Spielberg And Society

[Rocka]

Here's a couple of things I've been thinking about Paramounts WOTW:
One of the most terrifying scene in the movie, for me, occurs just before Ray and family arrive at the ferry port. The scenes of their car coming under attack by a mob show just how quickly society has crumbled wen atacked from outside.
Now this got me thinking. About what points the director is trying to raise in making the movie his own and not simply filming the novel. As Spielberg and his crew have stated that it's partly a response to 911, what kind of message does it portray?
In World War II, the nations of the west fought together against a (seemingly) unstoppable common enemy. Though I wasn't around then (I'm 32), a lot of accounts from people who were will tell you that people pulled together. The "spirit of the blitz" and all that. There are tales of strangers huddled together in underground shelters, singing and comforting one another as the bombing went on above.
Now, Spielberg seems to be making a comment on this throughout his movie. Consider the theme of the family as a microcosm of society itself. The nuclear family unit is a reflection of socety as a whole, as society itself is made up of millions of these families, all intertwining and connecting in some way. Ergo, what happens to Ray's family in the movie could be seen to be happening to larger scale society.
As the invaders attack, laws and morals crumble. People turn against one another. Under threat, instead of pulling together, people become aware of their own individuality, resulting in a taking care of themselves mentality.
Even Ray's family tears itself apart. Instead of becoming closer and facing the threat together, Robbie sees an outside picture and desert his family in order to try and strike back. Again, as society crumbles, so does the smaller unit.
So, is Spielberg making an observation of America (and the world) post - 911? Certainly, the one time in the picture that srangers unite to fight the tripods (in the awful "basket" sequence) marks the turning point in the familys' (and humanities') fortunes. From here it's all downhill for the invaders.
Now I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. From the beginning, Ray's family is broken - he's an estranged father, and in many ways, an outsider. By the end of the movie he's still a outsider, but he's learned something avout himself (watch John Ford's "The Searchers"). We don't see him welcomed back into the family, despite being reunited at the end.
But we have seen the effects of the family helping one another, like Ray rescuing his daughter from the Tripod when all along he's been planning to leave her with her mother in Boston. And we've seen the fightback by society (the military response at the climax).
Phew! I hope you get the gist of what i'm yakking on about. Gotta dash now, but I'll post more thoughts about this soon.
Comments and thoughts, anyone?

[FALLINGSTAR]

The only message this film portrays is a nice little slice of pro-war on terror subtle brainwashing. Again - the aliens in their underground sleeper cells invade America and the American people [ well mainly I'm such a hero and so brave - Tom Cruise ] fight back. Not to make the propaganda too obvious - Spielberg shoves in Tim Robbins saying "occupations always fail" which is ambiguous and could still relate to the "terrorists won't win". At least Spielberg is being more or less upfront with the message of his next film - Munich and not using a great novel for his own [ and certain others ] political motives.

Any old clown could use something very loosely based on Wells novel as an allegory for terrorism. It's not original and very shallow just like the film.

Not forgetting Tom Cruises - how to be a good dad routine of course.

[EvilNerfherder]

I dunno. Ogilvy's 'occupations..' comment doesn't sound like a thinly veiled pro-war on terror allegory. Unless, of course, you consider that, in this case, he's referring to Saddam's 'occupation' of Iraq. Doesn't really make sense, though. And somehow, I can't imagine Robbins agreeing to do the movie .. and say that phrase.. if he knew that was what was in mind. He makes no secret of his ideas regarding the occupation of Iraq, after all.
You know, I'm not saying that Wells would agree with the way his story has been used by Spielberg as an allegory.. but I think he might (grudgingly?) understand it. After all, the book does contain very strong messages that he was trying to convey.
It's one of those stories that lends itself to such use because of it's very nature. The '53 movie had it's own messages too.
Good post and topic, Rocka!

[RustiSwordz]

i thought the message of the film was, 'part company with your hard earned cash as we flog to death a famous story that will never be filmed as it should'

[EvilNerfherder]

Yes, of course you did, Rusti.

[Rocka]

Don't forget, too, that the character that seems to most obviously represent the "war on terror" is Robbie. He's reactionary, wants to fight back immediatey against an enemy he know nothing about.
And look what happens to him. Spielberg seems to show him paying a heavy price for being part of that fightback. Although, at the end, we see he's survived, he's different. The reunion scene with Ray is understatement all the way. We see the characters' attitudes through their body language.
If you want to draw comparisons with Wells' novel, consider The Journalists' relationship with his wife. As his world comes under threat, he voluntarily packs her off to safety, then spends therest of the novel trying to find her. Although initially he's divesting himself of responsibility, when society begins to crumbleas the Martians advance, he tries to get her back. Maybe we had a stronger society back then, who knows...

[RustiSwordz]

nerfherder said:

Yes, of course you did, Rusti.

what u mean by that?

[EvilNerfherder]

Nothing Rusti.. apart from it's the kind of comment I've come to expect. I thought that Rocka's starting post was good and deserved a comment with bit more thought behind it is all. Yes, we know you despise the film.. most of us have issues with it.. but, come on.
You used to come out with some good comments of your own.. with real passion and sensible argument amidst the bile.. but, if you'll forgive me saying so, because I mean it with all due respect, you've gotten a bit lazy in your comments these days. It's a bit disappointing.
Just my opinion and, as always, nothing personal.

[RustiSwordz]

lets just say that with all the BS in the world i have a hard job looking past the cynical.

[FALLINGSTAR]

nerfherder said:

I dunno. Ogilvy's 'occupations..' comment doesn't sound like a thinly veiled pro-war on terror allegory. Unless, of course, you consider that, in this case, he's referring to Saddam's 'occupation' of Iraq. Doesn't really make sense, though. And somehow, I can't imagine Robbins agreeing to do the movie .. and say that phrase.. if he knew that was what was in mind. He makes no secret of his ideas regarding the occupation of Iraq, after all.
You know, I'm not saying that Wells would agree with the way his story has been used by Spielberg as an allegory.. but I think he might (grudgingly?) understand it. After all, the book does contain very strong messages that he was trying to convey.
It's one of those stories that lends itself to such use because of it's very nature. The '53 movie had it's own messages too.
Good post and topic, Rocka!

Well as I've said before Spielberg and Cruise have both said that they couldn't not support the war in Iraq [ even though they were supposed to have made a pathetic attempt to backtrack on it ] and I think Tim Robbins was used to make things seem a bit ambiguous so it would be harder for people to come outright and criticise this film as patriotic pro-war on terror.

Also Tim Robbins character is a bit of a nutter so it would be harder for the audience to take his ambiguous 'occupations' line seriously anyway.

The more I think about this film the more I'm convinced there's the predictable, underlying slightly gung ho, pro-war stance right through it - that I and others thought there would be - before we'd even seen the film.

I don't so much have a problem with Spielberg and Cruise making a patriotic pro-war on terror movie and being honest and upfront about their intentions if they want to [ they're entitled to their opinion of course ] but I do have a problem with them sneakingly using Wells classic as a basis for a subtle form of brainwashing. Not that I'm trying to suggest there's any depth to this film at all.

There again does anyone really expect anything else with a film that has all action hero T. Cruise in it. Shallow actor - shallow film and of course the overwhelming reason for this film is money with very little artistic merit.

[FALLINGSTAR]

rocka said:

Don't forget, too, that the character that seems to most obviously represent the "war on terror" is Robbie. He's reactionary, wants to fight back immediatey against an enemy he know nothing about.
And look what happens to him. Spielberg seems to show him paying a heavy price for being part of that fightback. Although, at the end, we see he's survived, he's different. The reunion scene with Ray is understatement all the way. We see the characters' attitudes through their body language.
If you want to draw comparisons with Wells' novel, consider The Journalists' relationship with his wife. As his world comes under threat, he voluntarily packs her off to safety, then spends therest of the novel trying to find her. Although initially he's divesting himself of responsibility, when society begins to crumbleas the Martians advance, he tries to get her back. Maybe we had a stronger society back then, who knows...

Yes but he still survives ok after he wanted to go off and fight those darn terrorists from another world.

[EvilNerfherder]

Well, at the end of the day, it wasn't the novel on celluloid.
I can really understand the frustration behind this... I'd really like to see that, too.
At the end of the day, 'adaptions' seem to win the day... and maybe this is the problem.
We'd all like to see a true-to the-novel movie. But moviemakers seem to be more inclined to worry about the central messages and adapting them to present day experience.
Oh... another problem.
What to do?

[timbohines]

fallingstar said:

The only message this film portrays is a nice little slice of pro-war on terror subtle brainwashing. Again - the aliens in their underground sleeper cells invade America and the American people [ well mainly I'm such a hero and so brave - Tom Cruise ] fight back. Not to make the propaganda too obvious - Spielberg shoves in Tim Robbins saying "occupations always fail" which is ambiguous and could still relate to the "terrorists won't win". At least Spielberg is being more or less upfront with the message of his next film - Munich and not using a great novel for his own [ and certain others ] political motives.

Any old clown could use something very loosely based on Wells novel as an allegory for terrorism. It's not original and very shallow just like the film.

Not forgetting Tom Cruises - how to be a good dad routine of course.

American people fight back? Have you even seen the film?
Did you see the people fighting, and killing, each other just to escape them?
The only one with any ideas about fighting back was Ogilvy. Just like the Artilleryman in the original book.

[FALLINGSTAR]

timbohines said:

fallingstar said:

The only message this film portrays is a nice little slice of pro-war on terror subtle brainwashing. Again - the aliens in their underground sleeper cells invade America and the American people [ well mainly I'm such a hero and so brave - Tom Cruise ] fight back. Not to make the propaganda too obvious - Spielberg shoves in Tim Robbins saying "occupations always fail" which is ambiguous and could still relate to the "terrorists won't win". At least Spielberg is being more or less upfront with the message of his next film - Munich and not using a great novel for his own [ and certain others ] political motives.

Any old clown could use something very loosely based on Wells novel as an allegory for terrorism. It's not original and very shallow just like the film.

Not forgetting Tom Cruises - how to be a good dad routine of course.

American people fight back? Have you even seen the film?
Did you see the people fighting, and killing, each other just to escape them?
The only one with any ideas about fighting back was Ogilvy. Just like the Artilleryman in the original book.

It's amazing how faithful to the book this film is. Ogilvy who's not an astronomer like in the book is now taking on the role of the artilleryman.

Seeing as the film is only shown from the perspective of America then yes it is showing how the American people try and fight back. People might be fighting each other but there's still things like Robbie wanting to go off and fight the sleeper cell alien invaders or Ray bloody Ferrier and his grenade routine. There's still the moral of the story which is those terrorist invader types won't win no matter how hard the struggle.

A reviewer over at dtheatre sums it up -

"Why so picky, it's just a movie. Yes but it's a big ol' bucket of anti-terrorist, pro American family/right wing values so thinly veiled beneath the guise of a science fiction movie that I couldn't just sit back and enjoy the fun of watching aliens trash cities".

Again I'm not saying that Spielberg and Cruise shouldn't have their point of view but I really don't like the way Spielbergs used something allegedly based on Wells book to put their propaganda and values across in a sneaky underhand way.

[Rocka]

Now I thought the moral of Speilberg's film was absolutely ANTI war on terror. Lets face it, there is no war. As one of the characters says, its an exermination. And it's not humanity that wins the fight, it's bacteria. Bacteria that we've learned to live with.
If anything, it's quite a hippy message, that sharing the planet with other lifeforms strengthens and protects us.
Do us a favour, though.I know loads of people hate this film with a passion - I was SSOO disappointed it wasn't like Wells novel. But if you just wanna sag it off, use another thread, eh?

[Rocka]

Or slag it off. Yes that's it. Slag it off. On another thread, though.
Slag it off on another thread!

[FALLINGSTAR]

rocka said:

Now I thought the moral of Speilberg's film was absolutely ANTI war on terror. Lets face it, there is no war. As one of the characters says, its an exermination. And it's not humanity that wins the fight, it's bacteria. Bacteria that we've learned to live with.
If anything, it's quite a hippy message, that sharing the planet with other lifeforms strengthens and protects us.
Do us a favour, though.I know loads of people hate this film with a passion - I was SSOO disappointed it wasn't like Wells novel. But if you just wanna sag it off, use another thread, eh?

How can you say that this film is ANTI - war on terror? If it's anti war on terror then why did Spielberg have the aliens lying in wait to strike on America just like terrorist sleeper cells. Look just below the surface of this film and you'll see the agenda with it. I'm not saying Spielberg is pro-war in general and likes to see people being blown up or hurt - far from it but this film definitely has a w.o.t agenda to it and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some form of Bush government influence behind it somewhere. Plus the lack of battle sequences which would no doubt be too sensitive.

Bacteria might win the fight but that's only because Spielberg shoved in 1 or 2 book references in a pathetic effort to try and make it seem more like the book.

And you did ask for peoples comments on the film rocka so if you can't handle people making criticisms then don't start a thread.

[RustiSwordz]

Oooh can i join in! slag , whinge, whimper, mutter, (sticks needles into Spielberg and cruise effegies) groan, BLASPHEME, fume, barf, whimper, wail.

and the film is a bucket of arse too.

LOL

[Rocka]

Bloody Hell! I wasn't expecting that!
Over the past fifteen years of my life, at separate times, I've been bombed, stabbed, and walloped in the head with a brick (hurts like mad).
Think I can take listening to somebody's viewpoint on a Steven Spielberg film.
Just thought there might be some intelligence around here, that's all.

[FALLINGSTAR]

rocka said:

Bloody Hell! I wasn't expecting that!
Over the past fifteen years of my life, at separate times, I've been bombed, stabbed, and walloped in the head with a brick (hurts like mad).
Think I can take listening to somebody's viewpoint on a Steven Spielberg film.
Just thought there might be some intelligence around here, that's all.

Cripes rocka - what you been up to there? You been takin holidays in Baghdad or something?

Anyway, the points you made at the start were very good points but I think they've a lot more depth to them than the actual film itself - which as you'll realise - I thought was basically a shallow Hollywood popcorn flick.