Until the debacle known as Munich, I would have declared Steven Spielberg a national treasure. I know that many people dislike his sentimental endings, and I agree, for the most part. Yet his cinematic skills can't be denied. Do you feel blatantly manipulated by his films? Well, sure, and that's a measure of their success.
Earlier in the same year he vomited out Munich, Spielberg released War of the Worlds, and I've been thinking about it recently. No particular reason, other than that I miss the master at his best, and WotW is often Spielberg at his very, very best. One of the first things Spielberg does very well is choose his approach to the film at hand. With E.T., for instance, he commanded that the camera would never be more than Elliot's eye-level above the ground. Thus, we're always looking up at adults and the things around Elliot and E.T. It's a subtle thing, to be sure, but once you realize it you revel in the genius.
With WotW he opted for a documentary approach. His camera is relentless in its clinging to Ray (Tom Cruise). If Ray isn't there, you don't get to see it. The most brilliant moment of this is when the tripod rises up from beneath the intersection, just before all hell breaks loose. The effects work here is genius. The tripod is shown not so much directly but in reflections. You get to see the amazed expressions of people watching this thing just stand there.
Yet Spielberg eschews that trendy shaky cam shooting style that is polluting so many films today. He firmly and clearly tracks the action and neatly keeps the effects firmly in the background. You are running for horror and like Ray you're almost afraid to look over his shoulder to see what's happening.
In order to get the little boy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind to react properly to alien visitors in his kitchen, Spielberg had someone dress up as a dancing bear. You watch the kid stare at this dancing thing (the bear, of course, is off-screen), and then his face lights up in pure joy. Spielberg got that reaction by having the person in the bear costume take off the bear head, revealing one of the kid's close on-set friends.
With that in mind, I keep wondering what Spielberg did to have Rachel (Dakota Fanning) react in such horror to what is coming up behind the van. You know the moment I'm talking about. Ray is arguing with Manny the mechanic, telling him to get into the van or he'll die. The camera tracks in from behind the van, zooms in on Rachel as she turns around. Some orange light is dancing off her face and she transforms from peaceful kid to child in full-on whimpering panic.
Spielberg's WotW is full of moments like that.
Reputedly, there is a sequence involving tripods destroying a neighborhood that I wish had survived the editing process. Apparently it was 100% completed, with visuals, sound, music and all. I was disappointed that it wasn't at least included as a deleted scene on the DVD. Much of film shows that Spielberg was playing with himself, seeing how fact he could crank out a masterpiece. A little more thought might have left that sequence in the film, or improved something that was only near-great.
What survived, however, is brilliant. My stand-out favorite moment is when Robbie demands to join with the military in an utterly futile "last stand". When Ray and Robbie stand and stare at each other there is a gulf between them that is tangible. Certainly there are aspects to the moment that feel contrived, but I accepted it anyway. And moments later, when Ray has Rachel and that fireball rises up from over the hill, followed by a flaming thing that is as unstoppable as gravity...well, that sequence is a lesson in bravura filmmaking.
Some have complained about the deus ex machina ending, but you can't blame Spielberg for sticking to the book. Do these critics make the same complaint about the book, or about George Pal's marvelous 1953 film? Just wondering.
In the final analysis, Spielberg's WotW is not flawless but its power overwhelms its problems. I am an enormous fan of Pal's film, but I like Spielberg's for different reasons. Pal focused on man's futile attempts to make a stand against the invader, contrasting man's humanity with the Martian's implacable brutality. Spielberg opted for a much more intimate film, viewing an invasion from the point of view of a father desperate to keep his children alive. His drive is to unload the kids on their mom, to rid himself of the responsibility he has shunned his entire life, and by extraordinary circumstances he is forced to grow.
Now excuse me, I think I'll crank up the DTS and watch War of the Worlds again.
Comments