No, Starship Troopers Is Not Brilliant Satire

You're turning the film into a conspiracy theory.

And what kind of speciesist are you to assume their primitivism? I mean, sure I want payback for BA, but at least I respect their technical achievements.
Embrace what? The realization that Verhoeven, assuming you are correct, failed in his intention on two occasions? Are you going to argue for the brilliance of Showgirls now? Does this rabbit hole have no end?

I'm not sure you're cut out for mobile infantry, MKS.

I'm not sure about this. Maybe this is just how I use the phrase, but when I say someone doesn't "get it," I'm saying something more significant than "I think it's great and you don't." It usually means they've misunderstood it on some fundamental level. It's saying they don't like it because they don't understand it.

Like here, with the refrains about how the satire is so subtle and amazing that people don't even know it's satire. I think that's when things go off the rails. At that point ineffectiveness becomes a credit rather than a debit, and the whole thing becomes not only unfalsifiable in the sense of being subjective, but unfalsifiable in that you can't even bring evidence against it up for discussion because all such evidence is going to be jujitsu'd into a strength.

I know that was a light heartened post you made...but to be honest I'm not always perceptive and I'm most certainly not brilliant and the first time I watched Starship Troopers back in the 80s I thought 'hey this is really cool, but why are the good guys dressed like Nazis?'. I wondered about that movie and though maybe the director was some pro Nazi guy which to me felt icky, though the bug action was fun. However the next time I watched it I got what the director was trying to say and I've been hinting at that meaning ever since I found this thread, see my older post quotes below.

The movie IS a conspiracy. The only information that we're given that asserts intent and capability for the bugs is given by propaganda and military intelligence. We're never shown how they'd send an asteroid and when they first invade, they're either dropped in with absolute incompetence or purposely sent in to be slaughtered to generate more passion to enlist. "More meat for the grinder."

Very little of what the military/propaganda about the bugs seems to align with their reality other than that they are dangerous.

I think the brilliance of Showgirls speaks for itself.

We're not so different, you and I.

"See, I did say that!":

Yes... Squid pro row.

But who is it invisible to? I don't expect those who watched it when they were children to have picked up on these things. And maybe those who were picking their toenails instead of looking at the screen may have missed it. But the satire is not subtle. There are key tells all throughout the movie. MKS has pointed some of them out. Some are thornier to unpack, but some of them have giant lights blinking around them spelling out SATIRE.


As is always the case with satire, a good segment of the population ends up missing the point. A lot of people seem not to like this sentiment, but the fact is a very good chunk of those who consume art are dreadful at reading it. And being that satire is designed to wear some amount of camoflauge, it is consistently one of the most misread and ultimately misunderstood.



The difference between something like Starship Troopers though, is that it actively encourages those who are just accepting the surface message of the movie to hoot and holler out their ignorance, making them all the more obvious to identify. So I suppose it is understandable why so many who respond this way to the movie might be resistant to not seeing it for what it is after the fact. People don't like being tricked. People don't like being made a fool (I imagine especially so when they are made to realize who they were rooting for were essentially the surrogate Nazi's in a film)


Is it maybe bad form for those who do pick up on the satire of this film to laugh at those who don't? Maybe. It's certainly a very cynical ploy of the movie. But I also understand the deep frustration of those who picked up on the films obvious clues, and enjoyed the movie (which, as I said, I was fairly medium on) having to engage in a conversation with someone who keeps citing it as nothing but a big dumb action film. Maybe they liked it because it was big and dumb, maybe they hated it because it was big and dumb, but this is what ultimately is going to get fans of the film to double down on citing its 'brilliance'. Because I imagine that's what some people feel like when they are in the middle of an argument with a bag of potatoes.


There is also the fact that, considering what the result of people blindly accepting whatever it is they watch as long as if it feeds them enough endorphins and gives them enough catch phrases, is literally fascism. Or all other sorts of politcal horseshit. A movie like ST is exposing the weakness in the populace that gets exploited by those in power, making it very visible, and this can cause an even extra level of distrust and frustration with those who simply don't 'see it'. And just as we've seen in recent times politically, the fissure that develops between those who smell the stink of the ruse, and those who eagerly jump upon it, ends up forcing both sides to double down into complete and total ****ing stupidity. So, even though I'm sure this was not planned by Verhoeven, even the audience reaction is a microcosm of the town hall, where everyone just screams at eachother and think they are right. A claim that maybe nobody is really even entitled to anymore.


Basically, as I said, I think it is effective satire. I would never go so far to call it brilliant. So I'm an agnostic on that front. But I also just don't know how effective an argument it is to focus so much attention on the worst takes of the worst viewers in order to discount the claim. I'm sure MKS could continue to add to his argument in defence of the genius of Starship Troopers. And even though it might not compel me towards that conclusion, or you, or Yarn, and certainly not those who won't acknowledge the satire in the first place, I think there is a good case for why he thinks its brilliant. And it wouldn't just be because he is patting himself on the back for seeing the movie for what it obviously is, or that he doesn't understand how satire properly functions.

It is invisible to two groups who did not see it (the "it" being the view that Starship Troopers is a deeply satirical work).

1. That portion of the audience which didn't even read it as satirical, but also

2. that larger portion of the original audience who saw it as an big dumb action film and saw mere flourishes and winks that cleared the palate before the next wave of bugs came in to crunch our heroes. Roger Ebert states,

"Starship Troopers'' is the most violent kiddie movie ever made. I call it a kiddie movie not to be insulting, but to be accurate: Its action, characters and values are pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans.

Ebert refers to the satire as "asides" and that the satire is "sly" but not as the point of the film. He didn't see the satire as framing the film into something other than a big dumb action film.

We got that, but we did not see it as having other features which allegedly make it a "brilliant" (or otherwise especially noteworthy) satire. We didn't see, for example, the metatextuality discussed by MKS. As Ebert notes, the film has sly satirical asides, but the main function of the film is still that of the big dumb action movie.
Most of us saw the light satire. The heavy work which transmutes this actioner into a deep satire involving structure and themes and so on that allegedly make it qualitatively "brilliant" most us did not see.

Again, the evaluation is contingent of the interpretation (this is deeper than you think) and a much much larger portion of the audience does not see the depth which is necessary to warrant the claim of brilliance. We don't see the deep satire.
You're flirting with non-falsifiability here. "Well, if you didn't see it, you're one of the muggles." Again, it is not enough to rest on the claim that people didn't see it, but prove that there is something that the rest of us missed. In this moment, you are resting on this as a premise, but the most this can do is buy you a little store credit to create space to unpack the demonstration which should follow. If the proof does not follow, then you are legitimately open to the accusation of being unfair and disingenuous which we made upthread.
So, not only do people not get it, but the film is mocking those who didn't get it, enhancing the satisfaction of the knowing few who munch their popcorn in silent superiority. I don't know what is dripping more. Is it the butter on the popcorn or the smugness of your minority report ("Oh, you idiots!")?

Are you familiar with Mother Night? Campbell (the main character) was so effective at being a Nazi propagandist while working as a double-agent that he effectively was more of a propagandist than anything else.

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” -- Kurt Vonnegut

Your clever satire is pretending to be a big dumb action film. That most of us just shrug at this movie suggests that it was too clever for its own good.
And I understand the frustration of those who don't appreciate being looked down on for not cheering the Emperor's Satirical clothes.
A sack of potatoes? Your interlocutor(s) a mere sack of potatoes? Oh, how the smugness drips from the metaphorical popcorn.
Again, effective for whom? For the minority of the audience posturing as a supreme court which champions the film as a satire rivaling Swift? In this sense, any artwork that has any sort of following is "effective."

Erroneous! All I do is pat myself on the back for seeing what the movie obviously is.

*pats back for being a such a bright boy*

Oh yeah. That’s the stuff.

Jesus Christ, read what I write.


I DO NOT claim the film to be brilliant. So why would I offer you an assessment of something I don't think to be true, you Academia Spam Bot?



What I am talking about are the people who DO NOT see that there is satire involved. At all. I only stated this about 50 times over the course of the thread. Those are the sacks of potatoes I was talking about, just in case you were worrying that you were about to be peeled.



I am also talking about people who erroneously blow up their claims of fandom into calling the film 'brilliant', simply as a reflex to those people.


I am also talking about how both of these groups are beneath considering. That they might not be the best metric to rest an assessment for the worth of the film, and whether or not it happens to be brilliant. That maybe everything they both say should be immediately thrown in the garbage.





And I'm talking about how, after we dismiss these twits, who exist on both sides, there is still room for discussion about whether or not we still want to call the film brilliant.


But that person won't be me.



That's what I was talking about.



I know you already have giant turd baskets full of responses at your ready, all of which are completely non dependent on what anyone actually writes, but spare me. I'm not interested in responding to the arguments you'd prefer to be having, instead of the ones that are currently whizzing around you, unobserved (like satire is sometimes known to do)

Me.

Satire doesn't have to be brilliant to be effective. I recognize what it is doing. I think it does it fairly well. There are certain scenes that it nails. Other scenes are a little more obvious and not nearly as potent.

So me. Effective. Not brilliant. And in no way compelling me to speak of any of it in detail. Because that is not my fight. Nor has it ever been at any point in this thread.


Or do I need a Roger Ebert hall-pass before I can think any of this?

I read it. Your reading was noted. Perhaps you should read what I write?
We have a few camps here (more detail this time to show where you appear to presently land).

1. Those who don't see it as satire at all.
2. Those who see it as light satire.
3. Those who see it as deeply satirical.
4. Those who see it as "effective" for having the properties of #3.
5. Those who see it as "brilliant" for having the properties of #3.

I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU DID.
You would not, because I am not asking you to. However, you are committed to establish #3 and #4. Moreover, to the extent that you offer an apologia for #5 (when you remark that you can see the case for brilliance), you are also committed to offering (minimally) a prima facie case for this evaluation.
That's not really what Yoda is talking about. Yoda is talking about the super-subtle-satire reading, the satire-in-a-satire which holds that the film is so deeply satirical that they didn't even get it. That is a much more tenuous position that noting that the film has satirical elements/is lightly satirical (#2).
Right, and to the extent that you offer an apologia for that reflex and readings such of those of MKS you are committing yourself to making the prima facie case for #5 even though you (personally) would never claim that it is brilliant.
I don't know, you seem pretty exercised about that which is beneath your consideration...
I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a better one.

Remember when Doogie Howser tells his ferret to “go bug mom” and psychical makes it think there’s a bug crawling up her leg and Rico says something like “you wouldn’t do that to me, would you?”

Because he and Verhoeven recognize the implications of controlling a person like that are pretty dire.

And Doogie jokes it off.

Only to control Rico at the end of the movie, after Doogie has gone full Nazi regalia and they all just cheer and cheer.

Good stuff.

You don't approve? Well, too bad. They're in this for the species, boys and girls. It's simple numbers. The enemy has more, and every day Nazi Doogie has to make decisions that send hundreds of people to their deaths. They live in a world that has bugs, and those bugs have to be killed by men with guns and nerds with the ability to control minds.

Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Sexington? Nazi Doogie has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Rico, and you curse the mobile infantry. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Rico's mind control, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that Doogie's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on forums, you want him in that brain, you need him in that brain to tell you it's afraid. They use words like "Medic!," Kill," and "Roughneck." They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them to outline satire. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that Dougie provides, then questions the manner in which he provides it. I would rather you just said "thank you for the Summer Action Film" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what interpretation you think you are entitled to.

@Yoda Look at what you have wrought.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Don't worry. This isn't a contentious forum discussion, just a really brilliant satire of one.

For some reason my mind is going to the reviews of The Searchers where people will go, "people say this is a subversion of the John Wayne western, but I just see John Wayne doing John Wayne things."

I think there might be something to be said about entries in a genre that subvert their genre, but are still very much still exercises in that genre. What that something is, I've still yet to figure out.

Maybe I should have just gone mentally more towards, Starship Troopers can't be an anti-war film (okay that's not the primary thing it's concerned about but it is related), because of that essay saying all anti-war films ultimately fail and the viewer inevitably still imagines themselves the hero in a war movie. An idea that I've only heard at a high level (and recognize what it's saying and both agree and disagree with it) and have never bothered to track down any seminal type of essay on it.

I think it's a good satire, not necessarily a great one. The first half has a lot of funny jokes poking fun at war movie clichés, army propaganda and jingoistic narratives. By the second half the tone turns more into a standard over-the-top action movie. Which is not necessarily a bad thing as it's still entertaining, but it kinda loses the sharp commentary and doesn't really bring it back until the end. Robocop is overall more consistently strong with its satirical elements.

__________________

It's a fun thread, I follow it whenever it resurfaces...and it does resurfaces from time to time.