180 years ago, Charles Dickens published installments of his first novel, a humorous and genius book: Pickwick Papers. The novel began when a publishing firm, after agreeing to publish a series of pictures by illustrator Robert Seymour, asked Dickens to write a story to accompany the pictures. Kind of similar to how the New Yorker will start out with a picture, and ask readers to supply captions to go along with it. The words took on a life of its own, and, rather than pictures accompanied by words, it became a novel accompanied by pictures.
Some time later, Seymour's widow claimed that Seymour, not Dickens, was the true author of Pickwick papers. In his biography of Dickens, GK Chesterton had the following to say on the subject. Basically, he said that it didn’t matter whether or not Dickens conceived the ideas of the characters,
“It was quite true, that at the beginning, instead of Seymour being employed to illustrate Dickens, Dickens may be said to have been employed to illustrate Seymour. But that Seymour invented anything in the letterpress large or small, that he invented either the outline of Mr. Pickwick's character, or the number of Mr. Pickwick's cabman, that he invented either the story, or so much as a semi-colon in the story was not only never proved, but was never very lucidly alleged. Dickens fills his letters with all that there is to be said against Mrs. Seymour's idea; it is not very clear whether there was anything definitely said for it.
Upon the mere superficial fact and law of the affair, Dickens ought to have been superior to this silly business. But in a much deeper and a much more real sense he ought to have been superior to it. It did not really touch him or his greatness at all, even as an abstract allegation. If Seymour had started the story, had provided Dickens with his puppets, Tupman or Jingle, Dickens would still have been Dickens and Seymour only Seymour. As a matter of fact, it happened to be a contemptible lie, but it would have been an equally contemptible truth. For the fact is that the greatness of Dickens and especially the greatness of Pickwick is not of a kind that could be affected by somebody else suggesting the first idea. It could not be affected by somebody else writing the first chapter. If it could be shown that another man had suggested to Hawthorne (let us say) the primary conception of "The Scarlet Letter," Hawthorne who worked it out would still be an exquisite workman; but he would be by so much less a creator. But in a case like Pickwick there is a simple test. If Seymour gave Dickens the main idea of Pickwick, what was it? There is no primary conception of Pickwick for anyone to suggest. Dickens not only did not get the general plan from Seymour, he did not get it at all. In Pickwick, and, indeed, in Dickens, generally it is in the details that the author is creative, it is in the details that he is vast. The power of the book lies in the perpetual torrent of ingenious and inventive treatment; the theme (at least at the beginning) simply does not exist. The idea of Tupman, the fat lady-killer, is in itself quite dreary and vulgar; it is the detailed Tupman, as he is developed, who is unexpectedly amusing. The idea of Winkle, the clumsy sportsman, is in itself quite stale; it is as he goes on repeating himself that he becomes original. We hear of men whose imagination can touch with magic the dull facts of our life, but Dickens's yet more indomitable fancy could touch with magic even our dull fiction. Before we are half-way through the book the stock characters of dead and damned farces astonish us like splendid strangers.
Seymour's claim, then, viewed symbolically, was even a compliment. It was true in spirit that Dickens obtained (or might have obtained) the start of Pickwick from somebody else, from anybody else. For he had a more gigantic energy than the energy of the intense artist, the energy which is prepared to write something. He had the energy which is prepared to write anything. He could have finished any man's tale. He could have breathed a mad life into any man's characters. If it had been true that Seymour had planned out Pickwick, if Seymour had fixed the chapters and named and numbered the characters, his slave would have shown even in these shackles such a freedom as would have shaken the world. If Dickens had been forced to make his incidents out of a chapter in a child's reading-book, or the names in a scrap of newspaper, he would have turned them in ten pages into creatures of his own.
-GK Chesterton, from his book: Charles Dickens.
Like Dicken’s characters in Pickwick Papers, the characters of Jurassic World are stereotypes, clichés. And, just as with the characters in Pickwick Papers, it doesn’t matter that they are. They are clichés, and yet, they are more. While being clichés, while being stereotypes, They are individuals.
One cares about these characters, one likes them. And in that lies this movie’s genius, and the thing that separates it from the movies that had gone before.
The movie has moments of humor, as well. And somehow the humor is fresh and unexpected.
Or, take the cannon fodder character. A staple in such movies. We watch the death of the first two, and somehow they are real people, at least the second is.
The only really bad flaw is a single character, some sort of military guy, who’s exact role is not completely explained. He is almost as bad (almost but not quite) as the evil military characters in James Cameron movies.
They could have done just a teeny tiny touch more to his character to make him seem more like a real person, and less like some James Cameron military villain.
Fans of the military, if that made you nervous, don’t worry. The movie does not denigrate the military, members of the armed forces, or their methods of taking action. At moments it seems like it might lapse into that, yet it somehow doesn’t. Because, with the exception of that one character, even the military-ish type follow the movie’s trend of fitting so perfectly into stereotypes and yet being at the same time real individual persons that one cares about. Even the characters that appear for two seconds, this is true even of them.
Somehow, it is in its details that this movie is great. It takes all the formulas of the prior movies,; there is nothing new. And yet, the details of the movie are crafted so exquisitely, that it transcends what had come before. The plot is not better than the first Jurassic Park movie. But the characters are more likeable. The action is extreme, and yet doesn’t have any obvious potholes, any moments where you say “that was impossible”.
And there are surprising moments.
But no more spoilers.
All in all, not the best movie in the world, but my personal favorite of the Jurassic Park series.
To re-quote Chesterton: “The idea of Tupman, the fat lady-killer, is in itself quite dreary and vulgar; it is the detailed Tupman, as he is developed, who is unexpectedly amusing. The idea of Winkle, the clumsy sportsman, is in itself quite stale; it is as he goes on repeating himself that he becomes original. We hear of men whose imagination can touch with magic the dull facts of our life, but Dickens's yet more indomitable fancy could touch with magic even our dull fiction.”
While Jurassic Park was never dull, it was lame in some ways. And the fancy that created the characters of Jurassic World, managed to touch with magic, even our cheesy fiction.
Some time later, Seymour's widow claimed that Seymour, not Dickens, was the true author of Pickwick papers. In his biography of Dickens, GK Chesterton had the following to say on the subject. Basically, he said that it didn’t matter whether or not Dickens conceived the ideas of the characters,
“It was quite true, that at the beginning, instead of Seymour being employed to illustrate Dickens, Dickens may be said to have been employed to illustrate Seymour. But that Seymour invented anything in the letterpress large or small, that he invented either the outline of Mr. Pickwick's character, or the number of Mr. Pickwick's cabman, that he invented either the story, or so much as a semi-colon in the story was not only never proved, but was never very lucidly alleged. Dickens fills his letters with all that there is to be said against Mrs. Seymour's idea; it is not very clear whether there was anything definitely said for it.
Upon the mere superficial fact and law of the affair, Dickens ought to have been superior to this silly business. But in a much deeper and a much more real sense he ought to have been superior to it. It did not really touch him or his greatness at all, even as an abstract allegation. If Seymour had started the story, had provided Dickens with his puppets, Tupman or Jingle, Dickens would still have been Dickens and Seymour only Seymour. As a matter of fact, it happened to be a contemptible lie, but it would have been an equally contemptible truth. For the fact is that the greatness of Dickens and especially the greatness of Pickwick is not of a kind that could be affected by somebody else suggesting the first idea. It could not be affected by somebody else writing the first chapter. If it could be shown that another man had suggested to Hawthorne (let us say) the primary conception of "The Scarlet Letter," Hawthorne who worked it out would still be an exquisite workman; but he would be by so much less a creator. But in a case like Pickwick there is a simple test. If Seymour gave Dickens the main idea of Pickwick, what was it? There is no primary conception of Pickwick for anyone to suggest. Dickens not only did not get the general plan from Seymour, he did not get it at all. In Pickwick, and, indeed, in Dickens, generally it is in the details that the author is creative, it is in the details that he is vast. The power of the book lies in the perpetual torrent of ingenious and inventive treatment; the theme (at least at the beginning) simply does not exist. The idea of Tupman, the fat lady-killer, is in itself quite dreary and vulgar; it is the detailed Tupman, as he is developed, who is unexpectedly amusing. The idea of Winkle, the clumsy sportsman, is in itself quite stale; it is as he goes on repeating himself that he becomes original. We hear of men whose imagination can touch with magic the dull facts of our life, but Dickens's yet more indomitable fancy could touch with magic even our dull fiction. Before we are half-way through the book the stock characters of dead and damned farces astonish us like splendid strangers.
Seymour's claim, then, viewed symbolically, was even a compliment. It was true in spirit that Dickens obtained (or might have obtained) the start of Pickwick from somebody else, from anybody else. For he had a more gigantic energy than the energy of the intense artist, the energy which is prepared to write something. He had the energy which is prepared to write anything. He could have finished any man's tale. He could have breathed a mad life into any man's characters. If it had been true that Seymour had planned out Pickwick, if Seymour had fixed the chapters and named and numbered the characters, his slave would have shown even in these shackles such a freedom as would have shaken the world. If Dickens had been forced to make his incidents out of a chapter in a child's reading-book, or the names in a scrap of newspaper, he would have turned them in ten pages into creatures of his own.
-GK Chesterton, from his book: Charles Dickens.
Like Dicken’s characters in Pickwick Papers, the characters of Jurassic World are stereotypes, clichés. And, just as with the characters in Pickwick Papers, it doesn’t matter that they are. They are clichés, and yet, they are more. While being clichés, while being stereotypes, They are individuals.
One cares about these characters, one likes them. And in that lies this movie’s genius, and the thing that separates it from the movies that had gone before.
The movie has moments of humor, as well. And somehow the humor is fresh and unexpected.
For example, manning the tour-the-park-inside-crystal-balls thing is a dull-faced teenagerish kid, the kind of employee one expects to see at such places. Due to the new emergency situation, the authorities send out the word to close part of the park. The kid starts to tell the huge crowd of people waiting in line to return to a different area of the park. He leafs through a booklet for instructions, and starts laboriously reading out instructions about a handrail, or something (my memory doesn’t recall exactly). Predictably, the crowd is irritated, non-obedient, and dis-believing any authority on his part. Which is exactly how they would react to someone like him (you have to see the scene to understand what I’m talking about) and that’s what makes it so hilarious. The movie fit him into a stereotype, a stereotype created from real life, from hundreds of employees we have seen in real life just like him, and made it into something hilarious. And he is somehow also an individual, just as real life people who fit clichés (and many or most of us do, in one way or another) are individual real persons.
Or, take the cannon fodder character. A staple in such movies. We watch the death of the first two, and somehow they are real people, at least the second is.
There is a moment when one of them, the second who will be killed, is aware of the fact that he is about to die. He is looking over at one of the main characters, and his eyes are filling with tears. That character has only been around for a couple of minutes. And yet, in that moment, he appears as a real believable person, someone we feel for.
The only really bad flaw is a single character, some sort of military guy, who’s exact role is not completely explained. He is almost as bad (almost but not quite) as the evil military characters in James Cameron movies.
He seems like the bad guy of the movie. Upon intellectual reflection, however, he doesn’t do anything really bad, and he certainly isn’t responsible for the disaster that unfolds. But it’s only after later intellectual reflection that one realizes this. It’s sort of his bullying manner, the things he says and plans, that make him seem like the bad guy.
Fans of the military, if that made you nervous, don’t worry. The movie does not denigrate the military, members of the armed forces, or their methods of taking action. At moments it seems like it might lapse into that, yet it somehow doesn’t. Because, with the exception of that one character, even the military-ish type follow the movie’s trend of fitting so perfectly into stereotypes and yet being at the same time real individual persons that one cares about. Even the characters that appear for two seconds, this is true even of them.
Somehow, it is in its details that this movie is great. It takes all the formulas of the prior movies,; there is nothing new. And yet, the details of the movie are crafted so exquisitely, that it transcends what had come before. The plot is not better than the first Jurassic Park movie. But the characters are more likeable. The action is extreme, and yet doesn’t have any obvious potholes, any moments where you say “that was impossible”.
Another good thing: each of the main characters does something really important that saves themselves or the others. Without each of them, they wouldn't have survived. Too many movies have a particular main character, and then the decisive action is done by someone else. Puh-leas. That just doesn't work. But in this movie, everyone plays a part in saving everyone's life.
Just little details that I'm talking about. We expect big surprises in movies, they've made a profession of it; the big surprises aren't that surprising anymore. But we still don't expect to be surprised by some of the little things. Some of the little details.
All in all, not the best movie in the world, but my personal favorite of the Jurassic Park series.
To re-quote Chesterton: “The idea of Tupman, the fat lady-killer, is in itself quite dreary and vulgar; it is the detailed Tupman, as he is developed, who is unexpectedly amusing. The idea of Winkle, the clumsy sportsman, is in itself quite stale; it is as he goes on repeating himself that he becomes original. We hear of men whose imagination can touch with magic the dull facts of our life, but Dickens's yet more indomitable fancy could touch with magic even our dull fiction.”
While Jurassic Park was never dull, it was lame in some ways. And the fancy that created the characters of Jurassic World, managed to touch with magic, even our cheesy fiction.
