Kiera Parrott shared a link.
August
27 at 6:45pm
Anyone else a
fan of this wacky, subversive fun fest?
Bobby Texel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M
Harsh
Pherwani Me! lol
Peter
Hoffman It's definitely got a cult following.
Jorge
Ignacio Castillo The fact people take this movie at face value is baffling. It's
mocking fascism, it's not trying to promote it. It even steals shots of Triumph
of the Will!
Huain Gomez If it was
satire, it was too sutil. Robocop made a better job.
Nicolas
Bordet Yes, I completely agree, I think that most of Verhoeven's movies
have been quite misunderstood for a long time. The Cahiers du Cinéma made some
very interesting articles on that subject in a 2015 issue.
Huain Gomez I found it
is like a military recruitment propaganda.
Bobby Texel Read The
Atlantic article the OP shared, my guy.
Huain Gomez Just read
it.
My view persist, it is militaristic propaganda.
If satire is so sutil viewers are unable to see it then it didn't work.
I was able to see the political comentary in robocop that is one of the reasons i liked it so much. Starship troopers was unable to transmit this satire (if itwas there) to me and most of the critics apparently. May be that's the reason behind its failure.
My view persist, it is militaristic propaganda.
If satire is so sutil viewers are unable to see it then it didn't work.
I was able to see the political comentary in robocop that is one of the reasons i liked it so much. Starship troopers was unable to transmit this satire (if itwas there) to me and most of the critics apparently. May be that's the reason behind its failure.
Nicolas
Joseph I mean the end has all the ken-doll, roided-up soldiers kill an
alien that is basically a GIANT BRAIN how much more explicitly anti-military
can u get?
Bobby Texel Not to
mention the "I didn't get it, so it's the movie's fault" argument
doesn't hold much water. Plus, they had Neil Patrick Harris dressed up as a
SPACE NAZI.
Huain Gomez Jejejejeje,
ok, lets agree on disagree
Huain Gomez It has to be
a thrill for Verhoeven that almost no one was able to catch the satire in his
movie, it had to be his objective from the very beginning, a satire that no one
recognized.
Nicolas
Joseph Huain Gomez well we agreed to
disagree. But again, the satire is pretty obvious. but he is also very vicious,
and part of his point is to show how seductive fascism is, how it is easy to
fall for its super heavy but oh so enticing imagery. So he succeeds in every
way imaginable. the fact not everyone got it (not ALMOST NO ONE!!!) speaks more
about the audience than it does about the director.
Huain Gomez Wasn't his job
to make people to get it?
Nicolas
Joseph Huain Gomez that is an endless
debate about the artist's responsibility and integrity towards the audience -
it goes beyond cinema and was debated for centuries amongst writers, poets or
playwrights for instance. In this day and age of "marketing", people
tend to think an artist's job to give people what they want and adapt to the
audience. Thankfully not everyone agrees, and there is room for both
approaches.
Huain Gomez Not what
people's want, what the director wanted.
Was Chaplin Great Dictator ever confused with Nazi propaganda?
Was Chaplin Great Dictator ever confused with Nazi propaganda?
Nicolas
Joseph what the director wants in the case of Verhoeven is very clear.
When you say it is his job to make people get it, your implying he has a
responsibility towards his audience, a duty to adapt to their expectations,
which exactly the on going debate, covering centuries, that I am talking about.
And yes, I think Verhoeven is way more subtle and subversive than Chaplin, much
as I love good old Charlie.
Huain Gomez Not the
people's expectations, his own expectations, he, allegedly, tried to make a
satire of militarism and fascism but failed and ended transmitting the
opposite.
Nicolas
Joseph Huain Gomez only to those who
didnt get it. Quite a few of us saw it crystal clear.
Jean-Pierre
Thilges What?
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston Huain Gomez Yeah, it was like he
wanted more to demonstrate how fascist everybody was, by providing such an
enticing lure that played so well to their overt or submerged desires and
insecurities it couldn't be resisted. He ultimately makes being a foot soldier,
within a nest of fellow soldiers, seem really, really great. Each battle you
were in, was cinematically, so interesting. And if you hadn't each acted as
quickly and resourcefully as you did... He takes the energy of youth, and lets
it do something. And then at the end says, see, you weren't just pent-up youth
loving something something for giving you an outlet, but secret fascists. The
response: not really; actually, we were just like you -- loving the exuberant
(pseudo)participation, just like you did in creating it. I think the fact that
people who are onto the satire don't mention how much they themselves enjoyed
vicariously participating in the action, a bit suspicious, because while both
have validity in their draws, admitting to only one in particular lets you have
superiority over the gullible.
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston Nicolas Joseph You're right. A lot of people got it. What's wrong
for me is that he puts too much that is right into the action sequences, stuff
we should rightly enjoy, and then encourages our disassociating ourselves with
it so we can be superior to those who enjoyed the action but missed the
satire. There is a lot of fun in the action sequences in his movies, and to me
that kind of exuberant, colourful, imaginative, seductive fun... just isn't
nazi. Backing away from what we liked, repressing knowledge of "how we
fell for it," so to have advantage over other people, is probably closer.
Huain Gomez Despite the
differences in opinions it is nice to have an intelligent discussion.
Thanks
Thanks
Vickie
Williams I love it! I knew it was satire the first time I saw it, and that
was long before I read anything deeper about movies than People magazine
reviews. It was clear as a bright, cloudless sunshiny day to me. "Would
you like to know more?" Hilarious!
Erik Schwob Yes I think
it's a classic! It's an anti war movie dressed up as a war movie. And the
propaganda web reels are just fantastic. Paul Veerhoven also directed Robocop
the same way. A very violent action film that was actually a paraody of violent
entertainment. It's a neat trick.
Patrick
McEvoy-Halston It has something of a sardonic view of mankind. It comes close to
saying that one could come close to making the fascist elements of a movement
almost obvious to people, but if you could promise them a chance to turn the
table on their problematic parents (ah, did you get blowed up); lift them up
from being people doomed to be humiliated by smarter, nerdier peers after high
school, and promise them access to higher "fruits," better
girlfriends, chance at making lieutenant, than otherwise would be theirs; a
chance to be a valuable part of a group, and lots of action, where they'll
learn to casually destroy things that newbies would absolutely terrified of
(the action is exhilarating; if you managed their eventual successes, their
competency against terrible foes, you'd feel awesome), they'll probably go
anyways. If nations across the globe start going fascist, I bet they could view
this film, and so like how they experienced themselves through the
"heroes," the strong subversive elements wouldn't be recalled
afterwards. It would effectively function as a film made by the Third Reich.
The film may have needed a lengthy debriefing.
Comments
Post a Comment