Michael Crichton (nothing to do with that other thread. Honest!)

[Orrex]

I watched a bit of Jurassic Park this morning in large part because my six-year-old likes the part where the Tyrannosaur bites the tire off of the safari vehicle.

However, from the very beginning, I have always hated Ian Malcolm's pop-culture worship of chaos and the sacred plan of nature. Sure, these both factor into the story in direct ways, but the fancy dressing-up of trite postmodernist bastardization of science really makes me want to vomit.

Malcolm's central premise, that "life breaks out, life finds a way" is only realized because Nedry threw a monkey wrench into the works. From this we can draw one of two basic conclusions (consistent within the framing of the film, that is):

1. "Life" somehow plotted to make Nedry engage in corporate espionage and then foul up the presumptuous system that had the audacity to "fence" Nature in.

or

2. "Life" was simply waiting for the opportunity to exploit a vulnerability, and it would have done so regardless of what that vulnerability might have turned out to be.

The dinosaurs in general are, of course, the proxy for "life" or "nature" in the film, and of the two interpretations above, the latter is arguably less cloying. Of course, we also get the added plot device of a wayward hurricane and gene-mod dinosaurs spontaneously changing sex (a la frogs), not mention their ability to overcome the "so-called lysene contingency" explicitly described in the film. All of these things miraculously line up to clear a path for "life" to "break out." And instead of saying "gosh, that was a hopelessly contrived sequence of events," the reader is expected to say "gosh, life really won't let itself be fenced in."

I'm not arguing for unchecked experimentation at all costs, but given Crichton's late-in-life transformation into a vocal propagandist for horribly bad science, one can't help reading Jurassic Park and his other scripts--I mean novels--without wondering what the ill-concealed agenda might be.


Incidentally, though the film is a fun romp and a technological masterpiece, the story itself is incredibly linear and boils down to "run from the monster." Even in the book, no deeper social commentary is offered or explored. If Crichton had been a novel writer instead of a script-seller, we might have gotten something more engaging. But after his basic idea of harvesting DNA from amber-locked mosquitos, the story does little else to impress.

[TZ]

1. Btw

Jurassic park is the most unrealistic characterization of scientists I have ever seen. I have never met anyone who does things because it's "fun" or because they can. He seems to think that all geneticists are wanna be frankensteins. They do what they do to learn and help people. Everybook I have ever read of his has this unethical scientist premise. Honestly he is little better than Beck in terms of his bigotry.

[Orrex]

2. That's a good observation

Malcolm offers this token objection (paraphrased): "You were so worried about whether you could do it that you never stopped to ask if you should."

So--nominally--Crichton has put forth the objection himself, voiced by the charismatic "rock star" mathematician. Excuse me. Chaotician.


That's fine, but nearly every other scientist in Crichton is exactly the stereotype that you identify. Therefore, he casts Malcolm (and, I suspect, himself) as the lone dissenting voice campaigning against those "wanna be Frankensteins."

Godspeed, Michael Crichton! Godspeed!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. That's the typical movie scientist. No wonder people don't trust science.

Always creating killer dinosaurs, killer hybrids, bat boys, wolf men, zombies etc.

[realisticphish]

4. I absolutely agree 100%

I've ALWAYS hated that "Life will find a way" bullshit (and I even liked both Jurassic Park novels). No, it didn't. Humans found a way to fuck it up.

If they had made the dinosaurs require silicone in their diet, or something else difficult to find in nature, problem solved. If they hadn't happened to pick the one particular species of sex changing frog (why not a damn bullfrog??), problem solved. If they had made only herbivores, problem solved. If Nedry hadn't committed moronic and pointless corporate espionage (wait for another non-hurricane day, you morons), problem solved.

Total deus-ex-machina. But then he uses that frame to claim some pretentious bastardized chaos theory nonesense proves that this is all part of the nature of reality. Blech. Just run from the monsters :P

[charlie]

6. Or just NOT breed raptors

Who the fuck ever heard of velociraptors before Jurassic Park, anyway? If you've got a T Rex, a triceratops, a stegosaur, an apatosaur, and maybe a plesiosaur, you've got a full set as far as most people know. And a much more manageable wildlife park.

[Odin2005]

7. Especially since the JP "Velociraptor" was actually Deinonychus.

The real Velociraptor was a smaller critter and was native to Mongolia.

Velociraptor:


Deinonychus:

[realisticphish]

8. the Utahraptor is 100x cooler, and was another influence on velociraptor

bite your fucking head off :D

and, any dinosaur geek HAS to read Raptor Red (which is about a Utahraptor). Who cares what people think; I want to know what the RAPTOR thinks

[Odin2005]

11. Raptor Red is an awesome book.

And I was surprised to learn that Bob Bakker is an ordained Pentecostal minister! How he reconciles that with his brilliant scientific mind, I have no clue... :crazy:

[realisticphish]

12. i refuse to acknowledge that information

I've read that book about a million times since middle school

[Odin2005]

5. It's technophobic claptrap, IMHO.

That's made quite clear with Hammond's arrogant "Creation is an act of sheer will, next time it will be flawless." line, which exposes a common technophobic stereotype of those who develop new technology, often expressed by posters here as rants about "The Patriarchal War On Nature".

[SheilaT]

9. I felt that the essential message of the novel

was turned around 180 degrees in the movie. In the novel someone (can't recall which character) compares science to Japanese martial arts, and stresses more than once that it is the individual who learns the martial art, and the individual progresses in a way that makes him totally respect the power he gains though what he learns. In science, you get to immediately climb on the shoulders of those who have gone before, and may well not learn to respect the power you have.

Also, the movie is typical Hollywood in that the makers seem to think that the viewers are too stupid to notice any plot flaws or discrepancies.

[realisticphish]

10. to some degree, yes

though Crichton does seem to be a technophobe in general. And he still has all the "nature will find a way" faux chaos theory stuff in the book as well.

But the movie was much more straightforward about "science is bad," basically