Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever

[jakeXT]

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.

When Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, most American critics slammed it. In the New York Times, Janet Maslin panned the “crazed, lurid spectacle,” as featuring “raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys.” Jeff Vice, in the Deseret News, called it “a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent.” Roger Ebert, who had praised the “pointed social satire” of Verhoeven’s Robocop, found the film “one-dimensional,” a trivial nothing “pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans.”

But those critics had missed the point. Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism. The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.


Starship Troopers is set in the distant future, when humankind has begun to colonize worlds beyond the borders of our galaxy. Earth has provoked an otherwise benign species of bug-like aliens to retaliate violently against our planet, which it suddenly and correctly perceives as hostile. Interpreting what are pretty obviously self-defense tactics as further gestures of aggression, humankind marshals its global forces and charges into a grossly outmatched interstellar war. The rhetoric throughout is unmistakably fascistic: Earth’s disposable infantrymen, among whom our high-school-aged former-jock hero naturally ranks, are galvanized by insipid sloganeering, which they regurgitate on command with sincerity as they head to slaughter. (“The only good bug is a dead bug!” is the chant most favored—shades of Animal Farm abound.)

The resulting film critiques the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason. The screenplay, by Robocop writer Edward Neumeier, furnished the old-fashioned science-fiction framework of Robert A. Heinlein’s notoriously militaristic novel with archetypes on loan from teen soaps and young adult-fiction, undermining the self-serious saber-rattling of the source text. Even the conclusion makes a point of deflating any residual sense of heroism and valor: We see our protagonists, having narrowly escaped death during a near-suicidal mission, marching back to battle in a glorified recruitment video—suggesting that in war the only reward for a battle well fought is the prospect of further battle.

...
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/-em-starship-troopers-em-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-movies-ever/281236/

[stopbush]

1. Nobody got the satire?

I certainly did. It's obvious throughout the film.

[PeteSelman]

2. Would you like to know more?

http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZ9vtLqSA4fg

[Blue_Tires]

10. Guess I was just younger and dumber then (college student)

and my tastes weren't as refined...

The first time I saw it I thought it was sort of an apologia for fascism, but the second time I saw it a few years later I could see it in a different light...

Hey, I absolutely HATED "Pulp Fiction" when it came out, too...I don't actually like it now, but I can appreciate on multiple levels how brilliant a piece of filmmaking it is...

As a kid, I remember the first thing my mom doing when she got home from work was watching MASH reruns at 5:30 and 6:00, which as a kid I thought was the stupidest show in existence...It would be some years before I finally "got it"

[stopbush]

13. One of the great satirical visuals in that film

happens whenever the Troopers come running out of their little landing "boats" to take on the bugs. Of course, the Troopers look like a horde of scurrying roaches as they depart their landing craft. And the "bugs" that the Troopers are fighting are of an inverse scale to the bug v human scale on Earth.

So, which side is the bugs?

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Funny, I saw Pulp Fiction again recently and thought it hadn't aged well at ALL.

Whereas when it came out I thought it was brilliant.

[yurbud]

16. like the Nazi uniforms weren't a big enough hint?

[awoke_in_2003]

19. A lot of people...

think Stephen Colbert is really conservative.

[Blue_Tires]

3. I think another issue was it was heavily marketed and promoted

as a straightforward action-packed sci-fi shoot-'em-up; ala "Independence Day" from the previous year (1996), so a whole lot of critics and viewers (myself included) were confused when we saw something different...

The Onion AV club did a brilliant critical breakdown of the movie as well, which I highly recommend...

http://www.avclub.com/articles/starship-troopers,41966/

[jakeXT]

8. Sounds like an interesting commentary track. I didn't know Verhoaven was in Nazi occupied Holland as

a child

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Verhoeven

[bananas]

22. The commentary track was really good. nt

[marmar]

4. I totally got it.

Seemed obvious to me.....Proto-fascist military indoctrination society. ...... Proves how clueless a lot of critics are.

[rationalcalgarian]

5. I got it, first time out

Back when I was a keen sci-fi fan, I was able to pick out the references to the American SF genre of the 1950's and laugh along with the director, producers and actors. But it was so well done it's actually a watchable movie, even with the deliberate, hammy over-acting. (In my opinion, if a movie has Michael Ironside in it, prepare yourself for some Class A scenery-chewing! Shatner's got nothing on this guy, but that's a whole other debate.)
Juxtapose all that with some awesome special effects, especially the battle scenes, and it's an hour ad a half well spent. This movie comes on one of my movie channels every few weeks and I often have it on, listening for my favourite scenes. (And yeah, I'll admit it; the shower scene is one of them)
So, if you haven't seen it, give it a shot and remember it's not meant to be taken seriously. I understand there is a part two? Can't vouch for that.

[leftyohiolib]

6. it has been re-aired several times recently and it's just as bad as it ever was

[4dsc]

7. One of the dumbest movies I have ever seen

And despite this it will remain that way.

[Bob Jones]

9. It did a terrible disservice to the source material.

[arcane1]

12. I thought it was the perfect, satirizing the source material.

[BlueJazz]

26. What arcane1 said.

[progressoid]

11. Problem was that it didn't really succeed as satire either.

[Ash_F]

14. What's crazy is that the movie satirizes the author

The book was not satire. It was completely serious and up it's own butt. I've never seen a movie do that to the book.

[Ash_F]

15. I think one reason people didn't get it back then was because of the lack of youtube

Thanks to widespread video hosting and the internet in general, people have much better access to the ridiculous propaganda videos and posters of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

Thanks to the internet, more people have access to this material and can now compare them and see the absurdity. In the mid 90's that stuff was somewhat forgotten or hazy, even in the minds of much of the older generation.

[yurbud]

17. the satire was even more on target after 9/11

[OnyxCollie]

18. The woman in the recruiting film at the end of the movie

is my college friend, Stacy.

[Paladin]

20. Doesn't anybody else remember the controversy it created when it came out?

Notice was definitely taken of the Citizens=Nazis angle. I remember it well---doesn't anybody else?

Gotta somehow appreciate a flick that has Neal Patrick Harris strutting around in full SS drag, while giving pointers on torturing huge bugs to death. A lot better movie than Heinlein's novel merited (but I know you Heinlein purists will disagree)......

[blkmusclmachine]

21. .

.

[Quantess]

23. I heard it was terrible and I skipped seeing it.

I enjoyed Showgirls greatly, so it's a good chance I'll like Starship Troopers as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I read the book as a kid, and when the movie came out I was all over it purely for the CGI aspect

because, believe it or not, there was a time when people were sort of excited by the potential of CGI in movies, as opposed to just complaining about it.

I felt the satire was deliberate, obviously- but he was also taking the text literally- Heinlein may not have meant that stuff as satire.

[flamingdem]

33. I remember those days well

It was exciting until True Lies, then I realized it was without morals, potentially.

Total Recall and Terminator II rocked my world before that however.

Saw Pacific Rim last night, whew, the visuals.. but I don't care about it like when it first seemed able to reveal new worlds.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Yep. I hear you.

I saw Terminator II in the theater, in a decidedly altered state of consciousness. The liquid metal terminator effects fucked my shit right up.

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. It's no SHARKNADO that's for sure!

eom

[flamingdem]

32. Too true!

[Loudly]

28. Team America was so much more satisfying.

[ThoughtCriminal]

29. I've never been convinced that it was intended as satire

But propaganda can be so over the top that it comes off that way and become a "Cult" classic.

Think of "Reefer Madness" and the 1980's "Red Dawn".

[uriel1972]

30. I was never able to watch it through to the end...

It was too straight faced and I found no sympathy with any of the characters. All gung-ho and no introspection. If there had been any character that questioned the life they were living, I didn't see them. If I had I would have stayed with it.

[flamingdem]

31. I loved it. Saw Pacific Rim last night and

while the visual effects are stupendous I was more caught up in Starship Troopers.

It really worked the military thing, Pacific Rim imitated some of that

[Fumesucker]

34. When I first read it as a teen I thought the book was straight up adventure/ pro military propaganda

I reread it in my forties and thought there was a good chance the book itself was a rather subtle satire.

It would be ironic if the movie was satirizing a satire and Heinlein did write a couple of obvious satires I can think of.

[Ash_F]

39. No Heinlein really bought into the Red Scare hard

It was a big part of who he was. I think he really felt that government service was necessary to receive suffrage.

He received a lot of flak for Starship Troopers. It turned out Scifi readers tend to have more open minds than that and the idea of marching lock step with government leadership did not sit well with most. Years later, he said he wished people would leave him alone about it.

Some of his ideas were pretty progressive to his credit, for 1959, like racial integration and a non-white protagonist. But change like that is not possible to achieve if you just follow the status quo and do what the boss says.

[Fumesucker]

40. You might want to read this, Heinlein knew the Soviets were in trouble in 1960

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/10/13/soviet/

Robert and Virginia Heinlein visited Moscow in 1960 and discovered Russia’s population crash, then in the early stages. The CIA discovered this 2 or 3 decades later.

http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=88809&p=97

She answered, "They claim to have finished the War with about two hundred million and Moscow at four million. Now they are claiming twenty - five million more in the Union, and over a million increase in Moscow." She thought a bit. "It's a lie. Unless they are breeding like flies everywhere outside Moscow, they have lost population since the War - not gained. I haven't found even one family with more than three children. The average is less than two. And they marry late. Robert, they aren't even replacing themselves."

She looked at that empty river. "Not quite as big as Copenhagen is my guess."

We stopped in many other cities - Alma Ata, Tashkent, Samarkand, Minsk, Vilno, Kiev, Riga, Leningrad, etc. - and she continued her gentle questioning but never found reason to change her opinion. Even out in the Muslim countries of Turkestan the birthrate was low, or the answers seemed to show it. She did not write down her figures (Well, I don't think she did; I warned her not to) but she has a memory that is effectively perfect as long as necessary.. . then she can wash out useless details, which I can't do.)

How was it possible for the Russians to claim that Moscow was seven times as big as it actually was? How could I be right and the whole world wrong? The World Almanac gave the same figures the Russians did, all news services seemed to accept Russian population figures - how could a Big Lie that big not be noticed - and denounced?

[MicaelS]

36. I still like Heinlein's work, including Starship Troopers.

Fuck Verhoeven for not putting powered armor in the movie.

[Fumesucker]

38. Mass charges of unarmored soldiers in an era of starships?

One of the stupidest things I've ever seen, so stupid it actually pissed me off.

Good thing our Revolutionary War troops weren't so imbecilic or we'd all be singing God Save the Queen still.

[Populist_Prole]

37. I got the fascist link from the get-go

It's so obvious. Even then, as now, I still like seeing it from time to time for its overall effect: Interesting CGI, deliberately hubristic militarism that backfires, a vibe that seems similar to 'Idiocracy' so as to make it a quasi-documentary of how wrong man can view the world.

Someone else above made a reference to how the movie was sold; more of an action-packed, chest-beating sci-fi thriller, and I tend to agree with this as much of the moviegoing public are shallow dunderheads. I know so many personally who are, despite other goood points. These are the types that will see 'Das Boot' and the sum total of their take on it will be the impact of the surround-sound depth charge explosions, and not the "people are people and just trying to survive" angle. It goes right the fuck over their heads.