"War of the Worlds"
2005-12-14 18:23![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastWith "War of the Worlds", Steven Spielberg shows how to make a movie that preserves the spirit of a classic story, whilst at the same time modernising it for a contemporary audience.
"War of the Worlds" is a story with a special place in my heart: firstly, H.G. Wells is a relative of mine (on my father's side); and secondly, Jeff Wayne's musical version of 1978 scared the life out of me when it first came out - not only the album itself, but the artwork accompanying it (see here for one example of the artwork in question). i recently got around to purchasing the remastered version on CD, and the sound of the Martians howling "Ulla!" still sends shivers up and down my spine.
i'm not much of a movie buff, so Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" was the movie event of the year for me. i waited for the film to be released with a mixture of anticipation and dread: Jackson's mutilation of "The Lord of the Rings"1 was yet another demonstration (as if i needed one) of the Hollywoodification of a classic story. i'm glad to say i came away from the movie thrilled at how Spielberg had managed to bring the story into the 21st century without at all sacrificing the spirit of the movie. To give just two examples:
So the movie managed to keep the underlying themes of Wells' story intact. :-) Just as importantly, the plot wasn't subordinated to special effects, which is an all-too-common problem with many movies that make use of the power of contemporary computing to create CGI. And yet the special effects were nevertheless put to good use, as Spielberg impressively conveyed the sense of panic and terror once people witness the fighting machines attack. Which in turn meant that the soundtrack wasn't overwhelming, because it didn't need to be: dramatic music would have taken me out of the scene itself and served to remind me that i was in a theatre.
Something that i was particularly thankful for was Spielberg not trying to 'improve' the ending. i read one review of the movie which expressed disappointment at the fact that it wasn't humans who eventually triumphed over the aliens. Apparently the reviewer missed the fact that that is, to me, at least part of the point of the story:
Given the above, it's probably not surprising when i say that Spielberg's version of "War of the Worlds" is now one of my all-time favourite movies. :-)
On a final note: i first saw this film at a Hoyts cinema, with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
naked_wrat. i greatly enjoyed it. Then i went to see it again, this time with sacred_harlot, at the Astor, which, for the non-Melbournians reading this, is an old-style theatre which shows both contemporary and classic films. The difference amazed me: the whole experience at the Astor was, for me, far superior. The seating arrangements were better - most seats were at the same height as the screen, instead of below it - and the sound was much better. So much for the notion that modern theatres offer a superior cinematic experience! Sadly, though, i've heard the Astor might be closing down - can anyone confirm or deny? Because i would really like to continue seeing films there . . . .
1. No, i don't really consider myself a Tolkien fanatic (although i have read "The Silmarillion", "Unfinished Tales" and "The Lays of Beleriand", which probably marks me as a fanatic in many people's minds). i realise that translating a epic work to film is a massive undertaking that requires cutting scenes and making changes to the storyline so as to preserve the flow of the story minus the scenes in question. However, i feel that Jackson went far beyond what is strictly necessary, especially in light of the fact that, via Tolkien's letters, we know what aspects of the story were most important to him - see, as a prime example, his letter to Forrest J. Ackerman of June 1958, in which Tolkien expresses his displeasure at a script for a film of "Lord of the Rings". i feel Jackson should have shown a little more respect towards the author of a work which was voted the greatest piece of fiction in the 20th century.
Update, 15.12.2005: Apparently Jackson's sense of the amount of time needed to tell a story is not particularly good. This review of "King Kong" expresses the opinion that the movie is "way long":
"War of the Worlds" is a story with a special place in my heart: firstly, H.G. Wells is a relative of mine (on my father's side); and secondly, Jeff Wayne's musical version of 1978 scared the life out of me when it first came out - not only the album itself, but the artwork accompanying it (see here for one example of the artwork in question). i recently got around to purchasing the remastered version on CD, and the sound of the Martians howling "Ulla!" still sends shivers up and down my spine.
i'm not much of a movie buff, so Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" was the movie event of the year for me. i waited for the film to be released with a mixture of anticipation and dread: Jackson's mutilation of "The Lord of the Rings"1 was yet another demonstration (as if i needed one) of the Hollywoodification of a classic story. i'm glad to say i came away from the movie thrilled at how Spielberg had managed to bring the story into the 21st century without at all sacrificing the spirit of the movie. To give just two examples:
- The Jules Verne-like notion of aliens in cylinders being shot between Mars and Earth seems rather quaint nowadays - 'rockets' are, for the general public, the method by which space travel is accomplished (as distinct from things such as solar sails and tethers). So instead Spielberg has the ships already here, buried deep underground, and the aliens arrive in small capsules via an energy stream ('lightning'). Such a device does beg the question, "Why did the aliens bury the ships here?", which in turn invites some interesting speculation: perhaps they were buried in anticipation of the development of a sentient life form with the long-term potential to threaten the aliens' hegemony; in which case, perhaps the aliens' draining of human blood was merely seen as a 'useful' side effect, in the same way that humans who hunt for the 'sport' of it do not necessarily make use of all of their kill.
- The scene where the warship Thunderchild faces the fighting machines was removed, and instead shifted slightly in the story - to just after the 'escape by boat' scene - so that the aliens are instead attacked by tanks, helicopters and fighter jets. At the time Wells wrote the story, 'iron-clads' like the Thunderchild were the pinnacle of military technology; the notion of an 'air force' did not exist (or at least, existed only in theory). So when the Martians defeated the Thunderchild, the notion is "We've thrown everything we've got at them, and we've lost". Nowadays, however, the pinnacle of conventional attack forces1 is a nation's air force; so Spielberg made the appropriate adjustment, whilst still retaining the point of the scene.
So the movie managed to keep the underlying themes of Wells' story intact. :-) Just as importantly, the plot wasn't subordinated to special effects, which is an all-too-common problem with many movies that make use of the power of contemporary computing to create CGI. And yet the special effects were nevertheless put to good use, as Spielberg impressively conveyed the sense of panic and terror once people witness the fighting machines attack. Which in turn meant that the soundtrack wasn't overwhelming, because it didn't need to be: dramatic music would have taken me out of the scene itself and served to remind me that i was in a theatre.
Something that i was particularly thankful for was Spielberg not trying to 'improve' the ending. i read one review of the movie which expressed disappointment at the fact that it wasn't humans who eventually triumphed over the aliens. Apparently the reviewer missed the fact that that is, to me, at least part of the point of the story:
A mighty space it was, with gigantic machines here and there within it, huge mounds of material and strange shelter places. And scattered about it, some in their overturned war-machines, some in the now rigid handling-machines, and a dozen of them stark and silent and laid in a row, were the Martians--_dead_!--slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared; slain as the red weed was being slain; slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.This very much reads to me as a lesson in humility, as relevant now as it was at the end of the 19th century: that although many people think that there is no obstacle that humanity cannot overcome, and that we are the 'pinnacle of creation', there are, in fact, other beings in existence which are far more crucial to our survival than many people realise.
-- "War of the Worlds", book two, chapter 8, "Dead London"
Given the above, it's probably not surprising when i say that Spielberg's version of "War of the Worlds" is now one of my all-time favourite movies. :-)
On a final note: i first saw this film at a Hoyts cinema, with
naked_wrat. i greatly enjoyed it. Then i went to see it again, this time with sacred_harlot, at the Astor, which, for the non-Melbournians reading this, is an old-style theatre which shows both contemporary and classic films. The difference amazed me: the whole experience at the Astor was, for me, far superior. The seating arrangements were better - most seats were at the same height as the screen, instead of below it - and the sound was much better. So much for the notion that modern theatres offer a superior cinematic experience! Sadly, though, i've heard the Astor might be closing down - can anyone confirm or deny? Because i would really like to continue seeing films there . . . .1. No, i don't really consider myself a Tolkien fanatic (although i have read "The Silmarillion", "Unfinished Tales" and "The Lays of Beleriand", which probably marks me as a fanatic in many people's minds). i realise that translating a epic work to film is a massive undertaking that requires cutting scenes and making changes to the storyline so as to preserve the flow of the story minus the scenes in question. However, i feel that Jackson went far beyond what is strictly necessary, especially in light of the fact that, via Tolkien's letters, we know what aspects of the story were most important to him - see, as a prime example, his letter to Forrest J. Ackerman of June 1958, in which Tolkien expresses his displeasure at a script for a film of "Lord of the Rings". i feel Jackson should have shown a little more respect towards the author of a work which was voted the greatest piece of fiction in the 20th century.
Update, 15.12.2005: Apparently Jackson's sense of the amount of time needed to tell a story is not particularly good. This review of "King Kong" expresses the opinion that the movie is "way long":
It's difficult to put aside Kong's obscene length, unwarranted subplots (a stowaway played by Jamie Bell is taken under wing, the lengthy back story of Denham's trouble with his financial backers), and those god-awful Koko moments.2. "Non-conventional" weapons, such as nuclear weaponry, were clearly not appropriate in the scenario described by the story, except in the "We'll destroy you in order to save you" sense.
