War of the Worlds - a vision of potent, malevolent, senseless evil

I saw War of the Worlds and I liked the movie. I found it suspenseful and yes, rather frightening. That said, I can’t say that it was either quite nihilistic nor was it very Objectivist, either. I find myself liking things in the artistic realm that under analysis I find to be based on philosophies I don’t believe in, though never completely antithetical to Objectivism. Personally, my “sense of life” at an emotional level is not the same as my intellectual beliefs, which are much more recent though the basic sense was always there. So what I am trying to say is that I still enjoy many artistic areas of music and entertainment that tend towards the existentialist, I would say, rather than the nihilistic.

For example, I think WoW would be better described as Existentialist rather than nihilistic. The reason being, it is the “struggle to survive” even in the face of what is a completely hopeless situation. In literature, I enjoy the works of Stephen R. Donaldson, which are definitely an example of existentialist literature in high fantasy and science fiction.

From the standpoint of alien intelligence, I think that regardless of the biology of any aliens, would they not have to live in the same universe with the same objective laws as we do? If you are an Objectivist, it makes sense to assume that a flourishing species of any kind would have to be rational and therefore have the same basis for morality.

On the idea of an “alien invasion” perhaps the reason it has not happened, even if intelligence is common, is that it is completely impractical. For instance, while it may be possible to send missions of exploration out, sending entire populations may not, and in the end destruction is destruction, meaning that aliens can die from guns and knives just like we can, and technology or not, it won’t be enough to assure dominance of much larger populations on a long-term basis, assuming that was even something desirable, which I think it would not be. Resources? We know that won’t be an issue either. So perhaps that is the answer to that “paradox” about intelligent life (I can’t remember what it was called) not having already taken everything over.

Post 81

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:02pm

So perhaps that is the answer to that “paradox” about intelligent life (I can’t remember what it was called) not having already taken everything over

That would be Fermi's paradox. I find it very interesting, the statistical arguments are very compelling. If even a small number of star systems have planets and a small number of those develop life and a small number of those evolve intelligence, and said intelligence spreads out really slowly (say 1,000 years between neighboring star systems) chances are, out of the 400 million stars in this galaxy and its 10 billion or so year life span, something should have spread out over most of the galaxy. Their startling absence is Fermi's paradox.

It is interesting to me that one of the logical explanations of the observation that the universe is not obviously teaming with life despite the large number of years and star systems, is that *we* are the first intelligent life to evolve in the universe and be technologically capable. What an honor! The whole universe is ours. Of course there are other logical explanations, most technological species tend to destroy themselves, or through whatever cycles of stars, solar systems and galaxies this is the first generation of technologically advanced civilizations in the galaxy and all of them are still relatively young, etc. etc.

One can only hope that the philosophy of murderous Stalinistic like altruism was generally defeated by any other intelligent technological capable civilizations that arose and we won't be visited by some communist aliens bent on showing us the morally virtuous way to live.

Michael F Dickey

Post 82

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:40pm

If you ever read "In Death Ground" by David Weber (and Steve White also, I think), the aliens there (or the "Bugs" as they are called) are the only known species that are completely relentless. The reason is that they are a hive mind, rather than being individuals like the other species, so they think only in terms of one species vs. another in pure competition for survival. It never even occurs to them to think otherwise.

Post 83

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 6:12am

I also saw the movie last night and I have to concede that it is not as scientifical as the original movie. It is true that Spielberg made an adaption, rather than a remake and changed some things (however, key elements are still in the movie).
However, I can't see the over all nihilistic tendency that has been misinterpreted into the movie. There is a happy ending (with the family (note this is the centeral theme and not the invasion) reunited) and also a greater ending (with the enemy being destroyed by Earth's environment).
I'd have liked it more, if the original ending had gone into the movie. H.G. Wells designed an ending, where the biowarfare of humanity killed the aliens with a bacteria, rather than this "nature kills enemy and thereby is our friend" theme.
However, since the focus was on the tragedy of the family in times of war, rather than on the actual happenings on earth, I find it ok.

This focus was nice and innovative to the genre, sadly, the acting lessons of Tom Cruise and his baby-doll (this shrieking girl) destroyed the innovation quite quickly. As in many of his movies before, Cruise is good at letting his yaw rest in the air, but not an able actor to convey multiple emotions in a short span.
And this is also the major issue of criticism, I have with this movie: It has the wrong actors for the right kind of remake.

On a philosophic level, it is rather a dark envisioning of the future and a criticism towards any military. It shows the uselessness of shear power in contrast to rational solution of problems. It was not the heavy weaponery of the military that ultimately beat the enemy, but a complex compound in the air. However, even this philosophical message is distrubed, because it leads to worshipping of mother nature as our protector.
So, on the philosophical plane it is a real no-brainer...

On a side-note:
Imo, the aliens were a little to cute for fearsome space-invaders. And also the idea of burying ships for thousands of years is stupid, because we have digged in most of this areas multiple times and would have found them by now ;)

(Edited by Max on 7/08, 6:13am)

Post 84

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 6:29am

@Kurt:

This is not entirely true. Intelligence is not a mark of moral belief, but rather of understanding of the environment or at least the means to solve mathematical problems (but even a computer can do this). So, in the end, intelligence comes down to creativity and self-awareness and for this, you don't need any kind of moral.

In the end, even self-awareness is no necessity to intelligence by itself. Just let us make an hypothetic example (which I stole from The Swarm by Frank Schätzling). We have a race that developped under water. It evolved from one cellular beings by connecting the cells. Rather than human developement, they built a hive and have a method of destroying "ill" cells. In the end, those smaller units build an awareness that works on the basis of pheromons or microwaves. The organism can divide itself into smaller elements and on notice of the mother "bee", due to those pheromons, combine again. It evolves by fostering lively and more advanced cells and killing those cells that cannot compete with the best.
They don't have no idea of good and evil, no idea of mechanics or communication. They have no means to understand those concepts, still they are alive, they are intelligent and they are creative. They live underwater and thereby have no concept of our world above.

Even on earth, we don't have a common value system. For example, we would regard eating a human being as a cruel deed, while some cannibals would say it is just their way of life. When it comes to racism, we can even have more differences on moral issues. Now, let's consider ants, they are highly organized, but not really intelligent. Let's ponder if they had the spark of creativity that is necessary. We would have to deal with a collective intelligence, especially one that is willing to kill its own people without doubts, an intelligence that wages war without the concept of peace and even the concept of individual reproduction is unkown to them.

My point is that we don't know exactly what makes us humans so different from other species, or what was the evolutionary step that did it. We have a period of time that defines a difference between before and after, but we don't know which biologic step programmed it. It could also be that such a mutation happens to ants one day and we would have to deal with them.
This is what alien theory and the search for sentient life (except us) is truly about. Try bargain or communicate with an ant. It might be impossible.

After Re-Read the discussions on previous pages:

I still think that someone who liked this movie must not be a nihilist. There are many themes of individual greatness in this movie. I think that what some here don't like is the reason that Spielberg didn't portray a 100% perfect hero who single-handed beated the evil intruders and all his family problems. Perhaps it also was the criticism of war as being bloody no fancy thing that set off some people.

However, I think that there have been some very unkind and nasty remarks been swirling around in this debate and I hope that this has now ceased.

(Edited by Max on 7/08, 6:56am)

Post 85

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 8:44am

Wrong - the act of self-awareness requires a CODE OF VALUES -that is, ethics [morals, actually is mystical version of ethics]...an act of self-awareness, of necessity, includes awareness of one's eventual demise - thus flourishing of that life requires a guide to that flourishing, which is what a code of values,c eg. ethics [morals] does...

Post 86

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 9:21am

Max, the point is that while "consciousness" can certainly develop, I am hard-pressed to see how an intelligence could create and use the necessary technology to travel between stars without embracing a philosophy of reason - at least in some fashion. That is why I think it would require some form of ethics and morality - maybe different - but in the end they all face the same issues and realities of existance that we do.

Post 87

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 9:40am

Thanks Andrew for the review,

I was wondering about going to see this movie and your review made me decide not to.

It isn't that I don't like Wells' fiction. I do. I liked the book - despite the flaws (which Marcus pointed out) - and I believe it is justly revered as being one of the great grand-daddy of science fiction. It contained a number of concepts that would have been revolutionary to the 1900s English public. Space travel, intelligent life on other planets, airborne invasions avoiding England's naval defences etc.

Now some 100 years later, when such ideas aren't revolutionary, I'm not surprised that people who encounter Wells' story (either in paperback or celluloid) see it as nihilistic. It is. Human resistance is represented by the slightly odd, artilleryman who dreams of having humanity regroup underground prior to counter attacking the alien invaders. A wonderful idea that Wells smothers by having this character turn out to be a lazy, drunken bum. So much for man's ability to think and fight its way out of a corner. Wells is very careful to portray mankind as mice; helpless, meek two-legged nothings living on borrowed time until the exterminators roll up to the door. If that isn't the essence of nihilism I don't know what is.

The thing that pisses me off about Spielburg's latest offering is that he chose Wells book as the basis of his alien invasion story. He could, for instance, have used John Christopher's Tripod Trilogy as the basis for his movie and made an Alien invasion movie with leading man who personifies the best in mankind.

Imagine Tom Cruise in a role about a man who uses his courage, guile and cunning to mortally wound the invaders and precipitate their total destruction. Those of you who have seen the movie: wouldn't this be a massive improvement?

Post 88

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 2:56pm

Well, think in differente shapes. Think of it like a multi-processor computer, but instead of a programming, you have an ever evolving program. The computer doesn't need ethics to work and develop (doing things faster than any human could). Now, just take it that these aliens live on a world that is 90% water and they live under water. They have no means to construct technics like we do. So, what do they do? They use biotechnology rather than our approach by creating entirely mechanical machines.
You don't need philosophy to be a genius and you don't need a moral concept to do it. I don't say they may not have a moral concept, but it may be so alien to us that we cannot conceive it or even relate to it on any point.

Spielberg himself said, that his movie is not a remake, but an adaption. This adaption wants to show what WAR is really like (something we westerners don't know anymore since we are living mostly in peace for the last 60 years and you US citizens don't know war at home not even by your parents or grand-dads, because you haven't faced any foes for the last 200 years at your own American soil.
I think he did a mavelous job in portraying the irrational horror in a warzone, if you are not in the military but a citizen. Just think how the Polands felt, when the German army suddenly invaded their country. And then imagine you were a jew, what would you have done?

And it is by no means nihilistic, because it has a happy ending, everything else is Drama (you perhaps had literature during your high school time). It has an exposition, a climax of drama and then a retardierendes Moment and an happy ending. And it is a drama on many levels, not only a family but also a social drama. I grant it, the acting is poor and the movie lives mostly on its SFX, but nonetheless it is no nihilistic movie. It is no Ayn Rand novel, that's for sure, but it still is an average hollywood movie with a hero and a happy ending.

Post 89

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:14am

I will go out on a limb here, I saw the movie, I enjoyed the movie and I disagree about it being all nihilistic.

I went in only knowing about the original panic caused by the radio broadcast all those years ago and knew nothing of the story beyong Aliens invade and start killing lots of people.

What I saw was the willingless of humanity to survive, to keep living no matter how hard or futile the odds appear, the resilience of the human race. At one point in the movie, the part I saw as the darkest when you realised that humanity's weapons were useless and when you thought one of the main characters had died, the main character is stuck hiding with another man who loses it and decides it is all futile and starts making lots of panic stricken noise that might attract the aliens so the main character kills the man and resumes living and hoping.

As the movie progresses from this point things are still terrible but bit by bit you see other people have survived and then the first victory over the aliens is realised. Then as the hope from that victory buoys people on another victory is obtained and then the realisation that something is wrong with the aliens culminating with the main character re-uniting with his family having grown in character from where we first met him as a deadbeat dad. The human race is left with hope and the message that they are stronger despite their frailty than the invaders with their superior technology.

Perhaps being a parent myself who experiences life with a deadbeat dad in two of my children's lives is why this movie had something in it I liked as I saw the main character rise up and become the father/protector his children had needed him to be. Movies are great, wish life was like that, well minus the aliens bit.

Post 90

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:37am

Yes, this is one part of why the movie is not nihilistic. On the other hand, you could say that our world in itself is often nihilistic, if you agree on this movie as a portray of nihilism.
Steven Spielberg initially stated that War of the Worlds was not a remake, but an adaption that suited his purpose of telling a war story.
Like many Science Fiction writers/directors, he uses the medium not to show fancy aliens or such, but to give an impression of how societies behave in certain situations. Again, Steven did this movie in regard of World War II and other such events in the last century. He wanted to capture the spirit and the circumstances that occur, when you are seeing an enemy where resistance is futile (like in the eyes of the German armada going about Europe and killing hundres and thousands of people). But instead of focusing on the big and important figures, he stayed with the poor innocent men who just were in the enemy's way.
We don't hear or see whether there were any negotiations with the aliens or what exactly the army planned. It was like in war, when all of the sudden hell breaks loose and German Panzers roll over the border shooting on your village.
I think Mr. Spielberg did a fabulous job portraying this environment on the big screen for the mainstream.

Post 91

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:40pm

I think that a plot about an alien invasion which casually brushes aside all human resistance and technological accomplishments, but is ended by an accident of fate, is nihilistic and anti-man. So I agree with Robert Winefield and others on this point. The plot is rather nihilistic.

But, the particular story is less so. I agree with the fellow (dont remeber who) who found the story a bit inspirational, because the screw-up Dad was courageous in his protection and defense of his kids. However, the story is thin, and the writing is not particularly impressive. The acting was better than expected.

I think Speilberg's directing was good, and not nihilistic. Shooting the film with shots of nothing but the character's feet might have been nihilistic. But here, Speilberg gives up wide panning shots of action, close-ups of well-acted reactions. His choice of shots effectively conveyed the story.

Also, technologically speaking, the movie is a marvel, and beautiful to behold.

I enjoyed the movie, but not in the same way as, say, in the original Star Wars, or even Independence Day (with Will Smith), precisely because there was no 'human triumph' moment, but rather, only a 'human reprieve.' A sequel, with human integration of the alien technology, would be more exciting.

Here is the most interesting point for me: is the plot inherently nihilistic because it depicts such radically superior antagonists, or are they allegory for challenges in our lives which are, with all due respect to indivudal greatness, beyond us? In which case, HOW we deal with overwhelming odds becomes the story, and the story is not necessarily nihilistic. I'm not sure.

Post 92

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:37pm

Once again: What I saw was the willingless of humanity to survive, to keep living no matter how hard or futile the odds appear, the resilience of the human race.

That's more like existentialism than nihilism. I do, however, agree that I much preferred something like "Independence Day" in terms of the plot. That said, Spielberg did a great job conveying the fear and anxiety of an event like this.

Post 93

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:55pm

Scott:
>Here is the most interesting point for me: is the plot inherently nihilistic because it depicts such radically superior antagonists, or are they allegory for challenges in our lives which are, with all due respect to indivudal greatness, beyond us? In which case, HOW we deal with overwhelming odds becomes the story, and the story is not necessarily nihilistic. I'm not sure.

Hi Scott,

In order to assess WOW's degree of aesthetic 'nihilism' we need only look to the standard Andrew himself sets for such nihilism: the movie "Fight Club".

In "Fight Club" the anti hero is a violent schizophrenic. He rejects the ordinary middle class world of consumerism ('Ikea Boy') and moves into the most disgusting slum imaginable. He goes to cancer survival support groups for fun, and the movie seems to mock the participants of such groups ( such as Meat Loaf's 'man-breasts'). He starts a series of violent underground groups who beat the living crap out of each other because, apparently, bourgeois consumerism has given them what the Marxists would have called a 'false consciousness'. These 'fight clubs' let them get back to the true essence of being a man ie: *violence*. As the movie continues, the actions of the anti-hero escalate from making soap out of liposuction remains and selling it back to unsuspecting women to ultimately forming a secret militia cell. This cell finally dynamites a series of skyscrapers while the anti-hero and his masochistic lover watch them collapse, rather attractively, from a distance. All the destruction in the movie is *caused by the hero*. As I wrote earlier, the message is: *destruction and violence are natural, even beautiful* and *there is no hope* - insanity is the only sane response to capitalist consumerism, which is itself viewed as a kind of insanity.

The contrast with WOW should now be obvious to most people who have seen the movie, where *destruction is ugly and terrifying*, *there is hope* normality can return, and the hero/es of the movie are the *victims* of terror and violence, not the *perpetrators of it*. So if 'FC' is nihilistic, surely 'WOW' *cannot be*. Hence I regard Andrew's excitable accusations of 'nihilism' to be superficial by his own standards. Of course, anyone can trump up a case against something if they so desire - but it usually means flying in the face of the of the evidence, and treating facile similarities as if they were fundamental ones - which as I think you can see they are clearly *not*.That's why the accusation that Spielberg "crassly" exploits Sept 11 purely for the purposes of instilling terror (and, presumably making money) is far more crass than anything you'll find in the movie.

Now I'm just going to say a brief word on how I think one *should* deal with nihilism in aesthetics.

Firstly the key point is GK Chesterton's: that nihilism is *insincere*. Otherwise why would one bother making a nihilist movie or writing a nihilist book? If nothing is worth doing, why would anyone bother doing anything, including spreading nihilism, in the first place? The sincere nihilist would have already committed suicide in bed, to avoid the pointless act of getting up. So nihilism is usually a posture, which is why it is so often associated with adolescence. That's also why nihilism works best in satire, whether it is the modest proposals of Swift or the equal-opportunity cynicism of "South Park". There is nothing of less importance than being earnest in this type of art, as Oscar Wilde knew. Where nihilism needs to be criticised is when it is *romanticised*, such as in 'Fight Club' or "The Way Of The Gun'. And it needs to be criticised when it becomes more than an occassional fantasy indulgence - a reminder of what *not* to be like - and when it becomes an entire industry dedicated making money out of promoting the worst kind of behaviour to the youngest and most easily influenced people. When cynicism, instead of being a bubble, *becomes the whole ocean*. That is what we should guard against.

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 7/13, 3:58pm)

Post 94

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:47am

I think that a plot about an alien invasion which casually brushes aside all human resistance and technological accomplishments, but is ended by an accident of fate, is nihilistic and anti-man. So I agree with Robert Winefield and others on this point. The plot is rather nihilistic.

Ah, but you don't see much of the war that is waged, except some little glimpses. How do you know that they brushed away ALL of human resistance. On the other side, what would you think of a race that has managed interstellar travel? I think it is the same as if we start to attack the aborigines at some remote island. We would win hands down, so I don't think it is unrealistic or wrong.
However, I am with you in the idea of "accident of fate". This truely is a misconception that H.G. Wells got right. He made it a biologic virus made by US scientists to kill those enemies, rather than some anomaly in Earth's atmosphere.

But, the particular story is less so. I agree with the fellow (dont remeber who) who found the story a bit inspirational, because the screw-up Dad was courageous in his protection and defense of his kids. However, the story is thin, and the writing is not particularly impressive. The acting was better than expected.

Indeed, the script was poor, but I didn't find the acting any better (especially Tom Cruise was bad again.)

It think Speilberg's directing was good, and not nihilistic. Shooting the film with shots of nothing but the character's feet might have been nihilistic. But here, Speilberg gives up wide panning shots of action, close-ups of well-acted reactions. His choice of shots effectively conveyed he story.

The direction of the movie was good imo and it conveyed the impressions of a battlefield, the hectic, the emotional tension and the painstaking escape.

Also, technologically speaking, the movie is a marvel, and beautiful to behold.

I

enjoyed the movie, but not in the same way as, say, in the original Star Wars, or even Independence Day (with Will Smith), precisely because there was no 'human triumph' moment, but rather, only a 'human reprieve.' A sequel, with human integration of the alien technology, would be more exciting

.

Yes, but it would be scientifically bull-shit, because the incorporation of alien technology would be a thing of years or decades to do. I think it was quite a human triumph, when we see that they stay alive, even despite their technologic inferiority. The scene were Tom plants the grenades in the alien tripod is a clever thing and shows the superiority of mankinds mind and inventiveness. Default Win by Cleverness with low-tech :)

H

ere is the most interesting point for me: is the plot inherently nihilistic because it depicts such radically superior antagonists, or are they allegory for challenges in our lives which are, with all due respect to indivudal greatness, beyond us? In which case, HOW we deal with overwhelming odds becomes the story, and the story is not necessarily nihilistic. I'm not sure.

Just think about it. Is the Pianist (about the survival of a Jewish Pianoist in Warswa) nihilistic, becaues the German invaders were superior? No, it is about the survival of the individualist and his opponents (Germans) are so strong that he couldn't fight them openly - running was the only option. Still, I wouldn't classify it as a nihilistic plot.

Post 95

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:13am

I'll admit up front...I didn't read all the posts on this thread. I can't believe some of the things you guys got into. I just wanted to say, I saw this movie and sorta liked it. I didnt' know anything about the book or the 50's movie...anything about this movie whatsoever. And while I agree Tom Cruise was a stumbling fool throughout the movie...in no way a "hero"...I can't say I woudn't be a stumbling fool if space aliens came to earth and started destroying my city and drinking my neighbors through octopus straws. I think Speilberg did a pretty good job of portraying human beings as they would likely react to such a...scenario. And I really liked the ending too. It was a little abrupt...but it was thoughtful and made a hell of a lot more sense than the ID4 crap...Randy Quaid flying a fighter jet into the ass of a monster space ship. The ending was really the only possible conclusion to a story like that. And it was a good reminder to us...we can't just explore other planets (in the future) for similar reasons. We have to be careful when we send pigs out to space (as China did today) and let them tool around mercury for a while to see how the bacon tastes. We have to be careful folks...germs are real.

Post 96

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 1:25pm

Another Look at WAR OF THE WORLDS...

This is NOT a hero movie as traditionally understood, nor is it meant to be. This is not INDEPENDENCE DAY or MEN IN BLACK, or AIR FORCE ONE, RAMBO, etc. This is a story about dealing with the unconscious.

If you know Spielberg, you know that he has a strong interest in Jungian themes, and those themes are a major part of his films, most notably CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. You can take his movies for their surface layer, but to get in deeper, you have to see that the aliens are not "out there," they are shadow projections. What Spielberg has done in WAR OF THE WORLDS is adapt Well's story and combined it with 9/11 to tell the story of what happens when unconscious thoughts make themselves known. The alien ships buried in the ground suggest a welling up of repressed thoughts and ideas, the characters taking refuge in basements suggest a confrontation with that material, and the protagonist's final confrontation with the shadow takes place in the belly of the beast, where he is swallowed up and reborn. It is only then that the aliens succumb to the virus, the virus being awareness (as suggested by Tim Robbin's exhortation to be aware.) And the daughter is the protagonist's animus, or she is the divine child archetype (not quite sure, it's hard to think about these things with cars and laser beams flying off the screen directly at you...but if you think back to CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, you will see a similar scene where the child is standing in front of a light, acting as guide to the unconscious.

Jung nor Spielberg deny the existence of external evil (see the former's ANSWER TO JOB and the latter's SCHINDLER'S LIST), and the character of the son is important in this respect. It is perfectly normal and necessary for the adolescent to set off into the world and play hero, as it helps form his ego and identity. Notice that his role would be the typical hero expected in a summer blockbuster. But this is not the son's story, it is the father's. Midlife is that time where one turns inward, and that is why Ray cannot fight, nor run, but confront the alien shadows on their own terms. It is not outer aliens but inner demons he is confronting, which, in this case, haunt his family life.

All this is typical of classic hero myths, if one gets past the initial story of hero as dragon slayer. Nietzsche wrote that " a warlike man in peacetime will make war with himself." To dig deeper, one sees the hero slay the dragon and dethrone the tyrants, only to become that which he destroys, and eventually must be slain himself to restore balance. So to really understand this story, it's necessary to realize that this is the second half of the classical hero myth, not the first.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/18, 5:16pm)

Post 97

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:17pm

One glaringly obvious thing everyone has missed is that both the film and book are called:

WAR OF THE WORLDS.

However, it is not about a war, it is about an annihilation. From this aspect, both the book and film are nihilistic. It's the final insult - as if HG Wells thought to himself, "And now to show how truly impotent mankind is - I will call this mass slaughter a WAR".

However, if the film were called "Survival" or "Against the odds" then this story would not seem nihilistic, because your attention would be directed to the actual "survival". You would focus on a heroic struggle by a father to keep his family alive "against the odds".

This is probably why the two different camps have interpreted the same story in two different ways - because their attentions have focussed on two different aspects.

However, because the book and film are called "WAR OF THE WORLDS", nihilism is the more logical conclusion - even though this story does contain heroism.

P.S. I must agree with Robert that the scientific ideas in the book were mind-blowing for the readers of the time, and the book is very well written too. Something that you can never appreciate from a film adaption set in the 21st century.

Post 98

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:31pm

My goodness. I can't believe this much attempted intellectual criticism and analysis was actually written based on a movie that is FICTION!

It was a fictitious movie. Either it was good or it sucked. Lets move on.

Jbrad

Post 99

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:54pm