Jason Fuesting compares Robert Heinlein’s novel with Paul Verhoeven’s movie “adaptation” (scare quotes here because Verhoeven never read more than the first two chapters of the book). I’ve never seen the movie, but the book is one of my favourites.
Taken in a vacuum, the film itself is passable for its time. Despite being released in November, the film clearly fits the summer action film niche and summer action films are not frequently known for in-depth intellectual dialog or for exceptional acting. Verhoeven’s work does not disappoint that expectation in the least. What effort is evident in the film remains focused primarily on either the fight scenes, particularly in special effects and explosions, or in finding ways to justify having the actresses expose some amount of skin in some form or fashion as frequently as possible. As such, Verhoeven’s film comes off not too dissimilarly from what one might expect of a Michael Bay film, except less subtle in every way.
Cinematography, editing, and score were not exceptional, but quite passable. The film remained fast paced and for multiple scenes camera placement complimented the special effects and other elements quite well. The effects themselves were as I remembered, great for the time period. As far as the individual components of the film in terms of film making are concerned, outside of the acting, the film is quite well done. As for the acting, what I remembered as campy and otherwise forgettable as a teen turned out to be far worse than I remembered.
When one steps back out of the vacuum, the film ultimately falls apart entirely on writing. Many would likely ponder how a summer action movie that has managed to succeed on the other points could ultimately be deemed a failure based solely off a feature movies of its kind almost universally ignore. For Heinlein fans, the film is unequivocally a thumb in the eye. From that perspective, the director took the author’s creation, fed just enough of it through a sausage grinder to get the flavor out, mixed in his own recipe of inanity, and laid out the resulting abomination in precisely the exact opposite direction. For those not particularly attached to Heinlein’s novel but still fans of decent writing, a multitude of plot holes and grave inconsistency errors abound, all of which were introduced by the writers meddling in Heinlein’s construct like children run amok.
Amok is sadly an understatement. The film and the book are two wholly different entities. A Joking comment along the lines of the script used by Verhoeven being the result of the soulless Hollywood machine itself parodied in Robert Altman’s 1992 film The Player might be closer to the truth. Simply put, Verhoeven’s script shares names with the book.
[…]
Ultimately, the book’s message is one that stresses responsibility, personal, to one’s family, and to one’s nation. Heinlein repeatedly highlights how military service is not easy, that life is a lot harder than we think it is when we’re young, how war is not the cool thing most children believe. Verhoeven steadfastly ignores every bit of that and takes every point Heinlein made and twisting it to its opposite: war is great, service is so easy any idiot can do it, the military is filled with unthinking robotic idiots and evil right-wing fascists, and the only people who are held responsible are the ones who get caught without an excuse. Instead of a story that is more or less a post-hoc biography of a soldier, complete with his regrets, Verhoeven’s adaptation is little more than modern actors in remade Nazi uniforms acting out nonsense between scenes further adapted from Nazi propaganda films. Verhoeven is so over-the-top in his use of Nazi imagery and defacing the concept of patriotism that his attempted smear against the right-wing gets lost in the noise.
The film is offensive on multiple levels. First, as a veteran, the book is easily realistic science-fiction that carries multiple very pertinent messages and warnings, especially in today’s society. Many of these were messages I needed to hear when I was younger, but I had neither the maturity nor the experience to truly understand at the time. Second, as an author, I am utterly horrified at the wholesale gutting the film makers and their writers gleefully engaged in and the complete mockery of their creation. The idea that one of my prospective works could receive similar treatment sickens me. Third, as a Conservative leaning libertarian, Verhoeven’s film lampoons ideas central to the survival of any state, left leaning or right, and does so in such a poor fashion that it fails at being even amateur-level propaganda. Admittedly, hyperbole is a valid tool; however, when using hyperbole one must ensure both that one’s point is valid and that the use of hyperbole does not destroy your message. Verhoeven fails on both accounts.
Update, 20 December: Just realized I hadn’t included the original link to this review. My belated apologies to Jason Fuesting and Cedar Sanderson for the oversight.
Interesting analysis. That said, although the book and the film are, indeed, different entities, director Paul Verhoven, in both the film’s commentary and in subsequent statements, is very clear that the film is a parody, a satire of all the unthinking pro-war hoo-haw that one sometimes hears – even Fuesting uses the word “lampoons”. If you watch other films he’s done about war, like “Black Book” and “Soldier of Orange”, you can tell Verhoven KNOWS war sucks in a big way.
Also, while I love the book, and in my younger days loved the idea of “military service before you can vote or run for office,” I’ve mellowed only just a touch on that. If you’ve been in the military, think of the laziest, most useless solider/sailor/aviator you’ve served with. Now, think of the smartest, most sorted-out civilian you know who’s never been in, but is honest, hard working and filled with integrity. Under Heinlein’s regime, the former CAN run for office, the latter CAN’T.
Thanks for sharing the review – keep up the great work, and I hope Santa’s good to you & yours!
Comment by MILNEWS.ca — December 20, 2015 @ 07:51
Oh, I’d just been going on the assumption that Verhoeven was a hack who couldn’t be bothered to do that job right. I guess it makes sense that if he’s pushing an agenda, there was less than zero chance he’d have done the book justice. War does suck, but a properly made movie can push that theme very effectively without needing to make it parodic.
I think your view of the book’s (mostly off-scene) political set-up matches mine pretty well. I think I read in the most recent Heinlein biography that he’d stated that civil service work counted in the same way that military service did for achieving the franchise, but that wasn’t indicated in the book itself. (Rather like J.K. Rowling’s post-publication announcement about one of the secondary characters in the Harry Potter books being gay … it was consistent with how the character was portrayed, but not explicitly spelled out in the novels).
As for who qualifies for the franchise in the real world, the current US election race does provide some ammunition for those who think the franchise should be more restricted… 😉
Thanks for the kind seasonal thoughts. We’re in the process of buying a “new” house right now (it’s actually over 150 years old), so Christmas is just a bit more stressful than usual. Best wishes for the season to you and yours, too!
Comment by Nicholas — December 20, 2015 @ 11:26