The Red Planet Menace

 

 

This is my entry in the Classic Literature on Film Blogathon hosted by Silver Screen Classics.

The science fiction world would be a lot smaller without the classic trope of alien invasions.  I am not sure what qualifies as the very first example of "alien invasion" in literature, but wikipedia lists a couple that pre-date the H. G. Wells classic The War of the Worlds. Neither is one I had ever heard of, however. The most intriguing of these antecedents is one titled The Germ Growers by Robert Potter, which I didn't have time to read prior to this post, but the link above looks to have the text. I will give it a go when I have time. The gist seems to be that aliens, who are able to look like humans, are busy trying to grow a fungus that will eliminate the Earth of that pesky infestation of humans so they can take over the planet.

 

The one that the majority of you will have ever come into contact with, however, is the Wells book.

 

Written in 1898, it involves an invasion of Martians on Earth who are seeking better living conditions. As Wells states in his first chapter, Mars has gradually become inhospitable due to the fact that it is a dying planet; "the light and heat it receives from the sun is barely half of that received by this world", he says, and "we know now that even in its equatorial region the midday temperature barely approaches that of our coldest winter."

So, with greedy eyes cast sun-ward to their nearest neighbor, they see a planet that has a better climate and is more conducive to life that they really want. And since the Martians are far more technologically advanced than their neighbors, they have the means necessary to take the planet by force. (Some analysts of the Wells novel think that War of the Worlds is a critical comment on the idea of imperialism; that the higher technologically advanced race has a sort of "God given" right to dominate over a lesser race.)

The first half of the novel involves the coming of the Martians and their unprovoked attack on Earthlings. Being far more superior in firepower it is fairly easy for them to wreak havoc on the natives. It later becomes apparent that the Martians are not going to be satisfied with the elimination of humans; they are also going to harvest them for sustenance.

Eventually, spoiler alert!, the Martians are defeated, not by humans, but by the one thing that the Martians did not count on... common bacteria to which the humans are mostly immune... the common cold.

The problem, when it came to trying to put the classic novel to film, was that technology advanced to a point where, except for being able to traverse the vastness of space in reasonable swiftness, much of the Martian technology that Wells envisioned for his Martians eventually became a reality. For instance, the "death ray" in the novel is not entirely dissimilar to laser technology we have today. And the mechanical tripods that the aliens were able to employ against a "horse and carriage" are like child's play today in a society that now has tanks and jet airplanes, etc.

The first movie to try to make the novel come to life solved the problem by transposing the events from early 1900's to mid 1950's. (It was made in 1953). This is the classic story, more or less, except that, in addition to updating the Earth's technological capabilities and the still more advanced alien technology, the setting is transposed from England to California. While there are plenty of references to the novel, including an introduction that basically echoes the opening of Wells' story, the changes tend to date the movie just as much as the original novel.

 

That's pretty much the downfall, in my opinion, of any of the subsequent attempts. It's still a little early, I admit, to say that the Spielberg version from 2005, starring Tom Cruise, is dated at this point in history, but I feel sure if humanity survives for another 50 years it will look as quaint as the 1953 version does to us today.  

 

Note: as often happens, there was a direct-to-video knockoff that came out the same year starring C. Thomas Howell. And, as much as I loathe Tom Cruise as an actor, I have to admit that the big screen theatrical version is miles ahead, not only in story, but also in special effects. (Those Martian machines in the Howell version just made me "howl" {pun intended})  

 

The thing is, if you film a classic novel in it's original milieu you are much more likely to get a thumbs up from me. As I have stated before, my favorite Sherlock Holmes films are ones that have Holmes firmly entrenched in his gaslight and hansom cab Victorian era setting (the BBC Sherlock is an exception to that feeling). So, it was attractive to me when I came across a British made film that purported to stay true to the original novel. Coincidentally (or maybe not), this version also appeared at the same time as the Spielberg film.

 

The story itself is, to be honest, quite close to the novel. It does take place in the Victorian era. There are several instances where some minor details are changed, but none that really detract from it for a purist point of view. There are several points that do make this a less than stellar output. For one thing, often the special effects look like they were done on a miniscule budget. The aliens in particular, although looking quite a bit like I would envision them by the description that Wells gives them, don't particularly look all that well made. 

 

 

And occasionally one or more of the actors seem like they were just cast because they "looked" the part, without having the necessary acting chops to pull it off. (In particular, I think Jack Clay, who played "Oglivy" was pretty laughable. His IMDb page seems to play that out... this is his only film. Was he he friend of the director or something? To his credit he was an acting teacher... maybe his career as an actor was limited to the stage). 

Recently Amazon Prime released a new version starring Ice Cube. Unfortunately I have not been able to watch it, but it has garnered a slew of disparaging reviews. One reviewer called it "truly morally icky", which you know is enough of an incentive for me to give it it a try someday... It almost completely swept the Razzies for 2025, winning in all the categories for which it was nominated except one. (Ice Cube and his camera lost the Worst Screen Couple award to the seven dwarves in Snow White).

 

If you are looking for great special effects, my opinion is go with the Spielberg version (which had a bigger budget to work with than the 1953 version). If you are looking for great acting. then stick to the 1953 version. I'll take Gene Barry over Tom Cruise any day... But if you'd like to see a version that sticks to it's source material, you can't go wrong with the British version. 

Above all, however, if you have never read the source novel, what are you waiting for? It's a classic.

Well, time to fire up the old Plymouth and head home. If there is still a home to go to. I just saw something flash in the sky over to my East...

Quiggy