REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK (and other issues)
Michael Har-even
A film review by Michael Har-even
Copyright 1993 Michael Har-even
I wanted to forget my integrity and to write this review without
going to the film. Then, I have decided against seeing the film and against
writing this review. Finally, I saw the film and got 100 million reasons
in favor of writing this review. Most of the following ideas were raised
before seeing the film. Those ideas should reflect trends in the American
cinema today. Watching Jurassic PARK reassured me that I was right.
Preston Sturges wrote many years ago the golden rules for making
a successful comedy. I would like to list those rules along with my rules
for making a successful commercial film. Naturally, the rules of Sturges are
much better. Here are the rules (my rules are inside brackets):
A pretty girl is better than a plain one
(A naked girl is better than a dressed one)
A leg is better than an arm
A bedroom is better than a living room
An arrival is better than a departure
A birth is better than death
(A death is better than birth)
A dog is better than a landscape
A kitten is better than a dog
(A Schwarzenegger is better than a dog)
A baby is better than a kitten
(A dinosaurus is better than a Schwarzenegger)
A kiss is better than a baby
(A Spielberg is better than a dinosaurus)
A pratfall is better than anything
(Technology is better than all)
Is technology better than all?
Technology has no correlation to quality. Most of the great
masterpieces of cinema are either silent films or B&W films. The medium
of cinema is realistic by its nature. There should be no essential
difference between a silent film, B&W film or a colored film. The
availability of sound and color opened new ways of expression, nevertheless,
the aesthetic nature of cinema has not been changed since the beginning.
One might presume that technology could help to increase the
realistic effect. The truth is that realism cannot be achieved by mere
imitation or by restoration. Realism can be only achieved if the director
and the actors are totally sincere. Spielberg invested 100 million
dollars in order to create realistic dinosauruses. The irony is that his
film is totally unrealistic. His film is like the Jurassic park, amazing
at first sight but totally phony. Whether 100 million dollars or billion
dollars are spent virtual reality cannot replace reality.
JURASSIC PARK is like a new candy. It seems to be tasty but very soon you
want a sweeter candy. You can enjoy a candy, but how can you take a candy
seriously?
Lewis Stiller
> Jurassic Park
> A film review by Michael Har-even
> Copyright 1993 Michael Har-even
>
> I wanted to forget my integrity and to write this review without
>going to the film.
Well it's of course praiseworthy that you chose the high road then, and
decided to see the film before reviewing it. I briefly wondered whether
some reviewers, notably Peter Kemp in his review in The Times Literary
Supplement, actually have seen the film (Mr. Kemp managed to mix up the
tyrannosaur and velociraptor among various other salient errors.)
Even here, on rec.arts.movies, it is sometimes not unusual not to read
posts before replying to them.
> One might presume that technology could help to increase the
>realistic effect. The truth is that realism cannot be achieved by mere
>imitation or by restoration. Realism can be only achieved if the director
>and the actors are totally sincere. Spielberg invested 100 million
>dollars in order to create realistic dinosauruses.
Really? My understanding was that this was somewhat more than the total
film budget, but I'm not sure.
>The irony is that his
>film is totally unrealistic. His film is like the Jurassic park, amazing
>at first sight but totally phony.
An interesting observation. Nevertheless, for fairness sake you should
point out that the relationship between the film and the filmed was
expressly and implicitly noted several times in the dialogue of the
film itself. Indeed, Mr. DNA, John's comments on the score, Donald's
comments on the merchandising, and perhaps even Ellie's comments to
John over ice cream implicitly refer, tongue in cheek, to this
duality. There is a most intriguing quotation from the screenwriter
David Koepp addressing this, quoted at the end of my Notes on Jurassic
Park file.
>Whether 100 million dollars or billion
>dollars are spent virtual reality cannot replace reality.
>
Intriguing point. If you are interested in notions of virtual reality and
its interrelationship to non-virtual reality, let me commend to you
the older writings of William Gibson, particularly his short story
"Fragments of a Hologram Rose" which appears in the extremely good
collection of his stories Burning Chrome.
--
Lewis Stiller
Dept. of Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218-2194
email: sti...@cs.jhu.edu
Pentti Lajunen
Michael Har-even <mi...@lune.math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> Preston Sturges wrote many years ago the golden rules for making
>a successful comedy. I would like to list those rules along with my rules
>for making a successful commercial film. Naturally, the rules of Sturges are
>much better. Here are the rules (my rules are inside brackets):
>
>A pretty girl is better than a plain one
>(A naked girl is better than a dressed one)
>A leg is better than an arm
>A bedroom is better than a living room
>An arrival is better than a departure
>A birth is better than death
>(A death is better than birth)
>A dog is better than a landscape
>A kitten is better than a dog
>(A Schwarzenegger is better than a dog)
>A baby is better than a kitten
>(A dinosaurus is better than a Schwarzenegger)
>A kiss is better than a baby
>(A Spielberg is better than a dinosaurus)
>A pratfall is better than anything
>(Technology is better than all)
In the case of JP, I think the secrets of success are primarily
1) Steven Spielberg (due to his reputation, his name is a quarantee of
at least average entertainment.)
2) People are always curious to see new and sensational things, and
that's where the computer generated dinosaurs fit in.
3) And undeniably the basic idea of the story IS quite interesting (for those
who haven't yet seen the film.....like me. However, I have more often
disappointed on films which have seemingly interesting basic idea.)
>JURASSIC PARK is like a new candy. It seems to be tasty but very soon you
>want a sweeter candy. You can enjoy a candy, but how can you take a candy
>seriously?
Do not underestimate the powers of the candy.
"In the beginning there was nothing.
A void of darkness, a cold eternity of silence.
When perfect void was corrupted by light, a great wailing
was heard and all the brethren fled in terror"-The lord of darkness
BOUCHER DAVID
# Jurassic Park
# A film review by Michael Har-even
# Copyright 1993 Michael Har-even
#
# I wanted to forget my integrity and to write this review without
#going to the film. Then, I have decided against seeing the film and against
#writing this review. Finally, I saw the film and got 100 million reasons
#in favor of writing this review. Most of the following ideas were raised
#before seeing the film. Those ideas should reflect trends in the American
#cinema today. Watching Jurassic PARK reassured me that I was right.
Your humility is underwhelming.
[irrelevant list deleted]
#Is technology better than all?
#
# Technology has no correlation to quality. Most of the great
#masterpieces of cinema are either silent films or B&W films. The medium
#of cinema is realistic by its nature. There should be no essential
#difference between a silent film, B&W film or a colored film. The
#availability of sound and color opened new ways of expression, nevertheless,
#the aesthetic nature of cinema has not been changed since the beginning.
Gee, I guess that's why silent movies are so popular these days. If only
Spielberg had had you to advise him, he could have made Jurassic Park as
a silent film in black and white. Think of the money he could have saved!
Or maybe he should have scrapped the "dinosauruses" altogether and made
a silent version of King Lear instead.
# One might presume that technology could help to increase the
#realistic effect. The truth is that realism cannot be achieved by mere
#imitation or by restoration. Realism can be only achieved if the director
#and the actors are totally sincere. Spielberg invested 100 million
#dollars in order to create realistic dinosauruses. The irony is that his
#film is totally unrealistic. His film is like the Jurassic park, amazing
#at first sight but totally phony. Whether 100 million dollars or billion
#dollars are spent virtual reality cannot replace reality.
"Realism" is over-rated. Do you think "Dr. Strangelove" was realistic? Was
"Casablanca" realistic? How about "The Graduate", or "Macbeth"?
#JURASSIC PARK is like a new candy. It seems to be tasty but very soon you
#want a sweeter candy. You can enjoy a candy, but how can you take a candy
#seriously?
When it takes in a quarter of a billion dollars, I for one take it very
seriously. If you think it's so easy to make "a candy" that so many
people are going to like, then why is it that whatever "serious" film-makers
you admire don't make a couple of "candies" in order to raise money to
finance their more "artistic" efforts? Could it be that they just don't
know how? ;)
- db
--
************************************************************************
"Defend the life of Chairman Gonzalo!" - Detroit freeway graffiti
************************************************************************
Peter Reiher
>
>#JURASSIC PARK is like a new candy. It seems to be tasty but very soon you
>#want a sweeter candy. You can enjoy a candy, but how can you take a candy
>#seriously?
>
>people are going to like, then why is it that whatever "serious" film-makers
>you admire don't make a couple of "candies" in order to raise money to
>finance their more "artistic" efforts? Could it be that they just don't
>know how? ;)
Yes, that's it. Some of the directors highly regarded by critics have
stated, in interviews, that they wish they could make an extremely
popular film in the style of Spielberg or McTiernan or Ron Howard, but
they just don't know how to do it. If it were easy, everyone would do it.
So, one may not highly regard the resulting films, but one should at least
respect the fact that the directors making these films are doing something
that really isn't easy.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Pat Cameron
>#want a sweeter candy. You can enjoy a candy, but how can you take a candy
>#seriously?
>
>When it takes in a quarter of a billion dollars, I for one take it very
>seriously. If you think it's so easy to make "a candy" that so many
>people are going to like, then why is it that whatever "serious" film-makers
>you admire don't make a couple of "candies" in order to raise money to
>finance their more "artistic" efforts? Could it be that they just don't
>know how? ;)
>
>- db
>
good movie! Correlation -- New Kids on the Block made plenty of money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Pat M. Cameron = Leinenkugel's - Best beer in America.=
= email: cam...@no2sun.cray.com = Made in Chippewa Falls, WI =
= p...@mermaid.micro.umn.edu = =
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
= "Make use of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere." -- George Washington =
= =
= "And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed =
= which is upon the face of all the earth, so you shall have them.' " =
= -- Genesis 1:29 =
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Har-even
David Boucher commented on my review and wrote:
>>>Gee, I guess that's why silent movies are so popular these days. If only
>>>Spielberg had had you to advise him, he could have made Jurassic Park as
>>>a silent film in black and white. Think of the money he could have saved!
>>>Or maybe he should have scrapped the "dinosauruses" altogether and made
>>>a silent version of King Lear instead.
First, silent films were very popular in the 20's.
Second, there is no reason to make a B&W film or a silent film today.
Sound and color can only enrich the medium of cinema. Nevertheless, the
quality of a film has no correlation to whether it is silent, B&W or colored.
The fact that most of the masterpieces of cinema (considered by critics) are
silent and B&W films should only suggest a creativity decline.
David continues and write:
>>>"Realism" is over-rated. Do you think "Dr. Strangelove" was realistic? Was
>>>"Casablanca" realistic? How about "The Graduate", or "Macbeth"?
When I am using the word "Realism", I am not referring to imitating or
representing reality but rather to making the film a credible and sincere
experience for the spectators. Realism is over-rated, but it is Spielberg who
spent so much money in order to make his film "real". So you wrote:
>>>When it takes in a quarter of a billion dollars, I for one take it very
>>>seriously. If you think it's so easy to make "a candy" that so many
>>>people are going to like, then why is it that whatever "serious" film-makers
>>>you admire don't make a couple of "candies" in order to raise money to
>>>finance their more "artistic" efforts? Could it be that they just don't
>>>know how?
I am sure that it isn't easy and I am convinced that most of the "serious"
film-makers would fail in creating a candy but I have to admire them and not
Spielberg. Why?
Eisenstein wrote once that the purpose of a film director is not to entertain
the audience but rather to make the spectators desire to grasp the film.
Eisenstein could not have made a "candy" because he would have betrayed himself,
his art and his audience. I am not expecting Spielberg to be Eisenstein, I just
wrote my review with a little perspective.
Michael
-----
mi...@lune.math.tau.ac.il