Book-To-Movie: ‘Jurassic Park’

Credit: Pixabay.com

Just today I saw Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. It was a lot better than what many critics said but I think I liked the first Jurassic World movie better and it definitely wasn’t as good as the first Jurassic Park film. Because I’m a lover of originals (books, movies, TV series, etc.) and because this is a Book-To-Movie post where I review movies based on books, I’m going to review the first Jurassic Park film along with the novel that it’s based on. For those of you not familiar with the Jurassic Park films and books that inspired them, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is not directly based on any of the Michael Crichton novels like Jurassic Park is. It’s merely a sequel to the movie preceding it (Jurassic World). But before I saw Fallen Kingdom, I wanted to make sure I did two things: read Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park and then see the Stephen Spielberg movie adaptation which I saw a few days ago right after finishing the book. Before that, I don’t think I ever saw the movie since its release in theatres way back in 1993 (when, uh, dinosaurs walked the earth?). I had not read the book at all. Now, during this 25^th anniversary year of the film adaptation, I was compelled to read the book and see the movie for what I think was the second time in my life. What prompted me to see it when it released in 1993, besides being a then sucker for almost any blockbuster sci fi flick that came out, was that I always loved sci fi horror films involving prehistoric monsters especially ones from the 1950s and ‘60s. While I didn’t realise it at the time, Jurassic Park the movie is not the sci fi horror that the book is.

One of the things that make Jurassic Park the novel the sci fi horror that it is is the greater emphasis on the man-eating dinosaurs that the movie doesn’t give as much. The novel involves two Tyrannosaurus Rexes as opposed to the one in the movie. Also the raptors are described more menacingly and play a bigger part in the book. They even chew through metal!

The other thing that makes the novel more sci fi horror than the movie is the psychology of the characters. It’s a lot easier to get into the heads of characters in a book than it is on the screen since the former allows more room for internal dialogue, or narration of what goes on in the character’s mind, than a movie does. So we see the characters’ fears and tension more by reading them in the book. Not only is the book more graphically gory, but the characters’ lives seem to be more at stake. The fear that we can relate to especially comes from the two siblings, Tim and Lex, who are alone in remote parts of the island for a longer period of time than they are in the movie. This brings us back to our own childhood nightmares of monsters lurking in the dark. Even more, much of the childlike fear comes from Lex, who, unlike in the movie, is the younger of the two siblings. Because she’s the little sister, we sense more vulnerability and tension through her; after one of the T-Rexes tries attacking her and her older brother, Tim, she’s always fearful that it’s following them.

What adds to the horror more in the book than in the movie is death. More characters of significance die in the book than in the movie. Also in the novel, major characters’ wrongful actions bite them (both literally and figuratively) a lot more severely than in the film. So the book ends in a darker manner than the movie, leaving open the possibility of a return of the deadly menace. And although there is humour in the book for comic relief it is more subtle whereas in the film it is more straight forward and so takes away more of the feeling of terror.

One other thing that causes the movie to lack the horror element of the book is Steven Spielberg’s directing. As great of a director he is with his visual interpretations, including in this film, he is not a horror director. He is more a straight sci fi and adventure director. The exception to this was Jaws, which you can see similarities to in Jurassic Park especially when it comes to the T-Rex and raptor attacks. But the terror of Jaws is not the same as that of Jurassic Park. The latter concentrates more on the wonder of the genetically engineer-revived dinosaurs than it does on the mortal fear of them. Steven Spielberg does a good job of conveying the scientific issues in the movie which raise questions like all good science fiction and like Crichton’s novel does, although I’m sure a lot of it’s due to Crichton having written the screenplay. However, the terror is not conveyed to the extent that it is in the book.

Like the screen adaptation, the book is a good mix of horror, sci fi and adventure. However, the movie is more reminiscent of Indiana Jones than it is atomic monster films of the 1950s and ‘60s. Much of this is due to the behavioral traits and habits of some of the male characters: Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) is a somewhat chauvinist lady’s man while also an intellect; Dr. Grant is the field scientist but instead of digging up artifacts of ancient eras he digs up dinosaur skeletons of prehistoric eras; and, more apparently, the dinosaurs’ keeper, former safari hunter Muldoon is more the straight-out adventurer. Steven Spielberg is more a director of romantic adventure films than of horror. (Perhaps that’s why I was never impressed with Poltergeist.) His work is more influenced by pulp adventure stories of the earlier half of the 20^th century than it is pulp horror of that same period.

In a way, I’m glad I had not read the novel Jurassic Park when I saw the movie back in 1993. If I did, I probably would have been disappointed with the movie. That’s the problem with film adaptations in general--they usually don’t live up to the quality of the book, at least as far as best-sellers go in which Crichton’s was. However, Jurassic Park the movie in it’s own right is good and definitely worth watching. I don’t think I appreciated it when I watched it the other evening after reading the book as much as I had when I saw it twenty-five years ago. But because it has it’s good points, clever pacing of suspense and calm, good irony, and (of course) man-eating dinosaurs, it’s still good as a sci fi horror film.

Maybe I’ll have a review of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom next time, and so it will be more of a Book-To-Movie-To Movie since the movie is more indirectly based on Michael Crichton’s novels. Have you both read Jurassic Park the novel and seen the film? If so, which did you think was better? Feel free to leave your comments in the box below.

Until next time . . .