I'm with Hayden, I think Verhoeven's contempt for the popcorn munching masses (of America in particular) made him grease up the satire until it slid down like exploitation.

I don't doubt that in his mind it's very obviously over the top with blond beast fascists and Denise Richards as a soldier.

The fact that it was a commercial success suggests that Verhoeven's not entirely wrong about how much that militaristic fantasy appeals to the American public.

Salon has an interview with Mark Ruffalo!

So you're confident that no one (or no one that counts) got the movie without being told?

Plenty of people can tell it's intended as a satire. Including yours truly.

Nobody I've talked to in any depth about the movie seems to think it's a successful satire; and one person who wasn't sure listened to my argument and said, "Oh. Ew." I'm sure there are people out there who do think it's a successful satire, including, apparently, the director, but I'm confident those people are also the ones who don't think Mike Douglas is a scary robot.

I think deadpan satire is hard to do. But I think the failure has to be pretty early in the conceptual stage for a deadpan satire to come across like a deadpan commercial -- like, it seems to imply that Verhoeven doesn't have a serious understanding of how fascism and media imagery have historically gone hand-in-hand. If he'd made a movie about ugly, paunchy, four-eyed, fumble-fingered shlubs form an army to kill an Other population, that would be a potential satire of fascism I could get behind. Even if it failed, I would respect that the director had identified an aspect of fascism that the viewing public would probably rather not think about.

Plenty of people can tell it's intended as a satire.

You asserted my 'some people' were informed beforehand. These were not the some people I was talking about. I was talking about people like you who saw the movie and went "That's not how you do satire, idiot" without knowing beforehand that's what he was going for.

But if the nod and the wink don't exist, how could you tell?

Interesting take by Charles Taylor on Tom Cruise and his "stardom" -- which ties in oddly to our discussion over the weekend.

These were not the some people I was talking about.

Oh. Okay. These some people are very wiggly, when transmitting themselves from one person to another (conceptually speaking).

I think Starship Troopers is the sort of movie that, for me, poisons everything else the director has done and might do eventually. I mean, Basic Instinct wasn't the height of artistic achievement, but going back and looking at it now, it feels even more pointlessly savage than it did when I first saw it.

I'm trying to think of other examples of that overflow effect, and failing. I don't know if the opposite -- a good movie that improves its mediocre brethren -- exists either.

I'm trying to think of other examples of that overflow effect, and failing.

Does Oliver Stone have the same kind of respect from the critics that he did after Platoon came out?

I'm trying to think of other examples of that overflow effect, and failing

None are coming right to mind, but I know there was a point with Orson Scott Card where his works snapped into a pattern, and I couldn't like many of his books as much as I had before, because they didn't exist independently, instead drowning in the morass of the obsession of horrible things done to odd little boys.

My impression of Oliver Stone is that he has a schtick and it's very predictable so I can't imagine that he is as respected as he was way back when.

I don't know if the opposite -- a good movie that improves its mediocre brethren -- exists either.

I'm sure it does, though, as with other examples of badness bleeding out into other films, I'm coming up blank.

Hmmm.... I think the Devlin/Emmerich films might qualify for the badness side. It started with Stargate, which was okay, but less cereberal and more just SHINY that I was hoping it would be (I'm a firm believer that Big and Shiny and Crunchy/Thinky can coexist in the same movie, and I'm so glad for the recent spate of various superhero/girlie elf movies that prove me right).

After Stargate which was still good, but made to seem a little better than it was by the shiny, pretty much every movie Roland Emmerich has made has gotten worse and worse, while getting shinier and shinier. It's like he's the Uber-Bruckheimer.

Thankfully Devlin and Emmerich have parted ways. Day After Tomorrow (Emmerich) and Eight Legged Freaks (Devlin) make it clear which one in the partnership took all the Sturm und Drang a little too seriously, and which one had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek.

Although a quick check of IMDb seems to indicate that Devlin and Emmerich have future projects planned together, so maybe it's not curtains for those kooky kids yet.