Total Recall (1990)

 "Hey, I've got five kids to feed!"

Yes, I know. I'm exactly the age and demographic to have seen this film close to when it came out, but have somehow contrived not to have seen it until I'm tantalisingly close to forty-seven years old. Well, I've seen it now. And, well, it's fascinating.

I mean, obvioudsly, it's an Arnie film and does all the Arnie stuff, but it's also fascinatingly conceptual hard science fiction, based on a story by Philip K. Dick. Admittedly, the only novel of Dick's that I've actually read is The Man in the High Castle, but I've seen enough film adaptations to recognise his signature themes of memory, identity and reality in play here- and the film is conceptually fascinating.False memories of great experiences being marketed to the public; false memories of an eight year marriage; the sheer bloody cldeverness of the plot when revealed at the end; a sex worker with three breasts; the question of, if you have amnesia, would you lose your new identity if you had your old memories back?

Arnie is gloriously Arnie, Sharon Stone has a nicely subtle little role, and you can always rely on good old Ronny Cox to play a damn good baddy at this time. And the effects- not CGI but real effects- are a joy to behold. That thing with the eyes when people are exposed to the Martian surace, though... urgh.

The end may be a bit of a cop out- surely Quaid and Melina would have died long before Mars was fully terraformed by the alien magic button? And would the alien device really terraform the planet with the exact amount of oxygen needed by humans? But these things don't stop Total Recall from being an absolute joy.

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.

RoboCop (1987)

"Best way to steal money is free enterprise."

Right. The next five Saturdays will be Doctor Who nights. That means no movie reviews until after then, probably. So here's one last review slipped in while I can…

This is a very unusual film, far more so than it appears at first glance. It's an '80s macho action film with loads of posturing, gore and violence, a genre we all know well. Thing is, though, we all vaguely assume, correctly, there's something intrinsically right wing about genre. Interesting, then, that RoboCop should be so centred around a central message. Because this is a film about the excesses of privatisation. OCP has already run prisons and hospitals and now, with inevitable corruption, it runs the police. I look at this film, I look at the creeping privatisation of the police under the UK's Coalition government, and I'm scared.

Not that the film, with its vague near-future setting, is prescient in all things, of course. "Old Detroit" seems rather more populated than the Detroit of 2012. Characters are seen smoking indoors. The fashions are irredeemably '80s. But the political satire is frighteningly accurate; a privatised police force leads, inevitably to corruption. Even before we find out that Clarence Boddicker is working for Dick Jones we're clearly shown that there's a moral equivalence: that quote up there comes from Boddicker. In Old Detroit there's no public service, only profit. And no one at OCP displays and moral sense at any point whatsoever. The difference between Bob Morton and the other executives is pure hubris; they're no more moral than he is. We're given constant contrasts between the violent world of the overtly criminal and the no less disgusting world of the corporate, a world of cocaine, hookers, ruthless competition and (literally, with ED-209!) blood on the carpet. The corporate world is completely unglamorous: Wall Street this ain't. There's a good symbolic reason why we get so many scenes set in the toilet.

All this is further shown by the hilarious news broadcasts, which eerily foreshadow The Day Today but are gloriously dark, with an aggressively nuclear apartheid South Africa and the Star Wars "Peace" platform. This is also a nice narrative device for moving the plot along. RoboCop is a very pacey film. It's also a very violent, gory film, of course (especially Emil and the chemicals!!!), which is the main thing noticed by my eleven year old self when I first saw the film, hired from the local video shop. It feels a long time ago.

It's not perfect; Peter Weller's acting is not unlike a plank of wood. There's also an embarrassing plot hole: why does OCP sent RoboCop to a precinct where he might be recognised as Murphy? But it's witty, brilliantly shot by Paul Verhoeven, and gloriously violent. RoboCop is a true '80s video classic. I hadn't seen it for about twenty years, which is shocking. Don't make the mistake I did!