Does satire in film really exist?

[paranoid-knight2008]

Some films, for some reason, come off as satire to me. However, when I talk about them to others, most just end up saying I am looking far too deep into the film I'm talking about and then called wrong. But for some reason, without being a self-happy winner of an argument, I know that in my own personal way - I have to be right. But am I?

satire –noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

It doesn't necessarily mean that I win an argument of the film, however, as I can clearly understand how some can hate some of the films I consider great and intelligent satire, but I am, I think, in no way wrong in viewing those particular films that way.

For example, one of my all-time favorite movies is 1995's Showgirls, and my reasons for believing it to be satire are, in my opinion, valid. The film is very anti-American hypocrisy when it comes to sex, degrading the consensus through moments that refuse to take the filmed situation seriously, to moments that are actually, in fact, brutal and aggressive. When being serious, it makes great comment on the hypocritical view on sex in film, and while it is very serious, it brutally views sex as a very bold and unpredictable tool that can be used through playful fun and/or violent aggression. It's not dumb, it knows what its talking about. And while Showgirls is satirical in these aspects, it also decides to be humorous. Yet, most detractors of the film seem to hate it for that very reason, some branding it a great camp classic. But really, as Paul Verhoeven has stated and joked about (he accepted the Razzies the film won) for years after its release, the film was anything but unintentionally funny.

Of course, anybody can hate a film for whatever personal reason, but satire is something that I think many overlook in a lot of films. Not only Showgirls, but in other films that get a lot of hate. 2007's Southland Tales is hated by many for very valid reasons. Some feel its just not their type of movie, yet there are still many haters that really don't realize the film's intentions. “I didn't get it,” say some, but really, how can you really hate, or even love, a film until you at least understand some sort of aspect of its intentions? Southland Tales is a very satirical film, and for that – it can fly over many, many heads. (I point out my view on some of the many satirical aspects of the film here: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/nes ... 64487%2094.) It satires more than one topic – it covers politics, sex, religion, violence, experimentation, and even director Richard Kelly's own self love for many things, all while remaining serious as some of the film's important moments come into effect (two examples of this blend of satire and drama is the Justin Timberlake dance sequence and the scene where an announcer announces a character “rocking a c*ck” while many of the film's characters are about to be killed).

There are many more films that cover same things, director Jean-Luc Godard was a master at doing this – just check out the major absurdity, yet heartbreak, that the ending of his 1962 film My Life to Live draws attention to. It's satirizing the living aspect of its main character while, at the same time, giving us her demise. Some really hate that ending, many even think it ruins the entire movie!

In Martin Brest's 2003 romantic comedy Gigli, there is a scene in which Jennifer Lopez's character tells Ben Affleck: “It's turkey time. Gobble, gobble” before having sex with him. It's easy to understand why most would cringe at this line, but at the same time – it makes perfect sense that, while the film is at its character climax, it is also satirizing the labeling masculine and feminine aspects of the consensus American view of sexuality.

Now, I'm pretty sure many will disagree with what I've said in this essay, but that just comes as opinion. Just like someone could love one movie, and another not like it at all. But I just recently got to thinking about whether or not satire is a valid thing in a movie, or not; because while I believe it really exists in many films that get some heated hate, others just see it as looking far into a hole that doesn't need to be looked deeply into. But then again – I feel I find it easy to spot satire when I see it – as it should hold up to what the entire film is saying overall. In this case, Showgirls, Southland Tales, My Life to Live, and Gigli make a lot of sense to me. Doesn't necessarily mean it does to others, but it does to me, because I felt each of those films had something important to say; even if that was with major moments of irony, sarcasm, and ridicule. And I wonder, does this make my opinion invalid?

What are your views on satire? Is it real, or is it just in the viewer's head?

[MichaelB]

Of course intentional satire exists in film, just as it does in any other art form.

No-one would seriously deny that Private Eye or The Onion are satirical publications, regardless of whether individuals fail to get particular jokes - I remember one particularly amusing example where an anti-abortion activist was so outraged by the sentiments expressed in one particular piece that he condemned it online in blithe ignorance of the fact that The Onion doesn't do straight-faced reportage. Similarly, some of the comments accompanying this classic Harry Enfield sketch imply that they thought it was a genuine public information film about the mental shortcomings of women compared with their menfolk. Either that or they thought that Enfield was a genuine misogynist.

But just because a handful of idiots don't get the joke doesn't mean that the joke doesn't exist. Sometimes it doesn't, of course - Ed Wood's stuff appears to be played with an entirely straight face, and its earnestness is part of what makes it so hilarious. And sometimes people get some of the jokes, but not others - for instance, virtually everyone spotted the Leni Riefenstahl/fascist propaganda parodies in Starship Troopers (well, duh), but I've seen quite a few people denying that the film also mocks ultra-conservative American patriotism, as though this sort of thing was inconceivable in a big-budget American film. But to me, it would be much harder to believe that someone with Verhoeven's background and sensibility would present this material with a straight face.

[Mr Sausage]

when I talk about them to others, most just end up saying I am looking far too deep into the film

There's your problem: you're listening to people who are actively encouraging you to A. not attempt to understand the movie on any level, and B. just not think at all. This is often because people who don't like to think about things also don't like to be confronted by people who do think about things: makes them insecure, so they come back with "you're reading too deeply into [insert medium]" in an attempt to drag the discourse down to a level they're comfortable with. Ignore them. Chances are, if you find satire in the movie, there is satire in that movie.

[Gregory]

In addition to the people who encourage not reading "too much," or anything, into any film I've noticed a few other variations. There are those who seem to think that Hollywood films must be enjoyed only as superficial entertainment, whereas if you want art you go to "foreign film." Others will allow that Hollywood cinema can have subtle meanings, as long as they're not "genre films," with horror maligned to a near universal level by "serious" film fans (aside from a few "horror films for people who usually don't like horror" titles that are allowed).

With Starship Troopers, I think some people may have found it hard to believe that a big-budget U.S. action film in particular could have been made with a subversive intent, or even with any pointed social commentary. It is pretty unusual for that type of film, as far as I know. However, it's also a science fiction film, which is often a rich area for satire. What I was a little thrown by was the fact that the satire all but disappears for most of the film after a very interesting first 15-20 minutes.

[MichaelB]

There are those who seem to think that Hollywood films must be enjoyed only as superficial entertainment, whereas if you want art you go to "foreign film."

...and of course anything with subtitles is automatically difficult and intellectual. Which is why a slick commercial operator like Patrice Leconte has somehow managed to become an arthouse darling.

[Camera Obscura]

There are those who seem to think that Hollywood films must be enjoyed only as superficial entertainment, whereas if you want art you go to "foreign film."

...and of course anything with subtitles is automatically difficult and intellectual. Which is why a slick commercial operator like Patrice Leconte has somehow managed to become an arthouse darling.

Ouch. I just watched Tango (1993) and loved it. Leconte is pretty slick, and it's fairly commercial star-studded fare in France I guess, but hugely entertaining. I'm not sure about the satire in his films, except for Ridicule (1996), which is brilliant, and does work as satire in my opinion (but that's not his own material). Anyway, "difficult and intellectual" is definitely not how I would describe Leconte's films, with or without subtitles.

[knives]

Just show your friends Doctor Stranglove or the Great Dictator, the lack of subtlety should prove make them admit they're wrong. Just as a personal preference, and since no ones mentioned him yet, when Peckinpah wasn't being sentimental he was usually being satirical.

[paranoid-knight2008]

Just show your friends Doctor Stranglove or the Great Dictator, the lack of subtlety should prove make them admit they're wrong. Just as a personal preference, and since no ones mentioned him yet, when Peckinpah wasn't being sentimental he was usually being satirical.

They believe satire exists, and one friend used "Dr. Strangelove" as an example. But it's just they refuse to accpet that I feel it exists in the films I've mentioned above. But to them, those are bad, Razzie winning films so they can't be intelligent in satire. Then again, they seem to have that opinion based on bias with the consensus. ](*,)

[MichaelB]

I don't understand this "they believe satire exists" thing - do they have a problem recognising satire anywhere, or just in films?

[Magic Hate Ball]

I think it lies with intent. Did the filmmaker of Showgirls intend for it to be a satire, or did he intend for it to be a dramatic depiction of showgirl...ism? Though I suppose you could call it "unintentional satire" if it's the latter.

[paranoid-knight2008]

I don't understand this "they believe satire exists" thing - do they have a problem recognising satire anywhere, or just in films?

They deny that it exists in bad films, basically, and only exist in films where they are blatantly obvious instead of subtle.

I think it lies with intent. Did the filmmaker of Showgirls intend for it to be a satire, or did he intend for it to be a dramatic depiction of showgirl...ism? Though I suppose you could call it "unintentional satire" if it's the latter.

Well, if you check out Verhoeven's whole filmography, he is known for doing satire quite a bit.

[Gregory]

I don't know about Gigli and Southland Tales (haven't seen them) but with Verhoeven at least it's demonstrably true that the satire was intended. He's gone on record and spelled out what some of the central messages were -- which he shouldn't really have had to do -- and still there are people who don't get that he's a satirist.

People who won't take a film seriously because it was awarded a Razzie remind me of people who dismiss a film because it was a box-office disaster. What does that have to do with artistic merit?

Do most Razzie-winners deserve their reputation? I would guess so, although I just looked at the list of Worst Picture winners and found that I'd only actually seen a small handful. Heaven's Gate was an early recipient, and to see such a towering work sitting alongside Howard the Duck and Hot to Trot (two others I've seen) is laughable. There's probably not a lot of intended satire in this lot of films, but I wouldn't let that stop me from watching some of these. Unintended satire, like in the Rambo films, can be just as enlightening as the intended variety.

[knives]

I think the Rambos are only borderline unintentional. While Stallone is a conservative and the in-betweens are straight faced I think one and four may be a bit wink wink. Also to cure you friends of Verhoeven doubt show them any of his Dutch films, except maybe The Fourth Man.

[colinr0380]

Do most Razzie-winners deserve their reputation? I would guess so, although I just looked at the list of Worst Picture winners and found that I'd only actually seen a small handful. Heaven's Gate was an early recipient, and to see such a towering work sitting alongside Howard the Duck and Hot to Trot (two others I've seen) is laughable. There's probably not a lot of intended satire in this lot of films, but I wouldn't let that stop me from watching some of these. Unintended satire, like in the Rambo films, can be just as enlightening as the intended variety.

Well it could be argued that Mommie Dearest is the most vicious form of satire ("No...wire....hangers!!!") of a daughter on her mother, though in that case Dunaway is so caricatured as Joan Crawford that you end up sympathising with her rather than her snivelling brat of a kid!

What do you call a backfiring, but still interesting, satire?

[GringoTex]

Just as a personal preference, and since no ones mentioned him yet, when Peckinpah wasn't being sentimental he was usually being satirical.

You're going to have to walk me through this one, because I can't think of a single instance of satire in any of Peckinpah's films.

[knives]

Straw Dogs and Bring me the Head of Alfreda Garcia have a twinge of satire to them. Wild Bunch almost touches it but plays fairly straight as does Cross of Iron. I think the lapses of parody in those films often hides the satire.

[MichaelB]

Also to cure you friends of Verhoeven doubt show them any of his Dutch films, except maybe The Fourth Man.

Actually, The Fourth Man is the most blatantly satirical of all Verhoeven's Dutch films, and possibly of all his films in toto. He made it as a calculated parody of an art movie, complete with hilariously overbearing symbolism, and claims that he did it primarily to annoy Dutch film critics who'd been making his life hell for the past decade by complaining that his films were too commercial and he should be doing something arty and serious.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most critics completely failed to get the joke, and reviewed it with a straight face, though I was lucky in that Time Out's Anne Billson recognised it for what it was, and her tagline "I haven't laughed so much since The Devils" was what propelled me into the cinema and Verhoeven fandom. And it was a great one to start with.

[knives]

That's actually why I said except. If his friends want proof of seriousness, Fourth Man is not going to cut it.

[MichaelB]

That's actually why I said except. If his friends want proof of seriousness, Fourth Man is not going to cut it.

Sorry, I thought you meant "cure your friends of the impression that Verhoeven doesn't do satire".

[GringoTex]

Straw Dogs and Bring me the Head of Alfreda Garcia have a twinge of satire to them. Wild Bunch almost touches it but plays fairly straight as does Cross of Iron. I think the lapses of parody in those films often hides the satire.

I see every frame of Straw Dogs and Alfredo Garcia as strict earnestness. Alfredo Garcia is my second favorite film of all time, but I've only seen it alone. I can imagine seeing it with an audience might give the illusion of satire.

[Sanjuro]

What I was a little thrown by was the fact that the satire all but disappears for most of the film after a very interesting first 15-20 minutes.

Ah, but then there's that wonderful moment where someone tosses some ammo to their buddy in the middle of a battle/slaughter and shouts "make it count!". At that point (and a couple of others) we're reminded just how brainwashed these poor kids really are, that they truly believe everything the TV's shown them their whole lives to the point where it's perfectly natural for them to shout cheesy lines to each other while giant bugs are tearing apart their friends. At each of these points we can step back from the action and see how daft their theories of 'evil' bugs are and how lame their excuses for all out war really are.

Or maybe it's just me. Am I reading too much into the film? Does it even matter if I found great enjoyment imagining satire for a couple of hours watching Starship Troopers instead of cringing at 'stupid dialogue' every few minutes?

[MichaelB]

What I was a little thrown by was the fact that the satire all but disappears for most of the film after a very interesting first 15-20 minutes.

Ah, but then there's that wonderful moment where someone tosses some ammo to their buddy in the middle of a battle/slaughter and shouts "make it count!". At that point (and a couple of others) we're reminded just how brainwashed these poor kids really are, that they truly believe everything the TV's shown them their whole lives to the point where it's perfectly natural for them to shout cheesy lines to each other while giant bugs are tearing apart their friends. At each of these points we can step back from the action and see how daft their theories of 'evil' bugs are and how lame their excuses for all out war really are.

Absolutely - and while the 9/11 parallels clearly weren't intentional, it's quite uncanny how accurately Verhoeven and screenwriter Edward Neumeier managed to pre-emptively satirise the mentality behind the so-called "war on terror". But that's largely because it already existed.

[Polybius]

All of this attention to him made me look up our earlier Verhoeven discussion.