Blockbusters

[cosmolinguist]

I've nearly finished Blockbuster by Tom Shone, a book about blockbusters from the Orca to the Orcs.

It's one of three books Andrew bought last week, and in the time it took me to read the first half, he'd read all three of them (well, admittedly I didn't have a chance to continue reading it while he had it, but that took less than a day).

Part of the reason for this is that he sucks up information at such a voracious pace as to make me, a relatively fast reader, sometimes seem plodding by comparison. But another part of it is that I was savoring the first half of this book; I read about Jaws, Star Wars, Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and Bck to the Future, fondly remembering them as some of my favorite movies, or at least ones that still make me smile despite or because of repeated viewings.

The book got less fun after I got it back from Andrew; once I got past the glossy pages of full-color photos in the middle, it got steadily more depressing as the movies started being less about magic and thrills and more about marketing and hype.

By the summer of 2001, Godzilla had introduced the concept of The Flop That Wasn't--though a movie no one likes, it still makes $375 million--and The Phantom Menace inauguarated The Hit That Isn't--I don't think that epitaph* requires much explanation--things looked grim indeed.

And then, a weird thing happened: As the book puts it, "Hollywood's ability to administer its own reality check having failed, the reality check came from elsewhere, the last place anyone expected--it came from reality."

The next chapter starts "Jerry Bruckheimer took one look at the images on his TV and thought they looked fake, like CGI.... It certainly had the running time of a movie: from the time the plane hit to the time the second tower collapsed came in at just under two hours..."

I read that this afternon and came home to read this:

I'd seen references in the reviews to 9/11 parallels in Spielberg's rendering of the story, but I'd figured these to be provocative critical musings inspired chiefly by an imperative to say something—anything—weighty about this summer's blockbuster movie.

I was wrong. The 9/11 references in War of the Worlds are explicit and quite obviously deliberate.

War of the Worlds is not a movie about 9/11. It isn't even, really, an allegory about 9/11. The H.G. Wells novel on which it's based is often said to be an allegory about Britain's imperial hubris, and one of the film's screenwriters, David Koepp, claims that the film is similarly an allegory about the American occupation of Iraq.

Because War of the Worlds has nothing to say about 9/11, its appropriation of 9/11 imagery can only be described as pornographic. Tapping the audience's memories of the 9/11 attacks injects a frisson of real-world suffering that's completely unearned. The movie lacks any construct elucidating further parallels between 9/11 and the imaginary invasion of Bayonne, N.J., by space aliens. The 9/11 trope has no meaning. It's merely an elbow in the side, reminding the audience of that day's awful events.

Which, perhaps oddly, reminded me of the one thing that really ticked me off more than anything else about the london_hurts sort of responses to the recent bombings there, instigated by people who had no real connection to London much less any idea of its history, sense of humor, or anything else about it. They were just people who said things like "this reminds me of 9/11" and "I lost a friend in the Bali bombings"; they were poking their own old emotional wounds, picking the scabs off, indulging in a most unattractive display of self-centeredness and self-pity.

So is that going to start happening in movies finally already now, too? I haven't seen the movie myself, so while I can't say that the guy who wrote this is right, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was. That's the thing: I've been taught to see this kind of thing as inevitable. I know that even if War of the Worlds isn't doing it some other movie soon will.

I don't know. Maybe that's not really fair; maybe it really is just a matter of drawing on the cultural references that are there to be drawn upon, maybe it was even done unconsciously or unintentionally. But it's still a cheap trick, a shortcut for lazy people to elicit reactions their piece of art doesn't really deserve because it hasn't earned them.

---

* If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this last night, I probably would've put epithet here, like I meant to, instead of epitaph. But now that I think about it, I like it better the way it is.

Comments

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

I really wish they'd make a version of War of the Worlds as HGW intended it - all Victorian, with steam boats and old weaponry and stuff. And less Tom Cruise. That would be interesting.

(sorry not to engage with your intellectual point)

[cosmolinguist]

I wish they would too! Wouldn't that be great? I loved that book.

But then, I loved I, Robot, too, and was so dismayed at the horrible movie they made with the name of that book. I wouldn't have hated the Will Smith commercial for shoes and cars nearly so much if they hadn't renamed their old, bad movie plot after a perfectly good book about robots. Just keeps anyone from doing anything good with it.

[riddley-walker.livejournal.com]

less Tom Cruise is ALWAYS more interesting.

p.s. i secretly love the game yr icon is from.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

Someone *is* doing that actually. Should be out by the end of the year. It was in preproduction as a modern day version, but then the people making it heard about the Spielberg thing, and decided to set it in 1899 instead.

And everyone who loves War Of The Worlds should read League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol 2, which is to that as Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is to Hamlet, except a comic.

[riddley-walker.livejournal.com]

hollyweird has been making big budget twinkies.
do i want a twinky sculpture of 9/11? no. no thank you.

i'm not one of those folks who has grand illusions of being above the common man because of my greater understanding of the Deus Machina or sheer artyness, so i can usually get down with popular stuff, but in the last several years i've mostly stopped watching big budget movies cuz twinkies give me a headache, and 7-8 bucks is too much to spend on a twinky when i can rent amazing small distribution movies and forigen films for just a couple bucks. and do it through Netflix so i can watch the thing more than once and not even get late fees.
i dunno, whatever, it's all just stories and light anyways. be interesting to see what the next big change is though.

man, it is too bad they didn't do it victorian!!
i'm a sucker for anything futuristic + victorian.

[cosmolinguist]

i'm not one of those folks who has grand illusions of being above the common man

I was cheerfully willing to be exposed to a thin veneer of critical theory in what was a book for laymen. I happen to be crap at analyzing most things I really like--also, indeed, at analyzing most things I don't, which is a major reason College and I didn't get along--so any kind of themes or patterns pointed out to me make me go "Oh wow, yeah, I didn't think of that!"

And I agree with you that it's been several years since blockbuster movies were worth watching ... but I know this because, unfortunately, I've seen several in the meantime. I was wary of Batman Begins, so my relief at finding it a watchable film was perhaps greater than it should've been, now that I assume big-budget summer movies with directors I've heard of, with even the chance of explosions and other flashy special effects, are going to suck, a lot. It's when that doesn't happen, these days, that I'm surprised.

man, it is too bad they didn't do it victorian!!

I know; that's why I wanted The Time Machine to be good. It wasn't, but the time machine was cool, with its brass and gears and dials and all. Victorian + futuristic is a good thing.

[riddley-walker.livejournal.com]

yeah i was disappointed by the time machine too.

I happen to be crap at analyzing most things I really like--also, indeed, at analyzing most things I don't, which is a major reason College and I didn't get along--so any kind of themes or patterns pointed out to me make me go "Oh wow, yeah, I didn't think of that!"

i actually think you are way ahead of the game in a way.
what you said means you are able to listen, and you like new things and ideas, and that mostly the feeling of wonder is enjoyable to you.
that in my opinion is a big part of the recipe for a good quality of life.
just keep moving twards what you like (whether you are supposed to like it or not) and seeing where you end up and what you learn from it, you know?
my dad is a hipster artiste from way back and i was jaded before i was five from listening to all his critical theory (aka annoying critical jaded judgementalisms).
it's taken me a while to be able to just like what i like cuz i like it.
and i like it here. i'm so much happier than when i thought i already knew everything and nothing was cool.

just finished reading the new Harry Potter. it's good ;D heh.

[cosmolinguist]

It can be a drawback sometimes; I'm very impressionable and not always able to take a step back from things and think about them for myself; I see them through others' eyes too easily, so I don't know sometimes what it is that I really like or want or whatever. I'm not too worried, though, because my personality does bleed through eventually (more easily to other people than to me; this is why I like hearing people talk about me! I guess it's just another facet of the "oh wow, really? I never noticed that...").

And anyway, I'll deal with gullibility if it means I get that other stuff you mentioned along with it. I do like new ideas. I like listening to people--I love people, which is why I think LiveJournal is so great in the first place: there are lots of interesting people walking around not even knowing they're interesting, but I know they are because they manage to type a few words about their day or their thoughts that make me wonder how they can fail to see their own coolness. But I guess they're just used to their thoughts and their life, like I am to mine, and that's why it's fun to point out sometimes just how funny, interesting, thoughful, and nice they can be.

And I'm all about that sense of wonder. I one heard a comedian talking about how little kids look at the world, his impression of them went something like this. " 'Oooh, look!' 'What?' 'Look, over there!' 'What?' 'Look look look look look look! ... A cup!' " And I had to laugh, because that's how I am about things sometimes. I love everything, some days (and even when I don't, I still do); I don't seem to have yet grown out of being amazed by everything.

[stealthmunchkin.livejournal.com]

That was Mark Steel. And yes, it reminded me of you as well.