Comments on: Paul Verhoeven and the Aesthetics of Awfulness

By: Diana

Diana — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:28:18 +0000

Your tables ignite the happy place in my heart reserved especially for charts and graphs. Lovely. And I really agree with you on the “in on the joke” question. He’s bizarrely aware of what he’s doing and how awful it is, but this sort of weird self-awareness rarely plays well to American audiences, whether in literature, theater, or film. And he has openly and joyously admitted to the absurdity of his characters and their motivations, which is part of what I find so fascinating about him. It’s like he’s obsessed above all with dumping a whole bunch of story elements into one container and seeing what happens — reminds me of the kid with the bug jar we all knew when we were little: “I wonder what will happen if I put this one with these other ones?” Do you think there are other similarly in on the joke filmmakers working in the US today, or does he inhabit this category alone?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:51:38 +0000

I think you’re still missing one critical “liking it” category: the Indie Factor. This is kind of a inverse of the “unenjoyable rarified movie” category. You feel good about not liking it because everybody else DOES like it. A good example of this is Indie Pete from the Diesel Sweeties comic.

I think this appeals to the ego, though, because you feel good and special for hating something popular. For example, I think Zombieland sucks, which puts me at odds with many of my friends, which makes me feel good on a perverse level.

By: Theodore Ruxpin III

Theodore Ruxpin III — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:16:40 +0000

It IS about fascism though! And not particularly subtle about it either. But still, that’s what I meant about Verhoeven being able to straddle different levels of the good/bad/awful divide simultaneously. He’s perfectly willing to be crass and exploitative and corny while making his point.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:48:22 +0000

Your scale of movies is absolute genius. We had come up with one that we titled “the absolute value scale,” where a 10 was “so great, you have to see it,” and -10 (negative 10) was “so bad you have to see it.” Easier to explain than yours, but I found your scale to be much more satisfying.
Watch the directors commentary to Starship Troopers. Verhoeven is clearly not in on the joke. In fact, it gets way more hilarious. My favorite line, apart from the fact he got naked for the co-ed shower scene, is the where he tried to blast his critics by pointing out that the movie is critiqued for being about Nazism, when is obviously is about fascism. Obviously.

By: perich

perich — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +0000

@Teddy and DaveW: Trust me, we have plenty more Verhoeverthinking It where this comes from. Stay logged on!

By: DaveW

DaveW — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:33:19 +0000

I must admit, Verhoevan’s ability to just run with the awful is truly a thing of majesty. Starship Troopers is my personal favorite of his works, simply because it realizes so early on just exactly how bad it is… and then rides that for all that it’s worth. Glorious.

By: dock

dock — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:52:00 +0000

“lowest abysses of suckitude”…….LMAO!

By: Theodore Ruxpin III

Theodore Ruxpin III — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:25:25 +0000

Verhoeven’s not just “in on the joke”. He is a compelling filmmaker precisely because he is able to straddle different levels of the good/bad/awful divide simultaneously.

For Verhoeven, the concept of “taste” simply does not come into play. And thank god for that.