Critics Reassess Starship Troopers As a Misunderstood Masterpiece 726
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Calum Marsh writes in The Atlantic that when Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, American critics slammed it as a 'crazed, lurid spectacle' featuring 'raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys' and 'a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent.' But now the reputation of the movie based on Robert Heinlein's Hugo award winning novel is beginning to improve as critics begin to recognize the film as a critique of the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason. 'Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism,' writes Marsh. 'The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.' The movie has rightfully come to be appreciated by some as an unsung masterpiece. Coming in at number 20 on Slant Magazine's list of the 100 best films of the 1990s last year, the site's Phil Coldiron described it as 'one of the greatest of all anti-imperialist films,' a parody of Hollywood form whose superficial 'badness' is central to its critique. 'That concept is stiob, which I'll crudely define as a form of parody requiring such a degree of over-identification with the subject being parodied that it becomes impossible to tell where the love for that subject ends and the parody begins,' writes Coldiron. 'If you're prepared for the rigor and intensity of Verhoeven's approach—you'll get the joke Starship Troopers is telling,' says Marsh. 'And you'll laugh.'"
The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Funny)
The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug.
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mobile infantry made me the man I am today,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPTPe33PQY [youtube.com]
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an interesting change from the book, because the scene is almost exactly the same but the meaning is totally changed (once you get another chapter in they diverge to the extent that it's impossible to tell they they're even similar stories). In the book, he's in the recruiting office to discourage people from signing up with any rosy view of what they're getting in to. When he leaves, he puts on prosthetics that make him seem completely normal - the mutilated veteran appearance is just for show.
There's a good reason why the film diverged from the book - the book just isn't that good. The film is a satire of what Heinlein wrote in total seriousness. His books are a mixture of cult-of-the-individual libertarianism and characters travelling back in time so that they can fuck their mother[1]. It must be incredibly hard to write a screenplay based on his work that isn't satire, because there's no way you can take it seriously.
[1] Yes, he really did write two books about this.
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure satire "works" if most of the people whose views are being satirized in the film like it and think it's cool. And if most other people with different views also like it and think it's cool. Doesn't this effect promote these views rather than being a 'funny critique' as was perhaps intended?
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Informative)
There's a good reason why the film diverged from the book - the book just isn't that good.
I thought the book was interesting. It depicts a form of government that is unheard of in modern society which seems to try to reconcile some of the libertarian vs communist conflicts. (For those who haven't read it the gist of it is that the world is governed by a democracy in which only those who have served in the military can vote. The argument is that voting rights are open to anybody, but only after demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Non-voters still obtain the same freedoms/rights/etc, but are not trusted with the operation of the government.) I think it uses a story as a way to explore interesting questions - ones that are certainly relevant today in a world where we ban behavior that doesn't hurt anybody, allow people to hurt themselves, pay to fix people who have hurt themselves, have lots of people who are unemployable, etc. How do you reconcile the libertarian ideal of personal responsibility and freedom with the reality that many don't seem to thrive under those conditions?
I'm not suggesting that creating the mobile infantry is the solution. Oh, and I find it amusing that they still use the term "mobile infantry" in the movie. The movie mostly has guys getting dropped off by spacecraft and running around on foot. In the book mobile infantry was more about guys running around in mechs - which really does sound like "mobile infantry."
His books are a mixture of cult-of-the-individual libertarianism and characters travelling back in time so that they can fuck their mother.
Can't say that I've read any of his other books. Honestly, this sort of stuff seems to be pretty common in Sci Fi and is part of why I don't read all that much of it. You can have conceptually interesting books like Ringworld and then 14 sequels which seem to be filled with bizarre sexual fantasies.
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may be conflating a disdain with his ideology/politics from whether or not he's capable in the role of Senator. I can just as easily think of many more Senators with no record of military service that I wish were out of a job.
I also recall that in that particular book, you didn't have to be in the infantry to get those rights...you could be a cook or a pilot or a medic, etc. The idea of being willing to sacrifice as a litmus test for suitability as a government servant in another capacity isn't a bad one. We (in the US) only really have the military as a way to serve in that capacity...the peace corps would be a similar example that I think Heinlein would have seen as falling into this category.
It's not a bad idea...why trust someone with the responsibility to make decisions that will impact the lives of everyone when they never had any skin in the game?
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Only Good Bug is a Dead Bug. (Score:5, Interesting)
Showgirls is a film about capitalism. A brilliant expose on naked and ruthless ambition to "make it to the top" through voluntary self-prostitution. As a Dutch person, America's sarcasm detector seems collectively turned completely off. All of Paul Verhoevens films are dark comedies about the big issues of our times (as seen by Mr. Verhoeven), but it seems it takes another Dutchman to see this. The fact that some people only now see Starship Troopers as perhaps somewhat sarcastic blows my mind. How can you miss it?
It's such an obvious critique of nationalism, patriotism, propaganda, the military-industrial complex and jingoism that I really cannot fathom anybody seeing it in any other context.
It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why did they bother to call it Starship Troopers? A fun movie but no trace of what was special in the original remains.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Starship Troopers was an entirely serious book, with some deep social commentary. Much of the current social morass might have been avoided if it (and similar ideas) had been heeded.
The Starship Troopers movie was a travesty that RAH would have hated!
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Starship Troopers was an entirely serious book, with some deep social commentary.
Years ago, when I was undergoing U.S. Marine Corps infantry training, we were given a reading list of books on military leadership. Starship Troopers was on the list. It was one of the best books on leadership, and training, that I have ever read. Stay on the bounce.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously? Social morass? The crime rate has plummeted in recent decades, you know.
That book advocates some majorly wackadoo ideology. Did you notice the part where Heinlein's obligatory self-insert character (this time an instructor, since he hadn't progressed to Gary Stu-ing the protagonist yet, much less half the cast, like in his later books) states matter-of-fact that the United States was destroyed because they ended corporal punishment in schools, and that the only way to instill a moral compass in a child is to beat it into him?
This shit is contradicted by both history and psychology -- the moral compass develops naturally; frequent beatings, rather than teaching right and wrong, are one of the most effective ways to turn a child into a morally bankrupt sociopath.
And don't get me started on the laughable "disproof" of Marx's Labor Theory of Value -- if Heinlein hadn't been such a puffed-up self-important asshat, he might have notced that Marx deals with his disproof in the first fucking chapter of Das Kapital.
(And anyway, the LTV is not why Marx is wrong. The LTV is basically a statement about how the price of commodity goods is inexorably pressured downward towards the cost of labor needed to produce it. It doesn't apply to anything that's not a fungible commodity, and Marx warns readers not to do so.)
I love Heinlein's books, but let's get real here -- he was a political kook who got kookier the older he got, and he frequently wrote awful stuff. (Like those later books where Old Man Heinlein Gary Stu and Young Man Heinlein Gary Stu hang out with Gorgeous Girl Heinlein Mary Sues and they all have sex with each other. *shudder*) If you think his politics are great, you just might be a kook yourself.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
White collar and government criminals aren't being prosecuted, except for drug or sex crimes. It only LOOKS like the crime rate has plummeted.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Starship Troopers was an entirely serious book, with some deep social commentary. Much of the current social morass might have been avoided if it (and similar ideas) had been heeded.
The Starship Troopers movie was a travesty that RAH would have hated!
And the fact that there are many people who agree with you is exactly what makes Verhoven's movie high art. (It's not that Heinlein had nothing to say, it's just that his was a very one-sided viewpoint. The film gives a look at the same ideas from an entirely different axis.)
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that establishing a fascist government ruled by the military wouldn't necessarily produce the peaceful utopia that you (and Heinlein) think it might. The great thing about Verhoeven is that he was uniquely qualified to see that, having grown up in Nazi-occupied Europe during the War. What sounds like a good idea on paper often leads to very bad things in actual practice.
Re: (Score:3)
mmm, the highest military official is elected.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Despite the title that's never been true since Washington stepped down from the Presidency. It's a civilian giving the military instructions via a chain of command. There's been glitches such as Oliver North where apparently the President was issuing direct orders himself - but that fuckup led to selling weapons to people that had blown up more than one hundred US marines less than a year before.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could enumerate the various ways the screenwriters took liberties with The Dean's work, but /. does not allow posts of that length. Suffice to say that the film was as much an adaptation of the book of the same name as it was of another book, Cornflowers by the Roadside [amazon.com]. Or the Iliad.
Starship Troopers (the book) was not RAH's masterpiece by any means - it was intended and sold as pulp sci-fi to grab a teen market and make a quick buck, as many of his works were. He was unapologetically a literary prostitute in this era, but managed to work into that a hint of flavor of what he was really about.
There was no reason I can tell to associate his name with this movie other than to sell movie tickets and DVDs to his fans. It named some of the characters in the book (sometimes changing their gender). It had some of the words. It had Bugs Vs Humans. That's about it. It was a famous author's name exploitation CGI schockfest. And yes, I bought the movie tickets and the videos anyway, to keep my collection complete. So it worked.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
It was patently clear that Paul Verhoeven was neither a fan of Robert Heinlein nor had anything even remotely similar to Heinlein's political philosophy toward life in general. On the whole Heinlein was mostly libertarian with a conservative bias, certainly not the hardcore conservative that some (including Verhoeven) have pained the guy.
When I compare and contrast that with Peter Jackson's rendition of Lord of the Rings, Jackson was at least a fan of that book as was most of the production staff (particular the cast). While hardcore fans of the book might have some issues with regards to how Jackson actually did the screenplay and movie, the films definitely captured the essential flavors of the book and made you love and hate the various characters as much as those in the book.
I saw absolutely none of that with Starship Troopers, where Paul Verhoeven in the "making of" featurettes openly bragged that he was no Heinlein fan and was deliberately making a parody of some of Heinlein's political philosophies. Most of the production crew had never even read the book, and of those who had basically skimmed the book instead largely just for this one production. Almost nobody was a fan of Heinlein that was also involved with the production.
The proof that they were very much off base was with regards to the Starship Trooper sequals, that went from bad to worse and ended up so horrible that they became direct to video releases instead. As bad as the original movie was, the sequels went down the proverbial rabbit hole and were in a completely different universe. They remind me more of the Star Wars Christmas Special in terms of production quality.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite example. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the movie, the instructor throws a knife through the recruit's hand, and says, "Hard to push a button now, eh?"
I get that the movie is satire. I even get that there's a lot in the book that can be fairly satirized. The problem is, the movie is lazy, unfair, incompetent satire.
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It followed a few of the plot lines, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
I think he got it quite well. The basic premise is that the only citizens who deserve any rights are those who serve the State, preferably the military, but serve the State nonetheless.
There is a name for a political system like that, and we know it doesn't come without downsides like massive bloodshed.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Interesting)
When it (the movie) first came out, I was mostly in it for the bare boobs. We didn't have Internet access back then.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
It was pretty easy to connect back in 1997, even in rural areas:
Step 1: Walk to the mail box
Step 2: Remove the daily unsolicited floppy disk
Step 3: Follow the printed instructions
Welcome to the Information Super Highway!*
*Long distance charges may apply if you do not select a LOCAL AOLnet phone number. Please check with your local telephone company if you have a question.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
People frequently misunderstood Heinlein. He wrote about many fictional societies in which he took some idea that sort of sounded good, and pursued it to its logical extreme where it broke.
People read Starship Troopers and see Heinlein as a fascist, instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there. We're all brainwashed by our culture to some extent, after all, because that's what culture is.
People read Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and see Heinlein as a Libertarian (gotta watch those libertarian fascists!), instead of seeing the book as illustrating the good and bad sides to such a society from the point of view of someone living there.
In both books our heroes defeat the major dramatic conflict, but also find that society did not become utopia as a result.
The movie was a shallow satire. The book was a thoughtful morality play. I still like the movie though, as was far more annoyed by the lack of jumpsuits than the political fun.
Not really fascist (Score:5, Interesting)
I must strongly disagree with the use of the word "fascist" with respect to the society portrayed in the novel Starship Troopers.
Let's look at how Wikipedia defines fascism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [wikipedia.org]
None of these apply to the society portrayed in the book.
The first item: the sole means by which the government attempted to impart any point of view on the citizens was a high-school class called "History and Moral Philosophy" that was always taught by a full citizen, but which the student was not required to pass. The examples from when the protagonist took the class did debunk some of the tenets of communism, though. (Labor does not always add value. An unskilled cook can take pie dough and apples and produce a burned mess, where a skilled cook can produce a delicious dessert, so the "labor theory of value" in its simplest form is disproven by example.)
The second item: the government did not run businesses. The society operated in a free market. The amount of regulations imposed by the government was never explicitly spelled out, but my impression is that the amount of regulation was low, as discussions of business did not tend to rants about permits or bureaucratic interference.
The third one at first seems plausible, as the book is (in Heinlein's own words) intended to present lowly soldiers in a good light (as opposed to senior generals, Presidents, etc.). However, the government in the book did not promote such ideas. Instead, the government took steps to scare people off from becoming soldiers. For example, having a maimed military veteran sit outside the recruiting station and warn young people that they could get maimed like he had been. (Later, the protagonist meets this veteran again, and he is off-duty and wearing artificial limbs that look real and work about like the real thing, and the veteran's manner is completely changed; he congratulates the protagonist for choosing to serve in the infantry.)
My opinion could be slanted, as I am politically a minarchist libertarian, but the society in Starship Troopers appears to be a minarchist libertarian government. The government is relatively small and does relatively little, and what it does do seems to be mostly confined to defense and police. The common attitude among most of the population is that they want nothing to do with government, which seems unlikely if government was a major force in peoples' lives. (The protagonist's father has not earned the right to vote, and proudly tells the protagonist at one point that he is a third generation non-voter; why would he want to earn a vote? No profit in that, the time is better spent building the business.)
The described history in Starship Troopers went like this: During a time of wide-spread social upheaval, the old governments disintegrated and new ones formed. One of the new governments, mentioned as an example, used "scientific" techniques to pick who would be in charge; it failed. Eventually a bunch of military veterans banded together and began keeping some sort of peace within the area they were able to patrol, and this expanded to become a new system of government. Voting was limited to people who had served at least one term of service in the government. Service could be military but could also be anything else the government needed to have done, such as scientific research. Also, according to their laws, the government had to accept any volunteer and find some work for them to do. (Someone asked what would happen if a blind and deaf person applied for service; the answer was that even if the job was something silly like counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, some work would be found.) The protagonist only wanted military service and did not apply for non-military service, but the option for non-military service was open to him. Finally, the vote was limited to people who had completed their government service but were no longer employed by the government; this wasn't discussed much, but the brief discussion was approximately that the society wanted to avoid the moral hazard of people using the political process to increase their own salary and/or benefits.
I'm afraid I must disagree with you that Heinlein always pursued the ideas of where a society breaks down. Starship Troopers shows a society not breaking down, but gearing up to fight against the threat of "the Bugs". In real life Heinlein was pro-freedom and anti-communist, and some people opine that the Bugs were intended as an allegory for communists. That's plausible. On the other hand, the book is not an exploration of the morality of war; the Bug War was presented as a simple moral situation, that the Bugs started attacking human colonies because Bugs like the same sort of planets humans like. Heinlein had no doubts as to whether World War II was a "just war" and his fictional Bug War was clearly described as a "just war". Humanity needed to defend itself, and was doing so. Anyway, the Bugs were an implacable enemy who started the war and couldn't be bargained with or reasoned with, making a very simple moral situation.
For a better example of showing the bad points of a society, read Starman Jones. In that novel, a system of guilds divides up the available jobs and jealously guards their own part of the job market; you cannot get a job as an astrogator without joining the Astrogator's Guild, and that guild was unlikely to let you join. (You needed to be invited in by a relative or close friend.) Or, for an even more nuanced look at a society, read Citizen of the Galaxy and see how the Free Traders are simultaneously the most free people in the galaxy, and yet their society chains them into rigid social structures.
In both books our heroes defeat the major dramatic conflict, but also find that society did not become utopia as a result.
On this point I agree with you completely. Heinlein wasn't too much for utopias. At the end of his career he wrote some weaker novels where the main characters lived in a highly advanced society of abundance, with disease and aging pretty much solved problems, but even those characters wound up having problems they needed to solve.
The movie was a shallow satire. The book was a thoughtful morality play.
I agree with these points. The satire in Robocop went over well, and I felt that the satire in the Starship Troopers movie was an attempt to go back to that same well; it fell flat for me. The book had a simple moral: the height of morality is to put yourself at risk to defend others from harm.
I still like the movie though, as was far more annoyed by the lack of jumpsuits than the political fun.
The lack of powered armor really bothered me. In the movie they used something very like an M-16 despite the fact that they were fighting giant bugs with nontrivial amounts of armor; they had hopelessly inadequate equipment and got slaughtered a lot. In the book the soldiers were highly mobile, heavily armed, and well-trained in the use of their weapons, and led by well-trained officers who used effective tactics. (The leaders were not portrayed as flawless, though; the first attack on the Bugs' homeworld, Operation Bughouse, was a horrible bloody disaster that devastated the military forces.)
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Interesting)
Heinlein was a master of science fiction because like Roddenberry he knew that the widgets of tech and culture in the story were just props to disassociate the reader from his JOB, to let him focus on the morality play. His stories were not really about future science or culture - that was just the setting. The stories were about people, the conflicts that arise between them and how they were resolved. If he worked some social commentary into the props that was just his masterful art.
He tried it the other way unsuccessfully, and frankly a 2-page footnote just loses the whole thing. That was a total loss, a commercial failure.
People care about the interplay between people. Only.
He was more open about exploring how familial relationships impact a culture. What he got out of that was hippies camped on his lawn.
BTW: One night over bridge (they did this regularly, with generous libations) L. Ron Hubbard and RAH made a $1 bet over who could create the better sci-fi religion. LRH gave us Battleship Earth and Scientology. RAH gave us Stranger In a Strange Land and the Universal Life Church. Eventually RAH wrote: "Here's your buck. Get these hippies off my lawn." LRH fell into the adoration of his self-created church, and RAH escaped capture from his.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
I am quite surprised at so many self-declared intelligent people who seem to be unable to distinguish between "Starship Troopers depicts a fascist society" and "Robert Heinlein was a fascist".
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
canadian_right confessed:
I've always enjoyed the movie Star Ship Troopers as a satire of fascism and chauvinism. I thought it conveyed the spirit of the book, if a bit skewed, quite well.
Oh, for criminy's sake! A "satire of fascism and chavinism" that "conveyed the spirit of the book"? Give to me a break.
The two things are ENTIRELY mutually exclusive. You can convey the spirit of Heinlein's final juvenile novel, or you can make a "satire of fascism and chauvinism", but you cannot do both. In fact, I'm reminded of Heinlein's own observation that, "A man may choose to follow the path of faith, or the path of reason. He cannot do both."
Starship Troopers, the novel, is a straightforward exposition of the process by which callow teenagers are transformed into trained soldiers. There's no trace of sexism in it, and no hint of fascism, either. (That Heinlein sets the story in a society in which an individual must serve the public for a period - remarks he made in response to interviews published over the years made it clear that he did not envision military service as the only option - before being granted the sovereign franchise does NOT amount to "fascism".) The movie, by contrast, discards every trace of what makes the book effective as a coming-of-age tale, replaces Heinlein's social model with a truly fascist one, and makes the military's leadership a clown college (Space marines using carbines against the Bugs? Really?), to boot. It has NOTHING to do with the book, besides sharing a title.
You, sir, are a ninnyhammer.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW: Paraphrasing, Chauvinism's original definition is the unwavering and unquestioning belief in an idea / cause / leader etc.
Chauvinism was picked up by feminists, and under the variant "Male Chauvinism", as in an unquestioning belief in male superiority. Over time, this got shortened to Chauvinism again, masking the original meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie, by contrast, discards every trace of what makes the book effective as a coming-of-age tale, replaces Heinlein's social model with a truly fascist one, and makes the military's leadership a clown college (Space marines using carbines against the Bugs? Really?), to boot. It has NOTHING to do with the book, besides sharing a title.
If you look at other 'serious' films that Verhoeven has directed, you'll quickly see that he's got a major bee in his bonnet about the effects of Nazism on his birthplace, the Netherlands. Take a look at Soldier of Orange [imdb.com] or The Black Book [imdb.com]. They're brilliant, subtle and morally complex treatments of life (and death) in a time when the world was turned upside down by a sadistic totalitarian regime.
Clearly, Verhoeven appropriated the frame that Starship Troopers provided for his own purposes: to satirise not only fascism and the incipient militarism of American society, but also the wanton war-porn that Hollywood loves so much. It is a bitter, bitter film.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Informative)
People often forget why service was pushed so hard. You could not vote in an election if you weren't a veteran. The reason why veterans were the only voting group was because they were the ones who rebuilt the government after it collapsed. No politician from that day forward could send someone to war without knowing the horrors of it.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be a meta-satire, expecting lefties to look for parts they think is hilarious, but at an even deeper level approving it. Like the citizenship idea - something earned by e.g. being willing to put your life on the line for your country, by taking a personal responsibility. In a way, it's just an amplification of JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you ..." line.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Interesting)
What? No it didn't. Not at all. What book did you read?
No basic, no skinnies, no OCS, no power armor, no drops etc etc etc.
Plus all the 90210 idiots...blah.
It was obvious that the movie makers did have an axe to grind. The almost Nazi uniforms were the giveaway.
Re: (Score:3)
No basic? Really? The Starship Troopers I saw had a long sequence of basic, including the scene where Rico screws up, gets someone killed, and takes a bunch of lashes. I don't know that it's word for word what was in the book (haven't read it in many years) but it was pretty darned close.
In general the movie followed the book plot, but it of course it was done as satire, because what's the alternative? What Heinlein wrote was a fun juvenile book, but pretty hard to take seriously as an adult, and if the
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Informative)
No basic? Really? The Starship Troopers I saw had a long sequence of basic, including the scene where Rico screws up, gets someone killed, and takes a bunch of lashes. I don't know that it's word for word what was in the book (haven't read it in many years) but it was pretty darned close.
Rico does not get anyone killed in basic training in the novel. In the novel, Rico gets lashes for conduct that, in real combat, would have caused serious injury or death to his fellow soldiers (he fires a fake nuclear rocket at a target without ordering the recruits nearby to clear the area first).
There is technically a part of the movie in which Rico is in basic training, but its relationship to the related parts of the book is essentially in name only. The basic scenes in the novel are specifically the part of the novel where Rico's indoctrination into the MI causes him to begin to understand - for good or bad - what society had been trying to teach him about morality and public service, and how rights and responsibilities are necessarily intertwined.
The critical difference between Starship Troopers the movie and Starship Troopers the novel is that in the novel the MI (and the Federal government in general) are a competent, moral (by some definition), integrated part of the overall government and society and the choice to serve or not serve is portrayed as a fair choice: some people want to and can serve, some people don't want to or cannot serve. Those who do not serve have nearly all the rights of those who do not: the main two rights they don't get are the right to serve in law enforcement or the federal government, and the right to vote.
I should point out here that originally, only property owners had the right to vote in the United States under the Constitution. And the rationale for that restriction is spelled out in the Federalist papers as very similar to that espoused by the fictional government in the novel. In the Federalist papers, its stated that in effect, it did not make sense for people without any "skin in the game" to have the power to dictate what the government did by voting. If you didn't own property, you couldn't be taxed (the income tax didn't exist yet). The logic was that only people who pay taxes should decide how they were spent. That notion of suffrage evolved over time as the role of government began to affect everyone increasingly whether they were property owners or not. But in the novel, the rationale for only giving veterans the right to vote is: they've proven they are willing to give up *all* their rights to serve others, even if only temporarily. And in fact, veterans have the right to vote but *active military* does not.
This is a vast contrast to the movie, where the MI is portrayed as cartoonish incompetent fools and jingoish lunatics. Rico never comes to the realizations he does in the novel regarding morality and responsibility. First he joins out of peer pressure (granted, he does this in the novel also). Then he stays to seek revenge for Buenos Aires (he decides to stay in the novel when he realizes he now agrees with his moral history teacher's teachings about responsibility and service). Then out of the blue he gives a weird eulogy for Dizzy that I guess is supposed to parallel his decision to join OCS in the novel, but there's absolutely no character growth leading up to that point at all.
Rico has an actual character arc in the novel which *is* the whole story. Rico in the movie is a literal marrionette, yanked around to dance whatever dance is required in each scene, without any character arc at all. And without that character arc, there is no story. Instead, Starship Troopers the movie is a movie where Stuff Just Happens. Its often visually entertaining Stuff That Happens, but there's no real story connecting the Stuff That Happens.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with almost everything you wrote here. I'll just pick one nit.
He got in trouble for not taking his training seriously enough. The formal charges were "taking actions that could have resulted in death in real combat" but what he actually did was:
They were training in "simulated darkness" using infra-red "snooper scopes" which were a bit of a pain. He got frustrated and flipped the cope up and used unaided vision to check to see if anyone was in the area; because there was actually plenty of light he was able to see that it was safe. Indeed, he felt smug for being clever enough to do it that way... for avery brief time. However, the training suits had sensors that recorded the fact that he had flipped the scope up, and that is why he got in trouble.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first saw it my brain was a bit fried from an intense work day. I wanted a dumb as crap movie that I could tune out to. Fellow devs at the time said, "it's just mindless action." OK, good enough for me. But when I watched it it was a deep critique of society as a nascent fascist state. I actually liked it, a lot. If you have ever seen the propaganda movies of WW2, and enough footage from the Third Reich then "Starship Troopers" is a brilliant movie. Not much to do with the book though. I liked how you were suckered into thinking you were on the good side until it slowly became obvious that you were on the wrong, very wrong, side. The intelligence guy, whats-is-name, dressed like a gestapo officer, executing prisoners, conducting experiments on prisoners. Even the uniforms, nice versions of German WW2 military uniforms.
Most frightening part was that most people I knew who saw it didn't even realise that it was about a fascist state. Oh crap that was creepy. Not one of the great movies, but underrated I think.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
The real disturbing moment was when I rewatched the movie a few years after 9/11 and realized just how much it had anticipated correctly.
Does it still count as satire when it's so spot on?
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Funny)
I was surprised how well the movie tried to follow the plot of the book.
In what way did the movie follow the plot of the book? Verhoeven even admitted that he didn't even finish the novel. He supposedly read a couple of chapters then got bored and stopped. Outside of a handful of similar events they are almost nothing alike.
Might want to add that it is a very short book.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
"speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers"
Hollyweird is the definition of vapidity, IMO.
I will note that the movie made no attempt to delve into the political statements made in the book. Of course, Hollyweird isn't really into libertarian thought, so they would have brushed over that if they did understand it.
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:5, Interesting)
I will note that the movie made no attempt to delve into the political statements made in the book.
Not in so many words perhaps. But they're there, mostly subtle. Watch it again, ignoring the violence, nudity, and spaceships. I watched it in the theaters the first time and thought it was absolute crap. I watched it at home recently a second time, and I actually surprised myself at how much I enjoyed it.
It's like a brilliant Pixar movie, but live action and for adults instead of children. I.e., in a Pixar movie, the kids are entertained, but the adults get all the subtlety. In Starship Troopers, the adults are entertained, only certain people will get all the subtlety.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, the movie tried to convey the opposite message that the book did.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we got that it was satire. It only took 16 years for them to find someone who thought it was a GOOD satire.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging from the reviews you didn't get that it was satire in the first place.
This maybe says more about the so-called critics than what they said about the movie.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the movie a few years after it came out, and that's exactly what I thought. The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
My experience is that Europeans recognized the satire immediately, while Americans thought it was a serious movie glamourising American militarism.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Informative)
The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
My experience is that Europeans recognized the satire immediately, while Americans thought it was a serious movie glamourising American militarism.
Um, no, we did not think that. We thought it was a spectacularly badly made movie.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
We on the other hand thought it was a glorious parody. Not amazingly well made, but the quality of the satire made up for what the movie was lacking. If anything I dare say that it might be hitting just a bit too close to home for a number of US folks to truly appreciate. For me, it was almost like being inside a ninety minute example of Poe's Law - dazzlingly brilliant in its dark undercurrent of ghastliness.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. Please explain how you can satirize a source which you have not read.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. Please explain how you can satirize a source which you have not read.
It's a satire on American militarism, not Heinlein.
Americans just don't like to think of themselves as the most militaristic nation on Earth, which is why they either can't see it, or keep denying it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The satire was Hollyweird's, not Heinlein's. The story portrayed in the movie is NOT the story that Heinlein wrote.
Re:You what? (Score:5, Informative)
This was before the internet as we know it. In 1990, in the US, we were told what to think by NBC/CBS/ABC. If you disagreed with anything you saw on those 3 networks (which all pretty much agreed with each other) you were considered mental ill.
Re: (Score:3)
Not exactly. It took us 16 years to work out what was being satirized.
As stoned kids, we thought it satirized militarism. As drunk adults, we think it satirizes Heinlein.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
You'll understand in time. See you in 16 years.
self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism (Score:3)
I don't think right-wing has that cornered these days. Granted, starting with Korea or so a lot of our wars were right-wing, but Obama has sort of swung them back left.
Re:self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Left and right are mindsets - not political movements.
While the two mindsets you describe exist and are, as you said, both useful, I don't think they have much to do with left vs. right these days (or liberal vs. conservative if you prefer). I think that left/liberal and right/conservative have, as used in contemporary American politics, become teams you root for, or just brand labels.
Sorry, no. (Score:4, Informative)
This is not a new argument. It was made often at the time the film came out. Anyone following rec.arts.movies at the time is very familiar with the arguments that "it's a parody" and "you hate it because you just don't get it". (Check google groups for references.) This rang hollow at the time and it still does. There are several counter-arguments: If you followed the advance information while the film was being made, you know that aspects of the film were more expensive than originally thought, and the script kept getting simplified... and simplified again... and what ended up on screen were some pretty spectacular digital bug effects (for the time) coupled with unbelievably cheesy sets, costumes, and dialog, that being all they could afford with what was left. About that time the shift to "it's a parody! Really!" started.
I saw it for free (a company perk) and wanted my money back.
One could argue there's a reason this was Ed Neumeier's last big screen script, and why Verhoeven hasn't made a Hollywood film since the turn of the century.
So, no. Just no.
Re:Sorry, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
About a year after the movie came out I was in the book store and found a book about the making of the SST movie. In it they talk about the guys who originally wrote the script wanting to make a movie about WW1 soldiers fighting bugs. They couldn't find any takers. Someone said they should look at SST because it was about soldiers fighting bugs. They did, liked it, convinced Virginia Heinlein to option the movie rights to them, and they managed to get Verhoeven involved. He wanted to make a movie that satirized his experiences with fascist states and took it in that direction, and repeatedly admitted that he never bothered reading the book. When the budget cuts came and it was a choice between power armor and bugs, bugs won out because that was the point of the movie. Total hatchet job.
Re:Sorry, no. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sorry, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Verhoven films usually are a social commentary embedded in a nice action flick - so you can enjoy it as a pure action movie, or analyze it for the subtext. Robocop is another one commenting about society and policing. And oddly, it seems we're definitely headed towards the world Robocop was set in. Only took nearly 30 years.
Anyhow, Starship Troopers, the book, was also designed to be a commentary about war and propaganda as well.
Of course, the problem is that Starship Troopers is much more complex than the film technology we had back in the day. Notably, power suits. Trivially done today with CG and costumes, but back then, technology wasn't robust enough.
Of course, the problem with remakes (like 2014's Robocop) is that they're likely to ignore the entire subtext, or make it so blindingly obvious that the message being communicated is lost.
If that gets better when "reassessed" (Score:5, Funny)
that can only mean one thing: That the current piss being pushed out by Hollywood is really bringing the standards down. And in comparison, even turds can shine.
Give it another decade and then let's take a look at Uwe Boll movies again.
What wouldn't Atlantic publish? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though a far-Left Socialist in his pre-war youth, Heinlein moved firmly to the near-Libertarian right by the end of 1940-ies (he was a big proponent of government's sponsorship of space-exploration, which does not make him quite a Libertarian).
His novel [wikipedia.org] asked the question, that bothered him for years — why do we bestow the franchise on every born American? His argument was that between the king having full power in a monarchy to the power being shared by all in a democracy there is a middle ground of voting rights being held only by those, who have demonstrated — through personal sacrifice — their willingness to serve the humanity (as a civil servant or a soldier). Under his plan, you'd only get to vote after retiring from the service — something the protagonist forgoes for many years by deciding to become a career officer...
Very little of this is in a movie — and it was justly derided for the omission.
But to find satire on "jingoism" and "American militarism" — however much the Atlantic's Illiberals may want to scratch that particular itch — in that movie is to give it way too much credit.
Re: (Score:3)
At least somebody here RTFB...
Re:What wouldn't Atlantic publish? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is perfectly possible to achieve that without allowing everyone to vote. The criteria could be — from Heinlein's other writings — an ability to solve a linear (or square) equation, for example. Regardless of the rule, as long as the race is not explicitly mentioned, various classes of people could be disenfranchised — quite possibly to the betterment of the society.
Come, come, there is no need for such robust language — the man is dead for over 20 years anyway. I was just explaining the point he tried to make in the book (not inviting anybody to necessarily like it) and pointing out, that almost none of it made its way into the movie.
Now, as far elitism, of the three protagonists who sign up into service, one is rich, but, being not that smart, ends up in the infantry, the other is poor, but, being smart, ends up in intelligence, and the third — the girl (her family's wealth not mentioned) — becomes a pilot. All of them are equally entitled to full citizenship upon completing their service — regardless of wealth. See, maybe you should read the book before mouthing off the author for "shitbaggery"?
I postulate, that although a man is capable of soldiering at 18, he is rarely capable of a rational and educated vote at that age (some people never develop this ability, but virtually none have it at 18). Thus I fail to see a connection between the two ages. Indeed, we don't let people buy alcohol (or even enter bars) until 21 — yet, nobody is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment [wikipedia.org] to stop that travesty...
That said, you may be relieved to learn, that Heinlein considered conscription to be a form of slavery, which he denounced. Himself a former officer (Navy), he did not want any one in the service, who did not want to be there himself.
Whether the wars were "capitalist" (whatever that means) and which side of the planet their theaters are, is not at all germane to the discussion. I struggle to understand, what — other than rabid hatred for America and Capitalism — could make you mention these irrelevant bits.
Finally, I'm curious about your own opinion — now that we are decades since abolishing the draft , would you be willing to allow the States to set the voting age as they see fit — because the argument used to lower it to 18 no longer applies [anncoulter.com]?
An argument can be made, for example, that If, as we are told by the current Administration, children ought to be allowed to remain on their parents' health-insurance up to the age of 26, maybe, that's the age they ought to begin voting as well?
Stupid Critics, Stupid Movie (Score:3)
And another take on it as parody (Score:3)
Like hearing an art critic (Score:3)
It's a fun movie but you're not supposed to take it seriously, I don't get the people who do. It's like the people who hate on "Pacific Rim" and give it 1/10 stars because well it's essentially giants robots and monsters brawling it out in major cities with the most contrived mind meld technology and over-the-top characters you could possibly imagine. Except the whole premise is ridiculous, the monsters don't die from bullets and grenades and missiles and bombs (well except one, but spoiler) but they die from getting punched to death by a giant robot. How can you go to a movie like that and expect something else, it's like going to a horror movie and expecting deep drama. It's not going to happen and no, if you're seeing it in Starship Troopers you're imagining things.
Who still pays these guys? (Score:3)
In summary, movie critics are generally shitbags full of methane and are lucky to have a job...doing anything.
starshit troopers is still starshit troopers (Score:3, Insightful)
ugh... who DIDN'T recognize that that was what verhoeven was going for?
but it's all so FACILE and obvious and redundant. his satire had the depth of insight attained by lampooning the fact that the sun is hot. :P
yes, it's satirical... but so on the nose and idiotically shallow that it gains no mileage from it. it could only be admired for "insight" (for fuck's sake) by children or imbecile.
i should sue the guy for my eye injury sustained when his film forced me to attempt eyerolling at speeds beyond which is possible for average human beings.
the critique of the movie back then was that it was stupid. and that's still goddamn right.
robocop - brilliant
total recall - awesome
but starship troopers is fucking garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:4, Interesting)
I avoided it for 15 years then saw it late night a few months ago and thought it was both spot-on and hilarious.
-I'm just sayin'
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Interesting)
reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry, etc that presaged the rise of the military industrial complex and corporatism masking itself as progress.
Oh, yeah, that's Heinlein, all right, as exemplified by his very next book, Stranger in a Strange Land.
Look, Robert Heinlein was a writer of speculative fiction. The whole damn point was to extrapolate, odd consequences included. Which is why you get such radically different results (Double Star, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, for example, all having completely incompatible takes on modern democracy) depending on what premises Heinlein was playing with at the time.
Ideally making the point to the thoughtful reader that the reader's society and that society's accepted theories, conscious and unconscious, are just as guilty of absurdities as those explored in the books. But some readers are too dense to notice that, and some are so invested in the propriety of their absurdities that they abandon all rational thought in their defensive denouncements.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, the book was serious, as was Heinlein. The movie wasn't.
While you're harping on everyone for not recognizing Heinlein for his strong support of the military, you're missing the director of the film Paul Verhoeven(Total Recall and Robocop). He's a big satire guy. So it's not surprising he made a satirical version of a a novel he never finished reading.
I find both the novel and movie great, but they have almost nothing to do with each other.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty much what I was going to post. This whole "critique of the military-industrial complex" view fails to take into account that the bugs were an actual threat to earth.
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by the most famous movie critic of all time: [rogerebert.com]
It doesn't really matter, since the Bugs aren't important except as props for the interminable action scenes, and as an enemy to justify the film's quasi-fascist militarism. Heinlein was of course a right-wing saberrattler, but a charming and intelligent one who wrote some of the best science fiction ever. "Starship Troopers'' proposes a society in which citizenship is earned through military service, and values are learned on the battlefield.
Heinlein intended his story for young boys, but wrote it more or less seriously. The one redeeming merit for director Paul Verhoeven's film is that by remaining faithful to Heinlein's material and period, it adds an element of sly satire. This is like the squarest but most technically advanced sci-fi movie of the 1950s, a film in which the sets and costumes look like a cross between Buck Rogers and the Archie comic books, and the characters look like they stepped out of Pepsodent ads.
Ebert still gave the film a paltry 2 out of 4 stars. Whether the director was trying to satirize Heinlein or not, it was still a pretty shabby movie.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by Roger Ebert
I had just finished reading that review and no, Ebert really missed the boat. Yes he recognized some of the message, but then says this without a hint of irony:
We smile at the satirical asides, but where's the warmth of human nature? The spark of genius or rebellion? If "Star Wars'' is humanist, "Starship Troopers'' is totalitarian.
He got it on the nose, Starship Troopers is the embodiment of totalitarianism -- that's why there is no "spark of rebellion" no "warmth of human nature" its a totalitarian society that has squashed human nature -- and yet he didn't realize it even as he was writing it.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Interesting)
They weren't a threat, until we incited them to attack. IIRC, that was only quietly suggested in the movie, and easy enough to miss, but it was there.
Military propaganda movie for home consumption (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot understand the Starship Troopers movie until you realise it is all a propaganda piece.
If you think the Bugs are a threat, you have missed everything.
To understand the movie Starship Troopers it is crucial that you realise the _entire_ movie is propaganda for the Earth's military government. It is clear at the start, and the finish, but it never stops being that a propaganda show.
So nothing can be accepted at face value. Here's what we know:
1. Earth is under control of a military government (a junta)
2. Life is tough: food is rationed, the world is overpopulated
3. You can't have children (or vote) without serving in the military
4. There are dissidents / rebels / those who oppose the one-world order
To keep the population under control, the military leaders need a war. The population will accept hardships, and the excess population can be whittled down. People can be kept busy with work creating disposable goods (bombs, spaceships, uniforms), so they don't have time to think or rebel.
The Bugs are not a threat to humans. They defend themselves. They have no space flight capability. They have no means of attacking Earth. They are a manufactured threat.
Their purpose is to kill as many young people as possible. Young people are a threat to the established order (notice how _old_ the military leaders are). That is why the military strategy is so stupid. The purpose is to get people killed. Population control.
And then grieving relatives at home will continue to support the war.
Because the carnage is so great, people get promoted very quickly. Ignorant, naive young things in command, who will just follow orders.
Finally, we have the giant rocks hurled onto Earth. Bugs? Nah. That's the Earth government. Notice how the rock impacted _directly_ on to the area that was rising up against the military government on Earth?
Multiple birds killed with one (big) stone. Dissidents: vaporised. Support for war: raised amongst survivors. Population: culled. GDP boost: keep people busy rebuilding infrastructure
And THAT'S why the female 'heroine' got such a bollocking for changing course without orders. They nearly got in the way of the rock, and the ship sensors could (did!) log the source. Not the bugs. Humans.
So the sequel is the three friends: one a grunt, one an office, one an 'intellectual'. The first two miraculously survive to figure out what is really going on, go to scientist friend, who betrays them. They go on the run. Carbonite may be involved.
But in the third part, the scientist turns out to be working for them on the inside. he had to betray them to save them. But he's been collecting enough info to blow the whole conspiracy wide open.
And together the three of them overthrow the junta, bring peace and democracy, and an uneasy truce with the bugs. Maybe start some colonies. They all live happily ever after.
(Until the Bell Riots)
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Interesting)
Like Stephen Colbert--the best parody of a ludicrous position is often to just embrace it and take it 3 steps further.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Interesting)
Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country
Not quite. His core belief was, as he put it, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to defend it.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Informative)
Close. You don't get to live in a free society without being required to contribute something to it. As I said elsewhere, the book was explicit about *Federal* service being a requirement for citizenship, not *military* service. He did make the distinction. He also made the distinction that the only real benefit to citizenship over being a civilian was being able to vote. The main character's father was a very successful businessman, but he was not a citizen.
Considering the way people on /. routinely blast voting it's pretty damn hypocritical to now use that as an excuse to attack the author and his book.
Committing violence **not** required ... (Score:5, Informative)
I find this to be somewhat laughable. Robert Heinlein was entirely serious about the message that the story delivers. That only those who serve in the military and commit violence in the name of their country should truly be considered "citizens" of the country.
That is absolutely mistaken. Committing violence was **not** required. What was required was to put the needs of your society ahead of your personal safety. Service was not required to be military in nature. It was absolutely clear that non-military construction and labor service also fully qualified a person for citizenship. It was also clear that such construction and labor service was also hazardous and that casualties occurred. That one risked their life in order to serve, both military and non-military service.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Informative)
Niven's Law: "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is "idiot."
I have seen no evidence that Heinlein believed that the idea of Citizenship in ST should be realized. If you can cite some credible, non-fiction source where Heinlein advocates the realization of the governmental form for found in ST, I would be most interested. I believe Heinlein was a strong believer in one realizing the existence of, and paying one's debts to society, and nothing more.
Secondly, you err in your statement re: ST "That only those who serve in the military and commit violence...." Full-Citizenship afforded one the opportunity to vote, hold elected office, and teach the high school History and Moral Philosophy course. Obtaining this required NATIONAL SERVICE of some sort, the form of which was based upon the needs of society and the aptitude and skills of the individual in question. There was ABSOLUTELY NO requirement that one serve in the military nor participate in some form of violence (war?) in the name of their country. You are incorrectly trying to tie the requirement of jingoistic beliefs with citizenship requirements in Starship Troopers. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
Thirdly, the article is about the MOVIE by Paul Verhoeven, not Heinlein novel. The movie does indeed poke fun at jingoistic ideals, portrays a fascist government, etc. whose military intelligence service wears SS-like uniforms, has a national news service that uses heavy-handed propaganda techniques. I had not read any of the critiques of the movie upon its release, and am surprised that these obvious themes and messages weren't remarked upon.
I guess by my 'nick you can guess I'm a bit of a Heinlein fan. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Service, and willingness to sacrifice. I extend as much respect to a doctor who volunteers to serve an impoverished community, here or abroad, as I have for those who served in uniform while carrying a weapon. And, Heinlein's views support my own. Willingness to serve your fellow man defines your own value, IMHO. The selfish bastard who only ever thinks of himself is so much worthless trash in my book.
Re:Unless, of course, you study the author... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a J1 and being a soldier and getting shot at are worlds apart when it comes to risk and sacrifice. Not in the same league in the slightest.
Being a Peace Corps volunteer serving in Afghanistan or Madagascar (I personally know people who have done both) where you are running around in places of extreme poverty and risking the potential to be shot simply by being an American.... and only armed with a stack of pamplets or the Voice of America radio broadcasts is definitely worlds apart from a soldier who has a bunch of people at his back and an arsenal of weapons at their disposal to be able to shoot back.
Which one risks their life more? Seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you too should watch the movie again then, because this point clearly open to discussion. One of the subtleties of the movie is that it doesn't directly criticize the idea of a democracy where only people who do service get to vote. If it had simply painted this system as a "bad bad dystopian" one the movie would have been a lot more black and white, and a lot more movie critics would have understood it.
Instead the authors do not make a judgement on the political system they depict. Sure there are som
Re:Critics are idiots... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't understand why everyone dislikes showgirls, It is a great erotic film. In my opinion it could only be compared to wild things, it is so good. the story is nothing special, if you compare it to normal films, but it is head and shoulders above even the best porno.
Re: (Score:3)
The 1995 film, with the absolutely amazing lap dance scene, among many others??
How could anyone not find Showgirls one of the top 10 sexiest films of all time?
Because it was so overkill that by the end of the movie boobs stopped being interesting.
Re:Critics are idiots... (Score:5, Funny)
You are supposed to watch it in 15 minute intervals.
Re: (Score:3)
The 1995 film, with the absolutely amazing lap dance scene, among many others??
How could anyone not find Showgirls one of the top 10 sexiest films of all time?
They were all told to hate it.
My wife and I saw it in the theater. She didn't like it much, but I enjoyed it. The raw depravity of it was done well, in my opinion. Especially the fat lady with the revealing wardrobe.
Re: (Score:3)
Was it a commentary on "American imperialism"? No, that's quite a bit of revisionism. The main characters were not from the USA, the government was global in nature and the look of the government and the military was absolutely European.
The Europeans were practicing imperialism long before the Americans, and making it directly about Americans and the US would have been much too obvious.