(urth) Don't Sell 'Em Short

[James Crossley]

On 4/12/07 2:19 PM, "Chris" <rasputin_ at hotmail.com> wrote:

>> --- Recursive Loop <recursive_loop at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Greetings:
>>> 
>>> "In pondering the difficulties of filming a Wolfe
>>> novel,
>>> and there are many, I think it is a mistake for us
>>> to sell
>>> screenwriters and film directors short."
>>> 
>>> Welllllll...let's see...
>> 
>>> The film version of "Starship Troopers" (where the
>>> director proudly stated he had not read the
>>> book and was not going to read the book)
>> 
>> Ahh, Starship Troopers. I hated that book so much that
>> it colored my view of the rest of Heinlein's work.
>> (Friday is the only novel I truly enjoyed. Heinlein's
>> portrayal of California in that is still spot on.) The
>> movie, on the other hand, is a hilarious f*@% you to
>> the action movie obsessed public, as well as a great
>> satire of Gulf War One. The truly scary thing about it
>> is that it applies to Gulf War Two just as well. It's
>> the most expensive american fascist propaganda movie
>> ever made, and for my money the best science fiction
>> movie of the last 25 years, Blade Runner (which is
>> also a far less than faithful adaptation) included.
>> All my moderately humble opinion, of course.
>> 
>> Don
> 
> I have a hard time fitting this to GW I as well.
> 
> Also... I have trouble attributing a great deal of subtlety to the person
> who, if I recall correctly, brought the film "Showgirls" into the world.
> Yes, some direct satirical element remains, but I highly doubt that any
> meta-level critique of action movie audiences is going on.
> 
You're right about "Showgirls," but I have to disagree with you about
"Starship Troopers."  Whether it's a subtle film or not, it's definitely a
conscious commentary on the action movie as propaganda.  I think the point
could be proved by going scene by scene through the movie, but I won't be
inflicting that on anyone here.

James