No, Starship Troopers Is Not Brilliant Satire

Look, I thought the bug-fights were fun CGI action, don't get me wrong, but on the whole not worth sitting through the rest of the movie.
And, look, I know the fact that I read the book and thought it was special doesn't help since they are so different, but I read the book years after the first 2-3 times I saw the movie. I didn't like it when I saw it and I liked it even less after reading the book.
It is what it is. I would absolutely, if I had literally nothing else to do, watch some of the bug-fights, if someone else really wanted to. But I'm not sitting through this thing again, alleged satire or not.

I guess I was lucky in that I didn't read the book first. In fact, I wasn't even aware of the book when the movie came out (I actually thought the movie was a wink to Aliens... when Bill Paxton's character kept talking about "another bug hunt!")

I liked everything about the movie - sure, it's schlocky, but it seems intended to be that way: everything from the satire to the homages to war movies. The look of the movie seems cohesive also - the special effects, the ships, the uniforms - it all seems to belong to the same universe and a future that is unique from the look of other sci-fi universes. I didn't get upset after reading the book since I think I've been conditioned by years of seeing most of my comic book source material completely bastardized by movies to the point where I can't allow myself to be upset (because then I'd be upset constantly).

Next to the original Robocop, SST is probably my 2nd favorite Verhoeven movie.

Oh yeah, if I'd read the book first I'm sure I would have hated the movie. Instead I just thought it mostly sucked.

I'm a fan of Starship Troopers and I don't see it as satire. The 'satire' is just camouflage to hide the truth right under the viewer's noses. I see it as the most creative use of propaganda in a major U.S. movie ever done. It's so well constructed and effective that it should be used in college level, critical thinking & annalist classes.

That's an interesting thought. Double-agent literature? Pretending to be something its not so that we can enjoy what it is? How many prostitutes have been asked to pretend in this way? In the present case, jingoistic xenophobia mocked at the margins so that we may enjoy it in the center. Either way, this is a genre unto itself. Whether or not you should be able to plant your flag on this new island, I am not sure (someone usually has marked the category before we have), but you are on to something here. Your genre here is one that it would be endlessly frustrating to try to mark in actual practice--how would you really prove it?



I am not sure I quite buy it in this case, although I love the idea. The humans are shown to have started the war. The line from the recruiter's line "The Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today!" is not a Top Gun recruiter moment. The human propaganda is obviously excessive. The Nazi uniforms are a dead give away. By my lights this is comedy as action. At the very least, the action is tempered by the satire. That is, this is not a straight on pro-war movie, but rather one humorously points at the clay feet of man. That is, we're allowed to enjoy our heroes and even praise their martial virtues, but the film reminds us that all of this involves foolishness and that there was another way.

Verhoeven wasn't trying to be a hero... he was just trying to kill some bugs, sir!

Of course it is a satire. It's a satire of animal monsters, space heroes, fashion model looks, cheesy sex and authoritarian control. If I were going to do a monster movie, I'd first decide, on a 1 - 5 scale, how seriously I should take it. Then I'd pick a monster. There are plenty of reptilian critters in past movies, but big bugs are not as common.

There's nothing brilliant about it, however. It's a monster movie, mildly satirical, drawing on a checklist of plot possibilities.

Giant bugs seem line they were pretty common from the 50s sci-fi, giant, radiated monsters (Them!, Tarantula both immediately jumping to mind).


Bugs in this case were clearly meant to be a mirror of a militaristic, fascist human society (our protagonists). Which you get because of the associationn we have with ants (even though none of the bugs in the movie were ants, I believe).

I had the feeling that it's a parody of a parody, clever but not brilliant, enjoyable because of that.

How does one estimate the intelligence of satire? It's certainly an effective satire and is unique in it's structure, offering a first half that is not dissimilar to an anti-war flick taking place within a pro-war, fascist society (it has interesting with Born on the Fourth of July up until it's war scenes) effectively killing Rico and Carmen in their first battle. Only then does the film truly reveal it's intention when it overtly lies to the audience and saves both with no true explanation (Rico was "saved" despite his POV going down it's throat and Carmen only has a bump on her head despite exploding on screen).

From that point, the film becomes a propagandist, fascist fantasy that sees Rico transform from a dopey loser to their Golden Boy, the plot strangely recycles people from Rico's past and places them in prominent roles of importance (old friends he'd never see again, teachers from schools that should've exploded, and drill sergeants that are suddenly grunts). It's not merely a film about fascist propaganda, it IS fascist propaganda and completes the transformation by turning this transparent victory into a literal ad. Would you like to know more?

So how does one estimate the "brilliance" of that satire? Does it the absurd cleverness of telling the Irish to eat babies? I'm not sure the qualitative evaluation of it. I do think it's a remarkably thorough and nuanced satire, that in essence becomes a metacommentary on the Hollywood blockbuster and how one need only point on the current box office juggernaut, Top Gun: Maverick to see that it has lost no relevance.

The only issue I could see is that it's too good at the blockbuster bits to the point that American audiences don't seem to notice Verhoeven's satire. Then again, I've seen people start Fight Clubs and call Robocop "copaganda," so I'm not sure audiences "getting it" is all that valuable a metric.

In short, I adamently disagree. It's as brilliant as blockbuster satire gets.

Indeed.
Effective at what? Effective for whom?
That seems like a reach. You seem to think that the structure is similar to that of Incident at Owl Creek Bridge (we're dreaming the dream that war marketers want us to believe about the Ricos of the world) and Vanilla Sky (that there is a "splice" where realities change), but this has all been done before. Not really unique, even if you're right and I am not sure that you're right, although I like the playfulness of your reading.
Carmen dies in the first battle? Where are you pulling this from? How many minutes into the film does this occur?
Or... ...it's just a good-old fashioned cliff hanger. Our heroes are put into seemingly impossible peril (How will the Duke boys get out of this one?) only to somehow make it out alive.
Interesting idea. I don't think most people read the text this way. Most narrative fiction suffers "small world syndrome" (e.g., Luke, I am your father, Huey just happens to sit on the same bench as Starlight in a meet-cute).
OK, so it is fascist propaganda. So, Verhoeven is trying to literally make us... ...what? Fascists? Or is it a simulation of fascist propaganda? We're supposed to understand that it's working on a deeper level?
A joke so clever that no one got it? Enough people got A Modest Proposal that we categorize it as satire. I haven't seen people framing Troopers in the way you're framing it here, however.



Again, effective at what? Effective for whom?
I am not sure that idiosyncratic readings are a good metric of what a film accomplishes and how effective it is in doing so.
Interesting thought. Provocative. More fun than my lukewarm take on it. I don't buy it, but I am glad to see we have a case for the other side.

It's a satire and a brilliant film. Does that make it a brilliant satire?

__________________

Rewatch the film. I'm not getting timestamps for you.

And no, I'm not saying that it's akin to Incident At Owl Creek or Jacob's Ladder. Those have a specific structure and 3rd act reveal. A closer match is Adaptation, which is more overt and pronounced in the metatext of a different writer taking over.

Many people discuss the film being a satire of fascism. That's maintained in my interpretation. I'm saying that Verhoeven pushes it further with deliberate choices that play into the fascist fantasy.

Effective at satirizing fascism. For who? For me. Death of the author. Yada yada. As per usual, I'm not interesting in getting into your avalanche of text argument which will inevitably become a joyless affair of semantics.

I'll indulge you if you rewatch it with my interpretation in mind though. The 4K is exceptional and well worth giving another look.

Well, I am not going to watch the whole thing again to see where Carmen allegedly dies in the first battle. You can post a clip or a timestamp or refer to the transcript where this allegedly happens, or keep on truckin'.

Well, you do seem to be claiming that there is an "actual" reality (in which Rico dies) and a fake "idealized" reality (where he lives). This much is formally consistent with the artworks I mentioned. This much is not unique. The idea of performing your content is not really unique.

I'm starting to think that this is a satire of an old YARN-type post (gotta check my metatext, BRB).

So, it is an effective film for MKS. Death of the audience as metric. Yada yada.

No, no wall-o-text. You just pulled the subjectivism card. That's checkmate for reasoned discourse. If you're only arguing that it is effective in the sense of effective-for-MKS, then... ....OK. But that's not really an ambitious claim given what had the sheen of an objective claim moments before.

It's fun reading. I like it. I don't really buy it. At least, not yet. But I will note that the film, purposefully cheesy as it is, is eminently rewatchable. Had to be doing something right. Right?

I'll simply be specific. During the first battle, her ship is hit by whatever the large bugs shoot out of their asses and her pilot cabin is shown exploding into flames with her engulfed. In the next scene, there's minimal damage to her and the ship. Comically so. Given Verhoeven's childhood trauma during WW2 and the way he depicts actual wartime violence (See: Soldier of Orange), it's a clear intentional choice. Given that the first half is full of "don't do this," maimed, limbless war vets, and joining for stupid reasons and getting people killed brutally for stupid reasons, this feels like the honest end for Carmen and Rico. Then the film begins to lie to the audience and fulfill a fantasy. It isn't Rico's death fantasy and a change within the film itself, but a change to the metatext of how the film operates and what it is.

Sure. It's effective for me. Would I need anything else to disagree with the premise of this thread? Do I need to weigh my opinion on the success of every film against the opinions of others? Critics? The general public? Get the taste of "objectivity" out your mouth when discussing opinions about art.

The film is doing a lot right and like Verhoeven's other sci-fi works, operates on multiple levels. One of his greatest strengths is the way his works are satisfying on a superficial, pulpy and genre way without sacrificing craft or intelligence. Even if I were to completely disregard my reading of the film and all the future fascist material as window dressing, it's still a supremely well made genre flick full of attractive people, impressive effects, and complex action sequences.

Some of this is addressed directly in the essay. Did you read it, or are you just disagreeing with the title?

I read it. And the whole thread. Didn't feel like responding to each individual thing so I just gave my overall impression and rebuttal to that idea in one.

Do you have an issue with anything else I said?

Well, I disagree with some of it, if that's what you mean.

The reason I asked if you'd read it, though, is because those overall impressions are in some cases what the essay is specifically about, and specifically addressing. It's obviously fine for people to disagree with them (I genuinely welcome it), but that would customarily come "after" them (in the sense of responding to them and advancing the disagreement from that point) rather than "before" them (in the sense of saying the very things I was trying to respond to with the essay in the first place). So for me to respond to your response, I'd just end up quoting myself, which feels like something we can/should skip.

Cool

I'm still with Yoda on this one. It may be satire but, no matter how many times I watch it thinking "This time I'm gonna to think it's the brilliant satire some people do!", it never seems brilliant to me, nor close to it, honestly.