Director Report Card: Steven Spielberg (1993) - Part One

17. Jurassic Park

I remember “Jurassic Park.” As a little kid fascinated by dinosaurs, with an enthusiasm and love for the subject that only the very young can muster, I was hugely excited for the film. I was vaguely aware of the movie being based off a best selling book. I knew who Steven Spielberg was. I knew that he was someone who created amazing cinematic visions. I had many of the toys, with their rubbery skin and “Dino Damage.” I saw the perfect poster and “JP” symbol slapped all over the place. I could even hum the John Williams theme song. When I finally saw the film, I was enthralled, frightened, and entertained. There’s no denying that “Jurassic Park” is one of the defining blockbusters of the nineties and an iconic film from my childhood. But does it hold up? 

Billionaire John Hammond has created something wonderful. Pushing his considerable fortune into genetic research, he has done the impossible: Cloned dinosaurs. The thunder lizards, extinct for millennia, walk the Earth again inside the walls of Jurassic Park, Hammond’s island-bound theme park. In order to approve the park and satisfy insurance backers, Hammond has brought in a group of experts: Paleontologist Alan Grant, his lover and fellow scientist Ellie Sattler, and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm. Partly through sabotage, and partly through the uncontrollable quality of the dinosaurs, the vacation to Jurassic Park goes horribly wrong. Now Alan and the others must escape the island before they all become dino-chow.

As a book, “Jurassic Park” sprung from the mind of Michael Crichton. Crichton’s science-tinged thrillers overcame his conservative politics to become consistent best sellers. “Jurassic Park” belongs to the old tradition of the cautionary science-fiction story. The scientists tamper in God’s domain and are punished for it. Not only is the moral time-tested but “Jurassic Park” is boldly derivative of one of Crichton’s earlier works. His 1974 film “Westworld” was about an amusement park filled with robots that go mad and begin killing people. Crichton took the same basic plot outline, added the then-hot button topic of cloning, and switched out the robots for another evergreen point of boyhood fascination: Dinosaurs. As transferred to film by Spielberg, screenwriter David Koepp, and an army of hugely talented effects artist, “Jurassic Park” became a sci-fi fantasy tinged with horror and awe.

There had been dinosaur movies made before “Jurassic Park.” Some of them where even great. However, the dinosaurs were usually hampered by obviously artificial special effects, like rubbery suits or stop-motion. “Jurassic Park” made dinosaurs feel real. To contrast with the real world horrors of his other 1993 release, Steven Spielberg wanted to get back in touch with the boyish adventure stories that made him famous. And what’s more boyish then a love of dinosaurs? Spielberg seems as in awe of the film’s creation as the audience was. When Grant and Sattler first see the Brachiosaurus, their eyes widen in wonder. So does the viewers'. The characters are amazed by the sight of a sick triceratops. Grant comments that it was his favorite dinosaur when he was a kid and now he’s seeing it with his own eyes. “Jurassic Park” is keenly aware of the audience’s deep, nostalgic connection to these creatures. The state-of-the-art special effects make them seem more real than ever before. The result is a movie that delivers on sights long dreamed about by rarely seen before, granting them with an immense amount of power.

Despite the movie being all too aware of how wonderous the dinosaurs are, “Jurassic Park” ultimately comes down against genetic experimentation. Ian Malcolm, played with the perfect amount of shivering nervousness by Jeff Goldblum, warns the scientist that things are going to get out of hand. Though awed by the dinosaurs, both Grant and Sattler are concerned that the geneticist created meat-eaters. By making all the dinosaurs female, the scientists assumed they could control the population. But, as has become a meme by this point, life finds a way. This twist is foreshadowed early on when Grant ties the two female ends of his seatbelt together. John Hammond’s character arc is that of someone who uses science irresponsibly if whimsically. By the end of the film, he’s come around, agreeing that the park was a mistake. “Jurassic Park’s” seems anti-science at first. A closer examination reveals that its in favor of responsible science and against a strictly profit-driven version of experimentation. 

“But Zack,” sayeth my hypothetical readers, “what about the friggin’ dinosaurs?” Cloning meat-eating dinosaurs may have been irresponsible, yes. Yet both the movie and the characters in the film understand the unending appeal of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the greatest dinosaur to ever live. The T-Rex is given a worthy entrance, proceeded by a tossed goat leg and the iconic rippling glass of water. The sequence by the dam is one of the most horrific in the film. "Jurassic Park" understands the power of the T-Rex. It overturns the jeep, smashing through the glass to get to the meat inside. The overpowering roar of the creature, its sheer size, and magnificent strength are properly conveyed. As frightening as the T-Rex can be, this is also a kid-friendly fantasy. The movie includes enough whimsical humor in this scene. Such as when the T-Rex eats the lawyer. Or, during the otherwise tense chase scene, when the dinosaur’s roaring face is reflected in the rear-view mirror. There’s no denying that the movie gets the T-Rex completely right, creating a perfect movie monster.

“Jurassic Park” also put another dinosaur on the pop culture map. Before this film, mentioning velociraptor to anyone outside the paleontology field would’ve likely produced confused shrugs. Afterwards, the velociraptor immediately became one of the most popular dinosaurs around. The dinosaurs’ appearance is heavily foreshadowed. In the first scene, the raptors yank some generic dino fodder to his death. Afterwards, Grant sets up the creature’s killing prowess by traumatizing some bratty kid. The raptors actually appear suddenly in the film, their dragon like snout pushing through a hole in the wall. The movie emphasizes their supposed intelligence, such as the widely parodied “clever girl” scene or opening doors. Just as the T-Rex rules the jungle, the raptor's easily navigate the inside of the facility. They stalk the children through the kitchen, a moment that makes good use of suspense and misdirection. Later, the raptors slam on doors and leap at air vents. Though the fossil had been discovered in 1923, “Jurassic Park” made the velociraptor the sleeker, smarter, dino killing machine for the nineties.

It’s hard to overstate just how fantastic the special effects are in “Jurassic Park.” The movie revolutionized the use of computer-generated imagery in Hollywood blockbusters. Amazingly, the CGI effects in “Jurassic Park” have aged extremely well. Even though they were made in a computer, the animals still have weight, force, and an impressive amount of detail. Why do the computer effects in “Jurassic Park” still hold up, when CGI from five years ago has already started to age? Maybe its because the film smartly combines CGI and practical effects. Stan Winston, a man whose work means the world to me, created massive, mechanical dinosaurs. Puppets, animatronics, and robotics stand side-by-side the CGI. The combination is nearly seamless, making the dinosaurs seem fully plausible. The animatronics, meanwhile, are some of the greatest ever put to the screen. The movie won all the special effects award that year and well it should have.

The actors in “Jurassic Park” had perhaps a thankless job. The stars of the movie are, after all, the dinosaurs. Understanding this, “Jurassic Park” fills its cast with character actors. Alan Grant is played by Sam Neill. Neill starts out as almost coldly logical before the sight of the dinosaurs fills his heart with joy. As the situation becomes more hairy, Neill brings a sweaty, natural intensity to the part, without loosing sight of his humor. The great Laura Dern remains light and playful throughout but is also real good at panicking when chased by velociraptors. Jeff Goldblum gives, no doubt, the most memorable performance in the movie. Ian Malcolm is the actor at Maximum Goldblum, stuttering, talking to himself, getting shirtless, and filling every inch of the screen with nervous energy. He’s hugely entertaining. Grant may be the heart of the movie but Malcolm is its human MVP.

In a story filled with friggin’ dinosaurs, you wouldn’t think “Jurassic Park” would need a human villain. Yet it does anyway. Dennis Nedry is one of the most weaselly, nasally, dislikable characters in the Spielberg canon. He sabotages the park for money, backbites everyone around him, attempts to steal dino eggs, and has a bikini lady as his computer desktop image. Wayne Knight plays the part at his most obnoxious. Nedry gets his, naturally, during an confrontation with the dilophosaurus. One of my favorite dinosaur designs in the film, the creature provides Nedry with maybe the movie’s most grisly death scene. Despite this, Nedry is nothing but a plot device, a mostly annoying impetuous for everything that will go wrong.

Speaking of annoying things! How about them kids? Maybe the most criticized part of “Jurassic Park” are the kids, Tim and Lex. Tim is introduced throwing dino facts at the paleontologists. Lex, meanwhile, is defined by her vegetarianism and her smug sense of superiority. A briefly dropped line early on sets up a later moment. Lex apparently plays with computers as a hobby. Somehow, this prepares her for rebooting the island’s entire system later on. Aside from improbably screenwriting decision, the kids are easy targets. When the T-Rex attacks the Jeep, Lex flashes a light in its face. They spend the entire last third running from the raptors. It’s not that the actors are bad, as Arianna Richards was perfectly likable in “Tremors.” Even Joseph Mazzello is less shrill then the character description implies. Like Nedry, the kids are mostly a lazy plot device, existing to up the tension and provide relatable characters for the youngest viewers. I don’t wish they were eaten by dinosaurs or anything. But I’m not sure they needed to be in the movie. 

And that’s the main problem with “Jurassic Park.” The movie combines the best and worst attributes of Steven Spielberg. It utilizes his strength for creating genuine awe on-screen. His keen understanding of special effects is beautifully used. His talent for organizing action in clear ways is on display. As is his ability to generate thrills and intensity. Tugging at the movie’s heart is Spielberg’s inclination towards sappiness. The kids are too cute. Their insertion into the movie adds little. In the book, John Hammond is punished for tampering with the natural order of things. Spielberg spares him, as well as softening the character. He sees a kindred spirit in Hammond, a dreamer who also wants to make a lot of money off that dreams. “Jurassic Park” has a lot of heart, and that’s a good thing. A more delicate hand then Spielberg’s was sometimes called for.

There is still no doubt the guy knows how to make a thrilling movie. Look no further than “Jurassic Park’s immensely satisfying conclusion. The heroes are cornered in the park’s giftshop by the velociraptors. They climb down that the shattered bones of the displayed fossil in the middle of the room. All seems lost. That is until the T-Rex bust in and quickly takes out the raptors. The movie may have made the velociraptor the newest dinosaur hotshot but it also understood that the T-Rex was the king. And so the movie’s biggest threat becomes its unlikely hero. “Jurassic Park” knows when to get out too. The film wraps up not long after that, Grant and the others flying away on a helicopter. Grant looks out the window, spotting a flock of birds, the modern descendants of dinosaurs. He’s reminded of the wonder of the world, even if it sometimes risks your life.

“Jurassic Park” isn’t perfect. It’s rife with scientific inaccuracies. No, it’s not possible to extract DNA from blood millions of years old, even if it makes for a really cool image. No, splicing frog DNA with the dinosaur DNA would not help matters. No, dilophosaurus did not have a cool frill around its neck or spit poison. There’s nary a feather in sight. The velociraptors in the film don’t resemble the actual dinosaur much. They look more like Utahraptor which was, coincidently, discovered after the movie entered production. None of this matters much. The plot holes and minor gaps in logic are more distracting. Obviously, a dangerous place like Jurassic Park could never actually exist. They’d be sued out of existence even before the dinosaurs started eating employees. And it’s awfully convenient that the entire island’s infrastructure relies on one room of computers. So is only having one security expert in the whole place. Because this is a popcorn movie, none of this matters much. “Jurassic Park” delivers on what it promises. You won’t even notice most of these things on a first viewing.

Lastly, there’s John Williams’ score. I don’t know how Williams has managed to create so many iconic pieces of film music. The main theme for “Jurassic Park” is sweeping and romantic. The melody is easily hummed and instantly memorable. It suggest adventure and wonder. At times, Williams’ darkly reprises this main theme, when things start to go wrong. But like the movie itself, the music defaults back to whimsy before too long. As far as great John Williams’ scores go, this one ranks below “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” and “Superman.” Yet that’s some great company to be sharing.

Is “Jurassic Park” a great movie? As a special effects film, it’s undoubtedly a groundbreaking piece of art and amazes even to this day. Its heroes are simple but lovable. The movie puts some phenomenal moments and sequences on-screen, images that will resonate throughout film history until the end of time. The script, however, is ultimately a dumb popcorn movie script. The work of its brilliant effects artist and the director’s touch for on-screen magic elevates the finished project pass its silly screenplay. When it gets down to it, we’re all here for the dinosaurs. “Jurassic Park” delivers the dinosaurs, better than any film before it and most afterwards. It reaches the dino-loving little kid in all of us and that’s something special. [Grade: A-]