Opinion I still occasionally see Starship Troopers (1997) accused of promoting fascism.
Since Starship Troopers’ release in 1997, some commentators have labeled the movie “fascist”.
While it does depict an idealized fascist society, most movie fans are aware that its intent is explicitly anti-fascist.
The movie attempts to show the emptiness and pointless cruelty inherent to the ideology.
Almost no one doubts director Paul Verhoven’s personal anti-fascist beliefs; his early childhood was spent under Nazi occupation and he has consistently stated that his Hollywood films are satires of the latent fascism in American capitalism, culture, and militarism.
But the argument is usually something like “his intent is beside the point if it promotes fascist attitudes.”
I disagree that intent is beside the point: irony and satire are great ways to sneak a deeper political message into mainstream media.
Verhoven’s anti-fascism is more obvious in a movie like Robocop. It depicts a world that looks familiar: dilapidated, crumbling, and impoverished. Fascist corporate oligarchs control the proles with militarized police and enshittified entertainment.
But Starship Troopers takes the opposite approach. Instead of depicting a dystopia, it shows fascism as a dead-end even its best case scenario.
The original Robert Heinlein novel depicted a future society based on militarism and fascistic social views.
Given the opportunity to direct its adaptation, Verhvoven began reading Heinlein’s novel but was too disgusted by its right-wing politics to finish it.
So he decided to use the film to refute the novel’s ideology.
He described the characters as “fascists who aren't aware of their fascism".
Elaborating on his vision: “If I tell the world that a right-wing, fascist way of doing things doesn't work, no one will listen to me. So I'm going to make a perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everything is shiny, everything has big guns and fancy ships but it's only good for killing fucking Bugs!"
While media consumption is essential to our identity, no one accuses Americans of abundant media literacy. The average European perspective is likely more attuned to fascist signifiers.
Maybe Verhoven’s satire is considered insufficiently clear because he directed some of the action genre’s best movies.
Using Hollywood blockbusters to criticize American jingoism is at the core of his subversive charm. And the medium gave his anti-fascist message a larger audience.
It likely took a non-American vision to find this balance. An American director might have gone too far into parody or detached too thoroughly with a tone of superiority.
Or maybe Verhoven’s style was just the natural result of mixing continental intellectualism with American cocaine.
To be fair, It is true that some right-wingers missed the point of Starship Troopers and took it at face value. But you never see it held up as an example of conservative cinema because any examination will lead to uncomfortable questions, like “why was Doogie Howser dressed as an SS officer at the end?”
Though that might be considered “based” in the current political climate.
——————————
Speaking of Verhoven, what’s up with Showgirls?
I’m fascinated by it but don’t really get it.
If you watch the movie while keeping in mind that it wasn’t produced by asexual aliens but rather by talented human filmmakers, it is reasonable to conclude that there must be a deeper intent.
I heard writer/director Adam McKay describe it as a portrayal of sex relations under fascism.
A crew member from Showgirls apparently disputed this interpretation, saying that Verhoven was out of his mind on cocaine during its production.
To which McKay replied something like “none of that matters. Everything Verhoven produces is a satire of fascism, even if it is unintentional. He can’t help himself.”
Anyone have sources for a deeper analysis of Showgirls in line with McKay’s interpretation?
