FWIW, Paul Verhoven has stated that ST is satire.

FWIW, Paul Verhoven has stated that ST is satire.

I know. I'm not sure I believe him, but that's all about me.

but in order to be satire, it needs to be intended on the part of the writer and director, which is where I don't believe it was intended as satire.

Well, I dunno. I think there's hints of it in the completely absurd "Newsreel" footage used throughout the movie. But it's NOWHERE in the actual narrative or in the characterizations themselves. I don't demand that one of the characters challenge the prevailing worldview, but if neither the characters or the narrative shows this is satire, how can it be satire?

It's just a bad, bad, bad, bad movie. Gah.

Again with the bad. And the brain-sucking. Eeeewwwww.

Well, Verhoeven did make Robo-cop, which actually seemed like a satire on fascist impulses. But, yeah, I've heard both sides on Starship Troopers, and I think that Verhoeven may have thought he was making a satire, but his lack of respect for his audience (and dearth of humor) killed any satirical content. The movie plays like a straightforward, almost nihilistic, embrace of military culture. Y'know, I can appreciate some nihilism in cinema and as a cultural statement, but it has to have some smarts behind it. Verhoeven may have thought he was playing Celine, but it came across as Mein Kampf.

IOW, authorial intent is irrelevant. The movie doesn't work as satire, or as straight adventure. So I don't much care what the director says.

Right. Much as I enjoy the image of Neil Patrick Harris in a rubber SS trenchcoat, I have to say that calling the movie Starship Troopers a satire of life under the Nazis makes for some queasy equations down the line. For instance, if the human army is Nazi, that would mean that bugs = Jews, homosexuals, and the all-encompassing Other. Generally speaking, that's not exactly a salutory comparison. I like my unjust victimhood to have, you know, a face and something other than a hive-like, diabolical mind.

Although I'm always pleased when unjust victimhood gets to rip off the faces of bland, irritating WB-fare hipsters.

Of all the SF novels I've read, Starship Troopers is probably the ripest for Nazi comparisons (for one thing, why is there such a highly-trained, terrifying army, if the whole world is unified and right-thinking? If not for bugs, whom would these soldiers be killing?), but that movie is a gross failure to satirize.

I mean, a Nazi cheesecake failure, which is its own form of MST3K entertainment, but even the cheesecake was cut-rate.

I like my unjust victimhood to have, you know, a face and something other than a hive-like, diabolical mind.

But if the entire movie is a satire, don't they have to make the not-actually-bad-guys appear that way? The nod and the wink seem to take place off the celluloid.

I think if the director intended it to be satire, it is. Now, it might be the worst satire ever, but as far as judging it goes, I think putting it up against the intentions is a valid place to start. "Worst satire ever, works better as a love story" (or whatever). But even if he'd ended up with the best love story ever, if he'd intended it to be a satire, that should come up repeatedly in discussion.

The nod and the wink seem to take place off the celluloid.

I think this is my point. When the nod-and-wink are not available on the screen itself, then the nod-and-wink don't, for the film's purposes, exist. I can see that satire might have been intended, but I can also see that the movie is the best advertising fascism ever got.

I'm not demanding that the characters within the movie be able to see themselves in their victims, but I'd like to be able to see myself.

No comments from the peanut gallery about my resemblance to braying six-legged aliens (or for that matter their glowing, missile-farting brethren).

When the nod-and-wink are not available on the screen itself, then the nod-and-wink don't, for the film's purposes, exist.

Except some people got it. It doesn't exist how you want it, but some people thought it obvious. Can't the representation's context within our culture mean something too?

For instance, I just watched Smoke Signals. There are some howlingly funny moments in it, but I don't feel it's played that way in the celluloid. It's my cultural awareness, which the creators trust I shared, that makes it funny.

Now, I'm not for a second suggesting that Starship Troopers is near as good a film as Smoke Signals, just that they both may have attempted similar methods of communicating with their audience. And just because ST mostly failed doesn't invalidate the method.

I think "some people got it" by dint of being informed beforehand what they were supposed to get by the director. Which is a form of cultural competence -- being media-literate in advance of seeing a film --, but I'm not sure it does or should have any bearing on judgements about the film itself.

I will say, authorial intent has some power for me. I give credit to someone who is trying an idea and fails at it. But that also means that I take away double points for someone who is trying an idea and succeeds in producing the exact opposite of his stated intent, all the while claiming he has achieved his stated intent.