|
|
Written By Dharmesh
|
Indiana Jones, Steven Speilberg and George Lucas Speilberg, then and now There are two distinctions in Speilberg's career: The first one was in 1985 when he made The Color Purple - this film was his "rites of passage" into film-adulthood; it doesn't feel like a typical Speilberg film and is easily forgotten when we consider that it came on the back of Temple of Doom. After The Colour Purple, the director focused on an adaptation of J.G. Ballard's novel Empire of the Sun (1987) - it was the last time the maverick director fused the wonders of childhood against the backdrop of hardship - successfully. It's a pivotal film in his career - and another one that is often overlooked. The sense of wonder that Speilberg's name was built on had been kidnapped by dread: the break-up of a family, and surviving in a real world ravaged by the indecency of humanity. There are no spaceships. No close-friends to help you. It's the indomitable spirit that saves the protagonist [Jim] from the scars of war. Schindler's List (1993) was the 2nd distinctive film in his illustrious career, the one that turned him into an adult film-maker, one who was intent on exploring solely adult themes - the injustices and depravity of historical importance: Genocide, slavery and war itself. In my opinion, Schindler's List was his strongest work since E.T., which was his most optimistic about the joys of childhood. Schindler's List was, and still is, the most harrowing film of his career. It's directed with a lot of restraint. Although Speilberg attempted to fuse childhood and adulthood once more in Jurassic Park - ultimately the film was a pointless exercise featuring cardboard cut-out characters. Jeff Goldblum was the only actor to have developed his character, the only one who transcended the material. But it's all about the dinosaurs, so who cares about the characters? It's not very well directed by the usually well-oiled Speilberg, it lacks energy for some reason. As a recent example of Speilberg's attempt to fuse the early years of optimism and the latter years of pessimism, War of the Worlds's first hour is a tremendous insight into Speilberg today, the tone is pitch-perfect - I forgave him for not setting it in "Victorian times". The second half is Speilberg attempting to dig into yesteryear, and that's where the film falls apart. If that boy didn't make it, then the film might have redeemed itself, but the whole thing falls apart when the boy goes over yonder and the films spends too much time on a set-piece in Tim Robbin's farmhouse. I much prefer seeing intense films from Steven because that's clearly what he's interested in. He's no longer the "wunderkid" but a responsible adult with a large family to feed and nurture. That's okay, everyone changes over time, that's the nature of being a human, to grow and transcend imaginary boundaries. Steven's films, like most directors, tell us more about his state of mind at a particular moment in time than any interview. Superman tells me more about Dick Donner, in 1978, than anything he has profferred in an interview. E.T. tells me about Steven's memories - still fresh in his mind - of a broken family, his catharsis is up on the screen. So Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull seems an oddity in the director's current run of films, someone who is not emotionally involved. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom were directed at the right time, the latest one snuck out with its umbilical cord still intact. I want to see films that are close to Speilberg's heart now. I don't want to hear "I'm making this for you" because any film-maker who says this is not entirely intune with the material - he has to make it for himself.
I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark to be the only satisfying Indiana Jones film because of the subtle characterisation, the action, which always skirts on the right side of believability, and the McGuffin - The Ark, which still sends shivers up my spine. The character's introduction is probably my favourite in commercial cinema. In the first 10 minutes we know everything about him, but it doesn't stop there, and instead of focusing on the great action, I'll discuss a terrific character scene: when we meet Marion, we learn that they had a prior relationship - one which broke her heart -- because she responds emotionally "I was young" and Indy's hard retort "You knew what you were doing" suggests that Indy used her. This is also gives us some insight into his playboy image, one which is unveiled fully in Temple of Doom. The bar scene also sets up Marion's character arc: She has lost her femininity - because of the initial relationship with Indy - and over the course of the film she regains it. Whilst Indy is searching for the Ark, he's reconciling his relationship with Marion, and because of Indy's heroism, which rubs off on Marion, she sees him in a different light by the end - thus returning her to her feminine roots. She becomes young again. Indy and Marion were made for each other. Doomed story I absolutely adore the opening of Temple of Doom. The opening kamikaze sequence is incredibly well directed. What do we learn about Indy's character that we didn't see in the previous one? The playboy - it's an entertaining riff on James Bond. The introduction of Kate is colourful, but she doesn't have the depth and character trajectory of Marion. The entire sequence is about 15 minutes, but it's different in tone: the humour is cartoony. The film doesn't have the depth of Raiders, and considering that the writers are supposedly proficient in Hindu culture… it really doesn't show up in the writing that a writer of Kasdan's ability couldn't have gleaned from books. The thuggee cult was very real and makes for a good story, but it's not world-affecting. I like the fact that the village is dead because the children had been kidnapped rather than the stolen "Sankara Stones" giving the village providence, which is not interesting as the Ark because the powers don't suggest something that is larger than life. It definitely needed more thought. What saves the film is Steven Speilberg's terrific direction. It's got all of Speilberg's energy up on the screen. He makes up for the lack of story, making the film strangely watchable despite story problems and a lack of interesting character depth.
By the time Last Crusade came along, Speilberg was more interested in maturing the series, and the focus of the film was the relationship between the father and the son, but this time the son is much older. It's the most personal Indy, and Last Crusade works because of that relationship. There's a maturity about the proceedings, even in the way the film is scored, less of the high thrills; it's methodical and introspective. Last Crusade is an apology for Temple of Doom, the 1984
prequel is a film which Speilberg wants to dismiss altogether from his
CV, but on closer inspection, at least it's original. Some of the scenes
here, in Last Crusade, are exact replicas of Raiders. I
found Indy's character make-up loose in this film, for instance, we learn
that the young Indy has a different stance on archaeology than his father.
So when young Indy determinedly says "It belongs in a museum"
it's jarring, especially when you consider that in Temple of Doom
he's after "fortune and glory." The precocious boy should want
the cross for himself -- so when the film cuts to 1939 on the Portuguese
coast, Indy shouts "It belongs in a museum," we understand the
change in character in the intervening years. Bit more then he could chew I feared that KOTCS was going to be a disaster, unfortunately it was. My initial reaction was disbelief, Indy looked out of place in the '50s, his environment was the 1930s - everything that Lucas wanted him to be was born out of that era. Up close, Crystal Skull features interesting ideas frothing in the cauldron, it's just the plot and character motivations that are appallingly bad. There are a couple of themes that stick out: Another Time Reconciliation The notion that Indy is irrelevant is an interesting one, unfortunately, the execution is just plain daft. Indy takes a backseat in too many scenes, despite the theme of "not belonging," he's still got to make things happen. I was hoping for "experience counts" but Shia takes charge too often. I wanted Shia to be more reckless so every time they're in trouble - out of the frying pan and into the fire - Indy saves the day.
When Indy escapes the Russians in the warehouse, he swings for the vehicle
in front, but misses it and falls backwards, crashing into the cab. Speilberg doesn't seem to have the conviction that the audience would understand that he missed the vehicle because he is older so there must be dialogue to explain it. We know Indy is getting old. We get the joke when he misses. It's funny when it's "not explained in dialogue". It's all part of the plan In Raiders, the Ark is a huge concept: it is something man was not to disturb. We receive 3 warnings in the picture. If Hitler were to get his hands on it we'd all be eating Frankfurters. Indy must find it before the Nazis do. That's the plan. In Temple of Doom, the villain's plan doesn't seem to have a point. What happens if the world is in darkness? What are you going to do with the power. We know that the Nazi party would destroy the non-Aryan people. That's scary. What about Mola Ram's plan? In Last Crusade, again, if Hitler got his hands on the Holy Grail then he'd have everlasting life, or that's what we are led to believe, because if the Grail is moved outside the seal boundary, then it doesn't work - that's okay, because it's really about reconciling father and son. In Crystal Skull, this is what the Russians want: One could say that film is a play on commie paranoia which is quite funny and a good idea, but doesn't quite have the power to really engage me. The communism backdrop fades away, the whole plot about Indy being accused of working for the Soviets is irrelevant by the time Indy has escaped to South America. The dialogue above is spoken in the tent where Indy is being interrogated. It's exposition that's not entirely distributed in an interesting way because the Russians don't do anything that's "intimidating". The Crystal Skull is nowhere near in the same ballpark as the Ark. Everyone knows the Ark, everyone knows the Holy Grail. We don't know the Crystal Skull, so it becomes a mystery, and I think that's good, but it requires a lot of exposition, because we have no idea what it is. There are ways to make exposition part of the action, but not in this script. The café scene is boring because of the exposition, you are telling me too much, and Indy is back to being a sceptic. Shia should be the sceptic. Indy has seen it all - at least allude to that - be subtle when jabbing at Indy's age! In Raiders, Indy is determined to get the Ark. In Crystal Skull, Indy doesn't seem that interested in returning the skull - he's inactive. In Raiders, the Ark is talked about in the lecture hall, notice how dynamic that scene is as opposed to Indy's interrogation in Crystal Skull. Watch Indy's reactions - screenplays cater for actors, they need some idea of how to react and express what they are feeling. We are fed brief exposition about the situation - the Ark could level mountains - and by the end we see images of what the Ark could do if disturbed, and with the chilling music theme, you have a dynamic scene. We don't need anymore exposition, the rest is action peppered with warnings. I've read complaints that the film turns supernatural in the finale, well, it's all set-up in the lecture hall and other characters warn Indy, so it's not out of place. It's all played simple, and yet there's more depth in Raiders than Indy 4. Religion and Indy go together like "franks and beans", Indy and sci-fi? The jury is out on that one, but not to be dismissed entirely. It could have worked if it was written in the tone of Raiders and the ending reined in to the right side of believability. At the end of the film, no one seems that shocked by the flying saucer - doesn't it change everything we've been taught in school? But it's brushed off like lice on your shoulder. In the previous films, the artifacts were part of the religious vernacular, and I think that's the reason why the films were easy to sell and still resonate with audiences. Yesterday Once More Why does Speilberg keep reminding us about the Ark? Is he yearning for that success? Last Crusade and Crystal Skull gnaw off Raiders, from the return of Marion to the mention of the Ark. Although Steven says that Last Crusade is his favourite, in my opinion, and from the evidence, he clearly thinks that Raiders of the Lost Ark is his best work in the series. Most people do. Bringing Marion back was not a bad idea, I wanted to see the doll back, but there's something about their relationship in Raiders that just clicked. In Crystal Skull, Marion is pointless - she does nothing, and I didn't feel the relationship could become a marriage based on blunt characterisation.
I was interested in seeing Indy in the '50s, but after watching it, Indy definitely belongs in the '30s. The era captures Indy perfectly, a product of the environment. I think of that era has the glory days of archaeology. There's a mystery about the world that Indy lived in. I don't want to see Indy in another era; I don't want to see him aged. Seeing Indy ride into the sunset, in Last Crusade, to face new challenges -- the prospect of war and the world ahead should have been left to our imaginations. City of Gods I read Frank Darabant's script and, although I loved it, I don't think
it's as great as people make it out to be. It's got the requisite Indy
action that is quite spectacular, especially the biplane action which
has Indy leaping from plane to plane and the river rapids. The great thing
about it is that Indy is proactive in his quest. The commie paranoia is
played throughout the picture and is a significant plot point. I quite
enjoyed the double-crossing and spying accusations because that plays
into the theme - red paranoia. It doesn't make much sense in Koepp's version,
though. Also, Indy and Marion's relationship builds throughout the picture
using an obvious but perfectly acceptable obstacle. The City of Gods
is so much better; I like the fact that Marion saves Indy from dying because
of his wishes to attain ultimate knowledge. I think the age theme is toned
down considerably, which is something that bothered me in the Koepp version.
As for George Lucas, I want to see the films that "nobody will watch". No other figure in the world of film attracts more vitriolic commentary than Lucas, yet not many people really know him. He's achieved anonymity even though he's world famous, that's a feat in itself. I'm interested in the choices he has made, and the way he actually sees the world. Are the prequels that bad? After all, they made a lot of money, so somebody liked them. I watched each one twice in the cinema, I have seen them a few times on DVD, so I don't hate them at all. The biggest problem Lucas had was the fans imagining a different film than what he delivered -- it was so different that a large proportion of the fans couldn't fathom why it was nothing like they'd imagined - it blinded their faculties to think why he went in another direction. I don't think the prequels are well told stories, but they are intriguing to watch because they are multi-layered. I think there are subtleties missed by a good portion of the audience - that includes me, but I was never a hater in the first place - who didn't appreciate the political nature of the films. I like the minute details, for instance, when the Jedi Council [Episode III] is under attack and some of the Jedis are purged, it's reminiscent of "The Night of the Long Knives"* where Hitler's SS murdered 65 associates of the paramilitary group called the SA. Hitler exaggerated that the SA was planning a putsch; he wanted to stop the lawlessness of the stormtroopers, which was discontented with a lack of progress by the main party, but primarily to cement his position and avoid the possibilities of a rebellion. He used them as thugs initially, but eventually they were uncontrollable, so Hitler ruthlessly removed the leaders and the group disbanded and most of them joined the military or Himmler's SS. The majority of the population were oblivious to the events. 30th June 1934 was a normal - if you can call it that - night for most of Germany's citizens. And that brings me back to Star Wars Episode III, when Palpatine takes over, most of Coruscant didn't even realise that a catastrophe had taken place. I like the fact that the next day the world was still functioning as normal - like any day after an election. It's the minute details that Lucas managed to sustain with a degree of cleverness. I think the Hitler era had been an area which Lucas definitely studied, as far back as the early-mid 70s, during the time he made the original Star Wars. The throne room celebration at the end is reminiscent of Triumph of the Will. Although both are visually similar (formation of the troops, 3 heroes and the vertical banner - it's a bright light in Star Wars, not a flag), they are dissimilar in everything else except there's one core point made in the film that connects to the Nuremberg Rally: the rebels are united as one party, as were the Germans with Hitler. I consider it a warning that even though they were victors, this feeling of triumph and pride could easily shift into dangerous territory, in effect, the rebels could become the very thing they despise. I'll throw in one more, when Tarkin reports that the Emperor has dissolved the council - permanently, did you notice that it took twenty years for this to happen? When Hitler became leader after Hindenburg's death, it took about 4 years before the last remnants of the cabinet faded away. It took twenty "film" years for the Emperor to reach absolutism and Hitler four "real" years. I found that interesting, but it tells of the in-depth research that Lucas put into the "Star Wars" films. He's clearly a film-maker who is misunderstood, but sometimes doesn't do himself any favours like not releasing the original trilogy.. I don't think anyone can deny the richness of semiotics*** in the prequels; it's the way that Lucas used them in dialogue and plotting that alienated critics and fans. It's entirely possible that we need to research further before making impulsive judgements on the material we view. Heck, I've done it, so have you, and I think gaining an additional understanding of it [Prequels], we can judge it with a level-mindedness without descending into a web of bellicosity. There's a swirling sea beneath the façade, it just doesn't always translate to the screen as potently as Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back, though. I think Lucas really needed a co-writer on all three films, just to finesse the intelligent symbolism into a more structured plot for each film and give the actors more of an insight, because, quite frankly, they look a little lost sometimes. Only the veteran actors shine, and that's all to do with experience. Anymore discussion is not within the scope of this editorial, but I might write more on this later on.
* Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936 by Ian Kershaw - highly recommended biography.. ** Making of Indiana Jones - Includes insightful Information about the Speilberg and Lucas working relationship. *** Semiotics is derived from linguistics. It's the theory of signs,
and there are 3 types:
|
|
