War of the Worlds
Originally Written: June/July 2005
“Twilight Zone: The Movie,” the “Back to the Future” Trilogy,” “Amazing Stories,” “Inner Space,” “*batteries not included,” “SeaQuest DSV,” “Men in Black,” “Deep Impact,” “Jurassic Park III,” “Men in Black II,” “Taken.” Of the many genre projects (be it TV or film) he is credited to have produced over the years, these are the ones that have taken Steven Spielberg- in one way or another- to the genre he grew to love as a child and continues to return to as the most financially successful- and artistically undervalued- filmmaker in history. But that’s just Spielberg as a producer; it’s as a director he’s made his most personal- for the most part- films in the genre. “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial,” “Jurassic Park,” “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” (which delivers great effects and a handful of great action sequences when it isn’t going through the motions), “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” “Minority Report,” and now, “War of the Worlds” (though I would even include “Taken”- the fascinating TV miniseries he produced with writer Leslie Bohem about generations of alien abductees- with those films as being among his most personal projects in the genre). In an interview with Starlog magazine to promote “A.I.” in 2001, he was asked, “Is there one particular dream genre film that you hope to make?” He responded by saying, “I actually do have a dream SF project that I’m not ready to talk about…It will be an original screenplay…I wrote the story and somebody else will write the screenplay.” If it weren’t for the fact that “War of the Worlds” is based on the classic novel by H.G. Wells, I’d get the feeling this is that project (he’s had it on his mind for years, but put it on hold after 1996’s “Independence Day”). But if this is any indication of what that project- if it does indeed exist- may be like, boy, we’re in for a treat when it does come to life.
It is no secret among my regular readers that I’ve been enthralled by the creative direction Spielberg has taken since 1993’s powerful Oscar-winner “Schindler’s List.” It’s also no secret that since that monumental year (when he also delivered the rip-roaring “Jurassic Park), Spielberg’s focus as a filmmaker has been less on the everymen from his earlier classics (“Jaws,” “Close Encounters”) than on bigger-than-life people and stories, usually with a social conscience. Basically, since “List,” his detractors say he became more about awards than about making entertainments. True, movies like “Amistad” and “The Terminal”- however well-made- have that “Oscar bait” smell coming off of them a mile away (as do his announced Abraham Lincoln biopic- with Liam Neeson- and his fascinating upcoming drama about the tragedy at the 1972 Munich Olympics), but few can deny the daring and artistic value of these films when looked at on their own terms. Since “List,” Spielberg has become intrigued by the dark side of human nature, the sometimes surprising ways that goodness and compassion find their way into people’s lives, and the ways that a person with a basic goal in mind inspires others to not only act but also find a sense of peace in their own lives. Ironically, probably two of the best examples of this are the two lightest films he’s made since “Schindler’s List,” 2002’s “Catch Me if You Can” (which only improved in watching it again) and 2004’s underrated gem “The Terminal” (which took a seemingly predictable story in unexpected directions and followed it down a road less traveled to a more rewarding finale). We’ll never get back the same Spielberg that delivered rousing fun in the “Indiana Jones” trilogy (though I will watch with endless curiosity if in fact “Indy IV” gets off the ground, and where Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford take the iconic character in the twilight of his years), “E.T.,” “Jaws,” and “Close Encounters.” For me, I don’t mourn that idea- I rejoice in the directions this older and wiser Spielberg is taking me (my favorite of all his films is the flawed 2001 epic “A.I.”). For those who do- you have my sympathies for not being able to mature as Spielberg has.
No other director has brought science-fiction to greater life onscreen than Spielberg. Other important ones exist to be sure- the short list includes Stanley Kubrick (“2001: A Space Odyssey,” “A Clockwork Orange”), Ridley Scott (“Alien,” “Blade Runner”), James Cameron (“Aliens,” the first two “Terminator” films), George Lucas (“Star Wars,” “THX-1138”), Alex Proyas (“Dark City,” “I, Robot”), Paul Verhoeven (“Robocop,” “Total Recall”), and Terry Gilliam (“12 Monkeys,” “Brazil”)- but Spielberg towers over them all. Some have been more groundbreaking (Kubrick, Scott, Cameron, Lucas), some more imaginative (Proyas, Verhoeven, Gilliam), but none equal Spielberg’s adoration and fascination with the genre (though some- notably Cameron, Lucas, and Proyas- share it), which can be seen both in his directed features and his produced projects, and is clear every time he returns to it.
The great gift Spielberg has in the sci-fi work he’s directed (though it’s all over the intriguing miniseries “Taken” as well) is his uncanny- some might even say humanist- way he takes larger-than-life events and brings them down to the personal scale and the human-interest story, if you will, aspect of it. The first encounter with aliens as a man’s obsessive journey away from his family to a destiny greater than he in “Close Encounters.” A lonely boy’s frightened first meeting with a benevolent alien in “E.T.” is the beginning of a bond that will change both of them, open up their vulnerable hearts, and transcend the stars. “Jurassic Park” took the prospect of living and breathing dinosaurs, and through the eyes of fascinated scientists and innocent children, gave the spectacle the awe and reverence it deserved before sending those same characters on a riveting and terrifying adventure (“The Lost World”- Spielberg’s one misstep in the genre as a director- lacked that awe, and seemed more like a generic riff on “King Kong” than a rousing and unforgettable journey into the unknown). In “A.I.,” the pain of losing a son is transferred from a mother to her mecha surrogate son when the mother abandons him in the woods, setting the robot on a dark and visionary adventure to try and win back her love, with a single-mindedness and disarming emotional complexity that reaches deep into the true mysteries of love, growing up, and having to learn to let go. “Minority Report” looks at the central moral issues of being able to predict crimes before they happen through a character whose anger and grief at losing his own son drives him and infuses the choices that lead him on a mystery when he looks at a premonition of his own part in a murder. And “Taken’s” story of 50 years of alien abductions and interactions with three families- whose lives will intertwine more than once- is at its’ best when the character’s feelings and fears about what they’re a part of are explored, even in the simplest of ways.
At its’ core, “War of the Worlds” is exactly in this prestigious company. In his film version (the fourth significant version of the story after Wells’ novel, Orson Welles’ infamous 1938 radio play (so flawless in its’ execution and realism that it caused wide-spread panic; it is said this- which I’ve not heard in its’ entirety- is Spielberg’s biggest influence here, as he owns the last original script from it), and a great 1953 movie version by producer George Pal and director Byron Haskin), Spielberg brings the idea of a mass massacre of humanity by the hands of unsympathetic beings from another world down to the human level by focusing on a family caught in the middle of it. They are Ray Farrier (Tom Cruise), a dockworker and divorcee (his ex is played by “Lord of the Rings'” Miranda Otto in little more than a cameo appearance), and the children- the older, rebellious loner Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and younger, precocious Rachel (Dakota Fanning, who had a key role in “Taken”)- he only sees on every other weekend, but only sees as a burden when they are around. Where the characters go, how this broken family brings itself together in this quest of survival you will probably be able to figure out as the shit hits the fan and the red weed- chillingly rendered and responsible for one of the film’s most haunting shots- covers the Earth. It’s a simple story- no need to complicate it with complex family issues a la “A.I.” or deviously-devised plot developments like “Minority Report.” But “Worlds” is anything but simple minded in the hands of Spielberg and screenwriters David Koepp (in one of his best outings as a writer (his credits also include “Spider-Man,” “Jurassic Park,” and “Mission: Impossible”)) and Josh Friedman- there are segments of intriguing philosophical differences in character’s motives and thinking, and difficult emotional choices that may not be easily palpable upon first viewing (the film is more a dramatic technical roller coaster a la “Raiders of the Lost Ark” than “E.T.”), but the film- for all it’s epic set pieces and special effects- is at its’ core like so many Spielberg films and driven more by character than the desire to show off new technical tricks. Does it succeed on that level like others did? Not necessarily; like “Jurassic Park,” it’s the sights more than the human story that you’ll remember and go back to see. Still, the basic emphasis on crafting interesting characters and creating an interesting story around them- even if it doesn’t always jive (even on a level of sci-fi logic, one character’s- and one car’s- survival strains belief)- over sensational spectacle is what makes Spielberg one of the best, even if he sometimes chooses archetypes of characters over dramatically complex ones. Folks, not every film he does requires main characters of emotional and philosophical depth. Like the effects and technical qualities of a movie (especially one like “War of the Worlds”), the characters are at the service of the story. This story doesn’t need characters of profound motivations (like “Schindler’s List”) or emotions (like “A.I.”)- it just needs characters with a basic desire to survive under extraordinary circumstances with basic human motivators (the desire to see family again, the desire for food and shelter) driving them to their goal. It’s not sexy storytelling, but it’s savvy storytelling, and few filmmakers are savvier than Spielberg at telling a solid story without making it too complicated. That’s one of his greatest gifts as a popular filmmaker- which is what he is and forever will be when all is said and done- and it’s why he’s one of the most accomplished in the history of cinema.
That he’s also one of the greatest technicians of all-time is another reason. Granted, he doesn’t work the camera, create the effects, or write the music himself, but Spielberg is second to no one alive at bringing these elements together to tell his story. All the departments- working double time with “Worlds'” to meet the June 29 deadline (it started filming in November of last year)- deliver the goods for Spielberg to create his devastating vision of a world under siege from beyond the stars. In discussing the film, Spielberg equated it to “Saving Private Ryan” from a story standpoint, in that it’s about a group of people surviving an event larger than any of them, but that thinking extends to the visual logic of the film itself. I’d be curious to learn to what extent Spielberg and his gifted long-time cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (they’ve been together since “Schindler’s List”) incorporated the type of hand-held cinematography they mastered in “Ryan,” because that film’s urgency and energy resonates through every frame from the moment the lightning begins to strike down. There are effects shots in this movie that would’ve been impossible even when “Ryan” came out, with the camera moving furiously from side-to-side and up and down trying to capture every inch of the action even when alien tripods are destroying everything in sight (two moments of particular interest has Cruise running down the street as houses are being destroyed around him, and the shot from the trailer of him and his children driving in the van as a bridge and houses are demolished behind them). At the same time, though, every moment is seen with pitch-perfect visual clarity and singular intensity, creating feelings of anxiety, exhaustion, and brief relief just in how the camera moves and how the actors are directed. It’s one of Spielberg and Kaminski’s best collaborations.
Through the years, one kind of gets the feeling watching a lot of Spielberg’s films that maybe he and his long-time editor- Michael Kahn- have gotten too comfortable with each other, as Spielberg’s films over the past decade have never been shorter than 2 hours, and while many films (“Schindler’s List,” “Saving Private Ryan,” “Minority Report”) lack padding, a few (“The Terminal,” “Catch Me if You Can,” “The Lost World” and “Jurassic Park”) would have benefited from a more objective eye that would have tightened up the stories of all of them. “War of the Worlds” is compelling evidence to the contrary. Clocking in at a brisk 116 minutes, it’s one of Spielberg’s most judiciously-edited works of the past 10 years- maybe even his entire career- as he and Kahn find the core of the story, and don’t deviate for one second. The action’s as thrilling as any Indiana Jones epic, and the storytelling’s as merciless in its’ pacing as anything the director’s done. No shot feels gratuitous- to guarantee that, Spielberg and Kaminski make brilliant use of windows and mirrors to convey visual information- and no scene needs complete exorcism from the film. Though not one of the most ambitious stories of Spielberg’s career, it is one of the most solidly told, even if- as mentioned before- some things strain belief.
Cheers to Industrial Light & Magic, the effects company of Spielberg pal George Lucas who has been the dominant force of the FX business since their landmark work on “Star Wars.” But recently, their work has been overshadowed by work done by the likes of WETA Digital (“The Lord of the Rings,” the upcoming “King Kong” and “The Chronicles of Narnia”), Digital Domain (“Titanic,” “I, Robot”), and former ILM employee John Dykstra (“Spider-Man 2”). This year, with this film and “Star Wars: Episode III,” ILM is looking to be the effects powerhouse we expect from them (though films to look out for in the Visual Effects Oscar race are the WETA-designed “Kong” and “Narnia” and “Serenity,” which will signal the emergence of the smallish Zoic as an effects powerhouse), and they do themselves proud. “Episode III” will be discussed in that review, but for “Worlds,” Dennis Muren and co. have worked wonders for Spielberg once again (they did the imaginative effects for “A.I.,” one of their finest hours) on the tightest of schedules. Aided by onset effects work by Stan Winston’s company, the effects of “Worlds” deliver spectacular- and spectacularly haunting- sights like the destruction of a New Jersey neighborhood (a slow-burn sequence that pays off in spades with powerful disaster images), a tripod attack on a ferry that’s a masterpiece of logistics and perceived paranoia and fear, and the emergence of the red weed on our planet. Though one cannot deny the brilliance of their work on “Star Wars” for Lucas, when watching “War of the Worlds,” one gets the feeling that Spielberg inspires them to work with more ambition and imagination (see also “A.I.” and “Jurassic Park” in particular).
Same goes for John Williams. The collaboration between director Spielberg and composer Williams marks its’ 30th year this year (in that time, only Spielberg’s segment of “Twilight Zone: The Movie” and the underrated “The Color Purple” have been scored by others), and while a lot of collaborations would have stalled into predictability long ago, Spielberg continues to inspire Williams with different opportunities and challenges. Has a light score been more entertaining in the past 10 years than Williams’ return to his jazz roots for “Catch Me if You Can?” Has a score been more flawed- yet so enthralling- than his work on “A.I.?” And is there a more underrated adventure score in recent memory than Williams’ “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” (which contains one of his best action cues, entitled “The Trek”; it’s a shame this score is out-of-print)? For “War of the Worlds,” Williams task is to express the mass destruction- and displacement- of humanity at the hands of “Worlds'” vicious aliens with simplicity and numbing dread. Mission accomplished. True, it lacks the thematic feeling of “Saving Private Ryan,” the virtuoso inventiveness of “Minority Report,” and the symphonic color or “A.I.,” but Williams’ score- which is almost as sparse as it was in “Ryan”- shows the type of confident craftsmanship and epic scope you expect from a composer who at one time was contemplating retirement before chances too good to pass up (such as Oliver Stone’s “JFK” and Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List”) forced him to reconsider, and now are simply the start of arguably the greatest last act of a great composer’s career in history. You may not remember one particular moment from Williams’ “War of the Worlds” score, but- like all great film music- you’ll never forget how it made you feel in the moment.
The characters in “Worlds” are unabashed archetypes, filling a specific need of the story with no real need to go deeper. Hit the right emotional notes, inspire audience identification, and go where the story tells you. It’s that simple. It’s also not intended to be an acting showcase…and yet, the main actors deliver fine performances, if they aren’t terribly nuanced. As son Robbie, Justin Chatwin- a newcomer- takes what few characteristics Robbie has (resentment towards Ray, and a desire to take action against the aliens) and delivers a surprisingly rounded performance, even if some of his “anger” towards Ray as the story moves on is less-than-convincing (in facial expressions more than verbal). As Rachel, Fanning- one of the most gifted of child actors (Spielberg’s always had a knack at finding them)- is given arguably her simplest significant role yet- a child frightened- but gives her a personality and intelligence that resonates through her frequent screams and fear that makes you want to care for her and protect her as Ray does. In a performance that could have stopped the movie cold- in a scene that ups the ante in claustrophobia and anxiety for both the characters and audience with inventive displays of shocks and suspense (even if it reminds one of brilliant moments in “Jaws” or “Jurassic Park”)- Tim Robbins- a frazzled model of impending danger paranoia- plays Ogilvy, a survivalist who finds refuge in the basement of an abandoned house and invites Ray and Rachel- who have become separated from Robbie- to share that refuge before he makes his move. This sequence at first would seem to have no point until it becomes clear that Ray and Ogilvy have different goals in their hiding, and fascinating “What if?” issues of morality- the kind that inevitably would come up at such times- manifest themselves in disturbing and surprising ways. (Author’s note- Robbins also costarred with Miranda Otto in the Charlie Kaufman-penned craziness “Human Nature,” while his “Shawshank Redemption” costar- Morgan Freeman (who is also now an Oscar-winner under the direction of Clint Eastwood, just as Robbins is after “Mystic River”)- provides the opening and closing narration for the film. Even better, Cruise and Robbins also costarred in “Top Gun” together back in 1986 (Robbins was Merlin at the end of the movie).) As for Cruise, he delivers another great performance for Spielberg as the dead-beat, self-centered dad who must finally act like one to his kids when faced with a situation beyond his control. Cruise- who just seems to get better and bolder with the years (even if his antics in his personal life leave much to be desired)- embodies this everyman with his usual display of cockiness and- when necessary- steely resolve when the chips are down, without- and this is key- making him a larger-than-life hero. He makes Ray transition from immature man-child to compassionate father figure on a mission completely believable. Through Spielberg in both this and “Minority Report,” Cruise- like (most notably) Tom Hanks and Richard Dreyfuss before him in Steven’s hands- has revealed sides of himself he hasn’t in the hands of other directors (even ones like Cameron Crowe, Michael Mann, or Paul Thomas Anderson, who are responsible for directing him to some of his best work in “Jerry Maguire,” “Collateral,” and “Magnolia,” respectively). If Spielberg- the modern-day Hitchcock- found his Jimmy Stewart in Hanks, Cruise is his Cary Grant. It makes one anxious and excited to see what they choose to work on next.
A final thought, within two final paragraphs. Spielberg has also hardwired one component into his interpretation of the Wells’ story that comes not just from his transferring of the story to modern times, but also the time in which he’s made it. Spielberg’s “Worlds”- most especially like Welles’ radio version- is about frenzy, paranoia, and a sudden and surprising shaking of our daily lives at their very core. In every major item I’ve read about the film, it has been brought up the relevance of the film’s story post-9/11, which in its’ emotional impact was an event not unlike the ones depicted in this film. The parallels are there onscreen, but- to Koepp, Friedman, and Spielberg’s credit- are not hammered home with bombastic pretentiousness or uneasy moralizing; though there are images that may bring to mind that devastating day (and its’ aftermath)- Ray’s neighborhood has an American flag outside of every house, the mass destruction will fill you with the shocking finality the images of the destroyed World Trade Center and damaged Pentagon did- they’re done tastefully and almost matter-of-factly. This approach to the material is also enhanced by the way Spielberg focuses not on the military retaliation- which again, is treated with a matter-of-fact attitude that might seem disrespectful, but is appropriate for the story as he’s telling it- but on survivors trying to recover from the shock of their everyday lives being changed forever. In the aftermath of 9/11, it’s the story history- and the media- forgot to tell, and in his own way, Spielberg is telling it with his trademark compassion and rigor.
Most of our lives were not impacted profoundly by September 11th; we were onlookers with a safe distance between us and the events of that day, but even though we may have wept, were moved by the heroism we saw step forward, and felt sympathy towards those whose life were changed, we were able to easily move forward with our lives. Many weren’t, and it’s their story that has never- in my opinion- been appropriately told. In “Worlds,” we’re asked to be onlookers again to events that rattle our senses, but in the end, we’re at a safe distance from them (this is a film after all, as well as a work of fiction) and when the end credits roll, as the attacks from the stars have ended just as suddenly as they began, we can continue with our lives unchanged, though maybe a little more sympathetic to the individuals whose lives are affected forever by such cataclysmic tragedy. Spielberg achieves this by- for nearly two hours- putting us through the ringer with them, with no relief in sight, and no room to breath. We take the road of survival with them, aware of the possibility of failure at every moment, hoping for some glimpse of a light at the end of the tunnel that’ll pave the way for a better tomorrow. OK, that sounds pretentious, but I can’t put it any better. And in the end, “War of the Worlds” is just “a badass alien movie,” as Spielberg said in an early feature on the film. But credit Spielberg for not JUST making “at least one badass alien movie” before he hangs it up, if you know what I mean. Been there, done that, and you know the greatest science fiction auteur of the big screen will do what every great sci-fi author does and look for an emotional truth within the imaginative fiction.
