House of Eratosthenes

In my view, there’s a delicate formula at work. Indiana Jones is undeniably the central character, but simply defining him as a hero capable of achieving the goal is insufficient for completing the task at hand. The star of the first movie, really, was the Ark of the Covenant. Dr. Jones was just one among a multitude of protagonists who were trying to find it — the titular “raiders.” If he were viewed through the same lens through which we saw him since, it would have ruined the movie.

A fascinating hero has to be a careful balance between the competent and the mundane, between what’s simplistic and what’s deep and mysterious. To remanufacture such a hero into a deity is a huge mistake.

Here’s a great example of what I mean. I noticed Dr. Jones’ fellow noted fictional archeologist Lara Croft’s biography was re-done (and possibly, although for now this is a matter of perspective, rebooted/re-imagined) with her own last installment…

Lady Lara Croft has already eclipsed her father’s career; as of this writing she is credited with the discovery of some fifteen archeological sites of international significance. These sites are still yielding new and exciting insights to the past on an ongoing basis. No one can deny Lady Croft’s incredible contribution to the field of archeology, however she is not without her detractors.

Lara’s methods have been frequently called into question by government officials and other practicing archeologists. She has been described variously as anything from cavalier to downright irresponsible. Some scholars have suggested that her notorious lack of documentation and brute force methodology have contaminated countless sites and done more harm than good. There have even been (unsubstantiated) allegations that Lara actually takes items from these sites before informing the international community of their locations, and that she is nothing more than a glorified treasure hunter.
:
Nevertheless if you even make a cursory search on the Internet for the Unexplained, the Mysterious and the Downright Unbelievable, time and again you will find Lara Croft’s name appearing. She appears to be a hero to conspiracy theorists and alternate history aficionados alike.

It seems the further you dig into Lady Croft’s life, the more bewildering and mysterious she becomes. Perhaps like the archeological sites she discovers, we have only scratched the surface of this incredible woman and the complex and inscrutable secrets buried deep within her.

And then Lara/Indiana was responsible for the moon being properly hung, forming the Grand Canyon, traveling back to the time of the ancient pyramids and defeating the dread evil robot Kubla Kahn.

An Indiana Jones franchise that seeks renewed and eternal life, needs to steer clear of this kind of nonsense. His character changed movie history in the first place by being just some more-or-less ordinary guy. A guy who had cat-like reflexes and was good with a bullwhip, true. But as the first movie ground onward and through the famous truck chase, what really fascinated us with him was his ingenuity, resourcefulness, determination — lack of superpowers — stuff we all have.

And throughout that particular adventure, Marion did some stuff…Sallah did some stuff…even Brody and Musgrove and Eaton did some stuff…without those contributions, the Nazis would have gotten the Ark. If the fourth installment is going to be an endless process of scary things happening, followed by all heads swinging toward the godlike Indy as everybody wonders “what’s he gonna do about that?”, then I predict a movie that’s going to suck.

This is why the second installment was so bad. Of course not everybody agrees with that…

The film won an Academy Award for Visual Effects. Indeed, both Lucas and Spielberg have stated that Temple of Doom was focused on effects to a higher degree than either Raiders of the Lost Ark or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It has a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

But the fact remains, it’s a bore. I own it. Among the movies I’d want to watch again, it’s pretty close to the bottom of the stack…because, wonderful special effects aside, it’s boring. Half the footage is of Kate Capshaw being a loud screaming whining weenie, probably because…

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas aimed to make the sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark much darker, due to their personal moods following their break-up and divorce respectively.

Nothing like misogyny to add depth to things.

As far as the third one, it was somewhat better but this is mostly because of Mr. Connery’s amazing talents. Also, the effort to “flesh out” the character a little bit more, make him more like a real person, was mostly a success. But it was flawed, a victim of the Dark Ages between the late 1980’s and mid 1990’s when masculine heroism was thought to be passé.

In that time, it was a rule, or might as well have been one. If a straight white six-foot-tall male saves the day, there has to be something wrong with him.

And so Indiana Jones had some daddy issues.

And I doubt the filmmakers will ever admit it, but this made it so difficult to continue the series afterward that it was singularly responsible for the gaping chasm of time between the third installment and now. Why — I drove a brand-new Toyota right into the ground in that length of time. Yes, I did. Bought ‘er brand new after the third movie was already out, and she just expired four months before the fourth movie is released. And that, friends, when you’re talking a Toyota, is a stretch of time if ever there was one.

So that’s what worries me. When we last saw Indiana Jones (the Chronicles being an exception to this), he was a flawed, weak man and there’s going to be this impulse to show us how virile and godlike he is. To define the character just a little bit more…yet again…for the benefit of a new generation that has never before experienced the thrill of a brand new Indy movie hitting the screen. It’s understandable, but that balance is now at risk. The balance between defining the hero, and defining the artifact, story, bad guys, relationships among bad guys, romantic tensions…all that stuff that makes a genuinely good movie.

The bar is high. Steven Spielberg has often left the impression that his most amazing successes are accidents. The first Raiders movie is such a perfect blend of so many things, with the timing just right dead-on. It speeds up when you’re in the mood, slows down when you’re in the mood…never gets boring…but the important thing is that you see potential in yourself when you watch a movie like that. He is like you…and so is she. We are all “raiders.”

Without that, a critical ingredient is missing from the formula, and the magic isn’t coming back.

But as I said, I have high hopes. I’m confident, at this point, that everything stated above is mowing over old grass that’s already been whittled down with the frenzied efforts involved in making the new installment. And we’ll be there on May 22nd with bells on, doing the Mervyn’s open-open-open thing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On the Crystal SkullSaturday, February 16th, 2008

On the Crystal Skull
Saturday, February 16th, 2008