Aside from the many other obvious reasons it’s not a great sequel, this excellent video further explains and accentuates the very audible “awww” of disappointment from the audience we heard throughout the theatre when we saw Jurassic Park III opening night and we all figured out that Ellie and Alan weren’t together. It wasn’t just the loss of two great characters for the upcoming adventure, but the loss of the family set-up in Jurassic Park. Great and thought provoking video. Thank you.
I never realized how strong the allegory of parenthood or having children was during this entire film! I remember liking it a lot because of the relationship Grant had with Tim and Lex and seeing Grant grow into a responsible father figure, but things like the responsibility of giving life and bringing something into the world as well as multiple themes and recurring messages in the film being connected to having a child in some way was never brought to my attention before! Adored your analysis! Edit: My god seeing the Triceratop Scene through the lense of Ellie being ready to have children made the scene THAT MUCH MORE EMOTIONAL. I was tearing up like crazy.
Amazing analysis, and you didn't even mention one of the most remarkable pregnancy parallel visuals -- when Alan puts his ear to the giant belly of the triceratops. Absolutely amazing.
True, there is so much there. As I kid, I always thought it was a stand-out scene. Now as an adult, I think the same. Alan was modelled after Indi Jones - the hat and everything - but here Alan is listening to a pregnant mother's belly, and I believe in this scene he gets his hat blown off by her powerful breath, the hat, a symbol of the character's identity which he defends many times with his life, and here he doesn't even care, he just marvels and gushes like a dad.
Yes! Good point. It subconsciously suggests that metaphorically it was "all just a bad dream" - a horrible experience that ends well takes on a dreamlike quality in our memory. The gentle, childlike orchestration of the musical theme here also suggestive of our parent closing the fairy-tale book and saying "and they all lived happily ever after." Further reinforcing that the dinosaurs in this story are the same as fairy tale monsters, and that this story was really an allegory about people and family after all.
Let´s not forgett that scene when Grant ask Malcolm "Do you have any kids?" while looking through the wndow looking between uninteresed, scared and doubious while Malcolm replyes "Oh yeah, i have three, anything can happen with kids" while looking very confty about it like is no big deal
Fantastic lecture. Had never considered Jurassic Park in such an analytical fashion, but the narrative subtext is delivered masterfully. Really pleased to have watched this :D
ALLLLLL films are like this; we are watching and learning ideologies we are totally unaware of, unless you are into the Kabbalah or New Age teachings or Wicca, etc. They even tell the truth of the world. They are purely propaganda and truth wrapped in fiction. Jay Dyer is good to learn from as well. For example, the Bond series tells you the symbol of the octopus is SPECTRE, SPECTRE is the shadow gov't, it also shows Bond is apart of SPECTRE, it is all dialectics and of course makes you think Bond is the hero, but he is a sad, sad character. If you notice the octopus on the British flag at the Olympics ceremony in England, well that is truth in plain sight, The symbolism tells it all.
Great analysis! I had always noticed and appreciated the human arc that Alan and Ellie had in the movie, but I never consciously realised how deep the allegory went.
Think of the themes of science going too far (playing God), evolution, chaos theory pertaining to things that can't be controlled like a big storm that wipes out power to the island, or hiring the wrong IT guy. We have Hammond bringing dinosaurs back to life, effectively playing God, the Malcolm saying it will blow up in his face because of elements that he can't control, and Sattler and Grant who are amazed Hammond doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what's he's done... until the very end. All of that, which is obvious commentary about science versus nature and our role in nature stands up pretty well on itself. But that's only the surface; the allegories of family buried below this make this movie a masterpiece. Excellent analysis, I really love how the symbols were identified and explained. It really adds perspective on this movie.
I know this is an old video, but a little beat that I find really significant in the egg-hatching scene: as Hammond obviously wants the hatchlings to imprint on him, Grant is pointing to himself. He wants this hatchling to imprint on him, wants to be ready to be a father. But as the scene ends and he finds out it's a velociraptor hatchling, the tone of the soundtrack and cinematography shifts to the sinister. Now that he's considering simulated fatherhood, he's forced to confront responsibility. And hence the movie's first act of wonder and whimsy gives way to the tension and foreboding leading into the second act.
This is what I’ve been saying from the beginning and every time I explained this to my friends in high school they say “nah, you’re reading too much into it”
Never doubt that. Even artists love when their work is dissected especially for tender things such as these - a family allegory in a "monster" movie. Where can you go wrong?
Just came back from watching a JP re-release in the theaters and this is an amazing summary. Never did I go "oh he's just stretching" or "Huh, I never thought of it like that". All of the metaphorical comparisons just made perfect sense as if I subconsciously knew they were there. That's how you know a movie is well-made.
I exerpeicen Jurassic Park as a kid in theatres. Revisiting it as an adult, it still stands as one of my faves for many reasons - especially how well it was made, it's story as well as you've mentioned here, the complex depth in its allegory.
love how he manages to explain what I feel about all these sequels to great movies, where they double down on the wrong part of the film. For example in saw they just double downed on gory traps rather than the psychological thriller that the first was
I shared this with a Jungian psychology professor - his lectures are over my head but this one blew my mind - I always liked Jurassic Park but now I love it - thanks so much for this !! ^_^ *liked* *subscribed*
Best analysis ever! When I'm suggesting this video to my friends, I just tell them: "Watch it. It will blow your mind!" I mean it, it changed the way I'm watching films. Please, if it's possible, I would love to watch Mike Hill's analysis on Kubricks' Shining (or any other of his films). Think about it, please!
Brilliant. I was aware of JP's undertones, but you dug deeper. Fantastic! The Park itself is meant to symbolize a replica of the Garden of Eden. Just look at the scene where Malcom is laid over the table in that basement with Hammond. And look at Man's pose in the "Creation of Adam" by Michelangelo in the Sistine's Chapel ceiling... Look at the Gates as well. Although I do have to point out that you're partially wrong about Jurassic World, notably Fallen Kingdom. I'm sure you'll notice it too: the position of the I-Rex removed rib in the beginning, the Indoraptor's making and the cloned girl, Lockwood and his most "loyal" servant, Blue and Owen's detailed bond...
Brilliant analisis, I was moved almost to tears. I'm a hardcore fan of the franchise and never had I seen this layer of meaning to the movie. Even been actively looking for the themes of the film, the word "theme" just throws out results for John Williams music and most video essays are mostly about how breakthrough it's effects and production were instead of the true subjects of the film. Now it's all so painfully obvious. I'm seeing more lines on the issue like Malcolm's "You (r scientists) were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" ... have children. I had other things to type... but I lost my train of thought. Anyway, great video : )
The moment the car (egg) falls from the tree (treehouse/nest) could also symbolize bird parents throwing their children out so that they learn to fly, wgich is then mirrored in the ending scene. They got thrown out of the nest (being completely helpless on their own when the T-Rex attacks), then got teached by Grant and outsmarted the raptors in the kitchen and in the ending scene they grew up and are now adult birds, flying freely on their own and peacefully into a new world (of adulthood... and bills to pay haha)
Great talk, I remember then ending and thought it was kind of weird showing storks at the end rather than flying dinosaurs, I just assumed it was because they were less threatening
I was 10 when Jurassic Park was released and as much as I love the dinosaurs and that was the reason I wanted to watch it my favourite thing about the movie after seeing it was Alan and Ellie’s relationship and their relationship with the kids! This video just added so much more to that!!
What a great analysis! I love this movie. It just seems like the growth of Alan was sort of ruined by JP3 (admittedly I have not read the books, so maybe it's completely different in those), but he's pretty much back to square one, and Ellie is married to another man, with children.
As bad of a movie as Jurassic World Dominion is, I got to give it credit for at least attempting to fix that error by giving Alan and Ellie another shot at being a loving couple like they were supposed to be.
I absolutely adore this analysis. I was introduced to Jungian film analysis through Jordan Peterson. Im so glad I was. There is so much fascinating stuff out there, this highly ranked among it all.
I'll admit that I don't know I think Steven Spielberg went quite that deep intentionally, but this is a read on a film that is hard to ignore. Whatever small disagreements I might have there's no doubt that, yes: Jurassic Park resonates to this day because it had more going on than just the lines and images on screen. And yeah, the best films share this quality.
I always loved dinosaurs and I always loved Jurassic Park, but this takes my appreciation to a whole new level. A while ago I watched Spielberg's "Duel" and the themes and metaphoric significance of the film's elements blew me away - it's a near masterpiece. Until now I haven't thought of applying a similar lens to JP, but your analysis is really brilliant. Now I'll have to think about the potential significance of threads not mentioned in the video, like Nedry and the Dilophosaurus, the secondary characters' functions, etc. Great stuff! PS. Jurassic World is a festering pile of dinosaur excrement.
Six years late, I know, but here’s a few cents about the deaths in the movie. Starting from Nedry, his relationship to the “God” that Hammond plays was already wrought by turmoil long before he went all Judas and betrayed his employer by exploiting the system that he himself had helped create because he had already made a deal with the devil of Lewis Dodgson. As told in the bible, those who defy God are led to ruin by their own sinful acts. The Dilophosaurus would symbolize such a fate for Nedry’s Judas who foolishly looked back at a force of nature that he didn’t understand during his escape and was turned to a pillar of salt akin to Lot’s wife in the tale of Gomorrah and Sodom. As for Gennaro, his purely capitalism driven and disrespectful attitude never sat well with Hammond(aka “God” of Jurassic Park). To this man the dinosaurs only represented dollar signs. Later on Donald selfishly abandoned the children to a premature extinction and was therefore unfit to be a father figure like Grant. In a surprising act of redemption Ian Malcolm’s “Devil” leads the T.rex away to distract it so that Alan could save the children and towards the same hiding spot as sort of a parallel to the lawyer’s cowardice which nonetheless gets Malcolm injured and leads to Gennaro’s demise from the very animal that he had wanted to capitalize upon. He was punished for his greed and for disobeying God’s will. Muldoon doesn’t play a prominent role but has a sense of honor and traditional chivalry, helping Ellie in the search for Grant and the kids, saving Malcolm from the T.rex and ultimately giving his life in a noble sacrifice to the raptors so that Ellie’s “mother figure” gets a chance to restore the power vital to the nuclear family’s escape from the predicament. He was a traditional knight in the servitude of “God” and went out like a warrior.
The movie also seems to explore the different forms of parenting: Adoptive/foster parenting (bonds between Sam Neil and kids) Biological Parenting (birth metaphors) Divorced/separated parents (kids parents/separation of main adult characters and children) Surrogacy (the many different types of births depicted) IVF (cloning and genetic testube dinosaur babies - a possible symbol of 'playing god' will create 'monsters')
Superb talk Mike! I was only 10 when it came out; recognised a couple of the really obvious links to parenting at the time but not the whole film as allegory. Top notch, thank you :)
Excellent lecture. Jurassic Park was a great movie, and it had plenty of symbolism, but it was short on science. But the dinosaurs were only part of Spielberg's story narrative, like props. The public is fascinated with cloning as an unknown and probably dangerous phenomen. Whatever good might result from it would be offset by some nutty scientists who would use the technology to create armies or weird creatures to add to the craziness of this world.
In Jurassic Park, John Hammond is the primary antagonist, and he also works amazingly well in the Jungian archetypes of Grand Father / Wise Old Man. But he tricks your perception of the Archetype. He is a Walt Disney-like figure and seen in a positive light initially. In the first act he is the most patriarchal character, bringing everyone together to the island to witness the magic he has created. He seems altruistic and what is happening seems too good to be true. (Awe, wonder). To quote Malcolm: "Ooos and Ahhs. That's always how it starts." In the middle of the film the terrifying results of Hammond's project are seen and he refuses to accept responsibility. He believes his own deception, and for this reason the truth is revealed. Hammond is not a responsibile father or Wise Old Man at all, he is a Trickster who has deceived all because of his own greed. In the novel he meets a brutal end and is eaten by his own creations. The film is nicer to him because of the more wholesome family-oriented subtext, but the story is strong in either version.
I wouldn't say he is a trickster or trying to "deceive" people for his own greed. He is genuinely passionate about what he has created and I think (at least in the movie, it's been too long since I've read the book) he is genuinely well meaning in wanting to share the experience of seeing living dinosaurs with the rest of humanity. He even rebukes the lawyer when he suggests they could charge anything they want and "have a coupon day" by saying he doesn't want the park to just be for the rich. The problem with Hammond is that he refuses to see the risks in what he is doing, he doesn't respect the forces that he's playing with (Malcolm calls him out specifically on this) and he thinks he can control something that ultimately won't be controlled ("life .... finds a way"). I think this is also how Hammond comes to his end in the novel, to the very last moment believing he can gain back control of the situation. If only he could just get this or that system up and running again, or even just try again in a different place and correct some of the mistakes which have by now become obvious to him... but then the situation overwhelms him and literally eats him alive. His sense of control was an illusion. Of course you can read plenty of subtext in this for how humans are innately driven to discovery and creation, but not so good at predicting the risks and consequences of their discoveries. Ultimately there's always this tension between the next great invention or discovery that could change the world for the better, but could also destroy it if things go wrong. I guess there's an element of deception in the way that Hammond pretends that what he has created is showing dinosaurs as they were millions of years ago, but Grant and Sattler point out that even if the animals are real, the whole situation of the park is still an illusion. The animals are not in their natural habitat, they are not allowed to display their natural behaviour, they are not even in their own time! And ultimately life will rebel against this illusion and against the attempt to control it. But I wouldn't say it's a conscious deception on the part of Hammond. There's a scene where Hammond talks about his youth and how he had this flea circus with pretend fleas doing tricks but it was all fake of course. So perhaps this is a way of telling that back then, Hammond knew what he had was an illusion, but now with the park, he has come to believe that his flea circus is actually real.
What is so odd about Jurassic Park is that it has some cheap production values for a 'Spielberg Picture', almost as if it was shot as a B-Movie (like Raiders), and at times a bit carelessly. I don't think Spielberg was conscious that he was filming a masterpiece. If I remember correctly Spielberg produced JP and Schindler's list almost back to back. Schindler's List was supposed to be his Magnum Opus. His entrance into responsible adulthood filmmaking. Yet, unfortunately, he was unable to give Schindler's list any subtlety or subtext. Everything is at its face value. It is a movie hard to see again because there is very few new meanings to dig further after the first viewing, unlike The Pianist that has the same elements. Jurassic Park does spark new feelings and insights at every time we watch. In interviews we can see that JP is not his personal favorite work, he rarely talks about it, but it is interesting that was after JP that Spielberg expressed his distaste for the Close Encounters ending.
Telling stories is one thing, explaining a story I have read and seen around a thousand times from a whole different point of view is completely something else. The Jurassic Park movie is about family? That's a very interesting way to look at it, and it all seem to fit: characters, looking after dinosaurs, responsibility, and especially the theme itself.
I was heavily critical of your fist video, which wasn't even 2 minutes long. This one was awesome! I loved it. This close-up interpretation of Jurassic Park was way more satisfying than some thought-piece 1-minute-35-seconds clip. I'm seeing the first Jurassic Park movie in a completely different light now, and thank you for thatl.
Amazing talk! It opened my eyes to see the true meaning/ideas conveyed through the film, making it a timeless piece that will live on for years to come! Though I am an action junky, so I do still enjoy shallower movies jam packed with meaningless chaos and panic
Fascinating Mike, I often consider this movie in the shaping of generation x & y and being a (don't laugh) Yoga teacher. this mythos of 'awakening the serpent' which is a theme covered in a lot of si fi and a sort of esoteric obsession (which I have to help students look at on their own path to 'ahem' responsibility). I like the way you noted that shift in Grant; from the Serpent's servant (or a living expression of it) to the Serpent's adversary, and finally having the Serpent in context at the end... (despite the serpent's existence in us and the world, we can get on with it and lead a normal life).
Personally Jurassic world is not all bad. Yeah, the characters are not that memorable/lovable and nowadays CGI films are way too common. But it's not as brilliant as Jurassic Park. I'm a fan of both the book (TLW book not so much 😅) and the movie. And this video made me love the movie even more. JP is just an awesome story that was told in a fantastic way through film. So it's simply a masterpiece.
This is excellent. And that's really what separates Jurassic Park from its sequels. The original classic has not only cool dinos (which are cool), but as importantly if not more so, it has archetypal meaning. The others are just blockbuster action adventures featuring dinos, which makes them that much less cool.
The is a great way to take the author's intention and change it to other concepts. Congrats, you messed it up. Michael Crichton would be so proud. Mike talk to a real fan and it's not all about eggs and sex, it's about how man shouldn't try and control Nature because, in the end, we can't. It's about how humans are too egotistical.
This is so good!!!!!! Wow. As an aspiring husband/father, this was very inspiring to see. Also helped me realize why I like Jurassic Park so much! Jurassic world had *incredible* vfx… but that’s all haha
In the script and storyboards it was supposed to end with one of the raptors being killed by being crushed by the fake T. rex skeleton's jaws, and the second raptor being killed by Hammond suddenly appearing with a shotgun. They changed it very late because they felt that the audience would feel cheated if they didn't get a final look at the T. rex. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vI8fp0ez6vw.html
16:07 It does make sense if you look at the set map. There is a hill next to that cliff that goes up to where the goat was. I think the reason why it “doesn’t make sense” is because that cliff is never shown in any shots before Grant and Lex go over.
Do you think Spielburg and co actually thought this far down? Or is some of it just happening because of the setup, eg, showing how dino's are made etc. I do agree though that today's blockbusters all feel hollow and unsatisfying and that is due to the nature of the underlying themes like you showed.
The original novel didn't focus on family - It was explicitly re-written for the screen with the family themes. I believe Spielberg chose to make Jurassic Park because he saw the opportunity of merging the high-concept (dinosaur creation) with the allegorical tale (starting a family)
Interesting. I always felt the original JP was the best and had that feeling of being a great movie from the first time you see it. What do you think about Lost World's themes?
Juanito G you are a really unintelligent person. Quoting Einstein and using it in the wrong context doesn't make you smart. His lecture is completely sound and based on reason, he demonstrates his line of thinking using the film itself. Plenty of filmmakers work like this and bury allegory within their movies. Movies can be smart nuanced and layered. Maybe you are just being skeptical for skepticisms sake. Perhaps elaborate on how he is "grasping at straws"? Spielberg has been called a great story teller by plenty of his contemporaries as well from actors, crew and producers that have worked with him. Get smarter sir.
It's 100% planned - you don't get to be a critically acclaimed, commercially successful director if you don't understand this stuff. Even Spielberg's debut, "Duel", aside from being a nail-bitingly tense thriller, shows incredible aptitude at establishing themes and symbolic, archetypal motifs dealing with masculinity, insecurity, competition and survival.
It's deliberately written and directed that way with parental allegory - so much so that even the sequel LOST WORLD and JP3 had parental subtext and plot-lines in them - And another movie you could bring to example is ALIENS by JIM CAMERON, that has a deliberate 'Mother' theme along with the Vietnam War allegory. Those are some great examples from 2 amazing directors - Recently though Not many big movies do allegory so greatly.
If this is accurate, then I suspect that it might indeed have been added by Spielberg and not the author, Michael Crichton. Early in Crichton's book, The Lost World (which I hear was written due to the demand of a sequel and later adapted into the movie), in a conversation between to characters there's mention of Ellen Sadler getting married and having a son and daughter with a physicist instead of Alan Grant. I don't recall any of these details being added to the movie, so it's possible Spielberg intentionally left it out to preserve the original's subtext and focus on a new subtext and character arc for Ian Malcom. Sadly, it was incorporated into Jurassic Park 3, but IMHO it and its successors frankly don't count.
Interesting and well thought out take on the original film. However, I don’t think bashing one film part of the same franchise for being different to the original is fair. Film is art, and all art is subjective, but if all art were the same, what would be the point? It’s true that Jurassic World isnt as great as the original Jurassic Park, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s great in its own right and does explore similar themes surrounding family and corporate hubris like the first film. It also explores the ideas of consumerism and chaos pretty well i.e the Indominus Rex.
Kids and chaos. They do things that it would never occur to you that a human would do. My kids smeared peanut butter all over the dog. My son tore up about two square yards of the asphalt in the alley behind our house with his bare hands at age 4. My friend's son tied two pairs of tampons together by the strings and used them as num-chuks out in the front yard. My brothers lit paper airplanes on fire and flew them out their bedroom window into a nearby pine tree. My son used a machete to kill a scorpion that he spotted on the arm of the sofa. The number of WTF moments you have as a parent is staggering.
John Pratt No, or at least I don’t personally see it. I think this subtext is unique to Stephen Spielberg’s movie. Grant and Ellie are not love interests in the book, nor does grant oppose the idea of having children. The book is also basically unrelated to the movie after the first half. Read it if you haven’t, great book.
Now that you're speaking about this analytically, I can understand something. Actually, it would have been interesting if the Jurassic World's concept was "Can we fix something that didn't work at the start?", referencing the park and a broken failed relationship. To bad Worlds was to much screaming dino's and not enough human elements lol.
Most of Spielberg's films talk about broken/struggling families and father figures (ET, War of Worlds, Close Encounters of the Third Kind). He's the fruit of a divorced family.
on some level, I'm sure. The way Spielberg and his DP light some of those scenes, for example, shows it. Malcolm skulking around in the dark, everyone else bathed in angelic light from a halo
I don't think so after watching the making of documentaries. Seems like a lot of this either happened by chance, dumb luck or last minute changes. There's also the fact that most art humans make isn't exactly our own, it comes from a space both within and beyond us so it has a life of its own and that's where archetypes come from
What a fantastic analysis of one of the best blockbuster films of all time. But why didn't anyone lower the microphone's gain? It's constantly making the speakers feedback! :-( Sounds horrible.
