EriqX / Articles

1953 vs. 2005

Sci-fi and War of the Worlds - [30-JAN-2006] By Eriq Tews

Alien invasion movies tend to share a common format. First, menacing, seemingly unstoppable aliens with awesome power descend on earth. They flex their sci-fi muscle, and we promptly crumble under the force of their other-worldly powers. Scenes of incredible destruction follow, and the audience is dazzled with the doomsday prospect of humanity being taken on by an unknown enemy.

Finally, when all hope is lost, humanity is scattered and hiding, seemingly defeated. Our military efforts have all failed. Neighbors have turned against each other. Those that survived the initial attack lay waiting amongst the ruin of former cities, waiting to die.

Before you can say "jiggy", Will Smith will inexplicably save the day in between witty comments and trademark smiles. The inevitable alien weakness will be uncovered, and in a final all-or-nothing attempt humanity will be saved. The memories of horror and human loss quickly replaced with cheering in the name of human ingenuity and triumph.

Back in reality, we'd all be fucking dead.

Few movies have made an effort to take a more realistic approach to the popular subject. Classics like the original The War of the Worlds (1953), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) each stand out. TWOTW is separated only by its ending. TDTESS by the fact that the aliens were peaceful, and humanity was portrayed as the aggressor. Also a more realistic approach, even though in reality we know nothing about alien intelligence. We do know that mankind is more or less historically bent on destruction.

Though Hollywood has eventually devolved its string of alien movies into worthless, if not flashy Will Smith vehicles or otherwise, it still offers a few rays of hope.

The first that springs to mind is Signs (2002), directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Signs succeeds and fails. In the reality of silent alien invasions, Signs works because the story is told from one family's point of view. As average citizens, we wouldn't have access to military operations and strategy. We would most likely, in fact, be hiding in our homes, glued to the television. If the TV still worked that is. Signs gets that part right, and the result is a more believable story. The point of view makes it feel more real, more possible. Signs fails also, in the sense that it returns to the old stand-by ending. When the aliens are revealed to be real, and a threat, they are suddenly overcome by having water splashed on them. A gag that has no home in Hollywood outside of The Wizard of Oz (1939). Any intelligence with the mind to come and pay us a visit from across the reaches of space, with a known allergy to water, may have the technological know-how to invest in a basic wet suit. Sometimes, it's the little things.

This brings me to my original love of The War of the Worlds. Written by H.G. Wells in 1898, revised as the infamous, panic-spreading radio broadcast in 1938 by Orson Welles, and finally brought to the screen in 1953 by Byron Haskin.

While it could be argued that WOTW falls victim to my previous argument on contemporary Hollywood tidy endings, it still stands out. Yes, the aliens come and wreak havoc. Yes, we are powerless against their technology. Yes, it seems as though all is lost, and then...

The War of the Worlds doesn't leave humanity tooting it's own ingenious horn. It more or less leaves us thanking our lucky stars. We don't find an easy Will Smith answer to our problem. But we do watch the aliens crash and burn on their own, with no help from us. In fact, TWOTW's final scene is a group of people huddled in a church. All hope is lost. They are literally waiting to die. Outside the alien ships begin to act strangely and eventually stop functioning. We later learn that microbes in our air and water have infected them, and killed them off entirely. Years of human evolution had allowed us to fight off the bacteria, while the alien visitors simply had no defense.

When Wells wrote the novel in 1898, this was all extremely impressive. Laser-like energy beams that vaporized humans on contact had not yet been imagined. Alien war machines that were mobile on three mechanical legs were beyond comprehension. The concept of germs alone was brand new. Not only was the book impossibly ahead of its time, but it wasn't rife with Jules Verne detail. When a technology that was fictional couldn't be satisfactorily explained, it was skipped over. Much like Michael Crichton did in the original Jurassic Park, Going from blood sample to embryo was a grey area in the whole dinosaur cloning process. So the author skipped over instead of boring the reader with detailed hypothetical science.

Aside from the details, whether they interest the reader/viewer or not, the story puts man in his place. Our blah-blah human spirit didn't triumph or find a way. Our boosted egos were squashed at the threat of a real power, one our feeble minds were unable to comprehend. Reality was honored, instead of being twisted into our limited narrow view of ourselves and our own accomplishments. I loved it.

Which brings me to the remake, War of the Worlds (2005), directed by Steven Spielberg. Obviously when you are a fan of a movie, and you hear they are remaking it, you worry. I was worried about The Manchurian Candidate, Lolita, Psycho, and unfortunately several others. To this day I haven't seen the remake of Manchurian, although I hear it's good. The Lolita remake was fine. The Psycho remake was retarded. So I'm never really sure if I'm going to be let down or not, the track record for remakes in my world is pretty down the middle. When I heard Spielberg was behind it, I was more worried. I've always been happy with the days-of-old Speilberg sci-fi, such as Close Encounters and E.T. But the recent ones are sketchy. I liked A.I., although it had some shortcomings. Overall, anything successful about A.I. I still tend to attribute to Stanley Kubrick. Minority Report was a pile of crap, despite some great effects and fun action scenes. The plot holes - along with gaping voids of logic - were bigger than it's star, Tom Cruise. Cruise is the other factor that made me worry about the new WOTW. I like Tom Cruise in Magnolia, I like him in Interview with the Vampire. He actually took risks in these roles and, actually acted. Every other time I've ever seen him he is pretty much Tom Cruise, playing Tom Cruise, in a film produced by Tom Cruise. It gets rather tiring.

Despite the often fails to impress me duo, I liked the new War of the Worlds. Here's why:

First of all, it stuck to the story. It wasn't an identical remake, in the sense that Psycho was. But it wasn't exactly Final Fantasy, a movie with a familiar title that has nothing to do with its source material. Or I, Robot for that matter, borrowing a title and stuffing 90 minutes worth of (once again) Will Smith into a cardboard hero role. It was none of those. It took the book, and followed it in the best way modern times would allow. The original film took place in the 1950's, obviously to modernize it, it was going to take place now, in the 21st century. The premise of scientists running around hypothesizing on alien technology in the midst of a human obliteration has grown a bit dated, thus it was replaced with a bum divorcee dad, struggling to get his emotionally distant kids to safety in the midst of a human obliteration. Fine with me. It lends some degree of realism to an already overly-imaginative situation.

Second, key elements in the first movie were included, and refreshed logically. The tentacle with the alien camera on the end, that probes the house before the aliens enter was done true to form. In the original, the main character axing it off when discovered is awesome. In the remake, it's only eluded to at first. It reminds you of the original movie, then makes you think it would be stupid to go after the invaders with an axe. Then later it surprises the characters and the audience. Out of desperation, the axe comes out. It's like a tease at first, but then fully gives in to the original and gives the original fans what they want, a good chopping.

The mob that swamps the car is perfect. In the original the mob loots the truck, takes all of the scientists equipment and instruments, which are thought to be our only hope. We get to see how man is really his worst enemy, whether or not there are superior other-worldly forces closing in on us. We can always rely on each other to ruin it for the rest of us, in a fit of idiotic panic. The same scene for the remake was nicely updated, dropping the sucker punches and adding guns and killing.

The final scene in which the downed alien ship opens its hatch, revealing the dying alien's hand, was done the same. This was important, because as I mentioned much earlier, the ending is one of the main reasons I loved the original story. Minor changes were in place, such as losing the church, and adding a tiny bit of coaxing from the military to bring down one of the malfunctioning tripods. But the image of the alien dying was so directly from the original that it nicely tied it all together.

None of these changes exceeded necessity in any way. They were all simply modernizing the story to take place in present day. Morgan Freeman's narration was word-for-word in the opening scene. This movie truly stayed close to it's source material, and it succeeds because of it.

Sci-fi to me, is about humans. No matter how many movies or books come out about aliens or other worlds, or humanity's struggle in a future universe populated with exotic creatures, it's still about us. It's still a reflection of how we are interacting with each other right now. It's still an attempt to let us know we are not on top of things. No matter how much we do that makes us feel we are. H.G. Wells' story is all of this to me. A giant wake up call for everyone, plus lasers and destruction of course.