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

Joe,

Spielberg is not a Jungian - he is a Kantian. For example, compare "Schindler's List" with Orczy's "The Scarlet Pimpernel." There is no reason, outside of Kant, why a hero cannot enjoy his heroism. But Schindler - not a wallflower about enjoying other aspects of his life - gets no charge at all from his exploits as a rescuer. That's this Kant thing about doing something only out of duty, and not because of any personal satisfaction, as a condition of real morality, and Spielberg is heavily into it. That's one reason I don't plan on seeing his latest.

Post 101

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 2:34pm

Josh: "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."

Um, would you say the same about ATLAS SHRUGGED?

Kurt, thanks, and thanks for asking. Seattle's great, and finally got my internet hooked up this morning (no more trips to the library.)
Not too familar with existentialism, but it wouldn't surprise me if in the end, the humans were waiting for Godot to save them.

Adam, I stand by what I wrote, because Jung was influenced by Kant as well, and Spielberg has stated that he was influenced by Jung.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/19, 2:36pm)

Post 102

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:50pm

There were definitely holes in the logic of the ending. If the aliens had been observing Earth for centuries, and had even spent enough time here to bury their machines, how could they not know about germs? And for that matter, how likely is it that germs which evolved to feed on terrestrial life could affect beings with a totally alien body chemistry? Few germ-based diseases which affect Earth creatures can be passed to a different species.

What I wonder is, how many people saw the movie but totally missed the explanation of what caused the aliens' downfall? My wife and 18-year-old son saw the movie with me, and neither of them got it until I explained it to them.

Post 103

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 3:51pm

Um, would you say the same about ATLAS SHRUGGED?

Joe Maurone,

Of course I would. I am not an english major and do not delight in the criticism and anlysis of works of literature or art. I find each to be extremely subjective and the only person who has the authority to talk about it with critical intentions is the one who painted it or wrote it. I do take pleasure in is critical examination and anlysis of real events that affect you and me, events such as war, health care, education, social security, deficit spending and community activity and so on. Thanks. Jbrad

Post 104

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:04pm

Thanks for explaining, Josh. Just curious, have you read THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO? If you haven't, and are really interested in why people analyze fiction, I highly recommend it. Of course, not everyone looks to fiction for insight, but the essays withing explain the significance.

Shine On,
Joe

Post 105

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:10pm

Steve, not sure how to answer you regarding the originals, but in the case of the remake, at least, it's probably not so important. If you see the movie as metaphor, you see the aliens as symbols, and they operate the same way as the gods or other characters in myths. The how is not as important as the why (which, again, I chalk up to a Jungian journey into the psyche.)

Shine on,
Joe

Post 106

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:27pm

Adam, your note about Kant and Schindler's List makes sense to me. I never liked at the end when he laments about not selling his watch, etc... The story was based on a real man, but used a lot of artistic license, I imagine?

The concept behind existentialism is not exactly my cup of tea, but basically it grew out of a disillusionment with the massive death of the World War(s) and religion (i.e. how can God allow this to happen?) yet at the same time rejecting the concept of nihilism. Therefore, in existentialism, resistance and struggle is everything. Thus, if you hold lofty and (impossible) ideals, you fail. However, if you maintain your humanity in the face of the overwhelming, you may survive. It is a bit like the concept of Sisyphus, who keeps moving the rock no matter what, even though he knows it will roll back down the hill again anyway.

Not too cheery, is it? However, it is better than nihilism, I suppose. That is kind of how I felt that this movie went, in that while the aliens were overwhelming and could not be stopped, man kept struggling anyway, and in the end survived.

Actually, I think I won't see more of Cruise because this Scientology, now that I have researched it, is some of the most vile stuff I have ever seen. I can't support that in any way.

Post 107

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:29pm

Kurt wrote:
>Nobody took up my mantle that it was existentialist - well maybe it wasn't, but that was what I thought.

I think that's a very credible interpretation - the classic existentialist experience of being thrust into a hostile, alien world not of your making or choice, but nonetheless having to make choices and act responsibly within it. A good call.

- Daniel

Post 108

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 9:23pm

Adam writes:
>For example, compare "Schindler's List" with Orczy's "The Scarlet Pimpernel."

I can't really believe I'm reading that.

Let's see: 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' is, as far as I am aware, a work of fiction. 'Schindler's List' is a true story. The Scarlet Pimpernel is a purely *imaginary* superhero, who saved imaginary people in imaginary adventures. Oskar Schindler was a *real person* who saved real people in real danger.

So: Spielberg is a 'Kantian', and 'War Of The Worlds' should be avoided because...in a different movie Spielberg didn't portray a *real person* to be sufficiently like a *fictional* character! Quite a line of reasoning you've got there.

>That's this Kant thing about doing something only out of duty, and not because of any personal satisfaction, as a condition of real morality, and Spielberg is heavily into it.

As I recall, in the end of 'Schindlers List' Schindler weeps because *he was not able to save more Jews*. That is, it meant SO MUCH to him to save their lives, that his greatest regret was not being able to save more of them! I don't really know how you can say he does not do it out of any 'personal satisfaction'. It is a bizarre claim. It seems he gets the most *profound* personal satisfaction possible from his actions - it has made his rather shallow life suddenly filled with meaning, so much so that his attempt to return to normality seems empty by comparison.

But I guess if your artistic considerations are just ideological ones in drag - nothing else matters but sniffing out the whiff of Kantian brimstone - you will end up with something indistinguishable from apparatchik aesthetics.

- Daniel

Post 109

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:39pm

Daniel,

In real life, the real Oscar Schindler was a bon vivant who loved the challenge of outwitting the Nazi machine. He was a real, non-Kantian human who derived tremendous personal pleasure and pride from tweaking the monster and winning. The "speech" at the end of Spielberg's film has nothing to do with reality. That speech is fiction. It differs from the "Scarlet Pimpernel" by being less real.

We now return you to "War of the Worlds."

Post 110

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:19pm

Adam writes:
>The "speech" at the end of Spielberg's film has nothing to do with reality. That speech is fiction.

But of course. And the insertion of it is *exactly* my point as to the filmmakers' intention.

Let me repeat: Is Schindler expressing that he got no satisfaction from saving the Jews, merely did his ineffable duty? Or is he expressing the deepest satisfaction possible - tearfully wishing that he *could have saved more*, and desperately desired to?

Can you explain why, if he was not 'personally satisfied' by saving lives, he'd regret so passionately not being able to do more?

>It differs from the "Scarlet Pimpernel" by being less real.

If the movie 'Schindlers List' is less real than 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' that's one interesting version of reality you got there.

- Daniel

Post 111

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:32am

Daniel,

To any reader of English with reading fluency above second-grade level, it should have been obvious that Schindler's speech, and not the film as a whole, is fiction.

You should know better than that.

Post 112

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:36am

Adam Reed
>You should know better than that.

My apologies. Could you just answer my question please?

- Daniel

Post 113

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:59am

Daniel,

If the question were answered from the fictional Kantian perspective of the speech Spielberg invented, it would be because at that point he would no longer be able satisfy the categorical imperative.

The real Schindler would have said something like, "For the last four years, I've had the pleasure of frustrating the Nazi regime by saving your lives. I found that I'm good at this work, better than I've been at anything else I've done with my life. I hope that you will celebrate my pleasure in what I have done, by taking the same pleasure in whatever you do with your lives from this time onward."
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/20, 2:14am)

Post 114

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:10am

Adam writes:
>If the question were answered from the fictional Kantian perspective of the speech Spielberg invented, it would be because at that point he would no longer be able satisfy the categorical imperative.

So you're saying Spielberg had Schindler weep not because of the sadness he felt for all the people he had been unable to save; nor because saving them had enriched his own life beyond measure, despite it costing him his last pfenning (which happened in reality); nor because he felt simply overwhelmed before the enormity of the horror of the Holocaust, which dwarfed his own amazing effort; nor any combination of the above. Spielberg had Schindler weep *because he would no longer be able to satisfy the categorical imperative*.

I can't help thinking this is - at best - merely a pretentious assertion. At worst, by-the-numbers ideology.

>The real Schindler would have said something like...

In other words, the "real" Schindler "would have said"...things that you've just made up! His actual speech is available somewhere - I understand it is mostly about not pursuing individual vengeance against their aggressors. Is that the source of your extemporization? If not, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into an argument over whether what the Baroness Orczy makes up is more "real" than what Hollywood makes up or what you make up over the internet. That would be something like madness.

- Daniel

Post 115

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:56pm

I just took a trip to the Sci Fi Museum today, and there is a nice little WOTW display set up. According to the exhibit, Wells was writing about his fears of a German military buildup in the late 1800's-early 1900s. And the 50's movie version was a projection of the fears of communism rising. It seems that every update is related to some kind of military fear, and fitting that Spielberg would use it to tackle terrorism today. So that would explain the reasoning for having the tripods buried on earth (the threat is already here, under our noses), and is less about the science than the idea of aliens as metaphors for our fears.

And the 4 foot tripod replica was very cool.

Oh, and part of a video display of sci fi movies and books featured the cover of ATLAS SHRUGGED, which was really cool...
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/20, 4:00pm)

Post 116

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 4:28pm

Andrew Bissell wrote: "Will Thomas once remarked to me that he thinks horror movies are a sign of cultural decay. If you had asked me to write the most thorough, consistent depiction of horror possible, I could not have conceived a script that conveyed half this film's level of sick, hopeless despair, or its reveling in bloodshed. The movie forces upon you the feeling of kneeling before evil. I wanted to puke."

My philosophy instructor liked the movie.

I am taking a class in Logic, Philosophy 250, at Washtenaw Community College. The instructor, Liz Goodnick, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan. You can read this about her:

[GSI = Graduate Student Instructor. GEO = Graduate Employee's Organization; the grad student labor union.]

"Elizabeth Goodnick is a GSI in the Philosophy Department. After reading her fellow GEO members� comments about the Michigan Review, she wrote, �We [GEO] should not acknowledge this obviously offensive homophobic, misogynist, racist publication as legitimate by giving them anything resembling a serious response�written or verbal.�
http://www.michiganreview.com/article.php?id=1487
Twenty years old, The Michigan Review "is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan."

So, I kidded with another member of the Washtenaw GOP, that I would be learning logic from a liberal.

On the first day of class, we all introduced ourselves and Liz Goodnick said that her favorite summer movie had been War of the Worlds. I thought of this thread, immediately, and I could see the correlation, of course. Good call, Andrew! I owe you a Red Check.

Post 117

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 6:53pm

Heh, thanks Michael. I can definitely see how the film's scenes of military defeats and Hummers careening back from the battlefield, destroyed and in flames, would appeal to especially odious antiwar liberals.

Post 118

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 6:52pm

Well, I was thinking more of the malevolent aspect of a hugely destructive and incomprehensible force destroying eveything you built and threatening to destroy you, but you are saved by something you had nothing to do with. That is the liberal universe.

On other forums, I excoriated Indiana Jones for his propaganda value to archaeologists opposed to private property. However, in this context, Jones is certainly an Objectivist hero. He not so much strong as confident and not so brave as intelligent.

In fact, we tend not to understand Herakles. Read The Twelve Labors. In each one, he thinks of a clever solution.

I too lightly passed over the fact that H. G. Wells was a Fabian socialist. In the HGW version of the The Twelve Labors, Greece is engulfed by all manner of raging beasts, the sky falls in, and everyone wanders around up to their knees in stable sweepings.

Post 119

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 1:36pm