Analysis of Jurassic Park

Building a Better Dinosaur

(The following analysis provides a glimpse of how some of Dramatica’s basic concepts can be employed to improve a story. Use this as an example of how many aspects of the theory can be brought together in a practical sense.)

The film Jurassic Park is wonderfully entertaining. The concepts are intriguing, the visuals stunning. Everything it does, it does well. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do enough. There are parts missing, little bits of “story DNA” that are needed to complete the chain. To be fair, these problems largely result from the mostly faithful adherence to the dramatic structure of the book upon which the movie is based.

Storyform, the structure and dynamics of a story, is not medium dependent. What works in one medium will work in all others. Storytelling, however, must vary significantly to take advantage of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses inherent in any format. Jurassic Park makes this storytelling translation very well, but the flawed dramatics were nearly lifted intact, shackling the movie just like the book with a Pterodactyl hanging ‘round its neck.

Yet criticisms are a dime a dozen. Suggestions for improvement are much more rare. Fortunately that is the strong suit of the Dramatica theory. Here is one plan for building a better dinosaur.

Dramatica Background

As a starting point, Dramatica denotes a difference between a Tale and a Story. A Tale describes a series of events that lead to success or failure. It carries the message that a particular way of going about solving the problem is or is not a good one. But a Story is an argument that there is only one right way to solve a problem. It is a much more potent form that seeks to have the audience accept the author’s conclusions.

To gain an audience’s acceptance, an argument (Story) must appeal to both logic and feeling. To make the logical part of this argument, all the inappropriate1 ways a problem might be approached need to be addressed and shown to fail. Each one must be given its due and shown not to work, except the one touted by the author. This is accomplished by looking at the characters and the plot objectively, much like a general on a hill watching a battle down below. The big picture gives a clear view of the scope of the battle and the ramifications of the individual soldiers’ actions and decisions.

To make the emotional part of the argument, however, the audience must become involved in the story at a personal level. To this end, they are afforded a Subjective view of the story through the eyes of the Main Character. Here they get to participate in the battle as if they were actually one of the soldiers in the trenches. It is the differential between the Subjective view of the Main Character and the Objective view of the whole battle that generates dramatic tension from which the message of the story is created.

By comparing the two views, the argument is made to the audience that the Main Character must change to accommodate the big picture, or that the Main Character is on the right track and must hold on to their resolve if they hope to succeed. Of course, the Main Character cannot see the big picture, so they must make a leap of faith near the end of the story, deciding if they want to stick it out or change.

Now this relationship between the Main Character and the Objective story makes him a very special character. In fact, he holds the key to the whole battle. He is the crucial element in the dramatic web who (through action or inaction) can wrap the whole thing up or cause it to fall apart. As a result, the personal problems he faces reflects the nature of the Objective problem of the story at large.

To the audience there are two problems in a story. One is the Objective problem that everyone is concerned with; the other is the Subjective problem that the Main Character is personally concerned with. Although the problems may be greatly different in the way they are manifest, they both hinge on the crucial element in the Main Character as their common root. So, to be a complete argument a story must explore an Objective AND a Subjective problem, and show how they are both related to the same source.

Jurassic Park Analysis:

Jurassic Park attempts to be a story (not a tale) but does not make it because its exploration of the Subjective problem is lacking.

The Objective problem is clearly shown to be caused by the relationship of Order to Chaos. The message of the logical side of the argument is that the more you try to control something, the more you actually open yourself up to the effects of chaos. As Princess Leia put it to the Gran Mof Tarkin in Star Wars, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

If Order is seen as the problem, then Chaos would be the solution. This is vaguely alluded to in Jurassic Park when the Tyrannosaurus comes in unexpectedly and wipes out the Raptors, unknowingly saving the humans. Although the point is not strongly stated, it is sort of there in the background. We will come back to this point later to show how it should have been a much more dramatically integral event than it was. The important concept at the moment is that as far as it goes, the Objective Story is fairly close to what it should be, which is true of most action-oriented stories.

It is the Subjective Story that fails to fulfill its dramatic mandate in Jurassic Park. To see how, we must go back to the very beginning of the film, to our Main Character, Dr. Alan Grant.

As the Main Character, Dr. Grant contains the crucial element, so we would expect him to intersect the Objective Story’s problem by representing Order or Chaos. Clearly the author intended him to represent Order. This means that he contains what has been established as the Problem Element (the inappropriate attitude or approach that is the underlying source of the Story’s troubles), rather than the Solution Element, and as such must Change if he is to succeed.

The first scene with Grant at the dig should have illustrated his love of Order. All the elements were there: a disruptive boy, a randomly sensitive computer, a helicopter that comes out of nowhere and disrupts the dig. All of these things could have illustrated Grant’s hatred of Chaos and his quest for Order. Using the same events and incidents, the point might have been made in any number of ways, the easiest being a simple comment by Dr. Grant himself.

Unfortunately without any direct allusion to Order being his primary concern, Dr. Grant comes off simply as finding disruptions inconvenient, faulty equipment annoying, and kids as both.

Why is it so important to set up the nature of the problem so early? Well, one of the major problems with the Jurassic Park storyform is that we really don’t know what the problem is supposed to be until near the end of the first act. Certainly almost every movie-goer must have been aware that this was a picture about an island where cloned dinosaurs come to life, and then run amok wreaking havoc — that’s all storytelling. But that alone doesn’t say why this problem occurred. The “Why” is the heart of the storyform: the reason, if you will, for having a story to tell. If the point of contention had been established up front, the whole thrust of the picture would have been given direction from scene one.

Just stating that Dr. Grant shares the same problem as the story is not enough. The relationship between his view of the problem and the Objective view of the problem is what explores the concept, makes the argument, and allows the Main Character to grow. Ultimately, it is the differential between the two views of the problem that brings a Changing (versus Steadfast) Main Character to suspect the error of his ways and make a positive leap of faith. He sees the problem outside himself, then finds it inside himself. He changes the inside, and the outside is forced to follow suit.

What does this mean for Jurassic Park? As it is, Doctor Grant’s attitude toward John Hammond’s ability to control the dinosaurs is one of skepticism, but not because of Order, because of Chaos. Grant simply agrees with Ian Malcolm, the mathematician. This makes the same point through two characters. Instead, Grant’s function should not be to tout Chaos, but to favor Order. Only this point of view would be consistent with his feelings toward children.

As illustrated in the meeting scene with Hammond, Ian, and Elissa, Grant jumps from representing one approach to representing the opposite, neutralizing his effectiveness in the story as owner of the crucial element and taking the wind out of the dramatic sails.

This problem could have been easily avoided and replaced with strong drama by having Dr. Grant continue to believe that the park is unsafe, but for a different reason.

(Note: The following proposed scene is designed to illustrate how Grant’s and Ian’s positions on what is needed for the park to be safe is different. The storytelling is minimal so as not to distract from the storyforming argument.)

GRANT

How can you be sure your creations won’t escape?

HAMMOND

Each compound is completely encircled with electric fences.

GRANT

How many fences?

HAMMOND

Just one, but it is 10,000 volts.

GRANT

That’s not enough....

HAMMOND

I assure you, even a T-Rex respects 10,000 volts!

GRANT

No, I mean not enough fences. It’s been my experience that Dr. Malcolm is right. You can’t count on things going the way you expect them. You need back-ups to your back-ups. Leave a soft spot and Chaos will find it. Put three fences around each compound, each with a separate power source and then you can bring people in here.

MALCOLM

That’s not the point at all! Chaos will happen no matter how much you prepare. In fact, the more you try to control a situation, the greater the potential that chaos will bring the whole thing down.

In the above scene, Grant stresses the need for even MORE control than Hammond used. This clearly establishes his aversion to giving in to chaos. Ian illustrates the difference in their points of view by stating that the greater the control you exercise, the more you tighten the spring of chaos.

What would this mean for the middle of the story? Plenty. Once Grant and the children are lost in the open with the thunder lizards, he might learn gradually that one must allow Chaos to reach an equilibrium with Order. Several close encounters with the dinos might result in minor successes and failures determined by applying Order or allowing Chaos.

As it stands, Dr. Grant simply learns to care about the children. But what has really changed in him? What did he learn? Would it not have been more dramatically pleasing to have the children teach him how chaos is not just a disruptive element, but sometimes an essential component of life? And would it not make sense for someone who has spent his whole life imagining the way dinosaurs lived to be surprised by the truth when he sees them in person? What a wonderful opportunity to show how the orderly interactions he had imagined for his beloved beasts are anything but orderly in the real world. So many opportunities to teach him the value of Chaos, yet all we get is “They DO travel in herds... I was right!” Well, that line is a nice place to start, especially if you spend the rest of the story showing how wrong he was about everything else. Truly a good place from which to start growing.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the Subjective Storyline is the meaningless manner in which they escape in the end. Grant and the kids are sealed in the control room, but the Raptors are right outside. The girl struggles to get the computer up so they can get the door locked. This of course, merely delays the Raptors until the helpless humans can escape into another Raptor attack. Then out of nowhere, T-Rex conveniently barges in, kills the Raptors and allows the humans to escape? Why? Why then? Was T-Rex just waiting in the wings for his cue?

Let’s describe one possible ending that would’ve tied in Chaos, Dr. Grant’s personal problem of Order in the Subjective storyline, his growth as a character and eventual change, AND have all this force a successful outcome in the Objective storyline.

Imagine that earlier in the story, when the power went down it only affected some of the electric fences, not all. So only some of the areas were open to the roving dinos. Rather than having Elissa get the power back on for the fences, she merely powers up the computer system, but even with power to the computer restored no one can boot it up.

Dr. Grant and the kids make it back to the control room, barely escaping the T-Rex who is trapped by one of the functional electric fences. They climb over the fence on a tree knocked down by the Tyrannosaurus. The Raptors are at the door of the control room, the girl goes to the computer to lock the door. She locks it, then tells Grant she can bring up the rest of the fences. There might be some kind of visual reminder in the room (such as a dino picture) that Grant (and the audience) associate with his major learning experience with the kids about the need to accept Chaos. Grant almost allows her to bring up the power, then yells for her to stop. He tells her not to bring it up, but to actually cut the power on all of the fences, as he truly come to believe that Chaos will somehow help them.

The girl pauses for a beat, unsure if she should follow his instructions. Then, based on her learning experience which established her trust in Grant, she puts aside her personal assessment and brings all the fences down. By opening all the compounds, all the dinosaurs are released, allowing Chaos to rule the day while the dinosaurs rule the Earth.

Why would Grant do this? His argument for Order was based on logic. Over the course of the story, he was presented another argument that affected his feelings. So, when the moment of truth arrives, he must choose between what his head and his heart are telling him. His intellect makes a very definitive case that bringing the fences up will re-establish Order. But his gut instincts now insist that is the last thing they should do. By letting Chaos reign, says his instinct, somehow things will work out. He doesn’t have any clue HOW they will work out, just a strong feeling that bringing down the fences is what he must do if they are to survive.

Now, how do we convey all Grant’s considerations to the audience so that it will understand all of this? Simple! First we see briefly see the computer display showing the power going off around the various compounds, including that of our old friend, T-Rex. Just as before, the Raptors break in, the humans escape onto the dino skeletons. NOW, when T-Rex charged in to save the day, it is solely because of Dr. Grant’s decision to cut the power to the fence that was holding him in. Indeed, Grant’s invitation to Chaos has saved them.

Having learned his lesson about the benefits of Chaos and the folly of Order, Grant is a changed man. The author’s proof of this being the correct decision is the group’s salvation, courtesy of T-Rex.

Equilibrium is established on the island, Grant suddenly loves kids, he gets the girl, they escape with their lives, and all because the crucial element of Order connected both the Objective and Subjective storylines.

Certainly, Dramatica has many more suggestions for Building a Better Dinosaur, but, leapin’ lizards, that’s enough for an introduction to the theory!