No, Starship Troopers Is Not Brilliant Satire

Harrison Ford can get you into a movie? Wow, I thought you were all dead.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Not hardly.

"Pseudo" is not that specific, it simply means "not genuine" which gives it a pretty broad spectrum of usage. And they're not so much clarifying as embellishing.

I'm not sure I implied it wasn't a broad term. I did say that "a" form wasn't taking place (in my opinion).

And I don't believe anything is all that embellished in this thread, but if you are saying that there's some embellishment in the articles mentioned that discuss ST, then I could probably agree. I think the points are pretty straightforward for a discussion on what is and isn't satire. I think that there a bit of crossfire going on though, some arguments are about whether or not ST is satire, and some are about whether or not it's good satire.

I think the most unclear post was mine when I was trying to be funny (but that seems closer to pseudo-humor rather than pseudo-intellect, though it could always be a mix in my case!)

It sounds like I misunderstood. I thought your comment was about the article. I retract my statement in that case. I haven't been reading the ongoing discussion. I think it's pretty obvious that the movie is a satire. It just isn't a very deep satire. It's kind of like Stallone's Judge Dredd in the regard of how the satire goes under people's head.

Gotcha, then I actually agree.

Agreed, there's multiple discussion points going on. Another one is: What is and isn't satire?

Your post was intelligently written. It made clear sense to you and others got it to. It went over my head because I didn't understand your premise. That doesn't mean you failed, just because I didn't grasp it....Starship Troopers is like your post, not everyone gets it's premise. At least not on all levels.

You are correct, that's what I meant. Nazi symbolism in general is a little hammy, I think, but it can be more or less subtle, too.

Absolutely. I appreciate the thoughtful critiques as much as the kind words. Generating discussions like this is part of the idea.

I will say that I'm surprised at how many people disagree with the idea that the film is trying to be satire. I suppose countering this is probably what leads some people to overcompensate and praise the quality of satire, above and beyond just arguing that it exists.

And VFN is quite right to point out that lots of people missed the film's ambitions when it came out, though with this article I was focusing in on the segment of writers who are of the generation that would've seen it superficially before and only come to realize what it was trying to do later (all three of the authors I namechecked in the piece are around the same age and would've been growing up at just the right time for this, a fact which I thought about making more explicit). I think the revelation of seeing the film again later in life like this probably makes it seem smarter than it is.

I still want to hear the d*** theme song in The Oscar Chat.

Maybe this'll finally be the year I add it.

I saw Starship Troopers when it first came out and was impressed that Verhoeven used the Hollywood system to produce a film which appealed to the gung ho boys, sci fi fiends and which also undercut the ideology and the sexism of the time. It is a satire, that is its brilliance. What you all seem to miss is that Verhoeven brings a European sensibility to bear on American values, in Showgirls as well as Starship. He is Dutch and had a fine record of questioning filmaking in Holland before going to the US.
I don't know what you mean by great satire? Surely satire can only be judged by its context.
Yet even today, compare Starship with Jarhead and American Sniper. The subject matter is the same, the young male and the ideology which motivates him to give his life, sanity and limbs to a system which pays lip service to "his sacrifice" while processing his destruction.
Yes Starship Troopers did have something to say which noone else was saying at the time.

Have any of you ever heard of War Propaganda? I know Yoda mentions it in the essay, but it's like he ignored the fact that Starship Troopers is one long propaganda film. To me the satire is obvious and always was. If Starship Troopers isn't brilliant satire, then what is?



The essay seems to hang on the premise that many people don't get the satire, but no one in this thread seemed to have missed it. Also, who are these innumerable masses that completely missed the point? Because I've never met them.

Even if there is a sub-section of people who don't understand the satire (13-year-old boys, I guess?), then they simply aren't film literate enough to understand war propaganda. How is that a fault of the film? Is it the films fault that some of you youngsters saw this film before you had heard of The Great Dictator or Triumph of the Will? Clearly Verhoven did, so it's not his fault as a filmmaker that makes people miss the point, especially when it's so clearly on display.

I stand by the statement that it is brilliant satire and disagree with the entire premise of the article.

__________________

It isn't ignored: I talk at length about how there really isn't anything perceptive or satirical about merely reproducing the thing you're supposed to be satirizing:

What kind of satire might go under people's heads? The kind that adds very little to the thing it's satirizing. Starship Troopers does not so much skewer militarism as it depicts it and adds the occasional raised eyebrow. This is satire in the same way repeating what someone says in an intentionally dumb-sounding voice is an impersonation. Real, penetrating satire sneaks up on you and causes you consider things from a new angle. It involves a good deal more than simply showing the thing and winking. Especially if you're winking the whole time—an action which stops you from perceiving depth, literally and metaphorically.

I don't think you really read the thread, then; several people (smart people, to my mind) said exactly that, at least one on the very first page. But regardless, the essay references two different articles (one in The Atlantic) in which this is claimed. And I've certainly heard it myself from many of the film's fans.

If people don't get it because of their own ability to perceive something, then that's on them. If, on the other hand, they don't get it because the film is largely just reproducing the thing it's satirizing, then that's on the film.

That said, the issue of people not realizing the film is satire is just a part of the premise. The main point (and you can tell it's the main point because it's in the title) is that it isn't good satire. The fact that this wasn't always evident to people is just part of that argument.

I'm sure he has heard of them. He just hasn't made a film that's anything like them.

Starship Troopers made top 100 favourites. Sure, it's daft and abit out there but it's so damn fun. Nice essay Yoda.

__________________

I simply don't read the film the way you do. The film is a war propaganda film through and through, not just in the news reels. It does a fine job of skewering warmongering and fascism without ever "occasionally raising its eyebrows." It certainly understands exactly what kind of film it is and it wears it on its sleeve. I don't think it's too dumb, but it is, of course, heavy handed.


I don't remember anyone in this thread saying your article made them realize the film was satirical. I do remember one or two people saying what you said; that they saw the film at a young age and didn't get it then saw it later and got it. If we're using personal experience as evidence, I've never met anyone who didn't get it who was educated enough to get the reference. I've met film/history illiterate people who read it as a dumb action movie, but that's not a shock.

Not if the thing being satirized is niche or obscure. Tarantino's films pay homage or satirize tons of obscure things and people love the films even if they don't understand every in-joke. I don't blame Starship Troopers for any failure on the part of its viewers because, again, it wears its inspiration on its sleeve. I don't blame it because there's a huge section of modern society that won't watch films that are in black and white or in a foreign language.

Ok. And I still have a problem with that. Again, there are people that don't get it because they aren't educated enough to understand what its doing. That's not the films fault.

If it's not good satire, then give a counter example in that genre that is. Has anyone other than Kubrick made a "good" war propaganda/war mongering/fascism satire? If so, name it, because Starship Troopers is pretty much top notch. Plus, we can't say Verhoven doesn't know where he's coming from on this given his early life, despite his missteps.

By the way, Deep Blue Sea wasn't one of his missteps. Renny Harlin made that.

Wow, we simply don't see eye to eye at all. If Starship Troopers isn't like the films referenced in the video I posted then I don't know what it's trying to do!

I believe Bouncing Brick knows what I mean.

Starship Troopers paints a picture of a fascist government as the protagonist unlike what most films would ever have the balls to do. First off, it's such a strict form of government that people can't even have babies or vote if they don't serve in the military. It appears to be a global community of very harsh haves and have-nots.

There are allusions to an other side or a different point of view. At one point a reporter says there are people who blame humans for the war on the bugs and they call for a "live and let live" policy, but this is shut down by the films overall message of "kill them all." The film gives a very distinct point of view from which it never deters. Despite the fact that the government presented in the film is completely unacceptable by current ideals of leadership, it's never questioned or even debated in the film. The people depicted simply are the "good guys." The audience is asked to accept that a society which forces its citizens to lay down their life and to earn their place is the only positive way to live.

The people depicted in the film embrace their societal ideals. They are proud to show off their tattoos and disappointed when they fail to meet the demands of serving. They fight without question and the audience is asked to cheer their victories and we do so without question. Despite the fact that everything about this society flies in the face of what we think of as modern ideals of freedom, we are elated at the capture of the brain bug.

That's what I mean when I say the whole film feels like propaganda and not just the news reels sections. It's patriotism for fascism at its very core, and only upon reflection do we really understand what we were watching.

EDIT: Watch a bit of the "Why We Fight" series of films here and see an idea of what real war/patriotism propaganda looks like. We don't question it because it was Hitler and he's histories greatest super-villain.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm saying that simply making a war propaganda film isn't the same as satirizing them. IE: the only difference can't be that the creator (or viewers) disagree with it.

Sir Toose did. So did dadgumblah, who said he didn't realize it was satire when he saw it was theaters (and he wasn't a teenager at the time). Ditto BrowningIdentity. And TheGunslinger45.

VFN also linked to an article written at the time about people missing the message.

I don't think any of those users are naive or uninformed, and the article in question is about film critics not picking up on it. This isn't some small group of people who can be written off as "uninformed."

But Tarantino's films aren't satire at all; he loves the things he imitates unironically, and so do fans of his work.

I have to take issue with this logic, for a couple of reasons. First, you're apparently deciding that because Kubrick is the obvious response, I have to produce something else. I'm not sure why; it's the obvious response for a reason. Second, why do I have to produce a good one? What if there isn't a good one? There's no reason to grade on a curve.

The argument is that it fails as satire on the most basic level: it doesn't really bring any insight or commentary to the thing it's ostensibly satirizing. It's just showing it.

Indeed we can't. Which is why I didn't.

I know; it was an example of the "baser cinematic arts" I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Sorry, I was unclear on what you were saying. I'm not saying it isn't like war propaganda films, I'm saying imitating a war propaganda film doesn't make something a good satire of a war propaganda film. Good satire is about finding incisive ways to expose the folly of its target, not just reproducing it.

Let me give you the example that always pops into my head when talking about this. I'm sure you know it well, but I'll describe it anyway for anyone who doesn't: in Dr. Strangelove, George C. Scott's character Gen. Turgidson is describing how the bomber is going to annihilate them, and he gets so caught up in the mechanics of it that he forgets he's supposed to be describing something terrible. He gets excited and happy. That's good satire: apart from just being funny, it shows the way someone can miss the forest for the trees.


Where is this kind of dramatic irony in Starship Troopers? All the irony in Troopers is the kind that comes from the creator making it ironically. But the satire can't be in the act of making the film: it has to be in the film itself.

Not sure how fair it is to compare ST with Strangelove - arguably the greatest dark satire of all time. You are damn right that's good satire - it's the very best! The films just aren't in the same ballpark, and when put in that light, I would have to agree that ST can't be called brilliant. I think I just talked myself into agreeing with Yoda's point, here. I still like ST, though.

__________________

The irony of Starship Troopers is in the film. It's slathered all over it like syrup on a pancake. I already explained it.

I actually think it's far more subtle than you are giving credit. Again, at the end of the film the viewer is cheering on a fascist regime as if their societal ideals are ones we agree with. The entire film "expose's the folly of its target" by basically tricking the viewer into accepting its ideas as truth. It doesn't need specific scenes like the one in Dr. Strangelove because it's written into every frame.

Unless you think Verhoven thinks the form of government in the film is a positive one...?