War of the Worlds - Spielberg Debate

Forums: Movies, War Of The Worlds
Email this Topic • Print this Page

War of the Worlds (H.G.Wells 1898) was written in response to several historical events. The most important was the unification and militarization of Germany, which led to a series of novels predicting war in Europe, beginning with George Chesney's The Battle of Dorking (1871). Most of these were written in a semi-documentary fashion; and Wells borrowed their technique to tie his interplanetary war tale to specific places in England familiar to his readers. This attempt at hyper-realism helped to inspire Orson Welles when the latter created his famed 1938 radio broadcast based on the novel.

www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/warofworlds.html

Orson Welles Radio Broadcast of H.G.Well's Novel caused panic across America.
Listen to the original "The War of the Worlds" broadcast in RealAudio
www.rense.com/general4/hg.htm

The 1952 film adaption is awful. A continuously shrieking woman whose ear-splitting screams drive you insane after about 30 minutes. Plus a stiff, robotic lead man who appears to be reading his lines off a board while not moving his lips. Pap directing. Some scenes at the beginning are worth seeing (the bit where the vicar gets zapped is rather Pythonesque).

Spielberg's 2005 War of the Worlds (Set in the USA) is causing - if not quite the panic of 1938, then certainly quite a bit of radio debate here in Britain. So, have you seen it?
I saw it just three days ago and I'm going back again tomorrow because I want to be absolutely sure before I make too much comment....

Intentionally subliminal?
A summery of how it feels to be invaded by a force much stronger than you?
A taste of how it feels to be a refugee?
These are suggested appraisals put forward by the critics - interesting.
I do remember being impressed by Spielberg's input of anti-corporate message in the film Jaws - the biggest seller of it's year.

Going back to Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, I have to say that the scene where the little girl is standing by the river and sees human bodies floating past, is very thought-provoking.

Just personal observations.

Peace,
E

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,056 • Replies: 50

No top replies

I have to disagree with your assessment of the 1953 film--it's one of the great classics of sci-fi; and the shrieking of Ann Robinson was no where near as annoying as that of Dakota Fanning (the timing of which sometimes seemed bewildering). (BTW: Ann Robinson and Gene Barry, the leads in the 1953 version, make brief appearances as the grandparents in Spielberg's version).

However, I agree that Spielberg's version is superior; though I'm not sure that what you refer to as subliminal is really subliminal--being invaded by an overwhelmingly powerful force was a major part of the novel and the 1953 film (that crushing sense of impotence as the military might of the most powerful nation on Earth--the U.K. in Wells', the U.S. in the two film versions--is laid waste to). The sense of being a refugee is more powerful in Spielberg's version, but the dangerous reaction of the masses is similar to the other versions.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Spielberg's WOTW will be as big a blockbuster as it deserves to be. It seems too geared to the more devoted fans of sci-fi and, I fear, leaves too many blanks for the average auditor's suspension of disbelief to handle (I saw it with friends who aren't generally into sci-fi and was inundated with questions about the plot when we left the theater).

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

(BTW: Ann Robinson and Gene Barry, the leads in the 1953 version, make brief appearances as the grandparents in Spielberg's version).

Wow - I didn't know that.
Still think the book is a classic and the radio play is a classic - but the 1953 film is weak. I like the aliens, but the acting (and directing of actors) is wooden.

Mills75 wrote:

I'm not sure that what you refer to as subliminal is really subliminal--.
Quote:

Just want to add that I didn't say that - heard it from critics on Radio 4.
(They were talking about the scene when Cruise is staring into the mirror and he is covered in human dust) - they mentioned 9/11.

I don't know if the critics have it right - (according to them, this film is anti-war).
But after watching Spielbergs 'Terminal' and hearing that his next film is going to be about the Israeli revenge killings following the Munich games - and how revenge is wrong....I can't help wondering if, (like the book written by H.G.Wells) Spielbergs War Of The Worlds is a warning.

Peace,
E

0 Replies

That scene where he sees himself covered in human ash was powerful; it's entirely possible that Spielberg was looking to connect the sense of powerlessness and shock Cruise's character felt at that moment with the sense of powerlessness and shock experienced on 9/11. This makes a lot of sense.

Spielberg's version may be a warning (I'll need to explore that avenue further), but I think, as you've already touched on, it's more of sensitizing film--provides an accessible portal through which Americans and the citizens of other major world powers can understand what it's like to be on the other side of war (the side beaten by overwhelming force, that is).

0 Replies

you should go and rent the recent knock-off that was released on DVD in time with the movie

0 Replies

How bad is it?

0 Replies

How bad is it?

0 Replies

Havnt seen the film yet, may see it tonight.
I have to say Im a huge fan of Jeff Waynes musical version of WOTW.Its some of the best music I have ever heard, energetic, futuristic, passionate, narrated by Richard Burton,its a classic in itself.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

Havnt seen the film yet, may see it tonight.
I have to say Im a huge fan of Jeff Waynes musical version of WOTW.Its some of the best music I have ever heard, energetic, futuristic, passionate, narrated by Richard Burton,its a classic in itself.

Agreed.

0 Replies

THERE'S A MUSICAL VERSION?! When did this happen?

0 Replies

this is the quickie release at blockbuster

WOTW Release
War of the Worlds (2005)

Quote:

Full Synopsis

In this modern retelling of H.G., Wells' classic sci-fi horror, civilization is laid to ruin when a super-race of aliens invades Earth. In a blink of an eye, massive "walkers" cover the planet, annihilating all in their path. As cities crumble and human flesh is ripped from the bone, one man (C. Thomas Howell) struggles to find the weapon that will turn the tide for mankind.

0 Replies

Mills, I think you're right about the ash/9/11 connection. I saw the film today; it was very scary, especially the beginning, the lightening storms.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Mills, I think you're right about the ash/9/11 connection. I saw the film today; it was very scary, especially the beginning, the lightening storms.

ENDYMION gets the credit for bringing in the 9/11 connection; it's easy to put yourself in that position--I try to imagine running away from an alien killing machine as people around me are getting vaporized...come to think of it, all those people running, the clothing and ash/dust falling, was an image reminiscent of 9/11. It's also, however, what many people around the world experience in war (running for enemy bombers or gunships as they rain random death upon the populace).

0 Replies

quote="Mills75"] (BTW: Ann Robinson and Gene Barry, the leads in the 1953 version, make brief appearances as the grandparents in Spielberg's version).
.[/quote]

Mills, I'm going to watch it again tonight - this time on my own.
I'll be looking out for them.

Someone said they thought they saw Jack Black in the film, standing in amongst one of the crowds.
LOL !

I'll be looking for him too...because I'd love it to be true.
Tenacious symbolism!

Peace,
E

0 Replies

I thought I saw Jack Black or a lookalike in there--let us know.

0 Replies

My only problem with the film was Tom Cruise. While not a bad actor, he's far too old to be a mouth breather. It's not as if his nose were too small for the task. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Or too high up in the atmosphere.

I am going to see it at a THX theater in the next week. I have gotten word-of-mouth reviews both lukewarm and very good from friends and relatives.

The 1952 George Pal version was a tour-de-force of special effects and was state-of-the-art for its time, garnering the Oscar for the technical excellence. I briefly visited the set where the miniatures were shot and it was an impressive display of painstaking miniatures. It's still a classic just as "King Kong" is a classic and it looks to me like in the hands of Peter Jackson that film we successfully recreate the atmosphere of the original only with today's CGI.

The quesiton is, how faithful Spielberg is the novel -- the 1952 version was, of course, not.

0 Replies

I heared about this film ! it's realy great film !
wow ! Tom cruse is acting in this film !! it will be wonderfull !!

0 Replies

I thought Tom Cruise was unconvincing as a 'blue collar joe'. And let's not lower ourselves to the level of making fun of his nose...or I'll peck you to death with my beak! :wink:

0 Replies

Mills, sorry; I didn't know. Poor thing! Sad

0 Replies

War of the Worlds - Spielberg Debate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know