Monday, 18 July 2005

A Xenotheological Romance? or, Why God Loves His Terran Children More

A chunk of narration near the end of Wells' War of the Worlds has always bothered me.  That same chunk of narration in Spielberg's War of the Worlds bothers me even more. 

I haven't read Wells in years, but as I started to working the influence of evolutionary theory ca. 1890-1910, I realized I'd have to account for War of the Worlds.  After all, it's one of the few novels in which evolution qua evolution wins.  Pure and simple: the best laid plans of man and alien fall before the unremitting logic of Darwinian adaptation.  That's why the inclusion of this passage--in the form of a voice-over by Morgan Freeman--seems so, dare I say, conciliatory:

And scattered about it, some in their overturned war-machines, some in the now rigid handling-machines, and a dozen of them stark and silent and laid in a row, were the Martians--dead!--slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared; slain as the red weed was being slain; slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.

Spielberg, founding member of the Actual Jewish Media Conspiracy (a.k.a. Dreamworks), kowtows to an increasingly Christian marketplace of ideas by including that narration out of context.

In the film, Tom Cruise and his daughter shack up wtih Tim Robbins, a former ambulance driver.  Robbins--like Cruise's son in the film--is compelled by the need to do something to, well, do something.  As the aliens approach, Robbins becomes increasingly unstable, and so Cruise must put him down.  The scene works.  The murder of Robbins the ambulance driver--in addition to sounding like a Smiths' B-side--expresses the limits to which Cruise will go to survive.  However, Spielberg focuses entirely on the revelation of Cruise's character--Robbins shuffles onstage, speaks bravely, cracks, and is shuffled off--whereas Wells' focus is as much on the curate as the unnamed (and decidedly less heroic) narrator. 

That's right: I said curate.  The criticism of the cloth in the novel is unmistakeable.  To wit:

At Halliford I had already come to hate the curate's trick of helpless exclamation, his stupid rigidity of mind. His endless muttering monologue vitiated every effort I made to think out a line of action, and drove me at times, thus pent up and intensified, almost to the verge of craziness. He was as lacking in restraint as a silly woman. He would weep for hours together, and I verily believe that to the very end this spoiled child of life thought his weak tears in some way efficacious.

Once God abandons him, the curate's "stupid rigidity of mind" becomes blinding, his lack of restraint--appealing to the period's gender stereotypes--transforms him into a little more than "a silly woman."  But here's the most damning phrase, the one that puts the film's final theocentricism to lie: "to the very end this spoiled child of life thought his weak tears in some way efficacious."  Those "weak tears" poured forth from his eyes as the words of the Lord, as supplications to God, poured forth from his mouth.  In the end, the narrator has to knock him unconscious lest he witness Christ's love to the Martians:

"I have been still too long," he said, in a tone that must have reached the pit, "and now I must bear my witness. Woe unto this unfaithful city! Woe! Woe! Woe! Woe! Woe! To the inhabitants of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet----"

"Shut up!" I said, rising to my feet, and in a terror lest the Martians should hear us. "For God's sake----"

"Nay," shouted the curate, at the top of his voice, standing likewise and extending his arms. "Speak! The word of the Lord is upon me!"

In three strides he was at the door leading into the kitchen.

"I must bear my witness! I go! It has already been too long delayed."

By the time the narrator utters that the Martians had been "slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, put upon this earth," the efficacy of the appeal to God's love, His wisdom, His Justice, &c. have been undercut not only by the ineffectiveness of the narrator's prayers--muttered as a dying secularist hedging his bets--but also by the ineffectiveness of the curate himself, his faith, his earnest prayer, not to mention his eventual insanity.  In Spielberg's film, the uncontextualized appeal to God as Intelligent Designer undermines the importance of the evolutionary narrative, of the (for its time) sophisticated understanding of the relation of species to environs. 

Furthermore, invest those final lines with theological relevance and you create a conundrum: why did God, "in his wisdom," create the Martians who would put beneath this earth their tripodal molluscoid human-evaporating machines?  Why wouldn't he grant them immunity?  And really, have generations of humans suffered the common cold to protect us from the possibility of God's great Martian experiment making its way to Earth?  In other words, a Christian walking away from the Spielberg film finds his or her assumptions unchallenged.  The same cannot be said of a Christian who reads the novel. 

Jul 18, 2005 4:19:00 AM | Academia, Books, Evolution, Film, Literature

3 Comments

camicao


I had not "processed" that reference to God in the narration. Very interesting. What did you think about the early, early scene of the church coming down at the beginning of the film?

Posted by: camicao | Tuesday, 19 July 2005 at 10:26 PM

Scott Eric Kaufman

I had forgotten about that one, actually. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I've found it, at least. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe it's another example of Spielberg playing to the Christian community, as the pathos of an exploding church is bound to involve a greater emotional investment than the destruction of the Pay Less Shoe store next door...

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Wednesday, 20 July 2005 at 02:10 PM

Wax Banks

Out of curiosity, and only two years late: is that closing narration the only deliberately anachronistic language in the entire film? i.e. If it's drawn verbatim from Wells's book, should we read into its departure from the naturalistic contemporary chatter that fills the film up 'til that point? (Particularly given how not-particularly-Victorian-looking the tripods are in the film...) To the extent that WotW is a 9/11 film - a coping-with-disaster film - is the archaism a critique of wishful thinking, hoping that science/progress/demographics (haha) will save Us from Them once They make up Their minds to whoop Our asses?

Posted by: Wax Banks | Friday, 11 May 2007 at 09:19 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Warranted Bombast? Or, Apposite & Oppositional Rhetoric I’m a fan of American Literary Scholarship. So much so I have a complete set (atop the shelves on the left). When the latest edition arrived, I scanned it 1) to check if someone else’s written my dissertation yet and 2) to ensure that my notion of where the field’s headed is more accurate than not. (For those interested: my dissertation’s still mine and only a minor course-correction’s needed.) I’ve read all the sections relevent to my work and I have but one complaint: the rhetoric. I’ll focus on Michael J. Kiskis’ otherwise excellent round-up of “Late-19th-Century Literature,” but this inflated rhetoric peppers the entire volume. Kiskis’ review opens thus: The scholarship produced during 2003 is a complex mix of perspectives and materials: in the host of essays and books we see evidence not only of the end of the academic apartheid that relegated women and minority writers to the margins but also a greater awareness of the intricate relationship between genre and challenges of aesthetic and political intention and result. (275, emphasis mine) Now, I should say that the presence of that rhetorical bombast doesn’t diminish the intelligence or comprehensiveness of Kiskis’ review. That said, doesn’t the appellation “academic apartheid” 1) trivialize the consequences of historical apartheid and, in so doing, participate in the same logic of marginalization it wants to denounce? 2) needlessly needle those critics who choose to work on canonical or semi-canonical authors? 3) create the impression that the field, as currently constituted, is almost perfect? Three sentences later, Kiskis condescends again: “We are growing out of separate spheres; we are finding our way to an adult appreciation of complex and compelling literary and cultural meaning” (275). Earlier critics apparently lacked the maturity necessary to cultivate an “adult appreciation” of “literary and cultural meaning.” The insult’s implied but easily deduced. Now, I’m compelled to note that I’m satisfied with the direction of the field, as the course Kiskis charts is one in which ever more emphasis is placed on the historical context of literary works. However, even though I belong to Kiskis’ intended audience, I still find his self-congratulatory magniloquence as shrill as it is unnecessary. [X-posted on the Valve.]
PREVIOUS POST
Damned by an Accurate, Honest Summary? A couple of months back, I outlined the argument of Donald Pease's "Psychoanalyzing the Narrative Logics of Naturalism." Scratch that: I tried and failed to outline his argument. Donna Campbell--author of the "Fiction: 1900 to the 1930s" section of the most recent American Literary Scholarship--summarizes Pease's argument as follows: [It] refutes previous criticism by taking issue with Mark Seltzer’s idea that narrative control is restored at the end of The Call of the Wild. ‘‘Buck’’ appears first as a signifier of the Judge’s property and then as ‘‘the agent’’ of the panoptic ‘‘free indirect discourse’’ through which Buck’s thoughts are narrated, but he still escapes ‘‘the normative control of the disciplinary society’’ through his communication with Thornton. Buck’s dreams, which reproduce authentic free indirect discourse, and the instantaneous, extrarational impulses through which Buck and Thornton communicate escape the narrative’s foreclosure of ‘‘the disciplinary society’s foundational violence’’ in those passages in which the ‘‘libidinal intensities’’ of Buck’s are set in motion. Her summary, curiously devoid of affect or judgment, strikes me as criticism by paraphrase. It's as if she's reluctant to criticize a major figure in the field and has decided instead to let his argument sink on its own merits. Her direct quotations almost insinuate that the argument works despite the thickets of jargon; then again, maybe it fails on account of its reliance on jargon. To be frank, I can't tell what Campbell thinks of the argument. And I believe that ambiguity might, itself, be damning.

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments