That movie is completely brilliant. To be honest though, I've come across almost as many people who recognize its wonder as people who don't get it. Then again, I run with a fabulous group of people.
Yeah, man, you've always had me at hello on this one (sorry, just caught "Role Models" on cable last night, and I'm trying to work as many cliched movie lines into conversation as Paul Rudd did there).
It's obvious that Verhoeven was going for satire, but the reviewer sounds like an idiot. This: "For the men and women on the ground, the war against the bugs is not only pointless, but never-ending."
In both book and movie, the war against the bugs in not only not pointless, it's existential. As written and shown, the human race was facing the real possibility of being exterminated. Somehow the reviewer thinks that dropping an asteroid on Buenos Aires and destroying an entire city with a single strike means the bugs can't strike Earth. That's just stupid, especially for someone who claims to have watched the film multiple times.
Not sure this one even requires placement in the "new cult canon." It was *always* a cheeky satire. It had Neil Patrick Harris as a freakin' Nazi. It had Casper Van Dien in a leading role. It had Dina Meyer, who had was nearly 30 at the time, playing a high school student. It was intentionally camp-tastic from minute one...
Hold on, I'm about to do my best Roman from "Party Down" impression:
I'm a devotee of Robert A. Heinlein, the author of the source material. The original novel is a measured meditation on the place of military in society and the effects of war on its participants. The movie is a flashy, cheesy mess that ignores all the intelligence and wit of the books for sex in a tent.
I think it's in the core nature of cultural thinkers to try to find meaning in an otherwise excreable work, something I've indulged in myself, but honestly: this movie was made in a completely genuine manner. Verhoeven isn't trying to work some anti-war message into our brains, he was just doing a bad Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich imitation.
From Wikipedia: Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed."
So you're saying Verhoven *wasn't* aware that he was taking the cinematic language of the movie, in some cases *very* literally, from Nazi propaganda films? Every BIT of that film is self-conscious and self-aware, including the sex-in-the-tent scene and the coed shower scene. Verhoven is acknowledging the exploitation that Bay and Emmerich deliver as unwinking, irony-free celebrations.
I had hoped, going into the movie, that it would be a direct adaption of the book. I didn't get that. But I refuse to take a criticism of the movie as having anything to do with the book. Its as if someone decided to make a film of Elie Weisel's "Night" and produced "Surf Nazis Must Die."
I'm sorry, I appreciate all of this talk, but the movie has giant scary bugs. That are trying to kill Earth. There is no way in HELL I can sit through this movie.
If the fun satirical enemy army was made up of panda bears or something, that I could watch. This? Not so much.
The movie is very much Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, and not Heinlein's, but I'm good with that.
As a corollary to the totally valid point PE is making above: The expectation that the movie would be faithful to the spirit of the book is understandable, but to allow disappointment of that expectation to ruin a smart and hysterical bug-squishing satire is to miss an opportunity to giggle yourself silly.
The lifting of Nazi prop-speak wasn't something that I was aware of. I'm normally a big proponent of satire, but I failed to distinguish "Starship Troopers" as such. Maybe that's an indictment of how bad things have gotten, when a gruesome piece of satire comes off as a simply a watered-down version of his target.
Thank you, Dan; that greatly actually enhances my enjoyment of Verhoven's oeuvre. Plus, you beat me at fantasy baseball: that automatically means you're right.
OMG, I TOTALLY agree with you! I love that movie- it was so amazingly subversive, and everyone treated it like a cartoon.
ReplyDeleteThat movie is completely brilliant. To be honest though, I've come across almost as many people who recognize its wonder as people who don't get it. Then again, I run with a fabulous group of people.
ReplyDeleteYeah, man, you've always had me at hello on this one (sorry, just caught "Role Models" on cable last night, and I'm trying to work as many cliched movie lines into conversation as Paul Rudd did there).
ReplyDeleteI've been telling this to people for 10 years, and they're sick of it I think (also, that Clancy Brown is simply hysterical in it).
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that Verhoeven was going for satire, but the reviewer sounds like an idiot. This: "For the men and women on the ground, the war against the bugs is not only pointless, but never-ending."
ReplyDeleteIn both book and movie, the war against the bugs in not only not pointless, it's existential. As written and shown, the human race was facing the real possibility of being exterminated. Somehow the reviewer thinks that dropping an asteroid on Buenos Aires and destroying an entire city with a single strike means the bugs can't strike Earth. That's just stupid, especially for someone who claims to have watched the film multiple times.
Not sure this one even requires placement in the "new cult canon." It was *always* a cheeky satire. It had Neil Patrick Harris as a freakin' Nazi. It had Casper Van Dien in a leading role. It had Dina Meyer, who had was nearly 30 at the time, playing a high school student. It was intentionally camp-tastic from minute one...
ReplyDelete-Dan
Wait until Carrie shows up. We've had some arguments over this one.
ReplyDeleteHold on, I'm about to do my best Roman from "Party Down" impression:
ReplyDeleteI'm a devotee of Robert A. Heinlein, the author of the source material. The original novel is a measured meditation on the place of military in society and the effects of war on its participants. The movie is a flashy, cheesy mess that ignores all the intelligence and wit of the books for sex in a tent.
I think it's in the core nature of cultural thinkers to try to find meaning in an otherwise excreable work, something I've indulged in myself, but honestly: this movie was made in a completely genuine manner. Verhoeven isn't trying to work some anti-war message into our brains, he was just doing a bad Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich imitation.
From Wikipedia: Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed."
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying Verhoven *wasn't* aware that he was taking the cinematic language of the movie, in some cases *very* literally, from Nazi propaganda films? Every BIT of that film is self-conscious and self-aware, including the sex-in-the-tent scene and the coed shower scene. Verhoven is acknowledging the exploitation that Bay and Emmerich deliver as unwinking, irony-free celebrations.
ReplyDelete-Dan
I had hoped, going into the movie, that it would be a direct adaption of the book. I didn't get that. But I refuse to take a criticism of the movie as having anything to do with the book. Its as if someone decided to make a film of Elie Weisel's "Night" and produced "Surf Nazis Must Die."
ReplyDeleteAnd go back to my original piece -- most of Verhoeven's films function on this same level of knowing satire. Showgirls and Basic Instinct too.
ReplyDeleteAnd RoboCop even more overtly.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I appreciate all of this talk, but the movie has giant scary bugs. That are trying to kill Earth. There is no way in HELL I can sit through this movie.
ReplyDeleteIf the fun satirical enemy army was made up of panda bears or something, that I could watch. This? Not so much.
The movie is very much Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, and not Heinlein's, but I'm good with that.
ReplyDeleteAs a corollary to the totally valid point PE is making above: The expectation that the movie would be faithful to the spirit of the book is understandable, but to allow disappointment of that expectation to ruin a smart and hysterical bug-squishing satire is to miss an opportunity to giggle yourself silly.
The lifting of Nazi prop-speak wasn't something that I was aware of. I'm normally a big proponent of satire, but I failed to distinguish "Starship Troopers" as such. Maybe that's an indictment of how bad things have gotten, when a gruesome piece of satire comes off as a simply a watered-down version of his target.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dan; that greatly actually enhances my enjoyment of Verhoven's oeuvre. Plus, you beat me at fantasy baseball: that automatically means you're right.