Posted on 06/28/2005 10:32:17 AM PDT by Cool Chick
"War of the Worlds" Spielberg-esque Message: Don't Fight Terror
By Debbie Schlussel
I'm violating Steven Spielberg's review policy for "War of the Worlds" and telling you what I think ahead of tomorrow's scheduled release date. I saw the movie at a press screening, last night, and was disturbed by the message: Don't fight terror, and everything will work out. (Security was literally tighter than that for going to the White House to meet the President. No purses allowed. Three wandings by security.)
It's bad enough that Steven Spielberg is adding "balance" and factual inaccuracy to the story of the Israeli Mossad's efforts to assassinate terrorists who killed Israeli Olympic athletes--in his upcoming film, "Vengeance" (I've detailed that here). It's bad enough that his message in "Vengeance" is that fighting terrorists and killing them is bad and doesn't work. But his similar message in "War of the Worlds" is arguably worse--because the movie, with fantastic special effects, is likely to be one of his bigger hits.
Spielberg said "War of the Worlds" is a parallel for 9/11 and serves as a "prism" through which to view 9/11, the War on Terror, and our presence in Iraq. The movie makes that very clear. People running from exploding and falling buildings, walls and kiosks covered with "missing" signs and pictures for those looking for lost relatives, people giving blood -- these are all 9/11 references.
But the message is: Don't fight terrorism. It will miraculously go away if you leave it alone and it breaths our air and culture. Puh-leeze. I'm sure Roger Ebert will just love it.
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
I have not seen the movie, and I have no doubt that contains a great many jabs at the politics of today. However, in order to maintain some credibility with complaints, it's important that we not overreact, but instead target those areas in which we know we have some valid complaint.
What I read in her column was, in large, a brief overview of my recollection of the book, but she was treating it as new material.
I like the original 'Time Machine'.
Yes much better.
the fact that Robbins is in it, playing a "let's beat 'em or die trying" tough-guy, gives me pause.
I might not see it.
counter: Cruise has impressed me recently (Last Samurai and Collateral), and that little girl rocked in Man On Fire.
Generally speaking, I am not all that interested in what a Scientologist has to say about war, peace, God, sci-fi or aliens.
That's pretty much how Aaron was portrayed in "Prince of Egypt." Wimpy, timid wuss. Also to pander to the feminists, Moses' wife Zipporah had a bigger role in the Exodus than Aaron, even though in the actual Bible she stayed home with the kids.
The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one, they said.
Not likely. Her whole career depends on not getting a grip.
Don't fight terrorism. It will miraculously go away if you leave it alone when it breaths our air and culture
Gee you'd have thought that would have worked in France after the Nazis occupied it,I mean Germans are efficiency control freaks, the French unions take coffee breaks during their coffee breaks......
I guess Spielberg would have shot the French resistance huh.....but wasn't like Schindler a hero? Steven is confused methinks....I wonder is Steven a Zionist or anti Zionist, how come Israelis cture hasn't driven the Palestinians away
I'll probably wait 'til it shows up on PPV or HBO or something. My son seems to be driving the movies I end up going to lately. We went to see Batman last week (fantastic flick!), and the next one we'll do will probably be Fantastic Four (Please-don't-suck-please-don't-suck). At 12 bucks to take him to the matinee, the notion of going to each and every flick that's out doesn't appeal to me...
That was one of the funniest posts I have ever read of FR (and that's saying a lot)! :) Thanks!
Tom Cruise is a one note wonder, he can only play variations of the same character, which is his own perception of himself, however fortunate for him in Hollywood as long as you play the right note and you got a pretty face, you can be a huge star [Mel Gibson is a far better actor than he even allows himself, once he came to Hollywood most of his characters are just variations of himself, he did some superior work I would argue in his Australian indie days, however he now gets his creative kick from directing and producing movies and how]
the only movie role he ever did that surprised me was Lestat in Interview with a Vampire, because I was with Anne Rice, who wanted Gary Oldman to play Lestat, and frankly I doubt he would have been interested, having already played Dracula, in a hokey mess courtesy of Francis Ford Coppola, he played it better than I would have guessed....
I watched Top Gun 20 times for Val Kilmer, he's a more nuanced actor and I thought much better looking at the time, and Anthony Daniels did a great job as the sidekick....
who can fully understand why some humans hate each other and are so brutal to each other
long memories I suspect is one reason - see the former Yugoslavia
I mean it blows my mind that Croats, Serbs and Muslims who were getting along as neighbours OK, though admittedly forced to get along under a communist umbrella or perhaps a mutual hate for the communist regime gave them solidarity, but you have the younger generations who don't remember WWII, where much of the bitterness of the 1980's was released, as the Croats and Muslims sided with the Nazis vs the Serbs and at least 200,000 Serbs were slaughtered, and yet these same young people who were going to school and dating and marrying each other are suddenly perpetrating genocide on their neighbours
all depends on whether you believe man is basically good and it is power that corrupts or you believe man is basically evil and only the rule of law keeps him in check or somewhere in between
"handwringing"?
Interestingly, Spielberg has changed the story's setting to contemporary America. He has staged the story so that he MUST address how WE AMERICANS might react to an invasion...and more so how we SHOULD react to an invasion. It would be strange NOT to see any timely political content here. Given that, I don't think a political reading of the movie is "handwringing" or "laughable" especially given his ability to garner a great deal of attention. Besides, if he wants to start a political debate, he should deal with the ensuing "heat." He's a big boy; he can handle it.
I've got one major problem here. In the novel, that existed for 100 years before 9/11, man was powerless to fight the Martians, and it was good ol' nature that got them in the end. Sounds like the movie has stayed true the book, and the author doesn't like it.
Batman Begins was quite good. Good enough to expunge the lingering stink of the Burton abominations from the franchise.
Actually, you're both right. The source material is anti-war.
In case anyone's interested, WOTW was a Victorian novel about a Western, Victorian society (Great Britain) getting its just desserts after centuries of oppressing little brown and yellow people (the Empire).
Wells was a liberal--for his time--and his book shocked the people of his time for even suggesting that:
1. Great Britain couldn't conquer all, and
2. That her conquering all wasn't for the greater good.
A hell of a good read, and the fifties' version and the television series (first season, anyway) are neat.
Shh, I almost snuck that one in. :p Oh well, the rest of my comment stands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.