Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

 "Ghost in the machine..."

Let's admit it: this isn't exactly the greatest film ever made. But it's a fascinating one. 

This is the most cyberpunk film I've ever seen, from a time when cyberpunk was, at a stretch, still pretty much a thing in its original form, and it's helmed by a director best known for making the music videos for R.E.M, which in itself is pleasingly '90s. Even better, it's an adaptation of a William Gibson short story (I've read it, but we're talking thirty odd years...) with a screenplay by Gibson himself.

It's not exactly great, despite all that- it lacks a certain sparkle in dialogue, direction and performance (although Henry Rollins is great) and, given the cast, I suspect that last flaw is down to the director. Yet this isn't by any means a bad film either, simply promising but flawed. And it shows, perhaps, that the script is by a novelist who isn't used to writing for the screen.

Yet it's fascinating to see this imagined cyberpunk future of 2021 (there's a pandemic!), with corporate rule enforced by Yakuza, intelligent savant dolphins (shades of Halo Jones there), and, er, VCRs! The internet is shown with trippy visuals and imagined in such a quaint, 90s, virtual reality way. It's all so... cyberpunk.

Yet the ideas are often great. Uploading extra memory capacity to one's brain. An electronic virus. A cyborg preacher. This is a flawed film, but I'm glad it exists: a film that is the cinematic epitome of cyberpunk itself.

Starship Troopers (1997)

“Fresh meat to the grinder, eh?”

I saw this film once before, and loved it, twenty-odd years ago. But I only read Robert Heinlein’s original novel a couple of years ago, on the train, during my commute, where I do all my reading these days. And the novel is a different beast. It follows the story of Johnny Nico, yes, but doesn’t concern itself with just one war and is as much world-building as narrative. Most extraordinary, it seems to expound a worldview that is quite extraordinary, and which is assumed to be more playing with ideas than reflecting the supposedly libertarian views of its author.

These views are, to put it mildly, not remotely libertarian. I say that as a radical liberal, a devotee of Lilburne, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Keynes, Beveridge and Henry George. Personally I’m left of centre while avowedly not in any way socialist, seeing the need for the state to free people from poverty in terms of individual liberty; unlike right wing libertarians I don’t see this as a silly abstract opposition between the state and the private sector. I’m the kind of libertarian that would support, say, the state legislating to prevent private organisations from putting cameras in employee toilets. The point is, as a radical liberal I’m left of centre, very much unlike Heinlein, but although I prefer not to use the word “libertarian” (it has right-wing connotations these days), I certainly am one.

And, if the novel truly reflects Heinlein’s views, he most certainly was not one. The classroom scene in the film- expanded in the novel to “history and moral philosophy”- justifies its ideology that only soldiers or former soldiers deserve citizenship as being because voting is an exertion of power and this a violent act, and violence gets things done. I don’t agree, to put it mildly. I’m all in favour of the idea that freedom isn’t free, that free citizens must be prepared to fight and die for that freedom, as in 1939. But to make that freedom conditional would pervert such a noble gesture into cynical self-interest; we would be fighting for personal advancement, not to defend a freedom we would not have. Heinlein seems to support discipline and violence as ends unto themselves, whereas it is of course nonsense to fetishise then like this; discipline and force are morally neutral. It’s the ends they are used for that matter. And I firmly believe that a truly free society would fight better. We should be Athens, not Sparta. And yes; I’m aware that soldiers are free to leave at any time without their citizenship and that the society appears to be a true meritocracy. It still isn’t free.

Anyway, the film, which is awesome. Obviously, Hollywood can not possibly get away with espousing such views and the film wisely takes a more critical look. Paul Verhoeven is absolutely the right choice as director. The film is filled, from the start, with spoof military propaganda (and others, subtly expanding this world of psychic powers and summary rough justice) which satirises this kind of knee-jerk militarism. Yes, this kind of thing repeats the same trick from RoboCop but it is, I think, the right way to frame the film. It’s also the right decision, cinematically, to structure the film as more of a narrative focusing on Johnny, his friends, and the love rectangle with Carmen, poor Diz, and Zander. And the bugs look awesome in a way they would not have done a few years later with CGI development. I’m sure those expecting a straight ahead s I-do romp would be disappointed, but this is a film rightly focused on ideas and satirical humour as much as glorious violence and sex- it’s notable that military service is gender blind, society seems gender blind too, and that both sexes shower together.

This is a well-made, genuinely gripping film with no slow moments, yet one which is careful to present Heinlein’s ideas without endorsing them. An absolute triumph.