Vorkosigan

You can say the satire doesn't work, but it's not "non-existent," Vork. You don't think Verhoeven was being humorous when he showed the human soldiers in Leni Riefenstahl geometric parade formations, dressed up Doogie Howser in a Gestapo outfit, or showed clips of little kids stepping on bugs to aid the war effort?

Just to pick your Leni Riefenstahl analogy at random, to what extent is that satirical in its use in the Disney films Antz and The Lion King? Or does it use that image as a sort of stock image to make a point about the societies in question in an earnest way?

Vorkosigan

bluefugue

By itself it might be earnest, but keep in mind in the movies you pointed out, the villains are visually characterized as Nazis; in Starship Troopers, Verhoeven characterizes the heroes as Nazis. Perhaps not satirical, but certainly ironic. And the other two examples (Doogie and the bug-stamping) are harder to label "earnest" by any stretch. Doogie in a Gestapo coat? Ok, I'll bend backwards and concede that Verhoeven wasn't trying to have fun by sticking a cute Hollywood golden boy in a Nazi outfit, and wasn't aware of the extra-textual associations we bring to an actor like Neal Patrick Harris Flannery (or whatever his name is). That still leaves the bug-stamping, as well as all those other "Would You Like To Know More?" propaganda clips, which are clearly played broadly and for comic effect, ridiculing over-the-top pro-gov't propaganda. (I.e. when Doogie and his fellow scientists jam a Cuisinart-looking device into the Brain Bug's face, which thrashes about under a "Censored" box while the voiceover solemnly intones the virtue of the war effort.) As far as I can tell this is clearly satire, and this in turn provides a context in which I interpret the Riefenstahl graphic imagery etc. It may be rather coarse and obvious satire, but I certainly wouldn't call it "nonexistent."

Edited to add:

I'm adjusting my comments on "Antz" a bit as I haven't seen it in a while. I thought the Nazi imagery was only used in scenes where the evil Gene Hackman general is manipulating the soldiers, but maybe it's used throughout in the military scenes. However the movie consistently sets apart Woody Allen's individuality from the lockstep mindlessness of the other ants, and so there is still a distinction between the two, whereas in ST, the very characters we are supposed to be identifying with are laced with Nazi imagery. So I still think there's a difference. In any case, it's really the "public information" propaganda clips that tipped me off to ST's satirical intent; the graphical stuff falls into place for me after that.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

GunnerJ

Actually, as I recall from the book, it wasn't nessisarily military service that got you citizenship, but government service in general. I recall a teacher saying something along the lines of, "If a blind man in a wheelchair wanted his franchise [citizenship], we'd send him up to the moon to feel the backs of caterpillars for two years to test how fuzy they are." The point being that what is required for citizenship is just some service int he government in any capacity you can work. Anyone can get a franchise, not just the militarily able.

elwoodblues

Just because it's in the book does NOT mean that he's supporting it. From what I remember (it's been awhile) there was some movement in that direction, dehumanization of the enemy (but they weren't human to begin with...). However, just because it was there does NOT mean he was necessarily saying 'hey, this is a great thing'. Maybe he saw Mcarthyism and it's ilk, translated that into a far-out story that broke you out of your immediate context, and said 'look at this, full in the face; what do _you_ think of it?'

The impression I had gotten was that the vast majority of the earth WAS like the area Rico was from. Quality of life increases across the board. Certainly different from the track most sci-fi authors take, but actually pretty rational given the historical trends.

Does it have to be overtly criticized by the author to be disturbing and appalling? Heinlein doesn't necessarily lead you around on a leash; he'll show you a situation and you've got to make up your own mind, usually.

Yes. I clearly remember a very low percentage of civil servants being soldiers, something on the line of 1% or 2%. It wasn't military service that was required, simply civil service.

Please read more Heinlein. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would be perfect. I just can't believe you would throw this at him. Sure, it's in the book. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean he supports it or agrees with it or likes it. Those are questions you have to decide for yourself, for your own purposes. Not whether HE agrees with it, but whether YOU do.

Not Prince Hamlet

You mean like:

• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0082910" target="_blank">James Cameron</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0153167" target="_blank">Francis Ford Coppola</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0021015" target="_blank">Alfred Hitchcock</a>

You mean like:

• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0038650" target="_blank">It's a Wonderful Life</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0034583" target="_blank">Casablanca</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0118799" target="_blank">Life is Beautiful</a>

You mean like:

• <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451527321/qid=1024117897/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-7337103-6396646" target="_blank">Gulliver's Travels</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0023969" target="_blank">Duck Soup</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0027977" target="_blank">Modern Times</a>
• <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Details?0088846" target="_blank">Brazil</a>

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

bluefugue

Actually, perhaps like Vorkosigan, I felt the satirical elements didn't quite mesh with the main story. Something seemed off about it. Maybe the problem was that, although the satire was funny, the main story, looked at by itself, wasn't that interesting, and bland acting (particularly Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards), even with ironic intent, is still bland acting. (Though I do appreciate the film for giving me the B-movie bliss of having Michael Ironside utter the line, "They sucked his brains out," and some of the supporting players, i.e. Jake Busey and Doogie, added some interest.) I can't help comparing Starship Troopers to Robocop, which could be viewed either as a) a satire of '80s corporate culture, or b) a straightforward action thriller, and satisfied on both levels. That film is still, IMO, Verhoeven's high-water mark, at least among his Hollywood oeuvre -- by turns hilarious and shockingly violent (sometimes both at the same time, as in the ED-209 board-room scene). Both films had the same screenwriter, Ed Neumeier, but I don't think he quite recaptured the magic the second time around.

I wouldn't call Starship Troopers a crappy straight movie. I'd call it, maybe, a flawed straight movie grafted onto a flawed satire. Worth watching but not entirely successful. I'm still a little bit undecided on it, though.

Not Prince Hamlet

Ah, that's a different point entirely. I won't dispute that the satire didn't mesh perfectly with the storyline. And I certainly will not argue with you about which is better: Robocop or Starship Troopers.

Jeff

Gurdur

Actually, Starship Troopers isn't the only crap movie of a mediocre Heinlein book --- <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0111003" target="_blank">The Puppet Masters</a> movie makes Starship Troopers almost look good in comparison.

Just to add further fuel to this fire: the story Farnham's Freehold, anyone ?

Vorkosigan

Maybe...I can see how the public information stuff and the other things people listed could be regarded as satirical, but the problem is that this is a world of the future and it utterly lacks reference points to the world of the Now. There's no "other" either implied or plain that would be satirized. The society of ST forms a seamless whole -- the Nazi references mesh with the bogus political commentary, the kids squshing bugs and everything else to form a vision of a facist society where people are controlled from birth. This is exactly the kind of thing that people mistake Heinlein for, when they don't read him right.

I have no doubt after reading on the web, that Verhoeven intended it as satire (I had never heard that prior to this conversation). But satire requires that presence of the thing being satirized, either implied or present, in the satire.

Take a satire like Blazing Saddles. It's obvious that western movies are being spoofed. Every cliche is there --but some are inverted or otherwise transformed. Instead of the white sheriff with the black sidekick, it is the opposite. The final scene takes place in a modern theatre. At the end, the gunman rides off into the sunset -- in a car. In other words, the object of satire is clear, and the conventions of the form undergo some kind of transformation that is humorous and exposes their underlying assumptions.

Now look at ST. What is the object of the satire? It is nowhere present. Is it SF movies (there are no clear references to any)? American foreign policy? Hollywood film making? The problem with a science fiction universe is that it has no obvious referent in the Now -- it is the future, completely so. You have to clearly establish how it relates to the Now so that the satire can be seen and appreciated. For example, in The Stars My Destination Bester satirizes corporate sameness by having corporate sales associates undergo plastic surgery so that they look more like the Founder of the corporation. Bester links this practice to the Now by using the names of current corporations. Nowhere is ST ever linked to the Now. It remains solidly in the future, and within that future, it is entirely consistent -- the society is facist in all its facets --what's satirical about that? Nowhere is there a suggestion in the film that we should regard it as satire; there's no other voice or view present. For all the viewer knows -- as many critics and viewers thought -- Verheoven intended it as a straight read of the novel. This view is even more plausible because that is the way it is often and incorrectly read. As Not Prince Hamlet did, and I suspect Verheoven as well.

You are correct, in Antz the lockstep marching is there to show what kind of society Z lives in. But it is meant in all seriousness; the satire is supplied by Z, the "Other" who makes the satire go. And that is my other point; in the symbology of Hollywood, lockstep marching is a negative symbol -- as it is in ST. If Verheoven wanted us to see it as satire, why didn't he transform it somehow, turn the symbol inside out? Instead, he gives us a facist society where people march in lockstep. That's supposed to be satirical? That would be par for the course in such a society! And again, let me emphasize, unlike Mel Brooks, Verhoeven never strays from Hollywood convention. What's scary is the thought that he thought he was making satire, but simply followed Hollywood formula.

Not Prince Hamlet referenced Brazil, a fantasy/SF movie with many satirical elements, including its O Henry ending. But in Brazil the Now surfaces constantly, like when the torturer tells poor Mr. Buttle that fighting him will only spoil his credit rating, or the Consumers for Christ. The film is set in the 20th century. Etc. ST contains no references like that. Oh, and Brazil is brilliantly directed, with an Oscar-nominated script. Those are areas where ST just plain sucks, as dangin put is so delicately.

No matter how you cut it, the last hour or so of ST is just bad action flick. <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/95/9557" target="_blank">As one review says</a>: "Ultimately, Verhoeven's motives are irrelevant. He has produce a gargantuan film that fails as an action film or as a social satire. It even fails to be an entertaining bad movie. Avoid "Starship Troopers" at all costs."

I can only agree.

Vorkosigan

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/97/9765" target="_blank">Review by David Gerrold</a>, writer of Star Trek eps and other famous SF stuff.

Vorkosigan