The portrayal of John Hammond, the visionary behind Jurassic Park, takes a significantly different path when comparing Michael Crichton’s original novel to Steven Spielberg’s cinematic adaptation. While both versions share the foundational concept of a man driven to create a dinosaur theme park, their underlying motivations and characterizations diverge considerably, shaping how audiences perceive Hammond’s role and the narrative’s themes.
In the Jurassic Park movie, John Hammond is presented as a wealthy, somewhat whimsical eccentric with a deep fascination for biological preserves. His dream for Jurassic Park appears rooted in a desire to create the ultimate wildlife experience, a grand biological spectacle for the world to marvel at. This movie depiction emphasizes his almost childlike enthusiasm and perhaps a degree of naivete regarding the immense power and unpredictability of genetic engineering and prehistoric life. The film suggests Hammond’s background lies in managing or funding natural biological preserves, with Jurassic Park being the ambitious culmination of this passion.
Conversely, the John Hammond of the Jurassic Park book is a starkly contrasting figure. Crichton paints him as a ruthless businessman, primarily motivated by profit and control. His foray into cloning and genetics is less about scientific wonder and more about exploiting cutting-edge technology for financial gain. A particularly telling example of book Hammond’s character is his infamous “tiny elephant” demonstration. To woo investors, he would showcase a miniature elephant, a marvel of genetic manipulation, conveniently overlooking the ethical concerns, the animal’s poor health, and the deceptive exaggeration of the technology’s stability and reliability. This anecdote underscores book Hammond’s manipulative nature and his willingness to prioritize business interests above all else.
Interestingly, the movie subtly nods to a shared backstory element, particularly concerning Robert Muldoon, the park’s game warden. The reference to a Kenyan biological preserve in the film provides a plausible origin for Muldoon’s expertise in handling dangerous animals. It’s implied that Muldoon honed his skills managing potentially hazardous, albeit natural, African wildlife attractions, a background that Hammond recognized and sought to leverage for the unprecedented challenges of controlling dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. In the book, Muldoon’s Nairobi origins are mentioned, but his hiring is attributed more to his reputation as a wildlife consultant than a pre-existing working relationship with Hammond, further highlighting the different approaches to character development between the two mediums.
In conclusion, while both book and movie versions of John Hammond are central to the Jurassic Park narrative, their characterizations diverge significantly. The movie offers a more sympathetic, albeit flawed, dreamer, while the book presents a far more morally ambiguous and commercially driven figure. This contrast profoundly impacts the audience’s understanding of Hammond’s motives and the broader cautionary tale of Jurassic Park.
