Posted on 07/31/2005 10:02:37 AM PDT by mcg2000
“Oh, and, uh, Tom - you’re actually playing an Iraqi insurgent …”
Honestly, folks, I don’t try to start these controversies - I merely report and analyze. But it does appear that something may be brewing (a la Star Wars ) with respect to how we are supposed to ‘interpret’ Steven Spielberg’s forthcoming War of the Worlds. I am very much looking forward to this film, but I’m also growing frustrated with what I’m seeing in the press.
One of our intrepid LIBERTAS readers, ‘Kevin,’ recently posted (in the comments section) some remarks from War screenwriter David Koepp to the effect that the film’s subtext happens to be the American invasion of Iraq - with War’s alien aggressors acting as stand-ins for the American military. Here are Koepp’s remarks, as drawn from a Canadian magazine called Rue Morgue (Issue number 46, Pages 25-25):
“And now, as we see American adventure abroad,” he [David Koepp] continues “in my mind it’s certainly back to it’s original meaning, which is that the Martians in our movie represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext.”
I’ve since found Koepp making similar remarks in last Sunday’s USA Weekend interview with Steven Spielberg. Thus, Koepp: http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/050619/050619spielberg.html
“You can read our movie several ways,” says screenwriter David Koepp. “It could be straight 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be.”
Now, let me first state that I by no means assume Koepp is speaking for Spielberg, here. My sense is that Spielberg, director of Saving Private Ryan and a supporter of many veterans’ causes, would not willingly choose to portrary the American military - however metaphorically - as a savage, invading force bent on civilization’s destruction. But Koepp is being a little too cute here (by the way, what exactly is “straight 9/11 paranoia"? were we ‘paranoid’ after Pearl Harbor?), and Spielberg himself has been evasive, as well - I suspect because he may quietly harbor sympathies very much at odds with those of his more liberal Hollywood friends. Why do I believe this? Call it a hunch, based on my observation of the man for many years.
With this said, it would be nice if Spielberg would come out and make a straight, unequivocal statement to the effect that: no, I am not using this film to disparage the efforts of the American military - who are, incidentally, neither “doomed by insurgency” (does Mr. Koepp have credentials as a military historian that I don’t know about?) nor riven by “the futility of the occupation.” [Footnote: one hopes Mr. Koepp’s script is not as cliché-ridden as his oratory.] That is to say, this would be a good moment for Mr. Spielberg to be a mensch - which is what I suspect he really is.
[As an aside, don’t you just love the faux wisdom of today’s Hollywood liberal, who pretends deep insight into the ‘insurgent’ tendencies of indigenous populations - when most of these liberals never travel, say, east of LA’s 110 freeway?]
I recently had the pleasure - and honor - of meeting a group of Marines returned from action in Iraq, including in Fallujah. Several of the men bore combat wounds; all of them were eager to return to the fight. The idea that these tough, seasoned veterans or their able commanders are ‘doomed by insurgency’ is laughable - except, perhaps, within the cocktail-party circuit of West Los Angeles … where grown adults can stand around with martinis in their hands and seriously discuss the metaphorics of Martian invasion. But a $150 million budget and a similarly expensive advertising campaign - supported by an A-list star and director - can give even the most lunatic ideas a semblance of credibility. Mr. Spielberg should distance himself from Koepp’s rhetoric with the same rapidity he’s been distancing himself from Tom Cruise, as Cruise’s behavior grows increasingly aberrant. And Spielberg had better do this fast before Tim Robbins - who also stars in War of the Worlds - starts opening his mouth …
Prolonged exposure to these people is making me ill. This movie cannot open soon enough.
I don't think that's what the real author - H.G. Wells - thought back in 1898 when he wrote - unlike your meager talents would allow - an original story that captivated people, a$$hole.
I've seen the film. I don't see how anyone would see the Martians as stand-ins for American "invaders" of Iraq. As another has pointed out, the movie is based on a book published in 1898.
Why dredge up this month old nonsense?
Am I confused, or was it Orson Wells, in the '30's, that originated te WOTW radio program? I'm not at all sure that H.G. Welles had anything to do with this.
At any rate, this bogus parallel is utterly stoopid.
I see by my Google that I was right....and....wrong: H.G. Wells wrote the original, and Orson Welles presented the radio version in October of 1938. Welles' Mercury Radio Theatre version spread panic all over the country.
As an aside, don’t you just love the faux wisdom of today’s Hollywood liberal, who pretends deep insight into the ‘insurgent’ tendencies of indigenous populations - when most of these liberals never travel, say, east of LA’s 110 freeway?
Great line. The limousine libs of Hollywood live in their gated communities and don't need to leave town to "just know" what's what in the world.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Unless a movie is actually taking open shots at W like that retarded "Ron Burgundy" movie, I don't even bother to acknowledge them. Its mostly Moron.org fantasies that every movie out of hollywood is a anti-W screed.
Only an insane lib would drag us down this road. What gets me is, these are the same people who decry the "McCarthy era" where communists were seen everywhere, under every bed- and how evil THAT was. Then they come up with this idiocy. Go figure.
I would like to see this guy use that expression in front of the families of the people who died that day.
I would like to see this guy tell them they're paranoid.
In the first War of the Worlds movie, the invaders were defeated by the common cold, "which God in His wisdom" put on the Earth.
Thus the first film credited God, not "insurgents" for saving humanity from invaders from Mars.
Scuttlebutt has it that God does get a credit in this remake. And that the aliens aren't even from outer space.
Correction "God DOESN't get a credit"
..........................................
What a version of the classic. Spielberg made two major mistakes: Casting the excitable Cruise as the lead and canceling out anything likeable about the characters. No one cares about the characters. We know nothing about the people and their relationships.
God does get a credit. The quote you have--"God in his wisdom"--is in this version as well. Not much is known about the origin of the aliens in the film, but they are definitely alien. There's a theory discussed in the film that the aliens visited the planet long ago in preparation for their invasion. I don't know about that. I would have been fine with them crashing to Earth like in the novel. But, other than that, I enjoyed the film. If not for the screenwriter's comments, you wouldn't get the agenda he wants from what you actually see on screen. In fact, the one character who voices the opinion that "occupations never work" is clearly insane at the moment he speaks the line. If that was their way of getting that message in there, they erred in their choice of speaker. Hollywood should know about discrediting a message, since they usually stick conservatives messages in the mouths of the lowest dirtballs in their films! But, in this film, I think it is fair to say that the characters we follow are completely apolitical. It's a good film, and one I'll own on DVD. And, that's from someone who couldn't stand to even look at Tom Cruise until I sat down to watch the film! To be fair, I did like some of his movies prior to Born on the Fourth of July.
Thanks for your movie review.
I'll consider renting War of the Worlds when it comes out.
Tom Cruise was good in Rain Man.
Somebody offered to send me Born on the 4th of July to send to the troops, and I told them what it was about, so they didn't waste the postage.
Cruise is nuts (possibly bipolar), but if he makes a good movie I'll watch it.
There are some actors and actresses that have stepped so far over the line (denouncing the U.S. in foreign countries, for instance) that I won't even rent their stuff.
War of the Worlds could have been a fun scary movie film, like Independence Day, etc. I wish people would quit ruining movies by using them to sell their political agendas.
P.S. I hated what they did to Mission Impossible.
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.