My post last week on Starship Troopers’ fascism generated a lot of good debate in the comments. This site thrives on intelligent comments – as well as generous donations, hint hint – so we knew we’d hit on a rich lode of pop culture. And like every mining company, we exploited that lode for all it had.

The debate around Starship Troopers hinged on a few key questions:

1. Was Starship Troopers a good movie or a bad movie?
2. Re: question #1, was that Verhoeven’s intention or no?
3. Re: question #2, was that because Verhoeven was satirizing fascism or wallowing in it?
4. Re: question #3, was that because Verhoeven was true to the source (Heinlein’s novel) or deviated from it?

As you can see, this isn’t just a checklist of criticism. Each answer hinges on the one prior to it. The possibilities unfold like a space-time origami crane. How could each of the distinct viewpoints interact with each other and come to a consensus?

Fortunately, loyal commenter donn hit on a solution:

It seems like it’s almost time for a chart here…

Ladies and Gentlemen, loyal Overthinkers, I present to you the Four-Dimensional Matrix of Starship Troopers Criticism!

Here’s how to use the Four-Dimensional Matrix of Starship Troopers Criticism. Simply complete the following sentence:

Starship Troopers was [1], and that was [2] on Verhoeven’s part, because his [3] is [4]

[1] = “Awesome” or “Terrible”
[2] = “Intentional” or “Accidental”
[3] = “Satire of Fascism” or “Wallowing in Fascism”
[4] = “True to the Source” or “Deviates from the Source.”

For instance, it is Overthinking It’s position that Starship Troopers was Awesome, and that was Intentional on Verhoeven’s part, because his Satire of Fascism is True to the Source. He took the militarism in Heinlein’s novel just a nudge farther in order to turn it into painfully hilarious insight.

Roger Ebert would agree with me that Verhoeven intended a Satire of Fascism and that it was True to the Source. He cites Heinlein’s novel in his review. However, Ebert believes that Starship Troopers is Terrible, and that that was an Accident on Verhoeven’s part.

So Ebert’s views and mine are co-planar on the third and fourth dimension, but divergent on the first and second.

Verhoeven himself, meanwhile, would probably say that he made a deliberately Terrible movie. So Verhoeven and Overthinking It converge on the second, third and fourth planes but share no common points on the first.

Roger Ebert is an institution of the film industry. Not because of his particular genius (he gave Garfield: The Movie three stars), but because of his longevity. He’s been reviewing major releases for nearly thirty years. Looking back at a collection of his reviews is like looking into the history of film criticism at the end of the 20th Century.

Consider, for instance, his review of RoboCop:

Because the scene [where the OCP executive gets murdered] surprises us in a movie that seemed to be developing into a serious thriller, it puts us off guard. We’re no longer quite sure where “RoboCop” is going, and that’s one of the movie’s best qualities.

[...]

The broad outline of the plot develops along more or less standard thriller lines. But this is not a standard thriller. The director is Paul Verhoeven, the gifted Dutch filmmaker whose earlier credits include “Soldier of Orange” and “The Fourth Man.” His movies are not easily categorized. There is comedy in this movie, even slapstick comedy. There is romance. There is a certain amount of philosophy, centering on the question, What is a man? And there is pointed social satire, too, as the robocop takes on some of the attributes and some of the popular following of a Bernhard Goetz.

By way of comparison, here’s his review of Starship Troopers, a decade later: