I was dismayed to discover last week (online and through a face-to-face encounter) that various millennials (and even some who bracket that fragile sector) are in a hissy fit over "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom": not because of any particular, socio-political nugget that rubs the darlings the wrong way, but rather the surmised death of a CGI dinosaur.
The scene features a brachiosaurus (a savored symbol among "Jurassic" fans) left for apparent collapse on volcanic Isla Nublar, as our protagonists flee. The scene fades in a flash, and though woeful while it lasts, that’s pretty much it, or so one might presume.
Evidently, the sequence has proven so jarring that it's keeping some youths up at night, while others (per their passionate tweets) are contemplating therapy to cope with its recollection. Whoa!
I find this perplexing since as a boy, I watched plenty of movies (monster-based and otherwise) with death scenes far more emotive than the one referenced. For example, there's "Son of Kong", where the cute, titular simian sacrifices himself so that Carl Denham may live. And foreshadowing that, there's Kong Sr.’s heart-pounding drop from atop the Empire State Building.
I find this perplexing since as a boy, I watched plenty of movies (monster-based and otherwise) with death scenes far more emotive than the one referenced. For example, there's "Son of Kong", where the cute, titular simian sacrifices himself so that Carl Denham may live. And foreshadowing that, there's Kong Sr.’s heart-pounding drop from atop the Empire State Building.
The same, rich pathos punctuates the ferocious "Beast from 20,000 Fathoms". Remember the Rhedosaurus' death at Coney Island...the heartbreaking way it's consumed by flames? When I first saw the film, my empathy for the wayward Beast amplified at that point, even though I knew the ghastly thing had no regard for human life. It had even devoured a poor policeman in the movie's most famous scene.
How 'bout "Rodan'"s fiery climax? Though the film's mighty, flying reptiles (a dandy duo) destroyed Fukuoka City, it was hard not to pity them in the end. Still, their defeat didn't leave me distraught beyond reason, any more than the Beast's did.
While we’re at it, consider the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Prime characters die like flies in those films (the world even ended in one), but I (and most kids of the '60s/'70s) absorbed the portentous events without a trace of tearful regret or psychological impediment.
I'm especially dumbfounded, therefore, that a portion of "Fallen Kingdom'"s audience should desire the brachiosaurus’ smoky fall edited from the film. I’m not kidding. In fact, a trio of twenty-something gals, with quivering lips and crocodile tears, confirmed this to me the other day. (Incidentally, they didn’t seem to care that humans also perish in "Fallen Kingdom", though one did express immense offence to "Deadpool 2'"s human-casualty rate.)
I asked this unrepressed trio if they thought certain deaths in certain films should be removed for the sake of gentler viewing. They simply agreed that, depending on the situation, censorship can be a good thing. Am I surprised? Certainly not in this craven, censorious age.
If anything, these young ladies (along with the related reports of those of similar ilk) made me ever more appreciative of my ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Even in my "ingenuous" years, I realized that when someone, or some thing, dies in a film, it's the result of creative intent. This understanding prepared me in later years for Spock's passing in "Wrath of Khan" and Superman's in a much publicized, DC release, though I always knew that (somehow, someway) both icons would return. That's because in fantasy, variables can be altered. Resurrection is but a heartbeat away in make-believe.
Now, I must admit, a few fact-based, movie deaths have rattled me (if only due to their deft depictions), but even in those instances, I darn well took them as no more than re-enactments. I never stayed up all night wringing my hands because I witnessed Booth shoot Lincoln. Besides, it's no secret that a little time-traveling liberty or cloning expertise can bring any character (historical or feigned) back to life. That's the convenience of make-believe.
Now, I don't mean to be mean, so please don't cry, but I think it's unlikely "Fallen Kingdom'"s brachiosaurus will return for the next "Jurassic" submission. I also believe it's unlikely that the matured versions of Wolverine and Han Sol will resurface in their franchises. In the same vein, I doubt that all the Avengers who disintegrated by Thanos' hand will be reassembled for "Infinity War: Part II". Sure, it's nice to hope and even dispatch pleading petitions for such ambitions, but if any such dream should go unfulfilled, so friggin what? Deal with it. Learn from it. Discuss it. Don’t cry about it.
For the record, I do acknowledge sensitivity's necessity as part of the human condition, but it can also prove a terrible hindrance when dealt in excess. It leads to weakness, inactivity and therefore, a lack of focus on what’s important in life.
Whether one wants to accept it or not, reality is the foremost name of the
game. Its complexities are inescapable and required. If one can't handle the death of a fictional character, how the hell will one ever tackle real-life responsibilities? How will one face a loved one's death? How will one maintain a job...support a family?
And as for those dewdrops who fancy therapy as a means to cope with a pretend specimen's demise, here's a better option: Rent "Old Yeller", and after a few views and the growth of a spine, I bet you'll hold your head up high. Yeah, adulthood has that sort of effect.
