Kevin Ahearn writes about...

the remake of War of the Worlds

BWS:

War of the Worlds is about to premiere for the second time as a motion picture. But will it be Wells’ 1898 classic that set the SF standard or a new-millennium con job?

On October 30, 1938, Orson Welles and his Mercury Theatre troupe brought forth War of the Worlds as an alien invasion that began in New Jersey and, in barely 90 minutes, destroyed most of America. Welles had timed and primed his radio program to perfection. Disguised as a big-band concert with “news reporters” breaking in at key points, Welles drew a nationwide audience into a reality of his own making. Coupled with the threat of Nazi Germany, less than a year away from invading Poland and then conquering all of continental Europe, to this day, lowly radio holds the top spot in the presentation of a science-fiction novel. (No, folks, movies and television aren’t even close!)

But is War of the Worlds about an invasion, by Martians or anybody else? What is the novel really about? According to Tom Cruise, the mega-star whose name and face will guarantee that Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds will gross $100 million in its first week, the movie is about “family values.” Too many sci-fi fans believe that it’s about humanity versus the space aliens. Please, the book is less than 50,000 words. Hasn’t anybody out there bothered to read it?

By its title and first page, H.G. Wells makes it crystal clear what his novel is about when he writes about Man’s belief in his “empire over matter.” Less than a hundred words later, he warns of the coming of the “great disillusionment.” That’s right, humankind, you don’t run the Earth. It’s bigger than that!

It’s War of the Worlds, not “War of the Species”! Man doesn’t win, Earth does. Of course, the idea that maybe humanity could learn something from the planet it lives on still hasn’t caught on. I mean, compared to “family values,” what could we possibly benefit from the realization that we are but a small part of a grand natural scheme?

“How does SF stay in business in a world of marching morons?” asked Harlan Ellison.

You might think Wells and Welles are spinning in their graves at this very moment, but I think they’re smiling in smug satisfaction. In the 21st century, the vast majority of the “sci-fi audience” are so much like the young, ignorant Eloi from Wells’ first novel, The Time Machine. Imagine Wells coming back as his time traveler and discussing the vital issues of our age... “Do you think George Lucas redeemed himself with Revenge of the Sith? Will Star Trek be reimagined yet again? What’s with the T&A and pseudo-profanity of ‘Battlestar Galaxative’?” Poor Herbert George. Would he run off to embrace the Morlocks or cry out for all to hear, “I should have returned as the Invisible Man”?

And Orson? The wunderkind who became Citizen Kane and stunned Hollywood and the world with the greatest film ever made finished up as the voice of the robot planet Unicron, a veritable technological cartoon being. Oh, how the mighty wound up paying the rent!

The irony of genius and those incapable of understanding it. The sci-fi community has an empire over things that don’t matter. The “great disillusionment” goes on.

Copyright © 2005 by Kevin Ahearn

Kevin, I don’t think we can be too hard on Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg. Consider the cultural context: the remake of War of the Worlds is post-9/11 Hollywood and — whatever the intent may have been — stands to score political points with the party in power.

I have no idea what Tom Cruise actually thinks of the story. “Family values” is simply a political code phrase meaning only that the film is “not gay” and is intended for a culturally conservative audience. But who knows: he may just be pulling our leg.

Does Spielberg understand the moral of H. G. Wells’ novel as you’ve outlined it? I wouldn’t know. But he does know which side his bread is buttered on: the war on a state of mind, terror, is the order of the day. Learn from the earth? Official dogma holds that the science is “still unproven” even though Texas may turn into a desert and sink beneath the sea all at the same time. Some greenhouse gases are being reduced, but timetables are forbidden. However, flatlanders now stand to make money off of wind power. Everybody’s health is out; somebody’s bottom line is in.

H. G. Wells and Orson Welles made great and timely literature; Hollywood, like publishers and others, makes money. The two occupations are entirely different, and it’s a wonder they support each other at all, let alone as much as they do. I wouldn’t look any farther than that. As I say, I don’t think we can be too hard on Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg, no matter how hard we try.

Don Webb