1993 science fiction, dir. Steven Spielberg, Sam Neill, Laura Dern:
IMDb /
allmovie. How dare they do
science!
At the core, this is a very Michael Crichton story. Science is
Bad because they didn't ask Michael Crichton (other arbiters of
morality may be available) whether something was a good idea before
doing it. Also chaos theory blah blah. But there is a thick layer of
Spielberg over the top to make the polemic palatable.
This was the film Spielberg was editing while he was shooting
Schindler's List; the studio demanded he do something commercial as
the price of making the serious film. He later said he'd used "every
ounce of intuition on Schindler's List and every ounce of craft on
Jurassic Park", and I'd agree that this is a very craft film; every
image and sound (oh hello again John Williams) has been carefully set
up to produce exactly this emotional response at that instant.
I find that over the years I have been sensitised to this sort of
thing, and when I feel it being done to me, I resent it. So when we're
introduced to Grant at his dig site, almost the first thing we learn
about him is that he Doesn't Like Children; and my immediate response
was "oh, right, that's going to be cured". Ellie is Caring and
Motherly. Moppets gonna moppet.
But really the Spielberg gets thinnest when Ian Malcolm is on screen.
Jeff Goldblum does a game job, but his character is a walking author's
message whose job is to be right (but ignored). "You read what others
had done, and you took the next step." Yes, that's how science works,
you don't actually have to start with putting rocks on other rocks
every time you do something. It's a bad idea to bring dinosaurs back
because "Nature selected them for extinction"? What sort of
pseudo-religious thinking is this?
Though of course I'm biased because like many people I've met the
white man who has social capital by virtue of also being good at
something that makes money, so that he can express contempt for social
skills and get away with thinking of nobody but himself. We've got too
many of these people in real life as well as in books and films.
"They're just animals. They're herbivores." Ever met an angry bull?
But ignore the cardboard characters and the preaching, and the effects
are great. Not accurate even by the standards of the day; as usual,
accuracy was sacrificed for something the boss thought would look
better. But we do at least get fast-moving dinosairs rather than
ponderous lumps, and each species' introduction (Spielberg's craft,
Spielberg's craft) is arranged to set up the audience to be awed,
terrified, sympathetic, etc. as the film demands.
I didn't like this film, but I have to admit it's superbly made. I
have a black and clinkered heart, and I wasn't moved the way I was
meant to be; given how much people raved over this at the time I had
expected a whole lot more. There isn't even a post-credits sting.
I talk about this film further on Ribbon of
Memes.
- Posted by Ashley R Pollard at
10:22am on
16 March 2024
I liked this film despite its faults, and is one of enjoyable re-watch movies.
However, I agree with you, Michael Crichton sucks as an SF author. Not his writing ability, which demonstrates craft, but his anti-science morality.
I'm with you there on the protest march with a banner saying so. I'd even go so far to say that SF that is anti-science isn't SF, but rather preaching to those who resent change because they can't cope with any challenge to the status quo.
- Posted by John Dallman at
11:02am on
16 March 2024
The craft did not entirely work for me. Flying the helicopter so low in the introductory scenes, purely for the sake of the whoosh, broke my disbelief-suspenders: a large and well-run project is being portrayed, and a properly trained pilot would not do that, purely on safety grounds.
I found I could see the procedural generation in some of the CGI - my vision is weird, and I knew a fair bit about it by the standards of the time.
It wasn't good SF, just an overgrown Saturday morning show.
- Posted by RogerBW at
04:14pm on
18 March 2024
The helicopter shenanigan that stuck me most was the vertical descent, down a narrow canyon perhaps 4× the width of the helicopter, to the landing pad. That's a clear invitation to vortex ring state (at which point the thing just drops out of the air) and I can't believe that anyone competent would put the landing pad there in the first place. And this is supposed to be opened to tourism? (If things have to be down there, put the pad on top of the canyon wall and install a lift! It'll be cheaper than paying for all those lost helicopters and pilots will still work for you.)
(I assume the actual canyon was rather wider than it looks in the shot, or even film pilots might have objected to doing it.)
The bits of this that work best for me are where it imitates a disaster film (but with dinosaurs rather than an ocean liner or a burning high-rise).
Comments on this post are now closed. If you have particular grounds for adding a late comment, comment on a more recent post quoting the URL of this one.