Media
Must read and listen to
Wells, H. G. 1995 (1897). The War of the Worlds. New York: Oxford.
Welles, O. 1938. Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds.” Larchmont, N.Y.: Longines Symphonette Society. (on Archive.org)
Pick one of two below
Lyndon, B. 1953. The War of the Worlds. Hollywood, Calif.: Paramount. (Available on NYU Stream)
Spielberg, S. 2005. War of the Worlds. Universal City, CA: DreamWorks Home Entertainment. (Available on NYU Stream)
Theory and Commentary
Pooley, J., & Socolow, M. J. (2013, October 28). The myth of the war of the worlds panic. Slate.
Additional Materials
Marshall, C. (2016, September 8). Things to Come, the 1936 Sci-Fi Film Written by H.G. Wells, Accurately Predicts the World’s Very Dark Future. Open Culture. (on Archive.org)
Carl Sagan’s Cosmos E05 – Blues for a Red Planet (Available on NYU Stream)
- Go to 3:00 for a reading from War of the Worlds (accompanied by Holst’s “Mars” from The Planets)
1. In the ending, H.G. Wells suggests that life will return to normal after the Martian invasion; however, for some alien invasions, it is possible that aliens could destroy some nations. In this scenario, how will the survivors from other nations deal with the resources of the exterminated nations?
2. What is the role of religion in the book and films?
3. As humans, from the perspective of the victims of alien invasions and space colonization, aliens are villains. In the future, can we justify our plans and activities of space colonization when we become space explorers and settlers?
1.From the towering, tripod creatures to the invasive, vessel-like growths- How does scale play a role in the depiction of the Martian invasion?
2. Why do shocking/ tragic events dismantle social order? In what ways do the Martian invaders act as a great equalizer?
3. In ‘The Myth of The War of the Worlds Panic’ Pooley, referencing Sconce, states, “It’s not the Martians invading Earth that we fear, [Sconce] argues; it’s ABC, CBS, and NBC invading and colonizing our consciousness that truly frightens us.” In todays saturated tv/ film industry and considering the current social upheavals (such as the pandemic), the line between fiction and conceivable future forecasting has been blurred. How do cinematic depictions of not-so-fictional events alter our perception of reality?
1. How did H. G. Wells imagine the technology to such an extent in 1898 when space travel and modern telescopes weren’t even invented?
2. This is one of the few (if not only) science-fiction works I’ve read/seen where the aliens make no effort to communicate with humans or other organism on earth. They start destroying everything in their wake in order to establish territory. Humans fail at their attempts to communicate, and the damage they inflict on the invaders is minimal. The earth, as the author knew it, is only saved by some ‘mere’ pathogens to which the aliens are not immune. What did H. G. Wells want to say through these turn of events at the end of the book? It made me think, despite the detailed explanation of the aliens and their life on mars as well as their invasion of earth using their technology, that the book was never about alien invasion or extraterrestrial life or heat rays.
3. Lastly, does humankind deserve a Martian invasion?
1. How do you think the existence of todays social media would have impacted the spread of news in War of the Worlds?
2. To what degree is fact/the spread of information impacted by myth and sensationalism? If we were to find sentient alien life tomorrow, how would our world react today?
3. It’s interesting how the author chose bacteria to be the cause of death for the martians. What do you think is the historic significance of this?
1. What does the advanced military response found in Orson Welles’ World of the War radio broadcast and the 1953 film adaptation convey about worldwide/American militarization?
2. The 1953 War of the Worlds movie gives an explanation for the Martians’ journey to earth. How does the lack of that explanation in the radio play and the original novel affect our perception of the Martians?
3. Is the waving of the white flag in the 1953 World of the Wars film a sign of human arrogance or of stupidity?
1) In the characters in the 1953 film The War of the Worlds, and in H.G. Wells “The War of the Worlds,” the characters seem to want to humanize the Martians. In trying to humanize them, is this their way of rationalizing their possibly violent and curious interactions with the Martians?
2) There seems to be ignorance linked to humans and their understanding of the Martians, one such ignorance being that they are shocked by the fact that the Heat Rays are stronger and better technology than what we have created on Earth. Is the lack of our acceptance/acknowledgment of other species intelligence part of our potential downfall?
3) When interacting with the different media for “The War of the Worlds,” which seemed the most effective in its storytelling?
1. In class we discussed the restrictive nature of our current technology in creating a representation of the future in film, what similar constraints are put on the writer of literature? H.G. Wells was obviously not constrained by having to physically build anything for his work, were there other ways he was constricted that we can find backing for in the text?
ie. Much of the text is spent in transit either of the protagonist or the invaders, we see comparisons between horses, dog carts, flimsy boats and large mechanical beasts that can cross great distances in a single bound, in what ways did the industrial revolution and the human migration to cities influencing this work?
2. What metaphorical role did religion and science play in the 1953 “The War on the Worlds” and what does this say about America at the end of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War?
3. What do these four time periods have in common? Why were creators drawn to this specific story time and again? How did the presumed reasons differ and how did they converge?
ie. Something that stood out for me between the 1953 film and the 2005 film was the break up of the nuclear family. The most compelling plot line in the 2005 film was the evolution of Tom Cruise’s character as a devoted father. Was a similar character development present in the scientist finding himself at a church during the apocalypse? If so, what does this say about the similarities and difference between 1953 and 2005?
1. The title of the book and the movies are called The War of the Worlds, and the actual war that took place in the real world in history called World War, does it reflect anything? Perhaps The War of the Worlds was not just a war between humans and Martians? It is also a war that all species on Earth can participate?
2. When the Martians were about to win, but suddenly received a bacterial infection and was wiped out, this unexpected ending for a science fiction work, do you think it is too simple to end? Or is there any deeper meaning to it?
3. The appearance of the aliens in the movie really freaked me out when I first saw it. Why many science fiction movies represent aliens in an ugly and scary way? Just reading the descriptions of the aliens in the novel, it’s actually not that scary.
1. There exist many metaphors between Martians with Humans and Humans with Animals to alert not to take being on the top of food link for granted. If the Martians are metaphorically human beings, why did the author choose unexpected corruption and bacteria as the end for the Martians? Is it somehow like a prediction for the Covid?
2. What’s the historical background or the implication behind the authors’ choice of poisonous gas and laser-like lightning as Martians’ weapons?
3. I personally don’t like 2005 version of film at all. Why did the director choose this kind of personality setting for the family only to serve for the changes of the hero?
1. In the novel, the author draws an analogy between humans and Martians as the relationship between lower animals and humans, i.e. as a food chain. I wonder if this is related to the widespread dissemination of evolutionary ideas in the 19th century? In any case, science fiction still comes from the author’s interpretation and perception of the world, from the philosophical system he trusts.
2. In different works of science fiction, aliens are depicted with different looks, is there any genre or rule to summarize?
3. I really like the 1938 radio broadcast of “War of the Worlds”, its sound quality gives a sense of retro, as if you were in the environment of the time when the story took place. I’m curious about how the show was made, circulated, and what the audience reaction was at the time?
4. I don’t know if Spielberg’s film started out as an adaptation of Wells’ novel, or if the latter was just its inspiration because it differs in terms of narrative, plot, era, and thematic orientation. I think the novel was written from the author’s perspective of science and technology to ridicule religious obscurantism, but the movie seems more relevant to the consistent family narrative of American commercial films.
1. I am amazed that Wells wrote this book before WW1. He seems to have anticipated so many things that later Modernist artists, like TS Eliot with the Wasteland, merley acknowlegded in hindsight (dismantling of civilization, modern warfare with gases, armored tanks and heavy artillery). What inspired him to anticipate not only these technologies, but also these ideas and this philosophical point of view? Which wars? inventions? events?
2. Why did Orson Wells decide to change the disagreement between the main character and the artilleryman. If I’m not mistaken, in HG’s version, the main character leaves because he feels like the artilleryman won’t follow through with his plan (although he seems to disagree with this plan in hindsight, at the moment where he leaves, he seems down with the idea). Meanwhile, in Orson’s version, the main character leaves because he doesn’t feel like living underground.
Also, can we associate the artilleryman’s fancied world with a post-covid world? “There won’t be any more blessed concerts for a million years or so; there won’t be any Royal Academy of Arts, and no nice little feeds at restaurants”. The War of the Worlds is an amazing framework to question our true core values. What are we willing to lose in order to keep on living? What do we call living?
3. HG Wells book tells the story of the British way of life being torn to pieces. At first, people wintessing the crashes go back home to have tea and breakfast like true Brits, but by the end of the book, all the victorian values are forsaken (chivalry, manlihood, stoicism, courtesy, order, hierarchy, etc). Did Wells forsee a change in the British/European society and feared that his people was loosing their way? Or is merely a mirror held up to the UK to show how colonial powers destroy the way of life of “weaker” civilizations?