Jurassic Park (1993)– Dir Steven Spielberg
based on the novel Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton
A film review (2020)
Around 130
million years ago, right about the time when the first flowering plants started
to emerge, a weevil that lived alongside dinosaurs died a sticky death caught
up in the unabating trap of tree-resin. Present day researchers were lucky
enough to discover this naturally preserved weevil and extract what would be
called the oldest DNA ever recovered through this. ‘Nature’, the science
journal was one of the first to cover this phenomenal discovery in June 1993,
right before the release of the age-old classic ‘Jurassic Park.’ While no-one
could entirely tell if this was a coincidence or planned, it proved to be an
amazing stroke of luck for Steven Spielberg, the director of Jurassic Park and
the field and study of Ancient DNA as well for a science that most people were
unaware of suddenly came to light and caught people’s attention. The original
source for Spielberg’s sci-fi thriller was a book by Michael Crichton also
named Jurassic Park. Upon being asked, Crichton attributed real-scientists as
his inspiration for they were the ones who really were digging deep into the
past in search of the truths of Life on earth before the existence of Homo
Sapiens.
This was a
prime example of how science and science fiction can collide in the real
world—each can boost the other, and one realm can often nudge another in a
different direction. While Jurassic Park may not have existed without prior
scientific hypotheses, it also pushed that nascent science into the spotlight
before it had withstood the necessary scrutiny by the rest of the scientific
community.
Eccentric
millionaire John Hammond transforms an island called Isla Nublar into an exotic
animal theme park by recreating the extinct ecosystems that existed during the
Jurassic age, the park’s main attraction being cloned, living- breathing
Dinosaurs. Following an accident where a Velociraptor gate-keeper is killed,
Lawyer Donald Gennaro, representing Hammond’s investors raises some serious
concerns about the safety of the park. He convinces Hammond to get an expert to
certify and endorse the park. Subsequently, Hammond approaches palaeontologist Dr. Alan Grant and palaeobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler with an
offer that they cannot decline and they agree to pay the park a visit. The
lawyer Gennaro brings with him a renowned mathematician, Ian Malcolm who is
seemingly obsessed with Chaos theory. Hammond endeavours to take everyone to
the park for a visit. Upon arriving they are shocked to see living dinosaurs,
welcomed by a breath-taking sight of Brachiosaurs. Hammond then reveals to them
a team of geneticists cloned these dinosaurs into being through DNA extracted
from mosquitoes that lived alongside them in the Jurassic age with present-day
frog DNA being used to fill in for missing gene sequences. Chief geneticist Dr.
Henry Wu points out that breeding is prevented by having all dinosaurs genetically
engineered as females, but Malcolm theorizes that nature will
overcome this obstacle in time. Following a bit of a debate on the subject,
Hammond sends the group on a tour of the Park in electrically powered vehicles
and his own grand-children to keep the scientists company while he over-sees
their tour from a control room. But as a tropical storm hits the
island, knocking out the power supply, and an unscrupulous lead computer
programmer, Dennis Nedry, sabotages the system so that he can smuggle dinosaur
embryos out of the park, the dinosaurs start to rage out of control. Dr. Grant
then has to bring Hammond's grandchildren back to safety as the group is
pursued by the gigantic man-eating beasts
The film
starts with giving us a sense of space and the island in which this is set.
They begin by saying how the entire perimeter is guarded by a 50-mile
electrical fence. To understand the space/ ecosystem, they heavily depended on
how the information was flowing. The interconnectedness through electronic
system is what gave Hammond and the scientists under him a distance. “To be a
solar Eye, looking down on this multi-layered ecosystem from the past like a
god. The control room being the all-seeing eye to the entire island, the entire
amusement park’s safety is grounded on the idea that there is a
state-of-the-art control room which can handle every adversary. A vast amount
of capital has been used to mobilise the thought that nature can and will be
controlled through advances in technology. Something which is not a far of
dream or an illusion anymore but a discovery that will “capture the imagination
of the entire planet”. All this points
to a strengthening of the hierarchical structure of command-and-control
functions and the resulting exchange of information We encounter this idea
first when they just reach the island and we hear Mr. Hammond say, “I am the
concrete moats, I am the motion sensor tracking systems”.
The film
is free and scientists indifferent to the duplication of effort and messy
involvement of the state. A genetic manufacturing and at this scale are no
small feat. The state’s gaze was conveniently averted in the film. A
depoliticized version of science and its relation to time and space. At the
start of the film we see all three scientists with them watching a show about
how they made this amazing feat possible by drawing dinosaur blood from a
mosquito preserved in resin/amber and filled the gaps in the DNA sequence/genomes
(genetic code) with amphibian DNA. We eventually encounter a lab with the
protagonists of the film. Here, we see them enter a lab environment without any
worry of how it might affect the conditions and protocols of the lab. A lab
which is supposedly a controlled environment so that no contaminants can come
in is casually accessed by the group of three. Here, we see them handling and
casually chatting with the chief geneticist Dr. Henry Wu. These actions seem to
have no real repercussions in the cloning process. I am reminded of a phrase
from the movie where Mr Hammond calls what he has achieved as “living
biological attractions”. The three scientists are constantly shown to have
exciting encounters, free from what we deficient understanding we have of the apparent
mundane parts of the scientist’s job, which mostly consists of working and
spending an ample chunk of their lives in the lab. Another example that I can
think of is when they find the sick triceratops and the palaeobotanist is quick
to dig into the dinosaur excreta and without even a second guess is able to
tell if the dinosaur had ingested poisonous berries or not.
Here’s a
small excerpt from the movie that I found on IMDB:
Dr. Ian Malcolm : Yeah,
yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could
that they didn't stop to think if they should.
John Hammond : Condors.
Condors are on the verge of extinction...
Dr. Ian Malcolm : [shaking
his head] No...
John Hammond : If
I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything
to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm : No,
hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the
building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for
extinction.
John Hammond : I
simply don't understand this Luddite attitude, especially from a scientist. I
mean, how can we stand in the light of discovery, and not act?
Dr. Ian Malcolm : What's
so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it
explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world.
Dr. Ellie Sattler : Well,
the question is, how can you know anything about an extinct ecosystem? And
therefore, how could you ever assume that you can control it? I mean, you have
plants in this building that are poisonous, you picked them because they look
good, but these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century
they're in, and they'll defend themselves, violently if necessary.
John Hammond : Dr.
Grant, if there's one person here who could appreciate what I'm trying to do...
Dr. Alan Grant : The
world has just changed so radically, and we're all running to catch up. I don't
want to jump to any conclusions, but look... Dinosaurs and man, two species
separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back
into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to
expect?
John Hammond : [laughing] I
don't believe it. I don't believe it! You're meant to come down here and defend
me against these characters, and the only one I've got on my side is the
blood-sucking lawyer!
“The
exaltation of a scopic and gnostic drive: the fiction of knowledge is related
to this lust to be a view point and nothing more.” (DeCerteau)
Hearing these
exchanges of words between the protagonists, I am reminded of an article in
National Geographic’s April 2013 issue, ‘Of Mammoths and Men’ by Brook Larmer.
The article that eventually got made into a documentary film follows the lives
of tusk hunters in the arctic Siberia and the Mammoth tusk trade. In one such
expedition, they happen to find an intact Woolly Mammoth preserved in ice and
while chipping away the ice suddenly they hit a spot from which blood starts to
ooze out. We then not only learn of the Woolly Mammoth tusk trade but also come
face to face with the political discourse rooted in synthetic biology – of
creating life itself. It is in these few lines is when we as viewers realise or
face the fact when it is addressed that nature and science is political. An
urge to synthetically manufacture plants and animals from a time that is
unknown to us is a world apart from cloning Condors (a kind of vulture like
bird).
In the
film there are at the least two instances where the scientists are portrayed to
be technologically inept and unsure about technological progress. One is when
the film starts and Dr. Alan Grants first sentence is how he doesn’t get along
well with computers and appears to be jinxed with technology. He is shown to
touch a monitor which starts glitching the moment he comes near it. The second
instance is when Mr. Hammond replies to Dr. Ian Malcolm’s apprehension about
the park by remarking that he has a luddite attitude. This is further impressed
upon when the group of scientists don’t agree with his ideals of what it means
to be modern.
In the
movie, the collage of two time produces a specific kind of space by bringing
two historically, geographically, spatially distinct time and space. The “transformation
of time under the information technology paradigm ,… is one of the foundations
of the new society we have entered, inextricably linked to the emergence of the
space of flows.” A kind of modernity that is fuelled by the idea that “"the
fashionable mind is the time-denying mind," and that this new "time
regime" is linked to the development of communication technologies.” Here
I would like to elucidate that it is not only communication technologies but
also advances in the field of synthetic biology has pushed us into adopting “a
contextual notion of human time.” Or, as Barbara Adam puts it - “all time, in nature
as in society, seems to be specific to a given context”; which in this case is
being placed in an island with plants and animals from the Pleistocene. Biological
research seems to converge with social sciences in adopting these ideas. Time
is local or even ‘glocal’ in a broader sense.
Toni
Morrison in one his interviews with Paul Gilroy argues that, “the African
subjects that experienced capture, theft, abduction, mutilation, and slavery
were the first moderns. They underwent real conditions of existential
homelessness, alienation, dislocation, and dehumanization that philosophers
like Nietzsche would later define as quintessentially modern.” The
disappearance or the dehumanization of the technological structure is brought
into light by David Berry’s essay where he speaks of today’s systems built on
computational principles that reduce thinking to calculation and instrumental
rationality.
As Deleuze
puts it, “Types of machines are easily matched with each type of society-not
that machines are determining, but because they express those social forms
capable of generating them and using them. The old societies of sovereignty
made use of simple machines-levers, pulleys, clocks; but the recent
disciplinary societies equipped themselves with machines involving energy, with
the passive danger of entropy and the active danger of sabotage; the societies
of control operate with machines of a third type, computers, whose passive
danger is jamming and whose active one is piracy and the introduction of
viruses. This sense of alienation that
the system functioning and malfunctioning produces for both humans and
dinosaurs alike, is a product of the modern condition. The modern condition
being both the synthetically constructed reptiles and the technological system
that governed it.
The world
we live in today is a dream like pervasive and persuasive sense of linearity
that governs us. The modern condition like Harry.F Dahms in his essay on the
matrix trilogy puts is the prevalent sense of alienation that comes with it.
While advances in technology maybe synchronous with development in today’s
digital age, there is an invisible prevalence of taking over us with
unprecedented difficulties that accompany attempts to overcome it. It’s like a
“neural-interactive simulation . . . a dream world built to keep us under
control.” this linearity that is brought about by how technological society is
rendering our world computational. A computational park.
So, in
that sense. Are the dinosaurs modern? The dinosaur game that we come across
when there is no internet connection is a reference to the fact that we’ve been
pushed back into the prehistoric era where the dinosaurs are luddite in nature
and against the modern way of the world. Perhaps that could be rethought.
The park
tries to produce the sense of natural by Mr Hammond locating himself as an
inert entity in this production of this new natural he calls discovery.
Thinking
of the Dinosaurs as subjects of an institution of the modern world created by
the modern man. In a sudden turn of events I remembered the parts where they
constantly keep talking about how dinosaurs were wiped out because of natural
conditions and not something human induced. These dinosaurs which learn which
fence is electrified through trial and error until they eventually figure it
out are the first moderns.
The roles
are reversed when industrial sabotage leads to a catastrophic shutdown of the
park's power facilities and security precautions. Hammond's grandchildren and
the three scientists struggle to survive and escape the perilous island. The
humans become subjects on the island of control expressways they built. Now, they’re
the ones who are pushed to the peripheries rendering everyone on the island
with a perpetual sense of ‘alienation’.
As the
film progresses we realise that to fix the control room problem there are
different parts of the park they need to approach to bring the power back to
the control room, What is significant about this spatial system is neither
their concentration nor decentralization, since both processes are indeed
taking place at the same time throughout the island. Both the humans and
dinosaurs almost take turn in both these processes. “The hierarchy of their
geography keeps shifting. The park in some senses becomes a tributary to the
variable information flows.” (Castell)
This
picture illustrates the points that I am trying to make really well. How,
throughout the entire film the creature is mediated through, as merely bits of
information put together. I am actually fondly reminded of two things. One
where Wendy Chun in her essay ‘Enduring Emphermeral’ speaks of how we treat
data as memory and vice versa and how in the American television show ‘Breaking
Bad’, the protagonists start cleaning the remains of a dead person and one of
them starts reminiscing his days as a chemistry professor where he notes down
the chemical composition of humans. This is succeeded by a rhetorical question
about how “there must be something more to the human than their chemical
composition”.
References:
Castell, Manuel, The
Rise of the network Society – The Information age, Economy, Society and Culture
Eshun, Kodwo, Further
considerations on Afrofuturism
Chun, Wendy, Enduring
Ephemeral
Berry, David, Critical
Theory and the Digital
Jen Jack Gieseking,
People, Place and Space