9 ms·

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point o

by prox 5y ago

Starship Troopers (1997) is an interesting movie that is basically a “war propaganda” movie seen from the viewpoint of a fascistic government. The whole point of the movie is to make the enemy seem like “the other” , and in this case these are actual alien bugs in the movie. All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” Paul Verhoeven also deliberately made the first scene shot for shot similar to a german Nazi propaganda film. The whole movie is to make you root for “our side” and demonize the other. I personally didn’t realize this fully when I watched it, which makes the process so insidious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.
- musha68k 5y ago
  I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious. It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places. Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all? Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
    I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away. I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level. And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.
    - prox 5y ago
      Well said, I especially like your take “It’s seems reasonable to accept it uncritically is the message” How often do we accept the story or the identity we are already part of? For instance in the current conflict I wonder how language plays a part. Many Russians speak no to little english, and vice versa I/we often don’t speak Russian. I wonder how much this insulation adds to our conflict. I can’t learn from their viewpoint and they not from mine. Which leaves us with a one sided view like in the movie.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - watwut 5y ago
    To me, it came across as badly done movie. Cringy, but not funny.
- scandox 5y ago
  The last scene makes it pretty clear. "They're scared" Huge cheer.
- wpietri 5y ago
  That is the trouble with good satire. It needs to be subtle enough that readers feel the pull of the thing being satirized, or there's no real lesson in it. But if it's too subtle, people will miss the point. In practice, it's impossible to get every person to hit both gates. Poe's Law [1] was coined before Starship Troopers, but it certainly applies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
randomsilence 5y ago
Similarly: >Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers, directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this, Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls
progre 5y ago
The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and didn't finish it. Red Letter Media has a very good analyis of the whole thing: https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M "How do you tell your actor that you cast them as a joke?"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- einpoklum 5y ago
  The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capability for credible depiction of social and political phenomena, complete with the warts and flaws. Verhoeven's book is more obviously satirical, and I recall getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror image of the Bugs.
  - quantumwannabe 5y ago
    The book is a vehicle for Heinlein's political views and he is 100% in support of the ideology described. The political system described in the book isn't fascism, rather it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country. Heinlein believes people who have never made personal sacrifices make poor decisions and therefore political power should be limited to people who have made such sacrifices. It's the same reason why children lack the right to vote in real-world democracies: a lack of experience to base decisions on. Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended, not taken for granted. Verhoeven's movie is just a campy film; the man admitted that he stopped reading the book as soon as he saw the first "fascist" element, because he thinks that "military" equals "fascism". The movie is a strawman that does not represent Heinlein's views and is best thought of as a mindless action movie with a simple message of "war bad" instead of biting political satire.
sdb0 5y ago
>All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” must have been shocking to see that in a film
goodpoint 5y ago
Many people are so used to nationalist propaganda that they don't see it's a parody. Pretty scary.
- cmurf 5y ago
  When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought it was bizarre and scary.
  - quacked 5y ago
    When I was a teen in <large college town> I thought it was bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the national anthem.
    - darkwater 5y ago
      You have been successfully assimilated /s
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        Pretty much. If countries were religions any group with that attitude would be considered a cult.
        quacked 5y ago
        Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion. Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?
        goodpoint 5y ago
cycomanic 5y ago
Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie". When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often look at me like I'm crazy.
- prox 5y ago
  You’re welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting point for both debates and further study. The war on terror (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  I've avoided watching it, despite sitting firmly in the age demographic it was aiming at upon release, for exactly the reasons you've described. Even now it feels as if I have to suppress my 'higher functions' to consider seeking it out. I'll do it.
agency 5y ago
> In a 2014 interview on The Adam Carolla Show, the actor Michael Ironside, who read the novel as a youth, said that he asked Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied Netherlands, "Why are you doing a right-wing fascist movie?" Verhoeven replied, "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"
chernevik 5y ago
The best response to "Starship Troopers" is "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, which gives a great account of the use of propaganda to manufacture a war. The movie is a terribly stupid take on a very good (and widely, perhaps deliberately, misunderstood) book. It says a lot about Heinlein that he wrote Haldeman to praise his take on the subject.
seagullz 5y ago
The real cases are not much different. In the backdrop of invading a country thousands of miles away on a false pretext, the American Sniper story is a window into that[0]: “Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he writes after describing his first kill, a woman who walked into a street with a grenade in her hand as marines advanced into her village. After a moment’s hesitation, he drops her with a shot. “That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages,’” he writes of this scene. “There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.” [0] https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467 https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467

by prox 5y ago

bigDinosaur 5y ago

Most people I've talked to who watched Starship Troopers didn't think it was satire. To be fair, the enemy is literally not human which does make it harder to pick up on.

musha68k 5y ago
I remember watching it as a teenager back in 1997. I was the only one laughing in the cinema, it was just hilarious. It immediately dawned on me after though: why was no one else laughing, really? In Austria of all places. Hadn’t anyone else paid attention during history classes - at all? Continuously chilling yet I’ve never been really surprised by the creeping normalcy of fascist thought since the 90s - in part because of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  I had a similar reaction. It was so over the top as to seem obviously satirical, and indeed a poke in the eye to Heinlein's dangerously serious take on the subject matter. I forgave people for not having read the original Heinlein, but I couldn't understand how people didn't see the satire.
- XorNot 5y ago
  I think that's the mark of effective satire though - or it can be, I'd say there's a spectrum. Some satire needs to call itself out to the audience - make it clear what it is going after, and why. Others is the latter half of it - and Starship Troopers is definitely in this category - play it so straight that you do have to actually key in to it, and it might not hit right away. I was early teens when I watched it, so while the "do you want to know more?" definitely hit as a "okay this is kind of absurd" we were definitely there for action and bugs exploding. But it certainly hit different when I revisited it and you realize just how effective a satire it is at pretty much every level. And I think that's the important part: you can totally miss the point of the movie, and that's basically critical to it's message: it is written and structured as fascist propaganda, and the fact that that can seem reasonable if you accept it uncritically is the message - it's a whole movie which very subtly is pointing out that fascism and its death cult heroism worship is exactly that, but because we dressed it up to look pretty while making what's happening abundantly clear on screen (you die horrifically in a pointless war), you're almost thinking this is reasonable.
  - prox 5y ago
    Well said, I especially like your take “It’s seems reasonable to accept it uncritically is the message” How often do we accept the story or the identity we are already part of? For instance in the current conflict I wonder how language plays a part. Many Russians speak no to little english, and vice versa I/we often don’t speak Russian. I wonder how much this insulation adds to our conflict. I can’t learn from their viewpoint and they not from mine. Which leaves us with a one sided view like in the movie.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 5y ago
  To me, it came across as badly done movie. Cringy, but not funny.
scandox 5y ago
The last scene makes it pretty clear. "They're scared" Huge cheer.
wpietri 5y ago
That is the trouble with good satire. It needs to be subtle enough that readers feel the pull of the thing being satirized, or there's no real lesson in it. But if it's too subtle, people will miss the point. In practice, it's impossible to get every person to hit both gates. Poe's Law [1] was coined before Starship Troopers, but it certainly applies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

randomsilence 5y ago

Similarly: >Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers, directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this, Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showgirls

progre 5y ago

The book (one of my favourites) is a little diffrent. There the perspective is that of the mobile infantist. The classic hero arc but in a fashist world. Like in the movie, there is no enlightenment or revolution though, just the story of a regular directionless Joe who finds his true self and a purpose in life in the Mobile Infantry. The movie is brilliant in a diffrent way. It's basically satire on all levels. Paul Verhoeven claimed he hated the book and didn't finish it. Red Letter Media has a very good analyis of the whole thing: https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M https://youtu.be/OkEdyq3UE5M "How do you tell your actor that you cast them as a joke?"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 5y ago
The book is brilliant, I would say, for being readable at the same time as an ode of support and admiration for the social order, and as a scathing critique of that order. IIANM Heinlein himself was more on the side of the first interpretation (correct me if I'm wrong) but was fair enough to offer solid footing for the opposite view; although one wonders how much of it was conscious and how much of it was his capability for credible depiction of social and political phenomena, complete with the warts and flaws. Verhoeven's book is more obviously satirical, and I recall getting the clear message of how the Humans are a mirror image of the Bugs.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  The book is a vehicle for Heinlein's political views and he is 100% in support of the ideology described. The political system described in the book isn't fascism, rather it is democracy with the franchise limited to people who have served their country. Heinlein believes people who have never made personal sacrifices make poor decisions and therefore political power should be limited to people who have made such sacrifices. It's the same reason why children lack the right to vote in real-world democracies: a lack of experience to base decisions on. Heinlein also believes that democracy and human rights are fragile and need to be actively defended, not taken for granted. Verhoeven's movie is just a campy film; the man admitted that he stopped reading the book as soon as he saw the first "fascist" element, because he thinks that "military" equals "fascism". The movie is a strawman that does not represent Heinlein's views and is best thought of as a mindless action movie with a simple message of "war bad" instead of biting political satire.

sdb0 5y ago

>All of the human characters in the movie are beautiful and everything on “our” side as we view it is shiny and “the good side” must have been shocking to see that in a film

goodpoint 5y ago

Many people are so used to nationalist propaganda that they don't see it's a parody. Pretty scary.

cmurf 5y ago
When I was a teen in midwest USA I took a German foreign exchange student to an NFL game. They were mortified at the whole stadium standing to sing the national anthem, thought it was bizarre and scary.
- quacked 5y ago
  When I was a teen in <large college town> I thought it was bizarre and scary that anyone would feel enough patriotism to sing the national anthem. Now I think it's bizarre and scary for anyone to feel such a lack of patriotism that they would think it's bizarre and scary to want to sing the national anthem.
  - darkwater 5y ago
    You have been successfully assimilated /s
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      Pretty much. If countries were religions any group with that attitude would be considered a cult.
      - quacked 5y ago
        Countries were religious; when the social technology of the "nation" was developed, the primary justification lay in religion. Why do you think that a loyal preference to land, law, and shared history is cult-like?
        goodpoint 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

Thank you for reminding me again of starship troopers. It is a great movie and in my experience has quite a bad rap amongst the "intelligentsia", mostly I think because people just go off the trailer and dismiss it as a "stupid alien action movie". When I discussed the satire, images etc with people they often look at me like I'm crazy.

prox 5y ago
You’re welcome, I think the movie can be a great starting point for both debates and further study. The war on terror (after 9/11) and the war in the movie have great parallels.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I've avoided watching it, despite sitting firmly in the age demographic it was aiming at upon release, for exactly the reasons you've described. Even now it feels as if I have to suppress my 'higher functions' to consider seeking it out. I'll do it.

agency 5y ago

> In a 2014 interview on The Adam Carolla Show, the actor Michael Ironside, who read the novel as a youth, said that he asked Verhoeven, who grew up in the German-occupied Netherlands, "Why are you doing a right-wing fascist movie?" Verhoeven replied, "If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"

chernevik 5y ago

The best response to "Starship Troopers" is "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman, which gives a great account of the use of propaganda to manufacture a war. The movie is a terribly stupid take on a very good (and widely, perhaps deliberately, misunderstood) book. It says a lot about Heinlein that he wrote Haldeman to praise his take on the subject.

seagullz 5y ago

The real cases are not much different. In the backdrop of invading a country thousands of miles away on a false pretext, the American Sniper story is a window into that[0]: “Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he writes after describing his first kill, a woman who walked into a street with a grenade in her hand as marines advanced into her village. After a moment’s hesitation, he drops her with a shot. “That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages,’” he writes of this scene. “There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.” [0] https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467 https://www.bookforum.com/print/1902/-9467