I recently watched this 30 minute talk on why Jurassic Park is all heart and why Jurassic World isn’t.
It’s a good talk. It examines
the subtext in J Park and shows us where the subtext is and how it builds to
form another narrative alongside the surface text of dinosaurs on the
loose. The subtext is that of family, by
the way.
Most Hollywood blockbusters have
a family theme to them, what is an action story without romance of kids in
peril after all, but not many do so with as much detail and love as J Park
does, I think. I’ll admit, I didn’t
recognise the subtext until it was pointed out to me in this video, but now
I’ve seen it, it’s so obvious and def explains some of my warm feelings and impressions
towards the film.
However, I think the comparison with J World could have been expanded
upon. I’d like to see a demonstration of
why the presenter thinks J World is devoid of heart, and is just about Chris
Pratt and dinosaurs. I’d really like to
see J World pulled apart like J Park was.
There is one clip in the presentation where the J Park T Rex scene
where Rex comes out of the enclosure and threatens Dr Alan Grant and the kids
is compared with the J World Indominus Rex against the raptors scene. The J Park one is about humans and their fear
when faced with the monster, and how they form family units. It is filmed to focus on Grant and the kids,
not on the Rex. It’s contrasted with the
J World scene to show that J World has little humanity and is just about big
fast paced dino fights.
But these scenes aren’t comparable. There are scenes in J World which
show humanity against a monster – the one in the Rex enclosure. There are scenes in J Park which are cool
dino fights. The T Rex against the
raptors near the end, for example. J
World doesn’t have a family bonding scene like J Park does, but it has a
different subtext. There are plenty of
family themes in J World, but they are pretty explicit, and surface text.
The subtext in J World is self referential. It’s a critique on how things need to be
bigger, better, nastier, more fearsome, and how the joy is take out of them
when that happens. Well maybe it isn’t
subtext as it’s pretty obvious, maybe it’s more metatextual. Either way, J World isn’t meant to be warm
and fuzzy. It’s meant to be cold,
because that’s the state of affairs of sequels, and a film industry where you
throw money at CGI and you forget about characters and you let the spectacle
overtake the important stuff. J World is
a critique of that state of affairs.
It’s more intelligent than the presenter gives it credit for. I’d love to see his reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment