Crystal Skull: "Great Indiana Jones Film" or "Greatest Indiana Jones Film"?

"Great Indiana Jones Film" or "Greatest Indiana Jones Film"?

  • Great Indiana Jones Film

    Votes: 5 71.4%
  • Greatest Indiana Jones Film

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Total voters
    7
Crystal Skull: "Great Indiana Jones Film" or "Greatest Indiana Jones Film"?

The Whip and the Fedora

Originally posted by Armond White

How the best Indiana Jones films survive our loss of innocence

The recently issued Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures on Paramount Blu-Ray comes at the right moment?that is, with enough passage of time?that now a reasonable assessment can be made of the entire series. Despite the historical impact that Raiders of the Lost Ark made in 1981, each succeeding sequel has surpassed it. The original now looks rather stodgy (even with the vivid Blu-Ray transfer?no matter how many people pledge nostalgic preference for it) because Spielberg?s aesthetic momentum improved?astonishingly?with each sequel.

Now it can said: Raiders is the least of the quartet, despite its early 80s novelty, coming at the tail-end of the ?70s American Renaissance when filmmakers brought modernist revisionism to Hollywood genre. Raiders is preferred by those who refuse to take Spielberg (and pop culture) seriously. It?s actually less elegant than the widely disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which is, in fact, far richer (although the amazing cinematographer Janusz Kaminski failed to light it with Douglas Slocombe?s smooth, gorgeous. ultra-Hollywood sparkle that distinguished the first three films). Crystal Skull builds on Raider?s ideas and complicates them. Arriving two decades later, it is the series? true sequel?refined and elegant.

The other Indy films stand alone: Temple of Doom is a rambunctious comedy with some of the greatest action-directing (that rollercoaster ride through the mines) that one can ever see. And The Last Crusade is the series? pinnacle?a masterpiece. Harrison Ford?s Indy finds his best ally in his dad (Sean Connery, evoking the crowd-pleasing ingenuity of the James Bond series that was the forerunner to this action-cycle) and then the All-American adventurer bumps into his perfect foil (Adolf Hitler signing his autograph?in the book that represents Indy?s family legacy).

In The Last Crusade?s overture sequence, detailing Indy?s boyhood (played by the late River Phoenix), we get a perfect example of relay-race ingenuity as well as a compressed history of cinema kinetics. As teenage Indy goes from horse to train (a semiotic condensation of John Ford?s The Iron Horse and Buster Keaton?s The General in the guise of Barnum and Bailey circus transport), Spielberg achieved one of the most cinematically resonant sequences in modern movies (until Joseph Kahn paid homage to it in the train/motorcycle/gun race of Torque).

It is in The Last Crusade that Spielberg comes to grips with Imperialism and the politics and ethics behind Indy?s (the West?s) anthropological urge. Manifest colonialism meets its spiritual destiny. Destiny resonates when one revisits the now-disappointing Raiders of the Lost Ark. It simply doesn?t move fast enough?either rhythmically or intellectually. It now just looks like a slow exploration of genre possibilities; in the end a childish folly; a rehash of serial movie triviality. This exercise was fascinating in 1981 (starting with the signature visual puns on the Paramount logo that always begin the caprice?signalling for the viewer to appreciate movie history) because no one had thought about Serials as a genre for decades until the lame Star Wars revived the concept in 1977. Raiders was livelier and more human than Star Wars (and seemed fresher than The Empire Strikes Back, the best film in that woebegone series) yet over the years Raiders has not aged particularly well. (Indy running ahead of the onslaught of a rolling boulder has been so overexposed that the modernist joke is lost. Now Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959), from which Spielberg stole the joke, proves to have more dramatic context.)

Consider Raiders? confrontation with a black-garbed Arab swinging a scimitar and Indy?s very American response (reversing the axiom about ?bringing a knife to a gun fight?). In ?81 it felt cool?shocking and so Wild West American?but three decades later, especially now in the era of international trepidation and foreign policy appeasement, Indy?s gunplay feels embarrassingly over drawn. Raiders? concept of American fun and might went around the globe, entertaining audiences everywhere, but Al Qaeda?s payback on 9/11 haunts it now.

Indy?s moment of retaliation has come to seem futile or ill-considered?far different from the American awakening from isolationism depicted in Casablanca. That gun violates the symbolism of Indy?s whip and fedora (his prowess and his mind). It also connects to what?s problematic in the series?Temple of Doom?s insensitive, tacit racism that turned the Otherness of Indian cults into bloodthirsty villainy. Spielberg?s personal artistic reflexes and political anxieties are as fascinating as the paradoxes Edmund Wilson studied in The Wound and the Bow. Raiders? climactic shift into Judeo-Christian sanctity (using the power of the lost Ark of the Covenant as both a moral force and a final reference to the cultural touchstone of Citizen Kane?a cinephile?s covenant) was clever but only temporarily satisfying. Spielberg needed both the process of making The Color Purple which fully empathized with the experience of the Other and the pre-Schindler?s List wit of The Last Crusade to finally face up to and fully explicate the series? Western perspective. The Last Crusade is the film in the series that holds up best after our loss of innocence post-9/11. When revisiting the project in Crystal Skull, Spielberg broadened that perspective historically (the magnificent mushroom cloud nuclear bomb recreation), astronomically and metaphysically.

Given the mess of contemporary cultural expression?the West and the Mid-East?s unresolved feelings about history and destiny now exploding all about us?the Indiana Jones series may be America?s last example of global adventure filmmaking. How do we imaginatively utilize Indy?s bullwhip and fedora in the midst of Arab Spring and Arab Winter? Read more about this in my book The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World.

I'm still reeling...
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
As I was reading it, at first I thought it was well-written and well-argued. But then he mentioned Torque. Then randomly name-checked 9/11. Then didn't actually get around to talking about Crystal Skull much at all. Huh.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
What a completely unvivid imagination. "Raiders is the least of the quartet"! What soapbox is he standing on?
 

Gear

New member
Lulz, this guy's a cinema hipster. Insert meme;


'Loved Raiders of the Lost Ark until it grossed $242 million

DISOWNS IT'



Seriously: it's an interesting and appreciated perspective, and us fan boys/girls shouldn't get butt-hurt about it.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
This is actually very typical Armond White.

Guy's a performance artist at this point.

Deliberately contrarian and so consistently and wildly off-base that the only possible explanation for his existence is that is pulling the longest "Punk'd" gag in history.

Nothing to see here.
 
Lance Quazar said:
This is actually very typical Armond White.
You're familiar with this wackjob? I read a few comments and besides his stance on the Andersons and post like:
Lance Quazar said:
Guy's a performance artist at this point. Deliberately contrarian...

Whats his deal?

With comparisons to knockoffs of bad films (Torque) I imagine the comedy is boundless...

I didn't agree with Siskel 100% but I appreciated his insight and valued his opinion. For fans of strawberry kiwi bublegum (schlock) I guess he's a similar source...

replican't said:
Would sir prefer a kick to the balls or a punch to the neck?
Can I wear a cup?
 

Deckard

New member
Google Armond White and then realise you should never ever take anything this clown writes remotely seriously. All he ever does is the exact opposite for attention.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Deckard said:
Google Armond White and then realise you should never ever take anything this clown writes remotely seriously. All he ever does is the exact opposite for attention.
Since this thread has seemingly derailed, let me push it further off kilter by asking Deckard if you've already pre-ordered....
918Wr78ryUL._AA1500_.jpg


I didn't know it existed (or will exist soon enough) until I saw it on the Amazon.co.uk site -- about 10 bucks cheaper than it lists on Amazon in the US.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
You're familiar with this wackjob?

Yep. He gained notoriety a year or two ago by being literally the only critic on earth who didn't like "Toy Story 3."

There have been numerous similar contrarian positions before and after that in his checkered career.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Oh that Armond White.

I can get on board that Indiana Jones And Kingdom Skull is underrated and is no where near as bad as say the melodramatic South Park creators insist, but better than Raiders? That's going too far.;)
 
Deckard said:
Google Armond White and then realise you should never ever take anything this clown writes remotely seriously. All he ever does is the exact opposite for attention.
That's the general consensus...
Lance Quazar said:
Yep. He gained notoriety a year or two ago by being literally the only critic on earth who didn't like "Toy Story 3."
Still haven't seen that one, but can't imagine how they could go wrong.
Forbidden Eye said:
Oh that Armond White. I can get on board that Indiana Jones And Kingdom Skull is underrated and is no where near as bad as say the melodramatic South Park creators insist, but better than Raiders? That's going too far.;)
Armond said:
Now it can said: Raiders is the least of the quartet, despite its early 80s novelty, coming at the tail-end of the ?70s American Renaissance when filmmakers brought modernist revisionism to Hollywood genre.
Does he come with a glossary where we can source his terms?!

Armond said:
Raiders is preferred by those who refuse to take Spielberg (and pop culture) seriously.
I know I need annotating at times but I think he's got me beat.

Armond said:
It?s actually less elegant than the widely disliked Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which is, in fact, far richer...
Less elegant? Far Richer? For those of you who know him "better" can you explain this because he doesn't, at least not in any way I can comprehend. There are some loose strings but...

Armond said:
Crystal Skull builds on Raider?s ideas and complicates them. Arriving two decades later, it is the series? true sequel?refined and elegant.
Is he talking film making or writing craft...? Is he supporting the undefined post 9/11 "loss of innocence"?

Is he on crack?
 
How the best Indiana Jones films survive our loss of innocence

Originally posted by Armond White

It is in The Last Crusade that Spielberg comes to grips with Imperialism and the politics and ethics behind Indy’s (the West’s) anthropological urge. Manifest colonialism meets its spiritual destiny.
Wouldn't this be Temple? Is he talking about a western imperialist stealing cars and driving them into holes?


Originally posted by Armond White
Destiny resonates when one revisits the now-disappointing Raiders of the Lost Ark. It simply doesn’t move fast enough—either rhythmically or intellectually.
Is there such a thing as too much Mountain Dew?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Armond White said:
Destiny resonates when one revisits the now-disappointing Raiders of the Lost Ark. It simply doesn’t move fast enough—either rhythmically or intellectually.

It moves fast enough.

But there again, so does Forrest Gump.

Forrest_Gump_running_alabama_jenny.jpg
 
Montana Smith said:
Only if compared to a strong laxative.
I don't understand where you're taking this...your posts of late have read like non-sequiturs.

Crystal Skull is faster than Raiders if its compared to a strong laxative?

Maybe I need sleep, but I'm just lost.:confused:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I don't understand where you're taking this...your posts of late have read like non-sequiturs.

Crystal Skull is faster than Raiders if its compared to a strong laxative?

Maybe I need sleep, but I'm just lost.:confused:

You'll have to think with replican't's brain. (It's around here somewhere).

Think of an uncontrollable bowel movement and you'll be heading in the right direction.

(And Raiders had the IQ of Forrest Gump).
 
Montana Smith said:
You'll have to think with replican't's brain. (It's around here somewhere).

Think of an uncontrollable bowel movement and you'll be heading in the right direction.

(And Raiders had the IQ of Forrest Gump).

Ah, I get it...

...no, I don't.
 
Top