Crichton novels lose quality, complexity in transition to film

The movie "Sphere" opened last week, and fans of the original Michael Crichton novel are probably lining up at theaters right now to buy tickets for the film. Or are they? The sharp decline in quality that occurs when Crichton's novels become movies may lead some readers to stay away.

Let's face the facts: Crichton is no Dostoevsky. He's pretty far from Mark Twain. He's not up there with Milton. On the other hand, he is quite a storyteller. He can write one heckuva page-turner. But with the release of "Jurassic Park," the movie, he found out that if you can write a popular page-turner, you can make a movie. And if you can make a movie, you can make money. And if you can make money, you can make a name for yourself. And after this stage, your name is priceless, and you don't

Courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes in star in "Rising Sun," another substandard adaptation of a Michael Crichton novel.

need to write "good material" anymore.

In the past five years, Michael Crichton has cashed in on his golden name. And while he's made bushels of green, nothing of real quality has come from the writer's desk - none of his writing, none of his movies, none of his television.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they haven't been popular. They've been a diamond mine of pop culture. But this instant popularity hasn't been due to any real originality, or any impressive ingenuity. It has occurred as a direct result of Crichton's golden name.

First, let's look back to the time when the Crichton name didn't necessarily mean immediate financial success. He began his career as a writer in medical school, and he wrote about a half dozen novels during this portion of his life.

Most were both critically and popularly mediocre, but one, "A Case of Need," won the Hudson Award for the best mystery of the year. It was a modest popular success, but nothing compared to the deluge which would come in years to follow.

Surprisingly, Crichton made the jump to film early in his career. Many think that "Jurassic Park" was the first of Crichton's books to make the move to film. But his 1970 novel, "The Andromeda Strain," was made into a delightfully tacky piece of '70s schtick. Most important, though, it retained a large number of Crichton's original plot elements, a feat that would not be repeated in his later works.

Throughout the '70s and '80s, Michael Crichton wrote a number of moderately successful science fiction pieces, among them "Congo," "The Terminal Man" and the aforementioned "Sphere," published in 1987.

In 1990, he wrote "Jurassic Park," the book that would launch his popular career. The novel moved up the best seller list, quickly reaching the top.

"Jurassic Park"'s popularity made Crichton's fans eager to see the dramatic, action-packed story told on film ... at least until the movie was released.

In the summer of 1993, the film version of the smash novel reached the screens. Directed by Steven Spielberg, "Jurassic Park" was an enormously profitable success. It revolutionized the special effects industry and truly was a visual spectacle. But lost in the whirlwind of computer-generated velociraptors was the sad fact that much of the novelty and imagination of the original story had been lost.

Attending medical school has given Michael Crichton an intensely scientific background. While much of his talent as a creator can be attributed to his ability to tell a good story, it must not be forgotten that he also contrives plots that are mingled with a good amount of analytical complexity.

In the film version of "Jurassic Park," much of this concise intricacy is lost. Crichton allowed his story to be convoluted and simplified, catering to a popular audience that has become accustomed to spoon-feeding at the movies.

The other major problem with the film version was the finale. This, too, had to be changed. But this time, alterations were made to appease the almighty dollar. In the book, the dinos were blasted to kingdom come! But producers know a moneymaker when they see it, and a nuclear explosion isn't exactly conducive to a sequel.

Crichton wrote "The Lost World," despite its predecessor's atomic ending. It laid the foundations for another effects-laden blockbuster movie, nearly as lucrative, and with even less cinematic value. Crichton wrote this novel solely for its monetary value - and it showed. The result was a book that was barely readable at best.

But "The Lost World" was not the only stunted offspring of the movie version of "Jurassic Park." It set the stage for the movie massacre of a number of other Crichton works.

"Congo" was originally a fascinating, semi-anthropological look at a fictional race of gorilla-like creatures. Hollywood turned it into a horrifically gory revival of "Gorillas in the Mist." And, to satisfy the public's need for big guns, the final scene features a flashy laser battle that was hilariously absent from the book.

Crichton's "Rising Sun" was an intriguingly compelling look at Japanese-American relations in an increasingly corporation-driven world. Hollywood transformed the novel into a sex-based cookie-cutter murder mystery. "Twister" was Crichton's highly publicized venture into screenwriting. It was another popular success, but was essentially plot-free.

These films have a number of elements in common. All were adapted from Crichton's novels, all were cinematically mediocre ... and all made millions at the box office. The secret of Crichton's success, simply put, is that people continue to see the films based on his novels, in what might be deemed a triumph of hope over experience. It's certainly a monetary triumph for Crichton. Readers can only hope that this trend will someday come to a halt - that Crichton will create a piece of work derived from his talent and his imagination, rather than from the need to fatten his already-burgeoning wallet.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. Dustin Hoffman dives to explore a mysterious object in "Sphere."

02-19-98