lzmunch

I saw Starship Troopers (1997) recently, having heard for many years that it was a satire misunderstood by many audiences, and I had some thoughts on it.

Initial Thoughts

I enjoyed it well enough, both the cheesy action movie elements and the satire, but initially I felt that it did the cheesy action movie too well, so well that the satire is somewhat weak, despite being obvious. It felt like the only satirical elements were some of the lines and costuming and the propaganda commercial interludes. I felt like there needed to be something in the narrative that was satirical as well.

In my opinion, a good movie will have some sort of "emotional satisfaction"--and I use air quotes because a movie having an intentionally ambiguous and unsatisfying ending can also be "emotionally satisfying" in a sense. It's hard to describe, but I would boil it down to the director made you feel something and you trusted that it was intentional.

I think that ultimately, I felt like I needed some "emotional satisfaction" from Starship Troopers at the end of the movie. I wanted to feel like we the audience had won over fascism and its propaganda somehow. I expected that even if fascism had won on the surface level narrative, the "true" narrative of the film would impart the emotional feeling that fascism had ultimately lost.

The gist of it is that, I think it was clear to me that it was satire, but I don't think it was done very artfully, and I can see why it was misinterpreted and taken straight.

Secondary Thoughts

So with these initial thoughts, I took a look at discussion online to get the perspective of people who felt like it was a mostly perfect satire film that was simply misunderstood. I won't go to deeply into it here. Instead, I recommend taking a look at this Reddit thread. I think these are valid interpretations (and what the director intended most likely) and mostly agree with the points.

TLDR: The narrative of the film is supposed to be played straight. You are supposed to pick up on the logical inconsistencies presented and the general metanarrative that you are viewing propaganda from the future, in the future. So stuff like the overconfidence of the Federation leading to thousands of soldier deaths, the contrast between the cheery propaganda and gruesome battle scenes, and the lackluster explanation for how Buenos Aires was destroyed by the bugs, somehow.

Even so, I still feel that the satire falls flat, just for different/slightly more nuanced reasons.

General Audiences are Uneducated

Step 1 of the problem is timeless I think, but maybe we are just more aware of it in 2024. And that is that people are stupid. So fucking stupid and uneducated, both in a film sense (forgivable) and general sense (less forgivable).

I think it's pretty clear that the Federation and our heroes are Nazis due to the fact that they're from Buenos Aires (the capital of Argentina, a state that many Nazis fled to post-WWII), the constant references to propagandistic language, and the literal SS uniform that Neil Patrick Harris wears.

But I would be completely unsurprised to find that all of these details are lost on the average person. I'm sure they find the interludes cringe and the acting and dialogue wooden and strange at times, but they are unable to connect that to a critique of fascism. To them, they just think this is a below average action movie.

The Language of Film (General Audiences are Uneducated II)

While I think the director can be forgiven for thinking the average person was more educated than they are, I think that it is a little less reasonable to expect people to be able to pick up on the fact that the film has a metanarrative (maybe it is my modern internet brain rot bias speaking though too).

We are very susceptible to accepting logical fallacies in media in general due to the kinds of techniques they employ. I think Starship Troopers employs a couple standard film techniques to tell its baseline action movie story, because in the framework of the movie being satirical propaganda itself, the action movie story has to actually be competent. But I think they also muddle the message a bit, because for example, if you specifically intend to endear people to certain characters, they aren't going to question the characters' logic, morals, and decisions, unless you the filmmaker provide them with reasons to do that.

Audiences expect movies to work a certain way, and if your movie relies on your audience ignoring that, a lot of people are going to miss the point. For a lot of them, it probably doesn't even occur to them that movies can work another way.

Another related issue is the tropes of the action genre. People walk into cheesy action movies expecting it to not make sense and have bad acting and poorly written dialogue--they are likely to attribute these signifiers of satire and critique more to the genre and less to an ulterior message.

---

I'm not saying that the director should have dumbed the movie down significantly, just that I think this is why many people misinterpret it (including me at first).

It's a problem in many creative mediums--generally, people are stupid animals, and I think it is a hard fact for creatives or even just media-literate people to remember that. Even something that is very accessible like "Stranger Things", or a literal children's TV show like "Avatar: The Last Airbender", are regularly misinterpreted by grown adults. Speaking from experience, one only has to spend a little time on any fan space for these shows for that to be come apparent.

Granted, I think a reasonably educated and film-literate person should be able to get it on the first or second watch, so it is unfortunate that even critics missed the point when the movie was released.

It is 2024 and Satire is Dead

Ok here's the big one. It is 2024 and Satire is Dead. I think I would have been more inclined to see the movie as obviously satirical to the average person if we had not spent the last 8 years living in this post-modern hellscape where truth is fake and yes, people (conservatives) really are that stupid. I think my threshold for "this is so ridiculous is it must be satire" is just way too high now. So I think there were a lot of moments in the film that did not hit that threshold and make me think, yeah this is obvious to anyone. Because I have seen so much stuff like it just plainly and earnestly said on the internet.

I saw a comment online about someone taking a "Death of the Author approach" to AI art. Their take on AI is that using this principle, we should be able to enjoy AI art without caring that it wasn't made by a human. As long as the end product is good right?

There is a lot to be said and unraveled about AI art, specifically the strain of tech bro hype we are seeing recently, not real experimental and explorative art that uses AI (I really like the work of Lingdong Huang). For here, I just have some thoughts I want to get out, so let's make the assumption that AI can produce art that is indistinguishable from that produced by a human.

As example, I'll use this picture of Obama by Kehinde Wiley.

Let's imagine for a second that this was actually created by an AI. We put on our analysis/critique hat.

--

One opinion we could offer is one about the pure aesthetic principles of the image, ignoring the creator. I think there is a lot of awesome stuff to say about this painting from a "Death of the Author" perspective. I won't get into it but tl;dr it looks good. It looks pretty. It is colorful and all the elements are expertly composed and rendered.

--

Another opinion we could offer would be one that takes into account the creator(s)--the person who typed in some prompts and the AI that was used to produce this. So they must have typed in "photorealistic President Barack Obama sitting on a chair amidst some leaves with colorful flowers sprinkled throughout." But why? Why did they make this, why this prompt? Why does the AI produce this specific type of chair for Obama to sit on in this pose? If the prompt is more complicated, say they specify the exact type of chair he is sitting on and what wood it is made of and what pose he takes--why?

In this hypothetical, if the "artist" had some meaning behind the choices they made and they really worked that prompt within an inch of it's life to produce an image with several meaningful elements woven together, maybe we can consider that something close to meaningful art.

But maybe they specifically sought to copy someone's style.

And it doesn't take into account all the images that the AI used in its training--perhaps that chair comes into play because there are a lot of photos of obama on that certain type of chair. Maybe there was a specific photo of him on a chair that became a meme, so that particular image got duplicated a lot on the internet. Maybe the AI accounted for that while it was trained.

--

You can see that considering the author raises a lot of interesting questions. We are happening upon the beginning of some real Analysis here.

The actual meaning behind the elements of the painting and Wiley's general style are very interesting and answer a lot of these questions. I think having the Author be alive when analyzing his work elevates it pretty pictures. Wiley likes to put render black people, young black men especially, in a neoclassical style and with neoclassical props amongst backdrops of bright florals, feminine and prestigious elements that contrast the image that black men typically have in society. It makes you think about the role of black people in culture, history, and art history.

With this context, I hope you can see why I think "Death of the Author" analysis of this painting is useful. You can compare how the meaning of elements change depending on whether you factor in the artistic intent or pull more from your subconscious biases, and that can say something about yourself or society.

--

All this to to say, analysis is cool, even in the context of AI. In general, I am lukewarm about "Death of the Author" in media analysis (you can tell from my analysis) but I think it's perfectly worthwhile and valid. Notice however, that this is not really a defense of AI art. In our imaginary scenario, I did not at any point say this wasn't problematic (it is) and that people shouldn't feel some sort of way about enjoying AI art knowing that it is built off what is essentially stolen artwork from millions of artists on the internet--and that is the best case scenario where this art isn't specifically mimicking a real artist's style.

This is because most people understand "Death of the Author" less as a lens or approach to analysis and more as a selective philosophy for media. One interesting example is how some people came to adore JK Rowling more when they found that she supported the Dumbledore/Grindelwald (Hooray the Author is Alive) and then pivoted to trying to ignore her altogether when we found out she was transphobic (Let's Kill the Author).

Lindsey Ellis on Youtube has a great video on this in the context of JK Rowling, and I am kind of stealing her thesis here but the point of all this is that we should avoid conflating analysis with personal moral opinions. Claiming that you take a "Death of the Author" approach to consuming media doesn't mean anything. It lends willfully ignorant consumption false credibility and legitimacy, both to yourself and others.

--

I am a crazy person and wrote out my thoughts on Evermore park's questing system. Obviously there are larger overarching problems than this but when you have thoughts you have thoughts what can I say.

I wished she had asked me: What are you afraid of?

I would have said: I am afraid of my fire going out.

She could have said: Don't worry child, that will never die.

And I would not have spent my years watching the flames instead of chasing the breeze that promised running and shouting and laughing and living.

And I would have known that loving her felt safe.

I would know that even after I found the courage to look at the wick and see that it was never lit,

I would still have the wind on my skin, the sun in my eyes, and the gentle gaze of a life worth holding.

Raine Nightshade - OC from my HP fanfic

Inspired by a tattoo I got last year.

Part 1

Note from Canelli:

He's done it again! I got Dad to take me to the Cup that year, and what a game that was. Truthfully, I was actually rooting for Sorcha to win. She's really showing the Quidditch world that girls are worth their salt in the sport too. But anyway, I'm so glad we got to see Alador do something crazy again! So, I'm not too bummed.

Part 1

Note from Canelli: Uncle Obert works for the Owler so he got me a copy of this photo from their archives. It's the moment Alador caught the Snitch with his flashy move! You get the sense he was surprised too, although probably not as much as the rest of us.

Part 4

Canelli Grapes is a young witch attending Hogwarts. She has a deep obsession for Quidditch seeker turned professor, Alador Evergreen. These are items from her collection. Part 1

Note from Canelli:

This is how I first found out about Alador! What a brilliant move that was. I want to try it but Mum won’t let me go that fast in the backyard. He looks very cute in this photo :)

Part 3

I’ve decided to start a series of “found” items as a medium for telling a Harry Potter fanfiction story. Canelli Grapes is a young witch attending Hogwarts with a deep obsession for Quidditch seeker turned professor, Alador Evergreen. The idea is to have her collection of newspaper snippets, rare photos, and other items hint at things going on in the background.

To start off, this is Canelli’s favorite Quidditch trading card.

Part 2

TW: suicide

One day I woke up and decided to kill my friends. I had come to the realization I’d rather just not bother with them and their disturbances to my life (if you could call it that). It was not hard to make this decision. We only see each other every week or two. The memories of the past are too far too sustain whatever love was there before, and the sparse memories of more recent times are too weak. I suppose they still love me, but not a me I know or understand anymore. As I see it, I would be a random stranger, an intrusive agent of the universe.

I started with Sally. We met way back in freshman year–in fact she may have been one of my first friends. However, I just don’t get the impression that she is the kind of person I want to keep being friends with. I had been quite charitable to her for her flaws for a very long time, but I don’t think I care to put in that work anymore. I believe in her as a person who will be good one day, but I’m too tired to stick around for it. I heard she moved out of our friends house, so it wasn’t too hard to push a heavy object from a high distance into the wrong spot at the wrong moment.

Then came Grace and Cara. As far as I could tell, they had really never done anything wrong to me. From them I felt a great comfort and warmth–how family should be. Still, I had made up my mind. Too much of a bother. By the simple act of existence and intersection with the lives of others, friction always follows. They make food together a lot, so a dose of poison did just the trick.

Last was Violet. We live together. She was actually my first friend in college. My first queer friend as well. We’ve been living together for the past 3 years pretty much. I notice her love most days, but I just let it hang. I don’t catch it and let it fall into a pile that’s been collecting outside of my room for the past 6 months. As roommates, petty arguments arise but we manage. I knocked her out while she was in Zoom class and rolled her out of our 10th floor window.

I used to have such strong feelings for them. Of love (romantic and platonic), of joy, of connection, or family. But the riverbed has been dry for too long, and nothing could stop the raging fire that came through.

The morning after I killed all of my friends, I took a bus down to the river and sat on the banks with a cup of coffee and a bottle of water. I listened to the sound of the city and the water, and when I became bored of that put my headphones on and listened to some music. A toddler in a little blue mask walked by and tried to pat my head before their mom pulled them back. 

The street lights turn on as the sky darkens. I look out toward horizon and let my eyes wander across the interlacing shapes of the bridges.

I am alone. It is quiet. It’s what I wanted right? And pretty much what I expected.

I take one last sip of coffee and a swig of water, and I put my headphones back in my backpack. I check that the note is in a conspicuous place and send my friends a text that they should check the river, and I’m sorry. I love you. I’m sorry. I say it twice more for my little sister.

With an indifferent motion, I slide into the river, face down, and wait.

--

I hide in the now (not the present),

because I am afraid of knowing who I was in the moments before--

an acknowledgement of some promise, some responsibility, obligation.

I am safe in the now,

for it is too fleeting to close me in.

It's where I can enjoy the knowing

without the what--

the act itself, pure and simple.

I flit from moment to moment to moment,

free in each sliver of existence,

I’m really out here writing essays for fun. I was about to begin writing this when I decided to look for some references and had to go write a whole other post about my thoughts. But we are here now.

So I was thinking about why I love shitty 3D art so much. There’s some indescribable aesthetic pleasure to it.

For example: The video that got me thinking lol, good old Dog of Wisdom

Some explanations come to mind immediately:

1. Nostalgia for a familiar aesthetic or one that is associated with “simpler” or happier times.

2. A sense of authenticity. The way that amatuer crafts feel real and have charm. Under corporate capitalism, scruffiness is valued (the capitalists are already catching up though...)

3. It’s just funny and wonky. Makes me l o l. Like frogs.

I want to offer a fourth one though. There’s this concept in art theory (that I don’t know the name of because I did not do research for this lmao) that talks about noticing the medium that art is made with. The idea that art is not just the content delivered through the medium, but the medium itself. 

Compare ordinary movie to mockumentaries. The ordinary movie tries to get to you forget that you’re watching a movie, while the mockumentary wants you to remember that you’re watching someone’s home video. Another example might be an engraving on a locket--in some ways it’s like a painting in a frame. However, in this case, the frame is itself a part of the art. You wouldn’t just remove the lid of that locket and let that be its own art (usually). Removing the contents of the frame destroys the original form of the art.

You can go really deep into that line of thinking, but my point is to highlight that the medium of an art piece can be part of the art, not just a carrier or vessel for it. So this 3D stuff. It’s like the thing with the movie--noticing the flaws in the technology or medium lead to the 3 things I mentioned above, but the act of noticing is a process that we can talk about too.

There’s some dimension that is added to the artwork. It feels more whole somehow, more real, in ways not encompassed by the 3 things I listed. Art is usually a purely mental experience, but not all of it is intellectual or aesthetic. There’s some deeper, more visceral feeling that can be evoked. I think a big part of it is the assumption that you will not notice the medium of art. And then it’s like you’re simulating the breakdown of reality on a smaller scale--kind of like how children simulate reality with their toys.