Most prophetic movie of the 1990s?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What fascist society?

2) The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Borderline. Carmen brings up the value of art and the humanities while they are dissecting the bug and it is mostly dismissed. And Michael Ironside during a civics course seems more than a little dismissive of societies that did not put military preparedness at the core of their governing philosophies.

3) The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Borderline. The rush to land and strike back at the bugs after Buenos Aires is close... But the fact that its failure results in a more thoughtful approach is a rebuff.

5) Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Borderline. "The only good bug is a dead bug!" "A Bug that thinks!? Frankly I'm insulted!"
The reason this one is more difficult is that when the opposition is LITERALLY an alien menace rather than a racist caricature... well... The metaphor is not perfect.

7) The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
Borderline. Again, when there is a LITERAL ALIEN MENACE...

12) Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Borderline. The weaponry is definitely present (and isn't completely explained in the select quote), but there isn't any overt sexism and I don't think there is any mention of non-straights non-cis citizens anywhere. I would again say borderline.

14) Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Borderline. I cannot think of a character in the movie that uses any complex wording or makes mention of any complex readings. The dialogue is all easy to understand, and often kind of brain dead. Again, the movie is not a comprehensive view of the world so it might be there or it might not.

I would say of the criteria we have,
Borderline: 6

I would say that it is not, demonstrably a fascist society.
HOWEVER, I would not say that it is Libertarian either.
It is definitely authoritarian. It is definitely a military Junta.
There is no civilian leadership present in the movie.

I think a score of 6 of the borderline warrants a bit more examination though?

[Rocketboy1313]

I think a score of 6 of the borderline warrants a bit more examination though?

Probably.

Honestly, debating whether the movie is a fascist state is kind of moot compared to real life, where fascism is bordering on mainstream right now, not just in the US but in numerous countries around the world.

I would argue that the 14 criteria are MUCH MORE in play within conservative movements in the US right now than are ironically portrayed in "Starship Troopers".

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think a score of 6 of the borderline warrants a bit more examination though?

Probably.

Honestly, debating whether the movie is a fascist state is kind of moot compared to real life, where fascism is bordering on mainstream right now, not just in the US but in numerous countries around the world.

I would argue that the 14 criteria are MUCH MORE in play within conservative movements in the US right now than are ironically portrayed in "Starship Troopers".

Well I don't think it's moot, it's just a matter of fact or not. Granted, I wasn't trying to solicit it out of you, so I apologize on that condition. Frankly, I entertain fascist speculation on the current administration. I don't have an active concern over it with respect to our checks and balances, but its direction is peculiar nonetheless.

That being said, for as pertinent as you find the current administration (granted for real world implications), the level of questionable features between the society in the movie and our current real life situation isn't exactly incompatible for such consideration.

[Yukaphile]

Goddamn it! Now the trolls are affecting my threads!

[Beastro]

And Michael Ironside during a civics course seems more than a little dismissive of societies that did not put military preparedness at the core of their governing philosophies.

How it came to power, "The Veterans took control" is a little vague.

That leaves room open to fall on the book, which focused mainly around personal responsibility.

Heinlein isn't dismissive of modern society, just aspects he sees a dangerous ones which would produce trends that would lead to the collapse of modern society and what would be required to stop that and prevent its return.

It's effectively an idealized, utopian look of things other speculative fiction writers have touched on, like Jerry Pournelle's CoDominion, only the answer in that one is more "It can't be saved" as Mankind transitions into a period of interstellar civilization where monarchy and nobility make a return once late democracy lays the groundwork for them through the solidification of an over and underclass.

Yes. I find this to be on the mark. There is a shifting of how bugs are portrayed as a distant primitive violent menace, to easily stomped on by children, to an up close menace, to one that is insidious.

Where are you getting the stomped on thing? You mean the propaganda clip of the kids stomping cockroaches? That was simply a over the top joke poking fun at the "Everybody's doing their part" aspect of old WWII propaganda where the kids are seriously thinking they're helping by killing earth insects.

As portrayed in the movie, they are acknowledged as a presence in a region of space and are given room until the Mormon colony is established on a Bug world against government cautioning (which nonetheless doesn't interfere in their choice to settle there). The bugs react to the colony's presence by wiping it out treating it as a broad provocation from all Mankind given their collective mindset and are then set their actions in motion to attack Earth.

The Bugs are only underestimated because they aren't very well known, and judging by everything seen of them before hand, are taken as little different than Earth insects until the opening invasion goes wrong when Mankind gets a wake up call that these are a peer power whose alienness as hidden their true abilities.

No. Pacifism is unmentioned in the movie.

It is touches upon indirectly in the movie through the guise of Rico's fathers. Those who dislike and reject the process to become a citizen through service are no demonized and scorned in the film or book, and instead the only scorn comes from him over Rico having the gall to want to sign up against his plans for him.

Yes. "I'm doing my part!" Yeah, this is here.

Which is mostly contained within the framework of the on going war effort and does not appear until it's clear Earth is as war. Beyond that it merely has ads encouraging people to join up for service to become a citizen in keeping with the book and Heinlein's central tenet of his system of government that hinges on the exercise of personal responsibility of volunteerism.

Borderline. The weaponry is definitely present (and isn't completely explained in the select quote), but there isn't any overt sexism and I don't think there is any mention of non-straights non-cis citizens anywhere. I would again say borderline.

But the focus is on military service, a given since we see things through the eyes of those who joined the military. The civil side of things isn't covered because the movie deals with war and its lead up to it.

Yes. I will say this is definitely present. The "Would you like to know more" is representative of a rather tightly controlled narrative for the media.

Yet is done through the lens of the news clips being something more akin to watching something online today rather than a typical 90. The only thing is we can't find out more because we're watching a movie while the movie uses that to bring up details and then drop them with a sensible in-universe explanation It is similar to Command and Conquer 1's intro where we learn about the games setting and conflict through the lens of someone browsing their TV abruptly changing channels cutting off the plot relevant details once what is meant to be said has been said.

Borderline. I cannot think of a character in the movie that uses any complex wording or makes mention of any complex readings. The dialogue is all easy to understand, and often kind of brain dead. Again, the movie is not a comprehensive view of the world so it might be there or it might not.

We're seeing things through the eyes of late teens. Add in that it's a 90s film and they're not going to be all that bright, yet what we see of their teachers at school does not show that from the adults. Ironside's character is the one emphasizing that Rico stop and think about his actions while it's his father who is demanding he shut up and just what's expected of him.

HOWEVER, I would not say that it is Libertarian either.
It is definitely authoritarian. It is definitely a military Junta.
There is no civilian leadership present in the movie.

Again, it's a war movie. What we see of the leadership in the film is war related from the moment Rico joins up and faces bootcamp while what we see before that leaves it vague beyond seeing the one wounded veteran continuing his service in a non-military role given his wounds. What is present that even Verhoeven allows isn't authoritarian as no one is compelled to do anything they don't want until they're enlisted, where that's to be expected with military service. It's a hole I feel leaves things open to being filled by what is presented in the book (and even then what's unmentioned is left to how Heinlein describes the formation of society).

Again, Rico's family are very well off as civilians and his father is demanding he not bother with citizenship because its privileges are worthless and he'd be better getting into business and focusing on making money.

That last bit is in keeping with the book as one of the big criticisms within it of modern government (from the perspective of a liberal) was responsibility too freely given when it should fall upon individuals to ask for it and demonstrate the willingness to take it upon themselves. IIRC, the book highlights that military is not demanded, just simple public service and someone will be accommodated as much as possible depending on their desires.

Who the video is by aside, this is a good detailed point by point look at both the book and what the movie shows. If anything it's aggressively liberal in the same way Roddenberry's Federation is (putting the onus on the individual to push themselves and participate to a high ideal), and almost as naive as it is, but is to be expected given the focus on ideals and values being contrasted against a through and through collectivist society.


youtu.be/kVpYvV0O7uI

[Admiral X]

It is touches upon indirectly in the movie through the guise of Rico's fathers. Those who dislike and reject the process to become a citizen through service are no demonized and scorned in the film or book, and instead the only scorn comes from him over Rico having the gall to want to sign up against his plans for him.

The book doesn't demonize civilians. I'd argue the movie doesn't really do so either, as it's basically just making fun of the book anyway. There isn't any kind of an argument in the movie other than a rather stereotypical "you're going to Harvard" type argument, which is laughable in light of the fact the movie makes Rico out to be a stereotypical dumb jock. The book has a lot more nuance in it, to say the least. And the closest to any indication that the government is in any way oppressing civilians is that corporal punishment has mad a comeback, and that the police look the other way when Rico and some other soldiers beat the tar out of some civilians that try to jump them. But in other ways, they are more lax than the current day military. For example, there is no punishment for failing to show up for boot once you've signed up, and even into boot camp, there's no real punishment for desertion.

[Simplicius]

I may have mentioned it elsewhere but it is the height of irony that Verhoeven thought that the book was fascist propaganda (it isn't) and, in turn, the press thought his film was fascist propaganda (it wasn't).

Nothing brings out the bare-faced stupidity of critics (both of the book and the film) than "Starship Troopers".

[Yukaphile]

I mean, "Enemy of the State," the movie I cited that opened this, feels like it's one of the most prophetic movies, right alongside stuff like The Siege. They even cite the "Afghani rebels" we were supplying weapons to in order to fight the Soviet invaders, which... yeah, that later came back to bite us in the ass.