Posted on 07/05/2005 7:47:27 PM PDT by CaptIsaacDavis
War of the Worlds: Steven Spielberg and H.G. Wells on War, Revolutions, Occupations, and Christianity
New Republican Archive. Movie Reviews. July 4, 2005.
The new Tom Cruise vehicle titled War of the Worlds is not only a tense portrayal of the terror and horror of war, particularly for those on the losing side of a modern one, but also a deeply political film. Director Steven Spielberg has gone to great lengths to "spin" this classic story with contemporary political allegories. What else should we expect from a film directed by Spielberg and co-starring Tim Robbins? Indeed, we should expect nothing less from a movie version of a book written in 1898 by H.G. Wells, who was a famous socialist (briefly Fabian Socialist), met with Lenin, rejected Stalinism, and was a vigorous proponent of a single world government. Wells’ original critiques of empire (British) and class warfare themes were set aside for the famous Americanized film version of 1953. Along with a more chilling sound effect for the alien tripods, Spielberg has updated that film by incorporating some of Wells’ original themes. We shall explore here if Spielberg is also reviving, in this age of the International Criminal Court (something Wells would have welcomed) and both environmental and "globalist" activism, Wells’ advocacy of a world government, attacks on nativism and conservative politics in general, and even Wells’ critique of Christianity. The following is only one man’s attempt to decipher the "back story" to this film.
First off, Tom Cruise’s character is clearly a representation of a working class guy from urbanized New Jersey. Cruise actually manages to pull off "average Joe" after a few scenes. He has an early scene in which he jokes he can’t meet the rich-kid demands of his children, who now live in comparative luxury with "Tim" and his ex-wife (and who are only being dropped off with their real "Dad" for the July 4 weekend [in a related critique of "American" social values in this age of "empire"]). The class rhetoric of the film doesn’t become wholly transparent until, after seeing the full impact of the war on his home and family, we see Tom Cruise walking with co-star Dakota Fanning towards a fancy townhouse of Boston (the mother’s house of his character’s ex-wife) that is the only building he’s seen since before the war that hasn’t been destroyed. The wealthy elites of Boston got to effectively sit it out, while the whole world collapsed around them, and Cruise and others had to walk through Hell (complete with alien blood-soaked weeds) and valleys of death. The only benefit to Cruise's character was that the war itself eliminated the corruptions of money and selfishness in his relationship with his children. It was Wells’ intent, reflected in this latest film as well, to illustrate that the costs of war and occupation are the burden of the working class – whose blood litters the soil of empires and fuels their spread of influence (like weeds), while the rich "capitalists" generally find ways to avoid the direct consequences of war and terror, and/or profit from them.
An early scene showing Cruise working on a dock seemed contrived towards that end, that is, until one sees the tripod machines and considers that Tom Cruise’s character was just shown driving a huge rig like that. The "alien" tripods are shaped like the aliens themselves (three-legged), and with a tricorner (Minuteman hat-like) head (and triangular command pod), with mechanical arms flailing about like so many slung/holstered weapons for a soldier. When viewed in the context of Dakota Fanning’s character talking about her body pushing out a splinter in due time, like the tripods emerging from the ground, it becomes clear very quickly that the viewer is being asked to consider that the tripods are a painful part of nature, much like the viruses we "earned the right" to live with through a billion deaths (reads narrator Morgan Freeman at the end), and an extension of something that is inside us – as Americans. The aliens force us to face the horror and terror of what a war between "men and maggots" (of the technologically superior vs. the occupied) feels like. That is, we are seemingly asked to consider what it must have felt like for those in Tasmania in the 19th century (in Wells’ original book), Poland in 1939 or Iraq in 1991-2005 – in hiding, with much of the war’s duration spent peering out through small slits in basements and bunkers. There is even a scene in a bombed out house with Tim Robbins, who plays a creepy man that Cruise’s character eventually has to kill, desperately trying to dig a spider-hole like the one Saddam Hussein was found in – all the while proclaiming that "occupations" always fail. Actually, he’s "dead set on" being wrong about that last claim, but that’s a history lesson for another time and place.
Herbert George Wells’ views on Christianity rear their ugly heads in this film – literally, in the form of a tripod that Cruise gets to watch coming up from a street right next to a church. While approaching the site of lightning strikes – the preferred method of travel for the occupiers, who appear out of the sky, Cruise’s character is approached by a local who immediately says (to paraphrase from recollection):"God is punishing the people of this neighborhood." Gee whiz, what happens next is that the machine comes up from the ground at the corner of "Merchant" (the aliens are good little capitalists, after all [how does that saying go?: it never hurts to be too thin, too tall, or too rich?]) and "New..." streets and topples the steeple of a Christian Church. In the 1953 film the director had the evil uncivilized aliens torch a priest. In this adaptation, the aliens appear transformed into symbols of the church – rising up from the roots upon which modern Christianity and the church were founded. One couldn’t help but notice that church steeple – the Old North Church? -- still standing behind the characters in the last scene in which Cruise appears on the streets of Boston. It was the only tall thing left standing in Boston after the tripods were finished.
The tripod itself is a symbol of what Wells argued was the primary fault in Christian faith – the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity. This was a theme he was famous during his life for debating publicly, and addressing in God the Invisible King (1917) and his Outline of History. Wells’ take on faith was that God is an "Invisible King," whereby personal redemption or salvation with the help of any Church was not in the cards – so why bother? It was all in God’s "hidden" hands, and in particular via Darwinian natural selection (a theme central to Wells’ original War of the Worlds, where the aliens themselves are scrawny and come to represent what will become of man after eons of technological supremacy). Thus, the "tripod" is not some "natural" symbol or random "choice" for the aliens – it was a loud and booming critique of Christianity and all of "God’s creatures" affected or transformed by it through social Darwinism.
Here, in War of the Worlds, the theme is one of human "power" and nation-states being utterly powerless in the face of God’s hidden hands. Those hands come in the form of a superior race of tripods (with "legs" that operate like three-fingered hands), both living and machine, that have been here on Earth long before man ever built a road (to bury the machines a "million years" ago says Tim Robbins’ character). Those tripods, of course, symbolize Wells’ hatred for the Holy Trinity [Wells himself, the ardent socialist, later published a non-fiction work purporting Christian roots for modern totalitarian nightmares called "The Holy Terror" (1939)]. Little wonder they first pop up beneath a church. They are a "natural" power that can wipe out the greatest power and nation-state on earth in a couple of days. Hence, the U.S.A. seems to bear the brunt of the attacks in this film. Talk about what is going on in other parts of the world is purely speculative and contradictory, as shown in the march to the dock sequence.
Spielberg seems to be driving at a point here -- about American empire. First, the film is set on a July 4 weekend, released on a July 4 weekend, has Tom Cruise exclaim that the lightning, God’s Darwinian wrath we learn later, is like a July 4 fireworks show, has real U.S. military troops and equipment as extras in some spectacular battle sequences (probably on the debatable premise that the film is a patriotic one), and then ends in Boston around a statue of a Minuteman (not a real one, but one tailor-made for the film). The most important scene is the one involving the statue, covered in dying red weeds, which is the film’s climax, since it appears right next to the first fallen tripod. Cruise’s character tears away part of the dead weed strangling the statue and crushes it in a scene framed with the Minuteman statue behind him, while he proclaims that "they" are dying.
Who are "they?" THEY are destroyers in nature, part of God’s plan (but who face God’s wrath in a Darwinian turn of events at the end of the film), the spreaders of influence fueled by the spilled blood of man, technologically superior, but utterly without morality (showing no mercy or remorse as the aliens in one scene become curious about the photo of a woman in a bombed out house, that is, a photo of a creature they had either just drank the blood of or sprayed like fertilizer in a "war of extermination"). THEY are the aliens with heads like tricorner Minuteman hats. Perhaps "they" are metaphorical Christian American imperialists triggering a natural reaction in the form of devastation and chaos that mirrors the War on Terror (a standard radical Left-wing explanation of 9/11). Indeed, the reaction, like a rash of splinters being pushed out of God’s hand (His Earth), launched by the aliens comes in the form of an attack in which Cruise is covered with ash and soot, much like survivors of 9/11 in New York City, followed by another near-miss on "Tim’s" house by a crashed airliner.
So who or what is dying? A left-wing cinematic and Sci-Fi vision of American empire is dying. The same empire that former President Martin Van Buren slowed the spread of by blocking the annexation of Texas. In the opening "torch" sequence, Cruise is seen running past a street named "Van Buren," which is likely named after the famous New Yorker and President (1836-1840) Martin Van Buren. It’s the aliens (American imperialists) that want none of that, and blast through Van Buren street in the following sequences. Coincidence? It is the technologically superior Americans who have grown too comfortable with their supremacy, and who have lost sight of humility and humanity while spreading their weeds, tentacles, and empires to the loud boom and chorus of the Holy Trinity. As H.G. Wells wrote about often (in more than just World of the Worlds), it is at the very moment of an animal’s or empire’s supremacy that nature, God’s hidden hand, finds a way to ensure its complete overthrow. Rome, Britain, the Soviet Union, and many other empires have experienced that fate. The same thing could happen to our "empire," or is happening to our "empire," is the propaganda message of this film.
War of the Worlds has been broadcast and told in many variations, often in a very timely and prescient manner (from 1938’s radio broadcast on the eve of World War II to the 1953 Cold War version [with an anti-nuclear theme] for the theaters). Here, in this version, the "evil" is a Sci-Fi (a very "American" approach in its own right) spawn of American empire. Spielberg’s explicit allegory is France trying to civilize Algeria. In this film, Cruise’s character has a son with a school report due on the French experience in Algeria, which they repeat over and over in different contexts. We got the point already! Yes, our war in Iraq is like France’s attempt to subdue Islamic radicals in Algeria, and they failed. We know that. That is, most of us, with the apparent exception of Bill O’Reilly, who published a review of this film that tried to "spin" it as a rousing battle against alien al-Qaeda (a simplistic interpretation that ignores countless other allegories in the work, and Wells’ original intent). Let’s move on. When we see Tim Robbins exclaiming how occupations always fail, it becomes clear that the audience is supposed to be considering what it’s like to be on the receiving end of the wars in Iraq (with left-wing propaganda in the real world purporting that it is on the level of an "extermination").
So who really saves the day? In Spielberg’s version, the anti-imperialists are hardy revolutionaries coming up from the "Underground," from under houses and Tim Robbins’ "subways" for "resistance" (Cruise ends up taking a machine out after he finally gets the guts to fight back) to Cruise’s direction of a counter-attack from under an enclosed concrete walkway. They are the heirs to the spirit of the Minuteman statue breaking free of the strangling grasp of the red weed. In that respect it is a universalist, anti-imperialist and anti-war (left-wing) "patriotism" motivating the resistance. Breaking free, that is, to control their own blood, and not have it sacrificed for some destructive imperial force. Finally, the film ends with what appears to be a geographically impossible shot of a tree with a small green bud filled with our naturalist "allies" in the counter-attack against environmental destroyers -- the viruses (and the birds who spread them, like the flu, to the aliens and red weeds they feast on). Residents of Boston may have noticed that the final sequence, which shows the former Fleet Center and Bunker Hill Bridge in the distance, has a vantage point comparable to that of the top of the Bunker Hill Monument. That is, it is the view of Patriots who held the line and delivered a stunning blow to the British empire – and, here, its allegorical heirs.
Only this time, the anti-imperialists are out-matched. The great power of our nation is not enough. Even the intense desire of the son in this picture to "get back at them" is pointless. They cannot win the war alone. It is the globalists (one-worlders), our environmental friends (birds and viruses, and all of God’s creatures), who really save the day.
With all that having been said, this film was not entertaining in the least. It was enough to give nightmares to small kids and fits of apoplexy to adults sick and tired of Left-wing propaganda as "back stories" to Hollywood spectacles. I suppose if one just ignored the symbolism and allegories, it might seem like an "enjoyable" ride -- through Hell. Perhaps that explains why there was not a single clap after the end of the film (not even in victory) in the crowded and large theater that this reviewer saw it in: a theater located in a suburb of Boston roughly the distance from the city that you see the people marching towards down a highway in one scene.
I have my own interpretation. The aliens are Liberals and other anti-American revolutionaries wearing the camouflage of the Trinity and tri-cornered hats, and as cold-blooded as the creatures and weeds drinking the blood of patriots to keep warm. They wrap themselves around our country (and our patriotic monuments) like weeds. After all, it is the radical Left that made 9/11 possible with "open borders," political correctness in the FBI, and opposition to wars of preemptive extermination. Maybe it’s time to push those splinters out.
Clearly, our tastes differ.
You don't like any of the guys I mentioned?
I used to be amused in Jr. High with Joyce's prurient passages and his graphic descriptions of the vile and gruesome. I have been told 'The Dubliners' is the one to read if, like me, you don't have time for Joyce.
Stravinsky's work is a pretty broad collection. The discordant stuff takes more out of me than it gives. I like some of his work that I am told echoes Rimsky-Korsakoff. In short, I like classical brain candy and guys like him and Mahler and a few others are definitely not dinner time background. Sorry, but what can I say? I'm working class filth.
Pollack. I use better dropcloths everyday. Poor tortured man. Poorer tortured viewers.
Do you actually spend much time in galleries or just read ARTnews? There are many, many artists today who are both technically accomplished and making art that is thoughtful. I would say the same thing is true for movies. However, both these artists and directors/writers tend to be on the second or third tier, which is how it should be since art has a limited audience.
We are in agreement in regards to WOTW.
It's probably a mistake to judge art as left or right. That's not to say some art isn't slanted left or right, but that stuff is generally bad.
That said, I think you'd find some interesting things in some of the smaller, less expensive galleries.
Whatever themes Spielberg was supposedly trying to communicate, they didn't make it. Cruise as some kind of working class hero? His character was very dislikeable for most of the movie. Selfish, and with no ambition, as demonstrated by his turning down extra work on "union" grounds.
Then the part about the "wealthy capitalists" sitting out the war? Gee, he must have missed the wealthy suburban neighborhood and its huge homes that were completely trashed. And whatever imagery Wells may have intended with the destruction of a church didn't get communicated very well either. The only message I took from that is that not even God was going to save us from these aliens.
It was a special effects popcorn movie. Whatever themes or messages you find in it are the ones you put there as a viewer. Everything else was simply to tangential to come across with any degree of clarity.
The guy was pretty close to the mark (but not precisely so) when analyzing what Wells, Spielberg, and the lead screenwriter all ADMITTED publicly they intended to be the "relevance" and allegories behind the original work and film. Whether Spielberg and the screenwriter really understood what Wells was getting at on the tripod issue (by Wells own history and commentaries) is another question -- the net result is a co-mingling. There were also substantial differences between this film and the 1953 version, part of the reasoning is detailed below, with Spielberg indicating publicly he wanted to bring it closer to the original work -- except for the ending. Those changes are informative.
Check out the link to the SCREENWRITER's comments in the prior post -- the screenwriter appears to concede an Iraq allegory and anti-imperialist allegory, but claims no 9/11 allegory (except that Spielberg here says there was).
Tin-foil? Try reading Wells first, and the following...
EXCERPTS
http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2005/paramount/wotw/setvisit.html
Spielberg: …There's been others out there very successful and others maybe less successful, but we've seen the sci-fi Victorian period done before, we've all seen the contemporary sci-fi film done before. I feel more at home today, in today's world. And I think, in the shadow of 9/11, there is a little relevance with how we are all so unsettled in our feelings about our collective futures. And that's why I think, when I reconsidered War of the Worlds, post 9/11, it began to make more sense to me, that it could be a tremendous emotional story as well as very entertaining one, and have some kind of current relevance
………………..
Spielberg: Was it just afterwards? But it really made me feel that this event was actually happening. When you look at it today and you measure it against everything that just came before, everything in contemporary science fiction that came before, sure there are things that are corny - you know, when they walk toward the cylinder holding the cross and there's three cultures; there's Irish, there's Latino and...(laughter). It's a different mind-set then.
………………..
What did attract you to it, Tom?
Cruise: The story? The same things. I mean, for me, War of the Worlds was always a book that I really enjoyed and I felt that the story could be relevant………………..
Spielberg: ...the sense of blithe adventure of Independence Day. It's not a wonderful kind of gung-ho...it's not Starship Troopers and it's certainly not Independence Day, you know? We take it much more seriously than that. The film is ultra-realistic, as ultra-realistic as I've ever attempted to make a movie, in terms of its documentary style. But at the same time, it's full of the kind of Hollywood production values that the audience is demanding these days. And I think it's the combination, the blend, of these huge events visually and this kind of documentary story, personal story at the center of it, that gives it this very unique-
_J(JWDJWDOMWDMWDMWDWD
NEW...Nothing to do with the above...
TRINITY AND TRIPODS (Written by CaptIsaacDavis)
BY the way, the importance of waging war on Christianity to Wells has been lost to all except those who actually bother to read most of his works, and not just WOTW. It was a near life-long obsession, because he saw the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as the singular example, representation or symbol, of a purportedly “autocratic” nature of Christianity – that was spread to every far reaching corner of the British empire (or any “Western” “empire” by allegory – as a radical socialist). It is many decades past when even public school-educated drones would have comprehended how integral the history of the Church was to the history of Western civilizations and the spread of empire (especially the British, which Wells was critiquing in WOTW). WELLS: "The idea of stamping out all controversy and division, stamping out of all thought, by imposing one dogmatic creed upon all believers, is an altogether autocratic idea." That's STAMPING out..."A second great autocrat who presently contributed to the stamping upon Catholic Christianity of a distinctly authoritative character was Theodosius I. (Theodosius the Great (379-395). He forbade the unorthodox [non-Nicaeans] to hold meetings, and handed over all Churches to the Trinitarians" H. G. Wells, Outline of History, 1920 Edition, pp. 523, 524
The author of the review actually missed the point that the 1953 film, released when most middle class Americans were actually literate in things like the works of H.G. Wells and Christian doctrine, instead of porno and sports stats, knew they had a problem with this issue so they: eliminated the tripods (except for a fuzzy electromagnetic signature in homage in one scene), had a priest in a saintly act to stop the war, had masses of crowds singing “Amen” and had a Church as a sanctuary at the end (implying clearly it was the hand of God that saved the day, and spinning it as a theological one not a Darwinian one as Wells intended). They had to in order to get past the censor boards. I know this because my grandmother was actually on one of those boards and she explains the subject was a topic of controversy when the film came out – Wells was a socialist (who had praised Lenin at one point and accused Christianity of being a source of tyrannical evil), and it was 1953 after all.
Spielberg himself in the excerpt above calls it a "different mindset then" about a scene with a cross. Here, the Church is the source of the creatures, and there is no positive spiritual or faith element at all -- only Cruise's character crying to save his daughter, and for a while not giving a damn about anyone else but himself (a very humanistic theme that the handful of Libertarian degenerates who post on this site must haved loved).
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.