Hidden in Plain Sight: Would We Fall For The Propaganda Shown In Starship Troopers?

(This article contains spoilers)

Despite being an avid fan of fantasy and science-fiction cinema, Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers (1997) was one of those classics that had somehow managed to escape my radar.

It wasn’t a lack of interest but rather that I’d constantly procrastinated watching it; I’d always tell myself that I’d get to watching it eventually. It was only this year, when I joined the Editorial team for Perspectives Film Festival, that I finally checked it out. Even though I was tasked with reviewing this classic specifically for its use of visual effects, that focus quickly took a backseat in my mind.

Within seconds of hitting play, I found myself immediately thrown off guard, wondering—did I click into the right movie?

The opening scene that unfolded before me wasn’t at all what I had anticipated. It looked like it had been ripped straight from a brazenly aggressive military recruitment advertisement: a  television broadcast flashed clips of smiling soldiers across the screen, their faces beaming with enthusiasm, while triumphant martial music played in the background. 

Huge captions boldly urged the public to enlist, to “do their part” and join in the fight against the Arachnids – a hostile alien species hellbent on destroying humanity – or so I was led to believe. The tone was so absurdly upbeat that it was unsettling to sit through the nearly three-minute clip.

Throughout the entire film, similar meticulously designed newsreels and media segments – calculated to rally support for the military – were often used as transitions between scenes. The segments overtly glorified and romanticised military service, framing the fight against the Arachnids as an urgent and heroic cause, all while spinning a narrative that depicted the alien species as a threat deserving annihilation. The only justification provided by the authorities was the absurd proposition that the bugs had somehow been responsible for launching an asteroid at Earth, an obviously flimsy rationale for declaring war in this storyworld.

I don’t believe a movie has ever made me laugh so much, while simultaneously making me feel so uneasy. The propaganda was blatantly over-the-top, and yet so sincere and earnest in its presentation; I began to question whether the film was a satirical spin on its source material – a novel written by Robert A. Heinlein of the same name – or a rallying cry for extreme militancy from Verhoeven himself. 

Post-movie, I was relieved to find that I wasn’t alone in my feelings about the film. In the decades after its release, many individuals in online forums expressed confusion with the film’s intended purpose — some wondering if it was merely a badly written attempt at a sci-fi movie.

However, as director Paul Verhoeven implied in his interview with Empire Online, he had intentionally crafted his film to be ironic, using satire to critique the novel’s promotion of militarism and fascism in an incredibly exaggerated manner. He shared: 

“I asked Ed Neumeir to tell me the story because I couldn’t just read the thing. It’s a very right-wing book. And with the movie we tried, and I think at least partially succeeded, in commenting on that at the same time. It would be eat your cake and have it…

All the way through we were fighting with the fascism, the ultra-militarism. All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, ‘Are these people crazy?’” added Verhoeven.

Still, the film made me wonder whether we, as a society, would genuinely be as susceptible to propaganda as the characters on screen, if we would be discerning enough to identify its extremism, especially if it were just as in-your-face as it was in Starship Troopers. Was the characters’ naiveté a reflection of our own vulnerabilities, or was it simply a narrative device designed to drive the story forward for future films in the franchise? 

It was a troubling thought to consider, especially in today’s world  where the internet and social media dominate our daily lives. While I would like to believe that we could easily detect such obvious forms of propaganda in the media, reality is far more complex.

If we examine the situation through the lens of someone raised in a militaristic or patriotic environment, like the characters in Starship Troopers, recognising propaganda may not be as straightforward as we assume. In such settings, I can only imagine that individuals may be conditioned to accept certain narratives as unquestionable truths when surrounded by people who do not offer any dissenting perspectives.

When dominant narratives are constantly reinforced by peers, authority figures, institutions, and media, and individuals do not make an effort to educate themselves, people feel less pressure to verify or confirm information presented to them. In fact, being in such an environment might even render the questioning of authority seem not only unnecessary but transgressive. This creates an echo chamber where alternative viewpoints are either suppressed or simply never encountered, making it nearly impossible for individuals to recognise propaganda for what it is.

In light of recent conflicts occurring across the globe, the relationship between the government and media has never been clearer. As someone with training and education in media, I find it particularly interesting to observe the differences in language used in reporting these conflicts, especially when governmental or state institutions control the narrative. Politicians often wield significant power over the stories presented to the public, typically employing various appeals – such as the fear of the unknown – to persuade the masses (Reporters Without Borders, n.d.).

In such cases, the media may frame narratives to suggest that acts of violence are necessary for national security while omitting key contextual details. For example, in Starship Troopers, although humans were obviously guilty of invading and colonising territories long-inhabited by the Arachnids, the film glazes over this history without contextualising it. In doing so, the film omits the justification for the Arachnid’s violence – which is retaliation and self-defence against human encroachment. 

The media may also present a biased picture, focusing on the harm inflicted on one group – for instance, soldiers or citizens of a specific country – while downplaying or marginalising the losses endured by the opposing side. In Starship Troopers, news segments and battle sequences emphasise the human soldiers’ suffering by having the camera linger for an extended period of time on their injuries and deaths, creating a sense of tragedy. By contrast, the bugs are killed swiftly on screen, with minimal focus on their casualties. This selective coverage often fosters a one-sided view of the conflict, shaping public perception around who appears more “victimised”.

This lack of context, including the choice of words and sequences used to downplay their actions, plays a huge yet subtle role in the film in shaping public opinion. While this does not excuse anyone, it does play a large part in perpetuating ignorance and influencing how citizens perceive and respond to ongoing conflict.

Would we end up falling for the propaganda in Starship Troopers? While it ultimately depends on the context and individual, I believe the likelihood is higher than we think. If there’s anything we should take away from the film, it’s that it’s immensely important to be more discerning of the propaganda that is subtly embedded in media and always be sceptical of the information we receive, even if it’s from authoritative figures.

In the end, Starship Troopers serves as a cautionary tale about the ways we interact with information, and its power in constructing our beliefs and actions, and unsettles the veracity of dominant narratives. The question remains: Are we prepared to question the stories we are told, or will we simply march to the beat of a drum we do not fully understand?