War of the Worlds

Saw "War of the Worlds" over the weekend, then went and checked out some of the kvetching on the right-wing blogs. The common complaint seems to be that Steven Spielberg's film is some kind of anti-American, anti-war tract.

Their complaint (see, for instance, here) is not really with Spielberg, but with H.G. Wells, whose book, written more than a century ago, the film follows quite faithfully. None of them seems to realize this, as none of them seems to have read -- or even to be more than dimly aware of -- the original book.

It's not surprising they don't like Wells' story. "War of the Worlds" is a political book. As Jim Emerson notes at RogerEbert.com, Wells explicitly compared the alien invasion of his book with the British imperialism of his time, including incidents like the decimation of the original people of Tasmania.

The book is an exercise in empathy -- what would it feel like to be on the receiving end of such imperial force.

The alien invaders arrive. We cannot understand them. Our best technology cannot harm them. They are inscrutable and unstoppable. There is nothing we can do.

That's what makes the book so enduringly creepy. Spielberg often captures this sense of inevitable doom, and the scenes in which he does are as unsettling as Orson Welles' infamous radio broadcast of this same story in 1938. Right-wing critics of the film complain that Spielberg's hero, played by Tom Cruise, spends most of the movie running away and hiding. But that's the point -- there's nothing else he can do.

Empathy with the victim -- with the Tasmanians, or with the Mahdi at Omdurman, or the Wampanoag -- is not a favorite sentiment of the right wing. But there are other reasons they wouldn't like Wells' book.

These conservative film critic wannabes want a story to follow the moral outline of the old comics code or of Job's foolish friend Bildad. They want the good guys to be rewarded for their virtue and the bad guys to be punished for their vice. But Wells' story isn't about morality, it's about power. His Martian invaders have bigger, better weapons so they win and we lose. Period.

This, I think, is what the rightwing critics find most threatening in Wells' story and Spielberg's film. It vividly illustrates that might and right are not the same thing, that military superiority is not evidence of superior virtue. If the illustration of such a basic truth can now be interpreted as an "anti-American" political statement, that is neither Wells' nor Spielberg's fault.

Comments

[Steve]

If the illustration of such a basic truth can now be interpreted as an "anti-American" political statement, that is neither Wells' nor Spielberg's fault.

Touche. Well put.

Reminds me of the crowds of people in Iron Jawed Angels rioting as the women seeking the right to vote simply stood in front of the White House with banners quoting the President. The point was President Wilson's statements of promoting freedom and liberty abroad were being ignored at home. But people couldn't handle this truth so they tore them down and called the women traitors in a time of war. I glad that doesn't happen anymore.

[Andrew Cory]

How did we come to the point where might and right could be confused? We don’t often mistake rhyming words for one another and base foreign policy on it. Just imagine the possibilities: “Moscow”, “have a cow”. “shoeless”, “clueless”. “starving”, “farthing”…

On a more serious note, I wonder how a crowd that can mistake “might” with “right” can still call themselves Christian. Perhaps they’re reading some other book?

[R. Mildred]

Imperial and Imperialistic christians understand might to be right, because otherwise God would intervene to protect the righteous but weak, like in Job.

No wait, I got Job confused with the nuclear strike of Isreal in Left Behind, my mistake.

[robert the red]

Minor kvetch: the aboriginal people of Tasmania were completely wiped out, not just decimated.

[jdsalmon]

I wonder how a crowd that can mistake “might” with “right” can still call themselves Christian.

actually, as George Lakoff describes it, really conservative believe that might is right. Or, as he puts it, they think "the Natural Order is the Moral Order."

e.g. God has physical might over us, so He has the moral authority. Police have physical might over us, so they have the Moral Authority. Men are stronger than women, so they etc etc etc.

[cjmr]

Hmmm, another book to add to my list of books to get at the library. It's been 20 years since I read that last...

[Buhallin]

It seems I'm the only one so far to comment on the movie itself rather than the political aspects, but here goes...

I found it deeply unsatisfying for three reasons:

1. I have no problem with running and hiding. My problem was that very little of Cruise's character's (can't even remember his name) survival had anything to do with him. He never did anything really smart, or sneaky, he just kept getting lucky as the Vap-o-Beam hit the guy a foot and a half left of him.

2. We get to blow one up in the end. Yay us! Gotta prove we can do SOMETHING!

3. Why in the world would the Martians bury massively powerful war machines under our feet for thousands of years, presumably before human civilization really took off, and leave them there until a civilization developed for them to wipe out? If they wanted the planet, why not take it over before anyone's here to argue with them? And didn't any of them get sick on the first pass, when they buried the tripods in the first place?

Just not a great movie. Uninspiring characters, cliche ending (will avoid spoilers), and too many contradictions to let it go.

As to the political implications... Meh. Anything that doesn't have the USA kicking ass and taking names offends the right wing these days.

[cjmr]

It seems I'm the only one so far to comment on the movie itself rather than the political aspects, but here goes...

Probably because most of the rest of us haven't had a chance to see it yet. Thanks for avoiding spoilers.

[Alex]

Cruise's character isn't smart, or sneaky, or anything else. He's not James Bond. He's a crane operator. He's a regular person and is scared shitless most of the time. Also, it's hard to be sneaky when you've got an Idiot Teenager (the way things resolve with his character is one of my few problems with the movie), and a small girl with you.

As for two, yes.

For three? They're aliens. Who knows. I'm sure it makes sense to them.

The ending is pretty faithful to the book, minus some character things (which is where my problem lay, I found the last 3 minutes or so a bit cheesy). Hell, I think the Morgan Freeman monologues are very slightly reworded versions of the intro and outro of the radio play. One thing you can't really bash on too much is this movie's faithfulness to the history of that particular story. There are differences, but they're not huge ones, and didn't violate the "tone" of the story, in my opinion.

The other thing about calling the ending cliche is that ... Well. I can't tell what you mean, but there's a decent chance that what you're calling cliche is a cliche created by the book itself.

It's not just the USA. Anything that they can shoehorn into an anti-right allegory gets ripped on. Recall that the Emperor didn't take over America, he took over the galaxy in all its wookie-filled glory.

[jeffk]

I took a course in college on Wells, and the thing I remember most was that Wells was a socialist and used his writings to express those views, so I'm not surprised that the righties are offended by War of the Worlds. (So, okay, they get offended at pretty much anything they disagree with, but that's a different issue.)

For the curious, read more about Wells at Wikipedia, here

[Scott]

God has physical might over us, so He has the moral authority. Police have physical might over us, so they have the Moral Authority. Men are stronger than women, so they etc etc etc.

Explains Abu Ghraib (i.e. reading their weird beliefs into their own actions). God saved you by shedding blood, so He owns you, so you must submit and obey or face eternal torture in Hell as punishment. You've been bought w/ a price.

We 'saved' Iraqis by shedding our blood, so we own them, so we're 'right' to torture them (in Abu Ghraib) simply as punishment for their refusal to submit and admit we bought them at a price. Getting info has nothing to do w/ it.

Dobson says beating is OK to enforce submission of children, so why not beat jailed Iraqis?

God is to them as they are to us explains quite a bit.

[Reverend Ref]

There's got to be some connection here between the conservative dislike of WotW and their ... love? giddiness? passion? ... of LB; but other than the "simple minds" theory, I can't for the life of me figure it out.

[Donald Johnson]

Funny you mention that Wells was criticizing imperialism, because as bellatrys pointed out recently, C.S. Lewis wrote the first volume of his space trilogy as a response to Wells, with the humans as the bad guy imperialists who try to take over Mars from the innocent (and in fact possibly sinless Martians). I guess Lewis and Wells were actually on the same side in terms of the point they were making.

[David Lee Ingersoll]

Given the difference in setting between the novel and the film I thought the film was pretty faithful to the novel. I thought Cruise's character's heroic moment wasn't too much of a stretch to the story. The novel had a scene of humans beating one of the tripods. The novel's protagonist was only an observer of the event. Given that Cruise was the hero of the movie by Hollywood storytelling rules he had to be involved in any human triumph over the enemy.

War of the Worlds isn't a heroic novel. To have humanity kick the invaders asses wouldn't have been a faithful adaptation of the novel. That would be Independence Day.

[Darryl Pearce]

I've always enjoyed "pre-pulp" science fiction... but dang, I'm sorry nobody ever did Burrough's Princess of Mars.

As a storytelling technique... it would have focused the story to make the characters in the book (which the protagonist randomly encounters) actually members of his extended family.

As to might: better not provoke a guy who's last, legal recourse is to kill you (and I certainly don't confuse that with respect).

From the 1953 movie, I remember that line: "We now know we can't beat their machines. We're going to have to beat them." And we are learning that lesson on the streets of Babylonia....

[Jeff]

I'm sorry nobody ever did Burrough's Princess of Mars.

The guy that did Sky Captain is said to be working on that one and it'll be interesting if he can remain faithful to the novel without being as racist and sexist as Burroughs could be. Disney had an option on a decade or so back, and they would have messed it up royally.

[Chuck]

In my web-world right now, there is you and the dailyhowler and everything else.

[Mabus]

I actually hadn't seen any such criticism--except for a seemingly left-wing essay on Beliefnet, which accused Spielberg of exploiting hysteria about terrorist attacks. Granted, I can probably be accurately accused of being out of touch.

Even though this sort of criticism is ignorant of Wells, and thus wrong-headed, the blog Fred links to did mention one thing that made me uneasy about the film (and of quite a few movies over the last few years). Namely, the notion that "fighting back" is foolish, or even crazy.

There are times when that's true--including, as in this film, when you're badly overmatched. And, of course, there are plenty of circumstances when the right thing to do is turn the other cheek. But even in those times, you need to have a clear head about how your enemy will respond--quite often by wiping you out without mercy.

It looks to me as though that's what this particular blog is objecting to--Mark Noonan believes Spielberg is saying "Stick your heads in the sand and wait for the terrorists to go away of their own accord." If I didn't know how the original book ended, I might be right there with him.

[Duane]

I want to second what Chuck said. I have a few others on my favorites list but no one writes better or with more insight than you Fred. The problem is that you do not write enough. Recent past aside, I shouldn't have to go for days at a time with nothing new. Would you be willing to accept money in return for posting more often?

[Duane]

While I'm handing out kudos, I should note that your readership is clearly the smartest group of commenters on the net.

[Marc]

An interesting departure from the Wells novel further extends the parallel:
suicide bombing appears to be one of few tactics that are effective against the tripods -- Cruise's grenade tactic was pretty suicidal, even if he was saved.

[Darryl Pearce]

you need to have a clear head about how your enemy will respond--quite often by wiping you out without mercy

Ain't that what the Romans did to Jesus? I'm particularly incensed that by the notion "this is brand new war." I've been saying that we go to war, we shouldn't sacrifice our humanity, compassion and grace in to angry, fearful fit of demanding pain and anguish and blood from our enemies.

And if I've learned anything from knowing the story of Jesus, it's that sometimes you have to give up everything to preserve who you are.

[Mabus]

sometimes you have to give up everything to preserve who you are.

And sometimes you don't. And sometimes, giving up everything means giving up who you are as well, since no one who thinks like you will be around to preserve it.

I'm not here to argue for the war, though. I'm just pointing out that this blog looks to me as though it's saying something rather different from what Fred saw in it--in this case, the accusation that the Left doesn't care if we all die. If "might makes right" is in there, I'm not seeing it.

[R. Mildred]

Look if you realy wanna over examine the possible political angles to look at it from, how about we start out with the slightly more plausible realisation that the martians are symbols of isreali military force, and the humans are the palestinians.

Now the plaestinians are faced off against isreal, which has in the past used mass reprisals against large sections of the palestinian populace, wiping them out with unbeatable (for the palestinians) technology, tanks, attack helicopters, air strikes etc...

Now my given understanding of the isreali/palestine equation is that the civil jihad pacifist prostesting movement is the only form of protest the palestinians can do without it being used against them politically, the concept that not retaliating with violence will solve their problems therefore makes perfect sense in this context, if you hold that palestinians retaliating like with like (but on a smaller scale, obviously) when faced with isreali atrocities damages them politically and loses them a lot of support oversees where a trade bargo or some form of political sanctions on isreal might force them to find a solution that doesn't involve the our right leveling of the west bank.

And of course, if there wasn't a palestine/isreal issue, al qaeda wouldn't exist also, but peace in the middle east will only happen when both sides stop blowing the shit out of each other.

Gosh, pacifism does work in defeating terrorism, it's just so hard for us US citizens to see a complex geopolitical issue that isn't centered purely on our sweet nation that the gut reaction to blow the shit out of anyone to make it all about US was followed as soon as we finally became members of the elite group "victims of terrorism" on 9/11 and started inviting oursleves to all the best pity parties we could find.

Of course I doubt that was Speilberg or Well's intention to make the movie a parallel of the Isreali palestine conflict, it's just that the british were doing to the fuzzy wuzzies what isreal is doing to the palestinians, America is doing to Iraqis (except Iraqis have been intentionally chucking Bio weapons at the martians in that case) and the romans to the Gauls too for that matter, imperialism and subjegation by force are old tales, older than you'll ever be.

[bulbul]

What puzzles me the most is how so many people - including the blogger Fred links to and probably Mabus too - seem so eager to draw paralells between WotW and terrorism. I don't see any. This is no "Independence Day". Besides giving us - as Fred pointed out - a view from the other side of the "clash of civilizations", this movie observes one particular family and one particular person dealing with this catastrophe. Therein lies the reason for the lack of heroism - the way I saw Cruise's character, he was just an average Joe, a loser. Watching him dealing with this cataclysm is the real story here. Anyone stupid enough to believe that Spielberg is saying that resistence is futile should realise that not all movies have a morale. Some are here just to tell a story or make us think and/or feel something we normally don't. This is one of those movies.

And kudoz to Marc and R.Mildred for pointing out the obvious paralell. I'll just open another beer and wait for some nut to accuse Spielberg of condoning terrorism...

[David Lee Ingersoll]

There is a tendency to assume that because a character does x it means that the filmmaker/novelist/storyteller is saying that x is the right thing to do. Cruise's characters actions are all centered around taking care of his family. At one point he acts to prevent someone from striking back against the invaders. He does this to keep his daughter safe. At another point he strikes back again the invaders - also to keep his daughter safe (or, perhaps more accurately, because he has nothing left to lose by taking those actions). Cruise's character isn't a Hero. He's just the protagonist.

WotW is a lousy movie to make points about Spielberg's patriotism. 1941 would be a better example of his supposed anti-Americanism. But in order to use that example his critics would have to have an awareness of history (any history) outside their own hysterics.

[david lee ingersoll]

Above - should be "strikes back against the invaders".

Must remember to preview before posting.

[Fraser]

I agree with Buhalin that having the tripods just lie asleep for a million years was kind of dumb, though it does avoid tricky questions like what planet they came from or why the Hubble or NORAD didn't spot them landing.

While I though it was enjoyable, it lacked the punch of the old fifties George Pal version. Focusing on the family didn't give me the same feel of a world at war, and the final fate of the Martians seemed anticlimactic (not because it's old hat now, but because it comes off more as an afterthought to the family stuff).

Great looking tripods though, and certainly scary when they cut loose.

But why do Martians hate America and President Bush?

[Barry]

If anyone's interested, I wrote about my experience seeing WOTW at:

http://lasthome.blogspot.com/2005/07/thoughts-and-deeper-thoughts-on-war-of.html

One of my takes on the movie was my complete lack of sympathy for Cruise's character even though Speilberg tried his best to push the idea that a dead-beat dad can reform himself just because he survives a crisis.

Plus more juicy rants about the logic of the movie itself.

Anyway, go have a look - I'd be interested in any comments..

[E. Nonee Moose]

Nicely done, Fred.

[Lila]

I haven't yet seen the movie, but when I read the book I really disliked the protagonist.

Seems like Spielberg may have been respecting his source material in that regard, too.

[Beth]

R. Mildred,
Some of your facts are incorrect.

1. The name of the country is Israel, not Isreal.

2. Israel has never used mass reprisals which wiped out large sections of the Palestinian populace. Israel has used mass reprisals and strikes against militants which have killed innocent Palestinians, but nothing on the scale you suggest. Indeed, if you compare Israel's response to Palestinian militancy with America's response to Iraqi militancy, the former looks like a model of restraint.

3. Al Qaeda does not exist because of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. It was created in response to US military bases in Saudi Arabia (placed there during the first Iraq war) and was dedicated to fighting American intervention in the Middle East. I/P was barely even on al Qaeda's radar until 9/11 gave the group the opportunity to position itself as a pan-Muslim movement. Ending the Israeli occupation would be a step in the right direction, but it would certainly not end the jihad against Western imperialism.

[Jesurgislac]

Barry: I'd be interested in any comments.

The only comment I can make is that I can't see if you've got anything at all written there - all I see is the framing text.

[Barry]

that's odd, because it's the correct link and it's right there... there are no frames on the page...

Well, you can go to the home page and find the July 5 entry.

Sorry to hijack your post, Fred ;)

[jwhook]

Beth -

While the focus of Al Qaeda's efforts shifted toward the US as a consequence of the establishment of US bases in Saudi Arabia, its roots are in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and predate the establishment of those bases.

Al Qaeda was the group Bin Laden formed out of the MAK (mujhadeen) to expand the operations of the people they trained to include other Islamist struggles beyond Afghanistan.

The significance of this is that some of their funding, came through Pakistan. The US was supporting the Pakistanis in their support of Afghan rebels including Bin Laden and the mujhadeen, and so at least indirectly building up this group of Islamic terrorists. Some would put the connection much closer and that Bin Laden was directly aided/trained by the CIA during the Afghan war.

[Rick]

So WOTW is turned into a vehicle by which we can bash the right wing because they supposedly think that in all cases might equals right and that military superiority equals moral superiority (or superior virtue)...

Setting aside the straw man argument presented...

I find it interesting that this is coming from a decidedly leftist blogger and his overwhelmingly leftist commenters who think their superior intellect equals right and their intellectual superiority is evidence for their own superior virtue...

Ya gotta love the humility on display here...

... and the hypocrisy.

[spencer]

Rick -

Whether it's the mindset of all conservatives or not is certainly debatable, but can you really deny that such a might-makes-right perspective has guided the foreign policy (and indeed, even domestic policy) of the Bush administration from day one?

If so, I'd love to read examples.

If not, then I'm forced to conclude that you have deeper issues to deal with than what Fred has to say about WotW. Good luck.

[Rick]

Spencer,

It is typically liberal of you to ask me to prove you false. Why not prove that you're right?

Why don't you cite specific examples of Bush's might equals right foreign or domestic policy? Cite the evidence to support your thesis. And you can't quote Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, MoveOn.Org or the DemocraticUnderground.

And isn't it also typically liberal of you to assume that those who disagree with you are suffering from deeper issues.

How elitist. How arrogant. How Christ-like.

Welcome folks to fundamentalism. Only the flavor is different.

[cjmr's husband]

The name calling has started. Time to start ignoring this thread...

[R. Mildred]

Why don't you cite specific examples of Bush's might equals right foreign or domestic policy?

RFLOL! The iraq war does not exist dammit! and anyone who suggest it does is a liar and a liberal intelligensia commie!

ick, put your victim mentality down for two minutes and enjoy the sunshine, the world is beautiful place to live in you should seriously visit us some time.

though you're are right aobut one of your fears blog commenters sharing their personal interpretations of an artistic piece will surely bring down the Bush admin though, have no fear aobut that, mwahahaha! (exits with a swirl of cloak into the dense Fog)

Mwahahahaha!

[Rick]

Cjmr's husband, an honest look at things would conclude that the name calling began with Fred's well before you've taken notice...

...kvetching on the right-wing blogs...

...None of them [dummies] seems to realize this, as none of them [dummies] seems to have read -- or even to be more than dimly aware of -- the original book [if only they were as aware of these things as I am]...

...Right-wing critics of the film complain...

...Empathy with the victim -- with the Tasmanians, or with the Mahdi at Omdurman, or the Wampanoag -- is not a favorite sentiment of the right wing...

... These conservative film critic wannabes (sic)...

...This, I think, is what the rightwing critics ...

Yes, the name-calling and the implication that the rightwing is filled with fools and idiots is there for all with eyes to see...

... only when the hypocrisy is pointed out and when someone like myself comes along to spoil this leftist love-fest, do the liberals begin to tune out or charge their critics with having deeper issues...

Hey Fred... you can do what your buddy Mike at Waving or Drowning does... ban the dissenters...

... this way the love-fest can continue unabated...

[E. Nonee Moose]

Can you say "drive-by" boys and girls? I *knew* you could. Trolling at its finest, Rick. I tip my hat to you!

[cjmr]

Hey Fred... you can do what your buddy Mike at Waving or Drowning does... ban the dissenters...

Rick, do you read Slacktivist much? If you do, it seems strange to suggest that Fred has no tolerance for dissenters. To me he seems to have an amazing tolerance for those of us who hijack his thread for our own personal discussions on topics that are only vaguely related to the subject in the original. (I have to admit I'm one of the bigger offenders there, too.) Sometimes he even gives us a continuation thread to play on when we've made the old one interminably long. I actually like seeing dissenters here--as long as they are thoughtful and articulate and argue their case on its merits--it makes me think.

[Rick]

cjmr,

You might want to read my comment again. I'm not suggesting, at least not yet, that Fred doesn't have tolerance for dissenters. Perhaps if you were to read things a tad more slowly.

I might however suggest that your husband has little tolerance for dissenters. He sees Fred's name-calling as ok... my own as problematic... I guess he's tolerant of certain name-calling. Depends on whose ox is being gored.

I too like thoughtful, articulate and meritful argumentation, it's why I have a blog. I just don't usually see that much from the left, especially when they're giving it to the right.

E. Nonee Moose... a troll usually hides behind nonsensical monikers and fake e-mail addresses... and they don't have their own blog. Look in the mirror.

[cjmr]

Actually, my husband frequently is one of the dissenters. At least on posts where Christianity is the primary topic.

[Ray]

Hmmm, I can see how it must be annoying to see all those leftists attacks, Rick, but surely as a good Christian you will be turning the other cheek, and treating them the way you'd like to be treated.
"Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you"

[Rick]

Hey Ray...

Who ever said I was a good Christian?

Certainly not I.

[Rick]

Certainly not in some time.

[Ray]

Well, as long as you're making the effort, I'm sure that's what's really important.

[R. Mildred]

E. Nonee Moose... a troll usually hides behind nonsensical monikers and fake e-mail addresses... and they don't have their own blog. Look in the mirror.

Actually trolls troll keefy, it's a verb that borrowed the term from a noun and then lent it's name back to that noun.

Oh, and E. Nonee Moose means anonymous, it's not rocket science keefy, it's reading, basic literacy not requiring a college education.

I too like thoughtful, articulate and meritful argumentation, it's why I have a blog. I just don't usually see that much from the left, especially when they're giving it to the right.

No you don't actually, as evidenced by your nonsensical attack on this thread as a outright leftist fest of bush hatred via movie interpretation (the great red threat has never been so great eh?), it isn't.

Right wing movie critics got their panties in a bunch because Wells' original novel (which Speilberg followed quite faithfully) is an anti-war novel, but they don't know that because they haven't read a book since movable type was invented or felt it neccesary to research the movie's origins before making half assed political statements about the movie being a treasonous anti-bush attack. That deserves mocking and you would know it if you had two brain cells to rub together, turn FOX off keef, liberals aren't out to get you really, your too repugnant to warrant attention like that.

Now as to why Bush thinks might makes right.

Bush has fought the war on terror like it's a land war, when it should be a counter terrorism operation, because Bush has decided that "might" i.e. blowing random people up in the wrong country and the flypaper theory all on it's own, is the "right" course of action in an intelligence based cold war that should only heat up because our intelligence agencies fail big time. We're basing our labelling of Bush as a hawk on his actions in office, why do you think he's such a dove given that the Iraq war's overtly imperialistic goals and unjustified invasion and occupation is unique in american history?

If you can be bothered to answer that simple question, and I've just given my reasoning and justification so it is now your turn to justify your gibberish, because there isn't anything else for me to say, or to shroten into words you can understand: refute or fuck off.

But first could you answer this other question: why haven't you signed up little yellow elephant? what's your excuse?