War of the Worlds reaffirms my distaste for Steven Spielberg

When I bought my $6.50 ticket to see the Cincinnati, Ohio native Steven Spielberg's version of War of the Worlds, I didn't hold much hope. I knew going in that I would be disappointed with the same things in which I am always dissapointed about Spielberg's work. I was almost prepared to accept the movie for what it is: a sensationalist escape mechanism, and leave it at that. But this film left me so unfulfilled that I could barely comprehend how it had failed to meet the incredibly low standards I had set for it.

If I am going to see a film in a theater, I usually go for something well-written, interesting, and thought provoking. For example, I just saw Born into Brothels, which was, although intellectually masturbatory, a pretty good film. I did a bit of research into the film, found out what it was about, who the director was, and so on. As a result, I found a film that I actually did enjoy seeing, although I was literally the only person in the theater, save for the projectionist. When I go to movies on a whim is when I begin to find trouble.

Last night was one of those, "I want to see a movie because I'm here, so what's playing right now" kind of nights. Since there wasn't anything else remotely interesting playing at that time, I bought my ticket to see Steven Spielberg's latest gaffe. First, let me explain my newfound irritation with Tom Cruise, the Scientologist extraordinaire and bona fide insane person. When you watch this movie, you can actually see the crazy in his eyes. Though he may be a talented actor, since that interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, I just can't get over what a complete whackjob is Tom Cruise. Looking back in his career, I should have seen the signs earlier, with his true-to-life performances in Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, and Top Gun.

But insanity aside, Cruise was acceptable as Ray Ferrier, the maverick gantry crane operator from New York. Not surprisingly, he fits well into the role of a loner slob absent parent, and his type-cast performance may hold to be the best part of the movie. Again, we have to forgive the crazy in favor of a good casting choice here.

And then it all went downhill

The film started out fairly well with the neat-o special effects and whatnot, but I feel as if the screenplay was missing something. It was missing a lot of something to be exact, and that something was actual content. It seemed like there was a lot of valuable information about character development, back story, side plots, etc. that was simply left out in favor of massive special effects and the banal but "tried and true" John Williams soundtrack. Like the strange relationship between Danny Elfman and Tim Burton, or David Lynch and Angelo Badalamenti, Steven Spielberg and John Williams have a great working friendship. Unlike Lynch and Badalamenti, and Elfman and Burton, though, Spielberg and Williams seem to produce work that is not surprisingly bland and recycled. Every time I watch a Spielberg movie with a Williams soundtrack, I feel like my time would be better spent shooting up with heroin because at least that would promise some new experiences.

The soundtrack wasn't all that was wrong with this film. As I mentioned, the movie lacked substance. There was only a minor hint of character development as Ray's son Robby became a sort of a 'hero' figure, but that good point is overshadowed by the fact that there was very little to establish him as a character to begin with. We only see him briefly, and his character is written with very little care and with much attention payed to stereotypes, including but not limited to "rebellious teen," "disenchanted with family," "Boston vs. New York," and "slacker." With the exception of Ray Ferrrier's [Cruise] weak transformation into a somewhat respectable father, this film is completely devoid of any substantive character development. As a result, I found myself hoping that Ray would get vaporized by the aliens as he ran from the tripods. It would have saved a lot of trouble and a lot of embarassment on the writer and director's parts.

Finally, realizing that the expensive sets, props, and CGI from Industrial Light and Magic are all just a bunch of crap that Spielberg and Lucas use to avoid making movies with actual content, I have one more criticism of the film, and even of the original story. Why was nothing explained? At the end of the film, the aliens just start dying for seemingly no reason. The narration suggests that microorganisms played a major role in destroying the great alien machines, but there is literally only ten seconds of exposition on that subject. With its final words, the film comes to a crashing halt with no purpose other than a trite religious sentiment.

Camera, from what looks like somewhere in Charlestown, shows downtown Boston in ruins, and the narrator speaks:

"From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate, and drank, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God, in His wisdom, put upon this earth. By the toll of a billion deaths, man has earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms, and that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain. "

At least the explanation was a little more plausible than the one offered by the movie Signs. Still, to pull out religion in a film that had previously not mentioned it at all is a cheap shot, and it is evidence of the fact that Steven Spielberg will continue to be a whore to the consumer. I'm sure a lot of religious people went to see this film and were really touched by the sentiment expressed at the end of the movie. I wasn't. If it was going to be a religious movie, then I would have accepted it as it was. But to pull out the god card from nowhere at the end of the movie just because it sounds good is a pretty lame excuse for an ending. There is no closure! There is no substance! There is no point!

Finally, I think the book, and especially the film lack a good sense of irony. The fact that the aliens were destroyed by something so small, yet so powerful is ironic, but the film presented that aspect of the story so blandly and with such haste that any real sense of quality is lost in the sensationalist backdrop. If I were to end the story, we might see the last surviving humans on the planet fighting the last surviving alien machine. As the machine begins to break down and explode, the humans cheer their final victory. As they cheer, the last dead machine falls on them and kills them all, effectively finalizing the extermination of both races. Now that would be irony, and that, I might enjoy. Unfortunately as long as Spielberg keeps making gobs of cash with the same movie over and over again, we'll never see that kind of quality work from him. There are plenty of other talented directors out there anyway.

Support talented, substantive direction: See an independent film today!

A little help?

So I have finally decided to break down and register a domain name. I don't know why it took me so long considering it's only $7 for a whole year. The trouble is, I can't seem to decide on what to register. That's where you come in. I know this blog has transformed since its creation, and that has caused some trouble for me in deciding what domain to pick. I'm not sure I want something as long as beantownblues.com, and jeffkurz.com seems a little too vague.

So I'm open to suggestions. What do you think? I want to register a domain this week, so let me know if you have any ideas.

Thanks,

Jeff

Western Democracy and Islam

Many people believe that the democratic system that the Western world is forcing upon Iraq is completely inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs of Islam. This perception isn't entirely true. If you actually read the Koran and compare its teachings with the principles of Western democracy, you'll actually find that the two systems are surprisingly compatible. A fascinating article on the subject from a 1998 issue of Life Magazine can be found here.

With the deadline for the Iraqi constitution approaching, and the possibility of increased military presence in Iraq, the transitional government has found itself in the hot seat. Article 61 E of the transitional Iraqi constitution lays out said deadline, which, if not met, could lead the country (and US involvement) back to square one:

"If the referendum rejects the draft permanent constitution, the National Assembly shall be dissolved. Elections for a new National Assembly shall be held no later than 15 December 2005. The new National Assembly and new Iraqi Transitional Government shall then assume office no later than 31 December 2005, and shall continue to operate under this Law, except that the final deadlines for preparing a new draft may be changed to make it possible to draft a permanent constitution within a period not to exceed one year. The new National Assembly shall be entrusted with writing another draft permanent constitution. "

It seems that the problems the architects of the new constitution are having relate to the involvement of Islam in the state. The transitional constitution, which reads like an updated version of our own constitution, calls for Islam to be the official religion of the state. Hence the controversy over whether Western democracy is really compatible with Islam.

I don't think the problem is with the religion itself.

The fact of the matter is that democratic systems are indeed rooted in benevolent religious beliefs. The founders of this country realized that, and so we have a nation "under god." It is plain to see that if we dig deep into the fundamental principles of democracy and limited government based on common moral values, we can see a direct correlation between Christianity and Western democracy. Additionally, since Islam is also a benevolent religion based on similar tenets as Christianity, it follows that democracy should indeed be compatible there as well. But why isn't it working?

Though the religions themselves may be compatible with democracy, we should never forget that religion in essence is something entirely different from religion in practice. Those who practice a religion that is thousands of years old are bound to corrupt, misunderstand, and bastardize it to their individual needs. It is always dangerous to claim a divine mandate on a subject. You risk a great deal of trouble from those who hold an equal amount of stake in the opposing views.

Crusaders, inquisitors, imperialists, abortion clinic bombers, and airplane hijackers are all the same people. They just radically believe in radically different things. When you mix intense human passion with a "divine mandate" and thinking in absolutes, is it no surprise we have such violence in the world? One set of people believe that they are the 'chosen ones,' and that they are commanded by some god to destroy those who oppose them. This statement applies as much to radical fundamentalist Christians as it does to Al-Qaeda, a radical fundamentalist Muslim group. Where do we draw the line?

There is no right and wrong

These people should read more existential philosophy. If people only realized what fools they were making of themselves by crusading in the name of god... They might as well be crusading in the name of the Loch Ness monster. With such diametrically opposed yet inescapably intertwined viewpoints, each with a huge and passionate group of followers, it is obvious to see why we are at war. The war is only tangentially about oil. Though admittedly the quest for control of the Middle East's oil supply is a large and extremely important tangent, the main reason I see for which we are at war is power.

The leaders of our country can deny it all they want. This war is really about a struggle between two opposing religions, which is the prime reason we see so much dissent about the war. Not everyone in America is as committed to a holy war as our leaders would like. Fighting a war such as this isn't always the most popular idea anymore. Sure, back in the good old days of the eleventh century, kicking some Muslim ass seemed like a great idea. After centuries of bloody war, however, did we learn anything? Obviously not.

What we have on our hands is an extremely dangerous situation. Both sides of the conflict seem so thoroughly entrenched in their positions that it appears as though no practical end is in sight, despite what Dick Cheney would have you believe. While it may not be democracy itself that the Iraqi transitional government is struggling to accept, the Western influence is certainly a bitter pill to swallow. It's not about the government, its about god. As long as a god exists in a nation's constitution, there will be no end to war. Just as the Christian god "watches over" America in judgement, so too will the Muslim god partake in the dealings of the Iraqi people.

It seems like a no-win situation. If you take away god, the populace will lose faith in their great opiate. If you include god, you must include those who believe they are 'chosen,' and will do anything to defeat their foes. But when you take all the beliefs, all the politics, all the conflilct away, we're all still just people. Though we may not live the same way, we certainly all die just as easily. And anyway, who is going to care about all this in a billion years anyway?

Why reading just one side of the story is a bad idea

Though CNN is a great source for mostly balanced news these days, we need to be careful when reading our news to take in all points of view. If you look closely at different news sources from around the world, you will find a great disparity in attention paid to various items. What may be important to one area of the world may not be as important to another. That's why it is crucial to investigate your news from many different vantage points before forming your own opinion. You may say, "that seems pretty obivous..." But unfortunately as I have observed, far too many people hold too much stake in the one-sided American news feeds like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News.

Hello, McFly?

In case you forgot, there are a couple other countries in the world, and they have news agencies just as big and important as ours. Though America may be very important to the global economy and political climate (we have our filthy hands in everybody's business these days,) we are still just a ragamuffin little upstart of a country. We should be reminded every day that the population of these United States is only a small percentage of the world's population, and that the other six billion people in this world have lots of different opinions that cannot be ignored. After all, we live in a world whose politics, economy, and societies are converging rapidly. For a shining example, just look at the rapid growth of the European Union, now 25 nations strong and boasting a unified currency. There are even plans for the EU constitution to be finalized in 2006. If this is the worldwide trend, we need to gear up to a better understanding of the world around us or like my last post warned, we will be seriously left behind.

Exempli Gratis

One major world item to be watching is of course the crisis in the Middle East. We all know about the West's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you've probably heard about Iran breaking the seals on its nuclear facilities in Tehran. But chances are, most Americans have only heard this story from one point of view. For those who haven't been keeping up to date, Iranian officials have seriously irked the West by re-opening their nuclear facilities in order to pursue civilian nuclear development. This has many Western nations in a buzz, especially after news that Iran is backing terrorist groups in Iraq.

Recently our dear leader stated with regard to the nuclear situation in Iran that, "All options are on the table." "All options" certainly includes the use of military force, Mr. Bush implied not so discreetly via video feed to an Israeli television station. This comment has provoked resistance from, notably, liberal German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who was very vocal in urging that the military option not be exercised, despite a not so wonderful public opinion of his work and criticism from the German right. If you read the story from the American point of view, you're getting just that: the American point of view. While it's great to read that one opinion on the subject, we have to remember all the other nations involved in the conflict. British PM Tony Blair was "cautious," and was quoted with respect to George Bush's position on the Iran nuclear talks: "What he [Bush] went on to say, and was very sensible too, is that nobody is talking about invasions of Iran or military action against Iran." Wait. Doesn't "All options are on the table" mean that military action is possible? Perhaps Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush should try listening to each other. Furthermore, perhaps Mr. Bush should consider how he might be misleading and/or angering his few honest-to-goodness allies the next time he goes on Israeli TV.

News from the Middle East

We can't forget that fair and balanced news does in fact exist in the Middle East. One of the most objective points of view on the Iran-UN nuclear talks comes from Al-Jazeera, the Muslim world's answer to CNN. Their article on the subject is very matter of fact, concise, and considerate of multiple points of view including the reactions of key nations including Britain, Germany, and France. The Jerusalem Post weighs in on the subject as well.

The people of the Middle East are real people. Facing increases in American military force, they are a people in turmoil, with a lot to prove to the world. They are gaining confidence and a sense of entitlement about their 'inherent rights to nuclear technology.' The situation is elevating into a global quest for dominance that may very well lead to a firefight if both sides are unwilling to back down. In fact, Hassan Rowhani's defiant claim that Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be destroyed certainly seems more like a dare than anything else.

Hopefully, having read a variety of news articles on the same important issue will give us a more complete understanding of the political turbulence in the Middle East and Europe. Reading many different news sources also grants us a better perspective from which to form our own opinions of current events and crises, and that's what I'm getting at. We have to educate ourselves, and take news from as many sources as possible because if we only watch one news channel or read one newspaper, we will continue to be force-fed our 'opinions,' and never be able to form a cogent thought independent of our glowing cathode ray god.