Slashdot Mirror
'How We Made Starship Troopers' (theguardian.com)
The Guardian quotes Paul Verhoeven, the director of Starship Troopers:
Robert Heinlein's original 1959 science-fiction novel was militaristic, if not fascistic. So I decided to make a movie about fascists who aren't aware of their fascism... I was looking for the prototype of blond, white and arrogant, and Casper Van Dien was so close to the images I remembered from Leni Riefenstahl's films. I borrowed from Triumph of the Will in the parody propaganda reel that opens the film, too. I was using Riefenstahl to point out, or so I thought, that these heroes and heroines were straight out of Nazi propaganda...
With a title like Starship Troopers, people were expecting a new Star Wars. They got that, but not really: it stuck in your throat. It said: "Here are your heroes and your heroines, but by the way -- they're fascists."
The actors weren't even clear on what the giant arachnids would look like, since their "Bug" battles were filmed entirely with green screens, remembers one of the movie's stars, Denise Richards. Instead Verhoeven "would be there jumping up and down with a broom in the air so we would have a sense of how big they were."
Verhoeven told one interviewer that he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book. "I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. It is really quite a bad book."
With a title like Starship Troopers, people were expecting a new Star Wars. They got that, but not really: it stuck in your throat. It said: "Here are your heroes and your heroines, but by the way -- they're fascists."
The actors weren't even clear on what the giant arachnids would look like, since their "Bug" battles were filmed entirely with green screens, remembers one of the movie's stars, Denise Richards. Instead Verhoeven "would be there jumping up and down with a broom in the air so we would have a sense of how big they were."
Verhoeven told one interviewer that he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book. "I stopped after two chapters because it was so boring. It is really quite a bad book."
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book"
well not that shocked.
lose != loose
How did we make Starship Troopers?
Like a piece of shit.
What a team, back in the day. Ed Neumeier was also scripitwriter on the Verhoeven-directed RoboCop and a lot of the tone in both movies can be attributed to him. I can definitely feel the same style of humour in both movies.
Neumeier did not work on the RoboCop sequels, and I think a lot of that is why they were so different, without the same edge.
And now there are rumours that Neumeier would be working on a stand-alone sequel to the original RoboCop, based off an outline that he wrote decades ago. We'll see...
The Starship Troopers sequels weren't very good IMHO so I'm afraid that he could have lost it.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
I didn't hate the movie. Just had to treat it as something that took a few ideas from the book and ran off in a totally different direction. If you went into the movie expecting to see something that tied into the book you were going to be sorely disappointed.
I thought it was a great book, but I actually liked the movie a lot. I didn't think it necessarily needed to be called Starship Troopers, but I did feel that it perfectly captured the atmosphere of fascism in the original book, which was its most important aspect. I saw it in the theater, and the first time they said... actually, it's been so long I don't remember exactly what they said, but it was (jingoistic statement) click here to learn more! Touch? Select? Anyway, I laughed out loud. The obvious parallel between what the citizens were seeing on TV with various existing propaganda films here in the real world was apparently too subtle for a lot of people, which is shocking because it was done in Verhoeven's typical ham-handed style.
I loved Total Recall, too. And yeah, I read the book. Movies should be fun! They don't need to be exactly like the book in every case, the mission is to convey the idea while putting asses in seats.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... it's always kinda funny, to see superhero movies being so popular in US culture...
When they were literally invented as the US version of the German Übersoldat Nazi propaganda movies, and for precisely same reason.
The Übersoldat (super soldier) was the image of the perfect, augmented through eugenics, soldier. The typical blond blue-eyed brainwashed monstrosity.
My grandma actually met the real deal before the end of the war: SS soldiers from the Hitler Youth. She said, they weren't humans anymore. Their behavior and mannerism were inhuman, psychopathic, strange, and hence super-creepy. Kinda like real-life Daleks, without the theatricals, in human skins, with a friendly smile on their faces.
In Germany, we would never dare to make movies glorifying anything even remotely close to something like that, given everything it implies.
I guess that's the difference in perspective on war and augmented "master race" humans, between the losing and the winning side... *tips hat to congratulate you*
Just... be careful, America.
Your culture's vibe right now is just waaay to close to how it started over here, back then.
Safety tips from a German: Make sure the jobs are safe, the pride in your country is healthy, and there's no scapegoat group, nor a feel that one is needed.
And don't elect somebody who is good at rhetorics and tells you he'll make you great again, but has fucked-up plans. (That's precisely what Hitler did.)
Verhoeven grew up in German occupied Netherlands during WWII.
How did the studio think he was going to adapt a movie based on a book that glorified a militaristic society?
Though it is a kind of fun concept. Now I'm kinda interested to see Romeo and Juliet from a director going through a nasty divorce or an SF thriller directed by a technophobe.
I stole this Sig
I guess the propaganda machine works well if you think real journalism is fake news (aka Lügenpresse) and that the dems are fascists.
A few key signs of fascism:
- cult of authority (leader, police, army) : ever heard Trump talking about police and army ?
- belief in a national golden age and wanting to go back to it : MAGA
- the elites are destroying the country : traditional politicians, journalists, Hollywood, deep state (aka all the people in the administration)
- loyalty over truth and competency : loyalty pledge and hiring the worst of the worst just because they didn't criticize Trump
The only thing saving us from full fascism is Trump over-sized ego (and that is putting it mildly) and stupidity. Trump is fascist, but he's not willing to fight for it, what he really want is adulation, he's perfectly fine with watering down his fascist tendencies if he thinks it's good for him.
Fascist is a useless word at this point. It means 'anything a leftist doesn't like'. As demonstrated by the definition you pulled out of your ass.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Both of you are wrong about the book. Heinlein defended it quite well, so I don't need to.
Anyway Verhoeven didn't read it, and I suspect you didn't as well.
But thanks for jumping on some internet meme bandwagon.
The original article, as saved by the Internet Archive, had a slightly different subtitle:
‘I borrowed from the films of Leni Riefenstahl to show that these US soldiers were like something out of Nazi propaganda. I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed’
(Emphasis added to highlight the text that was removed).
The current version has a note at the bottom saying:
The subheading of this article was amended on 23 January 2018 to remove a reference to US soldiers.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I liked them both too.
I read the book many years after I saw the film, so I was expecting it to be an outlier from the other Heinlein stories I read given the propaganda surrounding it, but I honestly didn't see any of this so-called fascist stuff in the original Klingon.
The only place I can guess it comes from is the protagonists line somewhere toward the end about humanity and the bugs being locked in natural competition to sort out who's the superior species. I read that as a statement about Darwinian evolution being applicable to civilizations of sentient beings and not just thoughtless animals. I can see see how certain people would throw the N-word and the F-word at that line of thinking, but I just don't.
I was very disappointed when Merriam-Webster changed their definition of fascism. The former definition based on political philosophy was replaced by vague set of characteristics and hand waving. Many problems in our societies and public discussions could be solved if people used more precise language.
Paul Verhoeven misinterpets Heinlen's work as fascist and makes a movie that satirizes fascism, which in turn gets many people upset at Verhoeven for glorifying fascism.
aixylinux opined:
It was a great book. Now I know why the movies stank.
I'm not sure I'd call it a "great" book. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is a great book. Starship Troopers is more good than great. I say that because it's far and away the most polemical of Heinlein's juvenile books, and polemics and juveniles make for an awkward mix.
Not coincidentally, it was the last book he ever offered Scribners & Sons. (After Scribner's rejected it on the grounds that its subject matter was "too controversial" and inappropriate for a juvenile audience, he terminated his til-then-exclusive relationship with S&S, directed his agent to seek another publisher for the book - which was quickly snapped up by Putnam's - and re-focused his writing on an adult marketplace. Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, as well as lesser works such as Farnham's Freehold and Glory Road, swiftly followed.)
I read every one of Heinlein's juveniles as a kid growing up in the 1950's and 60's, and I thought Starship Troopers was great stuff. But, even then, I realized that, although it was cast as a juvenile novel, it was a good deal more adult in both theme and tone than most of his other books aimed at "young adults" - although, admittedly, other juvenile works, such as Between Planets and Citizen of the Galaxy put their protagonists in fairly adult situations and were also discursive on political and social issues. But The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress achieved a whole new level of artistry for Heinlein from my perspective. A masterful blend of revolutionary theory, applied low-gravity physics, societal adaptation to significant, chronic male-female population imbalance, inherited physiological exile from mainstream society, and the high-stakes politics of resistance to colonialism (along with a mickle bit of romance and the first fictional depiction of a superintelligent AI from a sympathetic perspective), it utterly captivated me as a teenager, when I first read it in serial form in Galaxy Magazine. I still consider it Heinlein's best novel, and I've read 'em all - including his blecherous first effort For Us, the Living and his posthumous juvenile "collaboration" with Spider Robinson, Variable Star.
FWIW, my second favorite Heinlein novel is Double Star, which also (and deservedly) won him his first Hugo ...
Check out my novel.
Paul Verhoeven; Robert Heinlein has a body of work that will always exceed Verhoeven's. Genre. Robert Heinlein was writing to teen boys to give them a vision of tomorrow taking many paths; some good some not so good. Read 5th Column for example. Or Stranger in a Strange Land. Not reading the book, then assuming the society Heinlein built was one where service to the state gave you a vote, was a concept for fascism? Funny. That was akin to the first thoughts of the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States. Landowners and white men only club. Was that fascist? No. They assumed education was the hallmark of a good society. They also built an adaptive structure.
The underlining principle was 'put up or shut up.' Civilians could step up to the line and if they wouldn't, shut up. Even in the book no one was denied a chance to serve. Even a paraplegic could serve in some way, could earn their citizenship. That is fascist? They would find you a task to serve your people, so earn what you wanted. A vote.
It was also why I found the movie so boring. The book was more interesting. Too bad he could not take a day or two in the preproduction schedule and read the material. Perhaps read a few more of Heinlein's works to get a better viewpoint. If I was his employer I would have fired him for lack of due diligence. I am sure there were other good producer ready and waiting.
"I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed."
In the Hollywood press maybe. In the theater, my friend turned to me and exclaimed, "It's Doogie Himmler!"
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
"he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book" well not that shocked.
Verhoeven had an agenda and searched for a vehicle to present that agenda it just so happened the name of the book seemed a good vehicle for him.
From wiki: "Ken Macleod argues that the book does not actually advocate fascism because anybody capable of understanding the oath of Federal Service is able to enlist and thereby obtain political power. Macleod states that Heinlein's books are consistently liberal, but cover a spectrum from democratic to elitist forms of liberalism, Starship Troopers being on the latter end of the spectrum. It has been argued that Heinlein's militarism is more libertarian than fascist, and that this trend is also present in Heinlein's other popular books of the period, such as Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)."
*** Spoler Alert *** Verhoeven also injects racism where there is none, again part of his agenda that has nothing to do with the actual book. John Rico, aka Juan Rico, is not white, not an "aryan", he is of Philippine descent if I remember correct. He is obviously portrayed as Hispanic on the book cover in pre-movie printings.
Considered the last of Heinlein's juveniles, Starship Trooper is a Hugo winner and a true classic. Paul Verhoeven's movie is a travesty, raped the book, and doesn't deserve to carry the title.
Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
drinkypoo opined:
I thought it was a great book, but I actually liked the movie a lot. I didn't think it necessarily needed to be called Starship Troopers, but I did feel that it perfectly captured the atmosphere of fascism in the original book, which was its most important aspect.
I think you misremember the book.
The society Heinlein depicted in Starship Troopers bore no meaningful resemblence to the one in Verhoeven's movie. In interviews after the book was published, RAH stressed that military service was not the only path to the sovereign franchise in the Starship Troopers world. He envisioned any number of public service paths - specifically including something very much like the Peace Corps - as routes to voting status. The point of the model he created was not worship of the military, per se, but rather earning the franchise through service to society (as opposed to "the State" - of which he had a notorious distrust).
It wasn't fascistic - it was pragmatic (at least in Heinlein's view). And the Dean himself was a personality of considerable complexity: equal parts civil- and economic-libertarian, with a strong anti-Soviet bias (although, as evidenced by Stranger in a Strange Land, not necessarily an anti-communist one), and a passionate advocate of the goal of becoming a Renaissance man; he advocated suspicion of altruism, all while being selflessly generous with his time to Red Cross blood drives, and his mentorship to younger writers, such as Spider Robinson. I've seen the man spend hours being patiently courteous to a seemingly-endless line of fans seeking his autograph, yet turn coldly dismissive of one who casually admitted violating the terms on which he offered those autographs (either donate blood, or be rejected as a donor).
While I disagreed with much of his politics, I admired RAH enormously as a man, and even moreso as a writer. He played devil's advocate for many positions he, himself did not hold - but fascism definitely was not one of them ...
Check out my novel.
... read Gordie Dickson's Dorsai!. Starship Troopers is something very, very different, and more difficult to dismiss. You can't put Heinlein in a neat box because he challenges you, and himself. That's what makes Heinlein a great writer where Dickson is merely an entertaining one.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Dickson, he's just not on Heinlein's level.
Now is Starship Troopers militaristic? Absolutely. Is it fascist? I think not, although I can see the appeal for the simple-minded fascist. It is a militaristic novel that questions the concept of fundamental individual rights.
But I don't think Heinlein was a fascist, I think he was a ferocious skeptic. What if you organized a society around something other than inherent an inalienable individual rights? What's telling is the Heinlein makes this world neither a dystopia nor a utopia; it's just workable. Fascists are always selling a formula for establishing a kind of golden age.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The book should probably come with a warning that it may be too intense for adults.
I read it as a kid, and devoured all the ideas, though, oddly, I did't become militaristic or in any way right-wing. Vietnam was going on, and you could see where real wars end up.
The review by James Davis Nicol highlights the stuff that I thought was cooool as a kid, and gagged at as a grownup:
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/r... ...Rico is a very young war criminal in scenes where the "demonstration of firepower and frightfulness" (heh: now, "shock and awe") includes toasting a church congregation of the "Skinnies" with his flamethrower, and looking for the town's water treatment plant with his micro-nuke. (After a 25-year career with the local waterworks, I know that's germ warfare...)
And it sinks in that the basic philosophy is that humanity must grow, must colonize forever, to live, constantly expanding through the galaxy, and that any species also wanting the same "real estate" must be fought. The word "liebensraum" does come into the mind.
Heinlein had a few philosophies to expound, of course, and the whole rest of the book is built around having some reason to have a busy military with occasional heavy losses and routine light losses. Oh, and a need to assault planets from space with anything smaller than nukes.
He wanted to look right inside the mind of a military volunteer who understands that this will likely enough cost his life or at least limbs, and accepts it as the noble thing to do, to sacrifice the, ah, One for the Many. It is made clear what the movie did even better, that Rico, while well-indoctrinated with the understanding of this nobility, that only those who have done this are worthy of voting rights, really joins to impress a girl. (In the promo book for the movie, writers said they asked actual Soldiers and vets if that was corny. They were told with grins that it is still common.)
The key to the training section (classic military book structure: first bit is training camp, then on to the story of actual battles; see Full Metal Jacket, Dirty Dozen, etc) is that when Rico internalizes and accepts the noble reason rather than the girl reason, "The noblest fate a man can endure is to place his mortal body between his beloved home and war's desolation" (I just typed that from memory...jeez.), then the torturous training camp is suddenly almost easy.
Heinlein's defense in "Expanded Universe" noted the book is "militaristic" specifically to the Army/Marines, rival services to his beloved Navy, where at least you usually die with a full belly and not frozen in a trench; that it's a love letter to the heroic sufferings of "the doughboy, the duckfoot....the thin red line of heroes". This is hardly more militaristic than the displays at most American parades and football games, and obviously, Veteran's Day. That's fine.
It's setting up that story in a world where human expansion makes war with aliens inevitable, that's the problem. And the war-crime stuff. He could have set up his war-needing-environment with a need for pure defense of home, and outlined some rules of war descended from Geneva Conventions rather than the chapter "Caesar Chastens Gaul" of his memoir.
That he was pushing out the endless-expansion thing instead is all the more problematic in that the Bugs were a pure Communism by nature, oddly enough, and the real geopolitical concern of the time was that the First World (us) was in a game of Risk with the Second World (communist countries) fighting over the rest of the global real estate. Tends to make anybody even faintly left look askance. I was mercifully unaware of all this, enjoying it at 11. (1970) And on re-reads though teen years. I missed Vietnam by both nationality (Canadian) and a few years of time; Boomer Americans were probably clearer on it.
Salon.com seems to have lost the 1997 review that nailed the movie's total fa
The original article, as saved by the Internet Archive, had a slightly different subtitle:
‘I borrowed from the films of Leni Riefenstahl to show that these US soldiers were like something out of Nazi propaganda. I even put one in an SS uniform. But no one noticed’
(Emphasis added to highlight the text that was removed).
The current version has a note at the bottom saying:
The subheading of this article was amended on 23 January 2018 to remove a reference to US soldiers.
Given that the characters were from Buenos Aires in the movie that does seem like a reasonable edit. Admittedly they did speak English but, well, it doesn't seem a bit unlikely that the soldiers in the movie were specifically supposed to be US soldiers.
Given what liberals have done to the country, who can blame them? If I have to choose between liberals and Nazis, give me the Nazis.
And this is how we get a Hitler, ladies and gentlemen.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
From Merriam-Webster:
1 often capitalized : 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
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
- https://www.merriam-webster.co...
I keep hearing/reading about people who think the book Starship Troopers is about a fascistic society and I don't get it, especially when I compare the society expressed in the book to definitions of fascism.
Juan Rico, who is revealed to be Filipino at the end of the book and we don't know where he grew up, joins up to win the ability to vote and is trained in a melting pot camp in Western Canada (I'm presuming that because of the name of the camp, Arthur Currie). There is no discussion, let alone glorification of a central "leader", nor is there any apparent racism.
There is what we would consider brutal corporal punishment rather than incarceration, but this is a result of the society's "superior" (from the perspective of the book's characters) understanding of psychology. When the book was written, hanging was still a common form of capital punishment and public hangings had only ended about 25 years before.
I've always read in the book as being set in a society that resulted after a terrible war and is presented by people who had that experience and perspective.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I'm a big Heinlein fan, and "Starship Troopers" is a GREAT book.
The book is more philosophical than militaristic, the lead character was Juan Rico, a Filipino from Luzon. To cast Van Diem in the role simply proves that Verhoeven had never actually READ the book. In the book, all of the "Mobile Infantry" are men, but all of the starship pilots are women.
The movie of "Starship Troopers" was a horrible movie. No "Mobile INfantry", no drop capsules coming in from orbit, no philosophy, no morals. Just guts and core. There;s one scene in which the M.I. troopers on the ship are having a mass, co-ed, naked shower scene, This was, frankly, the ONLY redeeming value in the entire movie.
What's there to wave away? Let consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. You would think that "progressives" would be all over that.
Answering a response made things a little clearer ...
In Heinlein's Starship Trooper universe voting is an "earned" right, not a "birth" right. It is earned by volunteering and completing service that is hazardous, military or construction. Anyone may serve and ultimately attain the right to vote, accommodations are made for those with disabilities so that they may serve. The only obstacle to service is volunteering. The core idea is that through service you risked your life for others, this "earns" you the right to vote.
Once honorably discharged from service a person now has the right to vote. They are free to vote in any manner they chose. The government will follow the majority of the voters. There is no fascist dictate from government. The enfranchised elite have "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to in a political power sense, their majority has "earned" the right to direct the government. The voters are in control.
I agree it isn't a single fascist leader, but the military effectively gets to decide who can vote.
No. The only obstacle to service was volunteering. Service is not required to be military in nature, there are also those doing hazardous construction (on moons/asteroids/etc). No one volunteering was considered "unfit" for service. If a person had a disability there were to be somehow accommodated and allowed to contribute and serve, and of course be at risk. The military could decide who could serve in the infantry, who could serve as ship's crew, etc ... but they could not deny all types of service to a volunteer, they had to find some accommodating role somewhere.
Those are people who have gone through training where they are taught to follow orders without question (for the safety of themselves and others), that their enemies (militarily or politically) are not people, and that the military is important. Anyone who doesn't learn these lessons is unlikely to survive. This makes for something very similar to having a society run by the military.
No. These people are free to believe whatever they chose and free to vote accordingly once discharged from service. Following orders in a chain of command is not something that continues after service. Look at the real world, there is no shortage of people who served honorably and well that were quite critical of the military after discharge, there is no shortage of veterans on the political left or right. Military service does not turn people into mindless robots, it generally teaches several things. People can accomplish far more than they think they can. A group coordinating their actions can accomplish more than a group of people acting individually. Bad sh*t happens and you just have to work your way through it.
https://slashdot.org/~Boronx responded:
I don't think anyone believes RAH was a Nazi sympathizer, but the system of government in SST is fatally flawed. Anyone can enlist in a service, but not anyone can complete service. Severe corporal punishment, and even capital punishment, can be enforced with the thinnest veneer of a trial that has no independence from the chain of command. Despite the promise of universal enlistment, the government has strong control over who gets the franchise.
"Severe corporal punishment" is a feature of many current military justice systems, albeit not that of the USA - or, at least not formally (see: blanket party). However, it is worth noting that the execution that's carried out during Pvt. Rico's basic training is of a deserter during wartime. And not some phony-baloney Iraq/Vietnam-esque war of empire-building based on false premises and PR manipulation, but an actual existential war in which a genocidal alien species is the aggressor against humanity.
Under every form of military law with which I'm familiar, desertion in wartime is a capital crime. If it takes place on the battlefield, summary execution without trial is the conventional penalty.
Yes, in SST the execution in question takes place during basic training - but that is not unprecedented, even in modern times (although, again, not in the USA). Note, however, that every recruit of the Mobile Infantry is a volunteer, not a draftee. And the legal framework to which they will be bound as recruits is made explicitly clear to them before they sign up.
Some people fail to take the rules seriously - especially the ones that will apply "if and when" conditions change from those in effect when they enlist (such as a sneak attack from an alien species intent on subjugating and/or eliminating the human race creating a de factor state of war). I think that's rather the point RAH was making: that war is not a game, and soldiering is a commitment that should never be entered into lightly ...
Check out my novel.
The fundamental problem people have with Heinlein is a mental defect that renders them unable to appreciate the difference between someone extrapolating a "what if" and someone declaiming a "we should".
If you make them confront the fact that the same guy wrote (for example) Double Star, Starship Troopers, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they suffer serious cognitive dissonance, which they can only resolve by retreating from reality into a fantasy simple enough for them to comprehend.
From that safe fantasy world they then lash out at the scary author they cannot comprehend.
Daemonik gibed:
Ooo ooo! Now wave away his advocacy of incest and group marriage..
Why would I want to do that? Because it apparently offends your sense of morality?
I'm with RAH (and c6gunner, below) on this topic. Adults who wish to engage in mutually-consensual sexual relations and/or marriage contracts should be free to do so, regardless of genetic relationship or number of participants. In western countries, the state has no legitimate interest in the former and currently acts in an indefensibly prejudiced manner in the latter.
Note the terms "adult" and "mutually-consensual" in the above statement.
I disagreed with a lot of Heinlein's political and economic theories, but we were of a mind when it came to civil liberties ...
Check out my novel.
I think he got the point
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Haha. True that. But it's not guns I think. Its tips.
Tips for everything, tips for everyone. For eating out, drinking out, buying groceries, taxis, tour bus drivers, odd job men. Americans are always showering extra dollars like so much confetti around daily chores, and it all depends on the wattage of your smile. I'd rather know if you had a bad days, so I could help you; perhaps by simply not being in your way.