Stressed Out

Bevin,
I’d appreciate any more info on how you see Robocop (80’s film) as “leftist”. I’m not ARGUING (yet), but I don’t see it as a “leftist screed” (my words, of course).
Key things I noted (going on old memory here)
– Corporation (OCC) is the one to make the “law enforcer of the future.”
– Crime is almost up to Judge Dredd levels.
– Robocop recalls who he is and reverts to being a cop (instead of the apparrent Uber-LEO they wanted). [Also please bear in mind that “cop” here is different from “cop” in the 20XX years.]

The sequels are worthless WRT any sort of allegory, I think. Just cashing in.

But I don’t see it so much as “Leftist” as … Set in a time, using dystopian predictions.
Now, if you want to go back yet one mroe level, talk about how Murphy was “perfected” (Well, “improved”) by OCC on gubbermint dime, I follow that, makes sense. But then there’s still a certain “return to humanity”, Robocop goes back to being “Murphy” as far as he can.

I THINK the new Robocop will be far MORE leftist, WRT political tones.
But the old one seemed to be set against a “Uber-Government” screen. IE, it was the backdrop, more than a propaganda piece.

I’d like to understand your reasoning, if you’d explain.

Dear Jean,

I absolutely know where you’re coming from. I hope that’s not too presumptuous.

What I mean to say is that I think both “Starship Troopers the Movie” and “Robocop” are like the optical illusion of “two faces in profile or a single vase.” The viewer can rightly see them either way. But in the case of these two particular films, it comes down to “What did the screenwriter himself actually INTEND?”

Champions of the free market, as we libertarians know only too well, have long been forced to distinguish between “capitalism” and “corporatism.”

Leftist critics of the free market, as we libertarians also know too well, never bother to. To them, capitalism IS corporatism. To them capitalism is the corporatist “Omnicorp.” Try to tell them otherwise, and they won’t listen.

As it turns out Edward Neumeier INTENDED Robocop as leftist political satire of free market capitalism. Consider some of his own remarks.

I’m not “laying down the law.” I’m merely giving you my reading on his mindset. It’s a judgement call.

EDWARD NEUMEIER TALKS ABOUT ‘ROBOCOP’
http://www.money-into-light.com/2013/07/edward-neumeier-talks-about-robocop.html

What did you want to achieve with ROBOCOP?

” … I had this idea that an action movie could also be a political satire of sorts. The ironies of politics and violence have always interested me. I was also interested in the guile of capitalism. In the film, it’s mostly peppered in through the ‘media breaks’. The most absurd commercial is the one for the ‘Nuke ‘Em!’ board game. It’s absolutely hilarious.”

How about the level of violence?

“… The scene where ED-209 goes haywire in the boardroom was completely my violence aesthetic. The scene is completely over the top, yet it underlines how cheap life is in the corporate world… Can I just add that I find it funny that no-one has ever asked or written about why there is a gun in the boardroom?”

When you look back at the film now do you see it as something that sums up a particular era?

“It would be very presumptive of me to say that, but it certainly sums up how I was feeling at the time. This notion of businessmen as feral predators who liked to be seen as ‘killers’ was really funny to me and I wanted to write about it. People can decide for themselves whether I was prophetic or not.”

Bevin,
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense now, seeing it as a parody (satire, really, I guess.)
It was definitely a product of its time, the hysteria made sense to my juvenile mind (Meaning, I didn’t know it was hysteria then…)
I’m realizing that’s a real problem, too – the young are more vulnerable than most people realize. And we have propaganda everywhere, streamed to our living rooms – and bedrooms, and dens, and in public, 24/7… And it goes in without filters.

Shows like Knight Rider, Airwolf, A-Team – the concept of one making a difference, even in the Man with No Name westerns (Eastwood)… We got nothing these days, not even the movies hold out hope. It’s like the original Rollerball – collectivist to the core.
And even the adults are tuned in! (Bronies, for example.)

No hope, really….

Dear Jean,

I like “Robocop” despite all that!

If someone cites the film in order to condemn capitalism, I’ll simply say,

“Even though the screenwriter meant to condemn capitalism, he was really condemning corporatism, not capitalism. His ignorance of economics and failure to fully understand the NAP left him confused and as as result he failed to see the difference.”

Dear Jean,

Speaking of singers, I’m watching “Starship Troopers 3: Marauder” again to refresh my memory.

There s a character in the movie, Sky Marshal Omar Anoke, who I swear to god, has to be a send up of former AG John Ashcroft! The actor Stephen Hogan even looks and sounds like Ashcroft.

Omar Anoke – It’s a Good Day to Die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VWsRWxcnws

John Ashcroft = Let the Eagle Soar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woLQI8X2R6Y

Hilarious!

All three of films in the Starship Troopers trilogy were written by Ed Neumeier.

Dear Jean, Eric,

“one man making a difference”

One movie about “one man making a difference” that made a real difference for me, was “Death Wish” starring Charles Bronson.

Death Wish is a 1974 vigilante action film loosely based on the novel Death Wish by Brian Garfield. The film was directed by Michael Winner and stars Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey, a man who becomes a vigilante after his wife is murdered and his daughter is sexually assaulted by muggers.

The film was a commercial success, and generated a movie franchise with four sequels over the next twenty years. The film was disliked by many critics due to it advocating vigilantism and unlimited punishment to criminals.[3] The novel denounced vigilantism, whereas the film embraced the notion. However, it was seen as echoing a growing mood in the United States as crime rose during the 1970s.[4]

Hi, Bevin,
Starship Troopers got really bad after the first one; the blatant manipulation was too difficult for me to watch. There were four, IIRC – the fourth one hammered the anti-war / anti-government themes home so badly, it was almost unwatchable. (Maybe if I’d been drunk, it would’ve hurt my cerebellum less.)

The first three showed the discussion on several of our fronts, though – the corrupted nature of politics, the blatant propaganda used to manipulate the masses, and the masses’ sheep-like obeisance to a government that ANYONE (By Marauder) HAD to see was blatantly corrupt/insolvent. I mean, they HANG a person publically so he can go on a “classified” mission, then resurrect him as a hero? (And note that he’s a hero because of how he’s killed bugs – simply BECAUSE he’s killed bugs. Attempted genocide – which we, as watchers, can guess is wholly manufactured. IE, the bugs aren’t attacking – they’re DEFENDING. Like space-ants, if you will. Fire Ants repond the same way to invasions of their territory.)

Juan “Johnnie” Rico – the main character – goes through one HELL of a metamophosis, from grunt, to leader, to “government shill.” And eventually becomes the Posterboy for recruitment not once – but TWICE. (The end scenes in 1 & the end of Marauders are both recruitment videos… I expect everyeon who’s seen the films knows that, but not everyone would watch ST by choice. 😉 )

The fourth one was earth-based, and had a woman’s view…. The Endless War for Peace was brought into stark focus. Final scenes were her, walking by the recruitment center, and the officer telling her child (male) to grow up fast, because they always needed meat for the grinder…

Now, I’m not much on “liking” women [because I feel the male side is denigrated too much, while females are elevated to goddesshood at the same time – and their “evil” and nastiness passes under the radar, while ALL males are villified for the major transgressions of a select few men.]
But we can’t see everything if we ahve only one point of view, and that shift in perspective – IE, it wasn’t a normal “Action” film – and especially that final “blow-off” in performance terms – brought the focus to the human cost.
The war’s purpose was to colonize foreign planets. The were sent to kill of the indigs. And most of them came home in pieces, if at all. (Note even in the first film, the recruiter is wheelchair-bound, with only one arm left – and I think that he had a replacement on that arm, but can’t recall for certain. But Mobile Infantry made him “the Man I Am Today…”

Even in that first film, DISCIPLINE – defined as obeying orders, ANY orders – was all that mattered (hence, corporal punishment – whipping – and the “compassion” demonstrated by the CO there, who gave johnnie somethign to bite down on – because he’d “been there.” Like a cop saying you were going 75 on the open road, but we’ll write it up as 70 so you get fewer points. Johnnie had been ready to quit… But was persuaded to be whipped into shape, literally, to ONLY follow orders – IE, if there’s a problem with the helmet, find an expert to take care of it. Don’t think, don’t improvise, don’t be noticed… And in dating Game – he’s successfull not BECAUSE of the indoctrination – but IN SPITE OF the mental blinders enforced by his “school.” And yes, Basic there counts as school… Which he’d already completed, as he was just out of High School. … … … VICIOUS satire wrapped in a gung-ho pro-war movie. Wonder how it got through the censors? It’s all but the Land of the Houyhnhnms, a la Gulliver.)

BTW, for sake of keeping terms clear: Where is Corporatism vis-a-vis Cartel? Are they the same, or are there differences?
I’m going on gut guess here, but I believe Corporatism would be where Corporations own the government; the opposite pole of that would be (indistinguishable funcationally) Socialism, where the Government owns the Corporations (and thus the means of production.) And both are essentially fascist. Cartel might be a minor refinement, if it’s specific corporations getting a “free pass” in a sort of quid-pro-quo, further blurring lines of who owns whom.

Eric,
I have some hope for the new Robocop, actually, after seeing one of the trailers during the Super Flush. (It started with a little brown turd circling the drain, right into the endzone… Couldn’t have gone better for the seahawks if the Broncos threw the game… And somehow, STILL not as bad as the Patriots’ dismal game two weeks prior. Patriots played against some other team, not even who was on the field… Mismanagement of plays, maybe. Broncos… Well, Defense didn’t play Defense, offense was almost NEVER on the field, and played like a HS JV team for the brief times they were there…. The game was over before the Broncos even stepped on to the field. And we won’t even get into talking out the “New Jersey” location…. But SOMEONE made money off that deal.)
ANYWAY…

I don’t even watch football, The Woman is becoming a fan… CRAZY.
What I was going to poke at was, Punisher isn’t really in the same genre of “one man making a difference.” He’s one man, yes – but he’s operating completely off the grid. And off the reservation. I think the order of accuracy would best be the 80s one with Dolph Lundgren, then “warzone”, and LAST would be the recent Thomas Jane official Marvel film. Thomas Jane was still coherent; still showed organized psychopathology. But reality is, lundgren got down to the emotionally blank level – not caring if he lived or died. TJ version kept Punisher alive; In the same situation, Lundgren might well have killed himself. And Frank Castle in Warzone looked the part, did the crazy, suicidal assaults – bridging the gap, if you will. Jane’s version was hardly the BIRTH of the Punisher, too – you need to go reading for that. He was unhinged early on.
His goal is not to better anything – not to “make a difference” in the upbeat, pleasant sense. His goal and driving obsession is to HURT others – to PUNISH them for any wrongs they’ve comitted. He’s no different from the psychopaths he hunts.

Batman would be closer, but we run into the “single man” issue in the latest set, and previous set, of films. Alfred is a major player – a support team of one. But then there’s Wayne Enterprises (team #2), and other independent actors (Robin, Catwoman, Bat girl, Gordon, Harvey Dent, Wayne’s friends – the few he has, anyway.) And it’s worse in the comics, where they did an entire multi-year arc – Knightfall and the suqsequent recovery stories, including the AzBat & spin-off series, Azrael. The TEAM is Batman, as much as Bruce Wayne. In effect, the FICTION is Bruce Wayne, millionaire Playboy. HE is the mask. Batman is the person, supported by the cast already mentioned – including the common enemies he faces – they give his life MEANING, a reason to not END his career. Very good breakdown in the Kilmer film, Batman Forever –

———————————————————-
Bruce Wayne: So, you’re willing to take a life.
[…]
Bruce Wayne: Then it will happen this way: You make the kill, but your pain doesn’t die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won’t know why.
———————————————————-

Punisher is more of the Revenge motif, but I’m uncertain if he’s acurately “punishing”, or just out for revenge. Either way, he’s not interested in making the world better – that’s a side effect. Like losing weight due to cancer…

Death Wish was good for the whole “one man making a difference” bit, though there may be some Vengeance in there, too. Kiersey was at least looking to clean up the streets – a bit of the “batman” concept, IE: Vigilante Justice. But it’s also out of frame for the current generation. Even Dirty Harry is outside their frame of reference. And looking at the few cartoons i’ve seen – mostly they’re about teams, and individual actions aren’t really helpful. Same in the films: GI Joe or Transformers, or Batman – the TEAM achieves, more than the individual.

We’ve looped back to the original “Rollerball” film, where the individual is nothing: The TEAM is all that matters. (and the company gets richer.)
I see that coming in the 2014 Robocop. But I believe the concept has remained, that there’s a “bug” in the system (which, BTW, Judge Dredd doesn’t have). From the SB clip, “He’s overriding the program!”
It appears it’s specifically making the story revolve on man’s immutability, the unchangeable nature of man, that some things are “just wrong.” Legal or illegal, there are things not permitted by those with good conscience. Now, some of this is a tired trope, the “uncorruptable” cop – IE, Comissioner Gordon – but that doesn’t mean it’s going away. Many people will still do the right thing, even if it’s illegal. Would Snowden have turned on the surveillance program if focused outwards? Doubt it. Is he moral? Unlikely. But is what he did wrong? I doubt that.

I am optimistic that the new Robocop will have the tropes of uncorruptable cop becoming law-enforcement machine, where the Man overrides the programming – and ultimately goes after the corrupt corporation that created him. Glitches like not KILLING a suspect who can be brought in alive. Murphy will injure him but not kill him, when the program will say to terminate.
Eventually, the ED-209 will come in, to make the counter-point: “the COMPANY makes the LAWS, dammit! ”
And likely, Robocop will win. (Better than the Gundam series, where giant robots piloted by mercenary idealists are brought down by unarmed populations. Makes Tianaman Square, man vs. tanks, believable.) Why do I say “likely”? Could be that while there’s a victory, Robocop dies, and “the people” (Occupy Lake Street? It’s Chicago, that’s the name of the highway, right?) force the ED-209 to shut down, or at least, not be mass produced.

I’d like to see more anti-government in there. Perhaps the film will tie the anti-gov’t and anti-corporation meme together? But I doubt it.

BTW, Judge Dredd is the meat-computer they really WANT in Robocop. Law is the Law; he will execute the law (and the offenders.) ED-209 has even less compunction than Dredd, but only slightly. Dredd has no problem shooting the innocent to get the guilty. ED-209 only sees an obstacle, and prioritizes killing the perp above saving the life. (“Famous” scene where Robocop shoots the thug in the balls, rather than shoot through the woman he’s using as a shield. RC scans, checks the legs, checks the heights, draws a bead, and fires. Matter of maybe half a second. Shoots through her skirt, hits the thug, thug goes down, forgets to even pull the trigger… Worried about his other gun.)
ED-209: Kills them both in hail of gunfire.
Dredd: Ensures thug is dead. If she’s shot, Oh well.
Punisher: charges in, guns blazing, kills thug. Mourns if woman dies.
Batman: Has some gimmick that stops the gun (including a batarang blocking the hammer). Proceeds to beat up (or kill, pre-1970s or so) the thug.
Kiersey: leaves, finds thug later, executes thug. Kiersey is never seen by the thug well enough to be identified, and while Kiersey retreats, he’s still able to see, to make sure the girl isn’t being harmed. If she IS, he’ll be back in the middle of it – he doesn’t care much if he lives or dies, either.
And since we’ve mentioned Dirty Harry: Either out-machos the thug, pointing out there’s no escape, and that he (Harry) is willing to kill thug – and WILL kill thug, if the girl is harmed – he probably talks him down most of the way, then takes a shot once the woman’s in a safe condition. IE, gun isn’t pointed at her.

Funny that Robocop is the most humane, save perhaps batman, who is immensely beyond human in ALL the stories. After all, even expert marksmen miss sometimes… Batman’s more accurate than Bullseye….
😛

Dear Jean,

“Hi, Bevin,
Starship Troopers got really bad after the first one; the blatant manipulation was too difficult for me to watch. ”

No argument from me. I watched them all again anyway just this week, purely for reference.

I have long believed that popular entertainment is the best, most revealing indicator of the collective public consciousness. It tells you everything you want to know about how a society thinks and feels.

“BTW, for sake of keeping terms clear: Where is Corporatism vis-a-vis Cartel? Are they the same, or are there differences? I’m going on gut guess here… both are essentially fascist. ”

Yes. I agree. As far as those who oppose collectivism and coercion are concerned, the differences are trivial. The point is that they, whoever “they” might be, are ripping us off.

We are limited of course by our mutilated form of the King’s English of course, but we still must all do what we can with what we have.

stress (verb)
circa 1300, “to subject (someone) to force or compulsion,” from Middle French estrecier, from Vulgar Latin *strictiare, from Latin stringere “draw tight,” which also is the source of stress

(noun). The figurative meaning “put emphasis on” is first recorded 1896, from notion of laying pressure on something by relying on it. Related: Stressed; stressing.

Perhaps Yodan english improvement it is over english that taught were we?

Yoda: Stopped (from being sovereign over you) they must be; on this all depends. Only a fully trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer transcend Vader and his Emperor. If you end your training now – if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did – you will become an agent of evil.
Obi-Wan: Patience.
Luke: And sacrifice Han and Leia?
Yoda: If you honor what they fight for? Yes.
Obi-Wan: If you choose to face Vader, you will do it alone. I cannot interfere.
Luke: I understand. R2? Fire up the converters.
Obi-Wan: Luke! Don’t give in to hate. That leads to the Dark Side.
Yoda: Strong is Vader. Mind what you have learned. Save you it can.