Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

The legend goes something like this: a young writer-turned-director is over at Universal Studios taking a tour of the facilities. He’s introduced to another young hotshot fresh off an assignment on Rod Serling’s Night Gallery TV show, who’s in the beginning stages of a TV movie of the week about a man being menaced by a 16-wheeler truck driven by an anonymous party set on destruction, but perhaps the truck is driven by no one at all. In some odd way, the seeds of the blockbuster book and movie Jurassic Park are planted on this occasion. The writer-turned-director, Michael Crichton, and the hotshot TV director, Steven Spielberg, will visit and revisit that theme of being pursued by something faceless, something foreign, and something that inexplicably wants to do harm without just provocation.

Sadly, that’s kind of how Crichton’s life has come to a close as well. He kept his fight with cancer out of the public conversation, but those who regularly stalk the local Barnes & Noble had to figure something was up the past year or so. Crichton was both studious and prolific, his stories steeped in detail and factual bits and pieces. It was that very trait that caused critics to scoff when Spielberg chose to adapt Jurassic Park (1990) for the big screen in 1993, as they couldn’t imagine how one would be able to adapt the author’s genetic ruminations into a plausible summer thriller. (Special effects wizard Stan Winston was instrumental in creating the physical, as opposed to digital, dinosaurs for the movie; he passed away in June due to complications from multiple myeloma, a cancer of the plasma.)

Crichton, for a time, could be counted on to write at least one book a year. His is a name that conjures up a genre in readers’ minds every time they hear it, just as the names King, Koontz, Grisham, and Clancy do. You may not know the actual story you’re going to get, but you know the stage it will likely be set upon. So the infrequency of his output in recent years seemed to be strange. Was it a semi-retirement? Was it a belief that he’d done whatever he wanted — including directing six feature films and creating the Thursday-night television staple ER, now in its 15th and final season — and the time had come to kick back? Now we know.

Among Crichton’s other achievements are the disaster film Twister (1996), which he cowrote with his fourth wife, actress Anne-Marie Martin (Sledge Hammer!); the sci-fi western Westworld (1973), his feature debut as a writer-director and the film that gave moviegoers the iconic image of Yul Brynner as a robot gunslinger with a detachable face; the 1969 novel The Andromeda Strain, which he wrote while still in medical school; and that previously mentioned shelf full of books, both fiction and nonfiction. While not so much an achievement as a fun fact, Crichton also wrote and directed the futuristic thriller Runaway (1984), starring Tom Selleck as a cop and Gene Simmons as a domestic terrorist with killer-robot technology. You can’t win ‘em all, but that was the great thing about Crichton — sure, you knew his primary forte was dabbling in various sciences as he created his art, but he also appreciated a bit of the absurd and wasn’t above including that in his work.

He’ll be missed on the best seller list, but it’s gratifying to know he left so much behind for others to enjoy. Michael Crichton was 66.

  • Crichton was never much of a stylist, and his late-life descent into right-wing crankitude (esp. STATE OF FEAR, a book-length screed of global-warming denialism masquerading as a novel) was disappointing - but I'm still fond of EATERS OF THE DEAD, a deeply strange, mock-scholarly, sideways retelling of BEOWULF. It's a fascinating stylistic departure, an ambitious European-style metafiction, utterly unlike anything else he ever wrote.
  • I'd be curious to know which parts of "The 13th Warrior," the film adaptation of "Eaters of the Dead," were directed by him and which parts were directed by John McTiernan, who was dismissed when Crichton and the studio didn't like what they saw in a rough cut. McTiernan got final credit as director, and the movie has a small cult following, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. So much of it is shot at night, in low light, that it's hard to tell what's going on.
  • I forget what the DGA definitions are, whether you have to have 40%, 60% or slightly higher to maintain your credit, but I'd suspect that any scenes where primary characters are unnecessarily hidden by shadow and such are Crichton. It's just a guess, but there might have been a moment between switching directors where the film was considered dead in the water, and cast members might have been released and unable to return.

    I'm wondering if, during this period, McTiernan was into his shenanigans with Anthony Pellicano.
  • McTiernan got in trouble with Pellicano a few years later while shooting his "Rollerball" remake. "Die Hard" is so good that it makes you wish McTiernan could've kept up that career momentum for longer than he did. After "Last Action Hero" bombed, he said he was afraid he wouldn't get hired to do anything outside the action genre again, and for the most part he was right.

    I didn't notice any actors' faces being hidden in "The 13th Warrior." I think the action scenes were intentionally shot in low light for stylistic effect, but it's just hard to tell what's going on, partly because the Viking characters are never defined that well as individuals, so you're not sure who's being attacked, who's chasing who, etc. The first time I tried to watch the movie was in 2003, on a subpar DVD player that made the TV screen look almost pitch-black in those action scenes. When I tried to watch the movie again in 2007, on a better DVD player, the screen wasn't pitch-black, but I was still confused by most of the film. McTiernan's action scenes, like Spielberg's, are generally easy to follow.
  • Frankly, I don't know that it matters; all the stuff that made EATERS OF THE DEAD an interesting read was unfilmable anyway. A film can really only show *what happens,* but the whole effect of the book depends on *how* the story is told. It's very much a literary exercise.

    Although I suspect Dunphy is right about the strategic murk covering stand-ins.
  • I was a big fan of Prey, his nanotechnology-run-amok book from a few years back. That would make for a fun, if expensive, movie.
  • Crichton was, as Wolfe might say, a man in full. He was a medical doctor, novelist, screenwriter, director, producer, an eternally curious and humorous man. He explored deserts, ancient temples, climbed mountains, dived into the depths. What a life he lived in a relatively short 66 years!

    Yesterday I picked up State of Fear at the library, and how strange it was to come home and hear the news on the radio that he had died. As a novel, State of Fear might leave something to be desired. But he surely was onto something, pointing out the chaotic and unpredictable nature of complex systems. The public simply does not know how much utter guesswork has gone into the proclaimation that CO2 is ruining the planet. He was brave to go against the flow and attempt to reveal the details that call into question our headlong rush to attempt to control something that is fundamentally uncontrollable.

    MC, I salute you!
blog comments powered by Disqus