Thursday, August 23, 2007

"The Invasion" - a mixed message.

We saw "The Invasion" this week at the cinema. It's yet another re-make, this time re-hashing the story of a previous movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

Bearing in mind Pluto's entry into Capricorn and Saturn's imminent move into Virgo, I think we can all be pretty certain that we'll experience some kind of change in the near future, personally and/or communally. One hopes and trusts that the changes will not be as dramatic as those portrayed in this film.

The message I came away with was confusing. Initially, we see that if humans were forced into becoming placid, unemotional, almost robotic, losing all aggresion - it wouldn't be a good thing, it was something to fight against. Yet, once the enemy had been overcome and things got back to normal (as we know normal these days), there was a whisper of doubt, a vague look of unease as news of developments in Iraq and other dramas were once again reported in the media.

Would the world have been a better place had the enemy been victorious? In a couple of reviews of the movie critics said that this was the first ever sci-fi movie where they were actually on the side of the aliens. (Surely not, what about ET ?)

The message I drew from the film, eventually, reminded me that humans have an innate need for conflict, war, trouble.....and passion. Without these, we are not "whole". This IS in our astrology of course, courtesy mainly of Mars, its aspects and transits, in varying degrees for each individual. It's an integral part of our nature. This probably means that we'll never fully attain the beloved vision of a world without war. Our ultimate challenge, if we are to survive, will be for us to voluntarily overcome the baser parts of our human nature, and make our passions work only for good.

That was a serious message to cull from from a distinctly second-rate movie.


anyjazz said...

It's a sad message. Your analysis is probably bang on. Walt Kelly's assertion that "We have met the enemy and he is us." may have been truer than even he suspected.

Twilight said...

Yes, indeed, anyjazz!

We're "fools to ourselves" - but fail to see it.

Anonymous said...

What about finding a way to corral man's need for warfare?
By 'man', I mainly mean the male gender, with their primal 'hunter' programming which seems to give them a greater need for violence and physical danger. A state of affairs that seems to be biologically encoded and homonally fuelled by testosterone.
I humbly suggest a marrying of reality tv and real life war, as a possible solution.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the ultimate in the reality show genre:- 'War Island'.
This could be a small island somewhere out in the middle of the ocean where men can go to fight with real life guns, grenades etc. There can be opposing teams with a multi million dollar cash prize for winning, and CNN can keep us all updated on the daily state of play. But there have to be real weapons and genuinely high risk of death and injury for this project to actually work as a subsitute for humanity's need for warfare. We could then combine this with a worldwide ban on real wars, policed by the UN.
Only then can women and more evolved men get on with overseeing a peaceful stable civilisation without the continually recurring reversion to the violent chaos that is war.

Twilight said...

Now THAT sounds like a plan, Anonymous! Even better, at some point when progress allows - hold this reality show on a barren planet in a galaxy far, far away.

Hey wait.... maybe WE ARE such a reality show for the inhabitants of a planet in another solar system!