No, Starship Troopers Is Not Brilliant Satire

Tools    





I nominated Starship Troopers in a Sci Fi Hof years ago here at MoFo. This is what I wrote for my HoF review, make of it what you will...

Starship Troopers works on 3 levels, at least according to me, others will see this differently.

On a basic level it's one helluva action packed, over the top, rock-em-sock-em movie. I mean the carnage and the firepower are insane!

On another level it blatantly mocks super patriotic, militaristic types with a Nazi like send up, complete with SS and Gestapo style uniforms and state sponsored propaganda clips from the Federal Network.

On a third level the film is like a litmus test. It feeds us images and actions that intellectually we know are wrong. But because there's no movie cues like: sinister music or scenes where actors react with horror to the wrong doings...we accept that what we're seeing is the truth... which is: the good guys are fighting the evil bugs to save Earth...and that's the lie.

The entire film is a propaganda tool, much like some of the films Nazi Germany made. All of the information that we know about the enemy is told to us by the Federal Network news clips. We see attractive young people going off to war heroically after Earth has been attacked by 'bug meteors'. But it's the bugs who are the victims. The film gives a couple strong clues to that fact. The films says it was the Mormon colonist who invaded the bugs territory. In one Federal Network news clip the only dissenting voice is heard when the reporter says, "some say the bugs were provoked by the human's intrusion into their natural habitat. That a live let live policy is preferable to war with the bugs."

It's in this video clip below, notice there's an announcement that says "we now break net and take you live to Battle station Ticonderoga"...That's important as it's a live feed from an reporter who gives us the information. It's not part of the Federal Network's propaganda information system. This gives us access to the only dissenting view on the war.



At the end of the film we see the smart bug is caught and taken to a laboratory, where it's being tortured by sticking a metal probe into it's head. It's screaming in pain and no one cares. Torturing prisoners is wrong. Yet there's no sinister music, none of the character looks on in horror as the prisoner is tortured, the film tells us 'it's OK to torture your enemy' and we buy it.

The whole asteroid strike on Argentinian is a false flag. It's used as a prelude to war with the goal being eradicating the bugs from the galaxy, so humans can colonize. The bugs can't send asteroids to attack Earth, they're on the other side of the galaxy! It would take 10,000 of years for an asteroid to reach Earth. The bugs have no technology, they can't possible see Earth from where they are, they can't even aim. The bug plasma is nothing more than their way of mating.

The film tells us one thing through the power of propaganda and then challenges us to see the truth.



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.
I WOULD like to know more.



I WOULD like to know more.

I was going to suggest you give him between 5-12 conditions he must abide by if he wants to continue the conversation. Preferably in bullet point.



But then I realize you responded to him with presumed curiosity, and so you will now certainly receive what you ask for. There is no turning back.



I was going to suggest you give him between 5-12 conditions he must abide by if he wants to continue the conversation. Preferably in bullet point.



But then I realize you responded to him with presumed curiosity, and so you will now certainly receive what you ask for. There is no turning back.
Come on, Crummy! You wanna live forever?



Come on, Crummy! You wanna live forever?

This is a trick question, isn't it?

*thinks*

*thinks harder*

*consults Oasis for my phone a friend*

*comes to realization that Oasis has absolutely no answer to any of life's problems*

*surrenders to the Gestapo*

*yarn smiles*



Perhaps you should read what I write?

No.




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.
Oh, please explain, teacher.




I DID NOT SAY THAT YOU DID.
You sort of did.



However, you are committed to establish #3 and #4.
lol


Or how about this


*fart noise*



Moreover, to the extent that you offer an apologia for #5
Leave me alone.









(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...
*falls asleep in defence from dying having to read anymore of this*



This is a trick question, isn't it?

*thinks*

*thinks harder*

*consults Oasis for my phone a friend*

*comes to realization that Oasis has absolutely no answer to any of life's problems*

*surrenders to the Gestapo*

*yarn smiles*
Everyone fights. No one quits! If you don’t do your job, I’ll kill you myself.



I'll be honest, ever since I read the initial I am still wondering how you do a Rifftrax/MST3K on Starship Troopers and add anything of value. The essay seems to be in response to an essay that was written in response to the existence of such an episode existing - well, "the add anything of value," being the point of contention.



Originally Posted by Corax
Again, effective for whom?



There is an old joke about a man with a tiny penis who pays a visit to a brothel. The prostitute sees his member and comments, "Who do you expect to get off with that thing?" to which the man comments, "Me." This is the sort of "Big Dialectical Energy" you're throwing around. Arguing for "effectiveness" on the grounds that it's effective for you (slow clap, you've arrived at subjectivism).



There is an old joke about a man with a tiny penis who pays a visit to a brothel. The prostitute sees his member and comments, "Who do you expect to get off with that thing?" to which the man comments, "Me." This is the sort of "Big Dialectical Energy" you're throwing around. Arguing for "effectiveness" on the grounds that it's effective for you (slow clap, you've arrived at subjectivism).
The only place anyone should end up at when discussing their art.

All objectivity in art is merely a matter of my own opinion. Fact.



The only place anyone should end up at when discussing their art.



All objectivity in art is merely a matter of my own opinion. Fact.
Artworks have some objective features and we can fumble our way forward by means of intersubjectivity. And even if we don't arrive at agreement, we can often dialogue our way to a greater understanding of other views. The "effective-for me" standard guarantees that you can never be proven wrong, but it's not really interesting either.

The impossibility of perfect objectivity should not despair us into settling for a lazy subjectivism. There is plenty of intersubjectivity available to keep conversations interesting, useful, and risky (threatening some falsification).

The difference lies in dialectical virtue and fidelity. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for defending the intersubjective status of their claims, an intersubjectivity of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his arguments, and potatoes, and turds, and SPAM. The civilian does not.



Artworks have some objective features and we can fumble our way forward by means of intersubjectivity. And even if we don't arrive at agreement, we can often dialogue our way to a greater understanding of other views. The "effective-for me" standard guarantees that you can never be proven wrong, but it's not really interesting either.

The impossibility of perfect objectivity should not despair us into settling for a lazy subjectivism. There is plenty of intersubjectivity available to keep conversations interesting, useful, and risky (threatening some falsification).

The difference lies in dialectical virtue and fidelity. A citizen accepts personal responsibility for defending the intersubjective status of their claims, an intersubjectivity of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his arguments, and potatoes, and turds, and SPAM. The civilian does not.
Nah.

sub·jec·tiv·i·ty
/ˌsəbˌjekˈtivədē/
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.



No more powerful refutation in the English language, except for perhaps "Dude."

MEDIC!!!

sub·jec·tiv·i·ty

/ˌsəbˌjekˈtivədē/
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
You're not unpacking an argument here, so I am forced to make inference to what you think producing a definition proves. You appear to be conflating ontological subjectivity (not existing without a mind, like a toothache) with epistemic conditions. Your toothache may be subjective, but we all know what a toothache (objectively) is and there is even high agreement that toothaches are no fun (intersubjectively).

Again, artworks have some objective features and we can work with intersubjectivity. That art has subjective aspects (e.g., the beauty of a shot, how funny a joke is) does not, by logical necessity, commit us to wholesale subjectivism.

Here in Cinema and Aesthetic Philosophy we've explored the decline of subjectivism when relativists brought the art world to the brink of chaos, and how the veteran academics took control and pointed the way to intersubjectivity that has lasted for generations since...



Ohhhhkay. I've got a few posts in here I'm going to reply to substantively before long, but in the meantime I've wiped out a bunch of the "I refuse to respond but I'm going to reply anyway." I dunno if this is last word-itis, but whatever it is, it's pretty lame. This is clearly a place where you can, if you are so inclined, have a serious but mostly respectful argument about this movie and satire in general. If you're not inclined, don't post in it, but don't fill it with flat contradictions. Thanks.



sub·jec·tiv·i·ty
/ˌsəbˌjekˈtivədē/
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"he is the first to acknowledge the subjectivity of memories"
the quality of existing in someone's mind rather than the external world.
If you actually believed this was the end of this particular debate, a bunch of your other posts would have no reason to exist. But they do exist, so you must not.

That art is subjective is technically true but functionally meaningless. We all adopt some kind of standard, and even though the choice of that standard is subjective, adherence to it is not, or is at least potentially less so.

This is why you keep peppering the thread with little examples of irony: because you believe we have a shared understanding that irony is a component of good satire, and therefore pointing out irony supports the idea that this film qualifies as good satire. You're appealing to what you feel is likely a shared objective standard.

Which is good because that's literally the only way to have a useful disagreement about anything. If you wanna go full relativist that means turning in your argument permit too and just abstaining from all of them.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I was just poking fun at how the thread was pretty much becoming a Looney Tunes sketch all of a sudden. Didn't mean to derail it any further.



Arguing from the standpoint that art is in essence purely subjective does not end the conversation. The only way there is a threat of this is if we lose sight of what we are doing when we are talking about art in the first place, and that would be if we are looking for someone to be declared a clear winner. For one person to have more 'proof' that what they like qualifies as something good, or that what they dislike is bad. That is actually more of a conversation killer in the long run than speaking from a place of subjectivity.



For example, look at the quality of the photographic elements in a Terrence Malick film. Then look at those of Blair Witch. There can't be a more objective argument than Terrence Malick makes better looking films than Blair Witch. But that isn't moving a conversation towards any kind of great truth. We can acknowledge there is more technical sophistication in Malick's cinematography, but if someone is unmoved by any of it, why should that matter to that person? Likewise, the same person may become deeply immersed in the unsophisticated camera work of Blair Witch, actually finding its lack of technical prowess an aid to become lost in the woods with the films characters. So for someone to then come in and keep making the claim to this particular person that Malick is better because 'look, prettier' has virtually no value, even if it has the appearance of objective truth. But who cares about objectivity in art? At best, we use objectivity as a bit of scaffolding to hold up the only thing that really can be truth in a film: one's personal experience with it.


It is through personal experience that any supposedly objective standards find their meaning. Technical prowess, thematic unity, narrative drive are pitstops in a debate we can pull some of our explanations out from, but without the filter of our subjectivity, it becomes disconnected from anything actually worth talking about. It's why art can constantly continue to break its own rules as to what supposedly has value. Realism becomes threatened by abstraction. Narrative becomes threatened by non narrative. The notion of the artist toiling over his creation in order to make it Really Mean Something becomes threatened by Andy Warhol shrugging and getting his assistants to make some silk screens. Essentially, any artist with their shit knows there are always different techniques and strategies to move people or make them think and that is the ultimate aim. And something like that can't ever be codified. And if it ever could, it would cease to have any particularly great worth.


So, if we argue from a standpoint of subjectivity, we aren't throwing up our hands and saying nothing matters. We are actually only beginning to talk about the only thing that does.



But who cares about objectivity in art?
From my experience, objectivity regarding art is usually brought up for one of two reasons:

1) as a means to show and proclaim to the world that you're indeed a sophisticated person as your tastes align with the agreed dogma of great art

2) as an extension to one's bloated ego that confuses its own subjectivity with objectivity

To me, objectivity and art don't mix. Art doesn't exist without an audience. Without that interaction, there are only collections of still images, words, letters, colors, forms, sounds, etc. The meaning and value come from that interaction.

Those individual technical aspects can be assessed objectively, but as you said, an experience is more than just technical quality. I don't think satire is among these easily measurable qualities, so being a brilliant satire seems entirely subjective.

I really think that I've agreed with almost everything you've said in this thread.
__________________