Watched it for the first time a few weeks ago and found it fascinating. Just like his later film Starship Troopers, I love how Robocop works on two levels, and I'm amazed how many people don't (immediately) understand the underlying satire.
Verhoeven is a true genius. His ability to make truly deep serious movies camouflaged as popcorn movies is absolutely mind blowing. I love everything he has done.
RoboCop is the greatest stunt anyone pulled on Hollywood.
It was supposed to be a movie about someone "part man, part machine, all cop" but it was in fact one of the most anti capitalistic movie Hollywood ever produced.
In light of the past few years I had entertained a thought: Is "RoboCop" what "Defund the police" would look like?
A BigCo. providing private security at scale?
Because we've had private pharmaceutical companies providing healthcare (vaccines) at scale, and looking more competent than the government, that tried to cover up the "Lab leak theory" for over a year as a complete nutjob conspiracy.
Or is it that Noam Chomsky is correct in thinking that it is a form of kickbacks, when govt funded science does all the heavy lifting, and then some well connected people swoop in to cash in on all of that hard work?
I suspect that the future will look more like Mega-City One.
It's just a question of whether it's a rebuilding attempt after WW3, or an attempted solution for climate change (you don't need a car here! tiny apartments are so much more efficient! job opportunities!)
Although I guess there's room for a Robocop flavor of dystopia to exist in the dying 'old cities', too...
I think enough simulations have been run and nuclear tests to determine it's a little more real and consequential than a hypothesis or simple idea as you seem to imply.
Robocop was part of a unparalelled series of action films that came out in the mid-80's. The sequence started with Aliens, then the next year we had Predator and Robocop and then finally Die Hard. They're still making the sequels to these films in one way or another today. The sequence has never been equaled, though I really wish it were.
For me, one of the coolest thing about the Robocop movie series is that, each Robocop movie is about the next Robocop. Robocop 1 is about Murphy being the first Robocop, Robocop 2 is about Cain becoming the second Robocop, and Robocop 3 is about the asian looking Robocops -- the third generation.
I feel this article misses a lot of the historical context when RoboCop was created, it's themes and why it fit this time. I don't see how you can talk about RoboCop without mentioning the cultural climate at the time.
Rewinding to the 1980s.
Reagan was president for two terms, Giuliani was cleaning up the mob using RICO during these time periods. The War on Drugs was raging. Communism was still enemy #1 (See: Rocky IV). It was truly a very right-wing time. For whatever, themes around individuals taking power into their own hands to "Reform" corrupt systems (cities). Like Frank Miller's Sin City, these are absolutely right-wing themes. "Cleaning Corruption" is one of the most conservative motivations from a psychological standpoint.
Others here have mentioned the slate of 80's action movies but it felt like 100% of the culture was heading this direction. Frank Miller's Batman approaches at the time, for example, were strongly echoing similar themes: Vigilante justice in the backdrop of political deterioration. Rambo, Predator, Commando, Total Recall, Scarface.
I think it all started with movies like Dirty Harry and Serpico and then just got more and more extreme leading into the 1980s.
You also cannot leave out Judge Dredd comics. There are similarities between Judge Dredd and RoboCop, I have a hard time believing there was no influence. Judge Dredd also had this magic gun that could do different tricks like shoot through walls etc, lived in a corrupt mega city of the future.
I feel in some ways RoboCop was almost like "Serpico + Dirty Harry if you turn everything up to 1,000." Serpico also had this theme of the good cop who is nearly killed and sent to the hospital due to corrupt system etc.
I wasn't alive during the 80s but I have a hard time reconciling your view that Hollywood vigilante justice movies were the purview of the right-wing when the moral majoritarians that made up the Republican party of the 80s and 90s would lambast those same over-the-top action movies for "excessive" violence, general disrespect towards society, and "poisoning" the minds of the children. Most of the movies you're talking about came at a time when the MPAA and the FCC began loosening its grip on the content shown on the big and small screens and when the Comics Code was no longer enforced.
You're correct that Dirty Harry was an explicitly right wing, and borderline fascist, movie. It was originally offered to Paul Newman who passed because it wasn't a good fit for him, but he suggested his friend Eastwood (a Republican) would be better for the role. The bad guy is a "dirty hippie" type, who's played very effeminate as a contrast to Eastwood's hyper masculine Harry.
I don't think that Serpico fits in that tradition at all. It's a story about a whistleblower fighting corruption within the police, and is directed by Sidney Lumet (not exactly a right wing director, thematically). The institution is corrupt, but Serpico is trying to uphold the law not take it into his own hands.
I think RoboCop is taking aim at techno-enabled state power and the military-industrial complex, not celebrating it.
I think I get bediger bit. RoboCop has a blend of cybernetics and crude metal. Tron was too nerdy. EfNY had actual punks but not solid enough on the cyber/robotics. BladeRunner was a bit too spiritual maybe.
The core theme of cyberpunk is social complexity introduced by technology, and individual empowerment through the use of that technology to fight back against either an overreaching state (a response to the complexity) and/or ubiquitous hyper-corporations (built on the technology). Blade Runner has the setting and aesthetic style, but thematically it's a miss.
Here are the changes I would make to Blade Runner to make it more cyberpunk:
* Roy Batty should be the main character, and more sympathetic.
* The social impact of replicants should be explored; replicants should exist on Earth, and the attitudes of the wider population shown.
* Rather than "dude with a gun chases him", Roy's oppression should be visibly systematic and ideally technological (tracking beacons, iris scanners, kiosks refusing to work for him etc) and rather than violence and brute force his response should be clever exploits of weaknesses in the system.
> and individual empowerment through the use of that technology to fight back against either an overreaching state (a response to the complexity) and/or ubiquitous hyper-corporations (built on the technology)
I disagree on this. Neuromancer is generally considered the genre fighting work and it isn't really about fighting back against either the state or against a hyper corp. The protagonists are hired mercs and they are working entirely for mercenary means. Don't get me wrong it is a very common theme of Cyberpunk (Hardwired is a good example of this), but it definitely isn't something always present (Ghost in the Shell is a classic work of Cyberpunk and the protagonists are spec ops police FFS).
I've gotten a bee in my bonnet about people trying to redefine Cyberpunk as being about rebellion and associate it with "punk" the music subculture that has occurred since Cyberpunk 2077 came out and people started criticising it for not being "punk" enough, but that wasn't what the "punk" in "cyberpunk" has meant historically. The "-punk" in "Cyberpunk" is better read as "outcast, misfit, lowlife" and when you understand that these works that are classically considered Cyberpunk make sense; yes Ghost in the Shell has the protagonists be cops, but they are all weirdo social outcasts because they are so heavily cyberized and like Neuromancer it deals with highly advanced AI and the impacts of tech on society
Surrogates, I, Robot and A.I. offers a small glimpse into the inhumane treatment of the non-human population. Minority Report has the "technology turning on protagonist" aspect.
Maybe we could pull a Godfrey Ho and cut&paste some scenes from these to produce the ultimate cyberpunk flick?
Blade Runner is not Cyber as nothing is virtual, everything is visceral... It is higher-concept Science Fiction, earnest and devoid of the stylishness of anything that would call itself *punk.
unforgettable movie, huge cultural impact. Wouldn't call it fascism though, it was free market capitalism, with the private sector corporation Omni Consumer Products (OCP) fulfilling the role of a valiant but bankrupted state
If you focus more on the kind of world Robocop occurs in rather than the plot, it's easier to see elements of it. Robocop is celebrated in-world for his violence (see, those normal cops weren't able to be violent enough without head-to-toe bulletproof armor and full-auto pistols) as a solution to social frustrations (high crime and corporate greed) and reinforces their hero culture through his sacrifice. There's even a secret conspiracy/plot between those two frustrations and a sub-plot about labor organizing.
But, at the end of the day, it's hard to have an action-focused cop movie without some of these things so we're sort of desensitized to it.
Starship Troopers (also directed by Paul Verhoeven) is even more on the nose about it. The plot itself is just a goofy sci-fi military movie but the human culture in it is absolutely terrifying.
Yeah, Starship Troopers is honestly pretty brilliant. It's an in-world propaganda film complete with commercials. And, like most propaganda, comes off as super silly to us as outsiders.
That's a big part of real historical Fascism too, and even in contemporary satires of it, like It Can't Happen Here:
> Windrip's administration, known as the Corpo government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by Corpo authorities, usually prominent businessmen
Not my analysis but the amazing thing about that movie is Verhoeven was willing to make a BAD movie, with BAD acting, to make his point. He knew people might not get it and pan his movie and he did it anyway.
more than just displaying a fascist culture in the movie, this was a piece of art that a fascist culture would make. The acting is horrible, the casting of soap actors made sure of this, the glamorization of violence ignoring the horrible costs etc. It’s an incredible film. And courageous by Verhoeven.
I actually think that “meteor” that blew up Buenos Aires was a false flag, I didn’t see any bug meteor launching facilities, or even how they could target and launch something like that.
I would love your false flag interpretation, except we did see the bugs shooting down the human spaceships, in a scene I don't think was intended to be a false narration or anything. They do appear to have some space capabilities and I think the lack of clarity is better chalked up to Hollywood science than directorial intent. Your mileage may vary, of course.
In support of the whole thing being a false flag, it would explain the sheer incompetence with which the war is prosecuted... a modern infantry unit would likely fate much better than Our Heroes did. Seeing it as a deliberately harrowing experience for social purposes where the technologically-superior humans are actually in full control the whole time would be an interesting twist. But, again, this would be a lot more solid if Hollywood didn't have a track record of unironic bad tactics across the board.
But the bugs were generating that plasma, and shooting up generally at things they may have been able to see. The meteor launch, they’d need advanced telescopes and orbital mechanics, plus a way to launch the meteor. I suppose there is an allusion to them being a multi planet species, so maybe these things exist.
Could it just be a naturally occurring meteor (on it's original path, not pushed) though? I think a false flag was unlikely (though just from watching, you can't tell for sure), but the bugs were far away so I'm not sure how they sneaked near to earth to push the "meteor". Probably in story telling logic the most likely is the bugs did it, then an accident or natural disaster.
It could totally be a natural disaster they just used to whip up the people. That’s more probable, I suppose. But I wouldn’t put it past that culture to blow up the city to gin up support for a war effort that does not look like it’s doing well. It’s so convenient.
I haven’t read the book actually. I grabbed this from the plot summary:
“ The "Bug War" has changed from minor incidents to a full-scale war during Rico's training. An Arachnid attack that annihilates the city of Buenos Aires alerts civilians to the situation; Rico's mother is killed in the attack.”
Neither did Verhoeven, he apparently only read a couple chapters and had an assistant summarize the rest (https://www.looper.com/358395/the-real-reason-the-starship-t...). So I wouldn't assume that the movie strictly adheres to the events laid out in the book.
there was at local level, basically Detroit had to sell policing rights to OCP (or something like this). Govt was definitely the heroes, I thought the non-robo cops basically represented govt + working class
The basic premise seems to be utter government dysfunction, which allows the corporations to take over a lot of power and provide public services directly. That might include the military, and in fact OCP pitched the ED-209 as a police and military product.
I was also thinking about the relationship Boeing has with US, monopolistic provider of civilian / military fusion technology, Govt really with no alternatives but to keep giving orders
It is not fascism, because while fascism is inconsistently and vaguely defined it generally involves idealization of the state as guardian and embodiment of the nation, which is a collective identity held to possess greater value than the self. In Robocop, the state is impotent and people are directionless, and no sense of national identity is depicted at all. OCP seems entirely unconcerned with what people do or think or what values they have, as long as they continue to spend and be exploitable.
Nevertheless, by the time Robocop starts, that fictional US is no longer capitalist in my opinion. It clearly WAS a market economy, and that’s why OCP is there, but now the government has suffered state capture… and while that can happen from free market capitalism, it’s very much a post-capitalist condition. The market is no longer functional, because OCP has acquired such unchecked power to exert coercive force that they replace the government that is supposed to monopolize such things. The government of Robocop’s Detroit is so broken it can’t run its own police force, so it turns the job over to OCP which has all kinds of weapons and killer robots. Capitalism requires private property rights, which is failing in Robocop - no one can feel secure in anything. They can get robbed in their stores, at home, or walking down the street — and anyway, no matter how good a job Robocop does, OCP is still going to forcibly acquire all the land, knock down the old city and displace everyone to build a new town where OCP is the landlord of everything. This is more reminiscent of feudalism — OCP is the crown, and the crown owns all the land, but it delegates responsibility to nobles, who extract value for their own interests (like the corporate bad guy selling the right to operate drug monopoly in the new city to the criminal bad guy).
Obviously, Robocop is a work of fiction, and any resemblance to real persons or events is entirely coincidental… right? :)
Just for your first point: fascism also see the nation-state as a living organism, and push a lot of metaphoric stuff on this. You have this idea of internal and external ennemies, and one of the language marker i feel represent fascists quite easily is the usage of the word "cancer" when talking about an other person.
