Sem Controle

This is a real raw no nonsense 1970's Dutch film style movie. Lots of unsencored pictures with nudity and lot's of cursing. Typical for Dutch movies in this era. Paul Verhoeven really pushed the boudries with his films though.

This seems to be one of the more infamous and divisive of Paul Verhoeven's non-American movies, and I didn't feel great about it by the end. It wallows in misery a lot, and it just gets exhausting at a point. Whether that was the point, I don't know. As cinematic nihilism, it's kind of effective, but if I approach it that way, it makes its point well before it ends.

Comparing it to another early Verhoeven film I watched recently, Turkish Delight, makes Spetters look worse. That film was also dark and quite extreme with its content, but there was a sense of balance, purpose, and (relative) briskness there that made that film generally work.

Spetters is an angry youth-focused film, reminding me of some new wave Japanese movies from the 1960s while also feeling like an effort to revolutionise that kind of film, and the American counterparts from the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem isn't so much that it crosses a line or two (what Verhoeven film doesn't?), but the issue I found was that I couldn't really work out what the line-crossing was for, beyond just being an extended primal scream - filled with nihilism, anger, and shocking moments - of a movie. It has some merit as that, which is why I can't call it terrible, but I still feel like it could've/should've been something more.

rating 8/10

Spetters in dutch has two meanings: "splashes" (of grease, dirt or blood) and "pretty people/hunk".

This movie is quick. To me it's enjoyable as an action movie, but also as a movie like "easy rider", depicting bikers' life in holland of the late 70's. It wouldn't be dutch if there ain't some tits'n'ass in it. But I don't think the movie evolves around it. It deals much more with choices, luck and destiny everyone makes. And that's the reason why i think it's a good movie. Beyond the action sequences there's a moral to be found. I think the story shows many stereotypes of people and let's them all interact realistically. That's the true strength of this movie. and always keep in mind: it's dutch, and up to that time, there were not many action movies made in holland. shortly after this movie Paul Verhoeven went to Hollywood, to my knowledge partly because of the bad dutch criticism to this movie.

Verhoeven's fifth feature-length film was attacked by critics, financiers, and much of the Dutch people alike for being "decadent", or "perverted" when originally released in 1980. Twenty-four years later, and unlike what has happened with Showgirls, Paul is having the last laugh. Even his worst film, 1995's Showgirls, has a glimmer of redeeming value, but the difference in Spetters is that it doesn't need any.

At heart, Spetters is the tale of two young amateur motocross racers and their mechanic. Along with their girlfriend, their lives are irrevocably altered when they cross paths with a fast food vendor and her brother. The whole film runs like a slice of life, and nothing that happens in real life is too distasteful for the camera.

If you don't want elements of the plot revealed, you can stop reading now.

The film has been accused of being anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-disabled. Once again, Verhoeven gets the last laugh when it becomes clear to anyone who watches it with their eyes open that none of these things are true. The story of one character's sexual confusion is played out in graphic detail, sure, but it is portrayed exactly as it would happen in real life. Sure, not every experience of homosexuality is as negative as in Spetters, but enough are to make this portrayal valid. The main woman of the story simply manipulates the situation or uses it as best she can to escape a situation she wants out of. Any woman with an ounce of strength in her character will do the same. The character who winds up paralysed finds himself reflecting on what he has lost, and it is enough to make him lose all sense of value in his life. Again, this happens every day in the real world.

There is a reason why films by Paul Verhoeven attract a certain kind of fan. Regardless of whether he succeeds or fails with his artistic goals, I have yet to see him sell out to the lowest common denominator. I have also never seen a film directed by Verhoeven where the camera is moved extraneously, obscuring details for fear of what the MPAA might have to say. The viewer is spared no details, even if it might make them turn from the screen in disgust.

If I could sum up Spetters in one word, it would be "relentless". I've seen many a film or television show that claims to show what kind of extreme pressures teenagers or young adults live under. Spetters is the first film I have seen in two decades that even makes the attempt, and better still it comes uncomfortably close. All in all, I consider it worthy of a nine out of ten. There are some elements that seem at odds with what Verhoeven would like us to believe they mean, but the effect overall is surprisingly good. Anyone who wants to see what would happen if they merged realistic versions of your typical Brat Packer film with a realistic version of Days Of Thunder will be well-served by checking out Spetters.

I just saw this film last night and was really amazed by it. Unlike the Verhoeven films that most American audiences are familiar with (Robocop, Total Recall etc) it was a compelling coming of age piece set in Holland. Like most of his early Dutch films, you can feel many of the hallmarks of his style coming together and it's a testament to his skill as a director that he can make a small character-driven film about ordinary people like SPETTERS every bit as compelling as a gigantic special effects driven spectacle like ROBOCOP.

This is an 80's disco motocross movie that has very little disco and very little motocross. What it has are many strong characters, all of them navigating life transitions and trying to figure out their place in the world.

As for the "shocking" scenes that a lot of people are referring to in the posts, there is a fair amount of sex and nudity (male especially) in this film but to call it "shocking" is misleading. The reason the film's frank treatment of sexuality is so eye opening is the way Verhoeven handles it as no big deal. Two men sneak into a subway for a tryst, and you actually see one of the guys go down on the other guy. Two pairs of teenagers sneak into an abandoned building to have sex and you see it. Or when a man and a woman lay in bed talking after having sex, you see the guy totally naked as well as the girl. What happens happens and it's presented as is.

Verhoeven doesn't cut away from nudity, but at the same time doesn't artificially sexualize it by zooming in it, laying in sexy background music etc etc. Like the co-ed shower scene in STARSHIP TROOPERS, it's presented in a completely matter of fact way. Verhoeven doesn't allude to anything in these scenes, and it gives the film a power and honesty and that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Overall I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND this movie to anyone.

Bart Blackstone * Film Club Hollywood, CA