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

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

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…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.