SPOILER ALERT - Don’t read further if you don’t want to know any plot points from the film.
Just saw War of the Worlds. Holy Mackeral - what a piece of crap. I mean, it was a good show reel for ILM, but man, overall, the story just didn’t have anything to it. In fact, at the end, I couldn’t believe it was over - what the hell did I just experience?! Luckily, Morgan was there to give me all the answers…
Me, I’d much rather prefer the story itself gave me the answers.
All the pieces were there for a Grand Argument Story. You had the Overall Story, which was pretty apparent - aliens invade Earth. Then you had the whole emotional heart of the story - the father/son relationship between Ray and Robbie. Both had their viewpoints - one wanted to go to war, one just wanted to run away. (Which is a great dynamic - one wanting to go to war, one not wanting to go to war really isn’t a dynamic pair - that would be like proaction/inaction - those aren’t really dynamic pairs - proaction/reaction - now that’s a dynamic pair!)
But you didn’t really have much of a Main Character perspective - I guess him being a miserable father - single-minded - workaholic - something like that was in there. But there was never any time devoted to it. Why the heck did we learn he was real quick with loading and unloading things on the dock?! I thought for sure this was setting up his ability to destroy the aliens in the 3rd act - but nothing came of it! Why the hell waste screen time with that opening sequence?
And the Impact Character - you never really got to see him fulfill his role as the young bright-eyed soldier. He just disappears - and then conveniently reappears at the end. I know I was supposed to cry, but I didn’t feel anything. Why?
Because the story had no meaning.
Well, it did tell me one thing. I no longer feel guilty about driving my SUV around, polluting the atmosphere, because apparently - our crappy air quality and our degenerate blood (from the junk food we eat, etc.) is responsible for saving the planet. HA! What a message!
They tried to force some meaning at the end, again, thanks to Morgan - and it was something that I thought was a good argument - that every life lost is not lost in vain - but show that to me! Perfect use of this would be if his son died going to war. Maybe he and his fellow soldiers kept the aliens away from the remaining human survivors just long enough for them to be infected by our blood. But there was nothing tying this together at all - instead, Tom walks into a city, notices that the red veins are white and determines that they are dying. Just like that the movie is over.
Can we all say “deus ex machina?”
I’m so surprised that the film ended like this - I mean, this is 4th grade creative writing class stuff. For those who don’t know (or haven’t googled “deus ex machina” by now) its ancient Greek for “god from the machine.” An old plot device that solved a story crisis with some improbable intervention from God. Private Ryan and Jurassic Park both ended this way as well. When a story ends this way there is no meaning, and therefore we leave the theater feeling rather empty.
But the special effects were cool.
Share This
8 responses so far ↓
1 Alan Barclay // Jun 30, 2005 at 7:22 am
I wonder if Deus Ex Machina works better in text than on visual media. The Wells’ book has a Deus Ex Machina ending. As I recall, Wells used exposition to bring out a sense of the awesome power of natural forces. His main theme was cautionary — the Martians were what we might become. I remember being satisfied with his ending.
But I can’t think of a visual media with a Deus Ex Machina endings that I liked. Jurassic Park, The Stand, etc. all failed to satisfy me on screen. However, in book form WotW, J. Park, and The Stand all feel complete because of author exposition. Exposition of course doesn’t go over well on screen.
Wait! The Andromeda Strain. But I think this movie succeeded because the OS was the struggle to understand the virus, not to defeat it. The fact that the virus ultimately becomes dormant doesn’t undermine the message in this case.
2 JIm // Jun 30, 2005 at 10:03 am
I confess I haven’t read the H.G. Wells book. Someone said last night that it was true to the book. But then this is just like “The Passion of the Christ” last year where it stayed true to the book - and left many audience members unsatisfied.
As far as Jurassic Park, that was always my favorite part of the Dramatica theory book - the analysis that showed how simply you could fix the story and make the ending make sense.
3 Shawn Scarber // Jun 30, 2005 at 3:53 pm
I think you may have missed the point of the film. Spielberg used the basic story of War of Worlds to create a Metaphor for the US and 9/11.
For one thing, didn’t you think it odd that the aliens would drink from old water pipes in the cellar of a farmhouse? Didn’t their purpose seem almost nonsensical? Why plant war machines until there are enough humans to use them for fertilizer? The aliens represented an overwhelming, unstoppable, irrational force of destruction.
I think most people go into this movie expecting ID4 2, but that’s not what it’s about. This movie was about Ray and his kids surviving–focusing on his son fighting would have completely left the main story premise and would have been a distraction from the filmmaker’s goal.
The reason you were left feeling unsatisfied is the same reason many people were left unsatisfied after the attacks of 9/11. The force of destruction came and went without giving anyone a chance to get justice.
This movie was meant as a metaphor; not a science fiction adventure film and not a grand argument story.
4 Mark McElroy // Jun 30, 2005 at 4:10 pm
I’m tickled by folks who are put off by the fact this movie preserves the ending of H. G. Well’s novel. (”What? They just got sick and died? What kind of ending is that?!?”)
Poor H.G.! So ignorant of Dramatica and “Grand Argument Stories!” Yet he wrote a novel that outlived him and that will outlive us all.
Fourth grade creative writing stuff, indeed.
storyfanm: “apparently - our crappy air quality and our degenerate blood (from the junk food we eat, etc.) is responsible for saving the planet. HA! What a message!”
MM: While this message might be yours, it’s not found in the novel or the movie. A lack of resistance to common Earth bacteria — not crappy air quality or “degenerate blood”) — defeats the Martians.
5 Jim // Jun 30, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Oh - my fault. I got the impression that it was our years of evolution, who we are now, that carried the bacteria. I could’ve sworn Morgan even said, “Once they breathed our air” - to me that just said pollution is good. Just my interpretation (again, I’ve never read the original).
The whole point of this blog is to look at stories and storytelling through the filter of Dramatica - so, of course, if it doesn’t fit the Grand Argument Story paradigm I’ll find reason to criticize it.
As far as a metaphor for the US and 9/11, I was actually really hoping this is what it was going to be - and was real disappointed when it wasn’t what I had hoped for. I see your point about how it could be about the overwhelming destruction and then not having an ability to fight back (or get justice). I just thought emotionally it would’ve been so much better to play up the whole son wanting to go to war/Tom wanting to run away thing since I felt both after 9/11. It would’ve been nice to see a Grand Argument for one or the other (or even a different alternative).
Again, the reason I like Dramatica so much and the reason why I started a whole blog on the theory is because when I see a film that portrays a Grand Argument Story I leave the theater feeling satisfied and emotionally fulfilled. Consequently I’ll want to go see it again (and with films like “Shawshank Redemption” I’ll want to see it over and over again). I don’t have this feeling towards other types of stories. But I can appreciate them.
I loved “Episode 3″ and “Batman Begins” but I only want to see one of them again. Batman had a great story that I wouldn’t mind experiencing over and over again. I think the main reason for that is because it provided me with all four perspectives of the story inequity.
6 Chris Huntley // Jul 1, 2005 at 11:31 am
First off, I have to admit that I enjoyed War of the Worlds. I’m familiar with most all versions of the story (book, movies, radio plays, movies of radio plays, etc.). I thought this version was effective in a “ohmygod-you are there-what the @#$% is happening?” way, something done to an amazing effect in Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan”’s opening sequence. So, on a visceral level I give it a thumbs up.
However, on story level, I too have some serious problems. I think there is a little more to the MC than credited. I think a key MC sequence is in the basement with Ogilvy. The fact that he kills Ogilvy to save his daughter is a pretty big statement (though not an argument).
However, when Ray’s son steps out at the end, I felt cheated. To me, it undid all the “learning” Ray went through. Was he right to oppose his son? I guess not, his son survived. What does that mean about his murder of Ogilvy? The son’s survival doesn’t paint Ray in a particularly good light. And what, he’s left outside the family, alone, on the street after ALL the shit he survived, what the hell am I supposed to do with that? Is the message, “Shit happens?”
The ending says that God, in his wisdom, that put the microorganisms on Earth and Man has earned his imunity, his right to survive because of the billion of lives it has lost fighting the microorganisms through the millenia (paraphrased). This is a great idea. That was the message. The question is, why wasn’t that part of the Overall story argument? Even in the orginal film, the primary characters throw in the towel and take refuge in a church (e.g. leaving everthing in God’s hands). This secular take in the new movie is out of step with the conclusion made in the epilogue reading. I think that’s another indication of a mixed-up message (and storyforming problems).
7 Shawn Scarber // Jul 1, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Jim - yeah, I understand the desire to Dramatica-ize the story. I think if you did you’d get a more complete image of the story and would probably walk away with a more complete feeling. Actually, it would be interesting to see someone write a military science fiction that addresses the arguments of 9/11 and maybe even Iraq using Dramatica.
8 Chris Huntley // Jul 1, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I feel a bit dumb, but I don’t see any connections made between War of the Worlds and 9/11 or the Iraq war–intentionally or unintentionally. The basic plot of War of the Worlds is that an evil force of unimaginable power envies us our home and plots to take our planet and eradicate us. They are unstoppable by us, unimaginably ancient and alien, and put into motion million year old plans to exterminate us and use us as fertilizer. There is NOTHING we can do to stop them from wiping us out. I don’t see how that compares with the parties involved in 9/11 or the wars that followed it, especially since the U.S. is the “big guns” in each of those interactions.
The closest comparison I can see might be to capture the “feeling” of the morning of 9/11. However, I don’t think the comparison holds up better than that of any explosive disaster, natural (tsunami, earthquake, etc.) or otherwise. It seems to me that the way in which the film follows Ray’s first hand experience with the alien encounters is a terrific experiment in the “what if?” scenario played out in the book and realized visually and emotionally in the first two-thirds of the movie.
I think Spielberg IS successful at giving the audience both the experience of hiding to survive the alien invasion, AND getting us OUTSIDE to see what’s really going on. This was something sorely lacking in M. Night Shymalan’s “Signs.” While I appreciated the claustrophobia of “Signs,” it frustrated me and left me unsatisfied by never getting outside the narrow experience of the MC. “The War of the Worlds” satisfied me on both levels.
Leave a Comment