Robocop (1987)

Dive into the ultimate breakdown of **RoboCop (1987)**, Paul Verhoeven's groundbreaking sci-fi action film! Join host and guest Sean (from the defunct "I Must Break This" Dolph Lundgren podcast) as we explore why this violent, satirical masterpiece still holds up 40 years later. We cover Verhoeven's culture shock satire of American society, the over-the-top violence, Christian metaphors (RoboCop as the American Jesus), behind-the-scenes chaos with Peter Weller's suit, Kurtwood Smith's iconic villain Clarence Boddicker, strong female sidekick Lewis, and why sequels and the remake pale in comparison.

From the shocking Murphy death scene to the ultraviolent director's cut elements, we unpack the film's social commentary on corporate greed, media sensationalism, and resurrection themes. Perfect for fans of 80s action, Verhoeven's filmography (Total Recall, Starship Troopers), or anyone revisiting this cyberpunk classic.

Creators and Guests

Host

Sean Malloy

Host

Sicco

What is The Director's Chair Network?

Join Ryan and many featured guests and other hosts as they break down and review a variety of directors and their films!
So far, this podcast has featured films from Edward Zwick, John Hughes, Brian De Palma, and Michael Mann.
Soon, we will feature Edgar Wright, Sam Peckinpah, Paul Verhoeven, and David Fincher!

create a youtube desctiption from this transcript
create 5 to 10 key timestamps
create hastags
put hasthgs in a paraph so I can cut and paste esaliy,
create tags seprated by commas also in a pargraph
look up online how its best to do all this too for best reults
i am prvding the transcript to you
every nee transcript i give you ia new video to do the task do not refence or use preivios transcipts
also need 10 title ideas
 
0:00
[Music]
0:15
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the director's chair focusing on Paul Fairhovven. With me
0:22
today is my guest Sean from Well, take it away Sean. Where are you from?
0:30
I'm I'm from all over, I guess. Um I I guess the the podcast has now been defunct for over a year, but you can
0:36
still find a few of the episodes on YouTube, but I did um I must break this podcast, which was the um the podcast
0:43
that looked at the uh the films and the filmography of Dolph Lungren. Um I'm proud to say that I did go to the
0:49
distance. I I did I think 108 episodes and then um
0:55
it it seemed it seemed at a good point to kind of uh close it up um last year
1:01
and then um a few of the episodes were on the last the action heroes podcast network but that network seems to have
1:07
kind of uh dissipated as well and so like I said you can still find a few of the episodes on YouTube but um it was uh
1:14
it was a lot of fun but it was time to uh to put it to bed. So but the cool thing is now that I I I still get
1:20
invited on for opportunities like this to uh to chat with you about these seminal films of the 80s. So certainly
1:28
the the remains of the last of the action heroes podcast is not going quietly into the night. We have just
1:34
continued on and take taken it to the next level. Okay. So today we talk Paul
1:39
Verhovven's masterpiece Robocop. What is your connection to this film?
1:46
Oh my god. Um as a as a young boy who grew up in the 80s and the 90s I I think
1:52
that that's all you really need to say. Um, this film is amazing. Um, I I think
1:57
I think every child, every young boy who grew up um has an affinity for this film
2:03
because it is just so cool. I mean, I think it's it's one of those films where it it's kind of interesting. I I guess I
2:09
can go all over the place with this, but it it's one of those films where it was a comic book movie, but it was so
2:17
over-the-top violent and crazy that um I don't think parents really should have let their kids uh see the film. However,
2:24
um you know, we had comic books and toys and cartoons and everything like that, which is kind of bizarre to think that
2:30
um there was a time where there there were toys and cartoons based off of um hard Rated properties, but um and so
2:38
yeah, I I mean, gosh, I remember I did not see it in theaters. It was always one of those things that was a a staple
2:44
of cable viewing. I remember um I think everybody had a cop it seems like everybody in my circle of friends and in
2:51
my neighborhood everybody had a uh a recorded VHS copy of the film and so we'd watch it that way and I mean
2:58
violence in in the films especially of the of the 80s action films was was you know always on on another level which
3:05
was amazing to see but the violence in Robocop is at a whole other level you
3:12
mean I mean it is completely um different than uh than I think anything we had uh really seen. And to this day,
3:19
to be perfectly honest, you look at it all these years later, it is still so visceral and um almost beautiful in a
3:26
lot of ways. Certainly, you could actually say the violence in the film is almost absurd.
3:31
Absolutely. And I think, you know, I mean, I I say this a lot when on my show and everything. It's um you know, you
3:39
didn't you don't notice it then. You know, hindsight is always 2020, especially 40 years removed from the film, right? But um you look at you look
3:46
at Robocop and you to be perfectly honest if you look at most of the films that Paul Ver Verhovven um did
3:52
especially for American audiences he's he's making fun of us. I mean that that's what's I mean what what a genius
3:58
if you think about it but all of the films that he did Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers, show um Show Girls,
4:04
okay um Basic Instinct to an extent he is he is pretty much um pointing his
4:09
finger at us and and making fun of American audiences. And what's hilarious is not only do we look at it and do we
4:16
love it, but we didn't even recognize it then. We look at it now and we think, "Oh, I see what he was doing." But at
4:21
the time we we didn't uh we I guess hard enough to pick up on it. Um especially in 97. We just looked at Robocop as
4:29
being it's absurd, it's a satire, yes, but I think a lot of us just looked at it as being a kick-ass action movie,
4:34
which it is, but it's also so much smarter than that, you know? Would it be
4:40
fair to say that most of the actual metaphysical elements that and certainly the sarcasm and certainly the social
4:46
criticism that Paul Verhovven and the writers brought to the film went mostly under the radar because there was enough
4:52
bullets flying around and there were enough explosions. Yeah. And and he did the same thing um
4:59
five years later with Total Recall. He did the exact same kind of aesthetic and everything like that with with Total
5:06
Recall. Then after Total Recon. Yeah. And then with Starship Troopers, I mean, Starship, oh my god, there's
5:12
there's Nazi there's Nazi imagery in Starship Troopers for crying out loud at the end that that
5:18
we just don't pick up on, you know. Well, with that movie, I think people have finally caught up to what um was
5:26
being presented. They just didn't understand it yet. Right. It's it's taken a couple of decades,
5:31
right? Um yeah, definitely. One of the one of the main reasons why Paul Verhovven went to the United States wasn't just to
5:37
paint a bigger canvas because American money does you know uh American filmm does give you the opportunity to make
5:44
bigger movies make your vision come to uh come to life. He was run out of town.
5:50
Wver Hovind was reviled was hated was um
5:56
chewed up and sped out by the very medium that brought him to the four. He
6:02
was he basically needed to flee the country in order to remain a filmmaker.
6:08
That's the reality of it. The social criticism that you see in Robocop, that you see in Total Recall, that you see in
6:14
all of his subsequent films, they were already there when he was making his art house films in Holland. It's just his
6:22
aim was at our society, not yours. So, of course, when he moved um and that's
6:27
that's the interesting thing about Robocop. This is his first American feature. And you could call this the
6:34
fish out of water style movie making because he had no idea where he was. So
6:41
many of these sensibilities are an intellectual reacting to his
6:47
surroundings. I think a lot of the sensibilities you see in the film are
6:53
a culture shock. A true honest culture shock. That's how
6:58
the movie even starts. Because the first thing you see is a news bulletin. The movie starts
7:05
with a news bulletin and you see these graphic images of the dramatic things of
7:10
explosions of planes uh exploding in the sky, you name it. That by itself is to a
7:17
Europe European to a Dutch person completely alien.
7:23
That would never happen um here. It just wouldn't you. The news is meant to sue
7:30
people. The news is meant to editorialize the things they've already read or heard. It's like, no, it's this.
7:38
Whereas American journalism is sensational. It leads with a top story. It leads with something dramatic. It it
7:45
it warns you about things like you had, oh, you have to be afraid of this. It's about to come. It's going to land on
7:51
you. And the movie starts out that way. Yeah. No, I mean, what's what's brilliant? I mean, if if you if you look
7:57
at the film, um, you know, oddly enough, you know, if you if you look at kind of what the series became as being a
8:04
television show and an animated series and everything like that, if you look at what it became, I think in anyone else
8:11
Yeah, exactly. I think in anyone else's hands, the the very first film, the 1987 film
8:18
that we're discussing today, in anyone else's hands, that's what it would have been. You know what I I think if you
8:23
just look at the concept and the title for crying out loud Robocop, you know what I mean? It it sounds silly. It it
8:29
sounds nonsense. And I think went into it seeing that it was
8:36
Yeah, exactly. And I think he went into and and I don't know if you've seen the documentary Robo-Doc, but I mean they
8:42
they talk about this, you know, when his uh his wife had to convince him because he thought it looked silly and it was
8:48
like a comic book. And so when he came on board, he pretty much said, "Okay,
8:53
I'll make it a comic book, yes, but I'm also going to lean into the satire of
8:59
it. I'm going to make it ultraviolent and crazy, and I'm going to I'm, you know, I'm going to put my own thumbrint
9:05
on this." And that that's what I love about it. But it's really interesting if you look at the sequel, and the sequel is, you know, Robocop 2 was okay.
9:12
Robocop 3 is awful, don't get me. But I mean, two is is fine for what it was, for what it is, but um
9:18
yeah, literally look at everything that came after it. And I think that's what the original would have been. Paul
9:24
Verhovven took it and kind of put it through his own mold and his own vision
9:29
to make it this um this classic that it is that we still talk about to this day. Well, in in a sense, we can be grateful
9:37
for all the subsequent attempts at recreating this IP
9:44
because it really shows you what Robocop the original really is and why it is
9:49
considered a genre classic and why it was such a success and why it is so
9:55
fascinating and why we're still talking about it 30 40 years hence. If you compare Robocop
10:02
to the rest, all you see is
10:07
it's denuded of its metaphysics. It's denuded of its social commentary,
10:17
and the attempts at sarcasm and irony just aren't there. And they aren't there
10:22
for a good reason. They never called the original writers. They never called the original producers. and Paul Forhovven
10:30
certainly would never go near it because he doesn't do sequels ever. Now, Robocop
10:38
is a comic book movie about a robot with a human brain who fights crime and
10:45
who wins the day. On the surface, it has it has the the exact amount of
10:50
explosions a production like this would want. uh it has uh more than enough
10:56
violence, perhaps a little bit too much. And I think there's another um story to
11:02
be told here. If you watch the theatrical version of this film,
11:07
there are 18 cuts made. So if you think the the theatrical version is violent, the director's cut,
11:14
the cut that Wer Hovind would have wanted
11:19
would have been insane to most people. the NBA certainly thought so. I mean,
11:25
gone were the um uh topless pizza girls. Gone was the
11:30
extended machine gunning um of the first executive in the office who is just
11:36
he'sn't just shot. He isn't just riddled with bullets. He's just blown to pieces.
11:42
And Verhovven took this and purposely made this over the top.
11:49
Purposely because he was making a point. The future is violent and he's amping
11:58
everything up to the nth degree. Well, and the um you know the the executive the uncut scene of the
12:03
executive is available on YouTube thankfully. You know um people can see that. Um, but the Murphy scene, I mean,
12:12
it just shows um, not only is it extremely visceral and well done, but it
12:17
just shows the the cruelty and the uh the meanness of our of our villains, uh,
12:24
Clint and tragic. Um, oddly enough, and also really I mean Peter Weller, Peter
12:29
Weller is really only on screen when he's he's on screen really only what 12
12:35
minutes maybe that scene does is you care about him as a character. My god,
12:41
you you you care about that particular character so much, which is really amazing considering he barely has any
12:48
screen time other than those 12 minutes. Okay, so we were just talking about basically the um crucifixion scene. This
12:55
film is riddled with with metaphors about Jesus Christ. And we have a
13:02
protagonist in in um Frank Murphy who is sacrificed
13:08
and he's sacrificed because we learn later through dialogue that
13:15
they were waiting for him to die. this character uh Murphy had been reassigned
13:20
to this very violent um police department from a relatively peaceful uh
13:28
part of town because he was a prime candidate for the Robocop program. Of course, he didn't know that, but that
13:34
doesn't matter because OCP Mhm. the conglomerate who now operates and
13:40
owns the GTR police force owns all the police officers and owns all their remains. So if a police officer is
13:48
killed in action, they own his body, they own his organs, they own everything, they can do what they want,
13:54
which is shown throughout the movie. And so he is sacrificed by this
13:59
corporation for greed because they want to um uh like
14:07
Emperor Nero, they want to get rid of old Detroit and rebuild it in their vision, right? They want new Detroit,
14:14
Delta City. Mhm. And on this altar, uh, our officer
14:20
Murphy, of course, is sacrificed in a very gruesome scene, and you see
14:26
the, um, uh, pe people jeering at him as he is, um,
14:33
riddled and shot to death. This is repeated again in the movie
14:39
and we'll get to that. But this is uh I'm just going to point out this is a uh
14:44
this is a religious metaphor put in there on purpose by Ferhovven
14:49
because Hovind has an obsession with Jesus of Nazareth. He's had that since
14:55
the 60s and it's in all his movies. Now Paul Verhovven is not a Christian.
15:03
He's not even he doesn't believe in in anything other than mathematics and
15:08
physics because he's a professor in mathematics and physics. But he has an obsession with Jesus of Nazareth. And so
15:15
of course in his head he has to work out why why am I obsessed with this person?
15:22
Well his teachings what where so this has kept him
15:28
engaged and this has seeped into his art. Most artists repeat themselves
15:33
constantly because they are always making their Magnus Opus, right? They
15:38
are making their the thing they want to get out, the thing they really want to create. And all other pieces of art that
15:45
came before were just attempts at perfecting perfecting this this craft.
15:51
And that's what Robocop is. It came um after flesh and blood, which is a story
15:58
about religion in the middle ages. It came after the fourth man which is about uh a man who thinks his girlfriend is
16:06
trying to kill him and uh who is obsessed with Christian iconography and
16:11
has nightmares about it etc etc etc. You can go back throughout his work and you can extrapolate ending
16:19
up in France where he makes a movie about lesbian nuns which is his last
16:24
feature which was Benedeta. Now, Robocop is right in the middle and it's his first American film. And I find
16:32
it interesting that a country which you could call fundamentalist Christian,
16:37
right? Americans are most Americans whenever I see them are fanatic about
16:43
their religion. And then there's the other half of the country is fanatic about communism now.
16:48
But the the ones who are fanatic about Christianity
16:53
never picked up on this. And I found that amazing because it to in Paul Verhovven's mind Robocop is the American
17:01
Jesus. This is what would happen if say Jesus was reborn say
17:08
and he would like become Murphy and this is what would happen to him. He would be crucified
17:14
and he would resurrect and that is what Robocop is. Robocop is about
17:20
resurrection and what happens to Robocop turning into Murphy is about the endurance of the
17:28
human soul because that's all that's left of him because he has no body anymore. He's barely physically there.
17:34
He has a part of a brain. He has no memories. All he has is vague
17:39
recollections of what his life was like where he had a family. He feels them somehow, but he he has no memory of
17:47
them. He knows who killed him because he senses that and through evidence he sort
17:53
of um rewinds his life.
17:59
But it's really about Robocop is the attempt at resurrection
18:05
and then the people who resurrected him fail him because um again he is riddled
18:10
with bullets and almost destroyed. Then he goes into his final and final form
18:15
which is Murphy and he's no longer upholding the law. He's now just there to kill Bodcker because in Boler
18:21
Hovind's mind, an American Jesus would take his gun and kick ass and take
18:28
names. I mean, look, let's let's be perfectly honest. Ver is not very subtle
18:33
in terms of his uh in terms of his illusions and whatnot, but in any of the sequels, in any of the sequels, it was
18:40
purely just comic book Robocop. There you go. And I think we also need to say too, the other thing that I think is
18:47
absolutely amazing about this film is if you read, if you look at any screenwriting book, one of the things
18:52
that um that is to where the villain needs to be either um in equal strength
18:59
as the hero or he needs to be more powerful than the hero. So then that way you can kind of um you know the hero's
19:06
journey and everything like that and it's it's believable. What's amazing to me about this is Clarence Bodcker is the
19:12
complete anti-thesis cop there. He's he's he's weaker than than Murphy. You
19:17
know what I mean? Especially when he's in his RoboCop form. He's a human. I mean, whereas the sequels, they they
19:23
pitted Robocop up against a newer, bigger, better version of a robot, right? They they did that. But for this
19:29
one, the main villain is just wimpy, you know, sniffling little human. But my
19:34
god, Kurtwood Smith as as Clarence Bodcker is absolutely amazing. I can't
19:40
think of a villain that is as mean and nasty and cruel as him 40 years later. I
19:47
I really can't. I mean, there there's a few like um Dolph Lungren did a film called Showdown Little Tokyo. Um the
19:52
villain in that one, Yosha, he's pretty nasty, but my god, Larence Bodcker just
19:57
oozes menace like you would not believe. And the fact that he he's he's just a
20:03
human, you know what I mean? Like he's he's he's he's nothing. He's certainly not more powerful, especially when you
20:08
see Robocop manhandle him, you know that he would eat his lunch, no problem. But
20:14
man, he is I mean, I I can't say enough about Kurtwood Smith. That's always the thing. I remember as a teenager when uh
20:20
that 70s show came on the air and uh Kurtwood Smith showed up as Red Foreman, Eric's dad, watching it and I would
20:26
laugh especially when he'd call Eric an ass or whatever, but I'd always think like in my mind he is always just that
20:32
disgusting puke of a villain in Robocop.
20:39
Yeah. A testament to what a great character actor can do. Certainly. Mhm.
20:44
Yeah, definitely. Uh the interesting thing about Birkwood's portrayal of Bodcker is
20:50
how much leeway he received from Paul Verhovven who is always said to be very autocratic to be very controlling. Uh
20:59
yes when they need to be. But when you have someone like Kirkwood Smith all you have to do is just unleash them. So
21:06
Kirwood got to ad label a lot of stuff. My favorite part, they're in the drug
21:12
lab and they're negotiating for distribution rights. Things get a little
21:18
well, it turns into a Mexican standoff, right? Where they're all pointing guns at each other and Bodcker instead of,
21:25
you know, turning psycho just sort of just sort of resolves it easily. He just
21:31
taps the table and says, "Hey, Tigers are playing tonight." Right?
21:38
A little tidbit. The team Rico plays for in Starship
21:45
Troopers are the Tigers. Wow. Because that's college football, right?
21:52
Or whatever sport they were doing because that's the same universe. High school. Yeah.
21:57
Yeah. It's the same universe really. The Tigers, man. Anyway, so you see Kirkwood
22:03
Smith really really chewing up the scenery and stealing the scene every time. There are a lot of strong actors
22:09
in this. Peter Weller could be named. Yeah, Peter Willer stood. I mean, here's a guy
22:15
who's buried in a suit and still gets his personality across. That's pretty
22:21
significant. Uh, you could talk about Nancy Allen who up until then had never
22:27
done anything remotely like this. We are in the midst of the Me Too era and
22:32
strong female protagonists except they don't work. Whereas here in 1987, you
22:39
see like this strong female uh taking down men, pushing the plot. So here we have this really strong female
22:45
protagonist. Proh made her cut her hair because um he didn't want to sexualize her too much. Originally when he first
22:52
read the script, he felt they should have a love interest. Uh, so he made uh
22:57
New Meire and uh and Miner he made them rewrite and then he read it and realized
23:03
this mistake and they basically went back to the original script saying, "Hey, yeah, no. Um, she just needs to be
23:09
a sidekick." But what a sidekick? What are your feelings on that? Yeah. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong,
23:16
but I feel like in the original script, wasn't Louis supposed to be male? Right.
23:21
I mean, I I could be wrong with that, but I could have sworn in the original script, Lewis was supposed to be a male.
23:26
Um, they changed it to female, but they still kept the name Lewis. Um, yeah.
23:32
Yeah. And but just how how interesting is it? I mean, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole talking about the remake, which is inferior to this in
23:38
every way, but just how amazing is it that for the remake though, they made
23:44
Lewis a male, you know what I And it was just like, man, like they they completely zigged when they they should
23:50
have zagged in so many ways for the remake and they chose not to. But um but yeah, no, I I don't think anything subsequently
23:56
after 1987 is worth talking about. It's soulless sl it's slop.
24:02
Oh, it is. It is. It's very sloppy. But um yeah, no, I think Nancy Allen is is amazing. She is tough. She is bass. Um,
24:10
especially when you see her at the beginning of the film when they introduce her, how she's, you know, kind of manhandling some some thugs as she's
24:16
bringing them into the precinct. I think, um, Nancy Allen definitely kind of helps ground it even more as uh as as
24:24
his partner. So, um, yeah. No, I think she's wonderful. I think the only thing
24:29
I had seen her in prior to this was Carrie. She was uh one of the uh one of one of the [ __ ] high school teens or
24:36
whatever that was making life miserable. But um yeah, that was Yeah. Yeah. But um
24:43
that was really pretty much the only other thing I had seen her in. But yeah know I I think I think everybody in this film is wonderful. I mean everybody and
24:49
that's just something you don't get in films nowadays to be perfectly honest which I don't want to go down that rabbit hole either. But um yeah,
24:57
everybody in this film has a little something to chew on. Everybody everybody in this film who who comes on
25:02
screen has their own little moment to kind of shine. You don't get that nowadays.
25:08
Nope. Miguel Ferrer was written as the bad guy. You don't get that. I mean I Oh yeah.
25:13
Yeah. He was basically supposed to be the bad guy. He's amazing. Ronnie Cox. Yeah. But Miguel Ferrer plays his
25:20
character and more or less turns himself into the father figure of Robocop. And
25:25
so when he he's murdered, Robocop is really avenging his father, the killer
25:30
of his father or his father figure, which is another
25:36
tiny little thing, but it's powerful motivation. Same with Ronnie Cox, who is
25:41
the the end boss. One could say if Charles B Charles Bodcker is a level boss, one of the final levels, but
25:49
Ronnie Cox is the end boss, the end all and be all. the entire subplot where all
25:54
these executives are uh more or less trying to kill each other. I think that just takes Wall Street to task. Wall
26:02
Street of the 80s because that's what they were going for. It was obvious. Oh yeah, most definitely. Most
26:07
definitely. I mean it's I mean it's it's the film is a total product of the time especially in terms of some of the other
26:12
type of influences and films that we were getting. But um Mhm. but man, it's I I mean I I feel like an
26:19
entire podcast could be devoted to this film, you know, in itself to where you're breaking down everything. One
26:25
episode could be breaking down the characters. One episode could be breaking down um the suit that that Peter Weller has to play. One episode
26:32
could be breaking down um you know the villains itself. I mean there there is so there are so many different layers to
26:38
this film that just make it um the amazing that uh that it is. Yeah, it's
26:44
endlessly rewatchable. Just I mean one thing we probably the suit I mean for 1987 standards, you
26:50
know, they didn't have CGI or anything like that then. Um practical but the suit um I mean and a lot of that too
26:56
yeah a lot of that we can just put on Peter Weller's shoulders as well because I think Peter Weller he
27:02
he certainly makes the role. I mean everything but the way he carries that suit it looks so real and so lived in
27:10
and practical and everything um to where I mean Again,
27:15
this could have been Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It's it's um it's amazing.
27:20
They I think I think what did Peter Wheeler say? He worked with um mimes and things of that nature to uh uh
27:26
to to kind of help sell his performance of this. But this almost tanked the film
27:32
as well. This almost destroyed the movie. For Hovind had insisted on changes to the suit that made it impossible for Peter
27:40
Willer to actually move in it. It was a disaster. Yeah. And so they had to go back and rethink
27:47
the whole concept. The guy who made the suit had warned about this. Um he was at
27:52
odds with Forhovven. Of course, this is the whole fish out of water element. Here you have a director coming from
27:58
Europe. Has never done anything remotely like this. This is the most expensive
28:03
project he's ever been in. And by American standards, this is a not even a B movie. This is this is just a cheap
28:09
film because they had like 10 million. That's all they had. And even by that
28:14
for for 1987 standards, that's not a lot of money, especially for a science fiction film of this magnitude.
28:21
Uh but then again, you have a director who's used to thinking on his feet. He's
28:26
used to getting his way by pushing every department uh he has control over.
28:33
So the picture before this, his budget had been doubled, right? because he's used
28:41
to maybe a million, a million and a half. For soldier for he had like three and a half million. For flesh and blood
28:46
he had about six. So here he has 10 million. So it's all growing. So with
28:52
that comes more ambition in terms of what you want to see, what you want to project, what you as a director want to
28:59
create. So he had these things in his head. It's like this is this was what has to be on the screen. That has to be
29:05
on screen. This is how it should be. and he's pushing people and he's pushing them in directions they can't go in
29:10
because you know the suit maker says that that's just not possible and Peter Weller says I can't move in this thing
29:16
so he's put backed himself in a corner and this is the genius of Paul Hovind
29:22
and one of the reasons why I'm so I was so keen to tackle him is most directors
29:29
fail in this situation where Paul forhovven time and time and time and time again pulls something out of the
29:36
He's he one of the interesting things about Paul Verhov is he's able to admit a mistake and that's one of the reasons
29:43
why you see all these actors he's worked with over the years are so incredibly loyal to him because yes he shouts at
29:49
you and yes he screams his head off and he looks like he's having a heart attack but that's all to make the project
29:56
better and everybody understands that. I saw this great interview. Peter Weller had explained well you know my character
30:03
you know have an experience and then have a dream about it and then have
30:08
subsequent actions whereas Paul says no you have it all wrong. The dream comes
30:14
first because that's what you see in the movie. Robocop dreams of his past
30:19
and then subsequent actions happen but not in the way that Peter thought
30:24
they would because he's he's more grounded and he's more thinking in terms of well you know it's it's the western
30:30
way of thinking right it's like something happens to you then you have a
30:35
change of heart or you have a new insight whereas here it's Robocop's soul
30:42
driving the plot throughout the film And for Hovind had this in his head
30:48
way before they ever started shooting. And so he was able to communicate this to Weller. And then from that, aside
30:55
from the issues with the suit where Weller had a tantrum and rightfully so because he has to be in that [ __ ]
31:00
thing, right? But aside from that, they worked like they work together
31:05
seamlessly. No, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I I highly recommend anybody check out the
31:11
uh the documentary Robo-Doc. Um I'm sure. Have you seen Robo-Doc in its entirety? Oh yes, I've seen everything on
31:17
Robo-Dog. I'm obsessed with it. So I mean it's it's a I think it's a four or five part documentary. Each part
31:22
is about an hour and a half. I mean they they turn over every single stone with the production of this film. And um and
31:29
I guess there they have multiple people on set. Everyone from Kurtwood Smith to the um the guy who wrangled a lot of the
31:35
weapons and everything like that. And a lot of them flat out um came clean and
31:40
said that Peter Weller um was extremely difficult to work with on set. I mean he was he was going method and he was he
31:47
was demanding that people call him robo and that he was um he he was not fun to be around. And so they ask a they ask
31:55
Peter Weller himself, hey this is what people are saying about you. And Peter Weller just he comes clean and he says
32:01
look I was a guy in my early 30s. We're in this was being filmed in the in Texas
32:06
we should say. This is being filmed. I think it was Dallas. I'm pretty sure Dallas. Dallas. Dallas. Um, so he's like, you know, we
32:13
have that heat. We have that heat and I'm wearing this hunk of metal on me. He said, "So, yeah,
32:18
I was a bit of an ass." And he goes, "And you know what?" Um, he said, "You do that." He says, "I I challenge
32:24
anybody to to go film a film a movie out in the Dallas heat wearing all of that
32:30
all of that metal and plastic on you and you try and not um change your mood."
32:35
And so they had to get rid of the bottom part of his costume because he could wouldn't fit in the car. You only see Robocop
32:42
stand next to a car or sit in the car. You never actually see him get into the car cuz that's not
32:48
physically possible. The suit's too big. So that alone should tell you it's just a I mean it's hard to walk in. It's hard
32:55
to move in. And he had to relearn that in a matter of hours and make it believable. And that's why you get these
33:01
like birdlike type of movements because it's it's all predicated on bird behavior.
33:07
The the one thing that I will say um that I've never liked about the suit and I don't know if you picked up on this and now granted I I keep saying this. I
33:14
I didn't notice it as a kid. I I you know it took me about probably my 10th or 12th time watching it but if you
33:21
notice every time Robocop so every time you see him without that on the black
33:26
chin guard disappears as well. I don't know if you ever noticed that, but then when he puts it back on,
33:31
even though the thing is screwed up, what do they do with that? Where did that go? It doesn't, I guess, but you know, they Anyway,
33:38
look over here. More important, it's small potatoes compared to the masterpiece. Yeah, you only have 10 million. What are
33:44
you going to do? So, I mean, and they they made it work. They they made it work. You know, 10 million. The the other thing too that that um that I just want to mention too
33:51
and this is this has got to be this was obviously a conscious um decision and
33:56
effort on Paul Paul Verhovven's half but if you notice every single
34:02
um shot that is fired okay in this film is a huge blast. If we can talk about Robocop's gun now, Robocop's gun, every
34:09
time he fires, I mean, that thing is like a a cannon for for God's sakes. But if you notice the the villains, Clarence
34:15
Bodcker's gang, they all use shotguns instead of, you know, standard machine guns or standard standard pistols. They
34:22
all use shotguns. And I can't help but wonder if, you know, that that wasn't that was a con that had to be, you know,
34:29
purposeful on Verhovven's half. He wanted to show that that violence um you know every every shot that is fired has
34:36
an impact. And so if you notice when Miguel Ferrer's character is killed, he gets a shot in the leg. That is a squib
34:43
that is huge. You know what I mean? That just practically obliterates his leg. It has to be one that he can't move to
34:49
get to the grenade grenade in time. Yeah. It's not just, you know, these these aren't just stand
34:54
doesn't have any legs anymore. He's just shredded. Yeah. Pew pew shots. are, you know, every every um shot that
35:01
is fired um count in this film in some in some way. And so the bullets also
35:07
that I that I love. Yeah, they do. They do as as they would rightfully so.
35:13
Yeah. And Verhovven didn't touch the script which is atypical of him because
35:18
normally he he's an aur director. So he um does at least one pass on the script
35:23
and his his his uh steady script writer uh which in America would later be Jo
35:29
Esterhas would do a version and then he would do a version etc. Here he only added one scene. Guess what scene?
35:37
I don't know. Okay. There's one common denominator in every
35:43
Hovind movie. There's always rape. And here we have an attempted rape. And
35:48
the rape is always a plot point. Here we see that as a plot point. You have two
35:54
men. We're establishing Robocop as the new sheriff in town. As the guy who can
35:59
go beyond what a normal police uh what a policeman could do. So here you have
36:05
Robocop and two guys are try attempting to rape a woman and so Robocop warns them and of
36:13
course they won't listen. So his uh computer targeting system targets the
36:19
exact pinpoints the exact part where um the female who's being held by her
36:25
asalent um uh spreads her legs and he shoots through her legs, through her
36:30
dress right into the rapist dick.
36:36
And that's typical ball for hover. I mean that's one you have one layer where you're
36:42
basically this is an exposition and you're showing what Robocop can do and it's important for later.
36:49
Yeah. Yeah. This is a capability. Two you have an action scene, right? Three,
36:56
Paul Hovind gets his rape into the movie. And four, you you have a a kind
37:01
of a juosition to something similar that happens later in the film. He loves to
37:07
do that stuff constantly because you also have this scene where he loses his
37:12
aim and um his partner has to help him recalibrate
37:18
all this stuff. By the way, the actor who plays the rapist
37:24
is also the rapist in Show Girls.
37:30
Wow. Apparently the car I saw this interview he had a sense of humor about it.
37:37
Wow. That's I I don't know if I was an actor but uh um that's what I want to be
37:42
typ cast as but um but yeah. No, I mean it's but you get into get you get to be into both movies. I mean
37:49
it's all Yeah. Yeah. um you know and the other thing too that that we haven't talked about that that I
37:55
just like to mention too is the the color palette that is used in this film
38:00
um is very very different than the color palette that is used in in the sequels
38:06
and the titos and everything like that. And that's one thing that I love about this as well is how this film it's very
38:11
very gray. You know what I mean? It's very very grimy and dark and it just um
38:17
you know there's it most of the action now granted which is pretty amazing too considering the dark palette that it's
38:23
using really none of it takes place at night time it's all in the daytime but
38:29
it still just kind of has this just it yeah but it it just I mean you know I
38:34
mean if you think about most movies they all have kind of their their color palettes that they use you know you can you can name most movies the the three
38:41
to four colors that used this one. It's mostly grays, um, which I think lends
38:46
itself perfectly, not just because of Robocop's suit and everything, but also the kind of, um, Detroit Motor City
38:53
aesthetic that it's also, um, ostensively being set um, in, you know what I'm saying?
38:58
Yes. And it's all mechanical and it's all cold and, you know, brutalist
39:04
because that's the future. They actually found, it's interesting, um, they didn't have any money for sets. They just found
39:11
an abandoned building in Dallas and that became the backdrop of most most of
39:19
the uh executive stuff. They actually built the entire set there, the bathroom stuff that happens, everything
39:27
and they shot with like real lighting. So, it's actually it's sunny outside.
39:33
Mhm. Yeah. I mean, you know, I mean, we look at it now. I mean, look, filming
39:38
during the daytime, that's you're using natural lighting right there. And so, that right there, you know, makes total
39:43
sense. But it works so well, especially when you look at the final act, the final shootout when Murphy squares off
39:49
against Moniker in the factory, which is the original factory where he was murdered.
39:56
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Good, great point. Yeah. I mean, but you have um you know, obviously that just dirty water that it
40:03
that takes place. I mean, it is just so But it but it works. You know what I'm saying? I mean this takes place that's
40:08
the other thing the great thing about it too is it takes place in the future. Yes. But if you had told me how do I say
40:15
this? How do I say this so that I make sense? Okay. So if you look at the sequels those take place in the future.
40:21
Those those are sci-fi. You know what I mean? So so go with me on this one. The sequels feel like complete
40:27
Yeah. But they feel like complete science fiction. You know what I mean? Because you you told me that oh those
40:32
take place in the future. I believe it. What's great about the first one is you
40:37
don't need to tell me that it takes place in the future. I would believe that it it takes place modern day. You
40:42
know what I mean? Like yes, it is the future. Yes, I guess you could say that it is science fiction, but it also is
40:49
steeped in in such a reality to where it doesn't need to be in the future. If if that makes sense at all. You know what
40:55
I'm saying? Sure. It could be like 1989 if suddenly they developed robotics or something.
41:01
Yeah. Yeah. Just a couple years down the road. I mean this is yeah this was made in 1987 and in a lot of ways I would believe
41:08
that that is 1987 as well and I think that was that had to be Verhovven as well you know what I mean and that's
41:14
what all the sequels ended up doing is they said okay let's lean into the science fiction and the comic book of this whereas Verhovven said no I'm
41:22
well if you don't have a vision this is grounded in real you just have studio notes that's what happens and I think that says a lot
41:27
about you know how movie making is done currently it's not done by people within
41:32
the with a few exceptions you have Phil Nerf and you have a couple of others who have a very clear artistic vision and
41:39
push that through and have enough leeway to get that done but you know they're they're few and far between. It's uh it
41:46
was an interesting time to make film and it allowed nutcases like Paul for Hovind
41:52
uh to get their creative vision across and it gave us this uh this wonderful film.
41:57
Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, and if you look at his his resume, um, of films that he did, um, his American films, I
42:05
guess we can say, it's really interesting because every one of his American films all has something to say.
42:11
It all has that he he was able to leave a stamp on everything. And then his last real American film that he did was
42:17
Hollow Man, which I think is the one the one film that doesn't feel as much like
42:22
a um, like a Verhovven film. And I think they hamstrung him. That's why he kind of said, "You know what?" Oh, yeah. And
42:29
I think that's why he's he said to an extent, "You know what? I'm um I'm stepping away from America. I'm going to
42:34
I'm going to continue making movies, but I'm going to make the ones that I want to make without the American um
42:40
Hollywood execs pretty much tying my hands in this way, which I mean, look, we can say as much as we I don't know
42:46
why a Hollywood exec would would tie the hands of someone like Verhovven, you know what I mean? Let him do what he does, you know what I mean? But I think
42:52
um that that's why he stepped away and that's probably why we won't see him make another American film. But he's still going at it. He's just making the
42:59
films in his home country that's to make without um
43:04
without the the restrictions of of us. Yes. I remember picking Americans when
43:10
Hollow Man came out. I was waiting for Crusades because he was talking about making uh an epic uh movie about the
43:18
Crusades that ultimately went to Ritney Scott. he made kingdom of heaven. Um but originally that would have been Paul for
43:24
Hovind and he would have made it with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It just didn't happen because at that point Schwarzenegger wasn't available because
43:30
he became governor. But you know had those circumstances been different.
43:35
Perhaps we would have gotten the historical epic we always wanted because we all know he could do it. Uh if you
43:42
look at flesh and blood you see the potential. Now he only had 6 million for flesh and blood. give him 60 or give him
43:50
120 million which was t more typical of the the 2000s where you go beyond 100
43:55
million I mean hollow man was 95 and every movie goes up in budget of course but that's just the time progressing
44:03
yeah this this was 10 million and and maybe with publicity was I think listed as something like 13.5 or something and
44:10
it ended up making 53 million in 87 money which was significant I mean if you look at that from from uh inflation
44:19
it's like 180 200 million in in current money and that's not bad for a $10 million movie. So this is a director
44:26
who's always used to success commercial success as well. Um so when that started
44:34
taking a downturn in the late 90s for him
44:39
uh because he had two subsequent flops which was Show Girls and Starship Troopers. um great wonderful films but
44:48
didn't do well commercially. Yeah. Then of course a studio is going to say, "Hey, great Paul. Um we love you, but um
44:54
here are our notes and you're only going to get money if you do this. You're only going to get money if you do that, etc."
45:00
Well, um the writing is on the wall when that happens. The same thing happened to Kubri. Yeah. In fact, in the 60s and he
45:06
went to Britain and started making his own movies. Well, my f one of my favorite actually my favorite director
45:13
John Woo. Same thing happened to him. You know, he had a juggernaut of films that came out throughout the 90s, mid
45:19
90s, late 90s. Same thing happened to him and so he went back. He's come back since and has made a few films, but um
45:26
they kind of pale in comparison to what he's known for. So yeah, you can you can't blame the these directors for
45:33
going back to what they know and not wanting to put up with kind of the the nonsense that we have. But um
45:39
as as Paul at the end of the day, we have roboc or break as a director. If you make a bad movie, it's over. It's
45:45
just over. An actor has maybe two or three films he can make if he flops. But if a director makes a bad movie and he
45:52
loses a lot of money, he's the CEO of this project. So if he screws up, they blame the buck stops with the director.
46:00
They blame him. Of course, Fhovven had made flesh and blood for Orion. And if
46:06
you look at the people at Orion at that point, they keep reappearing in Paul
46:12
Verhovven's career because he he's a team builder. He picks guys he can work
46:17
with. And that's why he's always he always uses the same cinematographer.
46:22
It's either Yost Ficano or it's Yand. He always uses um the same same guy to make
46:28
the score. It's it's either Basel Polyorus or it's Jerry Gold Jerry
46:35
Goldmith. One or the other, right? It's he's an artist and he has to be able to
46:40
communicate as an artist to other artists. And if they're on in sync and if they're on the same level, why change
46:46
a winning team, right? You see that with his actors as well. These people keep reappearing. Same people. A lot of
46:53
people from this cast show up in Total Recall, like the guy who plays the
46:58
terrorist who kidnaps the mayor and who threatens to kill him on camera in front
47:04
of the SWAT team. Uh he's the bartender in Total Recall.
47:09
Yep. So, a lot of these familiar faces keep showing up, which is, you know, a
47:15
wonderful thing because these are character actors. um they could use the gig for one and two they can play
47:22
something dramatically different in a different movie even with the same face and it doesn't matter because the film
47:28
is good enough that you don't care or notice. Well stated. Yeah. Yeah. No. Um but you
47:34
know what's amazing is Robocop is that film that we're still going to be talking about in 10 to 15 years. I mean
47:42
because it it just made such an impact. And while Orion um I don't know what's
47:47
going on with Orion because I feel like Orion came back the past years and put out a few films. Um so I think they're
47:53
that company that just refuses to die. But I mean man is as uh and they did
47:58
have a spectacular crash and burn I think we can say but the slate of films that they put out um is is second to
48:07
none. I mean they they kind of in a lot of ways remind me of Carl Co. You know, Carl Co was that same company that also
48:12
had a spectacular crash and burn. But man, if you look at the films that they that they put out, I mean, they had a
48:18
lasting impression on uh on the movie industry. It's just unfortunate these companies just spend spend spend and
48:26
then and then don't save enough on the uh on the back end. But um Orion pictures, man, they they had Robocop,
48:32
they had Dances with Wolves, uh Silence of the Lambs. I mean that's that that's no uh that's a filmography that that is
48:40
is pretty good. Absolutely. And they stand out because they take risks but when you take risks
48:46
you also risk financial disaster. And I think that's the story of most of those cowboys of the 80s.
48:53
New life cinema perfect example. Canon Group perfect example.
48:58
New Cinema though had a longer I had cinema but they they had a much longer run. they had a
49:05
much longer run. But um what's amazing to me about New Line Cinema is you see that with directors as well. You
49:10
feel with Ridley Scott, for example, you have kind of this idea that all of that could happen in the same timeline at
49:17
some point, right? That Bladeunner has something to do with Alien and Alien has something to do with, you know, one of
49:23
his other films. And that also goes for Paul Verhovven, especially with the science fiction films because their
49:30
style because Paul Verhovven's style is so typical. it. Those films have some of
49:35
the same sensibilities and and uh certainly because he used some of the
49:41
same writers, they have the same sarcasm, they have the same irony. Uh I mean the biggest example is comparing
49:47
Robocop to say Starship Troopers. I mean it's you know those are basically the same people making the same kind of
49:53
movie, right? Just set in space instead of in Detroit. Yeah. So that's another layer of
50:00
enjoyability because you know and another reason why these films are so timeless and so endlessly rewatchable.
50:09
Absolutely. Absolutely. So well you've inspired me to go give Robocop another
50:15
another watch. So yeah and that's that's been my experience. It's uh because I know Paul
50:21
Ferhovven's movies by heart because I grew up with him, became an adult with him and uh I'm still watching them and
50:28
now because I'm trying to figure out what kind of director he is, I have to watch it again through a whole other
50:36
lens. And I every time I talk about it, I come through these new conclusions. It's like, no, it's it's there's the
50:43
there's the the Christian iconography again. There's there's this, there's that. There's what he he keeps in
50:50
through his style he keeps pointing out this concept that he's trying to get
50:55
across. I'm not sure he's there yet. It's a very interesting thread go that goes through all his work.
51:00
Yeah. No, definitely definitely. Um he's he's a visionary um who has I mean we
51:05
can confidently say I think with the exception of Hollow Man, I think all of his films are are masterpieces. But
51:12
there are some things about Hollow Man that I don't want to completely mitigate that. There are some things with that
51:17
one that it does have a few things going for it, but at the end of the day, he's more of a gun for hire that one. He's
51:22
It's not a full-on Paul Vern. I'm re-watching Hollow Man as you speak because I'm I'm I'm covering it soon.
51:28
And there's more than meets the eye to that film. Uh I think because he's run it down himself, people tend to
51:35
think, well, it's one of his lesser films. Maybe. We'll see. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Well, uh well,
51:42
yeah, this has been a ton of fun. Thank you for the uh for the invite and um yeah, I'm always down to chat uh to chat
51:48
80s especially. Excellent. So, what are your plans? What do you What is next for you?
51:54
Podcast wise? Oh boy. Um podcast wise, yeah, I have a couple ideas that um I've been kicking
52:00
around. But, um as I'm sure you can attest to, um podcasting is um it's it's
52:06
a pretty laborious hobby, you know what I mean? And so, um, it's been kind of nice having having the year off, but,
52:12
um, a buddy of mine, he and I have kind of toyed with possibly doing a Jason Stathithm, kind of similar to what we
52:18
did with, uh, with Len doing a Jason Stathithm one. We've talked about that. Um, nice.
52:23
So, uh, so yeah, maybe. You never know. So, well, we we'll be looking out for you
52:29
then. Excellent. All right. Anyway, thanks, man. Thanks a lot, everybody, and we'll see
52:35
you next time. Yeah. Heat.
52:42
[Music]