Analysis of the original Jurassic Park

analysis
#30

Something to think about before trying to put the MC in a specific domain is whether he or she is a Do-er or Be-er. Usually, this is easier to figure out, and it narrows down the possibilities by half. When I considered the question, I was unable to find compelling arguments for Grant as Be-er, but it’s fairly easy to see how Grant prefers a Do-er approach in his first scene and has changed to a Be-er in his last.

That being said, there are some attractive options available if Grant is in Psychology, so if you have examples of why you think Grant is a Be-er, I’d love to hear them.

#31

Well, anyone familiar with Dramatica appreciates the difference between Learning and Understanding! :rofl:

The Strategy of familiarizing yourself with films that share the same Domain arrangement (Genre) would be paramount. Reading every single thing you can on the Four Throughlines. I would suggest checking out the Throughlines section on Narrative First.

@Etherbeard clued you in on some of the Prerequisites of the theory—how Be-ers end up in the internal Domains and Do-ers in the external.

The only problem now is overcoming the Preconditions of your current life to open up more and more time to Learn!

1 Like
#32

I rewatched the movie last night and yeah, I do agree that Grant is a Do-er. My previous assessment is getting broken down, but not sure anything’s becoming clearer.

It almost seemed to me that Grant is our MC, but that Hammond is actually the Protagonist, with Malcom playing the dual role of IC and Antagonist. I would guess the production had intended this as well, based on how Hammond and Malcom interact, their clothing choices, etc.

It actually seems that Malcolm is the character that has the most impact on Grant. Right from the first moment they meet, when Malcolm isn’t arguing with and pestering Hammond, he begins a romantic advance toward Ellie–posing as a potential threat to Grant’s main problem of not wanting kids.

After the “oohs” and “aahs” of seeing dinosaurs, Malcolm points out to Alan that he’s gonna become extinct, then goes on to antagonize Hammond in the lunch room.

Then, Malcom again diverts his attention to Ellie, saying he’s gonna ride with her–and ends up giving her a rather intimate demo with the drops of water (Also again antagonizing Hammond, asking if there are, in fact, dinosaurs on the dinosaur tour).

These two motifs continue throughout the film… Malcolm showing an interest in Ellie, demonstrating that not only has kids already and loves them, but that he’s always looking for a future ex-Mrs. Malcom. I’ll admit it’s rather subtle and resolves just before they encounter the T-Rex… but it is there.

After the T-Rex incident, Malcom affects Grant one more time–when Grant admits that Malcolm was right about his theory of life finding a way. There’s some pretty massive symbology going on too, with Grant showing the kids hatched eggs, and earlier too when he and Ellie greet the Triceratops (You ever just listen to the dialogue during that part? It sounds like two parents greeting their newborn).

Malcolm then gets put back with Hammond and their contentious relationship continues, all the way up until he takes over the walkie talkie, guiding Ellie to turn the power back on in the park.

I also have a hunch that in the OS:
Ellie = Emotion
Muldoon = Logic

Grant = MC, Guardian?
Nedry/Dinosaurs = Contagonist

Hammond = Protagonist
Malcolm = Antagonist

Kids = Sidekick
Gennaro = Skeptic

Not sure what story form this would all adhere to, or if it’s complete or not… but after watching the film again with Dramatica in mind. This feels better than what I had thought before.

Could Grant still exist in Psychology under these criteria, if he’s a Do-er?

#34

This is a bit to the side (but not exactly off) topic. But the reason I originally argued in another thread that I felt this movie must be a GAS is because I was looking at the very clear argument the characters are having. Hammond needs approval from Grant, et al. to keep his funding and open the park so he brings them out, tries to show them how awesome and safe the park is, and, after seeing how unsafe (though still pretty awesome, because dinosaurs!) the park is, they decline. Hammond agrees that the park doesn’t need to open. Very clear argument. One that I now figure would be entirely within the OS if this were a complete story.

#35

Running with your request for examples of Grant as Be-er, just for kicks…

A Be-er changes one’s self before changing the world around him, right?

Is being a Be-er something that would change from Be-er to Do-er by the end of the film, or is he ALWAYS gonna be a Be-er even if he goes through a Change by the end?

Devil’s advocate argument for Grant as Be-er:

  1. The first problem Grant encounters is at the dig site. A boy undermines his scientific explanation for why raptors are like birds. Alan chooses to transform himself from mild-mannered scientist into horror-film tormentor of children to teach him a lesson.

  2. Next, he encounters Hammond showing up at his site, and very quickly after learning who he is, he again transforms his approach from barking at Hammond, to schmoozing and acting grateful.

  3. Then, Grant meets Ian Malcolm, a very outspoken type who kind of snarls at Grant’s profession. Instead of defending himself, Grant chooses to remain quiet and Hammond apologizes for Malcolm. Grant also chooses to do nothing when Malcom hits on Ellie.

  4. Next up is when he gets the tour of the inner workings of JP. He sees a major problem in breeding raptors, but doesn’t directly say or do anything about it. He internalizes it. Also in that scene, the machine even steals the egg back from Grant, and the look on Grant’s face shows that he just sits there and takes it.

  5. After this, he joins the others in debate around the lunch table but basically stays quiet the entire time, until the very end when he gives a very non-committal answer, that he doesn’t have any idea what to expect.

  6. Next, the kids are forced upon him and he tries to evade them, allowing Timmy to wax on and on and follow him around, until finally Lex tells him why they’re pestering him, and he just shoots Ellie a knowing look.
    I could see that maybe as “doing,” but it’s so passive and accepting that I wonder if it’s actually being?

  7. The next “problem” is when Malcolm starts moving in on Ellie on the tour, the scene with the water drop, playing with her hair, etc. Instead of telling him to stop hitting on his girlfriend, even after Ellie beckons him to “look at this,” Alan ignores the situation and finds a distraction, noticing the triceratops outside the car.

  8. The next major problem is the T-Rex attack. Grant sits in the car a helluva long time while the kids are being attacked, urging Malcolm to sit still and do nothing so the T-Rex doesn’t see them. It’s not until the T-Rex starts tearing into the car that Grant finally gets a flare and tries warding off the Rex.
    Again in this scene, he covers Lex’s mouth and tells her to sit and do nothing, waiting for the T-Rex to go away. It doesn’t and he ends up being forced off the side of the paddock.

  9. In the jungle with the kids, Alan is presented with the problem of protecting the kids. He seems to do this by changing his nature of disliking children, adapts himself into a fatherly persona, guiding them safely back to the visitor’s center as a parent would.

  10. Finally out of the jungle, back at the Visitor Center, the problem is raptors on the loose coming for them. He does barricade the door, but it’s not doing anything to specifically stop the problem at large. It’s Lex who actually solves the problem on the computer.

  11. The very end is a little, but overall I can see an argument for Be-er… Alan is definitely on defense, rather than offense here. On the run and backing away from the raptors, he really doesn’t DO anything but try to protect Ellie and the kids with his arms—which of course would do nothing against a dual-raptor attack. The T-Rex who comes in to save them is the real Do-er of the problem.

So I dunno… could these things make him a Be-er?

#36

If Grant is a Do-er, then he must be in one of the external Domains, either Situation or Activity.

As a more general response, I agree that Hammond is likely the protagonist. He’s the one pursuing opening the park, and throughout the story he’s asking the others to consider the upsides of the park or why it can still work despite everything that has gone wrong, i.e., “We relied too much on automation. I see that now. Next time…” or later when he points out all the problems Disney World faced when it was trying to open. I also think this explains why Hammond’s so well-developed despite definitely not being the MC and probably not being the IC.

I think the other characters are a bit more difficult to pin down into Dramatica archetypes, either being more complex or even trading hats depending on the situation. Gennaro, for example, is playing skeptic early on, then he’s a total sidekick in the lunch scene as he beams about how much money they’re going to make, then he’s back to skeptic when dealing with the kids. I suspect Malcolm is more in the guardian area than antagonist. He’s definitely conscience, and I’d put the dinosaurs in the antagonist role. Malcolm disagrees with what Hammond has done, but it’s the dinosaurs that actively work against him, and every dino-related catastrophe or death is like them saying “reconsider.”

What is a GAS? Is that shorthand for a certain arrangement of audience appreciations?

#37

Grand argument story.

#38

Yeah, some of those are good examples. At first, I especially liked Grant’s reaction to Hammond upon first meeting him, but as I thought about it, I had to remind myself that Do-er or Be-er represents the MC’s preferred approach. So, in that scene Grant barges into the trailer ready to lay into Hammond, but once he realizes who it is, Grant has no choice but to veer away from his preferred approach.

Now, that’s not meant as a dismissal of any of the other points. I just wanted to illustrate how you have to be careful.

One of the things that changes in a changed Main Character is his/her approach. In fact the character actually changes Domains, moving into whichever Domain is dynamically opposed to the one he/she started in. What this means is that if Grant were a Be-er in Psychology at the beginning of the story, he’d need to be a Do-er in Activity at the end, assuming he’s a changed MC (and that there’s a complete storyform).

I have a question: Is Ellie actually Grant’s girlfriend? I’ve always thought there were some romantic feelings between them, but neither had acted on them. And in the scene when Malcolm asks Grant if they’re together, Grant says “yeah” simply to deter Malcolm, either because Grant wants to be with Ellie himself or because he wants to protect her from Malcolm’s lecherous behavior–or both. Now, I’m wondering.

So, this is what I think we’re seeing here: In the storyform I proposed above, I chose Protection as the problem. This makes the Solution inaction. If that’s correct, then this is the Solution element presenting itself. The way to not get eaten by a T-Rex is to do nothing.

Thank you. I feel pretty silly.

#39

What do you see as Grant’s personal MC problem? My guess it’s supposed to be something along the lines of he doesn’t like kids or he has a theory about dinosaurs and birds, but that’s the best i can come up with.

Is he trying to change himself to be someone who is scary? I take it more like he’s trying to change the kid, to teach him to respect Velociraptors. [quote=“Etherbeard, post:38, topic:1913”]
I feel pretty silly.
[/quote]

Don’t. Now you know and you can tell the next person that asks about!

#40

By process of elimination for how Grant changes by the end of the film, I would think:

  • He doesn’t change to appreciate or use or master his problem with technology.
  • And if anything he remains steadfast and proven about his problem explaining the theory regarding dinosaurs being birds (but no one is really opposing him, other than the kid he scares half to death in the beginning).
  • I feel like his only inequity in the film is not liking or wanting children (and whatever that may broadly stand for).
  • By the end of the film, he seems pretty keen on being open to that idea.

Assuming that is his problem that he changes (which to me makes sense with IC Malcom being more than happy to have kids, loves kids, the more the merrier)… Would that fall under CONSIDER/RECONSIDER?
Or would it be an AVOID/PURSUIT issue? He avoids interacting with children?

I also have a question re: the storyform that assigns Grant to something other than Fixed Attitude.
What would his MC problem for him in another domain?
I’m having a hard time seeing any other issue going on with Grant as MC.
Could it be that the part of JP that’s broken or inconsistent is whether or not he’s a Be-er or Do-er?

Reading through the earlier posts… if the OS isn’t about endorsing or opening the park–what do you think it’s about? Could it be simply whether embracing unproven methods to bring back dinosaurs was/is a good idea, and not about the park itself? That does seem like something everyone is concerned with, even the kids to a degree. I could also see that aligning a bit better with Alan and Hammond’s personal POVs.

#41

The relationship throughline is the emotional heart of the story/argument. In Jurassic Park, that seems to be the relationship between Grant and the children. The most emotional scenes are when they are together – both in the screaming scenes, the annoyance scenes, and the heartwarming scenes. Even Grant’s introduction scene shows how mean he can be when he terrifies the kid at his dig site.

The children’s chaotic/free nature – you never know what they’re going to do next – is what eventually influences Grant’s dependence on order/control. While Malcolm presents the objective argument about the power of chaos/freedom, the children represent the subjective argument of its emotional influence.

When you have a broken storyform, it is difficult to say what the story is, though it is quite easy to say what it MIGHT be since there are many options open to debate – and this thread makes my point.

That said, the one thing we (Melanie and I) know is that it was confirmed to us (by Michael Crichton’s writing partner) that the original version of the book was more along the lines we described in Build a Better Dinosaur, but editorial input moved the book into its final form. I believe we picked up the vestiges of the original intent even though the final expression diluted it, even carried the dilution in the filmed version.

1 Like
#42

First @JohnDusenberry and @Etherbeard, since the official stance is that JP is a broken tale, I figure the use of this thread simply is in looking at what problems might be. I’m not sure if that might do more harm than good in the long run.

Regarding Grants problem, I don’t really know what it would be. Not liking children seems more like a Mind problem than a Psychology problem. Like being prejudiced against kids or something. But since the relationship story is with the kids, that might be part of what should be the RS?

Probably this:

It’s not just being eaten that is a problem. It’s the idea that science wasn’t used carefully, or no one considered whether they should, and no one knows anything about these creatures or how to deal with them and dinosaurs don’t know how to adapt and they will strike back, aggressively if necessary. Just the knowledge that they bred raptors creates conflict (Grants stunned silence and the look in his face when finding out). The source of all of these problems is the existence of living dinosaurs.

#43

I’m glad to know that this is where the IC/ RS throughlines were in Building a Better Dinosaur, but I have to respectfully disagree. The most emotional scenes are the ones with dinosaurs in them. Jurassic Park’s biggest emotional scenes revolve around either awe or horror. All those screaming scenes have dinosaurs in them. When Grant first sees a living dinosaur, he goes on an emotional roller coaster from awe, to excitement, to being so overjoyed he has tears in his eyes when he says, “They move in herds. They do move in herds.” Again when he sees the sick triceratops, he lies on its chest as it breathes with a big goofy smile on his face, then tearfully recounts how the triceratops was his favorite when he was a kid. I just don’t see how anything with the grandkids comes close to that, emotionally.

To be fair I don’t reckon there’s been any more discussion in this thread than there is in any given few minutes of a User’s Group podcast.

I generally agree with this, though I think their mere existence is maybe taking it a step too far. The problem seems more related to the idea of having dinosaurs and people share the same space. Nearly all the talk about the sort-of playing god issues are contained within a single 4 minute scene, so I think we have to be careful when trying to expand that discussion to encompass the entire story.

I kinda disagree about Grant and the raptors though. I guess it depends on exactly what you mean by “creates conflict.” It’s come up a couple of times now, so I just now went back and rewatched those few minutes. Grant does seem stunned when he learns they’ve bred raptors, and he looks concerned when he first approaches the raptor paddock, but once he gets up close and is watching the raptors feed, he’s completely fascinated. He has a smile on his face. He fires off one question after another to Muldoon, the game warden, and whatever concern he might have had appears to have evaporated. So, I would say Grant is conflicted, but the raptors haven’t created any extra conflict between the characters.

This wavering between “dinosaurs are awesome” and “dinosaurs are dangerous” is what this story is about–or a big part of it. “How can we stand in the light of discovery and not act?” Hammond says. Grant goes from concern to fascination when he learns about the raptors. Grant is so excited at the thought of a living T-Rex, he nearly faints, but when he comes face to face with it, reality sets in. Then later, with a safe distance between them, he’s perfectly happy to stand back and observe the T-Rex feeding until Lex’s fear pulls him away. In that same scene he watches the flocking Gallimimus and nearly gets trampled, showing that even the herbivores can be dangerous.

#44

This whole explanation (and mine as well) is why you have to look at the story as a whole. There are great reasons to look at the OS as either Physics or Universe. Seeing where the MC and IC lie would help to lock one of those in. I personally can’t pick out an MC problem for Grant that I’m able to separate from the OS. There may well be one there, I’m just not able to spot it. [quote=“Etherbeard, post:43, topic:1913”]
The problem seems more related to the idea of having dinosaurs and people share the same space
[/quote]
some, yes. Some, no. Sometimes the source of the problem looks like the physics of dealing with dinosaurs. We know it’s a problem because the dinosaurs eat the people. Sometimes the source of the problems look like the universe of dinosaurs being alive. We know it’s a problem because dinosaurs eat the people. Sometimes we know it’s a problem because the characters go “oh, shit, you’ve got dinosaurs? You can’t have dinosaurs, they’ll eat people, you don’t know how to control them, what if they learn how to get out? What if the power goes out? What if they learn? What if they breed? How do you know they can’t breed?”

It’s possible I’m not looking at this correctly at all, but conflict, tension, turmoil, one character getting that “oh crap, this isn’t good” look on his face.

#45

This is not the Relationship Story Throughline.

The Relationship Story Throughline is about a relationship – not emotion.

#46

“The most emotional scenes are…” is the same language used by Chris Huntley to argue for the kids being part of the RS with Grant. Maybe that’s not the best way to look for the RS, but surely I’m following a good example.

#47

The process of Knowing about raptors and other dangerous things creates conflict in Grant, Sattler, and maybe Muldoon, and it creates conflict/tension between Hammond and the experts.

#48

It’s not the best way, but the only thing in Jurassic Park remotely approaching a relationship is the one between Grant and the children.

The Relationship Story Throughline is not defined by emotion, because–as you can see–emotion is entirely subjective.

#49

How is there not a relationship, or at least something remotely approaching one, between Grant and the dinosaurs?

I admit I have trouble articulating the RS and finding good examples within the text that don’t better belong to the IC through line… in general, not just in Jurassic Park, but if every piece of official Dramatica text uses the phrases “emotional heart” or “passionate argument” every time the Relationship throughline comes up, then I’m not sure how we’re meant to come away from it not thinking emotion is hugely important to the RS.

Now, maybe this where I’m having trouble, but is it accurate to say the characters’ emotions are subjective from our perspective? Surely not, otherwise how can we determine the Judgment? I picked out those examples because Grant is objectively more emotional in them than at any other point.

#50

What is the relationship that is not exclusively in Grant’s domain? He loves dinosaurs – that’s his schtick. The dinosaurs couldn’t (and don’t) care anything for him on a relationship level. There is no “we” perspective shared between Grant and the dinosaurs.

By your definition, Ellie and Hammond also have relationships with the dinosaurs. The commonality is that their are all in the Overall Story throughline, and any relationship exists is an objective view of how humans and dinosaurs fit together (or not), which is an objective view of their relationships, not a subjective view.