The Good
Indiana Jones himself is also a compelling screen presence. I have some issues with his character, but, be it a combination of his “everyman adventurer” feel and Harrison Ford’s charisma, Indy screams “I want to be with this character”. Similarly, I like how he bounces off of Marion in the first movie, Willie and Short Round in the second, his father and Dr. Schneider in the third and Mutt and Marion in the fourth. There are strong dynamics when the characters are together on-screen, warts and all.
I like the fight choreography in these movies, even in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A lot of them were done practically with real stunts, and it shows in the passion they ooze. Whether it’s Indy in the truck in the first movie, or even Indy in the jungle in the fourth, there’s no denying the appeal of these fights in an industry now dominated by special effects.
I also like some of the jokes. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, there’s the infamous moment where Indy shoots the swordsman and calls it a day. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indy’s father mentions that Dr. Schneider talks in her sleep. These are human moments that make for pleasant laughs. Not every joke lands, admittedly, but when they do...
I really like the scores. It’s John Williams, so you know it’ll be good, but he definitely shows his range here. Even The Raiders March, which I consider one of his weakest themes, is catchy and hummable. I should know, I’ve hummed it before!
Finally, these movies are fun! They’re not “deep”, but they don’t have to be. They’re the epitome of “popcorn fluff”, complete with moments where I can see people getting excited. It’s good stuff, and Spielberg and Lucas know how to pull it off. And I mean that as a compliment.
I don’t consider these movies timeless, and that’s because of following:
For one, the films have little to say. The closest they get to profound is in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, as that movie touches on child slavery and wealth disparity. But even then it has…other concerns I’ll cover later. For now, the first movie is the shallowest thematically, while the third and fourth deal with family dynamics.
Moving to more substantive complaints, some of the jokes don’t work now. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, there’s a scene where one of Indy’s students keeps closing her eyes to reveal the words “love you” on her eyelids. It’s distracting. Conversely, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a gag about Willie being horny that doesn’t work. Some of these jokes not working are personal preference, but still.
Speaking of falling flat, I don’t really buy the depth of Indy’s female companions. Marion’s routinely cited as being the best, but a lot of that seems like it’s strictly because of the fourth movie. Initially, she feels like a milquetoast deadweight, getting little to do outside of drink alcohol and bicker with Indy. She’s actually barefoot more frequently than she is helpful. I know that’s weird to point out, but re-watch the movie to understand why.
Dr. Schneider’s a bit better, but not much. She gets more to do than Marion, but after her villainous reveal she flip-flops between having a conscience and being evil. She does it so often that it gives me tonal whiplash. Not to mention, her “romance” with Indy is forced.
The Meh
For one, the films have little to say. The closest they get to profound is in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, as that movie touches on child slavery and wealth disparity. But even then it has…other concerns I’ll cover later. For now, the first movie is the shallowest thematically, while the third and fourth deal with family dynamics.
Moving to more substantive complaints, some of the jokes don’t work now. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, there’s a scene where one of Indy’s students keeps closing her eyes to reveal the words “love you” on her eyelids. It’s distracting. Conversely, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a gag about Willie being horny that doesn’t work. Some of these jokes not working are personal preference, but still.
Speaking of falling flat, I don’t really buy the depth of Indy’s female companions. Marion’s routinely cited as being the best, but a lot of that seems like it’s strictly because of the fourth movie. Initially, she feels like a milquetoast deadweight, getting little to do outside of drink alcohol and bicker with Indy. She’s actually barefoot more frequently than she is helpful. I know that’s weird to point out, but re-watch the movie to understand why.
Dr. Schneider’s a bit better, but not much. She gets more to do than Marion, but after her villainous reveal she flip-flops between having a conscience and being evil. She does it so often that it gives me tonal whiplash. Not to mention, her “romance” with Indy is forced.
Then there’s Irina Spalko. She’s boring. I know people like her for her sword fighting, but what else does she have to offer? I know next-to-nothing about her personality. And she dies in an over-the-top manner at the end. Like every overkill death in these movies, it’s excessive.
These movies defy reality and logic frequently. We’re expected to suspend our disbelief because “movies”, but it strikes me how Indy hiding in a lead-lined fridge to escape a nuke is “jumping the shark” when Indy had already fallen in an inflatable raft from a crashing plane, with no parachute, and survived. You want to talk unbelievable? Start there.
The movies also have a tendency to drag. This is especially the case with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The opening of the movie, which has little to do with the film proper outside of Indy’s relationship with his father, could’ve been shortened and still made its point. Conversely, Indy getting his diary signed by Adolf Hitler, while funny, could’ve been cut altogether. That’s not to say the exposition in the other movies wasn’t sluggish, but here the pacing problems are most-apparent.
I’ll state the obvious now: these movies, particularly the first three, are laden with characterizations that’d never fly now. In Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indy’s an aggressive alpha-male who coerces women into kissing him. This wouldn’t fly now with Me Too retroactively dating these movies’ romances. And let’s not forget Lucas and Spielberg’s conversation about Indy’s relationship with Marion…
Speaking of dated, the original films are racist and sexist. This is especially true of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for three reasons. The first is Willie. I left her out of my companion complaints because she deserves her own criticism. It’s not that she’s a fish out of water, or that she screams a lot. Marion was a fish out of water and screamed a lot too. Willie’s problem is that she’s also written like a dumb blonde/valley girl, constantly whining about everything. Her writing’s so bad that she drags down the film’s quality whenever she’s there.
These movies defy reality and logic frequently. We’re expected to suspend our disbelief because “movies”, but it strikes me how Indy hiding in a lead-lined fridge to escape a nuke is “jumping the shark” when Indy had already fallen in an inflatable raft from a crashing plane, with no parachute, and survived. You want to talk unbelievable? Start there.
The movies also have a tendency to drag. This is especially the case with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The opening of the movie, which has little to do with the film proper outside of Indy’s relationship with his father, could’ve been shortened and still made its point. Conversely, Indy getting his diary signed by Adolf Hitler, while funny, could’ve been cut altogether. That’s not to say the exposition in the other movies wasn’t sluggish, but here the pacing problems are most-apparent.
The Bad
Speaking of dated, the original films are racist and sexist. This is especially true of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for three reasons. The first is Willie. I left her out of my companion complaints because she deserves her own criticism. It’s not that she’s a fish out of water, or that she screams a lot. Marion was a fish out of water and screamed a lot too. Willie’s problem is that she’s also written like a dumb blonde/valley girl, constantly whining about everything. Her writing’s so bad that she drags down the film’s quality whenever she’s there.
The second issue, spring-boarding from there, is Short Round. He’s cute, but he’s the epitome of a Chinese stereotype. And I mean that in an “I take you money and girls” way. Nothing he says is funny, even when it’s supposed to be, and that’s all because of his racist accent. Like Willie, he drags down the movie when he’s on-screen. But whereas Willie had tangibility, Short Round has none.
The third, and most-egregious, issue is the film’s portrayal of India, where most of it takes place. More-specifically, the material involving the palace. There’s a scene where Indy and company are fed snake skins containing live eels, roasted scarabs, eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains. Ignoring how much of India’s vegetarian, this is more off-putting than charming. When coupled with the antagonist’s rituals and the White Saviour narrative, it actively ruins the film’s “eat the rich” message.
I also find some of these films’ deaths excessive. The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis’ faces melt and explode? I know they’re Nazis, but yikes! Walter Donovan’s death in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? See above. Mola Ram ripping a guy’s heart out and watching it burn in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Are we sure about this? Perhaps I’m being stingy, but this is more unsettling than cool.
Finally, the Euro-colonial nature of these movies feels gross in hindsight. Think about it: Indiana Jones steals artifacts from developing countries and ships them to The US for safekeeping. He also skirts human rights laws in the process. And he never faces any lasting repercussions. He’s even painted in a positive light at the end of each film by “choosing selflessness over selfishness”. Ignoring the White Saviour component, that’s troubling!
I feel bad for being critical of these films. I like them, even when they’re at their silliest! And I can see how they’ve attracted fans. But time hasn’t been so kind to them. And given that I have no nostalgic attachments, since I only recently watched them in their entirety, that’s a problem. A true classic transcends time, and these movies feel dated.
The third, and most-egregious, issue is the film’s portrayal of India, where most of it takes place. More-specifically, the material involving the palace. There’s a scene where Indy and company are fed snake skins containing live eels, roasted scarabs, eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains. Ignoring how much of India’s vegetarian, this is more off-putting than charming. When coupled with the antagonist’s rituals and the White Saviour narrative, it actively ruins the film’s “eat the rich” message.
I also find some of these films’ deaths excessive. The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis’ faces melt and explode? I know they’re Nazis, but yikes! Walter Donovan’s death in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? See above. Mola Ram ripping a guy’s heart out and watching it burn in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Are we sure about this? Perhaps I’m being stingy, but this is more unsettling than cool.
Finally, the Euro-colonial nature of these movies feels gross in hindsight. Think about it: Indiana Jones steals artifacts from developing countries and ships them to The US for safekeeping. He also skirts human rights laws in the process. And he never faces any lasting repercussions. He’s even painted in a positive light at the end of each film by “choosing selflessness over selfishness”. Ignoring the White Saviour component, that’s troubling!
Overall Thoughts
I feel bad for being critical of these films. I like them, even when they’re at their silliest! And I can see how they’ve attracted fans. But time hasn’t been so kind to them. And given that I have no nostalgic attachments, since I only recently watched them in their entirety, that’s a problem. A true classic transcends time, and these movies feel dated.
Perhaps my standards aren’t the same as someone from the 80’s and 2000’s. Perhaps I’m a cynical coot who can’t enjoy himself. But I’ve liked many films likes these in the past, like Castle in the Sky, so maybe it’s not that? Maybe, ignoring the occasionally flat and hammy acting, there’s something about Indiana Jones that feels like he can’t work as well now? I don’t know.
I digress. Are these great movies? No. Are they fun? Yes. Do I appreciate what they did for cinema? Also yes. I simply think better knockoffs exist, like Castle in the Sky. And I prefer re-watching said knockoffs. Make of that what you will.
I digress. Are these great movies? No. Are they fun? Yes. Do I appreciate what they did for cinema? Also yes. I simply think better knockoffs exist, like Castle in the Sky. And I prefer re-watching said knockoffs. Make of that what you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment