One of the odder reactions was leftists explaining how "you better delete this, because everyone is going to laugh at you". At the same time, these same people will gush over being supposedly underdogs in every struggle they partake in.
I think you should have marathoned the entire commentary track rather than using the one meme quote. Also I would have recommended the entire movie's wikipedia page at the very least, rather than the one meme quote. You don't appear to know who Edward Neumeier is, meaning you can't make sense of the movie's existence.
Neumeier's attempt at adapting the book was almost entirely overwritten by Verhoeven whinging at the clearly Right-Wing aspects; however no analysis of S.T. can be complete or reasonable without examining what exactly about the book makes modern leftists recoil in abject fear and tout a movie whose premises they barely understand in an attempt to appear "educated." Making sense of the movies existence is a matter of understanding the fear-stricken leftist's response to the logical conclusions of the book.
Verhoeven and Neumeier got along great and had a strong working relationship. Most of Verhoeven's contributions and revisions were about what would work cinematically. How the bugs would look, what could be practically achieved with their effects, and such things. Verhoeven insisted on making the bugs more animalistic because he thought bugs with guns would look stupid. He was not thought-policing the script conceptually. Neumeier explicitly says his intentions were to make a fascist action-adventure film in the commentary and Verhoeven laughs it off. They had different intentions, but were able to find both of their visions expressed in the same movie. Verhoeven considers a hardening of humanity tragic, while Neumeier sees it as attainment of maturity. These aren't really even contradictory views.
And the left aren't responding to the book. As you say, they don't read. They see something right and white man and straight and the rest coded and start throwing dirt at it. You won't find consistency between anything they say. You point out a factual error in an argument and they don't care. They have no ground they're committed to holding here. They're just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. Angry gibberish because the white men have a thing and are enjoying themselves and building confidence again.
When Tarantino was asked why he did not take off anything steeply than the pulp fiction, he cut off: who took off? After all, the movie as the genre ended in 1994 and it was on reading - this film became a collection of all the cool moments in the cinema, which Tarantino thoroughly wrote out in the notebook while working in the video rental. This notebook has become a script for the reading and the outcome of the movie as such.
Then the remakes have already gone without deep meaning. Namely, the presence of a metaphysical meaning makes the film a cult of the film, such a film gives in two hours to understand the philosophical idea that people have taught at universities for years. For example, a film about Mars with Schwartz "total recall"? You look there and doubt it all the time - is it his dream, or reality? And in the end, you easily understand that there is no difference, reality is also a dream - and this is a complex philosophy of solipsism.
After 1994, films with meaning ceased to be released, a shaft of unprofitable remakes like a matrix, the fifth element, and men in black went. Smart cinema ended - they shot everything that could be shot, which is impossible - too. Plus, the Internet appeared and cinema ceased to be the vanguard of culture.
But it seems to me that the result of Hollywood is the "starship troopers" 1997. What was the Verkhoven removed there? And he brought a metaphysical meaning to the Absolute and took a parody of the cinema itself!
Everyone saw via 3D in childhood as a peppy action movie about the murder of cockroaches in space. But if you watch the film now, you will see a completely different movie - the gloomy anti -utopia about the fascist dictatorship that made an external threat. And his genius is that these are two films on one film at once. This is a peppy action movie and a gloomy anti-utopia at the same time - EACH(!) scene in the film has two interpretations:
--You believe that beetles crash into skyscrapers with an asteroid. But you are literally shown that the asteroid launches the ship of earthlings, supposedly the pilot-pilot pressed the wrong button.
--You are shown how the main character dies in the first battle, but then a miracle is alive in the detachment of the same written off fighters under the leadership of the CIA\fbi\kgb employee(Jean Rasczak) to slaughter them for the sake of the propaganda video.
And if you think about the promise, the main character of the film - he then perfectly understands that no bugs attacked, as it seems to me, this is one of the most powerful acting in history - the brilliant Michael Ironside simultaneously plays two roles and watch his game, facial expressions - it is a pleasure.
We give the word to Verkhoven himself:
“How does this movie work? It draws the viewer into himself, makes him first sympathize with the characters, then identify with them, and then, when the merger becomes complete, bam! -It turns out that the heroes are fascists. I used a lot of quotes from the Triumph of Will, the heroes had a distinctly Nazi form. Of course, many viewers simply did not notice this, but they were confronted with a choice: either you begin to doubt, or follow the logic of the heroes further and begin to kill. This is a film that some aspects of American imperialism can lead to a new variety of fascism.
If I suddenly tell the world that the right fascist way of revoking affairs is not suitable for anything, then no one will hear me. Therefore, I designed the perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everyone shines, everywhere large guns, but this is suitable only for the destruction of fucking beetles, for nothing else. ”
The Americans did not understand all this in Bladerunner later, the ST also became a cult in Europe, but in the States he would have been safely forgotten, when suddenly 9/11 where the nonhumans from Saudi Arabia were fucking rushed by airplanes in New York skyscrapers...and in response, for some reason, the United States attacks Iraq ... Against such a background, even the Americans suddenly saw the second side of the film, compared with the words about “New American fascism” and ... gave Verkhoven a weighty kick - he was disgraced with shame from Hollywood as at one time Chaplin
Now it is clear that they did not drive him out at all for the political. Here the matter is more serious. Verkhoven buried Hollywood with his film, deprived him of meaning, looking at ST in advance of propaganda in any film, it will no longer work.
Great essay.
One of the odder reactions was leftists explaining how "you better delete this, because everyone is going to laugh at you". At the same time, these same people will gush over being supposedly underdogs in every struggle they partake in.
I think you should have marathoned the entire commentary track rather than using the one meme quote. Also I would have recommended the entire movie's wikipedia page at the very least, rather than the one meme quote. You don't appear to know who Edward Neumeier is, meaning you can't make sense of the movie's existence.
Neumeier's attempt at adapting the book was almost entirely overwritten by Verhoeven whinging at the clearly Right-Wing aspects; however no analysis of S.T. can be complete or reasonable without examining what exactly about the book makes modern leftists recoil in abject fear and tout a movie whose premises they barely understand in an attempt to appear "educated." Making sense of the movies existence is a matter of understanding the fear-stricken leftist's response to the logical conclusions of the book.
Verhoeven and Neumeier got along great and had a strong working relationship. Most of Verhoeven's contributions and revisions were about what would work cinematically. How the bugs would look, what could be practically achieved with their effects, and such things. Verhoeven insisted on making the bugs more animalistic because he thought bugs with guns would look stupid. He was not thought-policing the script conceptually. Neumeier explicitly says his intentions were to make a fascist action-adventure film in the commentary and Verhoeven laughs it off. They had different intentions, but were able to find both of their visions expressed in the same movie. Verhoeven considers a hardening of humanity tragic, while Neumeier sees it as attainment of maturity. These aren't really even contradictory views.
And the left aren't responding to the book. As you say, they don't read. They see something right and white man and straight and the rest coded and start throwing dirt at it. You won't find consistency between anything they say. You point out a factual error in an argument and they don't care. They have no ground they're committed to holding here. They're just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. Angry gibberish because the white men have a thing and are enjoying themselves and building confidence again.
When Tarantino was asked why he did not take off anything steeply than the pulp fiction, he cut off: who took off? After all, the movie as the genre ended in 1994 and it was on reading - this film became a collection of all the cool moments in the cinema, which Tarantino thoroughly wrote out in the notebook while working in the video rental. This notebook has become a script for the reading and the outcome of the movie as such.
Then the remakes have already gone without deep meaning. Namely, the presence of a metaphysical meaning makes the film a cult of the film, such a film gives in two hours to understand the philosophical idea that people have taught at universities for years. For example, a film about Mars with Schwartz "total recall"? You look there and doubt it all the time - is it his dream, or reality? And in the end, you easily understand that there is no difference, reality is also a dream - and this is a complex philosophy of solipsism.
After 1994, films with meaning ceased to be released, a shaft of unprofitable remakes like a matrix, the fifth element, and men in black went. Smart cinema ended - they shot everything that could be shot, which is impossible - too. Plus, the Internet appeared and cinema ceased to be the vanguard of culture.
But it seems to me that the result of Hollywood is the "starship troopers" 1997. What was the Verkhoven removed there? And he brought a metaphysical meaning to the Absolute and took a parody of the cinema itself!
Everyone saw via 3D in childhood as a peppy action movie about the murder of cockroaches in space. But if you watch the film now, you will see a completely different movie - the gloomy anti -utopia about the fascist dictatorship that made an external threat. And his genius is that these are two films on one film at once. This is a peppy action movie and a gloomy anti-utopia at the same time - EACH(!) scene in the film has two interpretations:
--You believe that beetles crash into skyscrapers with an asteroid. But you are literally shown that the asteroid launches the ship of earthlings, supposedly the pilot-pilot pressed the wrong button.
--You are shown how the main character dies in the first battle, but then a miracle is alive in the detachment of the same written off fighters under the leadership of the CIA\fbi\kgb employee(Jean Rasczak) to slaughter them for the sake of the propaganda video.
And if you think about the promise, the main character of the film - he then perfectly understands that no bugs attacked, as it seems to me, this is one of the most powerful acting in history - the brilliant Michael Ironside simultaneously plays two roles and watch his game, facial expressions - it is a pleasure.
We give the word to Verkhoven himself:
“How does this movie work? It draws the viewer into himself, makes him first sympathize with the characters, then identify with them, and then, when the merger becomes complete, bam! -It turns out that the heroes are fascists. I used a lot of quotes from the Triumph of Will, the heroes had a distinctly Nazi form. Of course, many viewers simply did not notice this, but they were confronted with a choice: either you begin to doubt, or follow the logic of the heroes further and begin to kill. This is a film that some aspects of American imperialism can lead to a new variety of fascism.
If I suddenly tell the world that the right fascist way of revoking affairs is not suitable for anything, then no one will hear me. Therefore, I designed the perfect fascist world: everyone is beautiful, everyone shines, everywhere large guns, but this is suitable only for the destruction of fucking beetles, for nothing else. ”
The Americans did not understand all this in Bladerunner later, the ST also became a cult in Europe, but in the States he would have been safely forgotten, when suddenly 9/11 where the nonhumans from Saudi Arabia were fucking rushed by airplanes in New York skyscrapers...and in response, for some reason, the United States attacks Iraq ... Against such a background, even the Americans suddenly saw the second side of the film, compared with the words about “New American fascism” and ... gave Verkhoven a weighty kick - he was disgraced with shame from Hollywood as at one time Chaplin
Now it is clear that they did not drive him out at all for the political. Here the matter is more serious. Verkhoven buried Hollywood with his film, deprived him of meaning, looking at ST in advance of propaganda in any film, it will no longer work.
and also with greetings from Russia