Harry Kreisler War of the Worlds, Then and Now
Movies are dreamlike and when well made, they reflect the
times and provide a window into a world view revealing the
assumptions of screenwriters, directors, and producers as they
shape our dreams and nightmares on the big screen. From this
perspective, movies hint at what these elites think audiences
are thinking and feeling and offers the occasion to shape that
thinking and feeling. For a little insight into how U.S.
thinking about the world has changed in fifty years, my wife and
I watched, on a recent Sunday afternoon and evening, one after
the other two films-- War of the Worlds (2005) (directed by
Steven Spielberg) and War of the Worlds (1952) (directed by
Byron Haskin).
Both movies rework H.G. Welles’ novel. The 1952 version was
made in the dark years of the Cold War; the 2005 version was
made three years into the War on Terrorism. The adversary in
both movies—creatures from outer space—resemble each other in
physical form and in vulnerability. These aliens scare us
because they remind us of the real enemies we faced then and
now. In 1952, the "evil empire" of Soviet Communism was on the
march and armed with atomic weapons. In 2005, Islamic terrorist
fundamentalists are our enemy, and they aspire to restore a
medieval Caliphate through violence. In both cases, there is a
real enemy to scare the audience even before they enter the
theatre. Despite these similarities, there are important
differences in the two films that tell us how we have changed as
we confront the enemy. Here is what a side by side viewing
reveals to an analyst of U.S. foreign policy who also has a
passion for the movies.
Leadership. In 1952, we had leaders and the driving force
of that leadership is the scientific community. The film’s hero,
a bespeckled Gene Barry, is a scientist. He and his colleagues
are shown analyzing problems. They make a concerted effort to
find and use evidence to understand the aliens. The scientists
ask: Who are these creatures and what do they want? If they
fight, why do they fight and how can we stop them. The focus is
on a collective response with science and the military leading
the fight. (Sometimes this has unfortunate consequences as when
a nuclear device is used.)
In 2005, alas, we only have only Tom Cruise to save us. The
actor is a working stiff whose immaturity and irresponsibility
has shattered his family. Driven by passion, impulse, and an
instinctual need to save his family, the Cruise character leads
us from scene to scene where he is witness and then combatant.
The focus here is on the heroic individual and his decisions as
he confronts the destruction of his middle class way of life.
The story is personal with Cruise learning to love his children
even as he fights both domestic terrorism (in the form of Tim
Robbins as troubled, savvy survivalist with a perverse liking
for little kids) and international terrorism (in the form of
sleeper cells from outer space). In a key scene, Cruise almost
single-handedly rises up from a Holocaust like setting of his
captivity within the bosom of the monster and successfully
demolishes one of the aliens with a grenade. He is assisted in
his escape from the belly of the monster by his fellow
prisoners. Ironically, Cruise’s most important decision is to
let his son become a walk on for military units in their
tactical engagement with the aliens. Interestingly, the Cruise
character gives hints of being anti war when his son chooses to
go fight.
The Role of Community. In both films, when the going gets
tough, everyone is on the run. The 1952 film, however, is
organized around community response. We see the initial attack
from the perspective of a small town where the hero happens to
be on vacation. There is even a square dance at the beginning
ala John Ford. Before the military is brought in, we learn that
the first line of defense is the small town. In the 2005 movie,
the starting point is a broken family with its ritual of the
children’s weekend visit to their father. Unlike the 1950
depiction, the fight against the enemy in 2005 is not about
strategy, tactical maneuver, or collective purpose but depends
on heroic individualism and family therapy. When the world falls
apart, we learn from both films that there is social anarchy and
the individual stands alone very much in the way depicted by Rod
Serling in his Twilight Zone television series.
The Idea of a Community of Nations. In the 1952 version,
the focus is on the United States. However, at turning points in
the movie, we are made aware through images that the aliens are
also attacking the major cities of the world. (In the 2005 film,
these references are verbal only.) That this is a calamity for
all is visually important only in the earlier film. Elsewhere in
the 1950 film, we see how different parts of the world are
working to confront the enemy in their own way. The 1950 film
conveys the idea that the U.S. is what matters but in the
context of a world in which other countries are attempting to
meet the challenge in different ways. In the 2005 film, there is
not one image of either the suffering of other nations or the
idea that another nation is putting up a fight though Tim
Robbins tells us that the Japanese have killed a few of the
aliens in his monologue on the need for resistance. In 2005, our
only hope is Tom Cruise who often stands side by side with a
diverse set of Americans though not one person of color or woman
stands out for her actions or thoughts with the possible
exception of the prisoner in the belly of the monster who leads
the rescue of Cruise. In the 1952 movie which contains no
diversity, the most moving statement of loneliness and religious
solace comes from the heroine played by Ann Robinson. In the
2005 movie, Cruise’s young daughter takes no heroic action and
is the source of no insight; however, her therapy seems to be
working to control her hysteria.
The Role of Religion. In the 1952, religion plays a
surprisingly important role. The heroine recounts her story as
one of fear and loneliness in which she is saved by her uncle
who is a clergyman. The uncle finds in his religion a message of
peace to guide his actions and his understanding. He attempts to
talk to the enemy before the war begins and he is killed.
Interestingly, when all the efforts to destroy the enemy fail,
both scientific and military, the hero, Gene Barry, in search of
the film’s heroine, seeks her out in the churches of Los
Angeles. On the other hand, religion and the search for
spiritual meaning has no place in the 2005 version.
Narration In both films, the magisterial voice of the
narrator (Sir Cedric Hardwick) (1952 version) and Morgan Freeman
(2005) fills in the details and tell us what it all means. Sir
Cedric Hardwick has the better script. His words tell us why the
creatures have come. Both Hardwick and Freeman tell us that the
aliens did not have the immune system to make a go of it on our
world. Through the films’ codas and their narration, we learn
the limits of technology and the power of biological processes.
However, the 1952, links victory to the divine plans of the
creator and suggests that the ultimate victory was a miracle. .
In 2005, god’s role in saving the planet deserves a passing
mention by the narrator Morgan Freeman in his reference to god’s
biological design.
Conclusion If literally and figuratively we are in a war
of worlds--civilizations if you will-- for control of our
planet, then the U.S is different this time around in the real
world and on the big screen. While establishing Spielberg as a
cinematic Brughel in the depiction of the horrific consequences
of armed terror, the new film is also a compelling statement of
U.S. assumptions about the world and about the preferred course
of action for survival.
What can we expect the future to bring then? I know, because
I saw it at the movies--hero driven unilateralism without
community or spiritual purpose, an impulse driven leadership
without strategy, and a willingness to try anything—even summary
execution-- in the quest for survival in the face of
overpowering terror. Sound familiar?
Harry Kreisler is Executive Director of the Institute
of International Studies at the University of California at
Berkley. He is also Executive Producer and Host of
Conversations with History. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/ |
