Tybout: Dinosaur classic doesn’t need technology to stand out

One of my favorite films of all time is Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park”. It’s not… One of my favorite films of all time is Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park”. It’s not quite a masterpiece — it’s not memorably acted, and there are no jaw-dropping twists in the plot. It’s just one of my favorites and will continue to be so until the end of time. And it has nothing to do with technology.

When “Jurassic Park” came out, people were awed by the swaying, gnashing, beautifully rendered dinosaurs — products of a burgeoning technology called computer-generated imagery. But nearly 17 years after its release, “Jurassic Park” remains a beloved blockbuster — despite the fact that the CGI is no longer impressive, or even convincing. That’s because Spielberg was wise — he made “Jurassic Park” more endearing than its special effects.

“Jurassic Park” is still a beloved film not because you are tricked into believing you’re there on the island with Dr. Grant. Rather, it’s beloved because it’s an earnest adventure story with relatable characters. No one thinks it’s real, of course — viewers just think it’s a fun ride.

Unfortunately, the virtue of a knowing suspension of disbelief was largely lost in the past decade. The blockbusters of today seek, impossibly, to force us into their worlds, whether through faux-documentary gimmicks (“Cloverfield”) or 3D (“Avatar”). Their aim is to make movies not as artistically compelling as possible, not as truthful as possible but as “real” as possible.

Now there’s something to be said for making films seem real, whether through spot-on dialogue or a few relatable characters. But that’s not what the current crop of blockbusters seeks to accomplish. Rather, the objective is immersion in the most literal sense, and it’s built upon a fallacy. As studios can trick our eyes into believing the characters are popping out of the screen, they think we’ll somehow perceive them as more authentic — even if they’re tossing off cheeseball lines of dialogue you’d never hear a real human say.

Maybe I just can’t see the potential of this new technology. So let’s imagine, for a moment, that it’s 2020. Chancellor Mark Nordenberg is now the President of the United States. Dippin’ Dots ice cream is ubiquitous, and in-your-face special effects have reached their zenith. Now, characters not only “pop” out of the screen, they wander amongst the aisles of the theatre, bantering and waging epic battles.

The only problem with this futuristic scenario is that the screenwriting hasn’t improved. So even when a character appears to be standing right next to you, he’ll still be delivering the same canned lines you’ve been hearing since you were allowed to watch PG-13 movies. With each “You killed my family,” or “That was some stunt you pulled back there,” the veteran audience is reminded that the character is simply an illusion. The initial thrill of new technology dissolves into incredulity.

This isn’t to say that movies can’t employ cutting-edge technology and still have a good story — look at “Lord of the Rings,” for instance — or that directors should halt progress in special effects. The fact is that the focus of movies’ plots should remain on storytelling, because that’s where the human connection — the sensation of reality — really lies.

The first time I saw “Jurassic Park” was in 2002, when I was 12 years old. Movies like “Spider-Man” and “Star Wars: Episode II” were ushering in a new era of technological wonder. Living in such an extraordinary age, I should have dismissed “Jurassic Park” as cinematically archaic. But I didn’t. It wasn’t the dinosaurs that inspired me, it was the thought of journeying through an island of prehistoric monsters.

Movie technology, unlike storytelling, continues to improve at a linear rate. But it’s the storytelling, not the special effects, that’ll keep people coming back.