Udvarnoky said:
I'm actually arguing that Crystal Skull has no pathos, period. In contrast, Last Crusade has the Indy/Henry Sr. dynamic, which serves as the heart of the movie. So no, it's not the same problem.
I guess I've become cynical with age, but I find Last Crusade overly sentimental and the casting of Sean Connery as bordering on stunt casting; at the very least, it's gimmicky. An Indiana Jones movie for me doesn't NEED "pathos". I mean, the relationship between Indy and Willie wasn't particularly Nolan-esque or emotionally charged.
Nobody expects an Indiana Jones movie to be an emotionally transcendent experience, but the other sequels invest you enough that you actually feel something at the end. Last Crusade has the father/son relationship as its emotional linchpin, and pays it off nicely. Temple doesn't exactly tug at the heart strings, but it nevertheless succeeds in being emotionally exhausting.
The first time you watch Temple, there's real relief and triumph at the end, because you feel like on some level you've been dragged through the same hell the characters were. Temple of Doom is a movie you don't so much experience as survive.
The only time I ever felt something emotionally when watching an Indiana Jones film was when Indy has the Leap of Faith moment in Crusade, and the exhilaration of the 1912 segment. I don't watch these movies to feel something, I watch them to escape real life and have a good time. If the movie succeeds at giving me that, then I'm satisfied.
Crystal Skull doesn't have a cathartic moment because it doesn't really build to one. Yes, on paper the arc is that Indy is old and alone and by the end has a family. But this family comes pre-packaged, and we don't have enough of a connection to these characters for it to mean anything.
I find it cathartic because, in the context of Indiana Jones' character, everything we've come to know about him (especially if you like the YIJC, as I do), he really has found what he's finally been looking for. He never gets the treasure, he never quite wins, but he has finally won. The fact that the family comes pre-packaged doesn't bother me; I view it similar to the 'family' dynamic that was at play in Temple. We have a connection to Marion due to Raiders of the Lost Ark, so saying we don't have a connection to her, especially when she's one of the more beloved characters in the franchise is little off-base. Mutt, yes, but I mean, how well are we supposed to get to know him?
I'm not fond of the idea of Indy having a child anyway; it is what it is. I'm glad we didn't get to know him further as he took up enough action and screen time. Honestly, my only real qualm with Kingdom comes down to Mutt stealing action scenes that should've belonged to Indy (and I really dislike the nepotism which led to Shia being cast; he's also not that great of an actor and doesn't deserve to be Indy's son)>
Ox is more device than a character and doesn't even have his real identity until the movie's last ten minutes. Mutt starts off as a functional sidekick that swiftly becomes backgrounded once he's revealed to be Indy's son. Even Marion is dead weight after her initial appearance, like they were trusting that our excitement to merely see her again would cancel out any requirement that she be given something to do.
So, basically the way every side character besides Connery was treated in Last Crusade. I mean, Crusade's dynamic really only works because Connery and Harrison lifted each other's performances higher - they played off each other nicely. Connery's own little quirks as an actor; his expressions, his comedic and dramatic timing greatly enhanced the film. Put any other actor in there and he'd be just as backgrounded as Mutt.
Thus, none of the character work feels particularly motivated, a sense that is exacerbated by other weak aspects of the script: abandoned subplots (Indy's federal scrutiny), characters whose actions are unaccountable (Mac), and everybody treating ostensibly dangerous situations with a casual indifference. The movie puts forth various ideas but does not succeed in having them add up in a satisfying way, in my opinion. And that's particularly fatal when the characters themselves are among those undeveloped ideas.
I'll agree with the underdeveloped part, but I'm also someone who is willing to take a leap of faith so to speak; what I mean is, there is enough there for me to connect the dots. At least with regard to Indiana. We know him well enough to know where his head is at, and frankly, he's the only character that matters to me on-screen in any of the films; the rest are always expendable to me. I do hate that the FBI subplot was just sort of forgotten, and while I like the wedding, the MEGA HAPPY ENDING where Indy is not only somehow pardoned, but even promoted, irks me.
Perhaps if the movie had focused on one relationship as Last Crusade did (and as Darabont's Indy 4 draft did), the results would have been better. As it is, no character is really able to stand out, and when the movie does try for pathos it just feel like a warmed over version of something done better already. Pointing out similarities in template between Crystal Skull and Last Crusade completely misses what makes Last Crusade work.
But that's the thing with these kind of sequels: They tend to feel warmed over. The only sequel which really stands on its own is Temple. Last Crusade and Kingdom attempt to be Raider of the Lost Ark Pt. II, and both, while IMO great in their own right, are just B movies where Raiders is a masterpiece of film.
We look at this, though, from two very different viewpoints. One of my favorite series is James Bond, particularly the Connery and Moore movies (really only those). I don't look for depth or pathos or emotional turmoil in these movies; I just look for a great time, a way to shut off my mind for two hours; Indy for me is as interesting as Bond because we don't know everything about him; because he always manages to survive; because he's unpredictable. I don't watch these movies to plum emotional depths...I just watch them to see a badass guy in a fedora fight, discover wondrous treasures, and confront supernatural, unearthly terrors in the early-mid 20th century. Basically, film's version of Alan Quartermain done right; the ultimate Pulp Hero who has aspects of all the best serial characters. A devil-may-care borderline sociopath who beats up bad guys and gets the girl. No deeper than that.
When I am looking for depth with regard to Indiana Jones, I don't watch the movies, I watch the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. It's really only that entry in the franchise that holds any emotional weight for me or inspires any heavy emotions. I just feel that looking for depth in films like the Indy movies is overthinking it, Nolan-izing it. People have forgotten just how to have a good time without requiring pathos. That said, that's why I'm happy the YIJC exists - because when I do want that out of Indy, it's there.
At the end of the day, Indiana Jones is really not that different from James Bond...They're action B-movies, with Indy having a unique period film/adventure component...As such I don't expect a masterpiece. As long as the film isn't as dumb or brutish as The Mummy movies or as shallow as the Tomb Raider series, I'm happy.