MovieChat Forums > Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion > Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier not ...

Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier not very bright...

posted 8 years ago by Tsavo
14 replies | jump to latest

I am not saying this with any intent to troll, or really to stir up any really big arguments, but as much as I enjoyed the film, stupid though it was (in a fun sort of way), am I the only one who get really irritated listening to them complain about how sexist the world was for criticizing Carmen as a character throughout the commentaries? It seemed like they constantly chose to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that a girl kissing another guy, while she was in a relationship with someone, then ditching him, then sleeping with the new guy (which as this point could be easily assumed as her intention from the first kissing scene) in what seems like less than five minutes later, with said new guy (Xander) dying at the end of the film, which then featured her kissing the guy she was with before (again, less that five minutes later). Granted, a anyone has the right to make those decisions, but within the context presented in the film, her behavior made her a rather unlikable character, and I will admit I was not the biggest fan of her as a character even ignoring the scenes I listed above (which were all deleted in the final cut, due to the complaints they received from the test audiences). They noted that a lot of people liked Dizzy, but when you listen to the commentaries, it very much feels like they deliberately ignore or distort what happens in the story they themselves wrote, just so that they can make the claim of sexism (such as comparing Carmen sleeping with Xander, when Rico slept with Dizzy a short while later, though Rico at no point had been flirting with or Kissing Dizzy before Carmen broke up with him). Maybe I am just getting too fed up with modern professional victimhood, but it really made sitting through the commentaries (which I normally enjoy) irritating. Of course, plenty more could be said for Verhoeven for his interpretation of the source novel, but it really stood out for me, and I was wondering if anyone else had the same complaint.

"Aw Crap!" - Hellboy

[–] glynis23-282-577521 8 years ago

Verhoeven for some reason tends to make a lot of his characters unlikable especially in his post Total Recall films like Hollow Man. Seems really out of touch on why should the audience be rooting for the characters.

[–] Seriona1 8 years ago

Plus he is the "it's all about me" kind of personas. He said he based on the movie entirely off his experience under Nazi Occupation and looses added the characters in the book because he found the book depressing and boring.

[–] criztu 8 years ago

Verhoeven for some reason tends to make a lot of his characters unlikable especially in his post Total Recall films like Hollow Man. Seems really out of touch on why should the audience be rooting for the characters.

What Verhoeven tried to do, was to articulate a complex message:
Carmen represents the war path, destruction, vanity, desolation. Rico is infatuated with death - aka Carmen, and in the end, he himself is left hollowed, empty.
Dizzy represents the life path, fulfillment in love, passion and joy. Rico is being seduced by eros - aka Dizzy, but the militarist system eventually destroys Dizzy.

This metaphor is expressed by Freud as Death Drive vs. Life Drive.

That is why Carmen is distant, cold, aloof, unpleasant, unlikable, while Dizzy is charming, warm, eager, endearing. The characters are very well done, and believable - people on this board dislike Carmen with a passion, lol.

Unfortunately, American cinema is different from European cinema. American cinema is cartoonish, characters function in a Good vs. Evil relation, the protagonist always stays on the Good side, it's a "Cowboys vs Indians" or "Batman vs Joker" paradigm.
It is only recently, that the American cinema started creating more complex characters, who are not 100% Good or 100% Evil.
Dudes like Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott, are Englishmen!

So, Verhoeven's conundrum was, how to do what he loves - sophisticated stories - and still market them to American audiences, trained into he Good vs Evil routine. It didn't work.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 8 years ago

The trick with any character is that the audience has to care about them, you don't step outside yourself and try to make your heroes absolute bastards who put everybody off.

As you said having characters who are not 100% good is a curious European thing that doesn't quite translate to American audiences who are use to the good vs evil routine, With Starship Troopers and Hollow Man Verhoeven went off point in doing so. After Hollow Man he fell he should only make movies that he cares not forcing what he likes into any old story.

[–] Seriona1 8 years ago

Or he should of just followed the book.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 8 years ago

To do that you have to an infinity with it or respect the source objectively.

[–] woodmage 8 years ago

Or at least read it.

[–] xenopharb 8 years ago

Not reading the source material makes it difficult to understand.

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

The trick with any character is that the audience has to care about them, you don't step outside yourself and try to make your heroes absolute bastards who put everybody off.

And yet so many critically praised films do exactly that.

As you said having characters who are not 100% good is a curious European thing that doesn't quite translate to American audiences who are use to the good vs evil routine,

Then why are Alan Rickman's bad-guy characters often so popular in American culture?
Why is Reservoir Dogs such an acclaimed film?
Why are Mafia films so beloved?
Hundreds of films and TV shows just like this, from Firefly to Breaking Bad...

After Hollow Man he fell he should only make movies that he cares not forcing what he likes into any old story.

Starship Troopers isn't particularly forced - The original screenplay (by a different title) was completed before anyone had even read the book. It was only when someone pointed out how similar the two were that Verhoeven picked the book up. The optioned the rights to avoid any conflict (intentional or otherwise) and the result is Verhoeven hating the book, so satirising it here.
So yeah, he does like this and this is what he always intended.

[–] glynis23-282-577521 8 years ago

Then why are Alan Rickman's bad-guy characters often so popular in American culture?
Why is Reservoir Dogs such an acclaimed film?
Why are Mafia films so beloved?
Hundreds of films and TV shows just like this, from Firefly to Breaking Bad...

As said you got to have characters that the audiences cares about, if the actors can sell it then it works.

With gangster films like The Godfather etc you have an amoral character whose somewhat sympathetic and played by a good actor.

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

As said you got to have characters that the audiences cares about, if the actors can sell it then it works.

I care about Dizzy.
I care about Ace.
I care about Rasczak.
I generally care more about the non-lead characters, who are affected by the actions of the *beep* leads as they slowly learn to act just a bit more like grown-ups...

[–] criztu 8 years ago

With gangster films like The Godfather etc you have an amoral character whose somewhat sympathetic and played by a good actor.

I think Godfather is about a Good guy - Michael Corleone, who wants to be Good, but is forced to survive in an Evil world, or avenge his father, or the death of his love and innocence, or is taking revenge on those trying to kill him. More or less the Good guy kills all Evil.
Al Pacino's character is NEVER on the side of Evil. You got it completely wrong. He is 100% moral. He punishes those who killed his innocent lover, his father, and tried to kill him, all that crap.
Michael Corleone is simply Moses unleashing the plagues against the Egyptians.

Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone is an idyllic patriarch, a proto-police governing a community of Italians following old ways, segregated in the midst of a strange new American culture. You don't see him doing anything actually bad, he's like a tribal leader doing Good, ruler of a patriarchal tribe.
Of course, Marlon Brando's mafia boss is complete bullsh!t and that's why it sold. There was no evil in him, only a more primitive interpretation of Good. Like saying "Italians slap their kids, but they do that because they're inferior beings, and their understanding of love is a bit rough".
Marlon Brando's character was so completely NOT what a real mafia boss is about. Mafia bosses are like butchers or shepherds, slaughtering human cattle, while Vito Corleone was like a noble tribe chief, who sent severed horse heads to corrupt yankee bureaucrats, like Moses who sends the plagues against Egypt as punishment for the evil ways of the pharaoh.

By all means, what Batman does, is vigilantism, which is legally a felony. But within Christian morality, what Batman does - playing the Judge-Jury-Executioner, killing people as he sees fit, is ok!

"Good and Evil", especially Christian "Good and Evil", is a very twisted ideology, where it's ok to kill children, to punish their fathers! That's Christian morality, and Michael Corleone functions within that morality, to the fullest.
You probably don't realize the kind of movie you've been watching...

[–] Tsavo 8 years ago

Well, I am glad to see that others noticed the same. I would add to the discussion by pointing out that both noir and neo-noir have been rather successful in cinema, and are noted for having morally ambiguous characters. But let's not kid ourselves here, Starship Troopers is nothing even remotely close to "high cinema".

"Aw Crap!" - Hellboy

[–] adressi-727-909381 8 years ago

The argument is made that the characters are supposed to be liked. Why ? Where does this idea come from that the main characters in order to be watchable need to be liked. I watch House of Cards because i hate the main character Frank Underwood, not because i like him. The idea with Rico and Carmen is the same. They are hollow teen shells who are tricked into joining a military complex they dont even understand. I Think the fact that Verhoeven made the main characters unlikable is the whole idea. The audience is supposed to think for themselves for once not let the movie simply give all the answers in a platter. You support this guy, this guy is BAD ect...