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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Trouble’s part of the circus. They said Barnum was in trouble when he lost Tom Thumb.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
(SPOILERS) Anyone of a mind that it’s a recent development for the Oscars to cynically crown underserving recipients should take a good look at this Best Picture winner from the 25thAcademy Awards. In this case, it’s generally reckoned that the Academy felt it was about time to honour Hollywood behemoth Cecil B DeMille, by that point into his seventies and unlikely to be jostling for garlands much longer, before it was too late. Of course, he then only went and made a bona fide best picture contender, The Ten Commandments, and only then pegged it. Because no, The Greatest Show on Earth really isn’t very good.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

What lit the fire that set off our Mr Reaper?

Death Wish (2018)
(SPOILERS) I haven’t seen the original Death Wish, the odd clip aside, and I don’t especially plan to remedy that, owing to an aversion to Charles Bronson when he isn’t in Once Upon a Time in the West and an aversion to Michael Winner when he wasn’t making ‘60s comedies or Peter Ustinov Hercule Poirots. I also have an aversion to Eli Roth, though (this is the first of his oeuvre I’ve seen, again the odd clip aside, as I have a general distaste for his oeuvre), and mildly to Bruce when he’s on autopilot (most of the last twenty years), so really, I probably shouldn’t have checked this one out. It was duly slated as a fascistic, right-wing rallying cry, even though the same slaters consider such behaviour mostly okay if the protagonist is super-powered and wearing a mask when taking justice into his (or her) own hands, but the truth is this remake is a quite serviceable, occasionally amusing little revenger, one that even has sufficient courage in its skewed convictions …

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Monster? We’re British, you know.

Horror Express (1972)
(SPOILERS) This berserk Spanish/British horror boasts Hammer titans Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (both as good guys!) to its name, and cloaked in period trappings (it’s set in 1906), suggests a fairly standard supernatural horror, one with crazy priests and satanic beasts. But, with an alien life form aboard the Trans-Siberian Express bound for Moscow, Horror Express finishes up more akin to The Cassandra Crossing meets The Thing.

Countess Petrovski: The czar will hear of this. I’ll have you sent to Siberia. Captain Kazan: I am in Siberia!
Christopher Lee’s Alexander Saxton, anthropologist and professor of the Royal Geological Society, has retrieved a frozen corpse from Manchuria. Believing it might be the Missing Link he crates it up to transport home via the titular train. Other passengers include his colleague and rival Dr Wells (Cushing), an international spy, and an antic monk called Father Pujardov (Alberto de Mendoza, strikingly lunatic), who for some rea…

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

You had to grab every single dollar you could get your hands on, didn't you?

Triple Frontier (2019)
(SPOILERS) Triple Frontier must have seemed like a no-brainer for Netflix, even by their standards of indiscriminately greenlighting projects whenever anyone who can’t get a job at a proper studio asks. It had, after all, been a hot property – nearly a decade ago now – with Kathryn Bigelow attached as director (she retains a producing credit) and subsequently JC Chandor, who has seen it through to completion. Netflix may not have attracted quite the same level of prospective stars – Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Tom Hardy and Channing Tatum were all involved at various points – but as ever, they haven’t stinted on the production. To what end, though? Well, Bigelow’s involvement is a reliable indicator; this is a movie about very male men doing very masculine things and suffering stoically for it.