The Case Against Indiana Jones
On the eve of the new Raiders movie, Victorino Matus has an interesting look at the shortcomings of the character of Indiana Jones. He’s a fan, but his article in the Weekly Standard takes you through the various Indiana Jones movies showing how weak and useless Indy often proves to be. Only in the inferior Temple of Doom, notes Matus, does Jones act like a hero instead of a bumbler who plays catch-up instead of leading the way:
Indiana Jones remains one of American cinema’s great swashbuckling heroes. … But as we head to the theaters to see the good doctor one last time, perhaps we should pause and view his experiences in a different light: not always leading the way, making up for lost ground due to errors in judgment (despite the best intentions), occasionally and inadvertently aiding his enemies on the quest for the world’s greatest mysteries. Yes, he is undeniably brave and ingenious. He is also quite human.
Indy is indeed human, and deeply flawed. Which is why I think the first movie is a little deeper than it is ever given credit for.
The adversaries in Raiders are not so much Indy v. the Nazis as Indy vs. his foil, Belloq, played with oleaginous zest by Paul Freeman. Each of these guys stands in for a nation—Jones for the U.S., Belloq—a Vichy S.O.B.—for Nazi Germany, although neither is an unthinking pawn of his country. Indy is clearly critical of the way the U.S. handles the Ark at the end (”Top men!”), and one suspects his true loyalty is to science and his beloved Marshall College rather than to the dull OSS bureaucrats who dispatched him in pursuit of the Ark.
Belloq, likewise, considers himself superior to his Nazi associates and regards the arrangement as one of convenience. He also wants the Ark for science, not (as the Nazis do) as an instrument for world conquest.
And the reason the movie worked so well is that Belloq is a perfect foil for Indiana Jones, and they both know it. Belloq constantly needles Jones at every one of their meetings about how “we are not so different, you and I”…which attempts at equivalence always earn a sharp retort from Jones.
Belloq, of course, has a point. When Jones intercepts the procession of the Ark on the Nazi island and levels a bazooka at it, Belloq calls his bluff. Go ahead, he dares Indy, blow it “back to God”. Which Indy just can’t bring himself to do.
So the men are similar, yes. But as shown by the horrific judgment that follows—manifested through the faux-priesthood of Belloq who opens the Ark—they are not equivalent. Jones realizes at the last minute that he is participating in a desecration, not a scientific exploration, and wills himself (and Marion) to look away.
Meanwhile Belloq, remember, does more than just crowbar the top off the Ark. All duded up in Old Testament priestly vestments, he overrides the (well-placed, in retrospect) objections of head Nazi Dietrich to a Jewish ritual and stares down directly into the depths (…the abyss looks back…) of the opened Ark. Remember earlier that Belloq had described the Ark as a “transmitter” for talking to God. He wants to look upon God’s face, which is something he (and Indy) know is forbidden.
…your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods…(Gen. 3:5)
And because of his hubris, he becomes literally the transmitter of God’s wrath into the ranks of Nazis.
Among many implausibilities and plot holes in Raiders (Matus notes Indy’s transoceanic submarine rodeo) it’s easy to overlook the odd fact that Indy knows, instinctively, something the Nazis don’t: not to look on the spirits that come out of the Ark. He realized this with enough certainty to warn Marian about it. But this isn’t a continuity error–it’s the critical realization of the film.
How did he know to do that? It’s not part of the Ark lore. And it’s not even necessary to the plot. The movie would have made sense without that line, had the Ark merely autoclaved Belloq and the Nazis and spared Indy and Marion because of their innate goodness.
What this suggests is that Indiana Jones actually had a bit of a character arc in Raiders. He has learned a bit of humility; he has learned to look away now and then. Some things, some forces, as foreshadowed earlier in the movie by Indy’s friends Brody and Salah, are “not to be taken lightly” and “not to be disturbed”. Belloq learned that lesson too late.
P.S. Contrast Raiders with a supposedly “deeper” Spielberg film–Munich. Lke Munich’s Mossad agents and Palestinian assassins, Indy and Belloq are rough men who use questionable, illegal, or violent means to achieve their goals. But Jones and Belloq are not morally equivalent, are they?
Now, you can tell me that Munich was supposed to be a serious movie about real issues, and Raiders was just a goof, a cartoonish silly pastiche of old 1940’s serials cobbled together with some hokey religious fantasy thrown in.
Maybe, but Munich is already forgotten while Raiders remains timeless, a film I look forward to showing my own kids when they get older, one that everyone has seen and can recognize and quote from.
__________
{Post by See-Dubya. Front-page image from here. The opening of the Ark on youtube is here, complete with face-melting Nazis.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Indiana Jones and the Holiness of God — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
- Michelle Malkin » Lonesome Dove explained
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Patterico
» Alito Whacks Biden
NewsBusters.org
» NYT: Make The Mormons Walk To Wal-MartStop The ACLU
» Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?Gateway Pundit
» Sweet!... Danish Navy Sinks Somali Pirate Ship (Video)Riehl World View
» Breaking News On Obama SpeechJawa Report
» Danish Warship Sinks PirateNewsBusters.org
» Matthews: It's 'Really Hard' to 'Salute Sarah Palin'Stop The ACLU
» Lawsuit Over Obama’s Birth Certificate Goes To SCOTUS FridayRiehl World View
» Is Barack Hussein Obama Going All Native On Us Already?Marginal Revolution
» Why do so many more women study abroad?Right Wing Nut House
» ISRAEL GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF PLANNING IRAN ATTACK?
Thank you see-dubya-you have further clarified the concepts of story line -esp. the role of the foil-that my friends and I recently learned in creative writing.!
I will watch all good movies in a different light.
My favorite part in the “Ark” has to be the scene in the square with Jones facing the martial arts guy. It was said that he had the flu, that day, and was supposed to fight the guy with the bullwhip. Instead of the whip, Ford said, “oh, sh**”, pulled his gun, shot the guy, then went back to bed. It worked so well, that they decided to keep it in the film.
Nothing beats “Raiders”…Marion was his best leading lady…tough as nails and no-nonsense…I was heart-broken when I found out that Harrison Ford went all commie on us…am still looking forward to the new movie…
What is the plot of the new film about anyway?
Harrison Ford was a guy I used to look up to, Han Solo and Indy are two of my favorite characters, then he dumped his wife and went irrational. (maybe not in that order)
I think it is that Indy is Human and fallible that makes the movies so great. My favorite part would have to be after Indy and Mairon escape from the Nazi plane (in the camp in Egypt) they run into Salah who tells them that the Nazi’s have loaded the ark into a truck. Indy then tells Salah to take Marion and secure some transportation out of Egypt for the two of them immediately and that he is goin after the Ark. Salah asks how and Indy say I don’t know I am just making this up as I go along.
You can’t get much more human than that.
Indy Rocks!
All the movies coming out in recent years where they feel the need to say the F’ word every 3 seconds suck.
Good clean kick butt fun no matter how corny.
and what’s up with filming everything in the dark? turn on the lights!
Actually, the Bible contains several stories of people being killed for mishandling the Ark of the Covenant.
1 Chronicles comes to mind, when the Ark was being moved by David and Uzza tried to stop it from falling.
Poof! no more Uzza…
I agree with a lot of this light essay, but the fact is that the character Indiana Jones is showing a knowldege of the Bible when he tells Miriam to close her eyes…
“Transoceanic Submarine Rodeo” would make a great name for the right band…
Check out #26 in Saturdays Indy 500
Marco
I’m rooting for #7
“Snakes! Why does it always have to be snakes?”
I hear the famous scene from Raiders where Indy is thrown into the pit, comes face to face with the cobra, and you can see the cobra’s reflection in the glass between them, has been digitally fixed in the DVD release. What a shame. Some of the limitations of film making from that time produced memorable flubs.
The first movie is my favorite, if for no other reason than the music (and before John Williams became predictable). The “Ark Theme” is unforgettable, and whenever it appears in the movie you feel a sense of forboding. The forboding is realized when the Ark is opened and the Ark Theme crescendos from its quiet menace to its awful conclusion.
Regarding the submarine ride, subs of that era rode on the surface unless they were going to attack something so his ability to ride it isn’t completely implausible.
Raiders was the only good film of the bunch,the sequels were horribly disappointing, they should have stopped at just the one film.
I’m with AJ. Why does Hollyweird think cuss words are necessary in a film While IJ movies have a few, that is not the norm.
I will see IJ because the first three were good. I hear the reviews were great so far.
Short-round was the best!
Munich is really a low moment in Steven Spielberg’s career. His theme is the moral equivalence of Israelis who fight terrorism and Arab terrorists. Actually, the theme may even be the moral supriority of the terrorists. Spielberg accepts as a given that the moral position of the Palestinians is superior to any claims of Israelis. Then he turns the Israeli terrorist hunters into self hating killers. The Palestinians are gentle and complex. One of the lead terrorists is depicted giving violin lessons to his loving daughter. In contrast, the Israelis are money grubbing brutes. Two things at the end are quite disgraceful. The first is how Spielberg lists the names of the Israeli victims at Munich with the names of the Palestinian killers. That is moral relativism at its worst. Then there is the ending with its view of the world trade towers and Spielberg telegraphs his view that what will happen on 9/11/2001 is blowback from Israeli policies. Spielberg denounced the critics of Munich as “The Luddites in my own community”. I can’t get into Indy after that Spielbergian lecture.
What does it mean if, instead of trying to analyze the movie, I just watch it and enjoy the story?
w00t for short round! (i actually call someone here in the office that lol)
I’ll definitely out at the theater to see it.
Well, it does make perfect sense, to me at least. The man was an archaeologist (spelling? its WAY early, and no coffee yet), and it would stand to reason that as such, he would have a wide range of knowledge about such things. The fact he was after the arc would indicate he’d have read the bible, as it is one of the few references to draw from…looks like that knowledge saved him in the end!
Indiana Jones is, of course, Dr. Jones “alter ego”. Genuine super-hero stuff foing on there. Mild-mannered, buttoned-up professor by day, swashbuckling adventurer by night! His superpowers? .44 mag and a bull whip! My 8 year old daughter loves this stuff, and loves the sense of adventure, often “exploring” the back yard for hidden treasure! Timeless, good, clean fun.
I’m looking forward to the movie, I can’t believe that “The Last Crusade” came out in 1989.
Slightly off topic, this evening at 8:00pm I’m going to Symphony Hall in Boston to see John Williams conduct the Boston Pops who will be performing his movie music. Can’t wait!!
Totally agree. I also love the “Grail Theme” from Last Crusade, and journeying music and “slave theme” in Temple O’ Doom.
Totally agree again. I think it’s lame looking for overarching themes of humanity and morality in works of fiction. That was one of the things I hated about all my college English classes.
I’m sure the movie will be good, but I still think Indy is too old. It should have been the end when he rode off into the sunset as the total stud. Indiana Jones should NOT have gray hair.
But I’m still going to see it. They’ve used snakes, bugs and rats. What will be the gross-out factor this time?
Raider’s was a very entertaining flick and one of our family’s favorites. I never will forget the first time I saw it in the theater when Indy shot the big guy with the bigger sword instead of going through an elaborate hand-to-hand combat scene (which I found out latter was adlibbed due to Harrison Ford suffering from Dysentery) . Never bring a sword to a gun fight. There is nothing wrong with a hero having flaws and personal weaknesses it makes him as human as the rest of us. Too bad most intellectual critics can’t just sit back and enjoy this classic like the rest of us can.
#8 RobM1981–
Not touching the Ark is Biblical. But what we’re dealing with here is an injunction not to look at it. That’s not in the Bible. Where did Indy come up with that? That’s an element that grew up organically out of the story about archeology.
Raiders was best of the bunch.
I thought it interesting when the Nazis removed the lid (mercy seat) from the Ark, they died. The same thing happened to the Philistines. A professor at my seminary said when you remove mercy from the law, there is death. Just thought I’d throw that in.
The New Indiana Jones movie was simply awful. It isn’t even close to the original “Raiders.” Here’s my complete review.
Because Hollywood confuses profanity with talent. There’s no writing talent left in Hollywood and very little acting talent. If it wasnt for the “F” word, Hollywood writers couldnt write a thing.
I enjoy old movies from the 30’s and 40’s. You dont hear any profanity but the writing and acting is superb without overbearing special effects and explosions every 10 seconds. Hollywood cant do that anymore.
One of my favorite movie lines ever is from IJ & The Last Crusade-
“He chose poorly.” Deadpanned by the centuries old guard of the Holy Grail after Nazi takes drink from the wrong grail to his horrific demise. Ha! Dust to dust.
Phew! It’s just a movie review.
For a second, I thought CAIR was protesting the movie.
Gotta start hitting that preview button..
Thanks Debbie for saving me the $20 it would cost for the wife and I to see this in the theater.
Many people may not know that Spielberg originally wanted to cast Tom Selleck as Indy, but couldn’t because Selleck was locked into his “Magnum, PI” contract with CBS.
I wonder how the movies and the franchise would have turned out if Selleck had been Indy?
“Maybe, but Munich is already forgotten while Raiders remains timeless”
This is just symptomatic of the fact that people see movies to escape from reality, not to be reminded of it.
Probably close enough for government work.
Raiders was my favorite movie as a kid. That and Wizard of Oz.
Ezcept for the spider part. Oh man. Can’t handle the spiders.
Obama supporters? All marching in lock-step shouting: Hope! Change! Hope! Change! as they head towards the abyss?
tongue in cheek, but….
didnt they use those in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Ya know, the people Belloq was working for?
Actually, it was a case of the trots. Ford was incredibly ill, and felt guilty for cutting short the screentime of the swordsman (who was apparently quite skilled).
If I recall correctly, Lucas wasn’t crazy about the change but Spielberg liked it (or vice versa). It does work really well.
I just watched the Indiana Jones series for the first time (yeah, I know…), very good, and a very good review.
I’ll have to go back and look at “Raiders” again.
And I will be seeing the new flick, maybe this weekend.
Thanks for the heads-up Debbie, but I’ll see it anyway. I liked all three films in the original trilogy, even the weaker “Temple of Doom”. This one will only have to be about that good to make it worthwhile to me.
Of course, it doesn’t take much insight to realize that when both Lucas and Speilberg have repeatedly said that’s what they intend him to be. Specifically contrasting him against heroes like James Bond they said they wanted Indy to seem like “he’s always in just a little bit over his head”.
Ummm, the bumbling is part of the tongue-in-cheek appeal of the humor of the brand.
What happened to you people? Did someone surgically remove your senses of humor?
Oh wait. This was written by See-Dubya. No wonder the humor went right over the head. Never mind.
IJ4 has a “fresh” rating on rottentomatoes.com (80% favorable reviews). That’s extremely impressive for a movie in this particular genre, so if it’s a movie you would otherwise be inclined to go see, I wouldn’t let the Schlussel “review” keep you away.
Well dakine,
I hope you’re right. . .but I saw the preview, and within that 30 second span, the IJ4 showed itself to be more like Lara Croft Tomb Raider than any of the prior Indiana Jones movies. It was like an archaeological James Bond movie in terms of over-the-top tricks/traps/etc. Maybe they’ll draw in the James Bond fans. . .there ARE plenty of them afterall.
See Dubya,
Number 4:20, my friend. Just looking at “the holy things” can (and does) get people killed.
Two of Aaron’s sons are killed for improperly sacrificing. Not quite the same thing, but still - it’s a theme.
If you’re not authorized to be in the presence of this stuff, you’d better do everything you can to get away from it.
I’ve always felt that Dr. Jones, as an archaeologist, would have been 100% versed on the Biblical teachings of the Ark, the Tabernacle, etc.
Knowing what I know, and presuming what I presume, an educated man would *definitely* think to close his eyes and pray if he was tied up and had to be there.
If he wasn’t tied up? Hit the deck, eat dirt, and pray, pray, pray…
What Spielberg is showing in the first, awesome, Raiders movie is the Wrath of God via avenging angels. Very, very cool to watch those effects even all these years later.
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
You are freaking me out Rusty — I’m completely agreeing with you and see-dub at the same time…my soul is screaming at me that something has gone terribly, horribly awry!!
Did you learn nothing from the chest waxing incident?
I think Indy knows piety is a virtue. And in that regard is able to “choose wisely.”
In the book, Indy’s submarine riding was explained that he had used the bullwhip to tie himself to the periscope. The sub never had a reason to run below periscope depth and if I remember correctly, it only tooled around the Mediterranian.
Count me among the arachnid stomping brigade. Two cans of spray at the ready
Quite right. However, people do like some degree of reality - as long as it portrays heroic and noble sacrifices and deeds. Few people enjoy viewing who they identify as the “good guys” shown as the moral equivalent of the “bad guys”.
tell mea bout it — I don’t even like doing the spray thing. It may be the only stereotypically ‘girly’ thing about me, but I am perfectly happy to wash my husbands stanky socks as long as he continues to kill the creepy-crawlies trying to invade my house!!
The plot hole about the sub can be explained thusly:
In a time when the Nazis were not at war, there is no reason for the sub to submerge. A U-boat could make 25-30 knots, easily, surfaced, compared to 8-10 knots submerged. Since, in 1936, Germany was not at war, it can be reasoned that Indy rightly figured they’d have no reason to submerge. And thus, he would not drown.
See-dub inquisites:
The released Spirits immediately assessed Indy’s goodness vs. the Nazi’s evil and bestowed their “lambs blood on the door” knowledge upon him just before their whoop-ass rampage, duh!
#49 otcconan said:
But how did Indy know that the sub commander would initiate a “Crazy-Ivan” at the bottom of the hour?
Oops, wrong movie!
Sorry I’m a little off topic. I saw Crystal Skull last night.
In one point in the movie, the Russian Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) explains her intensions to psychically turn Americans into Russians. I was thinking, wow they must win at the end because there are many Americans running around thinking like 1950s Russian communist.
The theater was packed! I have never seen that many at a midnight show.
I’m sure that I will enjoy this movie for what it is…entertainment. That is until the subtle “American is bad” theme starts to show.
Red flags went up when reading D.S.’s review…Area 51 (”the government has been lying to us” theme everytime A-51 is mentioned in any movie), and testing an atomic bomb on a (albeit mannequin) populated city. I’m sure they are others, but I hope I’m wrong.
I go to movies to relax and enjoy the creativity/special effects, not to be subjected to anti-American nonsense. Having said that, I hope I AM entertained.
Captain, I know this man.
Has he made any Crazy lvans?
What difference does that make?
- The next one will be to starboard.
- ‘Cause his last was to port?
Because he goes to starboard
in the bottom half of the hour.
right_on
In the movie, there is the typical Hollywood holier than thou criticism of anti-communism in the 50s. Overall, it’s a good movie but I’m not too hot on the plot.
Who do you think has controlled most government
schoolsindoctrination centers and the minds (or what is left of them)of our children for the past 40 or so years?Heh…Hollywood?
HEY NOW!! SOME OF US HAVEN’T SEEN IT YET AND AREN’T INTERESTED IN SPOILERS!!!!
/all caps ranting — (sorry for the outburst, but you really should warn a body that you’re going to mess with their entertainment…)
Not looking makes sense…remember Lot’s wife? She looked back after being told not to and was turned into a pillar of salt.
I like to think that when Barack gets the nomination, Hillary’s supporters’ heads will melt and explode the way the two Nazis’ did at the climax of “Raiders”, and that Barack’s supporters will react the same when His High Holiness loses the in the general election.
Fark picked this story up. Read the Michelle Malkin related comments:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3621470&ok=706498060&sc=105
There was actually an interesting show on the history channel a couple of nights ago about Indiana Jones:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=295858
My favorite scene is when they are in the temple and Marion ends up by herself with the mummies. The leading lady that I absolutely could not stand was the 2nd one in the temple of doom - a helpless screaming female. blah! The third one wasn’t bad even though she was a Nazi - at least she showed she had some brains.
Mr. Schussel is certain entitled to her opinion on the movie. However, I think it would be best to go to a movie site that will offer you a large variety of opinions to sample, e.g. rottentomatoes.com. That way I a fan or average viewer can get a much better idea of what they are in for. Even Mark Steyn has recommended Roger Ebert as the best critic to understanding the experience of watching a particular movie. And Roger gave the film 3.5 stars (out of a possible 4).
Sorry Debbie. I’m going despite your review.
Saw the movie this morning. I have to disagree with Ms. Schlussel, even though there was a plot element that I’m sure will annoy us conservatives ;). Overall though, it’s good old-fashioned, over-the-top, smile-on-your-face fun. Don’t expect realism. Don’t expect deep exposition or art movie style character development. It’s a chocolate chip cookie for the soul.
I took my wife to see Indy last night for her birthday. We enjoyed it! HF was older and they made IJ older and worked it into the movie pretty well. The monkey scene was pretty whacky but overall we enjoyed it.
I saw the movie yesterday. To say it sucked would be an understatement. I was really disappointed.
The plot was old, and obvious. Many of the lines were repeated from the other Indy movies, and most of all, everything was predictable.
It was as if Spielberg was bringing back old friends one last time. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised it wasn’t better.
The theater was packed, and the crowd was buzzing with anticipation, but once into the movie, no one showed any exitement. No one clapped at the end of the movie, either. I heard several people commenting that the movie was not very entertaining, and how disappointed they were. I agree.
This movie is an insult to original Raiders fans (and the original is one of my top 5 all time movies). It is simply awful. I agree with Debbie’s review, but would add how the “crystal” skull looked obviously plastic. Seriously, everything about this movie is a giant dissapointment, and the alien theme is both ridiculous and out of character for the movies.
Our family saw the new movie yesterday and loved it. Yes, we sadly acknowledge Mr. Ford’s Commie leanings, but that certainly is not reflected in the character of Indiana Jones. Two themes that come shining through in this movie — the importance of education and family. A rare message coming out of tinsel-town. Go see it. It was pure fun. Baby Boomers will love the nostalgia and their kids and grandkids will love the techno wizardy.
I saw the movie last night and I’d recommend it for any Raider’s fan that hasn’t become completely jaded over the last 20 years. If you’re expecting a 40 year old Indy and a 30 year old Marion, you’re going to be disappointed. I thought the movie was a wonderful tribute to the series and those of us who have aged right alongside Indy and Marion.
Don’t forget, that at the beginning of Raiders, when Indy is meeting with the gov’t agents, he opens a bible on the table and turns to a page depicting the ark (I think it was a bible).
I realize this doesn’t really matter, as this is just a movie - but timeline-wise, the action in Raiders (1936) takes place after Temple of Doom (1935). Even though the writers didn’t know there would be a second film, as fans, we can pretend Indiana learned from his experiences.