Essentials: Jurassic Park

I recently had a conversation with a friend about the filmography of the great Steven Spielberg. My friend, who is considerably younger than me, tried to argue Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) was not the horrifying, stupefying train wreck that it was. While I could probably go into the technical reasons that movie is an abomination, my arguments were limited to a concentrated level of hatred indirectly flung at my friend with reckless abandon. I stopped myself before things got out of hand but I realized one thing; generational bias does matter when it comes to movies and our discussion hit a little too close to home.



Plus you know, the fucking fridge

It matters for many when I say I prefer Jurassic Park (1993) over Jaws (1975). I’m not saying one is a better movie over the other, all I’m saying is I prefer the movie that first capitalized on my obsession with dinosaurs when I was six, over one I saw in high school because I wanted to be a Spielberg completest. I much rather watch the movie I saw peering through holes in my own clammy palms than the movie I tried figuring out “what that guy was in.” To put it bluntly, in the imagination of the child I was and the child I still am inside, Jurassic Park is first in my heart.

Jurassic Park is still the premier movie I recommend to Spielberg novices. It encompasses everything that artificially created the childhood of those raised in the nineties; a childlike sense of wonder, visionary special effects and a score by John Williams who composed the anthems of at least two generations. Additionally the film showcases the acting abilities of thespian veterans Richard Attenborough and Jeff Goldblum, familiar faces like Laura Dern, Samuel L. Jackson and Wayne Night and strong novice performances by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello.

Under the surface of Jurassic Park lies its cautionary tale written by David Koepp and Michael Crichton. A modern retelling of Frankenstein only instead of one misunderstood ogre the characters are faced with a menagerie of primal monsters. That and the movie doesn’t mind cranking the scare-meter up to eleven. Those who have seen the movie no doubt will instantly recall the scene with the children versus the velociraptors. It’s a scene that would have made anyone in the audience scream lengthily along with Joseph Mazzello’s character.

It is alive!!!

Those who know me know I’m not a fan of the theme of science and technology overreaching and causing something horrific. If we were scared of every boogie man that could happen, we would have never left that cave. That’s not to say we shouldn’t acknowledge the dangers of bringing dinosaurs back from the dead. We should acknowledge that it’s a double edged sword for sure. But there’s no doubt that finding our limits is what makes humanity great and we shouldn’t limit ourselves because Mary Shelley, Michael Crichton or Jerry Falwell tells us to.

But if you’re looking for deeper meanings in a Spielberg film (other than the phallic appearance of E.T.) you’re trailing up the wrong Devil’s Monument. Spielberg’s main goal is to entertain. Does that make him a less talented or less important director? Does that make him a huckster of the Barnum Bailey variety? I would argue that film can be used as an art form, as a form of entertainment and/or a form of storytelling with many, many overlapping traditions in-between. If a director’s intent is to tell a good story which is what Spielberg does, then who am I or anyone else to judge? Movies are the things of dreams and Spielberg doesn’t cheat in giving you the goods.

Stand by for mammoth poop

A great yarn, a pulse pounding theme park ride, a childhood memory; Jurassic Park is all that and more. It was a movie that intelligently combined the cheap thrills that made Jaws so daring and revolutionary, while smuggling in ethical quandaries about the darker side of scientific discovery. While Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) proved to be incredibly disappointing and Jurassic Park III (2001) was nowhere near perfect, I'm still hopeful for Jurassic World (2015). Maybe with some new blood the franchise will be exhumed from the dead much like the remains of the dinosaurs in the films. New generations may not be able to enjoy the original in theaters anymore but surly they won't mess it up that bad? I mean, Star Trek (2009) was a success after all. 

On a related note, those in the know, no doubt have heard about the mammoth they’re planning on cloning. Regardless of the hardships experienced by the characters of Jurassic Park, who isn’t excited to see something like that?

Final Grade: A