|
| War of the Worlds (2005) |
|
  (8/10)
|
Runtime: 117 |
| Public Rating: 8.12 (126 votes) |
Director: Steven Spielberg |
MPAA Rating:  |
| Genre: Science Fiction/Action/Drama |
Year: 2005 |
| Writer(s): David Koepp, Josh Friedman |
| Distributor: Paramount |
| Reviewed by: Mel Valentin |
| |
Additional review(s) by:
Avril Carruthers [8/10] (view).
|
After the unequivocal commercial success of Roland Emmerich's Independence Day in 1996, a special effects-heavy alien invasion film clearly influenced by H.G. Wells' 1898 science-fiction novel, The War of the Worlds and the 1953 theatrical film of the same name (an acknowledged classic of the genre), audiences shouldn't be faulted in hesitating in seeing yet another big-budget blockbuster/science-fiction spectacle, heavy on special effects and short on human drama. Following the general rules laid down in 1970s disaster films, Emmerich kept his film focused on spectacular special effects sequences, and segued between macro- and micro-storytelling, between a carefully selected cross-section of ordinary survivors (i.e., multi-cultural and multi-ethnic) and decision makers at the highest levels of government. Of course, Independence Day's multiple storylines were resolved in a prolonged exercise in jingoistic flag-waving (and paean to the indomitable human spirit).
Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, from a screenplay by David Koepp and Josh Friedman, closely tracks Well's source novel and Wells' focus on a single protagonist attempting to survive, and make sense of, an alien invasion of the British Isles. Here, Spielberg and his screenwriters focus exclusively on the plight of Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), a divorced, working class, longshoremen with maturity and commitment issues (to his son and daughter, respectively) and follows his escape from the alien invasion, his reconciliation with his son and daughter, and his personal growth as a father and heroic figure dedicated to saving his family. As War of the Worlds opens, Spielberg and his screenwriters pull the audience into domestic drama territory. Ray's fractured relationship with his family is on display: his ex-wife, remarried and pregnant, is obviously happier in her new life, leaving Ray with an uncomfortable, dysfunctional relationship with his two children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), a teenager in mid-rebellion and Rachel (Dakota Fanning), his pre-teen daughter apparently haunted by fears and nightmares of another man-made terrorist attack. Outside of scattered news reports centered on mysterious lightning storms, and a helpful, exposition-spouting reporter at a disaster scene, War of the Worlds never cuts away from Ray's point-of-view to reveal events beyond his limited experience or understanding.
Like Independence Day, the aliens in War of the Worlds are presented as a force of nature (the aliens in Independence Day are memorably compared to “locusts,” moving from world to world, destroying rival civilizations, exploiting and exhausting natural resources, and then moving on to the next world). Here, the unseen aliens and their three-legged ships (a reasonable approximation of the “tripods” envisioned in H.G. Wells' novel) function similarly: disinterested in communication or negotiation with human beings, whom they perceive as a lower life form, they use their superior firepower to destroy and demolish anything and everything. Once the alien invasion begins, Spielberg is in his element, staging elaborately choreographed scenes of mass destruction and their aftermath. The tripods are accompanied by an eerie, deeply unsettling two-note blast (as well as John Williams richly resonant, dissonant score, a perfect complement to the visual mayhem on screen).
Spielberg's film, in fact, is the third version or iteration of H.G. Wells novel, beginning with Orson Welles radio adaptation that generated mass panic when it first aired in 1938 (the N.J. setting in Spielberg's film pays homage to Welles' adaptation). Welles' adaptation updated Wells' novel into a contemporary setting, and shifted the narrative from a third-person voice to a flurry of on-site reports, with actors expressing fear and panic as the Martian death machines advanced on their positions. Fast forward fifteen years, with the United States enmeshed in a Cold War with the former Soviet Union, and the first film adaptation of War of the Worlds directed by Byron Haskin and produced by George Pal (who almost single-handedly saved the science-fiction genre from the low-budget, mediocre adaptations then the norm). Given the time period and the socio-political milieu, consensus interpretations of the 1953 film center on the aliens and the alien invasion as representative of fears of communism and communist takeover.
Haskin's film, however, dug deeper, showing both the positives and negatives of humanity under extreme strain, and like Wells' original, employed a scientific deus ex machina, combined with maudlin religious sentiment, to defeat the aliens. Here, Spielberg extends the pessimism and doubt found in the 1953 film (if anything, Spielberg's film can and will be eventually viewed as counterpoint to the sunny optimism found in Close Encounters of the Third Kind), as flight from the alien invasion leads to the breakdown of the social order, with the highest value possible limited to personal survival and the survival of family or close friends.
Let’s discuss some of War of the Worlds’ shortcomings. First, Spielberg and his screenwriters could and should have done away with the opening/closing voice over narration (supplied by Morgan Freeman). The voice over narration was lifted, with minor modifications, from H.G. Wells’ novel. If the language had been modernized, it probably would have been less problematic. Given the various bits of homage to the '53 film (the farmhouse scene, the final bit with the dying alien's hand falling from an open portal of a fallen tripod, etc.), I wasn't surprised Spielberg decided to include the voice over narration. Thankfully, Spielberg avoided the heavy-handed religious language used in the '53 film (given his socialist leanings, Wells’ would have objected to the inclusion of God-talk in the voice over narration).
Second, given Spielberg’s well-known penchant for injecting saccharine sentimentality into his oeuvre, audiences should be prepared for the occasionally self-indulgent scene or shot that wallows in emotion. Some might find the end of Ray’s journey predictable, over optimistic, and, in one specific development, difficult if not impossible to believe. What’s more surprising is that Spielberg didn’t go further, holding the scene and emotion for an additional minute or two. Audiences might find themselves more disappointed with Spielberg’s decision to adopt the [I]deus ex machina[/I] used in Wells’ novel and in the 1953 film. Spielberg seemed aware of this problem, inserting a gratuitous scene that gives the battered, bloodied characters (and the audience) a moment of (hollow) triumph over the aliens. That [I]deus ex machina[/I] ending, however, has always had its problems, since it depends on the ignorance of a technologically advanced civilization (something far more believable and acceptable in 1898 than in 2005).
Third, once War of the Worlds devolves from an extended flight from the advancing alien machines to a three-character drama inside a farmhouse basement, additional problems arise, most notably in the drop-off or slowdown in the pacing. The third character, meant to represent an alternative to Ray’s decision to flee and protect his family adds an odd vibe to the scene: the character’s interest in Rachel hints at pedophilia. To be fair, the character has lost his family, making his unhinged behavior unsurprising. This new character also functions to sharpen Ray’s inner conflict between fleeing and fighting the aliens (a conflict first embodied in Ray’s relationship with his son). Koepp and Friedman also add a telling line of dialogue in their exchange: the other character mentions the failure rate of foreign occupations, and draws hope from the possibility of joining a resistance against the aliens.
Critics and commentators who rush to see War of the Worlds as indicative of the national mood and attitudes in post-9/11 America misunderstand H.G. Wells' novel written in 1898 and its contemporary significance. H.G. Wells wrote his novel as a pointed critique of the British Empire and the rough, often inhumane treatment of her subjects in her Asian and African colonies. Wells turned his considerable imagination loose on a “what-if” scenario: what if a numerically or technologically superior force invaded the British Isles? Wells, of course, posited almost complete and utter devastation of the British Isles, hoping, at minimum, to add humility and compassion to the British project of commercial and military expansion. Of course, Spielberg and his screenwriters couldn't help but inject several obvious references to 9-11, from Rachel's expressed fears (she presumes the alien invasion is another terrorist attack), to the handwritten notes on makeshift billboards pleading for information from missing loved ones, to Ray covered in white ash after his first encounter with the aliens, and finally, to a shot of floating clothes that mirrors the sea of paper that filled the air after the collapse of the World Trade Center. Thankfully, however, Spielberg, perhaps in an attempt to avoid comparisons to Emmerich's film, avoids showing the destruction of recognizable landmarks.
From a contemporary perspective, the proper analogy to draw from War of the Worlds to the real world isn't another terrorist incident guided and executed by Islamic jihadists, but instead, the (unimaginable, exception in a fantasy or science-fiction setting) invasion and occupation of the United States by a superior military force. In a deeper sense, the alien invasion here parallels our own invasion and occupation of Iraq, with average Iraqis, powerless to influence government decision making, forced to flee for their lives from a military juggernaut. Regardless of pro- or anti-war sympathies, the fact remains that Iraqi civilians were (and continue) to be caught in the crossfire between a foreign occupation force, armed with the latest military technology. Wells, and now Spielberg (intentionally or indirectly), asked his audience 107 years ago for empathy, empathy for the victims of military conquest and occupation. Spielberg's spectacular set pieces aside, Wells' underlying message continues to have contemporary appeal and relevance.
© Mel Valentin, 29th June, 2005
|
+ Return to top to view additional reviews
 Printable Version
|
Do you agree/disagree with this review of War of the Worlds (2005)? Let your opinions be heard in our forum.
|
Buy the Poster of War of the Worlds (2005) (Click Here)
|
|
|
|
