War of the Worlds : Spielberg and Wells on War, Revolutions, Occupations, and Christianity

New Republican Archive ^ | July 4, 2005 | Unknown

[Mike Darancette]

I was so happy when the son went with the soldiers, but I was disappointed that the screaming girl didn't die early in movie.

[pillbox_girl]

No. When it became apparent that Heinlein fans were going to be royally pissed off by the crap they tried to turn his book into, they weaseled out by calling it a satire.

Once again: Bill the Galactic Hero was a satire of Starship Troopers. Bored of the Rings was a satire of The Lord of the Rings. Note that in these actual satires, the satirists had the intellectual honesty to at least give their derivative work a different name and did not try to pass their parodies off as the original. No such case with the Starship Troopers movie. It wasn't a satire. It was an insult.

And even if your point were actually true, it still begs my original question: Why is it that when hollywood makes a movie based on a work of a libertarian like R.A. Heinlein, they allow a hacky scriptwriter to butcher it, but when they base a movie off a work of a socialist like H.G. Wells, nothing is so important as "staying true to the book"?

[Conservative til I die]

Is this guy serious? He's reading waaaaay too much into the film. This is why I've really had to back away from politics. Because you turn into people like the author, looking for political meaning in everything. Enjoy the damn film for what it is.

[Conservative til I die]

What didn't you like? It was very faithul to the novel.

Knowing the mindset of this place, it's because Spielberg donates money to Democrats. Yes, it's that petty.

[Borges]

I understnad how RAH fans would take it as an insult. I read the novel but took the movie for what it was. A send up of the fascistic elements inherent in all action movies. Your last question is a good one. I really couldn't tell you.

[yarddog]

Don't intend to see the movie unless it is on TV.

I read "War of the Worlds" many years ago. I remember wondering why Wellls was so famous. The book was boring despite having very interesting ideas. Same could be said for "The Invisible Man".

[MEGoody]

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.

So Spielberg thinks aliens would have more respect for the homes of the rich than they would for the homes of the poor?

How utterly moronic.

[WorkingClassFilth]

The fact that US troops were used doesn't bear on the film. The essence of the military element was to display futility. Even at the end of the film when they hit the tripods with shoulder launched missiles, the aliens are already faltering and crashing without military opposition. In sum, they're clueless cannon fodder. As I said before, Spielberg makes his seminal point about the military in the screaming exchange between father and son about the foolishness of fighting (i.e., the military response). This is further underscored with Spielberg's symbolic portrayal of civil resistance in the Tim Robbins character.

The use of the military by Hollywood is hardly an honor, although somebody in the Pentagon has wised up in the last couple decades enough to read the scripts they're asked to participate in. In this case, some might simply conclude that the military element was heroic in going up against an implacable foe. That's true, but in the context of the rest of the film the meaning was much more about futility and mindlessness.

In the past, his portrayal of the military was of the same sort (again, other than WWII). Mindless, faceless drones just doing, as you said, "their jobs." Where have we heard that before?

In sum, my comments still stand. Spielberg's disdain for ordinary American life, morality, civil authority and all the rest of the enchilada are pretty much the usual drivel inculcated in the boomer g-g-generation. This film bore little resemblance to the original Wells novel and like most products of Hollywood only served as a framework on which to hang their nihilistic postmodern socialist dreck.

Save your money and stay away from this dog.

[durasell]

Why is it that when hollywood makes a movie based on a work of a libertarian like R.A. Heinlein, they allow a hacky scriptwriter to butcher it, but when they base a movie off a work of a socialist like H.G. Wells, nothing is so important as "staying true to the book"?

Ed Neumeier wrote the screenplay. He worked with the director on Robocop, so you can assume that the director brought him in.

What comes off well in books often doesn't come off well on the screen. Heinlein would be a laughing stock if translated straight from book to screen. He was very much of a particular era, i.e. Farnham's Freehold.

[Trimegistus]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, most of th eattempts I've seen to find a deep political subtext in this film have been unconvincing. Van Buren?

[Borges]

Spielberg's disdain for ordinary American life, morality, civil authority

Preposterous when talking about someone who's virtually the cinematic Norman Rockwell. You obviously don't think Hollywood cinema is a positive attribute of our culture. I do. And the theme of the film is human futility. Everyone. The Military was doing their job to the rest of their ability. Besides no single character was delineated all that much. Even Cruise's.

[Borges]

should be 'best of their ability'

[durasell]

Besides no single character was delineated all that much. Even Cruise's.



Understatement of the century.

[Borges]

Whaddya want, this wasn't 'Hedda Gabler Fights the Martians' or 'Uncle Vanya Vs. The Tripods'.

[durasell]

'Uncle Vanya Vs. The Tripods'

Now that's a movie I'd see! But then again, I was deeply moved by Santa Claus Versus the Martians. I laughed, I cried, I got my first glimpse of a very young Pia Zadoa.

[drjimmy]

The essence of the military element was to display futility.

I disagree. There is a specific line in the movie in which it is noted that the military knows it cannot defeat the machines, yet is attacking anyway in order to slow them down so the refugees will have time to escape. Futility is fighting with no purpose, knowing you will be killed. Heroism is attacking with the purpose to save civilian lives, knowing you will be killed in the effort. That's what Spielberg shows.

[joebuck]

Boy, that article tells us a lot more about the author than it does about War of the Worlds. I saw WOW on Sunday and it was exactly what I expected - a popcorn flick. It was pretty much on par with Independence Day but had better special effects and worse acting. Both WOW and ID had plot holes big enough to drive a truck through, but, so what? These movies are just to entertain you for a couple of hours and then be forgotten. (by the way, does Tim Robbins have any acting style other than mumbling and shuffling? Robbins is without a doubt the most overrated actor in Hollywood)

[pillbox_girl]

What comes off well in books often doesn't come off well on the screen.

A true point with many examples. The Lord of the Rings, as written, would also make for a very boring movie (all that tedious elvish and whatnot).

But the screen "adapter" of Starship Troopers didn't even try. He just cobbled together a hackneyed collection of his own ideas and prejudices, loosely glued on a stripped down summary version of the book's plot, and dishonestly tried to pass it off with the Starship Troopers title. And then called it "satire" when fans weren't taken in by the butchery. Note that they only stared calling the movie a "satire" after they found they'd pissed off a lot of R.A.H. fans with their crappy little movie.

If hollywood really wanted to do a satire of Starship Troopers, they'd have given the project to someone like Sam Raimi. He'd at least have the honesty to call his film something other than Starship Troopers. That, or why not make a movie of Bill the Galactic Hero if they're so desperate to make a movie satire of Heinlein? Bill would have made an excellent film with only minimal "adaptation" (especially the fuse room scene). I have no problem with honest satire. What I can't stand is a dishonest slash job.

Heinlein would be a laughing stock if translated straight from book to screen. He was very much of a particular era, i.e. Farnham's Freehold.

Some of his plots are definately dated. But the themes and ideas he presents are pretty damn timeless and universal. Many of his short stories (i.e. Tunnel in the Sky) would make for damn fine movies.

But hollywood simply can't be bothered to read, understand, or even stick to works of science fiction except where it suits their ideologies (such as when the author is suitably socialist). Just look at the steaming pile they tried to pass off as I, Robot.

[Borges]

With 'I Robot' Harlan Ellison (who wrote a brilliant screenplay adapatation that Asimov loved) said it best on his own board:

"The I, ROBOT opening next Friday is the awful retrofitting of an old screenplay called HARDWIRED that had been lying around for years, until it was picked up by Proyas. At that point, lawyers (or someone) who were slightly less illiterate than the usual movie gang, pointed out that the script used as its core the 3 Laws of Robotics that were clearly the creative property of the estate of the late Isaac Asimov. And so, properly fearing a lawsuit, they scampered fast as their asses-needing-covering would permit, and they bought the rights to the title of Isaac's classic collection of robot stories from an equally ignorant rights&permissions functionary at Doubleday. They changed the names of a few characters, they stuck in as little of the Asimov material as they could, and they used the idiotic robot-amuck CGI-festooned HARDWIRED, now retitled I, ROBOT."

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Hyperbolic? Try reading Wells' books on the topic or transcripts of his then famous debates over the issue with leading clerics and figures in England. It was as important in his left-wing life as it is in the basic plots of the films...The director of the 1953 film obviously knew he had a problem with the fact that WELLS, not Hollywood, per se, and this basic story were part of Wells' anti-Catholic crusade. That's why we see a priest in a saintly attempt to stop the war and the people finding sanctuary in a church in the 1953 version. As for this version....