The War of the Worlds

Director: Steven Spielberg.
Stars: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins.

I will admit that when I went to see this remake of HG Wells "War of the Worlds" I went with rich range of mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand I was practically weaned on the book and can still remember with utter clarity and lying on the roof of my mothers house reading the scene where a tripod sinks the ferry and seeing it all happen with shocking vividness in my head. I can remember afterwards being sort of scared by how clear, and how strong my imagination was, so I guess I must have been pretty young. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of really crappy big budget American films in my life, and have developed a healthy aversion to seeing the classics pissed on by retards with deep pockets and no taste. Lastly, I have never liked watching Tom Cruise very much at all, and have found the films of Steven Spielberg to range from very good indeed to real shit.(1) So I guess you could say that when I walked in to that theatre to see "War of the Worlds" I was taking just a bit of a risk.

"War of the Worlds" starts well, with a decent reading of the now classic opening of the book and quickly and seamlessly moves into Tom Cruise's living arrangements with his two children, the young Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin. Right from the start, I was strangely shocked. Firstly, I was (and still am) utterly gobsmacked by the magnificence of the photography, perhaps even more than that, I was shocked by the fact that I liked the character that Tom Cruise was playing, and more disturbing than that, was detecting evidence that Tom Cruise was well, actually acting. If I may pursue this train of thought for a few more sentences, in my opinion, as far as Tom Cruise is concerned "War of the Worlds" is a watershed. I found that in it Mr Cruise acted consistently and well, was both likeable and believable and, moreover, at several points actually moved my cold and stony heart to feel real vicarious emotions. In essence, in this film Tom Cruise finally proved that he is an actor. I was impressed, and cheered by this discovery and wish to say that I quite forgive him for all the films of his that I have seen to this point.

If all this wasn't weird enough, "War of the Worlds" kept getting better. When the special effects cut in I was duly impressed, and when they cranked up, I was more so. When all hell was breaking loose and young Dakota Fanning screamed "What's happening? Is it the terrorists?" I laughed out loud, merrily, for awhile. The plot made sense, the acting was acting, and as the film went on, I became more and more aware that, god help me, the script was actually well-written and at points quite classy, more important than that, the film was exciting, thought provoking and never anything less than visually gob smacking. I found myself thinking on more than one occasion, "this is good stuff. Why can't more films be like this?" In this case, I would probably lay credit at the door of writer David Koepp and just repeat, over and over again, like a mantra "script, script, script" while sharpening a wooden stake.

The short review? This is a bloody fine film. If you don't like it there is probably something wrong with you.

Commentary and Some Notes:
Warning Spoilers Follow This Point.

In "War of the Worlds" Steven Spielberg plays some interesting games with images and ideas. I will make some mention of some of them here.

While the film is based on a book written by an Englishman in 1898 under the control of Steven Spielberg the image structures have a strong tendency to directly address and comment on the holocaust of 1937-1945 and the attacks on the USA of September 11, 2001. This idea stated as baldly as that has a tendency to be unpalatable but it is a testament to Mr Spielberg's strength as a director that under his hands they enhance the plot and become comment on the human condition rather than being used as simple emotion triggers. Special mention here goes to the flaming train which passes the family on their journey and to the "river full of corpses" scene, both of which I found to be moments of true visual power and impact on a par with anything I have ever seen from any director, ever. This film does what its 1955 precursor failed miserably at and which very few films even hint at, simply, "War of the Worlds" becomes an opera of emotions while illustrating the idea that the only thing which separates civilisation from anarchy is the tiniest, most insignificant line known as "luck." This film shows with utter clarity in this film how narrow the line between normality and being a refugee actually is. It is a lesson that, I fear, is always and will always be lost on far, far too many of us if history is any example. And, of course, if history is any example it won't make two figs of difference on most of us if the lesson is ever learnt, or not, since history has a tendency to ride roughshod over the educated and the stupid alike.

9/11 imagery. It is hard to see the scenes of the destruction of New Jersey and then later the destruction of the greater US as anything other than a comment on the "attacks on America" after all, Tom Cruise sees the destruction of his hometown and escapes covered in much the same clinging grey dust as witnesses of 9/11. After all, Dakota Fanning makes the connection herself when she asks if the attack is "the terrorists" even while the audience is marvelling at how cataclysmically worse this fictional attack is than anything "the terrorists" could ever muster. This attack, by comparison, is nuclear in it effects and is the sort of thing continually contemplated by the US against its "enemies" and by "its enemies" against the US. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is not "the terrorists" this is the chickens, coming home to roost.

What do I mean by this? In this film the Martians are vastly technologically superior to humans, but their machines are machines, not magic. In fact, the walkers seem to be made of stainless steel, and emit steam and water as by-products of their operation. Parts of them look exactly like the afterburner rears of fighter jets. This war, or massacre is simply one culture, with superior technology, invading another and using the survivors as raw materials. This is what war is. In the time of the ancients the vanquished became slaves. The "discovery" of America was a holocaust. The "discovery" of Australia was genocide. In the time of the Nazis the vanquished became slaves, or soap. In modern times, the vanquished have democracy and make product for some multinational company while living in something like a cage in a compound, far away from the news media. Sure its democracy, even if the government never changes, and they aren't slaves, even if they don't get paid "very much." What is the difference between what I have described here, and humans being used as fertiliser by the Martians? If you think you can, you are splitting hairs.

So what then, do I see as the underlying message of "War of the Worlds?" It is simply this: The destruction of cultures, simply because you have superior technology to them is repulsive. When people see it being done to their own culture perhaps people will then FINALLY see it for what it is, murder, pure and simple, and if there is a God... .

(C)opyright Alex Rieneck, 2005.