> The film is a straight up criticism of the book's pro-fascist (or at least pro-militaristic authoritarianism) undertones
It's not, both because the the film had basically nothing to do with the book except for some late alterations, and because the book isn't pro-fascist (or militaristic authoritarianism).
It does explore the concept of implementing the idea behind the draft, expanded beyond the narrowly military (citizenship requires submission to national service, which) and combining it with the (radical for the time) idea of freedom to opt out of such service completely, even military service for which one has volunteered during wartime.
I don't see it as endorsing the system it describes so much as using it as a vehicle to shine the light on the conflict between the ideas that citizenship should be tied to service and dedication to individual autonomy by stepping outside the resolution to that conflict that readers would be familiar with and unconsciously accept. Does the Terran Federation seem fascist or authoritarian? If so, what does that say about a “liberal democratic” society which does not even permit its members to opt out of service seen as necessary by the State? Does the state indoctrination (highlighted via the “History and Moral Philosophy” instruction) seem heavy handed? How, then, the indoctrination in the real public school system curriculum (which, even now is not apolitical, and was very much not in Heinlein’s time, either)?
It's also worth noting that Heinlein was heavily influenced by his time in the military, and he considered that influence to be a positive one. Unlike Haldeman (of Forever War fame), who portrays armed conflicts much more negatively, with a bigger focus on sheer luck.
The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism, but it's not a criticism of the book because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.
Bear in mind that the project wasn't originally connected with Heinlein at all, but was originally titled Bug Hunt. Only later did Verhoeven and company come across Starship Troopers, realize that they could actually get the film rights, and rework their existing script to (kind of) match the novel.
Oh now that makes sense. I left the movie theater HATING that movie so much. I believe I said out loud, "Did they even read the book or just the first chapter!" My friends reply for everyone to hear, "NERD HATE."
Films are not books. Some very good films (such as Dr. Strangelove) may be inspired by a book or riff off it but end up in a very different place with a very different tone. It's not a filmmaker's job to do a faithful adaptation--although those can work too.
> The film is a straight up criticism of fascism and authoritarianism
Well, dull, shallow, heavy-handed mockery more than criticism, but sure.
> but it's not a criticism of the book
It is in exactly the sense that it is of fascism and authoritarianism.
> because Verhoeven only ever read one or two chapters of the book.
...because by that point he was convinced of it's fascism and militarism, and felt he didn't need to read more. See, e.g., his response to a planned reboot that would hew closer to the novel: https://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/paul-verhoeven-slams-stars...
I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters
The guys at Red Letter Media did a pretty good breakdown of it[0] all in all. But even just consider the scene in the beginning when Rasczak is teaching the class about citizenship[1]. It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight. And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard.
> I think there's more depth to the film than you might be giving it credit for. There's a lot of goofy heavy-handedness on the surface, but there are some layers underneath, in the writing and the arcs of the characters
The problem is that cautionary satire requires subtlety about what you are doing; the heavy-handedness on the surface ruins what's underneath.
I'm also not really convinced that almost literally goose-stepping to Nazis (as opposed to antecedents thereof) really need cautionary satire.
> It's goofy and funny on the meta-level, because, well, it's Michael Ironside, and he's saying things that at first pass sound insane. But there's a whole lot in that dialog, and it's all played deadly straight.
Yeah, but for it to work as satire, either it should sound insane at first and the audience should be lead to accept it at the end of the movie, and only after they leave the theater have a dawning “WTF?” feeling, or it should seem reasonable (if perhaps novel—eye-opening would be ideal) at the beginning and by the end the audience should be stunned at where it leads and that they ever sympathized with it. As it is, we’re presented with violent, militaristic, propagandizing state with fascist imagery from the beginning and, hey, at the end it's exactly what you'd expect from Nazis.
> And then compare Rico's genuine, "I don't know" there, to where his character is at the end of the film. I think it recommends itself to a lot of different levels of examination, without sounding like you're trying too hard.
Being suffused in a society which is filled with overtly fascist propaganda from the beginning and then fighting in war while still steeped in that propaganda can make a doubter into a committed soldier of fascism? Sure, there's a message there, but I don't think its a surprising one in either content or presentation.
Your points are all well-made, but I don't know if a message has to be surprising to be worthy of studying, whether satirically or otherwise.
That said, I do think it's genuinely subversive, and effectively so. It's in conversation with its genre of 'science fantasy action schlock'; it's satire in the same way that, say a late Western Revival like High Plains Drifter is. If you examine it on its own, it barely makes any sense. But when taken in context with what it's supposed to be, in its genre, then I think it becomes a deliberate kind of commentary on those tropes. The old joke goes that, from the other side, Star Wars is about a terrorist organization that murders millions of government servants. It's cautionary less in the direct sense of "Nazis are bad", than "Take a closer look at the mythologies you believe in".
> Your points are all well-made, but I don't know if a message has to be surprising to be worthy of studying, whether satirically or otherwise.
For satire to work, the message must be surprising either in content or in context. Sure, the effectiveness of fascist propaganda is worth studying (in both the investigatory and artistic senses), but I don't think Starship Troopers does so effectively, and particularly not as satire.
> It's in conversation with its genre of 'science fantasy action schlock'
I might agree that ST does not completely fail as somewhat meta-level (and cautionary) satire of the way that 'science fantasy action schlock' (and war porn more generally) function as militaristic authoritarian propaganda simply by being so deliberately modelled on and prominently incorporating heavy-handed fascist propaganda and still succeeding, enough to foster production of sequels, largely as 'science fantasy action schlock'. I don't think that was Veerhoeven’s intent.
> It's cautionary less in the direct sense of "Nazis are bad", than "Take a closer look at the mythologies you believe in".
I don't disagree that it wants to do that. I just don't think it produces the level of identification needed to do that effectively. I don't think audience members see thenselved and their own mythologies in the movie’s Johnny Rico, and his transition from doubter to drone in the militaristic mythology to which he is subjected.
