June 29, 2005
By Matt Savelloni
“ADAPT OR PERISH, NOW AS EVER, IS NATURE'S INEXORABLE IMPERATIVE.” – H.G. Wells
The poor son of a working class family, H.G. Wells in many ways represents the dark side of J.R.R. Tolkien. His was not exactly a happy upbringing and he never disguised his baseline contempt for mankind’s hubris. While Tolkien focused on heroism and the simplicity of nature, Wells often wrote about civilization’s utter corruption of the world in a quest for power and glory. And yet, Wells wasn’t a complete misanthrope as judged by the optimistic climax of WAR OF THE WORLDS.
By now, WAR OF THE WORLDS and its not-as-shocking-as-it-is-abrupt ending are well known even amongst non-bibliophiles. I’m assuming many have come to know this story as I did: by viewing the 1953 tour de force movie starring Gene Barry and Ann Robinson. There exists a notion that the film relies more on the infamous Orson Welles’ radio version than the book, but this seems like Hollywood myth because the film precisely mirrors Wells’ presentation; that is, it recreates the average-joe perspective that made the novel so gripping.
“HISTORY IS A RACE BETWEEN EDUCATION AND CATASTROPHE.” – H.G. Wells
 |
It would be impossible to list Wells’ impact but one surprising aspect of WAR OF THE WORLDS was its unwillingness to submit to the conceit of spectacle that plagues so many of its offspring. Wells constrains the recount of the invasion and the widespread massacres solely within the perspective of the unnamed narrator. His horror becomes our horror as he turns from bemused eyewitness of the first alien arrival to grim nomad wandering a scorched wasteland to grateful survivor. At no point does our narrator play the traditional “hero,” nor does he encounter any such iconic protagonist. There is a mention of the invasion occurring elsewhere in the world but the tale remains rooted in our nameless guide’s plight. He is Wells’ powerless Homer, an oracle to the last days of humankind, conjuring up such a desolate doomsday scenario that the resolution is not a cheat or deus ex machine, but the only conceivable way out.
There is much subtext to WAR OF THE WORLDS. Many of the towns blazed into non-existence came from Wells’ unhappy days as a child. Wells was also fiercely anti-colonial and felt that the superiority of his native England could use a serious comeuppance, even if only in fictional form. But the predominant underlying theme—one repeated in his other milestones, THE TIME MACHINE, THE INVISIBLE MAN and THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU—is the Shelley-ian parable of man appropriating God, betraying the trust of nature and then suddenly finding himself at mercy of the unspeakable results. In WAR OF THE WORLDS, the threat is extra-terrestrial but if one expands the concept of nature to include the universal, the fact that humanity is so surprised and ill prepared to deal with an invasion emasculates our assumption that the world rightly subjugates itself for our benefit. By novel’s end, when salvation arrives in the form of seemingly inconsequential bacteria, Wells reminds us that we were not intended to be supreme. We are simply another part of nature, sometimes the beneficiary of her awesome power, sometimes the victim.
“IF WE DON'T END WAR, WAR WILL END US.” – H.G. Wells
I’ve been waiting for a badass alien flick from Steven Spielberg forever. I don’t think I’m alone in this regard. Sir Steven made two masterworks with aliens as benevolent friends of man in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and E.T. As a filmmaker obviously in worship of classically styled sci-fi adventure, Spielberg is the perfect choice to direct the landmark novel that kicked off the entire invasion genre.
So why am I so scared?
Why do I envision legions of Al Franken wannabes using WAR OF THE WORLDS as some kind of metaphor for present real-world conflicts? Why do I fear that such allegorical sensibility may have crept its way into the writing and production of a summer blockbuster? Why is my stomach already churning at the plethora of politically charged “interpretations” setting up the aliens as the big-bad United States and the blue-collar survivors as victims of globalization? In other words, why can’t I just go to the movies to escape for a couple hours without somebody getting their liberal or conservative on?
Look, people who read From Print to Screen are probably unsure of my political stance. You know why? Because I do everything in my power to keep it out of here. It’s not my job and frankly, I don’t consider it my place. My column is a haven; at least, I want it to be. You can’t turn on the TV anymore without being hit by a geopolitical harangue. You can’t buy a pack of chewing gum without somebody reading a sociological bent into your choice of Bubbalicious. There are dire life-and-death issues in our world. Guess what? There always will be. Art can either reflect it (ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, THE CHINA SYNDROME, MISSING, Z, BILLY JACK, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON) or provide a distracting release from it. Personally, I think film takes on more verisimilitude when it’s not trying so hard. For me, the second I smell a political slant in a film is precisely the moment it loses me, whether or not it corresponds to my views. It takes me out of the moment and my suspension of disbelief is immediately crushed. For example, DAVE is a funny, touching and principled film without being preachy. THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, on the other hand, should have just been titled RE-ELECT BILL CLINTON. It suffers as a film from its obvious attempt to placate and advertise. I would hate to see any such tendencies in WAR OF THE WORLDS, but I think Spielberg is too smart for that.
Even at his most fantastic, the Greatest Director Who Ever Lived centers all of his tales on believable archetypes with which we can intensely identify, fear or loathe. The shark provides more than just visceral terror in JAWS because of the threat it poses to those we have come to know and understand: Sheriff Brody’s family man, Hooper’s endearing brain and Quint’s maniacal sea-adventurer. In SCHINDLER’S LIST, what could have been just another ensemble slaughter recreating the horror of the holocaust is personalized through the torn-open eyes of an unexpected sympathized and profiteer. If there is one aspect to Spielberg’s artistry that gets short shrift, it is his economical yet enervating presentation of character. Yes, he’s a populist but one that understands arcs better than anyone who has ever directed genre material. In fact, like Wells, he delivers compelling truths in an entertaining capacity. A few of his more recent movies have dragged on a bit but again, that indulgence stems from unwavering dedication to character.
I have no doubt we will be entreated to many jaw-dropping set pieces in WAR OF THE WORLDS. But I’m more certain that they will serve as backdrop to serious human drama. Be you from the Left or the Right, you can try to leverage, polarize and assimilate whatever you wish into WAR OF THE WORLDS—many did at the time of its publication. I for one am hopeful that the main message will endure as one of apolitical humanity and our mostly-forgotten mission to share in nature, in spite of our sense of priority. If not, then I fear we have fallen even further from Wells’ humbling reminder.
“Man is the unnatural animal, the rebel child of nature, and more and more does he turn himself against the harsh and fitful hand that reared him.” H.G. Wells
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
