#stevenspielberg
Last night I went to see Jurassic World, and it wasn’t until the credits rolled that I realized I didn’t like it. For the last two hours I had been so caught up in dinosaur fights and Chris Pratt’s Chris Prattism that I briefly forgot this movie should never have existed. The fact that I forgot is probably the only accolade I can give the film, and I did enjoy my time with it. I wouldn’t even say that it’s a bad movie. But make no mistake, I didn’t like it, and I’m sorely disappointed with the treatment it was given.
I really don’t want to dwell on shop talk too much to break Jurassic World down, but just briefly I’ll say there are some cool dinosaur bits, the effects are cool if not always entirely convincing, and Chris Pratt remains decent at playing himself, if you’re still into that. On the flipside, the writing is uninspired and corny (and I try my hardest not to use that word), almost every character is flat and uninspired, the plot contrivances rely a bit too heavily on suspension of disbelief, and there’s never any real sense of danger. That being said, if those were my only problems with Jurassic World I’d probably be fine with it and even recommend it as a fun theater flick.
The real problem with Jurassic World is the real problem with Jurassic World. That is to say, somehow, accidentally or ingeniously (but almost definitely accidentally), the park itself reflects the movie. Bear with me here. Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire character sees the entire park as a spreadsheet of stats and percentages – park attendance, guest satisfaction, etc. She also believes that the only way for the park to thrive in an evolving context is to keep introducing bigger, scary attractions with “more teeth.” Claire crafts the park under the assumption that people only want to be entertained if it’s as big and bombastic as possible. They want to be blown away by cheap thrills. Claire has no respect for the sheer wonder of what she’s created, and ultimately it leads to ruin.
What I’ve just described to you is the Hollywood philosophy of blockbuster filmmaking. We keep getting bigger, crazier, louder every year because that’s what the people want. I could say they don’t, but the numbers show otherwise, both in Jurassic World attendance and Jurassic World attendance. The thing is though, that was never John Hammond’s vision for Jurassic Park, or Steven Spielberg’s. In the original film Hammond says the whole point of this endeavor was to “Give [the people] something that wasn’t an illusion. Something that was real.” He was never after cheap thrills, his park was set to open with nothing but a gift shop and a car tour. No, Hammond’s goal, was wonder. Amazement. Amazement, not at dinosaurs doing backflips or being scary, but at their sheer existence. And that’s the same view Spielberg had on the original masterpiece. We didn’t need dinosaur fights or an Indominus Rex because seeing that pan-up shot of a brontosaurus was enough. And while I’m not saying CGI alone is enough to dazzle audiences anymore, just as Jurassic World couldn’t survive on one attraction, I am saying that wonder and amazement are still possible in film. Audiences can still be dazzled in ways that don’t involve explosions or monster battles.
There’s one character in Jurassic World, the rich Middle Eastern magnate Simon Masrani who owns the park, who seems to get the idea. He understands the point of the park and the true vision for it. But as the “eighth wealthiest man in the world,” he doesn’t have time to maintain all the inner workings of one side project, even if he wanted to. In the same way, I believe Spielberg still understands what made Jurassic Park great, that it was majesty and not intensity, that it was wonder rather than thrills. The original film had an introspection to it that showed the true magic of Jurassic park was that it could never actually exist, as the ambition was too great. Jurassic World proves this to be true, but fails to really show the consequences or even discuss that there are consequences at all. Spielberg is a man who can’t be in charge of every project these days, so he resigns himself to an executive producership and is ultimately unable to make his vision real, much like Masrani.
I could keep going about how Jurassic World tries to justify its own horrendous product placement by pointing out that the park is a corporate sellout, or that the few (if admittedly well done) homages to the original film feel more obligatory than appropriate, but there’d be no point. The fact of the matter is this latest entry has no soul to it. The constant references to Jurassic Park don’t even feel disrespectful so much as misguided, like the creators fully misunderstood the legacy they were trying to live up to. To close, I’m going to let Dr. Ian Malcom summarize the problem with Jurassic World: “You wield it like a kid who’s found his dad’s gun. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it.”