There is a heartbreaking image halfway through “Jurassic
World: Fallen Kingdom” that surprised me, and I think it speaks to the larger
reasons why the Jurassic movies keep being made for willing audiences despite
the fact that they are getting less and less original.
A volcano is erupting on Isla Nubar, the Pacific island
where the dinosaurs of Jurassic World remain after decades, threatening the
lives of the creatures. A team is dispatched to save the dinosaurs, presumably
to move them to a new sanctuary. In a thrilling action set-piece, the volcano
eruption causes a dinosaur stampede with our heroes in the middle of it, as
stampedes are likely to happen in these movies. In the nick of time, the heroes
and their rescue animals scurry onto a waiting ship. But the camera lingers on
a lone Brachiosaurus, swallowed up by a cloud of ash, looking plaintively at
the camera, beyond rescue.
It’s an image that calls to mind the central mystery behind the
existence of dinosaurs since humans began discovering their remains over the
last two centuries – just as surely as they once walked the planet, they no
longer do. The idea that we didn’t know about them for so long seems to
frustrate something inside us, as well as fascinate. It’s an idea stated in
Stephen L. Brusatte’s recent, excellent book, “The Rise and Fall of the
Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World”
“We humans now wear
the crown that once belonged to the dinosaurs. We are confident of our place in
nature, even as our actions are rapidly changing the planet around us….If it
could happen to the dinosaurs, could it also happen to us?”
“Jurassic World” is the fifth film in a series spawned more
than 30 years ago by Michael Crichton’s “Jurassic Park.” I recently went back
to the book, its sequel, and watched all of the films, not sure what I was
looking for.
Crichton’s original novel is well-known, but perhaps not as
much as the Spielberg film based on it. The novel fits squarely into Crichton’s
oeuvre of techno-thrillers with hints of science fiction, where mankind
experiments with elemental forces and learns, to his dismay, how little he
knows.
“Park” begins, not with the idea of an amusement park for
the superrich stocked with dinosaurs, but with a short prologue about the
dangers of then-emerging biotechnology. Crichton introduces what, at that time,
would have been a revolutionary idea – biotechnology, dealing with the science
of life itself, has the potential to do more for humanity than atomic power and
computers, he says. But as so many times with Crichton, he gives this as a
warning. Biotechnology may have been unlocked through the cold, rational,
patient work of scientists, but it has commercial implications far removed from
those of science or even basic ethics, he is saying. “There are no detached observers,”
he writes. “Everybody has a stake.”
He puts most of these concerns in the mouth of Dr. Ian
Malcolm, a scientific voice arguing that nature is even larger than we can
imagine, not one system by itself but part of several among even larger
systems. That is why he responds to the park with horror, understanding that
there is something, in a scientific sense, unholy about what John Hammond has
attempted. Crichton makes the decision to have Malcolm die of his injuries in the
novel, making us wonder if the author fears a death of sanity among the scientific
community. (He resurrects Malcolm in the following book, probably because of
Spielberg’s decision to leave him alive in the film.) In an extended dialogue,
Malcolm compares scientific discovery, and the race to be the first, as a kind
of rape. Instead of observation, there is always the temptation to act. When
Ellie Sattler asks if he means the destruction of the planet, Malcolm says that’s
“the last thing I would worry about.”
When it came time to make the film “Jurassic Park,” Steven Spielberg
had the perfect property with which to show everything he had learned in his
first 25 years of movie making. In a sense, the creation of the movie “Jurassic
Park” is about moving pictures. The aim is to depict dinosaurs and humans
interacting, something that never happened in history. It’s an idea that he
sums up in an image later in the movie – words projected on the face of a
raptor. More importantly, we must have the dinosaurs chase and threaten our
human characters. To accomplish this, Spielberg and the visual effects team
employed computer generated image technology in a way that hadn’t been seen
before. The first hour of the movie sets this up.
We enter knowing the concept. We expect to see dinosaurs. Twenty
years before, Spielberg directed “Jaws,” forced by a malfunctioning mechanical
shark to withhold sight of the animal from the audience for long periods of
time. He can now show dinosaurs in detail, and yet he still uses the same
technique as before to draw in the audience. Our first sight is waving tree
branches, like something out of the original “King Kong.” He has begun a strategy
of conceal and reveal. Consider that in 1993, there was still some suspense as
to whether he could pull it off.
The next scenes introduce our characters – Grant, Sadler,
Hammond, Malcolm with the lawyer. We are introduced to a relationship between
Grant and Sadler – they never kiss – and, by the unexplained presence of a
child at an archeological dig, the idea that they may be planning the next
step. (There was no relationship in the novel.)
Richard Attenborough is cast as Hammond, which is an
interesting decision. The genial businessman who we first meet in the novel
later morphs into an embittered man blaming everyone else when the park’s
obvious problems destroy his dreams. By casting the smiling character
actor/director in the film, Hammond becomes a grandfatherly, Walt Disney-esque
figure, and thus, more ominous. We may feel some sympathy for this man at the
same time we see how he has perverted science in the name of commerce.
The great reveal comes not as an attack however, but on a
hill with a herd of Brachiosaurs, straining to eat from trees. It looks – it feels
– lifelike. And non-threatening. The
stately music of John Williams gives us the appropriate awe before nature.
Then we are reintroduced to the concept, how the park was
created, and Malcolm is there to remind
us of the problems, as he was in the novel, though in a more limited basis. Next
comes the egg hatching for another moment of awe, and the idea that “life finds
a way.”
Muldoon, the great white hunter, is there to illustrate how
dangerous the creatures are. There is a storm coming, and then the last,
expected magic ingredient – kids. Hammond’s grandchildren are there because…well,
children love dinosaurs.
Even still, Spielberg does a curious thing. He frustrates
us, making us like the child carried to the zoo who can’t see the lion lounging
out in the sun. There are no dinosaurs that we can see. But that will change,
at the moment when everything converges to make the last half of the movie an
almost continuous chase. He knows the thing we want to see is the Tyrannosaurus
Rex, so even here, he hesitates, giving us the impact tremors, the bobbing
water in the cup holder of the SUV. The electrified fence is there to create
its own kind of suspense.
Without meaning to, Spielberg and Crichton created several archtypes
that keep reappearing throughout the “Jurassic” series: The noble male
scientist. The resourceful female. The underhanded technician. The hunter. The
exploiter. The well-meaning but doomed capitalist. Spielberg also created
several scenes and situations the series has returned to again and again. A
contemplative pause before nature’s awesome power and grandeur. The humans
running in the middle of a dinosaur stampede. Our heroes threatened by one
menace which is in turn neutralized by a larger, heretofore unseen threat.
The end of “Jurassic Park” leaves us with a problem, as it did
its markers. The dinosaurs are still alive on the island. Don’t we want to go
back? But how do we keep from telling virtually the same story, over and over?
It’s a problem they haven’t yet overcome.
To satisfy his fans, Crichton gave us “The Lost World,” and
reading it, you sense that he wrote it trying to tailor the story to what he
expected Spielberg would want. He brings back Malcolm, again contrives to have
children on the island, and invents a rival biotech company interested in the
technology that created the dinosaurs. There is an indication, at the book’s
close, that the dinosaurs days are numbered.
Again, there are the ominous warnings:
“Scientists pretended
that history didn’t matter, because the errors of the past were now corrected
by modern discoveries. But of course their forebears had believed exactly the
same thing in the past, too. They had been wrong then. And they were wrong
now.”
Spielberg, though, was satisfied to take only a few elements
of Crichton’s book in order to satisfy the audience’s supposed second wish for
a Jurassic movie – having a dinosaur chase people not on Isla Nubar, but in urban
and suburban America.
The first hour of “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” played
better than I remembered. That’s largely due to the good cast and Spielberg
concentrating on the human interactions. We see Pete Posteltwaite in the role
of the hunter, this time, only slightly sinister and able to walk out alive in
the end. Arliss Howard is the obligatory evil capitalist exploiter of the
dinosaurs. From the moment Jeff Goldblum’s daughter shows up, you know she’ll
wind up on the island somehow.
A formula is already taking shape, even though it has been
somewhat tweaked. Information is withheld to get the hero back on the island,
because no sane person would want to go back. Those who are going for the first
time are ignorant of the danger or arrogantly assume they can handle it. Still,
must we always encounter the T-Rex in a rainstorm?
I remember thinking when the movie came out that the entire
reason to have “The Lost World” was to have the shot of the T-Rex drinking from
a swimming pool. That’s perhaps why the last third of the movie seems to come
off the rails, as though all the story has led up to this, and there isn’t much
here besides a procession of visual jokes reminiscent of Spielberg’s “1941”–
Japanese people running from a dinosaur, meant to remind us of Godzilla. The
dinosaur dashing past the customs sign prohibiting animals past this point. A
child waking up parents because of a monster. Spielberg also dispenses with Crichton’s
ending – the dinosaurs will survive, so we can again return.
A few words here about "Jurassic Park III:" In its stripped
down story, it reminded me of the way sequels used to play out – with less
money, fewer stars, a smaller story, a smaller set. The cast is again
excellent, with Sam Neill brought back for most of the action, joined by
William H. Macy and Tea Leoni. But the action is again all too familiar. Its
main selling point seems to be – Pteranadons! The timely rescue of the U.S. military
replaces the by-now expected resolution with one as old as the movies
themselves.
“Jurassic World,” released 14 years later, understood that
even though we don’t think a park with dinosaurs can succeed, we want it to. We want to see it, just as much as want it
to fail catastrophically.
We are reintroduced to a few familiar faces, like B.D. Wong.
We are impressed with Bryce Dallas Howard’s moxie and beauty, and charmed by
Chris Pratt’s goofy raptor trainer. The Great White Hunter is also an exploiter
in Vincent D’Onofrio’s Hoskins, who wants to find a military application for
the dinosaurs. When our child protagonists stumble onto the old Jurassic Park
visitor center from the first movie, we are supposed to feel the appropriate
nostalgia before the awe of previous box office glories.
Of course, we haven’t left well enough alone. In a nod to Crichton’s
original inspiration, the park’s creators have engineered their own ultimate
predator, Indominus Rex, in an attempt to one-up nature and create even more
thrills. But because Indominus is man-made, it is ultimately defeated by a
tagteam of the T Rex and the Mosasaurus – again one threat neutralized by a
larger one. “Fallen Kingdom” has gotten better at rendering dinosaurs, and
gives us a roomful of capitalists bidding on them. Marx would have loved the
sight of primeval animals slaughtering a room of high-rollers, mixing ideology
and evolution.
Despite its scientific trappings, the Jurassic series has
always been about sheer entertainment. Its concept was meant to thrill, though
I wonder how many times it can thrill given the safe ground its makers continue
to inhabit.
I’m reminded of the sight of John Hammond in the first
movie, hovering over melting ice cream, fearful for the lives of his
grandchildren. He has spared no expense to bring his dreams alive, and they have
hatched a nightmare:
“You know the first
attraction that I ever built when I came down from Scotland was a flea circus –
Petticoat Lane. Really quite wonderful. We had a wee trapeze, and a
merry-go…carousel. And a see-saw. They all moved- motorized of course. But
people would say they could see the fleas… But this place…I wanted to show them
something that wasn’t an illusion, something that was real, something they
could see and touch…an aim not devoid of merit.”
The dinosaurs, like our doomed Brachiosaur swallowed in ash,
offer an echo from a past we never had a chance to forget. They didn’t leave
books or buildings, just their bones.
They remind us of deep time – oceans of centuries where we
did not walk the earth and would not for longer than we can comprehend. They
remind us of our mortality – in that they are no longer here. They remind us of
our stature – you are small, little man,
and weak, and you too will die. And will there be anything left of you when it
is all over? We power your cars and your cities. What power will anyone find in
what ultimately remains of you?
The end of “Fallen Kingdom” promises yet another adventure,
now that dinosaurs have been loosed upon the world. Yet, I have the suspicion
that future Jurassic Worlds will till the same ground, resurrecting the same fossils,
like pumping tired oil wells.
But not all fossils are best left underground. 2017 saw the
publication of an unearthed Crichton novel, “Dragon Teeth,” which gives us
dinosaurs (of a sort) in a western. The novel, which the late author wrote in
the 70s, tells the story of a young Yale man caught between the real-life fossil
hunters Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. The two are looking for bones
in the west in 1876, which gives Crichton a chance to construct a lovely, fun,
rollicking adventure. Crichton again gives us vain scientists, racing to make
the discovery, but our hero, William Johnson, merely went West to win a bet. He
cares nothing about the unseen giant beasts of the dim past, even though he is
present at a moment of their rediscovery.
“You and I are the
first men in recorded history to glimpse these teeth. They will change
everything we think we know about these animals, and much as I hesitate to say
such a thing, man becomes smaller when we realize what remarkable beasts went
before us.”
There is something wonderful about the scene, late in the book,
when Johnson finds himself the guardian of these million-year-old bones, even
though he cares little for them and barely understands their importance. One
feels the stubborn insistence of man, that he matters because he exists – now.
Whatever may happen to the species in the future, his existence is of paramount
importance. The dinosaurs had their shot, as Malcolm would say later.
Why not
make the most of today?
Set Your Fields on Fire
The award-winning novel by William Thornton
Available now
Some of the coverage of "Set Your Fields on Fire"
You can order "Set Your Fields on Fire"for $14.99 through Amazon here.
It's also available on Kindle at $3.99 through Amazon here.
Read an interview I did with AL.com on the book here.
Here's my appearance on the Charisma Network's CPOP Podcast.
Here's an interview I did with The Anniston Star on the book.
Shattered Magazine wrote a story about the book here.
Here's a review of the novel by Robbie Pink.
This piece appeared in the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal.
Here's the write-up from The Birmingham Times.
Read a story for Village Living here.
This story appeared in The Trussville Tribune and this video.
Read an interview I did with AL.com on the book here.
Here's my appearance on the Charisma Network's CPOP Podcast.
Here's an interview I did with The Anniston Star on the book.
Shattered Magazine wrote a story about the book here.
Here's a review of the novel by Robbie Pink.
This piece appeared in the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal.
Here's the write-up from The Birmingham Times.
Read a story for Village Living here.
This story appeared in The Trussville Tribune and this video.
Here's my appearance on East Alabama Today.
Story and video from WBRC Fox6 here.
Here's the write-up in The Gadsden Times on the book.
Read a piece I wrote for WestBow Press about writing the book here.
A piece about some inspiring works for me.
Read a piece I wrote for WestBow Press about writing the book here.
A piece about some inspiring works for me.
This is another interview with the fleegan book blog here.
No comments:
Post a Comment