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."

15 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. I'm shocked, shocked! by steak · · Score: 5, Funny

    "he never actually read Robert Heinlein's original book"

    well not that shocked.

    1. Re: I'm shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what you write, you have either not read his books or you have read them but didn't understand the messages in them.

      Many science fiction authors used a future setting to talk about current topics, drawing them to extremes. Believing that a setting somehow shows the true essence of an authors beliefs are laughable. You can write about something as a cautionary tale, and in fact advocating the total opposite of what you write about.

    2. Re: I'm shocked, shocked! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of conservative fuckwits love him. Not because he's any good, but that he wrote in fiction the most quoted for fact fiction line I see on Slashdot, "An armed society is a polite society." America proves him wrong.

      You're doubly wrong. TANSTAAFL is, by far, more quoted than that.
      And Americans are exceedingly polite. When you meet Americans, they will smile at you, eyeball you, and ask how you are. And expect you to be polite enough to not respond with truth. It's a society built on polite fiction. That doesn't stop them from stepping on your body to make a buck. But they'll smile at you while doing so.

    3. Re: I'm shocked, shocked! by wellingj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conservatives hate his view on government because he didn't buy into legislating morality. You don't grok if you think he didn't piss off the right as much as the left...

    4. Re:I'm shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it's popular to assume Heinlein was conservative, but that's usually coming from people like Verhoeven who couldn't get through the set up chapters and get to the philosophical pay off. Stranger in A Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress include themes of strong secular humanism, anti-authoritarianism, and ecological responsibility along with libertarian economic concepts. I don't think it's correct to assume Heinlein advocates extraordinary conservative views in Starship Troopers (i.e. flogging as punishment) when you could more easily interpret those passages as critical when put in context of his other books.

      It's unfortunate that Verhoeven didn't read the book, and that no one associated with the movie seems to have read any serious critics of the book either. One way you know Heinlein wrote a great book is that there are so many interesting critical insights linked to 20th century culture from wildly different perspectives. The movie lacks the exploration of asexual masculinity, elitism, and technology that give the book depth and complexity. Why is the power armor both so appealing to us and horribly savage? Why does (book) Rico find women "fascinating" but never express a desire for any kind of relationship? The quintessentially American ideal that freedom requires sacrifice is tested in an extreme case, raising questions about what "freedom" and "sacrifice" mean. This is what science fiction should do.

    5. Re: I'm shocked, shocked! by dryeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep, you can go to any country in the world and ask who the politest tourists are and they'll always answer Americans. Shit, us Canadians have to put a stars and stripes flag on our stuff to avoid being considered unpolite people because everyone knows that not being heavily armed makes Canadians one of most unpolite societies in the world.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re: I'm shocked, shocked! by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice conflation of nothing. No one ever said socialism was better than a free market, yet for all the talk about free markets it is conservatives who consistently go out of their way to thwart and warp the free market.

      If the free market is so good, why were trading collars instituted on the stock markets? Why not let the markets move as they wish instead of confining them?

      If free markets are so good, why is it Republican-led towns and cities enact laws to prevent competition in broadband service?

      If free markets are so good, why are we subsidizing multi-billion dollar companies such as Exxon with taxpayer money?

      If free markets are so good, why are taxpayers being taken to the wash to the tune of $4 billion in Wisconsin to entice Foxconn to put in a plant?

      If free markets are so good, why did George Bush hand over $700 billion of taxpayer money to J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and a whole host of other Wall Street firms and banks so they could pay out their bonuses?

      As to those companies you mentioned, they're the same ones who said raising the minimum wage would cripple them. And as for those $1,000 bonuses, yeah, work 20 years at WalMart and get the bonus. $1000/20 = $50 for each year worked. That's $4.16 per month. Around .15 cents for each day you worked for them. Wow. Just staggering how generous they are.

      Tell us, how many times did those at the top get raises, bonuses, stock options and other perks during those same 20 years? Why weren't the employees getting similar treatment throughout that time? You know, trickle down.

    7. Re:I'm shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      or maybe hollywood is too dumb to understand conservative messages.

      To be fair most self proclaimed conservative doesn't understand conservative messages either.
      There is nothing conservative about modern day Republicans. (Decreasing taxes while increasing the deficit is not conservative.)
      The closest thing you will find to conservatives in modern US is a handful of moderate Democrats, but that is about it.

  2. As a German, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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.)

  3. Didn't read the book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Their society is elitist liberal not facscist by drnb · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

    1. Re:Their society is elitist liberal not facscist by drnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't you have to complete your enlistment to obtain political power? If so, then anyone can enlist but only those who conform are enfranchised.

      Conformance was only required during service. After service no conformance was required, an enfranchised citizen was free to believe and vote however they cared to. And society would go in whatever direction the majority of the enfranchised citizens believed to be best. The voters were in control. That fact that voters had to demonstrate they would risk their lives for others, through military or hazardous construction service, is not evidence of fascism. Elitist is really a far better description. Fascism dictates what is proper to believe, what direction government will go. The enfranchised elite were under no such limitations, they had "earned" the right to believe whatever they chose to, their majority had "earned" the right to direct the government.

    2. Re: Their society is elitist liberal not facscist by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. Moreover, IIRC, you didn't get your franchise until after releasing from the service, which is the exact opposite of what the movie suggested. In the movie, society is run by the "sky marshals" - active military leaders - whereas in the book the military doesn't get a say at all; the direction of their society is determined by voting citizens.

      It takes an incredibly thoughtless person to read "fascism" into that.

  5. Re:Did not read the book by thomst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re: Back to full fascism with the Dims by sysrammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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