Does KOTCS have any intellectual value?
- Thread starter HovitosKing
- Start date
Sans Fedora
New member
This is a very interesting thread. To pile onto the discussion of Spalko willing to risk everything for knowledge:
What I gathered from Spalko's demise, as with Donovan and Last Crusade, is that it wasn't so much the desire for knowledge that killed her, it was that she was willing to do ANYTHING for said knowledge. She was willing to take innocent life (including the massacre every one of those Ugha natives although you only see it for a sec) kidnap, steal, anything, (geez, even destroy the rainforest!) to get that knowledge. THAT was the sin, so to speak, not the DESIRE for that knowledge. And I think the aliens were pissed at her for that more than anything, because in their (assumed) infinite knowledge, their wisdom was to be benevolent to weaker lifeforms (ancient cultures) and taught them how to irrigate, farm, etc. rather than destroy them. Do you know what I'm getting at? So they fried her brain.
That may not be all THAT intellectual, but I do enjoy discussing the deeper themes behind the story.
What I gathered from Spalko's demise, as with Donovan and Last Crusade, is that it wasn't so much the desire for knowledge that killed her, it was that she was willing to do ANYTHING for said knowledge. She was willing to take innocent life (including the massacre every one of those Ugha natives although you only see it for a sec) kidnap, steal, anything, (geez, even destroy the rainforest!) to get that knowledge. THAT was the sin, so to speak, not the DESIRE for that knowledge. And I think the aliens were pissed at her for that more than anything, because in their (assumed) infinite knowledge, their wisdom was to be benevolent to weaker lifeforms (ancient cultures) and taught them how to irrigate, farm, etc. rather than destroy them. Do you know what I'm getting at? So they fried her brain.
That may not be all THAT intellectual, but I do enjoy discussing the deeper themes behind the story.
YouNeverKnow
New member
Great thread! 
I'll think about all the Red Scare metaphors and such and add my input later, but (and I think I read this somewhere on here...you got me thinking, whoever) at the last time I saw it I was very struck by the juxtaposition of the Indy silhouette in front of the bomb and then the UFO. Like StoneTriple said, those two images tie directly into what was prevalent for the times, and however bizarre you found those (insanely iconic) scenes was for a purpose.
Indiana Jones was a hero of an earlier age, where the bad guys were clear-cut and the war feels like it was fought on two sides of a thick black line. In KotCS Indy is pitted against an entirely different type of warfare, where he has to mistrust his own good friends (Mac) and encounter very strange beliefs like Spalko's imagined psychic war.
Also I thought those two scenes (fridge and saucer imperative to both) really highlighted the destructive power of each. Somehow it connected to this idea of not tampering with microscopic things when there are plenty of powerful macroscopic things that have us just as baffled. Which could also connect to this voracious search for knowledge when we are still so unprepared, and could lead to the same sticky end as Ms. Col. Dr. Spalko.
I'll think about all the Red Scare metaphors and such and add my input later, but (and I think I read this somewhere on here...you got me thinking, whoever) at the last time I saw it I was very struck by the juxtaposition of the Indy silhouette in front of the bomb and then the UFO. Like StoneTriple said, those two images tie directly into what was prevalent for the times, and however bizarre you found those (insanely iconic) scenes was for a purpose.
Indiana Jones was a hero of an earlier age, where the bad guys were clear-cut and the war feels like it was fought on two sides of a thick black line. In KotCS Indy is pitted against an entirely different type of warfare, where he has to mistrust his own good friends (Mac) and encounter very strange beliefs like Spalko's imagined psychic war.
Also I thought those two scenes (fridge and saucer imperative to both) really highlighted the destructive power of each. Somehow it connected to this idea of not tampering with microscopic things when there are plenty of powerful macroscopic things that have us just as baffled. Which could also connect to this voracious search for knowledge when we are still so unprepared, and could lead to the same sticky end as Ms. Col. Dr. Spalko.
The Hitchcock-inspired "mirror images" of Indy standing in front on the atomic bomb (on the right, I believe) and the saucer (on the left) have stuck with me the most...and provided ample intellectual value in their own right.
In broad strokes, these images display the insignificance and weakness of man--the equal power of our own creations of destructive force as well as the unknown and mysterious.
On a personal level, these images most strongly attest to Indiana's own mortality and decreasing importance in the world. Once a man who could change the entire course of history nearly by himself, he has become a person who the world is now quickly passing by, to be forgotten. He drives significantly less of the movie's action, allowing for a more ensemble affair with his son and Marian.
Indiana Jones, the iconic action star, was definitely a man of his time--the time of 1930s serials. The 1950s, with their new technology and alien discoveries, make for a time and series of events that now dwarf a formely "larger-than-life" human being. In TOD, the audience looks up in awe as we see a legendary, statue-esque hero zoom-in shot right before Indy frees the slave children. In KOTCS, it is Indiana looking up in awe--becoming a mortal like the rest of us.
In broad strokes, these images display the insignificance and weakness of man--the equal power of our own creations of destructive force as well as the unknown and mysterious.
On a personal level, these images most strongly attest to Indiana's own mortality and decreasing importance in the world. Once a man who could change the entire course of history nearly by himself, he has become a person who the world is now quickly passing by, to be forgotten. He drives significantly less of the movie's action, allowing for a more ensemble affair with his son and Marian.
Indiana Jones, the iconic action star, was definitely a man of his time--the time of 1930s serials. The 1950s, with their new technology and alien discoveries, make for a time and series of events that now dwarf a formely "larger-than-life" human being. In TOD, the audience looks up in awe as we see a legendary, statue-esque hero zoom-in shot right before Indy frees the slave children. In KOTCS, it is Indiana looking up in awe--becoming a mortal like the rest of us.
Last edited:
graz
New member
I think its interesting how many people don't get the 'I like Ike' gag in KOTCS.
As a historical reference (it refers to General Eisenhower and was something one should say to show alleigence to the flag), it was one of the most intelligent of the series. I think its interesting that in a film that is aimed (supposedly) mainly at Children, they should use a reference that only adults are likely to understand.
When I was at school (in England) we learnt all about the McCarthy hearings - the way it is dealt with in the movie is beyond anything in the first three movies in terms of historical interest and accuracy (in my opinion!).
As a historical reference (it refers to General Eisenhower and was something one should say to show alleigence to the flag), it was one of the most intelligent of the series. I think its interesting that in a film that is aimed (supposedly) mainly at Children, they should use a reference that only adults are likely to understand.
When I was at school (in England) we learnt all about the McCarthy hearings - the way it is dealt with in the movie is beyond anything in the first three movies in terms of historical interest and accuracy (in my opinion!).
StoneTriple
New member
weyhoops said:
That's what really moved me about the film. We get to see Indy as a regular guy. Someone who is dealing with his own aging, as well as a changing world. When he's standing in front of the mushroom cloud, we see that he's no longer larger than life. It's humbling for him - and it's humbling for us.
I identify with Indy much more now than I did when I was a 19 year old kid. He was a great hero figure for me when I was sitting in the theater in 1981. However, in 2008 he's struggling with the same issues, and looking for the same answers that I am - and that was an emotion I didn't anticipate when I went to see Kingdom. It really was like seeing an old friend after nearly 30 years - not like looking at pictures of an old friend from nearly 30 years ago.
I welcomed and embraced the changed Indy because I've changed along with him.
Again -
to Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford.StoneTriple said:That's what really moved me about the film. We get to see Indy as a regular guy. Someone who is dealing with his own aging, as well as a changing world. When he's standing in front of the mushroom cloud, we see that he's no longer larger than life. It's humbling for him - and it's humbling for us.
I identify with Indy much more now than I did when I was a 19 year old kid. He was a great hero figure for me when I was sitting in the theater in 1981. However, in 2008 he's struggling with the same issues, and looking for the same answers that I am - and that was an emotion I didn't anticipate when I went to see Kingdom. It really was like seeing an old friend after nearly 30 years - not like looking at pictures of an old friend from nearly 30 years ago.
I welcomed and embraced the changed Indy because I've changed along with him.
Again -
Well-said. While Crusade and Kingdom have their share of detractors, Indiana Jones would be a very different character without these films. In these last 2 movies, he has not only matured, but actually become more human--someone ordinary folks with families can relate to, rather than simply an action hero to look up to. I can completely understand why this disappoints the hell out of some people. But I must agree with StoneTriple that, for me, this aspect makes the movies much more powerful.
Excellent post.StoneTriple said:That's what really moved me about the film. We get to see Indy as a regular guy. Someone who is dealing with his own aging, as well as a changing world. When he's standing in front of the mushroom cloud, we see that he's no longer larger than life. It's humbling for him - and it's humbling for us.
I identify with Indy much more now than I did when I was a 19 year old kid. He was a great hero figure for me when I was sitting in the theater in 1981. However, in 2008 he's struggling with the same issues, and looking for the same answers that I am - and that was an emotion I didn't anticipate when I went to see Kingdom. It really was like seeing an old friend after nearly 30 years - not like looking at pictures of an old friend from nearly 30 years ago.
I welcomed and embraced the changed Indy because I've changed along with him.
Again -
This is why, for me, it was so fitting that he end up with his one true love and in the process dicovered a whole new life for himself as a family man.
Many people thought this was corny and would rather see him as a lonely guy riding off into the sunset - but thats just depressing, particularly when we have become so fond of him.
They should have stuck with the perfect "Destroyer of Worlds" title. Knowledge is gold in small portions, but it seems the dead skeletons (I believe the live alien was in Spalko's mind) could not control the transfer rate. Primitive life vs. technology has been an Indy motif ever since he jumped form a horse to a truck and helped ewoks fight imperial walkers.
It's an anti-communist movie. Sort of the opposite of K-19 The Widowmaker, which showed the folly of Soviet communism while the heroic crew practiced pure communism. Here, you get the anti-McCarthy platitudes, but fears are justified because Mac's an actual spy, Russians infiltrate a US military base, and nuclear power is demonstrated. And in the Darabont script, they also got 20 pounds of high grade plutonium.
Darabont also had the line, "You're my fortune and glory, kid." Time waits for no man. "Can I buy you a drink" was tacked on to Raiders months before release, and family has been a theme ever since. Imagining intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does make one feel insignificant, as Indy feels at the start of the movie... but he ends up part of something greater than himself.
It's an anti-communist movie. Sort of the opposite of K-19 The Widowmaker, which showed the folly of Soviet communism while the heroic crew practiced pure communism. Here, you get the anti-McCarthy platitudes, but fears are justified because Mac's an actual spy, Russians infiltrate a US military base, and nuclear power is demonstrated. And in the Darabont script, they also got 20 pounds of high grade plutonium.
Darabont also had the line, "You're my fortune and glory, kid." Time waits for no man. "Can I buy you a drink" was tacked on to Raiders months before release, and family has been a theme ever since. Imagining intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does make one feel insignificant, as Indy feels at the start of the movie... but he ends up part of something greater than himself.
Last edited: