The only message this film portrays is a nice little slice of pro-war on terror subtle brainwashing
How is it pro war on terror?
The fact that it's Earth's natural bacteria which gets the job done, and not us that steers it away from that conclusion.
Since i doubt they'll snuff out terrorists with the common cold. Unless they use biological weapons but that's prohibited and difficult to contain
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".
Well there are clearly or what seems to be metaphors for today's climate. However it's always been like that. Whether it's giant insects or aliens standing in for terrorists or the Soviet Union.
In terms of propaganda, i don't see it. It's not pro US Military since they smashed, and the Tripods are felled by bacteria. All he's done is tried to adapt a story to today's world, in a way that's a little more contemporary and relevant.
As for the
occupations always fail rant by Ogilvy, it's just a madman rambling on. As Lensman pointed out there's a fallacy in that line. The Allied occupations of Germany & Japan have been successful. Iraq's hasn't succeeded so far, because the Military were ill-equipped and ill-prepared for an occupation.
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.
I don't think that Spielberg has political ambitions or motivations. He likes to tell a story where the audience can make their own minds up, without spoon feeding them his own ideology.
Problem is Spielberg made WOTW about a family caught up in an invasion. So we don't see the actual invasion which should be central to the story. Rather we see a dysfunctional family finding itself again.
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.
Well it doesn't appeal to you, but it may appeal to other people. Don't think it qualifies as a 'shallow film'.
Not forgetting Tom Cruises - how to be a good dad routine of course.
Well it's a different role than usual for him. Less of the family drama, and more of the invasion would've been preferable.
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.
I don't think they got Tim Robbins in for his political views, shouldn't have anything to do with it. After all he is an actor and they felt he suited the role.
If people had seen signs (no pun intended) in the film that alluded it to the war on terror. Then they would come out and say so, regardless of whom has a particular political outlook.
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.
Well he rambles on about things, so he's just a delusional madman. Whether some of the things he says is a plot device for the film is possible.
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.
Well there's nothing gung ho in this film, we don't even get to know anyone from the Military. Armed Service personnel in nature need to have a certain 'attitude' if you're asked to kill. Although as i said, we don't see Soldiers 'whooping' or anything when they down a Tripod.
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.
Maybe they have been upfront and had no intentions of making a political film. Whatever message it gives transcends from the book. How even the mightiest of enemies can fall with something so small and simple.
Even though we didn't have the necessary intelligence nor preparation to defeat them, since we could've with our weaponry.
Where's the brainwashing? I hardly believe that Spielberg would use subliminal messaging or biased messages to try and brainwash people. He's just telling a story, and people will get different things from it.
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.
You're telling me that other films haven't got 'artistic merit' (virtually non-existent in films)? Seems having scenes of people shagging qualifies as art nowadays lol. Films are business also, and it costs to produce them. Although i wouldn't say money is the sole motivator for Spielberg to make films, since he usually does very good ones.
I don't think the film set out to be a thought provoking melodrama. Although it's more serious than films such as
ID'. It still is a summer popcorn 'flick', that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
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
Well with any story where people are invaded, they will always try and fight back. If it had bounced from many countries then there may not have been enough time to develope the characters. I didn't see anything wrong in setting the film in America.
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.
Well Robbie's young and naive. The first thing a kid would want to do is "go blow them up". Ray's grenade scene was a little silly, that took away some of the believability of the film.
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".
Well that is after all an opinion, nothing set in stone. People often look for things when they're not there. Or "as the good reverend(i.e Lensman
) would say.." (which film
?) . It is a human trait to ignore certain things, while concentrating on other things.
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.
Again i don't think they've attempted to put across any propaganda or political message. They're just telling a story that's been shaped differently, to suit the contemporary and relevant needs of today's storytelling.
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.
How can you say it's PRO war? lol
What little battles we see, the US ground forces are defeated. Bar a small skirmish at the end, which is insignificant since the battle is already won.
Although i disagree with Rocka. Mankind did win, because over a toll of a billion deaths we gained an immunity and EARNED our place on Earth.
I think some of the thought behind the Tripods perhaps came from terrorism, although that doesn't make it a 'pro war on terror' film. Also i'd imagine they wanted to think of new ways aliens could invade. Without rehashing what we 've seen from films like
ID4 or
Signs.
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.
Well i blame the lack of battle sequences on a rushed production agenda..not a political one
. The film was hurried and because of the tone of the film, where the family was central. It left little room for the battles.
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.
Well he obviously wanted to reference at least one thing from the book. Although i'd argue that this film was more closer to the book, than the 50's Pal version. Which people seem to revere.
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.
I think he was hoping the thread that HE started, would not to become a tirade on Spielberg, Cruise and their non-existent right wing political agenda.
This movie is ambiguous in parts and I've already explained what I think about the Tim Robbins statement about occupations but most of the movie comes across as - those darn terrorists attacking America from their underground sleeper cells.
Well i think it's more based on how easily our society comes apart at the seams. Our reliability on electronics, man's inhumanity to man in times of need, courage, sacrifice, hope, despair and that sometimes it's the little unseen things that make a difference.
If Spielberg had wanted to make an anti-terrorist movie then he should have been upfront about it
Maybe that wasn't his intention, just people can skew it that way.
and not used the title of a classic book - which his film has very little to do with anyway.
Just like Pal's?
Besides Spielberg has done
Munich. Which directly looks at terrorism. Although the impression i get is it's not meant in a preaching way. More towards how we can turn into the very things we oppose. How people change through extreme times and we look at ourselves and judge whether what we're doing is the right thing.
Btw you do realise David Koepp wrote the script for WOTW, not Spielberg or Cruise. So perhaps you should take it up with him.
I'll end by saying i'm not claiming to speak the truth. Although i would urge you to consider what you've said, it's easy to have something cloud our opinon when we're dead set against it.