War of the Worldviews - (H.G. Wells, Spielberg, Tom Cruise..."view from Hollywood's left")

In a July 18 article, columnist John Leo describes how David Koepp, screenplay writer for Stephen Spielberg’s recently released “War of the Worlds,” revealed his intent to draw a parallel between the U.S. military in Iraq, and the movie’s villains, an army of hideous space aliens. Based on a late nineteenth-century science fiction novel by British author H.G. Wells, the original story involved an attack from inhabitants of the planet Mars, whose aim it was to conquer and inhabit the Earth.

Transposing the storyline from 1898 London to modern day New York, while still retaining a faithful portrayal of the original story, surely must have been a daunting task. Yet, to “die hard” Wells fans (as is this writer), the result was highly commendable, with one notable exception.

Now we know why that exception was made. Certainly the most hideous of weapons in the Martian arsenal was a poisonous gas, which was dispersed in order to kill over a widespread area, much like the nerve gas WMDs used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. In his zeal to condemn America, Koepp did not want to inadvertently remind viewers of Hussein’s truly barbarous acts.

In a manner contradictory to Koepp’s subliminal aims, the U.S. military was indeed portrayed in the movie. And in the only episode in which its purpose is actually stated, an on-scene commander explains his operation to stall the attacking invaders in order to allow sufficient time for earthly refugees to escape. In this, a far more vivid and characteristic image of America’s armed forces was depicted.

Worse yet for Koebb and the Hollywood left, any correlations to modern America that viewers might draw from the invaders are diametrically opposed to those apparently intended.

In the most graphic portrayal of the subhuman cruelty on the part of the invaders, a victim’s lifeblood is gruesomely suctioned from him in a manner eerily similar to partial-birth abortion, the ultimate “sacred rite” of the counterculture.

Furthermore, the callous and cruel force with which the invaders conquered their domain, along with their inescapable peering “eyes” in the aftermath of their conquests, might instead remind viewers of Soviet tanks rolling through Prague and Warsaw.

Wells did advocate social concerns of his day. And certain of these may seem to align him with modern-day liberals. Yet, living and writing in the late nineteenth century as he did, he was not subject to the modern “orthodoxy” of “political correctness.” He endeavored to observe the world around him and comment on it, either directly or through literary equivalence. Such intellectual honesty will inevitably place him on a collision course with the propagandistic thrust of leftist ideology.

In “The Time Machine,” another Wells epic, he astutely characterizes the dehumanizing effects of the welfare state, whereby one segment of society maintains another segment as dependent and pliable, in order to continue feeding (literally) off of them.

His nightmarish portrayal of this facet of the human condition can easily be seen amidst the squalor and vulnerability of those who rely solely on the nanny state for their sustenance, as well as the callous indifference of the bureaucratic monsters who, if not kept in check, will work to maintain them in such a condition.

Unfortunately, in the 2002 remake of “The Time Machine,” despite its poignant story line and dazzling special effects, producers Walter Parks/David Valdes totally avoided any reference to this central theme of the story.

As has become glaringly apparent since the advent of the alternative media, the facts are miserably inconvenient to the left. While mainstream America has, over the course of time, become accustomed to and eventually immunized against the virulence of the counterculture, it never developed the ability to defend itself against factual confrontation.

Given Wells’ style and wit, he himself might have explained it thus: From the moment the liberals came into contact with reality, breathed vapors of truth and drank from its fountain of knowledge, their cause was doomed. After all of mankind’s weapons of persuasion and intellect had failed, they were brought down by the humblest precepts of immutable truth that God, in His infinite wisdom, had infused into the fabric of the universe at its inception.

By the toll of a billion lies, man has bought his birthright of discerning truth, and it is his against all comers. It would still be his, were the liberal propagandists ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do the seekers of ‘right’ strive, nor prevail, in vain.

About the Writer: Christopher Adamo is a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming, where he has been involved in grassroots political activites for several years. He maintains a website at http://www.chrisadamo.com.

Saw the movie about a week ago. Generally agree with this review. If there is meant to be an anti-American (especially the military) message in it, it is way too subtle to overcome 2+ hours of intense action as the divorced father (Tom Cruise) struggles to keep the family alive and get them from NYC (where his two children are visiting him) back to their mother in Boston. The US military is consistently portrayed as heroically attempting to confront an irrationally ruthless enemy armed with superior weapons while trying to shepherd refugees to safety. By contrast, the jihadists and insurgents in Iraq don't give a sh*t about every day Iraqis while the US does and all the Iraqi army did was try to hide in order to save themselves once they realized that confronting the coalition forces meant certain death. Some indictment.

If Mr. Spielberg wants to make propaganda, he should take lessons from Hussein lover Michel Moore...ah, no, scratch that, bad idea since it would ruin his (Spielberg's) films -which I generally like - and Moore might actually learn to ...no, like I said, bad idea. Forget it.

Sorry to bump this so long after the fact, but I found it when searching for another thread. I agree with the author that Koepp's attempt to critique Iraq either failed miserably or was excised by Spielberg. Only someone looking to see America in the "Martians" would find it. There was one overt political moment where a character confident in victory over the aliens says, "History tells us that occupations don't work!" Unfortunately for the screenwriter, he put these words in the mouth of a lunatic, which tended to blunt their effectiveness. Besides, exhibit A: Germany, Japan and South Korea. Occupations work. Exhibit B: Vietnam. Should have occupied it.

Bottom line: it's a pretty good adaptation of the original novel, and is not as political as has been stated. And this is coming from someone who normally, if he can help it, doesn't spend a lot of time at a Tom Cruise movie. I don't often watch Spielberg, either. I looked the other way this time because I really like the novel. If I had read Koepp's comments beforehand, I would have skipped it anyway, but I'm kind of glad I didn't.

Adamo's insight into the lack of black and white steam in the movie is a good one. That's a plausible explanation for why one of the most gripping parts of the novel was excluded. Too bad Spielberg didn't buck Koepp on that one. One other thing, there should have been a decisive, temporary military victory over one of the aliens, such as in the thrilling Thunder Child segment of the novel. And, if we had birds in the air, we should have dropped a MOAB on those suckers. Let's see the shields stop that!

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.