"
Jurassic Park"
** 1\2 (out of ****)
Thirty years ago today Steven Spielberg released one of the most eagerly awaited movies of the summer of 1993, "Jurassic Park".
Although I wasn't a fan of Steven Spielberg at the time, 10 year old me was filled with anticipation to see what "Jurassic Park" would be all about. As most children have a fascination with dinosaurs, the movie was heavily marketed towards kids. I vividly recall McDonald's tie-ins and toys. The movie played on the imagination of all children and the general public - what would be it like if dinosaurs came back? How thrilling would it be to see an actual dinosaur up close?
Without jumping too far ahead, that's a very minimal part of what "Jurassic Park" is about. And it is not for children! I can attest to this. As I sat in a movie theater with my father, I will never forget the amount of fear that overcame me. I held a napkin in front of my eyes practically every time a dinosaur appeared on-screen. "Jurassic Park" was an intense experience for 10 year old me. Looking back on the movie 30 years later, I still found it to be an intense, roller coaster experience. But this time I didn't need the napkin. That's called growth!
Based on a novel published in 1990 - of the same title - written by Michael Crichton, "Jurassic Park" would have seemed to be a perfect vehicle for director Steven Spielberg, the man who created such fantasies as "E.T." (1982), "Hook" (1990) and "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981), making him the most financially successful filmmaker of his generation. At this point in Spielberg's career he was identified with childhood fantasies. Yes, there were outliners like "The Color Purple" (1985) and "Empire of the Sun" (1987), which were meant to show an emotional and thematic maturity but Spielberg was a mainstream Hollywood hit maker. On paper, without knowing the plot, "Jurassic Park" could have been filled with a child's wonderment about dinosaurs.
The movie follows a wealthy businessman, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) who has created an amusement park where dinosaurs have been brought to life. This was accomplished by extracting dinosaur DNA from a prehistoric, amber preserved mosquito. To satisfy shaky investors however Hammond has invited two experts to sign off on the park - paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and his girlfriend paleobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Meanwhile an attorney, representing the investors, has brought a mathematician versed in chaos theory, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to inspect the park as well.
And so we have a story of man playing God, recalling the Universal horror classics like "Frankenstein" (1931), "Dracula" (1931) and "The Mummy" (1932) Those movies had anti-science messages dealing with characters trying to push the limits of science while showing an utter lack of respect for tradition and different cultures. "Jurassic Park" could have used a "mad scientist" character. Logically that would have been John Hammond but the movie doesn't take that route instead opting to settle to make the character a concerned grandfather, whose grandchildren have also come to visit the park - Tim (Joseph Mazzello) and Lex (Ariana Richards).
"Jurassic Park" also owes something to the creature features before it such as "Kong King" (1933), "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" (1956) and the sadly oft-forgotten silent movie, "The Lost World" (1925) about a land where dinosaurs still roam and a group of adventurers who go out to confirm its existence.
The movie also attempts to make very brief comments on evolution, man vs nature, morality and commercialism. But what seems to be the most significant throughline in the plot is a story about fatherhood and learning to embrace the concept of children. Why this theme was mixed up in a movie about dinosaurs is anyone's guess. Much emphasis is placed on the arc of the character Alan Grant and his slow acceptance of children.
This is a big flaw of "Jurassic Park". It doesn't say much. The character that is suppose to represent the "heart" of the movie, Ian Malcolm, is unfortunately tossed aside after making a few good cautionary speeches on the potential danger Hammond may have done. Then the character becomes wallpaper as everything - themes, characters...etc - take a back seat to the technology and special effects of the dinosaurs. There may be some viewers that don't even notice the movie is about fatherhood. While they may want to write to me and tell me I'm crazy to think the movie is about any such thing, they are actually proving my point. No message is able to break through the movie. Only the special effects are memorable.
And the effects are an amazing sight! Every bit of credit that has been thrown at the special effects team is well deserved. The movie won the Academy Award for best visual effects, one of the movie's three Oscar nominations.
But besides the effects there is little else to enjoy watching the movie. The late movie critic Roger Ebert in his Chicago Sun-Times review praised the effects as well but wrote "the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values." Across town in the Chicago Tribune, critic Dave Kehr stated, "Jurassic Park" is effective but emotionally detached, as if Spielberg hadn't invested much of himself in the characters and the challenges they face."
While "Jurassic Park" is a roller coaster adventure, one thing I immediately noticed watching the movie again, in preparation for this review, was the cheap way the movie goes after thrills. On an almost consistent basis the movie exploits the children characters always placing them in peril. The most elaborate of these sequences involves our first sight of T-Rex and the first major confrontation the characters have with the dinosaurs, after the electrical power has went down in the park.
Yes the sequence kept me on the edge of my seat but what am I watching? I am watching adult characters look on as T-Rex destroys a vehicle with two children inside of it. If those adults don't act quickly, they are going to be witnesses to the death of those children. It is the cheapest way to create suspense and tension in an audience. We are already dealing with such a grand story of dinosaurs vs man, couldn't it only be the adults that find themselves in harm's way? Isn't anything else just a cheap ploy to exploit those child characters?
But exploiting those children is the only way the movie knows how to to comment on the theme it is most interested in - fatherhood. When we first meet Alan Grant it is made clear he does not want children nor does he like them. This is expressed both verbally and by action. While on a dig, for some reason, a child was brought along. And when the child compares the dinosaur to a turkey, Grant uses it as an opportunity to scare the love of Jesus Christ into the child by explaining how advanced the dinosaur was and the way in which it would attack him. Where is this boy's parents to tell Grant stop scaring my child?!
In the sequence with the T-Rex, just before the attack, Grant walked over to the car with the children, which the attorney is also in, to confirm if their radio is working. When he sits back down in his car, Malcolm asks how are the kids? It never occurred to Grant to inquire. The kids are an afterthought. This explains why it is Grant that is the only adult with the children as they try to escape the park. It creates a bonding experience between Grant and the children. He is their guardian. He must protect them. And by doing so learns what fatherhood is about. One of the last images of the movie has the children nestled comfortably napping in Grant's arms. My, my, my, how things have changed. That is what "Jurassic Park" is about. Leading us up to that moment.
"Jurassic Park" has endured these past 30 years sparking sequels and an eventual reboot of the franchise. Of all of the movies that have proceeded it, this "Jurassic Park" movie may be the best. But is that saying much? "Jurassic Park" has entertainment value but is it "great art"? Yes, that makes me sound like a film snob to the average Jane and John Doe but isn't that what a movie critic does? Evaluate the artist merit of a movie? People seem to confuse congenial, crowd-pleasing movies as examples of great cinema. "Jurassic Park" isn't a masterpiece. "Home Alone" (1990) isn't a masterpiece.
"Ghostbusters" (1984) isn't a masterpiece. That doesn't necessarily mean they are bad movies but they are not "classics", "masterpieces" or examples of great art. I mention this because I just know someone is going to read this review and say
how could he not like "Jurassic Park"? It's a classic!
"Jurassic Park" would represent the beginning of a turning point in Spielberg's career. Later in 1993 he would release "Schindler's List". This would mark the beginning of a maturity and growth in Spielberg's movies tackling more adult subject matters - "Amistad" (1997),
"Saving Private Ryan" (1998),
"A.I." (2001) and "Munich" (2005) would follow.
Despite its status among some as a "classic", "Jurassic Park" is a movie with little to say. It has undeveloped characters that take second place to the movie's special effects. The effects are spectacular however. Janet Maslin in her New York Times review declared "Jurassic Park", "a true movie milestone". If we are only talking about the special effects, I would agree. Yes, there is some entertainment value to the movie but I personally couldn't watch the movie multiple times. I tried to watch it twice before writing this and during the second viewing was becoming slightly bored. The events of the movie were too fresh in my head and lacked the same adrenaline rush one would expect from such a movie. In the end, "Jurassic Park" is a technical achievement but little else.
Posts
