This is the transcript of a talk given by Mike Hill, “Spielberg’s Subtext”, in which he explores the allegories of the movie “Jurassic Park”. All the video and content are by Mike Hill – this is only a transcript of his talk. Transcript Andres asked me to come and do a talk–and I decided the talk would be about Jurassic Park. Now the reason for that is I presume most of us have seen Jurassic Park, and also maybe Jurassic World. What I wanted to talk about is the difference between them. On the surface they are pretty much identical: they have the same cinematography, they have the same subject, they have the same material, they have the same pretty much everything. Every surface attribute has been lifted from Jurassic Park. But somehow, when I finished watching Jurassic World, I feel a big vague emptiness where there should be a feeling of positivity. And I wanted to actually look deep down the surface of Jurassic Park, and really get to grip why we like it. So for me a story is a lot like a bridge. If you spend an entire life looking at a bridge from the perspective of the road-side, and someone asks you to make a bridge, you might look at what’s here and say: “Well, it’s just a roadside, there is some paint, and there is handrails on the side, and that’s what a bridge is composed of.” But obviously, we’re all made of common-sense, so we know that from the perspective of anywhere but the road-side a bridge is made of foundations, supports–it’s an entire engineering project. And that’s the same with a story. It isn’t just composed of itself: it’s composed of lots and lots of foundations. And if you don’t have those foundations, then your bridge collapses, and your surface, regardless of these materials, looks broken, and no one can travel across it. In the case of Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, one story holds up for 25 years and we still love it. The other was released a year ago; does anyone even remembers what the characters names were? So, if we look at Juras