Jurassic World is everything you thought it would be - unabashedly predictable and incredibly corny. Yet there’s something about it that intrigues - but what exactly is it?
For a film centering around the evils of a capitalistic mindset, one somehow gets a sense of irony from the over-dramatized actions of the characters. Through their hyperbolized actions - the one-liners, the predictable outcome of the characters and the rampant mutant monster that terrorizes the island - we get a sense that the film is not really trying to be serious; it is trying to entertain. It is trying to get the audience to get enjoyment out of what they’re seeing - and to make money at the box office. And there lies the irony - a film about the evils of capitalism is simultaneously using that same system to its advantage. And isn’t that what the entertainment industry has become about anyway? Making money? That’s what I found so interesting about this film - there is absolutely no artistic value in it; it is merely a reproduction of a Spielberg film - Jurassic Park (1993) - that, even when that was released, was meant to be a blockbuster sensation and not any kind of artistic accomplishment. So then, Jurassic World becomes not even an attempt to make a successful film, but instead to feed on the success of a previous blockbuster and rake in more money based on the original idea. There is absolutely nothing original in Jurassic World, and it astonishing that the film was even conceived.
But while I believe everything above to be true, the ironic connotation of the film adds an almost laughable quality to it - everything - from *SPOILER ALERT* Chris Pratt and his dinosaur friend having a moment, only for the dinosaur to be blown to bits by a bomb out of the blue; to Jake Johnson attempting to make a romantic gesture by finally getting up the courage to ask his mousy co-worker out, only to be denied when she says she has a boyfriend - is done in such a way that highlights the hilarity of such an ironic - almost sarcastic, if you want to be so bold - film. You might go so far as to say that the film is making fun of our viewing of it - and in that way, it becomes reflexive; it recognizes its own absurdity, and uses that to its advantage - because it knows that there’s no way in hell they’re going to be able to make a truly good film out of the material.
I could go on to talk about how the mutant dinosaur is a metaphor for the destruction that can result from capitalism, or even call attention to the film’s obvious use of both the male and female gaze (I mean, have you seen Chris Pratt in this movie?). But I shan’t, because those observations are so completely obvious and aid in the ironic undertones I’ve mentioned above, and to go into depth with them is to spend too much time analyzing a film that doesn’t really deserve to be analyzed.
For a film centering around the evils of a capitalistic mindset, one somehow gets a sense of irony from the over-dramatized actions of the characters. Through their hyperbolized actions - the one-liners, the predictable outcome of the characters and the rampant mutant monster that terrorizes the island - we get a sense that the film is not really trying to be serious; it is trying to entertain. It is trying to get the audience to get enjoyment out of what they’re seeing - and to make money at the box office. And there lies the irony - a film about the evils of capitalism is simultaneously using that same system to its advantage. And isn’t that what the entertainment industry has become about anyway? Making money? That’s what I found so interesting about this film - there is absolutely no artistic value in it; it is merely a reproduction of a Spielberg film - Jurassic Park (1993) - that, even when that was released, was meant to be a blockbuster sensation and not any kind of artistic accomplishment. So then, Jurassic World becomes not even an attempt to make a successful film, but instead to feed on the success of a previous blockbuster and rake in more money based on the original idea. There is absolutely nothing original in Jurassic World, and it astonishing that the film was even conceived.
But while I believe everything above to be true, the ironic connotation of the film adds an almost laughable quality to it - everything - from *SPOILER ALERT* Chris Pratt and his dinosaur friend having a moment, only for the dinosaur to be blown to bits by a bomb out of the blue; to Jake Johnson attempting to make a romantic gesture by finally getting up the courage to ask his mousy co-worker out, only to be denied when she says she has a boyfriend - is done in such a way that highlights the hilarity of such an ironic - almost sarcastic, if you want to be so bold - film. You might go so far as to say that the film is making fun of our viewing of it - and in that way, it becomes reflexive; it recognizes its own absurdity, and uses that to its advantage - because it knows that there’s no way in hell they’re going to be able to make a truly good film out of the material.
I could go on to talk about how the mutant dinosaur is a metaphor for the destruction that can result from capitalism, or even call attention to the film’s obvious use of both the male and female gaze (I mean, have you seen Chris Pratt in this movie?). But I shan’t, because those observations are so completely obvious and aid in the ironic undertones I’ve mentioned above, and to go into depth with them is to spend too much time analyzing a film that doesn’t really deserve to be analyzed.