Post by ryan on Jun 30, 2005 1:16:38 GMT -5
I saw War of the Worlds tonight. I'd been looking forward to it because I always enjoy Spielberg's sci-fi outings, even when they're flawed (as was the case with A.I. and the somewhat better Minority Report). I made a point of seeing it on opening night, because I wanted to form my own opinion of the movie before the reviews had a chance to spoil it for me.
I have to admit, I really enjoyed it. The movie functions quite well as a crowd-pleasing "summer blockbuster." It contains all the requisite heroics and explosions and "eye-popping special effects." But it also functions well as an allegory, and as a study of how we react when we suddenly realize we're under attack.
Some will probably fault the movie for being too gruesome, and for treading into some pretty dark territory, but I for one appreciated the fact that Spielberg followed this violent vision to its logical and poetic extremes. For instance
I have to admit, I really enjoyed it. The movie functions quite well as a crowd-pleasing "summer blockbuster." It contains all the requisite heroics and explosions and "eye-popping special effects." But it also functions well as an allegory, and as a study of how we react when we suddenly realize we're under attack.
Some will probably fault the movie for being too gruesome, and for treading into some pretty dark territory, but I for one appreciated the fact that Spielberg followed this violent vision to its logical and poetic extremes. For instance
, there's a development about two-thirds of the way through the film, in which we realize that the aliens are literally spray-painting the countryside with the blood of captured humans. Why this happens is never fully explained, and I realize this lack of explanation will probably infuriate many a moviegoer. I, however, felt that this stomach-turning development served an important poetic role, as a graphic illustration of human suffering on a massive scale.
It's easy to understand why Spielberg chose this project. Throughout his career, he has dealt with themes of injustice and human suffering. He can be a showman, yes, but underneath the Hollywood glitz, one can always sense a concern in his work for the underdog.
More specifically, themes related to World War II and the Jewish Holocaust can be found throughout his body of work. War of the Worlds is no exception. I sensed numerous allegorical parallels between the events unfolding in the film (aliens exterminate humans) and the Jewish Holocaust (Nazis exterminate Jews). There's one scene in particular, in which handfuls of humans are scooped-up by alien tenticles and crammed into boxcar-sized holding cells to await violent death. I found myself moved by way this scene dwelled not on the spectacle of its events, but on the faces of those affected. As allegory, I realize this is pretty heavy-handed stuff, but in a summer blockbuster special-effects-laden action flick, you don't really expect much subtlety, nor do you usually expect allegory in any fashion.
What about the ending? I'm not giving away any spoilers here, because anyone familiar with the story, in any of its previous tellings, will know what eventually defeats the aliens. Spielberg and his screenwriter, David Koepp, have not changed this detail.
But what's interesting to me is that, as I was leaving the theatre, I overheard a man telling his friend, "That ending was kinda corny. I would've thought a 'superior race' would be aware of things like bacteria."
The guy had a very logical point, but I don't think that the ending of War of the Worlds was ever designed to be logical. I think it serves a poetic purpose instead. It's meant to remind us that all of our human intelligence, all of our ingenuity and technology, cannot change the basic fact of our mortality. Mankind's conceit of being Earth's 'superior species' is a rather hollow one. In the end, each one of us makes a delicious worm-buffet.
As an interesting side-note, compare this version of War of the Worlds with M. Night Shyamalan's Signs. Both films tell the story of an alien invasion of Earth, as witnessed through the eyes of a single family. Both films succeed in drawing us into their characters, and in allowing us to share the terror they feel about events that are slightly beyond their comprehension. However, I think the ending of Signs failed to win me over, because there's just nothing poetic or logical about the aliens being defeated by water. It's obvious that Shyamalan's ending was meant as an homage to War of the Worlds. It's just a shame that the poetic note of Wells' ending eluded him.
It's easy to understand why Spielberg chose this project. Throughout his career, he has dealt with themes of injustice and human suffering. He can be a showman, yes, but underneath the Hollywood glitz, one can always sense a concern in his work for the underdog.
More specifically, themes related to World War II and the Jewish Holocaust can be found throughout his body of work. War of the Worlds is no exception. I sensed numerous allegorical parallels between the events unfolding in the film (aliens exterminate humans) and the Jewish Holocaust (Nazis exterminate Jews). There's one scene in particular, in which handfuls of humans are scooped-up by alien tenticles and crammed into boxcar-sized holding cells to await violent death. I found myself moved by way this scene dwelled not on the spectacle of its events, but on the faces of those affected. As allegory, I realize this is pretty heavy-handed stuff, but in a summer blockbuster special-effects-laden action flick, you don't really expect much subtlety, nor do you usually expect allegory in any fashion.
What about the ending? I'm not giving away any spoilers here, because anyone familiar with the story, in any of its previous tellings, will know what eventually defeats the aliens. Spielberg and his screenwriter, David Koepp, have not changed this detail.
But what's interesting to me is that, as I was leaving the theatre, I overheard a man telling his friend, "That ending was kinda corny. I would've thought a 'superior race' would be aware of things like bacteria."
The guy had a very logical point, but I don't think that the ending of War of the Worlds was ever designed to be logical. I think it serves a poetic purpose instead. It's meant to remind us that all of our human intelligence, all of our ingenuity and technology, cannot change the basic fact of our mortality. Mankind's conceit of being Earth's 'superior species' is a rather hollow one. In the end, each one of us makes a delicious worm-buffet.
As an interesting side-note, compare this version of War of the Worlds with M. Night Shyamalan's Signs. Both films tell the story of an alien invasion of Earth, as witnessed through the eyes of a single family. Both films succeed in drawing us into their characters, and in allowing us to share the terror they feel about events that are slightly beyond their comprehension. However, I think the ending of Signs failed to win me over, because there's just nothing poetic or logical about the aliens being defeated by water. It's obvious that Shyamalan's ending was meant as an homage to War of the Worlds. It's just a shame that the poetic note of Wells' ending eluded him.