Film discussed in Teacher Fei Dou's developmental biology class in March.
Interestingly, there are two types of scientists portrayed in the film. On the one hand are Grant and Dr. Settler. At the beginning of the movie, they are full of charm about the fossils in the Gobi; the other is the scientists in Jurassic Park represented by Dr. Wu. The tip wanders, tall and ambitious. By contrast, Grant and Dr. Settler are less knowledgeable and cautious than old-school or even trendy, and Jurassic Park sharpens their differences. Grant and Dr. Setler couldn't hide their excitement when they saw the dinosaurs with their own eyes, but they didn't dispel their hesitation. Sure enough, the development of things slowly got out of control. In fact, this difference is not in science itself. If people can restrain their greed and solve specific scientific problems, the pursuit of truth and the benefit of mankind would not be so contradictory. The little girl's last sentence "This is a Linux system, I will use it" dilutes this tension. In this age of elementary school students learning programming collectively, it really makes people laugh.
From a biological point of view, DNA is extracted from mosquito blood in amber, and then frog DNA is used to complete the genome... The sci-fi concept of this movie may be worth scrutinizing today, but outside of science, the theme of "human" Still heart-pounding. Dr. Grant is calm and determined, using his knowledge to lead everyone out of life; in danger, the courage and kindness of the brothers and sisters shine with humanity... These are timeless motifs, and I want to talk about them in particular Talk about the debate between Dr. Settler and Mr. Hammond. Who wouldn't be moved when Mr. Hammond passionately depicted his lifelong dream? How do the disputes between "doing" and "not doing" move from attachment to letting go? Of course, the movie reconciles everything with "love". How could a dinosaur expert not want to keep living dinosaurs around forever? Unless some love is deeper than dinosaur love. When everyone was about to leave by helicopter, Mr. Hammond turned around and got into the plane with an affectionate look, and it was gratifying that there was no blood to die with his island. The movie here affirms the possibility that people will compromise and understand each other because of love, and hope for the curse of mankind surpassing the Tower of Babel. It can be said that this is the greatest goodwill of "Jurassic Park".
My criticism of the film is at the end of the film. The scientist, the park owner, and the two children all survived, but the fate of the park employee (probably dead) was not revealed. It should be said that it is the director's right to let whoever die and whoever live, so isn't it inhumane to be sloppy with the employees' lives? Perhaps, this is due to the capital logic of that era, but under this logic, it is a little suspicious to talk about respect for nature and confidence in human "love"? I wrote these comments in my notebook back in March, and compared to what I've heard about the black movement in America today, I can't help but feel a little ironic about my comments.
All these, a sci-fi movie that imagines the other world, I am afraid it still has to return to the confidence or limitation here. Regarding the misplacement of the discussion of "The Wandering Earth", the problem is also here. I want to talk about the choices of all mankind when they are in despair. He talks about why the Chinese people are not confident. I want to talk about the current mental state of the Chinese people. He talks about the grandeur and magnificent imagination of the universe. ? If you are arrogant to the universe, you can only see human civilization as a straw for the soul; if you regard the belief in human civilization as a dog, you must at least be humble to the universe. If one is arrogant to both sides, and swallows the sun as well as the moon, that's fine; but this is not an invention of spiritual quest, just a tengu.
View more about Jurassic Park reviews
