3 ms·

I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today." How can an

I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today." How can anyone take that at face value?

justin66 13y ago
As satire the brilliant part about that, and a few of the other really shocking things like the drill sergeant beating up a new recruit to establish himself as head of the pack, or the whipping, is that it's lifted fairly directly from the book. A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. Other fans recognize that Heinlein's books were to some degree experimental (it's science fiction!) and enjoy the joke. I've always been surprised at how many people who knew the book didn't get it, but that's life.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. A film that does a great job of exploring this discrepancy (how we think violence is really cool... right up to the point where the director portrays it to us in a blunt and unflattering way) is Funny Games (either the original, or the shot-for-shot American remake. whichever is your preference.) Funny Games pulled a bait and switch, selling itself "torture-porn" to draw in that sort of audience, then refusing to give that sort of audience satisfaction. Brutal violence, but almost entirely offscreen. Broke the 4th wall on several occasions to openly mock the viewers.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  The problem I had with the movie is that it took a well thought out book and reduced it to hollywood stereotype. For example, later on in the book and the movie, a recruit asks why they learn to throw knives when guns make them obsolete. In the book, the sergeant gives an explanation of tradition and admits that knife throwing is a fairly useless skill for mobile gundam suit pilots. In the movie, the sergeant just throws the knife at the cadet's hand. Towards the end of the book it's revealed that drill sergeants are carefully screened not to be sadistic jerks, but to actually be decent people who are carefully calculating the best way to train their cadets. The book was well thought out. The movie was just stereotype and mockery.
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    The book showed its fascist world in a somewhat flattering light, or at least explaining it as necessary. The film rightly mocked that attitude by showing just how close the US already is.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >The movie was just stereotype and mockery. // Aren't they the essential features for a parody. You enlarge the characteristics of your subject to demonstrate their absurdity - in short you build a stereotype and mock it. That's parody, no?
opminion 13y ago
The object of the film's satire became front page all around the world in 2001. Until then it was easier to take it at face value. For example, in the 80s it was common to portray torture as a suitable, non controversial means of war in films with well known action stars, without satire or criticism. Think of it now as Starship Troopers, the George W Bush's cut, without any actual edits having taken place.

I don't get it. Very much at the beginning of the movie a paraplegic army recruiter proudly proclaims: "Mobile infantry made me the man I am today." How can anyone take that at face value?

justin66 13y ago

As satire the brilliant part about that, and a few of the other really shocking things like the drill sergeant beating up a new recruit to establish himself as head of the pack, or the whipping, is that it's lifted fairly directly from the book. A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. Other fans recognize that Heinlein's books were to some degree experimental (it's science fiction!) and enjoy the joke. I've always been surprised at how many people who knew the book didn't get it, but that's life.

jlgreco 13y ago
> A subset of the fans of the book get mad because the violence and fascism seemed so much cooler in their heads. A film that does a great job of exploring this discrepancy (how we think violence is really cool... right up to the point where the director portrays it to us in a blunt and unflattering way) is Funny Games (either the original, or the shot-for-shot American remake. whichever is your preference.) Funny Games pulled a bait and switch, selling itself "torture-porn" to draw in that sort of audience, then refusing to give that sort of audience satisfaction. Brutal violence, but almost entirely offscreen. Broke the 4th wall on several occasions to openly mock the viewers.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
The problem I had with the movie is that it took a well thought out book and reduced it to hollywood stereotype. For example, later on in the book and the movie, a recruit asks why they learn to throw knives when guns make them obsolete. In the book, the sergeant gives an explanation of tradition and admits that knife throwing is a fairly useless skill for mobile gundam suit pilots. In the movie, the sergeant just throws the knife at the cadet's hand. Towards the end of the book it's revealed that drill sergeants are carefully screened not to be sadistic jerks, but to actually be decent people who are carefully calculating the best way to train their cadets. The book was well thought out. The movie was just stereotype and mockery.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  The book showed its fascist world in a somewhat flattering light, or at least explaining it as necessary. The film rightly mocked that attitude by showing just how close the US already is.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >The movie was just stereotype and mockery. // Aren't they the essential features for a parody. You enlarge the characteristics of your subject to demonstrate their absurdity - in short you build a stereotype and mock it. That's parody, no?

opminion 13y ago

The object of the film's satire became front page all around the world in 2001. Until then it was easier to take it at face value. For example, in the 80s it was common to portray torture as a suitable, non controversial means of war in films with well known action stars, without satire or criticism. Think of it now as Starship Troopers, the George W Bush's cut, without any actual edits having taken place.