In response to the various folks commenting that Communism and Fascism don't overlap with each other ... or that the totalitarian society shown in the movie is not fascist at all ... consider the following. There are many, many quotes from the writer and director, but this one, from an interview with screenwriter Ed Neumeier for HollywoodInvestigator, is a good, short summation of how he viewed the movie he wrote. "First, it was an attempt to take on the critical assertion that all action movies are inherently fascistic, thus our shared concept of the movie that War Makes Fascists of us All. Second, it was a comment on the nature of media and propaganda (using as it did forms from U.S.-made WW2 propaganda films like Why We Fight and Action in the North Atlantic told within the context of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will) as a means by which public consent is manufactured. Third, it was a meditation on the then (1994) current wave of cultural fascism here in the U.S., political correctness, by proposing, as you and no one else has pointed out, a future Earth society that suffers neither from crime, racism or sexism on the surface but succeeds at this only by the imposition of a strict and authoritarian order." As for political ideology definitions, those definitions are not real and are not set in stone (see dictionary definitions below). Their function is to make people view each other in camps of good vs bad and to thus justify conflict. At a base psychological level it achieves the same result as plain old racism - hatred and hostility toward the other. That's why I personally don't buy into political ideologies. But for those who insist on "real" definitions of fascism, let's take a few dictionary examples (and btw Wikipedia isn't an original source. It's also dominated by writers with their own assorted biases) ... Cambridge dictionary: a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed" (My note: The racism in Starship Troopers is directed toward the bugs) Merriam-webster dictionary has 2 meanings: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" (My note: the second description is applicable to any totalitarian regime) Dictionary(dot)com: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." (My note: under this definition racism is "often" a factor, not always, yet has to have a dictator, which usually means a single individual figure head) The confusion over ideological definitions, even at the level of conflicting dictionary descriptions, occurs with most ideological labels because the labels are not about representing the "real" structures of society. The labels serve a purpose of generating hostile attitudes of us vs them and so the fluidity of the labels in terms of ever shifting meaning is essential to that purpose (Eg. The Nazis claimed to hate Communism but called themselves National socialists). If the definitions were accurately defined then it would be harder for conflict-orientated leaders (and their supporters) to mislead people into perceiving others as the evil ones who need to be suppressed, intimidated or even killed. In summary, the left vs right, communist vs fascist and other ideological "spectrums" are mostly flat out wrong. The two "opposites" are essentially the same to the point that the labels are disposable. Even capitalism vs socialism is garbage because socialists achieve financial monopoly through political force rather than market forces. Neumeier and Verhoeven have showed a rare recognition of how these kinds of ideological "opposites" mirror each other.
@@samgittins1794 My reference to the dictionaries is to specifically show the conflict in descriptions among them. I don't personally agree with those descriptions because I don't believe in those ideological labels as being accurate and useful to begin with. As you've said "it's too broad imo" ... key words, "in my opinion". So who do we reference? Do we choose a reference description that is convenient to our current argument and do we dismiss the many other sources that offer inconvenient descriptions? The description you've given of socialism isn't the reality, that's merely the promise that is given to the masses under that ideology. The reality is that socialism facilitates monopolization of industries under the current government leadership (not the population). If the population were given referendums on the major economic decisions then that would more aptly "constitute collective ownership". Of course sometimes a bit of socialism brings about good results if the government does actually use it's economic power for the greater good, but very often it does not. And absolutely key is that a socialist government that does make good on its promises cannot guarantee that the next incoming generations of leaders who inherit the socialist bureaucracy will continue in good faith. Making good on the promises of socialism especially happens less if it's a one party socialist state because the ballot box is not available to the population to remove a government that takes advantage of socialist bureaucracy to pursue a totalitarian, authoritarian or fascist agenda (or whatever label you choose for oppressive government). Abuse of financial power occurs under all governmental systems because people and governments inherently always have a capitalist side to them. If a society is structured around financial exchanges then it is capitalist whether the money is being spent by companies or the government itself. All socialist countries continue to have a currency. If they didn't they would collapse, unless wages were replaced by forced labour across the board, As for the people who've criticized political correctness from the "left", yes I'm aware of some of those people and some of their arguments, but I don't think of them as "left wing" in the first place, in the same manner that the ones being called "right wing" i don't consider in that way either. To me they're all individuals with their own personal views.
@@samgittins1794 Thanks for that. Further thoughts "To merely claim that all socialist governments have been acting in bad faith has been opposed even by right wing historians such as Stephen Kotkin." I never said they all acted in bad faith and I don't consider Stephen Kotkin to be "right wing", I just view him as a historian with his own views. I also don't think of the regimes you describe as "socialist" to begin with (how are they any more social than anyone else?), I think of them as autocratic. It's a more accurate term because what they ultimately promote in real terms is expansion of governmental control over the population. Even those "collective farms in the USSR" were a disaster. experienced and established farmers were lynched, killed and sent off to slave camps because they supposedly had too much money and the lack of those people then resulted in a failed farming systems that starved millions. Neither China nor the Soviet Union provide good examples of "socialism". I also don't think there is any "collective ownership". I consider it a propaganda term. A public park near me, for example, isn't owned by me. It's owned by my local council who make their own decisions about how that park is maintained and how it's used. I have no personal say in those matters so I have no ownership. I pay taxes that facilitate others having a decision making monopoly over that park. Same applies to any other government run resource. It doesn't mean the controlling authority is making bad decisions though, just as a corporation controlling a resource can do so in ways that are beneficial or harmful. Politicians and business people are no better or worse than each other. You say that my use of the phrase the "current government leadership" is mistaken because that government is capitalist, but I did not reference a specific government. You're right that the phrase "capitalism" is weakened on the basis that any government or individual that uses currency inherently has a capitalist side. It's not a weak argument, it's a valid point. When a description is mismatched by evidence it the description that is flawed. That's why that label, and many others, need to be dropped and replaced with more accurate descriptions that more aptly communicate the complex realities of our civilization. Why cling onto a flawed term that hampers discussion by misleading people? Thanks for a civil discussion. Can I ask btw, do you consider yourself a "socialist"? It seems to be an ideological label you wish to defend.
Writer, that would be Heinlein, right? Whatever you mention about this, it's not from the actual book. the Director refused to read it, and it's very possible that the writer of the movie got the book from Heinlein wrong. In the book, the most important thing was the suit that the mobile infantries wore. It's not in the movie. Most important failure. This failure progressed through the movies, until one of the later ones. Then there is of course, the concept of men and women in combat. Well, in the book, women are better pilots, so all of the pilots are female. Making all of the mobile infantry male. There's a plot point that after being at war for a while Johnny Rico needs to upgrade his education, allowing him to go to the bridge, something he began to look forward to because that's were the women were. Now to your commentary of communism and fascism being two sides of the same coin, which I agree with, have you seen Michael Palin's performance as Molotov in The Death of Stalin?
@@Sorrowablaze The only good bug is a dead bug! I'm kidding it's a line from that pompous idiot in the film. Also Charles, check out the bug insignia on the human's uniforms. Credit to Rob!
The way I've always defended this movie, which left me slack-jawed on first watching, is that it starts like Beverly Hills 90210 In Space, then turns into the goriest high-budget blockbuster ever made. Now I'll buy THAT for a dollar!
"Beverly Hills 90210 in space". 🤣 Yeah and I love how it doesn't have the predictable ending of Rico getting the girl. He doesn't even give a shyt at the end.
This is sorta beside the point, but I've always maintained that the true mark of turning from boy to man is when you realize Dina Meyer is way, WAY, hotter than Denise Richards.
@The505Guys It's not about the age of the women, it's about the characters. Dina Meyer's character is more interesting, more sexually engaged, more active about her wants. Denise Richards is model-hot but vapid, happily swinging from one man to the other less out of her own interests, more out of the dictates of whoever's nearby. I don't think it's accidental in a movie that discusses loss of humanity to wartime that the more fascinating woman dies while the smiling idiot survives.
All three of Verhoeven's big sci-fi films (RoboCop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers) are extremely underrated. There is much more substance to them than they are given credit for. People overlook them in favour for slow films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey because slow means high intellect and depth and fast-paced action means dumb and shallow.
I should watch Robocop. I was put off by it's cheesy 80's action cliched look when I was younger, but everyone seems to praise it as being pretty smart and satirical.
Too bad he's a fucking idiot who misunderstood the thematics he was suppose to parody. The Federation isn't even Fascist, which is funny because he didn't read pass the 2nd chapter which thereafter delves into its' politics.
If only he weren’t in denial about the fact that he’s made science fiction movies. He seems to think that because his movies are smart, they can’t be science fiction. For him, and for many snobs, science fiction is for nerds and therefore low status and therefore cannot be art
Re-watching it recently I noticed some other things. The movie begins with a propaganda piece about the Earths space defense cannons which blast asteroids sent by the bugs out of the sky, yet one hits the home town of the main characters. This is then used in a "unanimous vote" to invade the bug planet. This vote is made as immediately as the news breaks, as we hear both in the same news broadcast, showing that this asteroid is what allowed them to approve a full war. Later when they invade the bug home-world and in almost every fight we see with the bugs, the human soldiers attack first. Sometimes the bugs hold back and look confused, especially during the first landing and charge after being attacked. At the end when NPH's character links with the Brain Bug he says "They're afraid" The troops celebrate upon hearing this.
@@russelledwards001 The area of Mexico where that asteroid strike occurred is located at the Yucatan peninsula. This is c.4300 miles away from Buenos Aires in Argentina, which is the city destroyed by the bugs in Starship Troopers.
Again, sounds like the Afghanistan war. An excuse to invade, real or not. This movie has tons of subtle stuff like that hiding in plain sight. I came to the same conclusion but didn't notice the black officer whipping the white man.
The asteroid that can get through such effective space defense cannons are the planes that got through the air defenses of the "best military ever on Earth". Both are only touted as being the best in their propaganda.
The bit with the two intellectuals on TV is very prophetic: The guy almost screaming he’s deeply offended by the idea of intelligent bugs. Taking offence and shutting down further thought is seen as an acceptable argument in SST’s world, as it is currently on social media.
The brain bugs are capable of rational thought, you fucking moron. Furthermore, the audience IS presented with reasons to kill them; as if the idea of nuking a planet filled with hyper-aggressive man-eating spiders from orbit needs justifying.
@@justhjon2217 I don’t know if you can call a Morman colony “striking first”. I don’t remember the cause for war in the book; it has been too many years since reading it. Nevertheless, I’m not taking about the book. I’m talking about the movie.
In Rasczak's speech, he doesn't promote totalitarianism. He talks about the "failure of democracy" which is completely correct. Democracy is mob rule, that's why the American Constitution prescribes a representative Republic as the structure of government. America has elements of democracy, but it isn't a pure democracy. Rasczak talks about having to earn your vote in the Federation's Republic by serving to defend it. A totalitarian or fascistic government wouldn't allow citizens to vote. All government power would be held by one person or a few people.
Some current commercials for the US Military remind me of the recruitment commercials from “Starship Troopers”. One recruitment commercial for the US military has a child surrounded soldiers from the various branches of the armed forces with the announcer saying “In order to get to her, they have to get through us”.
@@mr.pavone9719 No. Remember if nothing else the discussion about "brain bugs" on the TV show. Different sides in public debate. Part 3 went more totalitarian, but it also mentions "draft riots," which is the antithesis of the "Starship Troopers" story--all volunteer, can quit whenever you want, and rewarded with citizenship. So it fell away. I agree that the licensing of having babies goes toward totalitarian. But frankly, it was so far over-the-top by the politically-driven production staff as to be laughable. A throwaway shot like that could not be taken as reflective of the movie.
Not really, it is totalitatian, but american totalitarism. Note that the dissent is "allowed" but it is punishable. Not only that, but the population is allowed to bitch and moan to a certain degree, but have no power what so ever in the politics and decision making. For that you have to be a citizen, but in the process of being one, they are brainwashed and lose their humanity in the process. It is not a Chinese totallitarism, because it doesnt use mind control *and* liberal violence combined with zero tolerance of dissent. The way they go around is the german and american way: Propaganda. So it is a mix and feel of all the left regimes. And yes, left and right, including far left and far right are all spectruns of socialism. Hence, they are all the same thing, just with different methodology.
@@Melanrick Not really. The woman stomping the foot of her opponent doesn't qualify as "punishment." The whole premise is that to exercise political authority, one must show willingness to put the community ahead of oneself. That is not itself totalitarian. It's just not democracy. TOTALITARIAN: Exerts control over everything in society. AUTHORITARIAN: Whatever control it exerts, it exerts without question. The rest is just word salad confusing socialism and totalitarianism and whatever.
@@TommygunNG strictly speaking the Federation is a stratocracy, where citizenship is earned through military service and the armed forces exercise control over the other branches of government. The argument from the classroom scene is that liberal democracy leads to decadence and social decline because voters need to be screened for character before being awarded the franchise. A lazy, undisciplined population leads to a government that panders to the worst tendencies of the majority in order to seek re-election. ("Bread and circuses").
I feel like it probably would have been useful to talk about the themes of the book that this movie was based on, which, roughly speaking, endorsed the war with the bugs, and sought to demonstrate how even an ideal society could be brought to war with another civilization. Verhoeven apparently hadn't read the book, and so the anti-war and anti-fascist sentiments are kind of laid over scenes which were written as pro-war in the novel. The inconsistency isn't just about showing how we might be susceptible to propaganda; there's an actual internal inconsistency between the presentation and the source material.
Rob,have you ever read the book? It's one of my favourites of all time. Although whenever I read it, I always follow it with Joe Haldeman's Forever War.
I doubt he did read the book. Otherwise he would have pointed out the differences between the book and movie. Also how the movie accidently left in some unfascist elements in the society.
A very 'out there' friend of mine insisted I see Starship Troopers in the 90s. She realised it wasn't a movie I would ever have seen on my own initiative. Lured me in by saying "you're probably one of the few people I know who will actually really 'get it'". I think it's a work of genius and agree with everything said about it in this clip. Only thing to add is the ancient allusions, like citizenship being granted as a reward for service.
Rob, you have become one of my favorite film commentators. I love to listen to your discussions when I'm commuting. Have you ever considered doing something like a podcast? Maybe a bimonthly or weekly series discussing films or whatever media. There is an audience outthere for substantive discussions.
The uniforms are surplus East German border guard kit. The two lightening bolts are on the shoulders of the black soldier - two stripes is the universal signage of corporals, which is what he was, not the double runes of the SS. The first battle was filmed in Montana, and it does not look like Afghanistan...I should know: I've been to both.
I was under the impression that "universal' meant everybody used them. Last I checked, the US uses chevrons. I could look up what other nations use but lol I'm an American and therefore don't give a shit about other nations.
It doesn't surprise me that the critics gave Starship Troopers a poor review. I think we really have finally got to the stage where critics have so discredited their own "profession", that very few people pay attention to their reviews. In fact we may even be at the point where a bad review from a critic suggests a good movie to the public, and vice versa when they give a film a good review. The critics appear to be far more interested in pushing a political agenda, when the public just want to told what films are entertaining and which ones aren't. The politicisation of all of our media has become hard to ignore and critics are largely employed by the politicised mainstream media. Even critics with whom I used to have some faith and would listen to their opinions, like Mark Kermode of the BBC, have become overly political, to the point where their suggestions just suggest a borefest of very "worthy" movies (only worthy if you agree with their political message, of course).
I have always thought Woody Allen said it best.."I heard that Commentary and Dissent had merged and formed Dysentery." That pretty much sums up the game these days.
"I expect the best, and I give the best." The sergent gives them plastic violons, beer, and balls, as a few scenes before half of them were slaughtered by arachnids in a gorry way.
While the premise stated here may be true for the movie, it's a stated fact that Paul Verhoeven never read the source material; he never read the book the movie's based on, he just read reviews of the book that grossly misinterpreted what the story was about. A lot of people misunderstood both the plot and the actual nature of the Federation in the book, and because of it, this tripe of a movie was allowed to further taint the legacy of Heinlein's work. The book is radically different than the movie, and it behooves everyone to read the book to understand how it's been misinterpreted over the years.
@peter&mj123 l By saying 'sound like', I'm assuming you never read the book? You should read the book if you're going to critique it, or failing that listen to the audiobook, which is available on this platform. That Rico serves in a military fashion is purely on account of the fact that at this time in the story's history, the Federation is in a time of war against genocidal alien races, only one of which is the Bugs. In other times, what is considered 'service' can and is a wide variety of functions, an the recruiters themselves tell you that so long as you stick with it you could be mopping floors for the entire span of your service period and it'd still qualify you to become a Citizen. It also doesn't say that only the military makes decisions: by definition all politicians are Veterans, and as such aren't part of active military. The entire point of the book is to demonstrate that the choice of who directs the course of mankind's history should be left to people who've not only demonstrated a basic level of competence, but who've dedicated a portion of their lives to the service of humanity. The Federation is a meritocracy, nothing more. It's the furthest thing from the military dictatorship people think it is due to misinterpretations by critics. When you get some time, listen to this in the background of whatever you're doing, and when it starts getting into the structure of the Federation's society, you might get a different impression than the one you had before: th-cam.com/video/EOQMpb_R41Y/w-d-xo.html
Never has the harsh realities of the military industrial complex been so exposed as in this film. Thank you for this and all your other reviews which rip the surface rather than scratch it.
The Conscientious Objector really? That’s the insightful reality that the movie shows? Something I could learn by literally just reading the definition of propaganda? (That’s also something that is in no way unique to the military industrial complex) Also the federation literally live-streams the klandathu invasion so it’s not like no one knows what is going on.
Hey Rob, I essentially agree 100% with the film analysis (esp that communism, nazis, neo-cons etc are all flavors of fascism). There is one theme that I did not see you address at all - the "right to exist". This is not an excuse of the grossness of each side (bugs, humans) but a fact. Carl's line "You disapprove? Well, too bad! We're in this war for the species, boys and girls. It's simple numbers. They have more." and Rasczach's aphorism on "the forefathers of Hiroshima" make it clear that you physically cannot claim to be the better culture, if you are wiped out/extinct. It is a very dark philosophical realization that most people are squeamish to even touch. Do you have a view on this? I do not pretend that there is an "easy answer" and I do not expect you to provide one, but unless I missed it, this wasn't addressed at all in the analysis. What I fear, is that the humans have to be as gross as they are depicted in the film to stand a chance to simply survive against the bugs - this is not a claim as I cannot prove it, but it is as I said, a fear.
Heinline has also gotten an unfair rap from his book the film was loosely based upon. Jaun Rico is the full name in the book along with being of Filipino decent. Most people I've seen criticize Heinlein him never seem to have actually read his work. In particular they love to use the 'Violence is the supreme authority' quote as a blanket statement against him. He's a really interesting figure in fiction in general. 'All you zombies' and the film version of it called 'Predestination' are worth checking out as well.
Heinlein was impressive in that he could write a book like "Starship Troopers" or "Stranger in a Strange Land" without necessarily embracing the ideas he was presenting (and those stories have very different social ethics, one of a military state, the other of a sort of hippie free-love communism). His characters would believe in ideals and change the world for the benefit of those ideals, but Heinlein himself considered those ideals more in the way of a thought experiment.
Predestination I only bought because it was based on Heinlein, So glad I did! Orphans of the Sky I recommend. And Double Star. If you haven't read them.👍
This is the pure and honest truth though: "Violence is the supreme authority". Where do you think the autority of the state, police and justice system comes from? They have monopoly on violence.
@@xthor86I don't believe that violence is authority at all. It's power, and there's a difference. Authority, legitimate authority, comes from competence and integrity. People can have power but not authority, or authority but not power, but to confuse them is to assume that might makes right, which it doesn't.
Well, violence isn’t the only authority. It’s just the supreme one. Integrity and competence are are fine and dandy, vital, even. But they’re meaningless if you don’t have the strength the back it up. And that sometimes means violence. It’s a harsh reality.
It can sit proudly alongside Bladerunner and The Thing as two sci fi movies that were savaged by the critics and went on to become stone cold classics.
I've lost count how many times I've watched BLADERUNNER. more than likely into the hundreds of times now...only time the movie was better than the book it was based upon imo.
I think it is the more technical aspects that let the film, indeed all of Verhoven's films, down. Verhoven's photography always looks like an after thought to me. Big feature production, big feature director....tv movie photographer. I can't put my finger on it, but I can never love Verhoven because I simply don't like the way he shoots his films. @@jocaerbannog9052
@Collative Learning - How do you feel about Sargon's analysis of the film? Especially when it's argued that the humans are justified and the parody of war by Verhoeven was actually only surface-layer deep?
one of my favorite movies of all time. when i first saw at like 14yo, i loved it for the OTT violence and now i love for the themes you mentioned. Also thank you, finally somebody acknowledges how good this movie still looks effects wise. When I got the bluray I couldn't believe how good the cgi still looks. It whipes the floor with many modern effects-movies. This movie overall ages like a fine wine.
I have seen this movie many times and also read the original book. While I was aware of a great many of the themes discussed in this video analysis, I never once thought of the movie as a satire. I especially thought the statement by Michael Ironside's character regarding why only miltary serving citizens could vote while non-serving civilians could not was especially insightful. The teacher explained that when a person casts a vote, that person is exercising political force. Every election here in the U.S. there are tens of millions of people who have no real concept of what it means to defend liberty and property, but who use the ballot box to send hordes of politicians to governmental office in order to restrict the freedoms of their fellow countrymen and confiscate their hard-earned money in taxes and other fiscal measures. In many ways, this has denigrated from a democratic form of republican government into nothing but a socially acceptable way for one group to harass and extort people of another group backed up by the power of big brother with all of their police and judges. So ask yourself a serious non-satirical question. What do you think is going to happen in this nation one day soon when enough of our experienced military veterans and other well-trained gun owners get totally fed up with a bunch of corrupt and incompetent politicians who will say anything to get votes and yet can't even balance a budget or defend our borders? Can we still learn from our mistakes, prosecute those in government who have made a mockery of our laws, and clean out our justice system before it's too late? Or do you think the results of that situation will just be more satire???
It’s easier to spot the satire if you see it on the small screen. When I first saw the movie I could have sworn it was advocating the society it depicted; when I saw it again on home video I was able to get the satire
Something interesting:I was talking with an old war veteran one day, and the subject of starship troopers came up. We got to talking about the use of "bugs" in science fiction, and how they applied to the real world, and he eventually said "The bugs change faces.""What do you mean?""I mean, that in order to make a man kill another, you have to turn the enemy into a bug, y'know, brainwash people into hating their neighbors, that sorta thing. Once the killing is done, and another man needs to be killed, you make them believe the new enemy are bugs just like the old enemy." It implied to me he understood the brainwashing of the military, and he just accepted it.
Yeah, you dehumanize your enemy. It would be pretty inconvenient if, every time a soldier went to shoot his enemy, he had an existential crisis to overcome. Are you suggesting the bugs were actually people or something? I mean, I could buy that if it wasn't for the brain-eating and scenes of people being ripped in half.
Like, literally human beings? No, but they're a metaphor for how humans turn their enemies into brain-eating monsters. I would like to mention that this veteran was very wise and seasoned. The kind of man who went to war to prove he could, not because he thought his cause was just or noble.
TLDR for every SST review: Start of the bell curve: "I'm from Buenos Aires...", "Bugs go splat...". Left side middle of the curve: "Army bad, Natzsis bad...", "Brain washing....", "Child soldiers...", "The film is very clever...", "I love science". Right side middle of the curve: "Totalitarism...", "Brain washing....", "Child soldiers...", "X philosopher indicates that blah blah blah "The film is very clever..." "I am very smart". End of the chart: Most films directed by Paul Verhoeven backfired because you can't make fascism look bad without making them comically evil, like Dr Evil on Austin Powers. XD
I love how the Director of this movie didn't even read the source book. The book was pretty much about hivemind of communist bugs vs libertarian human federation.
Yeah, the privilege of a true artist. Kinda the same with Kubrick and The Shining, "thanks for the inspiration, Stephen, now fuck off while I do whatever I want with the story"
It sort of plays with the same idea that Inglorious Basterds plays with. We assume we are watching a WW2 themed romp, but when we are watching Pride of a Nation, it dawns on us that the story of the Basterds is more or less the same thing ie a propaganda film. @@russelledwards001
This is rather tricky, and I like the film, but there is a major (malfunction) problem. It's a satirisation, but that isn't what the source material is. I read starship troopers last month, expecting space fascism, instead it was a meditation on responsibility, power, nationalism, inferiority, nation building, the wisdom of the past applied to the present and future, and the government isn't even fascist. It's a post collapse military run Republic with considerable freedoms, but strong esprit de corps maintaining civic nationalism. In short, they lied and warped the text. What ties both together is only a few things, like both texts recognising the social scientists and flaws of democracy doomed their past society and led to the veterans taking over. Starship Troopers is philosophy, so much of it focuses on that, the film more has a go mocking militarism and the yanks especially, even though the Heinlein knew this late modern society would not hold. Cheers and a nice discussion.
The movie itself isn't even fascist when Sargeant Zim actively tells people to quit "down Washout Lane!" They even let people quit, like that Black lady that shot Breckinridge. Fascist armies don't have volunteers; they have conscripts and they don't let you quit EVER. Or how the Sky Marshall resigns for fucking up Klendathu and how he got replaced by a Black Woman. Did Hitler stop being Fuhrur after Stalingrad? Private property exists and apparently Rico's family did quite well in the private sector. America in the 40s engaged in propaganda all the time, but it wasn't considered fascist at all. Like Spike Lee and Malcolm X, Verhoven made a movie he didn't actually understand. He tried to strawman American Militarism and argued FOR it, so the critics were half right. Because they both fucked up.
The director of the movie has gone on record admiting that *he never read the book*. www.empireonline.com/movies/features/paul-verhoeven/ "I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring," says Verhoeven of his attempts to read Heinlein's opus. "It is really quite a bad book. I asked Ed Neumeier to tell me the story because I just couldn't read the thing. 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 would 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?'" Let that sink in. He never read the book yet still tries to make "parody" of the book because "it's a very right-wing book". How can he know it if he never read it?
Roger Ebert saw another dimension of depth in ST: "Verhoeven wants to depict the world of the future as it might have been visualized in the mind of a kid reading Heinlein in 1956"
I have always loved this movie. I remember watching it at the cinema when I was 12 years old. Thanks for this analysis. Some of these facts have been aware to me. It goes deeper than people think and it is generally a brilliantly made blockbuster film.
Yes, a very good movie that is much deeper than most people realize. Even things like camera angles and the way the camera pans adds to the propaganda effects...which is funny! For some reason, I had never read the book. After seeing the movie, I thought, "Hey, I need to read that one and see how it's different than the movie." The book is nothing short of amazing! One similarity between them is how both the book and movie discuss how serving in the military is a choice and that it also represents a higher civil calling. When I hear someone claim that this movie is "about facism" all I can think is that they just don't really get it. The book makes this more clear than the movie. There is no real good or evil. Like you stated, there are two species and each one is looking for more room to live.
From one of the Post reviews: ""I need a corporal," says General Owen (Marshall Bell), promoting Johnny in the heat of the campaign. "You’re it until you die or I find somebody better."" Wrong character (Lt. Rasczak) and wrong line ("You're it until you're dead, or til I find someone better."). It's like they didn't even watch the movie...
The fact that the filmmaker's intentions were so poorly misunderstood make the satire and subversive nature of the film even more effective and truly brilliant. So I say : "I'll buy that for a dollar!"
'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" read lyrics to a song in one of my bands. My band-mate was a big fan of the book. I like the lyric )I sang it), but especially like the movie --- not so much my friend whom now DJs, and I still love metal, among other forms of music.
A good way to gage somebody's understanding of truth is to show them this movie and ask them what they think. What they tell you will say everything about their understanding of the current military and political climate.
I'm aware this is nitpicking, but I wanted to point out that nukes definitely weren't used in Afghanistan. The next time anyone uses a nuke, even a "mini" AKA "tactical" nuke, it will be massive world news.
Thank YOU! For doing this critique and dissection of "Starship Troopers". You've mention some excellent points I had not noticed which adds greatly to the ideas presented in the movie.
I've been saying this about extremists for years! You go far enough left or right, you'll eventually meet in the same place. For whatever reason, people have the hardest time wrapping their minds around it. Great clip, man. Keep up the good work!
Right and left are not the same, but they can be indistinguishable in practice. The reason is that the enacted measures to attain and maintain the power needed to be capable of attain the theoretical objectives have more impact than the measures destined to make the theoretical objectives a reality.
What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX, music.......characters are interesting and they have developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues, because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true. So of course, they bashed the movie just for political reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie (Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was "too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing movies with blood and violence) So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people "joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were you can enlist in the army at the next street corner.
Learn to read, man. I said the following: "What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX, music.......characters are interesting and they have developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues, because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true. So of course, they bashed the movie just for political reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie (Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was "too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing movies with blood and violence) So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people "joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were you can enlist in the army at the next street corner." You need someone who read it for you?
No, I repeat it to you (and ask someone to read it, because this goes beyond your cappabilities). I said: "What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX, music.......characters are interesting and they have developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues, because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true. So of course, they bashed the movie just for political reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie (Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was "too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing movies with blood and violence) So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people "joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were you can enlist in the army at the next street corner."
No, I said: "What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX, music.......characters are interesting and they have developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues, because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true. So of course, they bashed the movie just for political reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie (Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was "too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing movies with blood and violence) So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people "joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were you can enlist in the army at the next street corner."
I know I am a year late to the party, but I wanted to point something out to touch on one of your points about the two women in the co-ed shower scene. In that scene you mention the career-minded woman rolling her eyes at the woman whom she deems weaker for wanting to start a family. It is worth noting that the "weaker" family focused woman actually completed recruit training and made it to combat, whereas the "stronger, more career oriented" woman quit. I know that there were circumstances leading to her departure from Recruit training, but she did sign up for the Mobile Infantry where death is part of the job and she couldn't handle it and quit. It is also worth mentioning the parallels between those two characters outcomes: one loses all opportunity to live her dreams and survives, the other gets closer to realizing her dreams and dies. Very dystopian message in this film.
True, but in this case it's a fascist totalitarian society that's being satirized. It's a very real threat and it's not hard at all to get people to sign up for these ideas. I think Hermann Göring, Hitler's Reich-marshall, said it best: "Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
@@Bonez0r Total Fascism in a capitalist democracy is nearly impossible to pull off now that information is so easily shareable. Only in places where totalitarianism or state sapitalism have been practiced in the past is it possible.
@@Bonez0r Man, I fucking love Herman Goring (sorry, don't have 90 degree angled parentheses on my keyboard) He makes me proud to be actively addicted to a morphine derivative.
The funny thing is, Robert Heinlein who wrote the book Starship Troopers was an anti-fascist and anti-communist. His world of Starship Troopers is actually his thesis on how to create the perfect Liberal Democracy in which communism and fascism could never achieve power. It's actually loosely based on the Roman Democratic model. Unfortunately, everyone completely misinterpreted his book and thought it was fascism anyway, including the makers of this film.
Another great deep-but-approachable analysis, Rob. Having a beer and watching one of these in the evening is like being transported into the pub to listen to a knowledgeable mate discussing cinema, haha! Hope you hit 10x the subs eventually with this great content.
that was all part of the vib it had to be b movie-ish it had to come across as tv brainwashing as if we are at hoe watching the fight THINK 1990S IRAQ INVASION
First time viewer. I am blind and love this movie. As you’d expect, I didn’t get some of the visual references until you explained them in this video. Thanks for that and I look forward to learning more from you’re videos. I learned more from this video than from just watching the movie.
I wouldn't mind seeing Starship Troopers remade to mirror the book directly. Would be an interesting to have both that version and the current one in my library for comparison.
Well i think everyone needs to get a copy of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers and actually read it. You will find that the film was great with the special effects, ,it was basically a Warhammer40k movie of the Imperial Guard up against the alien Tyranids. The human's uniforms were spitting images of IG uniforms and equipment , the trenchcoat outfits were the Imperial Commissars and psychers.
Every time re-watch this film a different stages in my life, I am like "ahh, so that is what that is referring to". If there was ever a film that was under rated, it is starship troopers. I wonder if the film was received badly for political reasons more than quality. One thing you will come to know about ruling elites, no matter what society they grow up in, they always grow to hate criticism.
I would argue that the Federation is not totalitarian in nature. People are able to do pretty much whatever they want, even earn wads of cash as private citizens like Rico’s father and mother. However if they wish to participate in government or even vote, they must enlist in the military in order to earn that right. The film also clearly states that certain pursuits, like starting a family, are not prohibited by government, but are easier to achieve as a citizen. And while the military is shown to be quite Nazi-like in their appearance and attitudes, the vast majority of the people are in fact private citizens, as stated in the novel.
Starship Troopers is the proof that nothing about the War of Terror was unexpected or accidental. When film makers can predict exactly what's going to happen, then anyone in military intelligence would have been seeing it as well.
😀 Dang! How do you discover all these subtleties and innuendos? I've watched the movie 4 times and I never noticed any of that. I thought it was just hokey and bad script writing. I didn't know it was a parody of world politics. Maybe there's more to screen writing and directing than I've imagined. Great video by the way!
I appreciate the research you do to support your arguments. I've enjoyed all your work even in rare instances where I may disagree. Your analysis of Starship Troopers is spot on. I agree with a previous poster who stated earlier the disservice done to this movie as well as The Thing by critics who were unwilling or unable to dive below the surface of either film; instead relying on their shallow aesthetic ideals.
Heinlein was anti-egalitarian, and he proposes this militaristic and aristocratic approach to civilization in all seriousness, and his vision is so strong that even though the liberal (and super talented) Verhoeven tries to transmute it into satire, his vision still survives, still shines through, and we are inspired and impressed, often despite ourselves.
Haha, yeah, I thought the exact same thing when I, an educated man in his 30s, fully aware of the strong anti-fascist message of the movie, fully understanding it is a scathing satire, caught myself at the end of a recent cinema screening thinking "wouldn't it be fucking cool to join the mobile infantry?"
Yes, exactly, and the real society in the book isn't fascist. It's a Republic of responsibility and aristocratic ideals, not an evil totalitarian state.
It is crazy to think the film was made in 1997. But that the book was written in 1959 is madness. Up there with 1984 for accuracy in predicting the future.
this is something the thinkers need to get- it's not a prediction, it's a telling of history, stuff that's happened in a contemporary or sci-fi setting. It's a history lesson- and that's why it wasn't well received, knocking over sacred cows and all of that
I saw this in the cinema when it came out and was so bloody drunk i passed out during the trailers. I woke up as they landed on Klendathu. Didn't have a friggin clue what was going on 😃 Loved it! On an unrelated note, i also spewed in the theatre during Trainspotting. Buckfast will do that.
I am 63 year's old and my father fought the Fascist Italians acrross North Africa before being sent to Greece then Crete to fight German Fascists, he was taken as a POW by the Germans after the evacuation ship he was on was hit and sunk. He knew what REAL Fascism was and he loathed it. But when I turned 16 years old my father gave me a copy of Heinlein's book and told me to read it, study it and live my life by it and I would not go wrong. I have done 6 years of military service and six years as a Police Officer. I have served the body politic to which I belong and as I look around and watch the news I can tell you that my father was right and Heinlein was right. If you can't see it get your IQ tested, it's probably about room temperature. If you have not put your life on the line for total strangers every day you can keep your opinions to yourself as I despise cowards. If you have only seen the movie but you can read, get a copy and read it. PROPERLY!!!!!
Yeah. There's plenty of examples of that insidiousness in real life, such ICE using it's Twitter account to talk about stuff like International Women's Day. Sure, they may tear children away from their parents and facilitate slavery and (arguably) genocide but they have paid maternity leave. It's just unfortunate that when something like that crops up in film folks use it to go on about women should be on the birthing bed. Because it's not as if rigidly defined and enforced gender roles weren't a significant hallmark of 20th century fascism or anything...
IllCaesar holy shit how does someone as stupid as you even function in day to day life? Even the child separation thing you complain about is literally don’t because they can’t hold children in the jails that are used for adults. Please tell me how simply detaining people while asylum claims are processed and then deporting people who don’t have legit claims is slavery or genocide.
This is one of my favorite films and was one of three movies I watched over and over again as a kid. Even as a kid I could tell the Federation is distopian, the war is far from home, self-destructive, and ill-led, and the characters are just trying to survive and thrive with what they are given.
This is the ultimate irony. Just like the critics didn’t understand that the movie was satirical, Verhoeven didn’t understand that the book was satirical. Also, there is no reverse racism, there is only racism. I don’t get how such a clever guy can buy into the idea.
The Robert Heinlein novel wasn’t satirical. A common misconception about it is that it was pro- right wing fascism, when upon closer analysis and considering Heinlein’s own political views, it was really a promotion of libertarianism. Unfortunately it’s more than likely that Verhoeven got triggered by the book and assumed that it was glorifying fascism.
@@esyphillis101 Lol, Libertarians are closet fascist. I mean heck, they constantly show how capitalism sucks and how it breaks so easily. Their answer is to replace capitalism with capitalism. They show how a corporation buys and destroys our government. Their answer is to give complete control of everything to corporations. They live in the world full of double talk.
@@esyphillis101 You use "triggered" as a joke, but it's possible Verhoeven actually got triggered in the clinical sense by this book. He was born in Nazi occupied Holland, he hated fascism and was disgusted by what he perceived as the book's fascist undertones
@@leighfoulkes7297 Libertarianism is the polar opposite of Fascism... and Capitalism at its' core meaning is again, the polar opposite of what Fascism is. Fascism essentially entails "the people for the state". Meaning, the government must control every aspect of the population in order to improve a great Nation. You have no liberty in a Fascist state, you work for the government, and conformity is your only means to survive. Libertarianism is a collective idea that everybody should acquire the freedom to acquire without hindrance as a *right* i,e Politics and individual freedom. It is actually an ideology that was used in left wing and right wing politics, and even to this day, it places egalitarianism as core principal second to Liberty. That is completely and utterly the fucking difference to Fascism, you absolute idiot. Libertarians are fundamentally anti-fascist so it's absolutely not true that Libertarians are closest fascist.
I have always compared the bugs with the humans because of how they both look the same in the combat scenes: the bugs already look the same when they are of the same species but even the humans look very similar when wearing the "combat gear" (or suicide gear)
The thing no one that claims this movie portrays facism manages to show or argue is that it portrays facism. Besides the quote from the dircetor that that was his intention. There is no proof of this claim. You see open defiance and critizism of the leaders. No punishment. Does that do not serve has all the same liberties as the ones that do, except the vote. You are activly discourage from serving. There is no racism or sexism. No one in the military can vote or hold political office. There is no dictator. So where exactly is the facism in this movie? In the book there is definatly no facism. But even if you just look at the movie in and off itself there is none. It seems verry roman republic to me. Or limitied democracy. Facism however i see none. As for the bugs. Someone whos goald is to exterminate your entire species.... It stops beeing racism when you hate them unconditonally. And go to war against them. They are also a hivemind not individuals. Even how the conflict starts. You have civilians activly defying goverment advice, and there are no consequences.....
You have a very myopic child's view of fascism. I am guessing you think kings could also do whatever they wanted. Fascists need many people to support them or they will lose power. The most interesting fascist countries are the ones where rulers knew how to control the country well and solidified their own base to the point it was difficult to remove them. Voting doesn't mean you aren't fascist. Nazi Germany had voting, China currently has voting. We have no idea what voting entails in their society and how many options people are given. There very well could be just one party. Any country where the military has exclusive control of the political system is fascist.
@@xthor86 we are talking about the movie not the book. In the movie a character explicitly stated you need to serve to be a politician. In both the book and the movie you can't vote without being in the military and in the book key civilian government positions are reserved for those who served. Based on the ideology of the books those civilian roles would most likely be the positions that exercise the most control over individuals of society. They likely wouldn't need to reserve government jobs either because the way the veterans view civilians, in the book, they would never trust one in a position of power. Show me where in the books or movies it says those in the military can't serve in the government. Even the books legend about how the revolution began was a bunch of vets taking over the government because society was collapsing. This is a pretty clear, although likely unintentional, parallel with how the early Nazis viewed themselves. You need to take a step back and realize this fictional sci go government is fascist. Fascist government aren't inherently evil or good. Like any other government it depends on who is in charge. South Korea had a fascist government after the Korean War but that leader revitalized the country and his harsh stances on dissent and control of the economy allowed them to develop to the world power they are today.
@@warlordnipple You have to serve, but you cannot be in the military when you go into political office. In other words once your out of the military you can be in political office. Only citizens can be politicians. And you only become a citizen when your done with military service. Even in the movies the goverment is akin to the roman republic. It has nothing in common with facistic ruling.
I'm so glad you saw all this in Startship Troopers, although it should be obvious, pretty much everybody I know missed these themes and the satire of it, just reading it straight as an intergalactic war/action movie.
Homeless are predominantly male? We see one person, hardly indicative of a general population, and I think it's more that he is in a destroyed city than homeless in the traditional sense of the word.
If I remember rightly, the script said he was homeless. Yes he's just one guy, but yes he is male. And it's absolutely true that in western society today under our "progressive" system the vast majority of homeless are men, typically about 80%. I worked in the field for near ten years and saw it for myself.
@@collativelearning Yes, this is clear to anyone familiar with social work in our (I'm in the US) system. I've been on both ends of this issue. The reasons for the gender disparity are varied and, frankly, dip into some uncomfortable truths regarding our 'progressive' construct , as you mentioned. Great work, man. You are a light of reason in the typical dross of TH-cam content.
@@collativelearning Men are prideful, men are risk-takers, men are less likely to receive a home due to being perceived as more of a threat. I don't see this as a working of a "progressive system" as you see it. Watching the vide I also thought this comment came out of leftfield, as we do only have one example. It's more than stretching the idea.
@@EverSinceMyExorcism I wouldn't call Rob an MRA, but I did feel a few of the gender related comments were reaching a bit. The film did not show women were as physically strong as men, because the guy beats her in the same scene, but they showed women willing to put their lives on the line in order to get what they desired from this society, just as the men do. The co-ed living conditions might be more likely to discourage fraternization between the ranks, or produce tight pair bonds, rather than the "rampant promiscuity" Rob envisions. How much privacy and free time do they have, after all? I'm not saying Ager is wrong, but there are alternative interpretations that can be made. Verhoeven had co-ed cops in ROBOCOP, too, but no hint of romance between Murphy and Lewis or any of the other cops.
This is without a doubt the best analysis of this direly underappreciated film that I've ever seen. STARSHIP TROOPERS is virtually a perfect movie. But even then, there were aspects of the narrative that, for me, never really squared with the (obvious) satiric under-/overtones...at least, until this video helped me navigate my own thoughts to a better understanding of how every single element in the narrative coheres beautifully.
I appreciate that you restricted your critique to the movies and interviews with the creators. By restricting the analysis in this way you have quite strongly bolstered the argument that ST is a critique and parody of fascism. You habve made some good points I must admit. And yet, I am not convinced. Why does the government as represented by the teacher insist that of discouraging people from becoming citizens but is dedicated to facilitating all who apply.? Why do Rico's parents go out of their way to bribe him and prevent avoid signing up for the only career path that gives him a chance at political power? Power that could certainly benefit a future heir to his wealthy fathers companies? You do make a stronger argument for fascist parody by limiting the review to the movie but not an absolute argument. All sid bravo! This was much more entertaining than the average ST review. And by the way if you want another movie that eerily represents todays PC culture and authoritarianism, you should review Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. Also, for a stronger counter argument than my mindless rambling: watch this: th-cam.com/video/kVpYvV0O7uI/w-d-xo.html
When they showed the military it's surprisingly accurate not all the way but for the most part. Crazy to see this movie is better than most movies today. Sadly I only know 5 people who know about this movie.
In response to the various folks commenting that Communism and Fascism don't overlap with each other ... or that the totalitarian society shown in the movie is not fascist at all ... consider the following.
There are many, many quotes from the writer and director, but this one, from an interview with screenwriter Ed Neumeier for HollywoodInvestigator, is a good, short summation of how he viewed the movie he wrote.
"First, it was an attempt to take on the critical assertion that all action movies are inherently fascistic, thus our shared concept of the movie that War Makes Fascists of us All.
Second, it was a comment on the nature of media and propaganda (using as it did forms from U.S.-made WW2 propaganda films like Why We Fight and Action in the North Atlantic told within the context of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will) as a means by which public consent is manufactured.
Third, it was a meditation on the then (1994) current wave of cultural fascism here in the U.S., political correctness, by proposing, as you and no one else has pointed out, a future Earth society that suffers neither from crime, racism or sexism on the surface but succeeds at this only by the imposition of a strict and authoritarian order."
As for political ideology definitions, those definitions are not real and are not set in stone (see dictionary definitions below). Their function is to make people view each other in camps of good vs bad and to thus justify conflict. At a base psychological level it achieves the same result as plain old racism - hatred and hostility toward the other. That's why I personally don't buy into political ideologies.
But for those who insist on "real" definitions of fascism, let's take a few dictionary examples (and btw Wikipedia isn't an original source. It's also dominated by writers with their own assorted biases) ...
Cambridge dictionary:
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed" (My note: The racism in Starship Troopers is directed toward the bugs)
Merriam-webster dictionary has 2 meanings:
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
"a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control" (My note: the second description is applicable to any totalitarian regime)
Dictionary(dot)com:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." (My note: under this definition racism is "often" a factor, not always, yet has to have a dictator, which usually means a single individual figure head)
The confusion over ideological definitions, even at the level of conflicting dictionary descriptions, occurs with most ideological labels because the labels are not about representing the "real" structures of society. The labels serve a purpose of generating hostile attitudes of us vs them and so the fluidity of the labels in terms of ever shifting meaning is essential to that purpose (Eg. The Nazis claimed to hate Communism but called themselves National socialists). If the definitions were accurately defined then it would be harder for conflict-orientated leaders (and their supporters) to mislead people into perceiving others as the evil ones who need to be suppressed, intimidated or even killed.
In summary, the left vs right, communist vs fascist and other ideological "spectrums" are mostly flat out wrong. The two "opposites" are essentially the same to the point that the labels are disposable. Even capitalism vs socialism is garbage because socialists achieve financial monopoly through political force rather than market forces. Neumeier and Verhoeven have showed a rare recognition of how these kinds of ideological "opposites" mirror each other.
@@samgittins1794 My reference to the dictionaries is to specifically show the conflict in descriptions among them. I don't personally agree with those descriptions because I don't believe in those ideological labels as being accurate and useful to begin with. As you've said "it's too broad imo" ... key words, "in my opinion". So who do we reference? Do we choose a reference description that is convenient to our current argument and do we dismiss the many other sources that offer inconvenient descriptions?
The description you've given of socialism isn't the reality, that's merely the promise that is given to the masses under that ideology. The reality is that socialism facilitates monopolization of industries under the current government leadership (not the population). If the population were given referendums on the major economic decisions then that would more aptly "constitute collective ownership". Of course sometimes a bit of socialism brings about good results if the government does actually use it's economic power for the greater good, but very often it does not. And absolutely key is that a socialist government that does make good on its promises cannot guarantee that the next incoming generations of leaders who inherit the socialist bureaucracy will continue in good faith. Making good on the promises of socialism especially happens less if it's a one party socialist state because the ballot box is not available to the population to remove a government that takes advantage of socialist bureaucracy to pursue a totalitarian, authoritarian or fascist agenda (or whatever label you choose for oppressive government).
Abuse of financial power occurs under all governmental systems because people and governments inherently always have a capitalist side to them. If a society is structured around financial exchanges then it is capitalist whether the money is being spent by companies or the government itself. All socialist countries continue to have a currency. If they didn't they would collapse, unless wages were replaced by forced labour across the board,
As for the people who've criticized political correctness from the "left", yes I'm aware of some of those people and some of their arguments, but I don't think of them as "left wing" in the first place, in the same manner that the ones being called "right wing" i don't consider in that way either. To me they're all individuals with their own personal views.
@@samgittins1794 Thanks for that. Further thoughts
"To merely claim that all socialist governments have been acting in bad faith has been opposed even by right wing historians such as Stephen Kotkin." I never said they all acted in bad faith and I don't consider Stephen Kotkin to be "right wing", I just view him as a historian with his own views. I also don't think of the regimes you describe as "socialist" to begin with (how are they any more social than anyone else?), I think of them as autocratic. It's a more accurate term because what they ultimately promote in real terms is expansion of governmental control over the population. Even those "collective farms in the USSR" were a disaster. experienced and established farmers were lynched, killed and sent off to slave camps because they supposedly had too much money and the lack of those people then resulted in a failed farming systems that starved millions. Neither China nor the Soviet Union provide good examples of "socialism".
I also don't think there is any "collective ownership". I consider it a propaganda term. A public park near me, for example, isn't owned by me. It's owned by my local council who make their own decisions about how that park is maintained and how it's used. I have no personal say in those matters so I have no ownership. I pay taxes that facilitate others having a decision making monopoly over that park. Same applies to any other government run resource. It doesn't mean the controlling authority is making bad decisions though, just as a corporation controlling a resource can do so in ways that are beneficial or harmful. Politicians and business people are no better or worse than each other.
You say that my use of the phrase the "current government leadership" is mistaken because that government is capitalist, but I did not reference a specific government.
You're right that the phrase "capitalism" is weakened on the basis that any government or individual that uses currency inherently has a capitalist side. It's not a weak argument, it's a valid point. When a description is mismatched by evidence it the description that is flawed. That's why that label, and many others, need to be dropped and replaced with more accurate descriptions that more aptly communicate the complex realities of our civilization. Why cling onto a flawed term that hampers discussion by misleading people?
Thanks for a civil discussion. Can I ask btw, do you consider yourself a "socialist"? It seems to be an ideological label you wish to defend.
Writer, that would be Heinlein, right?
Whatever you mention about this, it's not from the actual book. the Director refused to read it, and it's very possible that the writer of the movie got the book from Heinlein wrong.
In the book, the most important thing was the suit that the mobile infantries wore. It's not in the movie. Most important failure. This failure progressed through the movies, until one of the later ones.
Then there is of course, the concept of men and women in combat.
Well, in the book, women are better pilots, so all of the pilots are female. Making all of the mobile infantry male.
There's a plot point that after being at war for a while Johnny Rico needs to upgrade his education, allowing him to go to the bridge, something he began to look forward to because that's were the women were.
Now to your commentary of communism and fascism being two sides of the same coin, which I agree with, have you seen Michael Palin's performance as Molotov in The Death of Stalin?
You should try reading Marx some time instead of just repeating all the tired "centrist" drivel they taught you in high school.
Honestly speaking, you are a very wise and hilarious person who inspires me to be a damn good teacher.
"the enemy cannot push the dislike button, if you disable his hand!"
- TH-cam deciding on removing the dislike button in 2021
MEDIC!!
PUT YOUR HAND ON THAT WALL!
@@akrmki3389 someone knifed youtubes hand
Would you like to know more?
At this point I'd like to know less.
If you think you're psychic...maybe you are?
... then read the book
Who the fuck even pays this guy to hear more on a movie when everyone else does it for free?
I find that 99% of people who watch this movie don't know shit in the first place. They seem to fail to comprehend more.
The critical reception of Starship Troopers and The Thing are some of the worst crimes against humanity.
Yes, criminal charges are long overdue lol
And every other Kubrick film.
Add IGN review of Alien Isolation and you have a trifecta
critics are absolutely pointless parasites. quicker they're exiled from society the better.
Definitely in the top 3 of worst crimes against humanity.
Franky, I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive.
Then you are in opposition to the Federation. The woman was the representative of the Federation's theory that there has to be bugs that think
Why? Because you kill them without a second thought? Do you feel like only humans are capable of thought?
Ya like Jazz?
@@Sorrowablaze The only good bug is a dead bug! I'm kidding it's a line from that pompous idiot in the film. Also Charles, check out the bug insignia on the human's uniforms. Credit to Rob!
Underrated comment
This was my first rated-R movie. Still love it!
One of the most rewatchable movies.
My dad showed me this when I was 6, I loved it.
I was born in 2007
Same! I saw this in the theaters with my stepdad for my 9th birthday. 😌
One of mine as well!
The way I've always defended this movie, which left me slack-jawed on first watching, is that it starts like Beverly Hills 90210 In Space, then turns into the goriest high-budget blockbuster ever made. Now I'll buy THAT for a dollar!
Love the Robocop reference! 👍🏿
"Beverly Hills 90210 in space". 🤣 Yeah and I love how it doesn't have the predictable ending of Rico getting the girl. He doesn't even give a shyt at the end.
This is sorta beside the point, but I've always maintained that the true mark of turning from boy to man is when you realize Dina Meyer is way, WAY, hotter than Denise Richards.
@The505Guys It's not about the age of the women, it's about the characters. Dina Meyer's character is more interesting, more sexually engaged, more active about her wants. Denise Richards is model-hot but vapid, happily swinging from one man to the other less out of her own interests, more out of the dictates of whoever's nearby. I don't think it's accidental in a movie that discusses loss of humanity to wartime that the more fascinating woman dies while the smiling idiot survives.
@@Emblematic This chic I dated had the same lol! It was kinda weird, but her bum made up for it. XD
And Michael Ironside is hotter than both of them.
Tbh, I would have to see them alone before I could award my apple.
James Van Fleet interesting comment. Reminds me of the Graduate. Now I think Mrs Robinson is hotter than Elaine
Credit to Basil Poledouris for a pitch perfect soundtrack.
Nice, didnt know that
Amen! Basil is amazing.
That's the best thing that came out of this garbage fire.
@@jamesmccrea4871 go watch Michael Bay then
Conan the Barbarian soundtrack fans here !
Basil is a top notch maestro
All three of Verhoeven's big sci-fi films (RoboCop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers) are extremely underrated. There is much more substance to them than they are given credit for. People overlook them in favour for slow films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey because slow means high intellect and depth and fast-paced action means dumb and shallow.
I always loved Paul Verhoeven movies. Their social commentary is both dark and funny
I should watch Robocop. I was put off by it's cheesy 80's action cliched look when I was younger, but everyone seems to praise it as being pretty smart and satirical.
Yes you should its possibly verhoeven’s best.
Too bad he's a fucking idiot who misunderstood the thematics he was suppose to parody. The Federation isn't even Fascist, which is funny because he didn't read pass the 2nd chapter which thereafter delves into its' politics.
If only he weren’t in denial about the fact that he’s made science fiction movies. He seems to think that because his movies are smart, they can’t be science fiction. For him, and for many snobs, science fiction is for nerds and therefore low status and therefore cannot be art
Yes even holloman is an under appreciated creepy master piece (though i think i only saw it once years ago)
This movie was great when it came out and even more so today.
It scares me how well this movie has aged!
@@Grubnar I know! It's sort of like--Is this the future?
Castle Bravo I wish we were in that timeline, but unfortunately we got the “Idiocracy” timeline
@@freeshaable Yeah, we're in the future where we can't find the TV remote, ------forget about going to other planets.
Re-watching it recently I noticed some other things. The movie begins with a propaganda piece about the Earths space defense cannons which blast asteroids sent by the bugs out of the sky, yet one hits the home town of the main characters. This is then used in a "unanimous vote" to invade the bug planet. This vote is made as immediately as the news breaks, as we hear both in the same news broadcast, showing that this asteroid is what allowed them to approve a full war. Later when they invade the bug home-world and in almost every fight we see with the bugs, the human soldiers attack first. Sometimes the bugs hold back and look confused, especially during the first landing and charge after being attacked. At the end when NPH's character links with the Brain Bug he says "They're afraid" The troops celebrate upon hearing this.
Plus there really is an asteroid crater in that region of the world (Mexico).
@@russelledwards001 The area of Mexico where that asteroid strike occurred is located at the Yucatan peninsula. This is c.4300 miles away from Buenos Aires in Argentina, which is the city destroyed by the bugs in Starship Troopers.
Again, sounds like the Afghanistan war. An excuse to invade, real or not. This movie has tons of subtle stuff like that hiding in plain sight. I came to the same conclusion but didn't notice the black officer whipping the white man.
The asteroid that can get through such effective space defense cannons are the planes that got through the air defenses of the "best military ever on Earth". Both are only touted as being the best in their propaganda.
Are you from that bug planet?
The bit with the two intellectuals on TV is very prophetic: The guy almost screaming he’s deeply offended by the idea of intelligent bugs. Taking offence and shutting down further thought is seen as an acceptable argument in SST’s world, as it is currently on social media.
And no one thought to ask why would they need to make war on a species that didn't possess rational thought.
The brain bugs are capable of rational thought, you fucking moron. Furthermore, the audience IS presented with reasons to kill them; as if the idea of nuking a planet filled with hyper-aggressive man-eating spiders from orbit needs justifying.
@@billrich9722 the book mentions bugs having a deep and complex society. And the humans struck first, regardless of book or movie.
@@justhjon2217 I don’t know if you can call a Morman colony “striking first”. I don’t remember the cause for war in the book; it has been too many years since reading it.
Nevertheless, I’m not taking about the book. I’m talking about the movie.
@@billrich9722 in the movie, the humans attacked the queen, got meteor dropped and decided to attack harder.
In Rasczak's speech, he doesn't promote totalitarianism. He talks about the "failure of democracy" which is completely correct. Democracy is mob rule, that's why the American Constitution prescribes a representative Republic as the structure of government. America has elements of democracy, but it isn't a pure democracy. Rasczak talks about having to earn your vote in the Federation's Republic by serving to defend it. A totalitarian or fascistic government wouldn't allow citizens to vote. All government power would be held by one person or a few people.
wrong.
@@wilburdemitel8468 - Nice response! You really point out the flaws in my argument. 😂
I've always seen this not as a movie that breaks the 4th wall, but literally as a movie that is playing for the audience of the future world
What's that mean?
Some current commercials for the US Military remind me of the recruitment commercials from “Starship Troopers”. One recruitment commercial for the US military has a child surrounded soldiers from the various branches of the armed forces with the announcer saying “In order to get to her, they have to get through us”.
statship trooper is on the reading list for us navy officers
@@Spider-Too-Too Yes it is, because its actually a very good study of what makes a good leader in both war and peace.
Notable flaw: "The Federation" is not "totalitarian," Dissent is allowed and personal lives are largely unregulated. "Authoritarian" would be closer.
I think you're confusing the book with the movie.
@@mr.pavone9719 No. Remember if nothing else the discussion about "brain bugs" on the TV show. Different sides in public debate.
Part 3 went more totalitarian, but it also mentions "draft riots," which is the antithesis of the "Starship Troopers" story--all volunteer, can quit whenever you want, and rewarded with citizenship. So it fell away.
I agree that the licensing of having babies goes toward totalitarian. But frankly, it was so far over-the-top by the politically-driven production staff as to be laughable. A throwaway shot like that could not be taken as reflective of the movie.
Not really, it is totalitatian, but american totalitarism. Note that the dissent is "allowed" but it is punishable. Not only that, but the population is allowed to bitch and moan to a certain degree, but have no power what so ever in the politics and decision making. For that you have to be a citizen, but in the process of being one, they are brainwashed and lose their humanity in the process. It is not a Chinese totallitarism, because it doesnt use mind control *and* liberal violence combined with zero tolerance of dissent. The way they go around is the german and american way: Propaganda. So it is a mix and feel of all the left regimes. And yes, left and right, including far left and far right are all spectruns of socialism. Hence, they are all the same thing, just with different methodology.
@@Melanrick Not really.
The woman stomping the foot of her opponent doesn't qualify as "punishment."
The whole premise is that to exercise political authority, one must show willingness to put the community ahead of oneself. That is not itself totalitarian. It's just not democracy.
TOTALITARIAN: Exerts control over everything in society.
AUTHORITARIAN: Whatever control it exerts, it exerts without question.
The rest is just word salad confusing socialism and totalitarianism and whatever.
@@TommygunNG strictly speaking the Federation is a stratocracy, where citizenship is earned through military service and the armed forces exercise control over the other branches of government.
The argument from the classroom scene is that liberal democracy leads to decadence and social decline because voters need to be screened for character before being awarded the franchise. A lazy, undisciplined population leads to a government that panders to the worst tendencies of the majority in order to seek re-election. ("Bread and circuses").
I feel like it probably would have been useful to talk about the themes of the book that this movie was based on, which, roughly speaking, endorsed the war with the bugs, and sought to demonstrate how even an ideal society could be brought to war with another civilization. Verhoeven apparently hadn't read the book, and so the anti-war and anti-fascist sentiments are kind of laid over scenes which were written as pro-war in the novel. The inconsistency isn't just about showing how we might be susceptible to propaganda; there's an actual internal inconsistency between the presentation and the source material.
The movie is so completely different from the book I'm not even sure it's worth comparing.
Rob,have you ever read the book? It's one of my favourites of all time. Although whenever I read it, I always follow it with Joe Haldeman's Forever War.
Both excellent books, among my favorites.
I doubt he did read the book. Otherwise he would have pointed out the differences between the book and movie. Also how the movie accidently left in some unfascist elements in the society.
Agree, excellent. I really liked Double Star too.
A very 'out there' friend of mine insisted I see Starship Troopers in the 90s. She realised it wasn't a movie I would ever have seen on my own initiative. Lured me in by saying "you're probably one of the few people I know who will actually really 'get it'". I think it's a work of genius and agree with everything said about it in this clip. Only thing to add is the ancient allusions, like citizenship being granted as a reward for service.
Rob, you have become one of my favorite film commentators. I love to listen to your discussions when I'm commuting. Have you ever considered doing something like a podcast? Maybe a bimonthly or weekly series discussing films or whatever media. There is an audience outthere for substantive discussions.
Don't take this review to heart. He missed the mark by a huge margin.
The uniforms are surplus East German border guard kit. The two lightening bolts are on the shoulders of the black soldier - two stripes is the universal signage of corporals, which is what he was, not the double runes of the SS. The first battle was filmed in Montana, and it does not look like Afghanistan...I should know: I've been to both.
I was under the impression that "universal' meant everybody used them. Last I checked, the US uses chevrons. I could look up what other nations use but lol I'm an American and therefore don't give a shit about other nations.
@@billrich9722 Check out Israeli NCO ranks. As non-fascist as you can get, and almost identical to what was used in Starship Troopers.
I don't know if you and I are looking at the same thing. I found chevrons and slanted rectangles.
Not universal.
Lol wut
It doesn't surprise me that the critics gave Starship Troopers a poor review. I think we really have finally got to the stage where critics have so discredited their own "profession", that very few people pay attention to their reviews. In fact we may even be at the point where a bad review from a critic suggests a good movie to the public, and vice versa when they give a film a good review. The critics appear to be far more interested in pushing a political agenda, when the public just want to told what films are entertaining and which ones aren't. The politicisation of all of our media has become hard to ignore and critics are largely employed by the politicised mainstream media. Even critics with whom I used to have some faith and would listen to their opinions, like Mark Kermode of the BBC, have become overly political, to the point where their suggestions just suggest a borefest of very "worthy" movies (only worthy if you agree with their political message, of course).
I have always thought Woody Allen said it best.."I heard that Commentary and Dissent had merged and formed Dysentery." That pretty much sums up the game these days.
@@samgittins1794 Plenty of art is non-political in nature...
Jimmyduudah no it’s not you were just too young to notice it
Yep
I loved ST. It was like a big budget Aliens.
"Rico you know what to do!"
Gets me everytime 😟
Yeah but he did blow that blokes head up in scanners....
"I expect the best, and I give the best."
The sergent gives them plastic violons, beer, and balls, as a few scenes before half of them were slaughtered by arachnids in a gorry way.
lets me real here, its a war setting. youre lucky if they give you a pat on the back
This film has soo many hidden narratives you hardly scratch the surface.
one point often missed is that the whole bug war begins just because a meteor falls into earth
While the premise stated here may be true for the movie, it's a stated fact that Paul Verhoeven never read the source material; he never read the book the movie's based on, he just read reviews of the book that grossly misinterpreted what the story was about. A lot of people misunderstood both the plot and the actual nature of the Federation in the book, and because of it, this tripe of a movie was allowed to further taint the legacy of Heinlein's work.
The book is radically different than the movie, and it behooves everyone to read the book to understand how it's been misinterpreted over the years.
@peter&mj123 l By saying 'sound like', I'm assuming you never read the book?
You should read the book if you're going to critique it, or failing that listen to the audiobook, which is available on this platform.
That Rico serves in a military fashion is purely on account of the fact that at this time in the story's history, the Federation is in a time of war against genocidal alien races, only one of which is the Bugs. In other times, what is considered 'service' can and is a wide variety of functions, an the recruiters themselves tell you that so long as you stick with it you could be mopping floors for the entire span of your service period and it'd still qualify you to become a Citizen.
It also doesn't say that only the military makes decisions: by definition all politicians are Veterans, and as such aren't part of active military. The entire point of the book is to demonstrate that the choice of who directs the course of mankind's history should be left to people who've not only demonstrated a basic level of competence, but who've dedicated a portion of their lives to the service of humanity. The Federation is a meritocracy, nothing more. It's the furthest thing from the military dictatorship people think it is due to misinterpretations by critics.
When you get some time, listen to this in the background of whatever you're doing, and when it starts getting into the structure of the Federation's society, you might get a different impression than the one you had before: th-cam.com/video/EOQMpb_R41Y/w-d-xo.html
Never has the harsh realities of the military industrial complex been so exposed as in this film.
Thank you for this and all your other reviews which rip the surface rather than scratch it.
EXACTLY ITS DEEP AS HELL AND SO WELL MADE everything about it is genius wink wink TONG IN CHEEK we know the truth you fucks genius
What “realities of the military industrial complex” does this film expose?
I don't even think he knows what he's talking about.
@@johnharmon6119 the illusions of propaganda versus the realities of war. You are aware of what propaganda is?
The Conscientious Objector really? That’s the insightful reality that the movie shows? Something I could learn by literally just reading the definition of propaganda? (That’s also something that is in no way unique to the military industrial complex) Also the federation literally live-streams the klandathu invasion so it’s not like no one knows what is going on.
Hey Rob, I essentially agree 100% with the film analysis (esp that communism, nazis, neo-cons etc are all flavors of fascism). There is one theme that I did not see you address at all - the "right to exist". This is not an excuse of the grossness of each side (bugs, humans) but a fact. Carl's line "You disapprove? Well, too bad! We're in this war for the species, boys and girls. It's simple numbers. They have more." and Rasczach's aphorism on "the forefathers of Hiroshima" make it clear that you physically cannot claim to be the better culture, if you are wiped out/extinct. It is a very dark philosophical realization that most people are squeamish to even touch. Do you have a view on this? I do not pretend that there is an "easy answer" and I do not expect you to provide one, but unless I missed it, this wasn't addressed at all in the analysis. What I fear, is that the humans have to be as gross as they are depicted in the film to stand a chance to simply survive against the bugs - this is not a claim as I cannot prove it, but it is as I said, a fear.
Heinline has also gotten an unfair rap from his book the film was loosely based upon. Jaun Rico is the full name in the book along with being of Filipino decent. Most people I've seen criticize Heinlein him never seem to have actually read his work. In particular they love to use the 'Violence is the supreme authority' quote as a blanket statement against him. He's a really interesting figure in fiction in general. 'All you zombies' and the film version of it called 'Predestination' are worth checking out as well.
Heinlein was impressive in that he could write a book like "Starship Troopers" or "Stranger in a Strange Land" without necessarily embracing the ideas he was presenting (and those stories have very different social ethics, one of a military state, the other of a sort of hippie free-love communism). His characters would believe in ideals and change the world for the benefit of those ideals, but Heinlein himself considered those ideals more in the way of a thought experiment.
Predestination I only bought because it was based on
Heinlein, So glad I did! Orphans of the Sky I recommend. And Double Star. If you haven't read them.👍
This is the pure and honest truth though: "Violence is the supreme authority". Where do you think the autority of the state, police and justice system comes from? They have monopoly on violence.
@@xthor86I don't believe that violence is authority at all. It's power, and there's a difference. Authority, legitimate authority, comes from competence and integrity. People can have power but not authority, or authority but not power, but to confuse them is to assume that might makes right, which it doesn't.
Well, violence isn’t the only authority. It’s just the supreme one. Integrity and competence are are fine and dandy, vital, even. But they’re meaningless if you don’t have the strength the back it up. And that sometimes means violence. It’s a harsh reality.
you should mention how the cover art makes the soldiers look like ants coming out a a dirt hill
1:40 I never realized Lt. Carver from the western district did a stint with the core prior to the BPD. Good on him!
It can sit proudly alongside Bladerunner and The Thing as two sci fi movies that were savaged by the critics and went on to become stone cold classics.
I've lost count how many times I've watched BLADERUNNER. more than likely into the hundreds of times now...only time the movie was better than the book it was based upon imo.
@@MattShade64 Shining the movie blew the book out of the water
@@element1111 hey yeah good point! Weird I'm watching that right now
Starship Troopers is not as well appreciated as Blade Runner and The Thing, but considering its political intelligence, it may as well be. :)
I think it is the more technical aspects that let the film, indeed all of Verhoven's films, down. Verhoven's photography always looks like an after thought to me. Big feature production, big feature director....tv movie photographer. I can't put my finger on it, but I can never love Verhoven because I simply don't like the way he shoots his films. @@jocaerbannog9052
@Collative Learning - How do you feel about Sargon's analysis of the film? Especially when it's argued that the humans are justified and the parody of war by Verhoeven was actually only surface-layer deep?
one of my favorite movies of all time. when i first saw at like 14yo, i loved it for the OTT violence and now i love for the themes you mentioned. Also thank you, finally somebody acknowledges how good this movie still looks effects wise. When I got the bluray I couldn't believe how good the cgi still looks. It whipes the floor with many modern effects-movies. This movie overall ages like a fine wine.
I have seen this movie many times and also read the original book. While I was aware of a great many of the themes discussed in this video analysis, I never once thought of the movie as a satire. I especially thought the statement by Michael Ironside's character regarding why only miltary serving citizens could vote while non-serving civilians could not was especially insightful. The teacher explained that when a person casts a vote, that person is exercising political force. Every election here in the U.S. there are tens of millions of people who have no real concept of what it means to defend liberty and property, but who use the ballot box to send hordes of politicians to governmental office in order to restrict the freedoms of their fellow countrymen and confiscate their hard-earned money in taxes and other fiscal measures. In many ways, this has denigrated from a democratic form of republican government into nothing but a socially acceptable way for one group to harass and extort people of another group backed up by the power of big brother with all of their police and judges. So ask yourself a serious non-satirical question. What do you think is going to happen in this nation one day soon when enough of our experienced military veterans and other well-trained gun owners get totally fed up with a bunch of corrupt and incompetent politicians who will say anything to get votes and yet can't even balance a budget or defend our borders? Can we still learn from our mistakes, prosecute those in government who have made a mockery of our laws, and clean out our justice system before it's too late? Or do you think the results of that situation will just be more satire???
Underrated classic is right! Starship Troopers is one of the best films of the 90s.
It’s easier to spot the satire if you see it on the small screen. When I first saw the movie I could have sworn it was advocating the society it depicted; when I saw it again on home video I was able to get the satire
Yes, first viewing in cinema was WTF ??? Enjoyed it, but at first seemed like a big commercial action piece and nothing more.
Something interesting:I was talking with an old war veteran one day, and the subject of starship troopers came up. We got to talking about the use of "bugs" in science fiction, and how they applied to the real world, and he eventually said "The bugs change faces.""What do you mean?""I mean, that in order to make a man kill another, you have to turn the enemy into a bug, y'know, brainwash people into hating their neighbors, that sorta thing. Once the killing is done, and another man needs to be killed, you make them believe the new enemy are bugs just like the old enemy." It implied to me he understood the brainwashing of the military, and he just accepted it.
Yeah, you dehumanize your enemy. It would be pretty inconvenient if, every time a soldier went to shoot his enemy, he had an existential crisis to overcome.
Are you suggesting the bugs were actually people or something? I mean, I could buy that if it wasn't for the brain-eating and scenes of people being ripped in half.
Like, literally human beings? No, but they're a metaphor for how humans turn their enemies into brain-eating monsters. I would like to mention that this veteran was very wise and seasoned. The kind of man who went to war to prove he could, not because he thought his cause was just or noble.
@@SoleMan117 Samurai etos, Bushido
Yeah, I mean accepted it in a warrior mentality, like he choose to go to war, just to prove he could.
Read the Marshall Report!
And Police Academies use programming also.
It helps you to save innocent lives. You know, the people that bad people kill.
As a Mormon I always chuckled at the slaughtered settlers Port Joe Smith news clip.
omg this is brilliant. ST was one of the best political films of all time. Right up there with Dr. Strangelove imo
TLDR for every SST review:
Start of the bell curve: "I'm from Buenos Aires...", "Bugs go splat...".
Left side middle of the curve: "Army bad, Natzsis bad...", "Brain washing....", "Child soldiers...", "The film is very clever...", "I love science".
Right side middle of the curve: "Totalitarism...", "Brain washing....", "Child soldiers...", "X philosopher indicates that blah blah blah "The film is very clever..." "I am very smart".
End of the chart: Most films directed by Paul Verhoeven backfired because you can't make fascism look bad without making them comically evil, like Dr Evil on Austin Powers.
XD
I love how the Director of this movie didn't even read the source book. The book was pretty much about hivemind of communist bugs vs libertarian human federation.
Yeah, the privilege of a true artist. Kinda the same with Kubrick and The Shining, "thanks for the inspiration, Stephen, now fuck off while I do whatever I want with the story"
Well aristocratic Republic of responsibility.
Worked though. The Shining movie eclipses the book as far as artistic quality goes. @@somegoddamnguy
Errr.... the nazis had reporters and news too you know? And the soviet communists? This is basically a satirical war propaganda / recruitment movie.
It sort of plays with the same idea that Inglorious Basterds plays with. We assume we are watching a WW2 themed romp, but when we are watching Pride of a Nation, it dawns on us that the story of the Basterds is more or less the same thing ie a propaganda film. @@russelledwards001
This is rather tricky, and I like the film, but there is a major (malfunction) problem. It's a satirisation, but that isn't what the source material is. I read starship troopers last month, expecting space fascism, instead it was a meditation on responsibility, power, nationalism, inferiority, nation building, the wisdom of the past applied to the present and future, and the government isn't even fascist. It's a post collapse military run Republic with considerable freedoms, but strong esprit de corps maintaining civic nationalism.
In short, they lied and warped the text.
What ties both together is only a few things, like both texts recognising the social scientists and flaws of democracy doomed their past society and led to the veterans taking over. Starship Troopers is philosophy, so much of it focuses on that, the film more has a go mocking militarism and the yanks especially, even though the Heinlein knew this late modern society would not hold.
Cheers and a nice discussion.
Read the book, you won't regret it.
The movie itself isn't even fascist when Sargeant Zim actively tells people to quit "down Washout Lane!" They even let people quit, like that Black lady that shot Breckinridge. Fascist armies don't have volunteers; they have conscripts and they don't let you quit EVER. Or how the Sky Marshall resigns for fucking up Klendathu and how he got replaced by a Black Woman. Did Hitler stop being Fuhrur after Stalingrad? Private property exists and apparently Rico's family did quite well in the private sector. America in the 40s engaged in propaganda all the time, but it wasn't considered fascist at all.
Like Spike Lee and Malcolm X, Verhoven made a movie he didn't actually understand. He tried to strawman American Militarism and argued FOR it, so the critics were half right. Because they both fucked up.
@@dragonknightleader1 great points, and yes he didn't get it.
Sargon of Akkad's *The Politics of Starship Troopers* th-cam.com/video/kVpYvV0O7uI/w-d-xo.html
The director of the movie has gone on record admiting that *he never read the book*.
www.empireonline.com/movies/features/paul-verhoeven/
"I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring," says Verhoeven of his attempts to read Heinlein's opus. "It is really quite a bad book. I asked Ed Neumeier to tell me the story because I just couldn't read the thing. 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 would 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?'"
Let that sink in. He never read the book yet still tries to make "parody" of the book because "it's a very right-wing book". How can he know it if he never read it?
Roger Ebert saw another dimension of depth in ST: "Verhoeven wants to depict the world of the future as it might have been visualized in the mind of a kid reading Heinlein in 1956"
Ebert with the sharp insights as always. He panned so many great movies, but the worst was Pauline Kael, the worst film critic I've ever come across.
I have always loved this movie. I remember watching it at the cinema when I was 12 years old. Thanks for this analysis. Some of these facts have been aware to me. It goes deeper than people think and it is generally a brilliantly made blockbuster film.
Thank you for the review and the suggestion of Starship Trooper 3. I really enjoyed it!
Yes, a very good movie that is much deeper than most people realize. Even things like camera angles and the way the camera pans adds to the propaganda effects...which is funny! For some reason, I had never read the book. After seeing the movie, I thought, "Hey, I need to read that one and see how it's different than the movie." The book is nothing short of amazing! One similarity between them is how both the book and movie discuss how serving in the military is a choice and that it also represents a higher civil calling. When I hear someone claim that this movie is "about facism" all I can think is that they just don't really get it. The book makes this more clear than the movie. There is no real good or evil. Like you stated, there are two species and each one is looking for more room to live.
From one of the Post reviews: ""I need a corporal," says General Owen (Marshall Bell), promoting Johnny in the heat of the campaign. "You’re it until you die or I find somebody better.""
Wrong character (Lt. Rasczak) and wrong line ("You're it until you're dead, or til I find someone better."). It's like they didn't even watch the movie...
The fact that the filmmaker's intentions were so poorly misunderstood make the satire and subversive nature of the film even more effective and truly brilliant.
So I say : "I'll buy that for a dollar!"
'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" read lyrics to a song in one of my bands. My band-mate was a big fan of the book. I like the lyric )I sang it), but especially like the movie --- not so much my friend whom now DJs, and I still love metal, among other forms of music.
Ironside loses legs this time
“RICO! YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO!!! >8•O”
See you at the party, Richter!
@@leandroingrassia Even in The Machinist he lost a hand. Can't remember if he loses his head in Scanners
Nah, in scanners, he switches minds and bodies, so he's the good guy at the end.
@@MastaSmack oh yeah
A good way to gage somebody's understanding of truth is to show them this movie and ask them what they think. What they tell you will say everything about their understanding of the current military and political climate.
I'm aware this is nitpicking, but I wanted to point out that nukes definitely weren't used in Afghanistan. The next time anyone uses a nuke, even a "mini" AKA "tactical" nuke, it will be massive world news.
I think he meant nuke building and arsenals of the cold war. America was trying to stick a nuke on everything then
Thank YOU! For doing this critique and dissection of "Starship Troopers". You've mention some excellent points I had not noticed which adds greatly to the ideas presented in the movie.
I've been saying this about extremists for years! You go far enough left or right, you'll eventually meet in the same place. For whatever reason, people have the hardest time wrapping their minds around it. Great clip, man. Keep up the good work!
Right and left are not the same, but they can be indistinguishable in practice.
The reason is that the enacted measures to attain and maintain the power needed to be capable of attain the theoretical objectives have more impact than the measures destined to make the theoretical objectives a reality.
10:44 What are you even talking about? What was predicted? Motherhood being seen as pathetic? Are you actually kidding?
He's another one who hasn't bothered to form his own opinion of the movie, just parrots the same old lazy talking points.
Thanks for sticking up for this film! I have always thought it deserved a better reputation 👍🏼
What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX, music.......characters are interesting and they have developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues, because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true.
So of course, they bashed the movie just for political reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie (Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was "too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing movies with blood and violence)
So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people "joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were you can enlist in the army at the next street corner.
Learn to read, man. I said the following:
"What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad
reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an
adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX,
music.......characters are interesting and they have
developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues,
because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true.
So of course, they bashed the movie just for political
reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie
(Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was
"too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the
biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics
said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying
to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing
movies with blood and violence)
So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted
to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do
that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked
they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people
"joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with
more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were
you can enlist in the army at the next street corner."
You need someone who read it for you?
No, I repeat it to you (and ask someone to read it, because this goes beyond your cappabilities). I said:
"What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad
reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an
adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX,
music.......characters are interesting and they have
developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues,
because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true.
So of course, they bashed the movie just for political
reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie
(Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was
"too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the
biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics
said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying
to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing
movies with blood and violence)
So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted
to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do
that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked
they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people
"joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with
more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were
you can enlist in the army at the next street corner."
No, I said:
"What is interesting to analyse is WHY they gave this movie bad
reviews........it works perfectly as a satire.......it works as an
adventure movie.......it works on every single level of SFX,
music.......characters are interesting and they have
developement......the reason was not due to its technical issues,
because anyone who then sees the movie can comprehend that is not true.
So of course, they bashed the movie just for political
reasons.........which is the same they do with Mel Gibson's movie
(Apocalypto was destroyed on the first critics reviews claiming it was
"too violent" and "too much blood", the latest unsurprisingly the
biggest of all the complaints, because this was tying up to what critics
said about Passion of the Christ, that it was porno-gore, like trying
to portrait Gibson as a blood thirsty vampire who gets boners doing
movies with blood and violence)
So there is the point of this strange issue..........the critics wanted
to destroy the movie........but why in the hell they would want to do
that? EEUU shares the exact same policts of the movie........I'm shocked
they didn't promoted the movie a bit more, to increase the people
"joining the army"..........I remember I had the urge to play DOOM with
more bugs after I watched the movie.....imagine that in a country were
you can enlist in the army at the next street corner."
Gromph Baenre
Should have beat her harder
nicolashrv apocalypto is a piece of shit. Can’t hold to Starship troopers.
I know I am a year late to the party, but I wanted to point something out to touch on one of your points about the two women in the co-ed shower scene. In that scene you mention the career-minded woman rolling her eyes at the woman whom she deems weaker for wanting to start a family. It is worth noting that the "weaker" family focused woman actually completed recruit training and made it to combat, whereas the "stronger, more career oriented" woman quit. I know that there were circumstances leading to her departure from Recruit training, but she did sign up for the Mobile Infantry where death is part of the job and she couldn't handle it and quit. It is also worth mentioning the parallels between those two characters outcomes: one loses all opportunity to live her dreams and survives, the other gets closer to realizing her dreams and dies. Very dystopian message in this film.
Just because a thing is satirized doesn't mean that that thing is wrong/bad......
True, but in this case it's a fascist totalitarian society that's being satirized. It's a very real threat and it's not hard at all to get people to sign up for these ideas. I think Hermann Göring, Hitler's Reich-marshall, said it best:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
@@Bonez0r Total Fascism in a capitalist democracy is nearly impossible to pull off now that information is so easily shareable. Only in places where totalitarianism or state sapitalism have been practiced in the past is it possible.
@@Bonez0r Man, I fucking love Herman Goring (sorry, don't have 90 degree angled parentheses on my keyboard) He makes me proud to be actively addicted to a morphine derivative.
you didn't get the movie
The funny thing is, Robert Heinlein who wrote the book Starship Troopers was an anti-fascist and anti-communist. His world of Starship Troopers is actually his thesis on how to create the perfect Liberal Democracy in which communism and fascism could never achieve power. It's actually loosely based on the Roman Democratic model. Unfortunately, everyone completely misinterpreted his book and thought it was fascism anyway, including the makers of this film.
Another great deep-but-approachable analysis, Rob. Having a beer and watching one of these in the evening is like being transported into the pub to listen to a knowledgeable mate discussing cinema, haha! Hope you hit 10x the subs eventually with this great content.
Were are the links to the WaPo reviews? Thanks Rob
Just added them in video description. Thanks for reminding me, I'd forgot !!!
The thing that always pained me most about _Starship Troopers_ was the incredibly ugly flat 90s sitcom lighting...
All part of the satire.
On the plus side it’s not in that washed-out blue-green filter everything is in nowadays. Back then movies had colours
that was all part of the vib it had to be b movie-ish it had to come across as tv brainwashing as if we are at hoe watching the fight THINK 1990S IRAQ INVASION
First time viewer.
I am blind and love this movie. As you’d expect, I didn’t get some of the visual references until you explained them in this video. Thanks for that and I look forward to learning more from you’re videos. I learned more from this video than from just watching the movie.
I wouldn't mind seeing Starship Troopers remade to mirror the book directly. Would be an interesting to have both that version and the current one in my library for comparison.
Well i think everyone needs to get a copy of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers and actually read it. You will find that the film was great with the special effects, ,it was basically a Warhammer40k movie of the Imperial Guard up against the alien Tyranids. The human's uniforms were spitting images of IG uniforms and equipment , the trenchcoat outfits were the Imperial Commissars and psychers.
If only we could get an ACTUAL 40k movie with this quality of CGI.
Every time re-watch this film a different stages in my life, I am like "ahh, so that is what that is referring to". If there was ever a film that was under rated, it is starship troopers. I wonder if the film was received badly for political reasons more than quality. One thing you will come to know about ruling elites, no matter what society they grow up in, they always grow to hate criticism.
yes, both sides of the coin saw their tropes attacked - and more or less rightly so.
I would argue that the Federation is not totalitarian in nature. People are able to do pretty much whatever they want, even earn wads of cash as private citizens like Rico’s father and mother. However if they wish to participate in government or even vote, they must enlist in the military in order to earn that right. The film also clearly states that certain pursuits, like starting a family, are not prohibited by government, but are easier to achieve as a citizen. And while the military is shown to be quite Nazi-like in their appearance and attitudes, the vast majority of the people are in fact private citizens, as stated in the novel.
Starship Troopers is the proof that nothing about the War of Terror was unexpected or accidental. When film makers can predict exactly what's going to happen, then anyone in military intelligence would have been seeing it as well.
Oh, no. This movie came out before... Maybe Dick Cheney saw this movie and... My God Verhoven, what have you done?
So prophetic
This movie goes from Saved By The Bell to Saving Private Ryan and I loved every second of it.
😀 Dang! How do you discover all these subtleties and innuendos? I've watched the movie 4 times and I never noticed any of that. I thought it was just hokey and bad script writing. I didn't know it was a parody of world politics.
Maybe there's more to screen writing and directing than I've imagined.
Great video by the way!
I appreciate the research you do to support your arguments. I've enjoyed all your work even in rare instances where I may disagree. Your analysis of Starship Troopers is spot on. I agree with a previous poster who stated earlier the disservice done to this movie as well as The Thing by critics who were unwilling or unable to dive below the surface of either film; instead relying on their shallow aesthetic ideals.
Heinlein was anti-egalitarian, and he proposes this militaristic and aristocratic approach to civilization in all seriousness, and his vision is so strong that even though the liberal (and super talented) Verhoeven tries to transmute it into satire, his vision still survives, still shines through, and we are inspired and impressed, often despite ourselves.
This guy gets it.
Haha, yeah, I thought the exact same thing when I, an educated man in his 30s, fully aware of the strong anti-fascist message of the movie, fully understanding it is a scathing satire, caught myself at the end of a recent cinema screening thinking "wouldn't it be fucking cool to join the mobile infantry?"
@MrBleach401 Indeed!
Yes, exactly, and the real society in the book isn't fascist. It's a Republic of responsibility and aristocratic ideals, not an evil totalitarian state.
@@somegoddamnguy ready to drop?
It is crazy to think the film was made in 1997. But that the book was written in 1959 is madness. Up there with 1984 for accuracy in predicting the future.
this is something the thinkers need to get- it's not a prediction, it's a telling of history, stuff that's happened in a contemporary or sci-fi setting. It's a history lesson- and that's why it wasn't well received, knocking over sacred cows and all of that
I saw this in the cinema when it came out and was so bloody drunk i passed out during the trailers. I woke up as they landed on Klendathu. Didn't have a friggin clue what was going on 😃 Loved it! On an unrelated note, i also spewed in the theatre during Trainspotting. Buckfast will do that.
I am 63 year's old and my father fought the Fascist Italians acrross North Africa before being sent to Greece then Crete to fight German Fascists, he was taken as a POW by the Germans after the evacuation ship he was on was hit and sunk.
He knew what REAL Fascism was and he loathed it. But when I turned 16 years old my father gave me a copy of Heinlein's book and told me to read it, study it and live my life by it and I would not go wrong.
I have done 6 years of military service and six years as a Police Officer. I have served the body politic to which I belong and as I look around and watch the news I can tell you that my father was right and Heinlein was right.
If you can't see it get your IQ tested, it's probably about room temperature.
If you have not put your life on the line for total strangers every day you can keep your opinions to yourself as I despise cowards.
If you have only seen the movie but you can read, get a copy and read it. PROPERLY!!!!!
great, now they will use this movie as an example of how gender and race equality will end in facism
Yeah. There's plenty of examples of that insidiousness in real life, such ICE using it's Twitter account to talk about stuff like International Women's Day. Sure, they may tear children away from their parents and facilitate slavery and (arguably) genocide but they have paid maternity leave. It's just unfortunate that when something like that crops up in film folks use it to go on about women should be on the birthing bed. Because it's not as if rigidly defined and enforced gender roles weren't a significant hallmark of 20th century fascism or anything...
IllCaesar holy shit how does someone as stupid as you even function in day to day life? Even the child separation thing you complain about is literally don’t because they can’t hold children in the jails that are used for adults. Please tell me how simply detaining people while asylum claims are processed and then deporting people who don’t have legit claims is slavery or genocide.
Except the movie isn’t fascist at all.
Was mine and my grandpas fav movie to watch
The problem I always had with the movie was not it's various satirical themes, but its bastardization of the original work.
This is one of my favorite films and was one of three movies I watched over and over again as a kid. Even as a kid I could tell the Federation is distopian, the war is far from home, self-destructive, and ill-led, and the characters are just trying to survive and thrive with what they are given.
This is the ultimate irony. Just like the critics didn’t understand that the movie was satirical, Verhoeven didn’t understand that the book was satirical. Also, there is no reverse racism, there is only racism. I don’t get how such a clever guy can buy into the idea.
Verhoeven didn't even read the whole book, he hated it.
The Robert Heinlein novel wasn’t satirical. A common misconception about it is that it was pro- right wing fascism, when upon closer analysis and considering Heinlein’s own political views, it was really a promotion of libertarianism. Unfortunately it’s more than likely that Verhoeven got triggered by the book and assumed that it was glorifying fascism.
@@esyphillis101 Lol, Libertarians are closet fascist. I mean heck, they constantly show how capitalism sucks and how it breaks so easily. Their answer is to replace capitalism with capitalism. They show how a corporation buys and destroys our government. Their answer is to give complete control of everything to corporations. They live in the world full of double talk.
@@esyphillis101 You use "triggered" as a joke, but it's possible Verhoeven actually got triggered in the clinical sense by this book. He was born in Nazi occupied Holland, he hated fascism and was disgusted by what he perceived as the book's fascist undertones
@@leighfoulkes7297 Libertarianism is the polar opposite of Fascism... and Capitalism at its' core meaning is again, the polar opposite of what Fascism is. Fascism essentially entails "the people for the state". Meaning, the government must control every aspect of the population in order to improve a great Nation. You have no liberty in a Fascist state, you work for the government, and conformity is your only means to survive.
Libertarianism is a collective idea that everybody should acquire the freedom to acquire without hindrance as a *right* i,e Politics and individual freedom. It is actually an ideology that was used in left wing and right wing politics, and even to this day, it places egalitarianism as core principal second to Liberty. That is completely and utterly the fucking difference to Fascism, you absolute idiot. Libertarians are fundamentally anti-fascist so it's absolutely not true that Libertarians are closest fascist.
I have always compared the bugs with the humans because of how they both look the same in the combat scenes: the bugs already look the same when they are of the same species but even the humans look very similar when wearing the "combat gear" (or suicide gear)
The thing no one that claims this movie portrays facism manages to show or argue is that it portrays facism. Besides the quote from the dircetor that that was his intention. There is no proof of this claim. You see open defiance and critizism of the leaders. No punishment. Does that do not serve has all the same liberties as the ones that do, except the vote. You are activly discourage from serving. There is no racism or sexism. No one in the military can vote or hold political office. There is no dictator.
So where exactly is the facism in this movie? In the book there is definatly no facism. But even if you just look at the movie in and off itself there is none. It seems verry roman republic to me. Or limitied democracy. Facism however i see none.
As for the bugs. Someone whos goald is to exterminate your entire species.... It stops beeing racism when you hate them unconditonally. And go to war against them. They are also a hivemind not individuals.
Even how the conflict starts. You have civilians activly defying goverment advice, and there are no consequences.....
You have a very myopic child's view of fascism. I am guessing you think kings could also do whatever they wanted.
Fascists need many people to support them or they will lose power. The most interesting fascist countries are the ones where rulers knew how to control the country well and solidified their own base to the point it was difficult to remove them.
Voting doesn't mean you aren't fascist. Nazi Germany had voting, China currently has voting. We have no idea what voting entails in their society and how many options people are given. There very well could be just one party. Any country where the military has exclusive control of the political system is fascist.
I mean if the director of the movie is directly saying that it's a satire of fascism, how else can you disprove that?
@@warlordnipple The military has no controll of the political system. They cannot be politicians.
@@xthor86 we are talking about the movie not the book. In the movie a character explicitly stated you need to serve to be a politician. In both the book and the movie you can't vote without being in the military and in the book key civilian government positions are reserved for those who served. Based on the ideology of the books those civilian roles would most likely be the positions that exercise the most control over individuals of society. They likely wouldn't need to reserve government jobs either because the way the veterans view civilians, in the book, they would never trust one in a position of power. Show me where in the books or movies it says those in the military can't serve in the government. Even the books legend about how the revolution began was a bunch of vets taking over the government because society was collapsing. This is a pretty clear, although likely unintentional, parallel with how the early Nazis viewed themselves.
You need to take a step back and realize this fictional sci go government is fascist. Fascist government aren't inherently evil or good. Like any other government it depends on who is in charge. South Korea had a fascist government after the Korean War but that leader revitalized the country and his harsh stances on dissent and control of the economy allowed them to develop to the world power they are today.
@@warlordnipple You have to serve, but you cannot be in the military when you go into political office. In other words once your out of the military you can be in political office. Only citizens can be politicians. And you only become a citizen when your done with military service. Even in the movies the goverment is akin to the roman republic. It has nothing in common with facistic ruling.
Can you do an in-depth analysis of Direct to VHS film Iron Eagle IV?
Please read the book as well.
I'm so glad you saw all this in Startship Troopers, although it should be obvious, pretty much everybody I know missed these themes and the satire of it, just reading it straight as an intergalactic war/action movie.
Homeless are predominantly male? We see one person, hardly indicative of a general population, and I think it's more that he is in a destroyed city than homeless in the traditional sense of the word.
If I remember rightly, the script said he was homeless. Yes he's just one guy, but yes he is male. And it's absolutely true that in western society today under our "progressive" system the vast majority of homeless are men, typically about 80%. I worked in the field for near ten years and saw it for myself.
@@collativelearning Yes, this is clear to anyone familiar with social work in our (I'm in the US) system. I've been on both ends of this issue. The reasons for the gender disparity are varied and, frankly, dip into some uncomfortable truths regarding our 'progressive' construct , as you mentioned.
Great work, man. You are a light of reason in the typical dross of TH-cam content.
Careful Rob, you might get labeled as an MRA or worse yet alt-right.
Cultural fascism indeed.
@@collativelearning Men are prideful, men are risk-takers, men are less likely to receive a home due to being perceived as more of a threat. I don't see this as a working of a "progressive system" as you see it. Watching the vide I also thought this comment came out of leftfield, as we do only have one example. It's more than stretching the idea.
@@EverSinceMyExorcism I wouldn't call Rob an MRA, but I did feel a few of the gender related comments were reaching a bit. The film did not show women were as physically strong as men, because the guy beats her in the same scene, but they showed women willing to put their lives on the line in order to get what they desired from this society, just as the men do. The co-ed living conditions might be more likely to discourage fraternization between the ranks, or produce tight pair bonds, rather than the "rampant promiscuity" Rob envisions. How much privacy and free time do they have, after all? I'm not saying Ager is wrong, but there are alternative interpretations that can be made. Verhoeven had co-ed cops in ROBOCOP, too, but no hint of romance between Murphy and Lewis or any of the other cops.
This is a well-made video. I love this movie, and you just unlocked new layers for me. I really appreciate that. Thank you!
Demolition Man also made some correct predictions about cultural changes in society.
It even predicted Scott Peterson being a murderer.
This is without a doubt the best analysis of this direly underappreciated film that I've ever seen. STARSHIP TROOPERS is virtually a perfect movie. But even then, there were aspects of the narrative that, for me, never really squared with the (obvious) satiric under-/overtones...at least, until this video helped me navigate my own thoughts to a better understanding of how every single element in the narrative coheres beautifully.
I appreciate that you restricted your critique to the movies and interviews with the creators. By restricting the analysis in this way you have quite strongly bolstered the argument that ST is a critique and parody of fascism. You habve made some good points I must admit.
And yet, I am not convinced.
Why does the government as represented by the teacher insist that of discouraging people from becoming citizens but is dedicated to facilitating all who apply.?
Why do Rico's parents go out of their way to bribe him and prevent avoid signing up for the only career path that gives him a chance at political power? Power that could certainly benefit a future heir to his wealthy fathers companies?
You do make a stronger argument for fascist parody by limiting the review to the movie but not an absolute argument. All sid bravo! This was much more entertaining than the average ST review.
And by the way if you want another movie that eerily represents todays PC culture and authoritarianism, you should review Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes.
Also, for a stronger counter argument than my mindless rambling: watch this: th-cam.com/video/kVpYvV0O7uI/w-d-xo.html
Excellent analysis, never considered these points.
You would enjoy Sargon of Akkads video on starship troopers politics
That Mazzy Star Scene
also: fun fact, they will show Starship Troopers at boot camp for marines, in fact its required viewing.
WE DID IT BOYS
The book is required reading at West Point.
Cultural fascism?...hmm
When they showed the military it's surprisingly accurate not all the way but for the most part. Crazy to see this movie is better than most movies today. Sadly I only know 5 people who know about this movie.