Skip to main content

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required to maintains its composure and straight face throughout.


Rasczak: Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other factor.

Because Troopers does rather make its point quite early on, in very funny, sledgehammer ways. And then proceeds to continue making it. Is your film a better film if it can make the audience care about the characters and throw in razor sharp satire, or if you’re simply expected to see the entire thing as a coruscating joke? It needn’t be one or the other necessarily, but your tools are closer to those of outright comedy if the latter, where it’s generally recognised that one shouldn’t outstay one’s welcome; Slant magazine called itone of the greatest of all anti-imperialist films” that is sure to “push every element to breaking point without caving to the lazy lure of ridicule”, except that, while it isn’t out-and-out a Police Academy or The Naked Gun, the level of parody does engender distancing, while still attempting to be nominally propelled by character, of which there’s no one to identify with; this is at its most patience-testing when we have to run through the romantic tribulations of the main cast. Sure, it’s all satire, but that doesn’t mean it’s all equally adroit. Troopers treads a delicate line, and one on balance I don’t think is quite as satisfying as Robocop because it only allows for the one level. Not that the level itself isn’t frequently very funny.


Mrs Rico: I hope you don’t ruin your life over some silly little girl who wants to look handsome in a uniform.

Verhoeven’s very clear that Johnny Rico (Casper von Dien) is a privileged idiot – “Johnny, people get killed in the Federal Service” plead his parents; “Statistically speaking, you should have accidentally guessed right by now” says Neil Patrick Harris’ Carl, exasperated by his friend’s lack of psychic ability – who believes every fascistic statement his tutor (Michael Ironside’s armless Rasczak) feeds him, yet is still ultimately guided into service by sex; he wants Denise Richards’ plastic, erotically dilated Carmen, who is out of his league, while Dina Meyer’s Dizzy harbours not so secret passion for him (the only logic I can perceive for Johnny ignoring her is that he doesn’t like gingers) to the extent that when she dies “It’s alright, because I got to have you”. 


This is the basic dynamic supposed to see us through, and indeed, the fact-of-life militarism is almost incidental to their romantic pursuits or career achievements, with Carl on the fringes, identified as all mind and sexually disinterested (and further identified later by his SS-style overcoat and cap, clearly earmarking the view taken of military intelligence). It’s curious, then, that the director’s justification for the shower scene “The idea I wanted to express was that these so-called advanced people are without libido… It is sublimated because they are fascists” is somewhat countered by sex being all the main characters are thinking about. Paul the dirty old Dutchman?


Rico: Infantry, sir.
One-armed, legless Recruitment Officer: Good for you. Mobile infantry made me the man I am today.

My own experience of the picture is that, whenever I revisit it, I come to it waiting for the Riefenstahl propaganda videos to tickle me, or the outrageously unself-aware statements, but the result is that there are points where I’m left feeling a little listless, a bit like Robocop might be if there were no human story between the jabs, or if the lead character had been played by someone less impressive than Peter Weller. What I usually find instead is that the gap is filled by fascination with the knowing most of the performances are entirely unknowing. You can see with the likes of Doogie and Ironside that they’re at least partially aware that what you see isn’t what you get, but everyone else is so earnest, you fear for their well-being. 


Verhoeven said “it’s a very right-wing book. And with the movie we tried, and I think at least partially succeeded, in commenting on that at the same time. It could be eat your cake and have it. All the way through we were fighting with the fascism, the ultra-militarism. All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, ‘Are these people crazy?’” Which is great, except that it’s pretty clear the answer is yes from the moment “INVASION!” flashes up on a news report (“It’s an ugly planet, a bug planet!”). As Verhoeven says, “we tried” and I think he succeeds, up to a point. 


Rico: My mom was right about you. You look great in a uniform.
Carmen: You look pretty great yourself.

Verhoeven saw the military of the movie as a direct representation of the US, whereas screenwriter Ed Neumeier felt its themes were more universal. Certainly, it can’t be a coincidence that, while our “heroes” come from Buenos Ares, they embody the stereotype of vacuous body-beautiful Californians (“the Worship of Aryan body” as Verhoeven put it). Indeed, von Dien’s performance is so square-jawed cheesy, it’s almosthard to believe he was oblivious to the parody of what he was playing (and presumably still is, in the many sequels). 


Interviewee: The only good bug is a dead bug!

The visual propaganda film vignettes are a very direct continuation of the style of Robocop, of the accepted overt fascist framework as a creeping extension of today’s; “A world that works” with kids eagerly crowding round citizens to play with their guns; “Crime and punishment” in which there’s a one day turnaround in sentencing, with a broadcast execution that evening; best of all, a “Do your part” film, in which children stomp on roaches as an over-effusive mother applauds them. 


Katrina: Goddam bugs whacked us, Johnny.

The depiction of the military is just heightened enough (meaning, not that much). Hilariously, Clancy Brown’s career sergeant spends most of basic training maiming his recruits (“Pain is in your mind!”) – it’s Full Metal Jacket played as farce (at one point, Johnny uses a football move to win against the “enemy”, leading to his being made squad leader) –with dialogue such as “Fresh meat for the grinder, eh?”, “Rico, I need a corporal. You’re it until your dead. Or I find somebody better”, “Rico. You kill bugs good”. Obedience is everything, such that manipulation of the mind (propaganda) is a good thing, as implicitly is manipulation of the mind by other minds (“I can’t do humans, yet” says Carl). Naturally, in this hierarchy, civilians are implicitly morally inferior to the militarised citizens.


Expert: Brain bugs? Frankly, I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive!

And then there’s the enemy. It would be easy to regard Verhoeven’s movie as a prescient prediction of the War on Terror, happening a great distance away, waged against a populace with whom there’s complete empathic disassociation (they’re not even human), for the purposes of attaining power (colonisation or oil, take your pick); it’s even possible the asteroid strike on Buenos Aires is a false flag (how exactly the bugs are supposed to have achieved the hit is never elaborated on, while it’s self-evident what it achieved in terms of rousing the Earth population). But the visual cues are straight out of the days of the Empire, with the Zulu-style outpost only really distinguishing itself by the number of gratuitously dismembered corpses displayed, and one might equally apply many of the signal points to World War II. 


Rasczak: They sucked his brains out.

Like the War on Terror, though, there is no end; we’re promised “Once we understand the bugs, we will defeat them!” (this coming through publicly broadcast torture methods, amusingly censored for the squeamish), but the appetite of the military-industrial complex knows no bounds. Just as long as we continue to give credence to the self-evident threat, it will continue to muster support. 


The bug (Arachnid) effects work in the movie, courtesy of Rob Bottin, stands up as well as the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park. It ought to, as the picture came in with a price tag of more than $105m, making only $15m more than that worldwide. Which means this is one of those curiosities that slipped by, greenlit by execs thinking (presumably) they were getting another Total Recall when in fact it was closer to Showgirls in terms of blindsiding them. 


So Starship Troopers is just shy of getting full marks. It isn’t quite the masterpiece Robocop is. I think I probably thought it was initially (I saw it twice on the big screen, the second outdoors at Glastonbury Festival). It’s a very clever movie, and the relish of Verhoeven and Neumeier in presenting their little fascists and ripping them apart is irresistible, but it’s also essentially a one-joke movie, and one that might be even more effective and more shocking had it been shorter and sharper.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.