This movie has been a puzzle to many viewers. Washington Post claimed that it promoted fascism, many have agreed, while others insist that it's satire and an anti-war movie. I couldn't understand it either. While there are a few scenes involving news broadcasts that are clearly exaggerated, the rest of the movie portraits the protagonists--whether members of a quasi-SS or just Wehrmacht grunts with ideologically fanatical commanders--in a generally positive light, and you do root for them. These are not usually signs of satire.
I had an epiphany after reading the transcripted DVD commentary by Paul Verhoeven and the script writer, Ed Neumeier--but especially after checking what work Neumeier had done before Starship Troopers. (Props to vanveen on the IMDb board for posting the commentary transcript.)
Something was obviously wrong with Starship Troopers. A well-made satire doesn't leave half the audience suspecting that the movie makers are Nazis. (And I might as well mention that I'm European, so no silly "only Europeans understand satire" nonsense, please.)
The solution to the Starship Troopers mystery lies in a UK comic magazine that had its heyday in the late 70's and throughout the 80's. It was, and still is, called 2000AD, and its most famous character is a futuristic cop named Judge Dredd.
Judge Dredd (created by John Wagner) is satire, of a particular British, independent comics, kind. The stories about the icy judge-jury-and-executioner-in-one are an odd mix of action thrills and humorous over-the-top political commentary. It never intellectualizes its points, relying on hyperbole and comic effect to deliver its message. Whenever we are lulled into believing that Dredd is a role model, something outrageous happens to prove, again, that he is not one of the good guys. Here's a typical episode:
Dredd is patrolling Mega-City One on his gigantic Lawmaker motorcycle. He spots a man dropping some chewing gum wrapping on the sidewalk. Dredd: Littering is an offense, citizen! That's two years in the iso-cube! Citizen: Two years! Come on, that's too harsh! Dredd: The Law makes no exceptions! Citizen: Sure... I bet you make an exception when it suits you! Dredd: Betting is illegal, six years!
Before last year, the only thing--according to IMDb at least--that Ed Neumeier had written for moving pictures, apart from Starship Troopers, was RoboCop and various RoboCop-related things. This is not generally known, but RoboCop started its life as the first Judge Dredd movie. The script circulated in the business for years, until, because the script and the movie rights for the Judge Dredd character had somehow parted ways down the road, it evolved into RoboCop.
When RoboCop says, "Come quietly, or there'll be trouble," that's Dredd talking, and RoboCop remains a much better Judge Dredd movie than Judge Dredd eventually became.
Now, keeping the Dredd character and Mega-City One in memory, let's look at Starship Troopers again. There is the combination of unabashed action thrills with equally unabashed fascist references, that made so little sense to me. It's like a page out of 2000AD. The superficial ambiguity was a trademark of the British comic. Neumeier, consciously or not, is trying to tell a story in Judge Dredd style, where the heroes can be fascists, upholding fascist ideals, without us ever doubting the actual opinions of the writer. But for some reason it's not working.
The reason is humor. Or rather, the lack of it. Whenever Dredd started to look too good, Wagner (and his co-writer Alan Grant) made us laugh at his ludicrous pomposity. He became a true parody, like The Dictator or Dr. Strangelove. Starship Troopers has no such moments, it keeps a straight face. When Col. Carl Jenkins of the quasi-SS delivers his SS lines, there is a hint of criticism on Rico's face, but he is ultimately convinced. Jenkins never looks like a parody of anything. The same is true for Michael Ironside's agitator-turned-teacher-turned-lieutenant.
From the DVD commentary there is no question that Verhoeven and Neumeier intended Starship Troopers to be critical of war and violence, and not promotional of it. But they didn't manage to pull it off, because they chose, more or less consciously, an obscure format that works well in underground comics but not so well in Hollywood productions--and they lacked the sense of absurd humor that it absolutely requires. The result was not a powerful statement against fascism, but a confused, huh?
It's probably also worth noting that Heinlein, who wrote the original novel, would probably not have supported Verhoeven and Neumeier's version of his story. He was no fascist, to be sure, but he wasn't exactly a liberal either, having Ayn Rand, with her extreme libertarianism, as one of his idols. Where the book seems ambiguous, it's more likely because it reflects the author's ideas quite well.
1 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends