Finally managed to get a hold of a copy of this, and judging by the stickers on the spine, its had quite a life, I'd love to know how it found its way from a library in California all the way to me.
But anyway.
It was great.. and.. heres the point of this post, it made me see something about the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles I'd never seen before, or perhaps I'd just been denying it to myself..
<sigh>
Now its probably well known that I'm a fairly big fan of Young Indy, I post on these boards only on occasion, and when I do, its usually to defend Young Indy or to agree with Stoo on some obscure point hes brought up.
Which is why this may appear somewhat controversial..
Indy, as depicted in Luceno's book, is far far far more like Indy then he ever appeared as portrayed by Flanery in Young Indy. Far more like a young version of the Indy portrayed in the films. In fact, in my opinion, he appears as Indy should have in televised Young Indy. Some of this is due to subtle changes in events, for example the explanation of the causes of the first world war - In the episode its described for Indy's benefit using vegtables, bits of bread, salt sellers etc- and it concludes with Indy surprised and disheartened by the causes - In the Novel it is Indy doing the explaining, becoming slightly professorial, HE is the one who describes the causes of the war.
Now to me, this is FAR more consistant with the character of Indiana Jones circa 1916, I mean for goodness sake the man met Franz Ferdinand whose assasination sparked the powder keg - he speaks over a dozen languages already, is a keen student of history, has friends already fighting in the war and has the sort of mind that would in no way refrain from investigating the causes of the greatest event the world had yet seen. Now crucially, in his explanation Indy does not come across as cocky or all knowing (which I'll come to in a bit), but merely well informed, as someone points out Indy is never seen with his head out of a book.
Now the thing was, reading the book, Indy, in my head, started off as Flanery, but as events diverged, as new scenes were interjected, he was played by someone else, a young Harrison Ford, who then took over from Sean even in scenes I've seen dozens of times on my TV set, and this new person, this undiscovered actor of the mid nineteen nineties, now living in obscurity in Denver, was far more like Indy then Sean ever was... cos I suddenly realised that the character as depicted by Sean Patrick Flanery is, quite simply, wrong... ooo I feel really wrong myself just typing that.
I don't think Sean ever really got Indy.. Another book I read recently, just before the Mata Hari affair actually was 'the making of the indiana jones chronicles'. Some of the things Sean says in his interviews...
When asked whether he ever had an interest in history Flanery replies in the negative, but then relates the following anecdote
"We shot in Wales with some old land structures and castles and things that were from the 1100s. It was so cold and damp, and leaning out the window, I was thinking, 'I wonder whose elbows were leaning on this brick windowsill back in the 1100s? was it some knight with a spear yanked out of his chest? Was he bleeding?' You just never know"
This is his interest in history, sort of juvenile sensationalism.. while filming Young Indy, a series steeped in history.. all he can think about is blood and guts
Also when talking about traveling around the world filming the show all Sean has to say is that only in Spain can you have a 'proper' conversation with someone as 'they have electricity'
And this is the man playing Indiana Jones? I don't think he ever understood why Indy was an intellectual, not because hes smart, but because of his insatiable curiosity and need to prove himself to his father, (all outlined in the Mata Hari book..) I've always felt somewhat uneasy whenever Sean is trying to be intellectual.. I could never pinpoint it before.. I mean look at Harrison in Raiders, describing the ark of the covenant, teaching his class, describing the legend of the Crystal skull in KOTCS, the grail tablet in Donavans office in Crusade, the legend of the Sankara stones in Doom, he imparts information not in any cocky way but in a 'I just happen to know and so I'm going to teach you' sort of way..
But when Sean imparts it, whenever he imparts it, I never really believe it... when I always did with Harrison.. you know what I mean?
Also, from what I've heard, he allowed himself to get pushed around in different directions by different directors... now I'm an actor, its what I do, I used to be an archaeologist... but, an actor defines their character, if an actor GETS their character then they can't really be pushed around by different director's interpretations.. they can fit the character to the situation, but the CORE shouldn't change.. and sometimes he gets it, he really does, I mean look at Oganga, look at the first part of Winds of Change, but he doesn't allow Indy to age through the end of the war.. hes far too nervous and incapable in Hollywood follies for my liking, always has been.... of course it isn't all his fault.. but hes just not Indiana Jones.. 'The Mata Hari affair' made me see this.. the same story with a different actor was far more indiana jones.
I mean look at young Kirk in the new Star Trek movie.. hes flawed, naive, arrogant, but he utterly GETS the character... The growth of the character is WHY I love the series but... I think Indy is an intellectual first... its his curiosity that leads him to adventure, his NEED to learn... one can be naive and intellectual.. head strong as well... and confidant..
I'm getting off topic here. The book is great, it links together all the episodes, he links him being a courier with his escape from prison at the end of Trenches of Hell on a bicycle, Charles De Gaulle gets a mention, and unlike the episode Indy seems already jaded by Trench Warfare. Its very historical with lots of specific historical detail, and you can really picture the real locations it takes place in. Additions to the Mata Hari part of the tale too makes it make more sense, more intrigue with the police, and Indy realising the error of his ways. Mata Hari too seems more realisticly like Mata Hari, plus it is extra bizzarre considering the weight it puts on her being older then his mother would have been.. She wasn't very well cast either... but thats another story.
Now don't get me wrong, I still love Young Indy, I just think I've discovered its achilles heel, for me anyway.. I wish it wasn't so crucial, but thats that. I mean I love some of the things Sean does, ALL of Peacocks eye, except the sequence in the tomb where hes not very capable (look at him in the background, he looks totally inept) But this book has convinced me its not the writing or the story... so it must be the performance. Sorry Sean.. but theres always been a bit of me unconvinced...
Wish they'd written more of these books.. Indy's flip flopping between archaeology and diplomacy at the end of the war could really have used clarification.
So yeah, that was long. Thoughts?