The Film Jurassic Park | Analysis

The Film Jurassic Park | Analysis Oscar nomination To: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The film Jurassic Park has a very captivating plot with a very controversial and strong theme of science versus ethics and is a very strong candidate for an Academy Award and could be nominated for the best film of the year. Jurassic Park is a very deep film, which touches on the morality of scientific discoveries and experiments. It has a really strong theme and message. Jurassic Park is a fantastic film, not just for its thrills and visual effects, but for a plot that is meaningful and entertaining. The main theme, Science versus ethics, is very polemic and not very discussed and touched by the media, making the film even more interesting and captivating. The film does not only entertain the audience but it also makes the viewers think and analyse the ethics behind such a science experiment and discovery. Furthermore the film does not only discuss its theme and makes you think, it also sends a message across successfully: the consequences of the desire of exerting control over nature. As a thriller Steven Spielberg successfully creates suspense making the viewer entertained and thrilled. To create the excruciating suspense required for the plot, Steven Spielberg has used more than just the plot itself but also used effects such as sound, different type of shots and angles, colours and light, which all contributed to build up the tension of the movie. Steven Spielberg has shown in earlier movies directed by him, such as Jaws that he is more than capable of creating suspense and tension in his movies, and with Jurassic Park he proved once again that when it comes to effects he is one step ahead of everyone. The dinosaur, just like the setting, is very realistic, full of details and information, making the movie real and interesting. Even more than a decade later the visual effects remain solidly effective. The sounds used in the film helped to create a suspenseful and adventurous mood across the entire film, making it exiting and not even for a second tedious. The use of light and colours in the movie helps to develop the suspense and mystery already created. In many scenes the light is placed behind the animal or person, creating a silhouette and that creates a mysterious mood, because you can see the person or animal but not clearly. The colours help to create a more realistic scenario, earthy colours such as browns and greens are used often during the film. They also help to expand the mystery of the film as the colours do not give away much information and create an unknown mood of suspense. More over when the director wants the viewer to focus on a specific thing or wants to direct your attention to something he uses bright colours. For example the cars become a focal point and stand out from the setting because of the use of bright colours. The colour of the cars contrasts with the field, making the cars more noticeable. Green is the main colour as it is related to nature. Very often the director uses red details in the scenes, symbo lizing danger, small things such as a scarf that the female main character wears in the beginning of the film or details in the car, creating a mood of danger to the viewers. Moreover, Steven Spielberg also uses different types of shots and camera angles to create the suspense in the film. The shot types and angles, differ from the effects, colours, lights and sounds isnt something that the viewers would pick up on from the first time they watch the movie. Only when one stops to analyse it, does the subconscious pick things up, and without us even noticing it the angles of the camera builds and direct the viewers mood. Steven Spielberg incorporates all types of shots and very successfully creates extremely suspenseful mood in the film. An example of a long shot is when they show the dinosaurs for the first time. The camera shows the setting from far, positioning the characters close to the dinosaur, accentuating and visually stating the size difference between them. The-close up shots and extreme close up shots are used to show details, such as details in the dinosaurs, like its eyes, legs (showing its movement and creating tension), its mouth (creating a fearful mood). The close up shots are also used to create dynamics, for example when the camera zooms in to the big foot print of the Tyrannosaur on the ground full of water and in the water the reflection of the head of one of the characters, again comparing the size of a human to the size of the dinosaur. The use of angles is added to the shots to help to create mood. In Jurassic Park for example, the low angle is often used when shooting a dinosaur. This angle helps to make the dinosaur appear bigger and consequently creating a fearful and scary mood. The eye level from the kids point of view is also used many times throughout the film, making the viewer feel smaller and vulnerable compared with the situation and the dinosaurs, creating a mood of fear and generating suspense. The over the shoulder shots are used to give the viewer the sensation of been present there and been part of the film, making the film even more captivating and entertaining. Steven Spielberg, just like in his previous movies, allows the unknown to build tension and mystery. The movie starts off with an attack, but the trick is, the viewer does not see what has made the, they just know its happening. That builds up tension and curiosity for the viewers. Later on in the film, just before the exposure of the dinosaurs, the main characters are in a car, the woman is wearing a red scarf, symbolizing danger. The guy has seen something and is looking very surprised- the woman hasnt seen it yet and neither have the viewers. The man gently turns the womans head so she can see what he is seeing. The camera focus on the surprised faces but does not reveal what they have seen to the viewer, this builds up tremendous curiosity for the viewers. Then finally, after building up mystery and curiosity, the camera reveal to the viewers what was the cause of the surprise. Another strong element of the film is its characters and the actors who portray them. The characters might not be profoundly deep but their personalities are fully realized thanks not only to the writing, but to the actors who portray them. Joining Goldblum are Sam ONeill as Dr. Alan Grant, Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler, and Richard Attenborough as park creator John Hammond. Even minor characters are populated with strong actors, including Samuel L. Jackson as a computer guru and Wayne Knight as the villain Newman. No film review or nomination could describe the creativity and effort put in Jurassic Park. The suspense and excitement of the film can only be seen by watching the film. Steven Spielberg successfully put all the elements that makes a good movie together effectively, and the result is a master piece. Steven Spielberg besides making the viewer question the films message of ethics and science also makes the viewer question: how did he do it ? He brought the dream to life and made the film unbelievably real and taking ordinary humans closer to an imaginary world were dinosaurs exist. Even though Jurassic Park isnt a kids movie, it evokes a childlike sense of wonder. However, besides the magical part of the movie linking the viewer with their childhood, Jurassic Park is a serious movie, with a strong message. So for me Jurassic park deserves to be the Movie of the year. Nanook of the north: An overview Nanook of the north: An overview The film â€Å"Nanook of the North† is described as one of the first ever documentaries ever made. The filming of this controversial early documentary took place from August 1920 until August 1921. I find this film highly informative, even though Robert J. Flaherty, the producer and director of this film, altered and staged some things that were quite different in reality, a subject that has brought this film some criticism. For example, Nanooks name was really Allakariallak and his â€Å"family† wasnt really his family. So in a way, they were all actors and actresses in their own right, performing their â€Å"lives during the hunt† in front of the camera. Other things that Flaherty decided to change is that he wanted to document this Inuit â€Å"family† as they were back in the older days. While Allakariallak really hunted with a gun, Flaherty persuaded him to hunt in the same methods used by his ancestors so the viewers of this documentary would witness the lives of the Inuit in the Artic before they were influenced by the Europeans.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But it was making those criticized changes that made this film so much more informational in a certain sense. Europeans were already pretty familiar with how their society lived, because, well, they were living it. But by making the Inuit individuals in this film portray how they used to live makes the viewers experience a culture as it once was. This film includes demonstrating a variety of the Inuit ways, such as accurately displaying the ancestral customs of how they hunt, fish, and build igloos, while showing how an Inuit family survived their constant battles with nature without the aid of European instruments.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This film, although entertaining and informational as most modern documentaries, makes me ponder and not completely sure of my decision on whether I should consider this film as an official first documentary or not. I believe official documentaries are supposed to portray something in a certain time period given that time, along with explanations of whats happening or has happened and what not. In other words, I think it would have been more completely accurate if Robert J. Flaherty showed how Allakariallak lived for real, giving viewers the idea of an Inuit familys life after European influence, instead of how his recent ancestors lived. The reason why I think this would be that even though the limited technology that was available to him back then would not allow him to film things in a completely detailed and definite way (for example, the igloo had to be constructed in a special way so Flahertys camera could capture everything inside correctly), â€Å"Nanook of the North† was altered in far too many aspects to completely accurately show how the Inuit lived in the early twentieth century, if that was Flahertys goal. It was made in a way as to make it seems that Nanook (Allakariallak)s daily life was so much more harsh than it is in real life. In one of the scenes in the film, he is seen laughing at a phonograph and biting into a record as if the objects were strange and foreign to him, and that he had never seen them before. However, it became known later that not only had Allakariallak seen phonographs before, but he was a frequent visitor to a trading post, and owned a snowmobile. This information about his life raises much controversy over whether this be regarded as a true official documentary or not.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But on the other hand, as I explained above, this film being altered made it more of a documentary of how the Inuits ancestors used to live and survive in the Artic. It showed how they made their living off the land, hunting seals and walruses with a spear, rope, and other handmade hunting weapons. How they intelligently constructed igloos to sleep in during their hunts, and how amazing it was that so many people could fit into a seemingly tiny kayak. How during their struggles with the long hunt, their stomachs could no longer bear the waiting of nourishment, so they had to eat their fill raw. These, among many other things, did correctly show the more ancient ways of the Inuit, which is likely how the film obtained its success. It showed a different way to address their life, while not as much as a gentle walk in the park as a traditional typical European life, did not fail to show even without words that it was teamwork and the bond of the family that kept ever ything swinging in the right way, even in times where things would get more difficult than they would like.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As for my final opinion on whether â€Å"Nanook of the North† rightly fully earns the title as one of the first developed documentaries, I am still debating this. In a certain sense, as I explained above, it was both accurate about the life of the Inuit and inaccurate about their life at the same time. So I suppose this inspirational story in my opinion as of now, it seemed as if â€Å"Nanook of the North† was more of how a documentary should supposedly be, recording real life, but in a fictitious setting, or in a setting that wasnt true or present at that time. So Im not going to call this an official documentary, but neither am I going to say that its not either. Im going to refer to it as a â€Å"serious Mockumentary†.