Martian in the house

Yeah, I agree, which is why I said it was odd the Martian had (apparently) come in unarmed. Obviously they didn't want to kill the humans outright -- otherwise why not just zap the joint right away -- but it would seem to have made more sense to have dispatched several Martians, with weapons, to take them prisoner.

I suspect the reason the scene was filmed this way was extremely basic: budgetary. They didn't have the money to build more than one Martian (or their personal weapons), and the Martians would have had to have been constructed to be able to hold ray guns convincingly, which would not have been easy to do.

But it's also a lot scarier to have a single alien touching the girl on the shoulder, than a whole bunch of armed aliens suddenly showing up. Analyzed logically, it may not be realistic behavior, but from a cinematic or mood point of view it was very effective.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well, first let me demonstrate a couple of things for the record. In your most recent post (August 22) you wrote, in response to one of my earlier statements (shown here in italics):

No, this wasn't the same exact alien as the one who killed the minister. (At least, probably not -- do you know this for a fact?)

How on earth could you possible know this? Do you have some type of secret knowledge or trivia of the film that I don't have? As far as I'm concerned the aliens in the ship attacking the house are completely different aliens than the ones at the original sight. I have no reason to believe these are the same exact aliens. Anyway, there's really no way of confirming this either way, so I'm not sure why you're so adamant about this

I haven't a clue what your complaint is because what you say is inaccurate. I never stated the alien was or was not the same one who attacked the minister. I did not say I "know' anything about this and can certainly not be "adamant" about something the answer to which I state at the outset I don't know. I merely allowed for the fact that it's possible the two aliens were the same, though I agree that they were almost certainly different beings. However, this was all in response to your statement in your post of August 12, to wit:

That wasn't the same exact alien that killed the missionary.

As far as being adamant goes, it was you who made the unequivocal statement that it wasn't the same alien. As someone said, "Do you have some type of secret knowledge or trivia of the film that I don't have?"

All I did was make a technical quibble that it might have been the same one. You don't believe it's the same Martian, and neither do I. However, you're right -- there's no way of confirming this either way. But it's you who first raised this topic, and you who stated flatly (on August 12) that the alien in the house "wasn't the same exact alien that killed the missionary [sic]". You've since retreated from the flat statement you previously made to the point where we agree on what is at best a side issue.

There is then another, more central, point on which you've contradicted yourself. Again, I quote your most recent post (August 22), which in turn begins with a quote (here in italics) from my previous post:

Your intent is to somehow give the idea that this was in fact an attempt at peaceful contact.

No it isn't, you're totally misinterpreting my point. I never said the alien wanted peaceful contact, just that his approach was non violent.

However, I cite this statement from your post of August 12:

What we see is a non violent attempt by the alien to make contact with the strangers it has encountered. (perhaps to emphasize a sense of irony.)

So, yes -- you did say the alien wanted contact. Your insistence now that you said no such thing is, to be charitable, inaccurate.

As to the rest of that paragraph from August 22:

What the alien's intents were, we'll never know. But they very well could have been an attempt at a peaceful understanding. Maybe the alien had gone rogue and wanted to find a peaceful way of approach the humans. Maybe the aliens were starting to get sick already and he was trying to find some way of reaching out for help. Maybe he wanted to take them prisoner or kill them. (although if this were the case, why wasn't he armed? Why didn't he just kill them first when they had their backs turned to them?)

There are too many ways to interpret the alien's motives, which makes it pointless. So I'm not sure why you're so intent on it.

Yes, you're right. We can never know what the alien's intentions were. They could have been any of the things you posit, or something else. But to ask why I'm so "intent" on it is ridiculous. First, it was initially your point -- not mine. Whatever the so-called intent or intention, they are yours, not mine. Second, since you're now apparently backing away from your earlier flat assertion that the alien wanted to make contact, and are allowing for other possibilities, the question becomes how to describe the nature of his approach.

Without getting into a point-by-point discourse on each of your statements, the central point you've been making in all this seems to be encapsuled in a couple of sentences you wrote on August 22:

What I said was, he makes a non violent approach. And he does. There's no other interpretation one can make here, the alien was non violent.

This gets back to the difference between his approach in this instance vs. the question of whether he was hostile. Previously you have conflated his alleged, technical non-violence (which basically seems to consist of the fact that he wasn't actually pointing a weapon at them) with his being non-violent by nature, or at least with his not acting in a hostile manner. In the narrowest possible sense, this may be a legitimate interpretation, but in the context of the story, of an all-out invasion of the planet, the notion that he wasn't fundamentally hostile is unsupported. Now, you've proposed the possibility that this was an alien who had "gone rogue" who wanted to make friendly contact with humans, and this is of course possible. Neither one of us seems to believe that's the case, but that's the only interpretation where the alien could be deemed non-hostile. But while he may not have been overtly aggressive in his approach -- what you term "non-violent" (except you omit the required hyphen) -- unless he was trying either to make friendly contact or surrender, at some level his attitude as an invader was by definition hostile -- meaning in turn that he could and would turn actively violent if necessary.

Bottom line is I think you imbue his so-called non-violent approach with too much significance. Even you say living creatures are by nature violent. In this case, I wouldn't push the notion of the Martian's so-called non-violence too far. It may be disappointing on one level that a scientist like Forrester should react so aggressively without overt provocation, instead of trying to be "non-violent" himself, at least to start with. It might also have made for a more interesting scene had he not thrown the ax and instead tried to communicate. But as discussed previously, I don't blame Forrester for reacting as he did. And there's no reason to believe the alien's "non-violence" was anything more than tactical and temporary. At least there's no evidence to presume on his pacific approach. But re Forrester's throwing the ax:

So this makes it less savage and less violent? NO...violence is violence!

Right. Which is why shortly after that I wrote that it was

A violent act to be sure

.

Your response to my statement that it was likely the Martian wanted to take the two prisoner:

This is totally your interpretation based on very little proof. He has no weapons (or back up), he says nothing to them at all, meaning he is not asking for them to surrender. Also...if they initially wanted prisoners, why would they burn the entire house in hopes of killing anything that was inside?

Your interpretation makes no rational sense whatsoever. If they wanted prisoners they would have taken them early on. No where in the movie do the aliens take any prisoners.

First, they only burned the house down after the encounter between the Martian and the humans, a hostile act in response to a hostile act. Second, we have no idea what form of communication the Martians use, or whether this alien had time to say anything, and in any case it was highly unlikely that the Martians spoke English, so the fact that he "said" nothing isn't indicative of anything one way or another. Third, the "proof" such as it is is as I said before, in the dialogue where Sylvia says that maybe they want to take them alive. Again, in the context of the art of film, this is meant to indicate to the audience that this is indeed the Martians' intent. In any case, it's the closest thing to any sort of "proof" of the Martian's intentions we have. My statement is perfectly rational and sensible. And how do you know when or how the aliens would have taken prisoners?

An interesting point:

First of all, how could the aliens understand how smart humans were upon their initial meeting? They would have no way of understanding our intellect, nor would they care. The Martians were looking for some place to colonize, which is much easier with the natives out of the way. I do believe that the aliens probably see us the same way we saw natives during the era of colonization. Sure we were capable of communicating with them, but we saw them as fairly inferior and savage anyway. Worth getting rid of so we could utilize the location's ultimate potential.

Well, it's stated at the outset that the human race "was being scrutinized and studied" by the Martians. Doubtless they considered us inferior intellectually (and correctly so), but from their observations they knew us to be an intelligent race that had built a civilization on Earth. They may have held us and it in contempt but on the other hand they knew they were not dealing with protozoa. From their observations they had to know we were smart enough to understand the basics of what was going on. You subsequent analogy -- to the way in which natives were viewed by colonizers -- is much more accurate.

Again, a quote you cite from me, in italics, followed by your response above:

It may also simply be that the special effects people at Paramount didn't have the ability to have the spindly Martian puppet actually hold a weapon. You've asked whether it makes sense that he'd go unarmed to take prisoners. Well, is it logical he'd go unarmed even if he sought only peaceful contact? After all, his "people" are invading and decimating the planet and its inhabitants. Would he really think the two humans might not react with violence? Wouldn't he go prepared for an attack? As you said, the Martians aren't stupid. In your own words,

GIVE ME A BREAK. Excuses excuses...

You really want to believe your own theory on this prisoner thing. I personally don't remember this being in the book at all, but you're allowed to see a movie any way you want to. I don't care. I'm just not sure why you feel some arbitrary need to criticize my own interpretation constantly and incessantly, as if there were something wrong with me.

"Give me a break. Excuses, excuses" isn't an answer to anything, just vacuous nonsense. Why would the Martian go unarmed even if his approach was non-violent? It seems a sensible precaution. Why wouldn't he at least allow for the possibility of a violent reaction? The Martians are supposed to be intelligent, after all.

My reasons for believing "this prisoner thing" are based on what's said in the movie. Based on more than anything you demonstrate. But as you say, "you're allowed to see a movie any way you want to." Indeed -- and that goes for you too, as you've been doing throughout these posts. As for what the book says, so what? The book also doesn't take place in 1950s California, or have atomic bombs, tanks, jet aircraft, or Martian war machines suspended by "invisible legs" of energy kept in balance, or any of the characters in the movie. The fact that it doesn't have anyone taken prisoner is completely and utterly irrelevant to the film version we're discussing.

Re the "cheesy" effects:

Give me a break lol…this is my own personal taste you're criticizing. I'm allowed to find whatever I want to, cheesy. The religious undertones are a bit corny, some of the dialogue is a bit disjointed, some of the plot points and scenes are a bit over the top, such as the scene where the minister decides to sacrifice himself…for literally no reason whatsoever.-What a sanctimonious idiot, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him? The minute he got vaporized I cheered, one less annoying, overbearing, religious idiot on the planet, yay.

For the record, I also think the film is great. It's one of my favorites and I prefer it to the 00s remake. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws. One thing I particularly admired about it was some of the screenwriting, which doesn't dissolve into sci fi/horror cliches. It's a film with a message. Also nice special effects for early 50s sci fi, you can tell someone cared about making a good movie, rather than just blockbuster bucks.

Here, we agree on almost everything. I was criticizing only your use of the unimaginative, overworked and insipidly non-descriptive term "cheesy", along with the inherent disparagement of effects using the technology available over 60 years ago that the use of that term connotes. Since you subsequently say you admire the effects for their time, it seems you've somewhat contradicted your use of the purely disparaging term "cheesy".

Otherwise, I essentially agree with your comments here. I quite agree it has flaws as well -- few films don't. It isn't a "perfect" film -- as the very argument we're having over this Martian's intentions proves. It doesn't have to be flawless to be excellent or admirable.

As to the WWII comparison:

Yes well you forget that there were even some SS soldiers who actually helped save some Jews, who had mercy over some people, and who were forced to do some of them things they did out of sheer fear of disobeying orders. Nazis were not just one giant evil monster, they were made up of a collection of individuals led by tyrannical and evil people. In fact, I find it bizarre that anyone would criticize the foot soldiers at all, they literally had no choice whatsoever whether or not they fought. They also didn't commit the massive atrocities that the SS did, many of them were probably completely unaware of what they were doing.

Yes, well, actually, I didn't forget anything about that and in fact made a generalized reference to such individuals and actions. You considerably overstate any benevolent actions on the part of the German armed forces or SS. Bizarre that anyone would criticize the foot soldiers? Why not? Oh -- because they were only following orders. The Nuremberg defense. Sure, they were soldiers who had to obey orders. Do you think most of them questioned their country's policies? That they weren't ecstatic about their conquests? That they weren't bitter about defeat? The German public too. They had no problem with Hitler or the war until it began going against them. They were foot soldiers in a brutal total war of conquest with which few had any problem. And don't start in on that cowardly pack of lies that the soldiers "were completely unaware of what they [the SS] were doing." That bit of postwar denial and excuse-making has been debunked since 1945. Give me a break.

I certainly agree that a great deal of 50s sci fi was inspired by WW2, but I think your interpretation of the "nazis" needs a bit of research. (outside of the history channel).

Yeah, I'd better stop relying on that university degree in history I spent four years obtaining. Actually, my interpretation needs no further research, but you certainly need some remedial reading. (Or TV, if you prefer.) Especially since part of your would-be refutation of what I wrote was in fact little more than a restatement of it. But I'm afraid some of your interpretations of the Germans' actions and beliefs are pretty problematic.

However, though I raised the subject, this isn't the place to start debating World War II. But the core question remains: would you have been open to an invading Martian overrunning your planet any more than to an invading Nazi overrunning your nation?

Yes you're right, but you're the one basing your interpretation with no proof. All I said was that the alien makes a non violent approach and he does. The scene is pretty literal.

Well, my "interpretation" isn't so much that, as it is simply inferring the Martian's intentions based on that exchange of dialogue between Forrester and Sylvia (about their wanting to take them alive), as I've now twice stated. "You're allowed", as you said, "to see a movie any way you want to." You admit you have no idea why the Martian approaches the pair, and apart from using the piece of dialogue I mentioned, neither do I -- for certain. All we can do is use what little proof we can gather from what's said in the movie.

The core of what you've said is that "the alien makes a non-violent approach". But this scene is nowhere near being as "pretty literal" as you interpret it. True, the alien doesn't use a weapon or do anything overtly aggressive (unless one counts his putting his hand on Sylvia's shoulder an act of at least mild aggression). In that strict sense, you're right, he's being non-violent. But we are never sure, not only of what he wants, but of what his demeanor or character or overall intention is. This is why I said before that though he may be in this brief, narrow scene technically non-violent this does not speak to his character or ultimate intentions. He may want them for a violent purpose but needs to obtain them in a non-violent (i.e., non-destructive) way, to serve as prisoners, guinea pigs, whatever. We can only speculate, though from the evidence it does appear likely he wants to take them alive.

So I disagree that the scene is "pretty literal". In a shallow or narrow viewing, perhaps. But there's much more going on here than a simple "non-violent" approach by the Martian. The scene is actually pretty complex. And concepts of non-violence, hostility, fear, anger, and the rest all enter into it. To simply say the Martian was "non-violent" in his approach may be technically accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

Two last quick points which don't require direct quotes....

I did not say the director didn't put his own interpretation on how to film a scene. Of course he'll spin it the way he sees fit. I said only that the way the scene was devised or conceived was primarily a product of the screenwriter. Yes, the director has a lot of say but it isn't his interpretation alone.

And as far as the Martian being unarmed, I repeat that we can't be certain of this. Obviously we never see a weapon. Very possibly he doesn't have one with him, though again, this seems illogical to me, as a precaution if for no other reason. In fact, I suspect he doesn't have a weapon because he doesn't brandish one in retaliation after he's hit by the ax. Still, this entire aspect is a confusing and flawed one as far as the film goes. To take it as a further indication of the alien's non-violent approach may be legitimate up to a point. But just as we can speculate on his intentions in confronting the humans, so we can speculate on the reasons why he appears not to have a weapon, and what this means...as well as to the possibility he does have a weapon that we simply don't see. I still think one reason for the absence of an obvious weapon is purely a special effects one: the difficulty of getting the Martian prop to hold one. But whatever the reason it is a gap in the story line and further muddies the scene's intent.

reply share

add reply

formatting help