Skip to main content

Jurassic World


I felt sorry for the monster in this film as soon as I knew this movie would not base its appeal on introducing something new, but in showing itself in opposition to something so monstrously presumptuous, and in curdling back in the lap of already laid out accomplishment in rapturous fealty. The movie begins in suggesting that crowds of viewers were beginning to be bored by just plain dinosaurs, and profit required new, dazzling creations; brazen, even criminally bold, experimentation. But what we feel as we use members of this crowd as our avatars is not exactly boredom but the pleasure in being bored at something that really should bedazzle. We wonder for a moment if a real Jurassic Park was created, if, simply by our experience of watching the films, we might feel so grand — accomplished — to be a bit blasé at the sight of even reptile titans! This is a feeling to want to loiter in, lounge in, not necessarily to cast off quickly to once again be innocents to the unknown. 

The kids use their VIP status to stray outside the permitted areas, but the sequence that follows isn’t exactly unaccustomed to us: the big scary new dinosaur locks her jaws around the vehicle the kids are strapped to; they release their attachment to the vehicle, letting it preoccupy itself for a moment with the now peopleless contraption in her mouth; and then they move a few hundred steps before braving a cliff-jump into a body of water: in short, its the sequence out of Avatar, when Jake Sully sheds his antagonist, the giant cat monster, who equally as much as this dinosaur also takes a few very close snipes at her prey, risks a bit falling over the cliff herself, as they descend out of reach into the rapids and water. Those thirsting the new should be put off when they’re offered a theme park recreation of a scene made famous elsewhere. Those who don’t really want to stray, those who want to acquaint themselves as extensions of, as properties of, previous greats, would however thrill: they get to go on a chase into the great unknown without any feeling at all that what they’re also doing is abandoning others’ labours. They fled Jurassic into the lap of Avatar. One mother frets losing her children but feels salve in seeing they haven’t found recluse on their own, in self-autonomy, but rather in the lap of another mom.

There’s a short delay before the next great mark of fealty, some filler: a squadron of escaped reptile “birds” laser their interest at fleeing pedestrians, and so we are greeted to a revisit of the scene in Mission Impossible, where a blade — this time the reptile bird’s supinely sharp beak — comes within a hair of dispatching our momentarily caught out protagonist. Then finally our reward of being so partizan to past creations, past greats, who we imagine now not feverishly creating but, like dallying monarchs, basking in a landscape they’ve made their own … and so of course it makes sense that all the awesome meanies in the original film are actually our “friends”: T-Rex and the raptors team up as irritants and capable distractions, to this movie’s monster’s ultimate doom. The monster tried to telepathy the raptors onto her side. But what is a new spun power by an outsider pretending to distinction, when “they’ve” idiotically emerged into a landscape where every peasant met is so eagerly in the mood to taunt, “oh yeah, just see what our bad mamma can do!,” and to see Her riposte as devastating even if in truth it’s spittle to the newly emergent’s torrent. 

The great beast in this movie was doomed by being waged at the very beginning as being something truly new, something cemented in our estimation of her as she tricked her captors into believing she’d climbed her way out of her enclosure — something which suggested she had insight into the particular concerns of her captors: they had previously been fretting the wall’s perhaps insufficient height. Of being able, like the film’s Indiana Jones character is supposed to be capable of, to foresee possibilities that no one else had countenanced. She was doomed by an avenue of life the film wanted granted her, the exhilarating, open-ended one of freely determining exactly where she fits in the food chain, by granting no automatic status to anyone she meets but rather to succumb everyone to being testable and possibly dispatch-worthy: no way to cement a previously established social order this! past kings will fall! commercial people will displace aristocrats! anarchy and a new order!


So this poor sucker, sodden with everything that would exhilarate a sane, non-regressing society, as something to behold, becomes amongst the audience flocking to this film something to cheer being methodically sacrificed. For what is this film than the new idea being bated, bit by bit, one dumb dinosaur herbivore “breadcrumb” after one dumb dinosaur herbivore “breadcrumb,” closer and closer into a giant sacrificial Mesosaurus pit? It’s bright homo sapiens (I had hoped they’d crossed the dinosaur’s genes with maybe Einstein’s, which looked a bit the case at first) lured into a sea where a giant stupid orifice — a shark — can arrogantly presumptuously make a giant casual snack of it. A true tragedy, to be enjoyed only by those who project madly onto the orifice, someone who would hug his mother’s girth as if it was the grandest thing in the world, even while at the door is an invite that would take little him or her closer to something that smacks of adult interest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...