR: there are certain mistakes only smart people can make.

I don't want my blunt interactions to be mistaken for genuine animosity, though. I've just had enough discussions with him to know that I need to at least attempt to set the parameters of what I'm willing to discuss, otherwise a conversation about a specific detail of a specific film can and will devolve into a widespread, semantic driven dissertation on the limitations of epistemology.

My point and initial disregard about asking me to go back and reread your take is that within my own write up, I dismissed those issues as not being of particular importance to my own analysis, re: whether or not other people understand or value the satire, which was the basis of your argument.

I was more interested in examining the actual text and articulating why it was great, something your essay implied there wasn't evidence. I even placed it in the greater context of Verhoeven's life and career, which I feel is an outright refutation of claims such as this: "That it was done by someone who has a long, unquestioned history of making modern exploitation films speaks volumes. Director Paul Verhoeven is a wizard of the baser cinematic arts."*

I just don't know exactly what you think your thesis was directly disputing that I negligently failed to address.*

For what's it's worth, next time I watch Starship Troopers, I will keep some of these viewpoints in mind.

Now, get back on topic, you slags!

I think I have that Aphex Twin lyric wrong....

__________________

It does when you thump your chest exclaiming, "It was effective for me!" as if that settles a question in a dialogue.

The main purpose of a sincere dialogue is not to win but to converge on the truth. However, if we find the truth, or the best warranted assertion, then there is a "winner," at least for a time. We seek communion. People doing serious work in aesthetics are not just trying to keep the conversation going, but to say as much as can be reasonable said about their subject matter. You can't do that if you cash out for subjectivism.

Inquiries seek closure. We look for answers. A successful conversation closes the main question and usually opens new questions for discussion. A "conversation killer," cuts us off from the path of serious inquiry which might eventually yield an answer.

That's more intersubjective than objective. Objective claims would be "Terrance makes longer films than MKS" or that "So and so uses more blue in the frame than most directors."

It doesn't have to, although it just might. All we need is for the resources of objectivity and intersubjectivity to allow us arrive at good-enough-answers for now. This is all that science does, why would we expect art to admit of a higher standard?

Because that person may want to know, as well as they can, why it is that other people think something you don't like is great or good. Because you're not always reaping but sowing. In time, with reflection, people sometimes come around. The conversation can be an encouragement and a guide.

A lot of people. Artworks have some objective features which inform and frame the more uncertain aspects or our conversation.

You sound like the college freshman who holds that if we cannot prove morality to be absolute, our only alternative is a thoroughgoing relativism. There's one hundred miles of intersubjectivity between the purely objective and the purely subjective.There's plenty of truth to be had than "effective for me!" (as much as that gets you off, it doesn't do much for anyone else).

Subjectivity is not a "filter." It's what you experience. The filter is what precedes your experience.

We don't need "objective standards" in any absolute sense, but merely need intersubjective standards grounded in our culture, context, conventions, and form of life (prick us do we not bleed?).
Intersubjectivity is not disconnected from subjectivity, but is the overlap of subjectivity. It is not the pit of subjectivism, but rather the relative objectivity of that which is mutually asserted. If a claim is in my commitment store and in your commitment store, that is all we need to stand on it as a premise to prove some other claim--just stamping your feet and saying "Works for me!" does not get this job done. You have been quite lazy in this regard.

If art were purely subjective there would be no rules at all.

Does objectivity explain these things though? To a certain extent, sure. But the aim of objectivity is impartiality. The suppression of the personal and the embrace of supposedly universal truths. And anytime we start moving away from the personal when it comes to art, and we begin to outsource our arguments to some supposed consensus of approval, the less and less interested I become in the discussion. The more we fall back on this crutch that there are good ways to do things and bad ways, the more resigned I become to no longer speak in these terms at all.



I seek the intangible in art. Moments that defy logic. Defy craft. Defy traditional ideas of beauty. That might embrace the banal and the pointless and the ugly. These are the things I respond to. They don't check many boxes off from any list of artistic orthodoxy. So what is one to do in such a case, if not find ways to articulate what a film means to them through the personal. Especially when some of us might find the regulations required to be considered decent are actually what are stripping most films of their individual spark, their potency, their irreverence, their personality.




Don't quite follow this reasoning. Even if someone watches films on a purely emotional level, with absolutely no other scrutiny towards the integrity of the product whatsoever, a change in mood could easily allow for a complete reversal in opinion towards the quality of the movie.




It all depends on the light any particular film might cast on X. I hated the taste of pickles until one day I didn't. Same jar of pickles, but for some reason, one day it was suddenly a completely new experience. Because something about me had changed. I was now ready for that particular texture, that particular taste.



Sometimes certain movies just present a pickle to us at the perfect moment to appreciate it and not spit it out.





Speaking through a lens of subjectivity doesn't remove the possibility of insight or nuance or intelligence from a discussion. Yes, some people might cop out. And yes, it is probably harder to relate a personal experience,than to simply explain how something succeeds at a very specific function. But good. It should be a struggle to explain something as our relationship to a piece of art.



Frankly, I find a lot of technical shop talk about the arts to be the absolute death of thought. It's a camouflage that seems knowing but rarely is. More often than not reviews that stress objective standards read like such



"The cinematography was very pretty. The story moved at a fast clip and was always engaging. The actors were believable. All the loose ends were tied up by the climax"


Objectivity can frequently be painfully empty, but pretends to be knowing simply by acknowledging certain aspects of the film were done well. But then rarely explains what them being done well actually means beyond the accomplishment of something being done well. But I couldn't give a crap about that. What I want to know is what the experience of that film meant to them. How it changed them and their relationship to movies. How it made them consider the rest of that directors filmography. I want them to tell me things about the movie that make me understand them more, not the movie more. And if they can't articulate that, I almost always have zero interest in the rest of what they've said.

I wasn't trying to settle any question in any dialogue. I was asserting that if something is effective for me, I don't need to get approval from others. Especially you.



Is your debate strategy simply to irritate people to the point they start responding to you as briefly as possible, and then you try and use what they say as they are walking away from the conversation as if it is their entire point.



Oh, like you?


Get over yourself.



Yes, because the world is clamouring for the next Yarn hot take on whatever the **** it is you watch.



Read this sentence over and over, and maybe start to understand why everyone walks away from you as soon as you start posting.



Ok



Name one

No, you flatly asserted that it is an "effective satire." You were asked for support and clarification of the claim and then you blurted "effective for me," but this does not support the broader claim that it is an effective satire (full stop). This is a problem. Either your claim lacks support or you weren't saying anything interesting in the first place. Pick your poison.

You've been irritated the whole time. Indeed, you've suggested that at least two perspectives in the conversation are beneath consideration (which is a howler considering your lazy commitment to subjectivism).

No, not me.

The world does not have to be clamoring for anything I say to recognize that we need cash out for subjectivism.

Are you off your meds or something? Now we're doing Scientology tactics--"You're a suppressive person and you have no friends!"

"Don't expect crumbsroom to hold up his end of a dialogue" sure seems like a good rule of thumb.

I also dared to say Step Brothers is funny in the comedy countdown thread. Did I need to find evidence of other people laughing before I made this claim?



My point was I thought it was effective. Not brilliant. End stop. Had no interest in pursuing it further. Had no interest in delving into the minutae of a movie I haven't seen in years.


The only reason I remained was responding to the notion it was somehow wrong or disingenous to assume a critic of a film might have missed the point, especially when we might love that particular film. I was speaking from the point of view how when we love something, we always feel we have a special relationship with it, and when someone disregards it, it is only natural to make assumptions that they 'missed' what was so good about. I wasn't defending this. I wasn't telling people they shouldn't be annoyed by that assumption. Only making the suggestion that most of us at some point are guilty of this.



And then because of this, every comment I made kept getting shoehorned back to some point about Starship Troopers and its brilliant satire, and I was supposed to be making claims to support this, and I said No. Because what the hell do I owe you or a conversation I should only have been on the periphery of to begin with.






.


No



The points I've said are not worth considering are people who say the movie is brilliant simply because they are proud of nothing more than their amazing feat of recognizing that its satire (because they are lame), and those that refuse to even acknowledge there is any satire involved at all (because they are wrong)


And they are still not worth considering.



Holding up the end of a dialogue with you, means surrendering the rest of my life to a debate I'm bored by and at no point wanted to be in. Neither I nor anybody else owes you anything in these exchanges.