NOTICE: This Website Will Be Turned Off May 1, 2018

Final Staff

Stacey Janssen

Managing Editor:
Dave Noonan


  • Mishell Baker
  • Bluejack
  • Amy Goldschlager
  • Emily Lupton
  • R. K. MacPherson
  • Scott James Magner
  • Robin Shantz

Copy Editors

  • Sarah L. Edwards
  • Yoon Ha Lee
  • Sherry D. Ramsey
  • Rena Saimoto
  • Paula Stiles


  • Marti McKenna
  • Bridget McKenna


  • Geb Brown

Publisher: Bluejack

July, 2005 : Criticism:

Ever-Changing Portents of Fear

Wells and Spielberg Versus the Martians, and Each Other

There is something primally horrifying about the spindly alien tripod machines in Steven Spielberg’s new adaptation of H.G. Wells’s novel The War of the Worlds—they exploit the seemingly innate human fear of spiders, perhaps, or of anything insectoid and with the wrong number of legs articulated in a decidedly unmammalian way. They rivet the lizard brain, that unthinking, instinctive part of the human mind, gripping it in an irrational terror that has nothing to do with the insidious mission of the Martian creatures operating the vehicles. The beholder of such machines—whether that beholder is a character in the film or a moviegoer munching popcorn, or unable to, as the case may be with this flick—does not need to know what havoc the Martians are bent upon to appreciate that they are pure evil... or that they are at least utterly unattuned to our own monkey concerns.

Wells’s readers of 100-plus years ago would surely respond the same way to these visuals as we do today, were they somehow able to time travel to 2005 and check out the Spielberg flick—Wells makes a particular point of what trepidation the “monstrous beings of metal” induce. The aliens themselves, though, play less of a role in the new film than they do in the book, appearing significantly in only one scene without the protection of their tripod vehicles. But Wells’s descriptions resonate through Spielberg’s vision as well: these 21st-century Martians, like Wells’s nineteenth-century ones, are “unspeakably nasty.”

The downplaying of a particular unspeakableness of alien life in itself way well be partly an inevitable upshot of Spielberg’s own efforts (however unintentional those efforts may have been) toward making us less fearful of the concept: cuddly E.T. and the musician-philosophers of Close Encounters of the Third Kind are certainly the most prominent examples in pop culture of alien visitors as benign, kindly, and just here to make friends with us. Wells, on the other hand, was writing for a culture still reeling from the paradigm-shattering breakthrough of Darwinism and naturalistic biological evolution; his readers may indeed have found repulsive the idea of alternative lines of evolution in a way that we today do not—certainly Spielberg’s intended audience of SF fans and young people of persuasions geeky and otherwise have grown up with the concept of possible alien life and are perfectly comfortable with it (at least on a fictional level).

And indeed, what is frightening in Spielberg’s War is not alien life per se—instead, the most treacherous and creepy things about these new Martians is that they’ve been hiding among us, in a sense, plotting and scheming our destruction for millennia, or longer. This seemingly insignificant departure from Wells is actually quite profound, and serves to point out—along with many other smaller details Spielberg incorporates into his adaptation—how some signals of “scary” or “upsetting” are simply products of our environment. Wells’s readers in 1898, for instance, may have shared our unease with the gangly tripods, but they are unlikely to have been dismayed the way we today are by the image of Tom Cruise’s Ray Ferrier covered in ashy gray soot after the film’s initial attack by an alien tripod. It’s clear, in the film, how he comes to be so filthy—the Martian heat ray pulverizes its victims, reduces them to so much dust—but what’s really horrifying about the imagery is how it reminds us of 9/11: Ferrier after escaping the attack looks strikingly like the dazed, ash-coated survivors of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Our imaginary time-traveling Wellsian audience would have understood from context why Ferrier ends up such a mess, but they would not have understood why Spielberg chose to make such a point of it, and it would have had little visceral impact on them. (It’s unlikely, too, that they would have been quite so able to sympathize with Ferrier’s revulsion, once he realizes what’s all over his clothes and in his hair and on his face, in the same shuddery way that we do.)

Conversely, Spielberg—with his screenwriters, Josh Friedman and David Koepp—was wise to omit one especially unpleasant Martian weapon Wells deployed to potent effect in the novel: the Black Smoke. Wells, of course, was rather presciently anticipating the gas warfare to come only a few years later in World War I, and it’s probably not possible to know now whether there was something already in the cultural zeitgeist at the turn of the twentieth century that would have particularly rattled his readers in the idea of a deadly black fume... but there’s probably no question that the concept of gas warfare is so far removed from our experience now that such a thing would not have the psychological impact that, say, another Spielbergian appropriation from 9/11 does: bulletin boards tacked with hundreds of flyers seeking information on missing people, which is dramatic not for what it says about how many people are “missing” but for what it says about how the survivors are unable to admit to themselves yet that their loved ones are dead. That, again, brings a level of reality and recognition to Spielberg’s vision that makes it uniquely a product of the early twenty-first century, for all that it is in many ways a fairly faithful mounting of Wells’s story.

But that sneakily profound departure from Wells? It’s what gives Spielberg’s film a fundamental grounding into today’s culture-wide anxiety about terrorism and the apparently inability to distinguish friend from foe that’s been hammered into us by overly intrusive “security” measures that suggest that anyone, anywhere could be up to things devious and malicious. Wells, writing in a period in which jitters over German unification were creating an atmosphere of war fever—or war dread—invoked the specter of invasion from without, of The Other attacking what should be safe and secure Home. But in Spielberg’s War, the Martians have long since secreted their fighting machines among and around us—they’ve not only infiltrated us, they did so long before we, humans, were even around, and then just waited patiently for us to ripen—they are still Wells’s “intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic.” The film’s promotional tagline, “They’re already here,” is particularly chilling for us today, when threats of attack (whether real or imaginary) seem to be all around us, seem to loom not from faraway places but to well up from within our own society. Instead of science fiction, we’d could well consider this new War of the Worlds a horror film geared especially to the age of the Patriot Act, which warns us that the enemy is already here.

Copyright © 2005, MaryAnn Johanson. All Rights Reserved.

About MaryAnn Johanson

MaryAnn Johanson is one of the most popular and most respected film critics publishing online—Time magazine likes her "snarky, well-informed commentary [and] breezy style," and Variety calls her "one of online's finest" film critics. She keeps a weather eye on Hollywood at The Flick Filosopher.


Jul 4, 23:44 by IROSF
This thread open for discussion of MaryAnn Johanson's criticism of Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

The article itself can be found here.
Jul 5, 17:20 by James Morrison
A very good review of a film I found surprisingly effective, given how much I loathe Tom Cruise. In talking about the change to Wells's story that puts the alien war machines 'already here', however, I think Ms Johanson ignores one of the film's main defects. Why have the tripods been buried so long? What was the point of it, technologically or plot-wise, other than to match the unsettling tagline of the movie? And wouldn't creatures capable of that have considered the bacterial menace - after all, planting tripods millions of years before the actual invasion does suggest a race capable of taking the long view. Still, as I said, a film far better than it had any right to be.
Jul 9, 08:13 by Adrian Simmons
Well, crap! I wish I had read this article before posting my response to the HG Wells biography.

To repeat, I've often wondered why the black smoke wasn't used in the movies. As I mentioned, I think it makes it simply too horrible. And, I also think that with our fears of WMD (which include poisons and chemical weapons) that perhaps it would have hit too many buttons at once. Or maybe, unlike WElls, Spielberg is willing to dredge up the images of the past, but not predict those of the future.

Wells meant for the images of his book to be horrific, to show what war had become- the mechanized slaughter of human beings. And poison gas paints with a broad brush of destruction.

A few quick notes about the recent movie- everyone talks about how these things have been here for millions of years, but wasn't that the line used by a decidely crazy person? Tim Robbin's whacked-out survivalist? I think one of the things Spielberg was going after here was how frightening it is to be confronted with our own ignorance. As far as I know, there was definative expliantion for where and how the walkers got there. I mean, come on, if they can 'ride lighting' down, who is to say they didn't build the entire structure, underground, at the time of the invasion, via stuff coming down on the lighting. Plug and play!

Also, re: Tom Cruise, I have trouble watching any of his movies and not seeing Tom Cruise instead of the character he plays. But I think he transcended that in this movie. Tom became Ray about the time he stole the van, and he stayed that way. In my opinion.

Want to Post? Evil spammers have forced us to require login:

Sign In




NOTE: IRoSF no longer requires a 'username' -- why try to remember anything other than your own email address?

Not a subscriber? Subscribe now!

Problems logging in? Try our Problem Solver