“I mean, something can’t erupt from Mars and end up in Surrey.”
I know, I’m a week behind, but here I am blogging this. After all, following Jonathan Strange I could hardly miss another adaptation of a classic geek novel by Peter Harness and while, I think, this isn’t quite as good- much like the source material, to be honest- it’s a solid and welcome return of War of the Worlds to its period roots- although why they set it a few years after the novel’s publication dare of 1898 I have no idea. Edward VII is king but the Tories are clearly in power, going by the prominent role of a monocle-free Uncle Joe Chamberlain, so it’s only a few years later- presumably 1902 as Ogilvy mentions Mars has been equally close in ‘94 and ‘98.. Why change the period so very slightly?
Nevertheless, the whole thing looks superb. That goes for both the period setting and the visual effects, which either goes light on the CGI or wears it lightly. The direction cannot be faulted. And the script takes an intelligent approach of taking Wells’ plot and approach and adding drama- so Wells’ unnamed narrator is now George, and he is scandalously living in sin with Amy while technically still incestuously married- and because his ex won’t sign the papers he won’t get a divorce until she dies. Ouch. All this, and the ensuing friction with George’s brother Frederick, adds depth. So does the use of the imperialistic Chamberlain as politician of choice- after all, the subtext of the novel is to turn the behaviour of the imperialistic British against us.
Eleanor Tomlinson is splendidly charismatic, and Robert Carlyle excels against type as the scholarly Ogilvy. But there’s a charisma vacuum in the person of Rafe Spall, who doesn’t make us like or care about George. So, in spite of the top notch production and Peter Harness’s script, I’m a little ambivalent, not only about Spall but whether Wells’ novel as source material can lead to good drama; there are reasons why it’s often been departed from.
Let’s hope the remaining two episodes don’t rely much on Spall.
To say I was dissapointed with this series was an understatement; I was angry, I was upset. Funny enough, I remember disliking Eleanor Tomlinson in this series, especially Amy's character (I remember some people rolling their eyes when Amy produced a teasmade). Looking back, it was not out of dislike for the actress but it is just because I felt her performance to be lacklustre and unlikeable; she's obviously capable of much better and I think a lot of reviews gloss over this point (out of deference to her previous performances?) The real gripe is how it is done. In regards to writing, I have always had a problem with the characters in this series, especially with they were written. The series has three female characters, Amy, George's lover and the main character besides him, Mary (the female servant who is quickly killed off during the invasion), and George's actual wife whose name I can't even remember (who only appears in one scene to demonstrate the failure of her and George’s marriage). In her only scene, George's wife warns that Amy is selfish, and honestly, this really feels like a warning for the audience, who are able to follow what makes compelling writing. Amy is on the surface a strong women, clearly realising what is happening before everyone else and intelligent. But she’s like a day-old sink full of dirty dishes and brackish water; the moment you poke the surface, you’re assaulted by the nasty stench underneath. It’s hard to see her actions as anything other than self serving opportunity. She’s figures out what the aliens are doing and even smiles at the photographs in a way that feels patronizing. And she even berates George's brother as though the invasion is due to her relationship with George. It is her failure to adore her husband properly that forces George and his brother to see the hollowness of their action, because neither man understands the long-term consequences until they are killed. So basically, if Amy wasn’t such a jealous shrew, these men would have been more understanding and could have survived. She is the cause of most of their pain. When you combine Amy as an image of femininity, we’re left with a view that women are simply destructive to men. Amy's power is profound, corrosive, irresistible, and ultimately enduring. The woman survives the story.
ReplyDeleteI get it. I understand why Writer Peter Harness expanded the role of the narrator's wife from the novel, stating "I think the clearest choice that I made from the start of this project was to give the male character a wife who had strength of character in her own right [...] It was very important to me to make the female character three-dimensional" But I’m baffled by why Harness, didn’t recognize what a moral sludge the story becomes as a result of these choices and how deeply misandry the series’s treatment of its male characters are.
Interesting thoughts, although I fear my memory of this has faded to a vague impression that it was really rather dull in the end. I don't recall any of the characters being particularly three dimensional, or indeed engaging. Even when played by Robert Carlyle.
ReplyDeleteFood for thought on how so many male writers get things so wrong while writing women...