PDA

View Full Version : Migration and Exodus: How Did We Get Here, Where Are We Going


Attila the Professor
11-07-2011, 12:47 AM
So there's this blog essay (http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/) from over at Slant Magazine I've been meaning to post here for over two years now, and have finally decided to just throw it in here with some commentary.

Migration and Exodus: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
BY KEITH UHLICH ON MAY 25TH, 2008 AT 8:59 PM IN FILM

By Keith Uhlich

"The writer is too well acquainted with the laws of narration to be unaware of the nature of the pledge given by this brief preface; but, at the same time, he knows enough of the history of the Thirteen to feel confident that he shall not disappoint any expectations raised by the programme. Tragedies dripping with gore, comedies piled up with horrors, tales of heads taken off in secret have been confided to him. If any reader has not had enough of the ghastly tales served up to the public for some time past, he has only to express his wish; the author is in a position to reveal cold-blooded atrocities and family secrets of a gloomy and astonishing nature. But in preference he has chosen those pleasanter stories in which stormy passions are succeeded by purer scenes, where the beauty and goodness of woman shine out the brighter for the darkness. And, to the honor of the Thirteen, such episodes as these are not wanting. Some day perhaps it may be thought worth while to give their whole history to the world; in which case it might form a pendant to the history of the buccaneers—that race apart so curiously energetic, so attractive in spite of their crimes."
—Honoré de Balzac, from the Author's Preface to History of the Thirteen—

The Thirteen in question in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are a so-called "hive mind," a race of beings that the mad-as-a-hatter Professor Oxley (John Hurt) might describe, quite seriously, sans irony, as "interterrestrials." Call them—in deference to the late-50s setting of this fourth Indiana Jones adventure—fellow travelers, those creatures that move around, per Oxley again, in "the space between spaces." Alien life forms not from without, but within. To some they are gods; to Professor Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford) they are the supernal means to a seemingly fateful end (for the immediate moment, at least).

An end needs a beginning: here it is a Nevada desert molehill, wittily juxtaposed with the snow-capped Paramount Pictures logo (returned to a rough 'n' ragged two-dimensionality, circa-1981), then destroyed, dually, by joyriding teenagers and a "Hound Dog"-bleating Elvis Presley. Roll opening titles. What's past is past and time waits for no one, not even Indiana Jones, currently locked in the trunk of a car driven by stoic KGB agents, who lighten up long enough to engage the fresh-faced Presley fanatics in a friendly bout of vehicle-to-vehicle combat (the white picket fence vs. the Iron Curtain). Nobody wins, they only diverge, the lonely Atomic Café marking the spot that leads either away from or toward the purported mother lode: Area 51. (But whichever way we go, we have to always, always be looking.)

Every Indiana Jones film tells us, upfront, how to read and experience it. It's clear now (if it wasn't already) that each installment, whatever the shared similarities, has its own tenor, rhythm, and approach. As compared to what has come before, the dissonance of Crystal Skull's credits sequence and the immediately following chase through, around, under, and out of a government facility cosmopolitan enough to contain both the Ark of the Covenant and the Roswell UFO remains is bracing and beautiful, the Spielberg shorthand (oft-profound, as often piteous) in full-on, awe-inspiring bloom. A bloom of another kind climaxes Crystal Skull's prologue as Indy—betrayed by his wartime buddy 'Mac' McHale (Ray Winstone) to a Russkie mafia led by the Garbo-cum-Brooks-sculpted sword-swisher Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett)—races around a plasticine 50s suburbia, a horror show of brightly colored homes and gaping, gawking mannequins (several of whom, in their jaw-dropped countenances, recall Raiders of the Lost Ark's awestruck, flesh-melting Nazis). It's a brilliantly banal pantomime of watering lawns, walking dogs, and watching Howdy Doody. It also happens to be an atomic bomb test site, and the countdown's already begun.

In conception, Spielberg and screenwriter David Koepp's analogy is bludgeoning (the nuclear family laid literally, brutally to waste), but in execution it is thrilling and, in retrospect of the film entire, deeply moving. This is no world for Indiana Jones, who climbs into a lead-lined Frigidaire (brushing aside, at the last second, an obstructing container of Crisco™) and is then launched miles through the air, deep into the barren desert, expelled from Ike-era Eden. Nary a surface scratch, of course, when he finally emerges (shaken, not stirred), but the pluming mushroom cloud wreaks havoc with the heroic iconography. Was a time when Spielberg might have had Indy rising into frame full-face and body, the blast behind him merely a source of Slocombe-superintended backlight. But here, in concert with his visual Herrmann—from Schindler's List on—Janusz Kaminski, he makes sure to dwarf Indy, obliterating him (as per the final sequence of Last Crusade) into silhouette, forcing character and audience alike to bear witness to the glory and the horror, to reconcile the realities of mankind with its no less tangible myths.

Note Indy's placement in the image—frame-right, diminutive, photographed, with Antonioni-esque remove, from behind. It will find its mirror opposite at Crystal Skull's end when he comes face-to-face with another icon of 50s-era fascination, this one fictional, though still carrying the heady, expansive weight of metaphor. The hemisphere-traversing journey between these visual bookends is best explicated by an offhand order the soon-to-be-blacklisted Indy gives to his university class: to study and then expound on "the difference between migration and exodus."

The Indy series' push-and-pull between the secular and the spiritual is as strong as ever, though it takes on a more labyrinthine resonance here what with primary characters' quotations of Oppenheimer ("Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"—itself a sadly knowing invocation of the Bhagavad Gita) and Milton (from Comus: "To lay their just hands on that Golden Key/That ope's the Palace of Eternity"), to say nothing of the thematic meta-mix of practical sets and locations (expected) with Computer Generated Imagery (unexpected). The lie of CGI (one at times perpetuated by Spielberg and his peers) is that it is meant to extend reality, when the truth is that, in its best uses, it is a falsity that helps us to see, feel, and experience more clearly.

There are points, few and far between, when Crystal Skull's effects distract (mostly in regards to animals, one scene in particular conjuring up memories of executive producer George Lucas' sad bit of monkey-on-the-back graffiti in the re-released THX-1138), but Spielberg's sheer talent for everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink-and-more momentum pretty much smooths out the rough patches. More often, the effects work/production design helps to sell this particular installment's immersive, illusory sheen. It's probably the "falsest" looking Indiana Jones film, but to a degree that near-entirely enhances the fantasy and its signifiers.

More than once, Jones and his companions—among them Shia LaBeouf's switchblade-wielding greaser Mutt Williams and Karen Allen's Raiders-returning love interest Marion Ravenwood (she of the infectiously beatific smile)—engage in ingenious semiotic play. Marion and Indy have a hot-blooded reunion (piled on high with acerbic remarks and familial revelations) while sinking in quicksand, the sequence climaxing with an extended gag involving a snake that Indy hilariously insists on calling a "rope." The wordplay extends to the primary quest (a search for a lost Mayan city to which Indy and his companions must return an oblong-shaped and psychic mind-melding Crystal Skull), which hinges on the multiple meanings inherent within a long-dead language ("gold" equals "knowledge" and vice-versa).

A particularly memorable Kaminski composition has Indy and Spalko placed on opposite sides and varying regions of the 'Scope frame, their shadows cast onto a foreground scrim so that they are encompassed within their own outlines. The implicit query: Which is the true self before us—the flesh-and-blood, walking-and-talking facsimile or the dark-night projection? Do the characters, like the movie they inhabit, contain worlds, or are they empty vessels fed by a potent mix, from Creator and viewer alike, of nostalgia and memory?

Continued below...

Attila the Professor
11-07-2011, 12:51 AM
Tempting to call Crystal Skull Spielberg's own Youth Without Youth (a perfect subtitle for this enterprise in more ways than one). It shares with Francis Ford Coppola's unjustly maligned time-traversing romance an elder man's world-weary sensibilities ("We're at the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away," says Indy's academe confidante Charles Stanforth (Jim Broadbent), paying homage to the story-deceased Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) and Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery)) as well as a penchant for refracting era-specific fears and proclivities through the prism of pulp fiction. Yet this Indiana Jones distinguishes itself, too, as the first film in the series to take place during a time of which Spielberg has actual recall. No longer solely couched in a movie-geek's distanced obsession with old-time serials, Crystal Skull is a simultaneously multifaceted ode to an artist's formative years, to an imagination stoked as much by the possibilities of destruction as by the worlds out of sight.

It is the collision of such extremes that results in Professor Oxley's "space between spaces," though even this observation has its grounded, mortal corollary, as the suddenly sane Oxley is later heard to express (during a sublime moment of long-delayed sanctification, complicated by its numerous parallels to the prologue's nuclear suburbia) "how much of human life is lost in wait." As befits Spielberg's artistry, the statement resonates at once backwards and forwards: back to Irina Spalko's ultimately self-destructive desire to possess all the knowledge of the ages (a Thirteen-bestowed "gift" no one human being could ever hope to retain); forward to, in the final shot, Mutt's raw, instinctive presumption to assume, via Indy's chapeau, a singularly iconic mantle. It's a pure John Ford setup (jokey and profound all at once, touched—deliriously, irrevocably—by both glee and loneliness) with the added benefit of Spielberg's inimitable hovering camera, which acts as an expressive "god's eye" conduit. Is this the artist's perspective, the viewer's, the Thirteen's—all of us, whether fictional or actual, inhabiting some nonpareil form (sometimes harmonized, as often discordant) of inner space?

Final thought, on that note, from Indy: "Depends on who your god is."


I foreground what I think the essay most clearly offers us, both in its content and as a means of moving this thread forward with my subtitle, which invites us to do something that we haven't done much of directly: consider what brought Indiana Jones to the point in his life that he is at when we meet him again in 1957, and what are the various future possibilities open to him in the film. (The most potent of this is the Leipzig lead.) The essay also foregrounds some of the discussion of age and era, both within the film and without.

But I don't want to get mucked up in the particulars of what <I>I</I> think might be discussable here, because we've had failed threads along those lines before. Here's the piece. See what you think.

Montana Smith
11-07-2011, 01:20 AM
Primarily this is an engaging essay, written from a film connoisseur's standpoint, and is therefore able to make connections to the industry.

What I like about this angle is that it cuts through to the symbolism, which is where KOTCS is best enjoyed. Too often we hold the measure of reality against Indiana Jones, and jump to the conclusion that things aren't possible.

The migration, that I see, is one taken from mundane everyday reality. It's the essence of escapism. While "migration" may denote a leisurely journey taken over many generations, an "exodus" implies something more urgent, and possibly of a more permanent nature.

To fully enjoy KOTCS you would have to make that exodus from the familiar and accept the unfamiliar. Accept the symbolism as the new 'real'. Just as Indy ventures into the brave new world, foretold by Shakespeare's Miranda, so must we.

We might enjoy the film at the level of an unassuming child, as well as at the level of a more mature and critcial individual. Indy takes us on a journey to a place where he knows for certain there is something else existing beyond his own mundane world of college life. He, too, is constantly desperate to put on his adventuring gear and escape. He's adept at reading the signs, though they often obey different laws to those we're familiar with. As an audience we have an advantage over Jones, in that we can see further connections, where the elements of his life stem from. We're able to suggest why the atom bomb and the fridge have a place in his reality, and he knows instinctively that in his world he has a good chance of survival.

That's not to say that the film couldn't have been better. With more care and forethought in certain areas KOTCS might have drawn more viewers deeper into that other world, and held them there more completely. It might have fulfilled the act of exodus, rather than leaving some in a state of mid-migration.

Rocket Surgeon
11-07-2011, 05:58 AM
...which invites us to do something that we haven't done much of directly: consider what brought Indiana Jones to the point in his life that he is at when we meet him again in 1957, and what are the various future possibilities open to him in the film.
There are riches still uncovered. All we lack are strong backs and willing spirit.

Maybe you could clear the intended path a bit more...ultimately the possibilities are endless, (in my purvue), doubtless you mean something more constrained.

Personally I would have liked to SEE more of where he and Mac were digging in the dirt...

The novel gave us a ride down a waterslide but not much more.

Attila the Professor
11-07-2011, 01:57 PM
Maybe you could clear the intended path a bit more...ultimately the possibilities are endless, (in my purvue), doubtless you mean something more constrained.

I don't, not really. I was vamping a little there, since I think the essay has elements of interest before we even begin our own speculation.

For example...

What's past is past and time waits for no one, not even Indiana Jones, currently locked in the trunk of a car driven by stoic KGB agents, who lighten up long enough to engage the fresh-faced Presley fanatics in a friendly bout of vehicle-to-vehicle combat (the white picket fence vs. the Iron Curtain).

[Indy] races around a plasticine 50s suburbia, a horror show of brightly colored homes and gaping, gawking mannequins (several of whom, in their jaw-dropped countenances, recall Raiders of the Lost Ark's awestruck, flesh-melting Nazis). It's a brilliantly banal pantomime of watering lawns, walking dogs, and watching Howdy Doody. It also happens to be an atomic bomb test site, and the countdown's already begun.

In conception, Spielberg and screenwriter David Koepp's analogy is bludgeoning (the nuclear family laid literally, brutally to waste), but in execution it is thrilling and, in retrospect of the film entire, deeply moving. This is no world for Indiana Jones, who climbs into a lead-lined Frigidaire (brushing aside, at the last second, an obstructing container of Crisco™) and is then launched miles through the air, deep into the barren desert, expelled from Ike-era Eden. Nary a surface scratch, of course, when he finally emerges (shaken, not stirred), but the pluming mushroom cloud wreaks havoc with the heroic iconography. Was a time when Spielberg might have had Indy rising into frame full-face and body, the blast behind him merely a source of Slocombe-superintended backlight. But here, in concert with his visual Herrmann—from Schindler's List on—Janusz Kaminski, he makes sure to dwarf Indy, obliterating him (as per the final sequence of Last Crusade) into silhouette, forcing character and audience alike to bear witness to the glory and the horror, to reconcile the realities of mankind with its no less tangible myths.

Note Indy's placement in the image—frame-right, diminutive, photographed, with Antonioni-esque remove, from behind. It will find its mirror opposite at Crystal Skull's end when he comes face-to-face with another icon of 50s-era fascination, this one fictional, though still carrying the heady, expansive weight of metaphor. The hemisphere-traversing journey between these visual bookends is best explicated by an offhand order the soon-to-be-blacklisted Indy gives to his university class: to study and then expound on "the difference between migration and exodus."

replican't
11-08-2011, 08:02 AM
A load of academic, overblown, overthought bollocks about a film that doesn't merit such an approach.

Attila the Professor
11-08-2011, 02:50 PM
A load of academic, overblown, overthought bollocks about a film that doesn't merit such an approach.

Isn't it possible that some of the film's failings are in that it tries to pack in <I>too much</I> meaning that it cannot hold up to, rather than that it doesn't try at all? It clearly has some preoccupations with hive minds and knowledge generally speaking.

replican't
11-09-2011, 07:20 AM
Isn't it possible that some of the film's failings are in that it tries to pack in <I>too much</I> meaning that it cannot hold up to, rather than that it doesn't try at all? It clearly has some preoccupations with hive minds and knowledge generally speaking.

All you need to know is its set in the 1950s. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of sci-fi commie paranoia will work it out. No need to analyse everything into the ground.

Attila the Professor
11-09-2011, 12:10 PM
All you need to know is its set in the 1950s. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of sci-fi commie paranoia will work it out. No need to analyse everything into the ground.

From where you stand it might as well be in the ground to begin with, so what is there to lose in seeing if there's anything more?

Montana Smith
11-10-2011, 02:16 AM
A load of academic, overblown, overthought bollocks about a film that doesn't merit such an approach.

All you need to know is its set in the 1950s. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of sci-fi commie paranoia will work it out. No need to analyse everything into the ground.

From where you stand it might as well be in the ground to begin with, so what is there to lose in seeing if there's anything more?

Well said, Professor. What's the harm in taking a deeper look?

You never know where it might lead. It is, after all, from the same minds that gave us Raiders of the Lost Ark, albeit from a different perspective.

Rocket Surgeon
11-10-2011, 09:12 AM
A load of academic, overblown, overthought bollocks about a film that doesn't merit such an approach.
Some nice observations regarding composition and style...

Theres quite a bit of stretching, but it's welcome to read someone give it an honest shot. All we ever hear is:"why is everyone a hater?"

I'm still puzzled as to where we take this thread though.

Attila the Professor
11-10-2011, 02:18 PM
Some nice observations regarding composition and style...

Theres quite a bit of stretching, but it's welcome to read someone give it an honest shot. All we ever hear is:"why is everyone a hater?"

I'm still puzzled as to where we take this thread though.

Well, like I said, screw the thread's subtitle and my light musings for now. What's nice? What's stretching? Might as well start with the essay itself, since we usually manage to spend so much time analyzing, as you gesture towards, whether some Internet commentator or another was being unfair to the movie or ignorant of all the people who evidently liked it.

I'm only going to be ducking my head in occasionally the next few days, and I wasn't trying to necessarily push things in a given direction as much as I was trying to justify a new thread for this.

But how about this: the observations about Doom Town, especially about how the mannequins bore resemblance to the Germsn soldiers in the opening of the Ark sequence. I'm pretty sure I recall thinking such at the time. Many of us agree that it's a killer sequence; does what this guy says about it stand up?

Rocket Surgeon
11-11-2011, 09:05 AM
...the observations about Doom Town, especially about how the mannequins bore resemblance to the Germsn soldiers in the opening of the Ark sequence. I'm pretty sure I recall thinking such at the time. Many of us agree that it's a killer sequence; does what this guy says about it stand up?
I wasn't making the link, but I can appreciate it now. The gaping mouth was more unsettling because it conjured images of blow up dolls...(queue the requisite Family Guy clip).

replican't
11-11-2011, 09:10 AM
The dummies have zero link with the nazis in Raiders. What a pathetic grasping.

Rocket Surgeon
11-11-2011, 09:58 AM
The dummies have zero link with the nazis in Raiders. What a pathetic grasping.

Really? How do you know? Zero link!

Please share your font of knowlege and not simply your derision!

Pale Horse
11-11-2011, 10:29 AM
Really? How do you know? Zero link!



Derision aside, Occam demands that the claim be proved, not disproved. replican't is right. The onus is on the claim.

Montana Smith
11-11-2011, 10:51 AM
Derision aside, Occam demands that the claim be proved, not disproved. replican't is right. The onus is on the claim.

There was no claim, only a statement of similarity:

But how about this: the observations about Doom Town, especially about how the mannequins bore resemblance to the Germsn soldiers in the opening of the Ark sequence. I'm pretty sure I recall thinking such at the time.

It works for Belloq, so presumably works for the Germans, too:

http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/gallery/dvdscreenshots/380.jpg

http://www.theraider.net/films/indy4/gallery/dvdscreenshots/079.jpg

The dummies have zero link with the nazis in Raiders. What a pathetic grasping.

This is the claim. (And Attila was specificially referring to German soldiers, not Nazis ;) )

The onus is on the claim.


And what I glean from the similarity is a connection between versions of horror. The nuclear family, happy in their atomic age are unaware that they're about to be destroyed. (Belloq and co weren't expecting it either). For KOTCS it speaks about the wonders of atomic energy, while disguising the inherent danger.

Rocket Surgeon
11-11-2011, 11:05 AM
Derision aside, Occam demands that the claim be proved, not disproved. replican't is right. The onus is on the claim.
When Occam registers and makes demands so be it, unless you want to play...what was it? Sockpuppet?

Can't STATES there is ZERO link with the Nazi's in Raiders.

Keith Uhlich's OPINION is that the "jaw-dropped countenances, recall Raiders of the Lost Ark's awestruck, flesh-melting Nazis"

The essayist states his personal impression which the derider simply negates. My question is: How do you know?

Replican't is wrong...

What does Occam say about applying his razor to opinions? Besides the bloody mess that is...

replican't
11-12-2011, 04:58 AM
I just yawned. It doesnt make me a melting nazi.

Montana Smith
11-12-2011, 05:36 AM
I just yawned. It doesnt make me a melting nazi.

Almost everything in a film, especially in a set such as Doom Town is there by design. Spielberg could simply have opted for bland shop dummies, which would make more sense since they were destined for destruction, but he didn't.

The Indy movies are self-referential - as with the Ark appearing in both TLC and KOTCS. There's no reason why the dummies shouldn't also be referrring back to a previous occasion when destruction befell an unsuspecting group.

Henry W Jones
11-14-2011, 06:59 PM
Doug Harlocker-Property Master on KOTCS - "We had to provide all the mannequins for "Doom Town." And so we had to come up with 50's looking mannequins, you know because, it's, they're very specific back then, their faces, their hairstyle. And we found a number of companies that still had some vintage mannequins, and one company in particular that sort of specialized in that." 11 min 40 sec into Production Diary: Making "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - Shooting Begins: New Mexico - on bonus disc KOTCS DVD.

Sounds to me like they were just going for the 50's mannequin look rather than trying to imitate the look of Raiders. And that some of the mannequins might have existed before Raiders.

I wasn't making the link, but I can appreciate it now. The gaping mouth was more unsettling because it conjured images of blow up dolls...(queue the requisite Family Guy clip).

Why do they always look so surprised? :eek:

Rocket Surgeon
11-15-2011, 09:40 AM
Doug Harlocker-Property Master on KOTCS - "We had to provide all the mannequins for "Doom Town." And so we had to come up with 50's looking mannequins, you know because, it's, they're very specific back then, their faces, their hairstyle. And we found a number of companies that still had some vintage mannequins, and one company in particular that sort of specialized in that." 11 min 40 sec into Production Diary: Making "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - Shooting Begins: New Mexico - on bonus disc KOTCS DVD.

Sounds to me like they were just going for the 50's mannequin look rather than trying to imitate the look of Raiders. And that some of the mannequins might have existed before Raiders. I doubt there was any real link, in my mind they featured the gaping woman for her unique expression(less?) face.

That it reminded him of the Nazis isn't that great a stretch with the amount of self reverence the makers indulge in.

They could have picked a more standard female for a close up, there were others.


Why do they always look so surprised? :eek: Professional courtesy...?:o