New Yorker Facebook Movie Club discussion on "Starship Troopers" as successful or failed satire

Kiera Parrott shared a link.

August 27 at 6:45pm

Anyone else a fan of this wacky, subversive fun fest?

Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever

The sci-fi film's self-aware satire went unrecognized by critics when it came out 16 years ago. Now, some are finally getting the joke.

Bobby Texel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEdyq3UE5M

Starship Troopers - re:View

Mike and Jay discuss the often misunderstood and underappreciated sci…

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.

Nicolas Bordet

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.

Bobby Texel

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?

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

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.