“Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging the viewer’s curiosity.  The spectator does not get lost in a fictional world and its drama, but remains aware of the act of looking, the excitement of curiosity and its fulfilment” – Tom Gunning, Film Scholar

In September 1902 George Melies released Le Voyage Dans La Lune (A Trip to the Moon) which is seen by many as the very first science fiction movie.  It can also be seen as one of the very first blockbusters.  Audiences of the time were dazzled by the elaborate sets, splicing, substitution and stop motion effects utilised by Melies. Le Voyage Dans La Lune was a startling case of what Tom Gunning identified as the “cinema of attractions”.  The movie was a huge success in France and particularly in the United States, where Thomas Edison’s film technicians secretly made copies and distributed it across the country.  The continuing desire to dazzle and astound has been a pre-occupation of Hollywood cinema since these early glimpses of the unimaginable.  The idea of cinema as a form of showmanship and vaudeville, coupled with Melies technical achievements, blazed a brightly coloured trail across the history of cinema.  It can be found within the ostentatious stunt work within Buster Keaton’s The General, the fantastical creatures that Ray Harryhausen brought to life in Jason and the Argonauts and the horror of Rick Baker’s make up design in an American Werewolf in London. 

1993 is the year when Steven Spielberg released Jurassic Park and now, 18 years later it is getting a digital re-release.  The movie was a box office smash that produced two sequels, a plethora of merchandise and a theme park attraction.  Although the critical consensus upon release was largely favourable there were a few mild dissenters who highlighted it’s limitations.  The American critic Roger Ebert was one of the first to try and look past the films more vacuous characteristics:

“Jurassic Park throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and indeed they do), we’re supposed to be grateful.  I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made Close Encounters today [1993], we would have seen the aliens in the first ten minutes, and by the halfway mark they’d be attacking Manhattan with death rays.”

The journal ‘Sight and Sound’ added:

"Jurassic Park will be seen by millions for its effects alone, and the combination of puppetwork and animation certainly goes beyond the previous high water marks of Willis H. O'Brien's King Kong or Ray Harryhausen's The Valley of Gwangi.

There is certainly truth in both these statements.  Although it is difficult to deny now, almost twenty years later, and after the razzle dazzle of the special effects has perhaps faded, that Jurassic Park still maintains an enduring appeal with the general public today.  Is this merely a case of rosy eyed nostalgia, or the child-like appeal of dinosaurs and a good old monster movie?  These are indeed a couple of contributing factors.  However the two most influential factors for me are the classical direction from Spielberg, and the relevance of those innovative effects and it’s historical place within the “cinema of attractions”.

Structure, Character, Coherence

If all the appeal of Jurassic Park lie solely within the special effects it would be natural to assume that time would erode some of its wonder and consequently the film would loose a lot of it’s appeal.  It would just be down to film scholars to reference the picture as a technical artefact.  However, the fact that it has maintained a positive following amongst audiences could lead to the assertion that beneath the glossy exterior, the film contains some narrative substance.  I don’t believe that the film delves deeply into any great themes per se, but it is undoubtedly a picture about something.  After the curiosities that were The Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun and Always, Spielberg was in search of a hit.  He was looking to rekindle his blockbuster form from the 1970’s and 1980’s and found inspiration within Michael Crichton’s dark novel, Jurassic Park.  It’s an age old story about the dangers of scientific advancement.  Narratively speaking, Spielberg deliberately chose a story that had a clear and un-convoluted narrative (Similar to that of Jaws and ET).  Scientists develop technology to bring Dinosaurs back to life in a ‘theme’ park, Dinosaurs escape and run amuck.  Classically simple. 

Contrary to a lot of contemporary blockbuster filmmakers who utilise the dark art of ‘Chaos Cinema‘ in their aesthetic, Spielberg sticks to the ‘rules’ and uses a classic hollywood approach for filming Jurassic Park.  This is hugely beneficial narratively, and would perhaps benefit more recent action/adventure films as well, as it adds a coherence to the picture and grounds it within a genre.  Spielberg doesn’t get enough critical credit in my opinion for the way that he constructs his action set pieces.  They appear effortless and perfectly paced, while also being full of inventive touches.  Think specifically of the water in the cup rippling as the floor begins to shake or the T-Rex glimpsed in the side view mirror - these are iconic signifiers that have infiltrated the public consciousness.

                                                                                            Inception (2010)

                  Toy Story 2 (1999)

A student of Hollywood and genre, Spielberg knows how to piece together a summer event movie.  The darker elements of Crichton’s novel are rubbed out (the character of John Hammond now becomes a loveable old soul with good intentions) and the movies hero’s and villain’s become clearly defined.  Critics can label this as nothing more than creating caricatures; but they are essential building blocks that make up the dynamics of storytelling, Grecian in their broad gestures.  Spielberg is aware that the audience is in need of someone to root for, and similarly like to cheer as the villain’s meet their grizzly end.  It is not subtle, but as long as the characters have well written dialogue and are performed well, a movie can, to a certain extent, get away with such one note characters.  This is a template that has been used time and time again within genre.  Blockbuster entertainment is built on familiarisation; audiences know what to expect when they buy a ticket and take pleasure in spending time with the grizzled sceptic with a good heart [Dr Alan Grant], the comic foil [Dr Ian Malcolm] or the damsel in distress [Lex/Tim Murphy].

                      Jurassic Park (1993)                                        King Kong (1933)

Unlike a number of more recent blockbusters, such as the Pirates of the Caribbean and the Transformers franchises, Jurassic Park benefits from a simple and clearly defined structure, well drawn yet archetypal characters who the audience can quickly identify, and proficient and efficient direction from Spielberg.  While certainly not groundbreaking, these traits are still admirable as solid storytelling, and unfortunately lacking from most mainstream pictures.

A significant side note is that Spielberg again gave John Williams carte blanche to create another overwrought and sentimental score - always a mainstream winner and evocative reminder of the film.

   

Spectacle and the Technological Brick Wall

If he plotting and structure of Jurassic Park are not exactly groundbreaking, the special effects certainly were.  I contest that they still are.  Spielberg only wanted to make the movie if the special effects were in place.  He knew how much of a selling point this new technology would be.  The technology in question was computer generated imagery (CGI).  This new technique of using computers to create stop motion effects allowed the director to create photo-realistic imagery on the screen - bringing to life their fantasies with stunning realism.  In its infancy, the technology was used primitively in movies like Looker (1981) and Tron (1982).  While novel and interesting, these effects maintained a ‘computer game’ style aesthetic.  Jurassic Park was the great leap forward.  This particular film, alongside Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991), stand as markers in the sand for this new technology. 

“I have never seen movement this smooth outside of looking at a National Geographic documentary” - Steven Spielberg

Jurassic Park’s CGI success should be analysed from the viewpoint of the talent using this new art form.  Spielberg acquired the greatest technicians woking in their particular field and was not going to move into production until he was fully satisfied with the look of the dinosaurs.  Consequently the pre-production journey took over three years.  Initially Spielberg had conversations with Bob Gurr after being impressed by the animatronic work he did for Kongfrontation, the King Kong ride at the Universal Studios Theme Park.  This lead to him taking on Stan Winston as the chief in charge of designing the animatronics used in the picture.  This is a crucial creative decision for Jurassic Park and I shall come back to this pivotal moment again shortly.  Spielberg was actually keen to have all the animals in Jurassic Park created using animatronics but this was logistically unrealistic, so he enlisted Phil Tippett to work his ‘Go Motion‘ Technique alongside Stan Winston’s life size models.  ‘Go Motion‘ was a technique that Tippett developed at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), and was a way of rectifying the motion blur caused by stop motion effects.  The effect was achieved by moving the animated model slightly during the exposure of each film frame.  Spielberg was in pursuit of “Absolute Credibility” however, and after studying footage was still not won over by Tippett’s work in pre-production. To his eye the motion was still “Jerky” and “Blurred”.  Spielberg was interested in the the work done by Dennis Muren and ILM on James Cameron’s The Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and sceptically commissioned him to run a series of tests for Jurassic Park.  The first test featured a T-Rex hunting down some fleeing gallimimus, and the meeting between all the creatives as they sat down to watch the footage for the first time was execrably important.  Go motion pioneer Phil Tippett turned to Spielberg and uttered; “I think I’m extinct”.

Tippett’s prothetic words are keenly felt today as Go motion/Stop motion is used sporadically in mainstream hollywood filmmaking.  CGI is the beast of today.  This has, in many cases, led to a disproportionate focus on the ‘spectacle‘.  Excessive use of CGI over story and character development.  To make matters worse, there are frequent occurrences of hastily created and shoddy looking CGI in a number of films (1200 BC and the dinosaur in Tree of Life are two recent examples).  Often, these effects are used because they are cheaper, quicker and easier to achieve than alternative options.  CGI is far from perfect - one of the major problems with this new form of effect is that it can never fully recreate the ‘weight‘ of a creature/object.  To elaborate further, these special effects sometimes feel like they are floating as there is no physicality to them.  They can almost appear like holograms at times, hovering across the scenery.  Puppetry, animatronics and stop motion achieves this ‘weight’ better because (despite how primitive looking the design may be) the effects are actually a physical entity that can be touched, and even interacted with.  By association this gives them a greater believability.  CGI works best when it is used in conjunction with live action effects in a subtle, unobtrusive way.  This is why Spielberg’s decision to use Stan Winston’s animatronics and model work is so crucial to the success of Jurassic park.  The effects are almost a perfect harmony of the two art forms, eased into our subconscious.  It is a template replicated by Peter Jackson with his Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  Jackson chose to use a large proportion of live action and make up effects in conjunction with a complementary use of computer generated imagery.  I believe this is why Jurassic Park holds up some eighteen years later; because it is a standard bearer of design and special effects.  A standard that has yet to be eclipsed.

Jurassic Park’s ‘Spectacle‘ still maintains great reverence because the effects have not moved on significantly since this great leap forward in 1993.  Cinema is in search of some greater form of wizardry to wow us.  There has undoubtedly been a great deal of fine tuning within the art form.  Weta’s work in creating the creature Gollum and King Kong for Jackson is one such example.  Yet, there is no great push forward.  This has led to a new techniques being utilised in a bid to try and show us something new.  Robert Zemeckis‘ evolution of motion capture technology in films like Beowulf and A Christmas Carol have aimed to create a greater level of believability within animation.  This has been met with critical and commercial coldness, with Pixar’s vibrant and physically unrealistic characters providing the warmth and heart.  The most notable attempt to wow us in recent years can be seen in James Cameron’s Avatar.  Although a commercial behemoth, the critical reception to the design of the Navvi was not particularly overwhelming.  I would argue that it still merely greater fine tuning to the work  done with Jackson’s Gollum, and Spielberg’s T-Rex.  The big talking point of Avatar was not the creature design, but the 3D technology developed by Cameron. 

3D was quickly latched onto by Hollywood as the future of cinema.  This was the new ‘spectacle’, the new way to draw the viewer in further.  This was the technological breakthrough they had been seeking since Jurassic Park.  Jurassic Park’s re-release is particularly timely.  It highlights further the folly that 3D is.  Box office figures suggest that 3D is dying out.  Audiences feel that it adds nothing, doesn’t draw them into the picture with any greater depth and is a ‘spectacle‘ not worth paying a greater admission price for.  As a result, 2D showings have been out performing 3D showings of movies such as Despicable Me and Harry Potter.  Advocates of 3D would argue that this could be down to retrofitting (a cheap, and ineffective use of the technology) which has tainted it’s appeal.  I would submit that its demise is merited as it adds nothing to the immersive experience of the picture and furthermore, provides no great wonder. 

Jurassic Park maintains cinematic relevance because, like Melies Le Voyage Dans La Lune, it is a scholarly example of the cinema of attractions.  A leap forward in technology that captured the audiences imagination and showed us something unique and new.  Even now, the first sight of the Brachiosaurus on the big screen is a marvellous spectacle.  Furthermore, these effects are built on some solid foundations and efficient direction by Spielberg - a genre filmmaker extraordinaire.  Both these factors prolong the pictures legacy and makes it fertile ground to look back upon now.  It could be argued that it is the last great blockbuster of modern times.  We are still waiting for some luminary to step forward and dazzle us again.  Until then, we shall just climb aboard Spielberg’s ride once more.