Attempting to appreciate Temple of Doom as a prequel

'allo

The fact that ToD is a prequel is one that seems merely an incidental fact that seems quite odd but is easily forgotten.
Yet it is extremely unusual in a series such as Indy for a prequel to be made when there is no obvious reason for it, and there has been precious little comment from fandom on seeing ToD as a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.
So let us try to understand it and analyse the movie from the perspective of a prequel than a sequel for a moment....

Of course it can be argued and it is to a certain extent true that the reason for ToD was set earlier was to avoid the Nazis, this is what GL himself stated at one point. However this for me makes little sense as ToD is set in a completely different part of the world and there is no reason that the plotline of ToD could not work in post 36 setting. Also the script contains anachronistic references to the bombing of Shanghai which would either suggest shabby research or a later intended setting in the original script.

Then does this have something to do with Indys character arc? - had he changed so much following the events of Raiders that he could not be the type of man that was needed for ToD?
A lot has been made about the differences between the Indy of ToD and the rest of the trilogy, emphasising his mercenary nature in dealing with the Chinaese gangsters (Against the international treaty for the preservation of antiquities no doubt) but in Raiders he acts once again as a mercenary for the US government....
There is no obvious difference in the character between movies in my opinion, there is no sign that the confrontation with the Thugees has changed him or shaped him in some way that allowed him to act in the way he did in Raiders. In fact the opposite seems the case, in Raiders he is very sceptical of the Ark initally while in ToD he becomes respectful of at least the spiritual power of the Stones which is a point of view that exists in LC when Indy immediately considers from a painting that perhaps the Grail could exist.

Indys actions in ToD are in fact far better understood in a character arc sense as following on logically from Raiders relatively un-altruisticly hero, to the warm compassionate cleansed crusader of LC.

And thats it....
I must admit that I am a little dissapointed not to find much to appreciate in seeing this movie as a prequel. But that does leave the intriguing question why exactly did GL design the movie as a prequel at all? - or am I wrong and is there some character arc or some proper reason for ToD being a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.

bob said:

Then does this have something to do with Indys character arc? - had he changed so much following the events of Raiders that he could not be the type of man that was needed for ToD?

Click to expand...

bob, you rock -- as always.

I think that Lucas prefers the 'darker' Indy and he wisely felt there was no going back after the change wrought in Raiders. Given Lucas's control in ToD, I think we can agree that Lucas was trying to impose his will on the character.

As for the stones not working a change on Indy think of it like this. As a globe trotting academic, Indy's a skeptic by nature. So after he has his brief crazed adventure in India where he may or may not have had an encounter with the supernatural, he reverts to his old skeptical self and dismisses/rationalizes anything that he may or may not have seen/experienced.

So by the time we get to the start of Raiders -- where Indy is dealing with a Christian artifact that he may well have no respect for -- there's no reason for him not to be same skeptical, dark jaded fortune hunter.

[On a tangent, I've always felt that ToD was prejudiced. Indy doesn't want the silly stone because as a relic from a culture that had no value in the West it would just collect dust in a forgotten corner of the museum. On a more basic level, I feel that the story is prejudiced because it depicts the villagers as not being able to care for themselves: they need the stone to sustain them and Indy -- who was supposedly sent by their Gods -- to rescue them. Talk about Western Conceit. Where's George Orwell and Salamon (sp?) Rushdie when you need them?]

Re: Re: Attempting to appreciate Temple of Doom as a prequel

<small>

Joe Brody said:

Salamon

Click to expand...

<i>Salman.</i> You're welcome.</small>

Edit: Alot of useless info, so heres the stuff that relates strictly with the subject:

I find it interesting, bob, that you feel the opposite is true. To me, the character did indeed change to merit and qualify Temple's pre-Raiders setting. After his escape from Shanghai, and his encounter with the village, his mission is still self interest. The line "fortune and glory" summarized Indy's real motivation. Im sure he still had the villagers at heart, but on the surface his primary thought was still self profit.

Of course his humanitarian side takes over half way through, and he selflessly passes over the artifact to its rightful owners, the villagers. The only difference is that he gives the artifact over to the US government in Raiders, but the precedent is still there...

Re: Re: Re: Attempting to appreciate Temple of Doom as a prequel

Finn said:

<small> <i>Salman.</i> You're welcome.</small>

Click to expand...

Thanks Finn,

. . .and here I am, sitting with an autographed book of his from a book signing . . .

You bring up some good points, Bob. I totally agree with your post. I've never understood why Temple was a prequel other than the fact that George Lucas has a penchant for telling stories out of order. By that, I mean the Star Wars series for example, he started with episode 4-6 first, then 1-3. Even though Temple is chronologically set before Raiders, I still consider it to be a sequel.

Thanks for the kind feedback!

I totally agree with you Joe that ToD is slightly... erm racist, its attitude towards Indians and the films politics do sit somewhere in the 30's (I wrote a post on it sometime ago; i.e. Indy as the White Messiah, the inability of the Indians to deal with their own problems needing westerners to come along, apparently modern Indians wanting independance later turn out to be human-sacrificing cultists, the lack of historical accuracy in that the Thugees traditions are merged with that of the Ancient Mayans which I don't think would happen with western religion, the rescue by the British Army.... but I digress)

I think it is a great shame that a character arc for Indy was never really attempted by Lucas throughout the trilogy, yes to a certain extent Indy must remain detached from individual adventures but Indy is not a James Bond type character really, he can change for good as the whole thing with Henry in LC showed and Lucas contemplating marrying him off in the Saucerman script; and I think that the events of ToD would have a profound effect on Indy. It makes examining the movies a little frustrating as the character is precariously poised between being something of a James Bond type comic book figure and a far more real (As far as the confines of the genre allow) character.

Well I suppose it would make an interesting topic for Fanfic at least!

I think theres an good middle ground in the trilogy. Indy is somewhere between the realm of reality, and he is also host to the fantasic elements of the Bond franchise,and I would agree with that; and although it would appear that each individual adventure is isolated from each other, (and if this topic has anything to say about character examination), then there are still subtle hints in the trilogy if we want to see it, even if we disagree with it.

For a serial like itself, it still would have put a unnecessary baggage on the films(it would have been uncommon to have arcs back in the day Im sure; the very nature of a serial doesn't even allow for an plot running arc in each succession). The general populance are more tolerant of the statis quo, and since there is a recgonizeable story pattern in each film then its easier to use this format; what is common in each film, and highlighted in each film, is this aforementioned story pattern thats easier for all to understand. But, even if the filmakers wanted to place emphasis on an heavy plot or character arc, and if there were an character arc mapped out from the beginning, it would have still proved difficult since Raiders was the experimental first movie, and any character threads could run the risk of being left dangled if there was no sequel.

The only exception to this is that Temple of Doom is set before Raiders, and the general intent appears logical: An examination of the character before his rise to grace, or something like that; or else why would there have been a reason to set it before Raiders in the first place?

It's not that its impossible; I wouldn't mind some great significant progression of the character from one film to the next, but this wasn't the format they used. They did experiment with Temple. But even then, we are still left to examine the holes that are still left unfilled...kind of like what we are doing now.

bob said:

Thanks for the kind feedback!

I totally agree with you Joe that ToD is slightly... erm racist, its attitude towards Indians and the films politics do sit somewhere in the 30's (I wrote a post on it sometime ago; i.e. Indy as the White Messiah, the inability of the Indians to deal with their own problems needing westerners to come along, apparently modern Indians wanting independance later turn out to be human-sacrificing cultists, the lack of historical accuracy in that the Thugees traditions are merged with that of the Ancient Mayans which I don't think would happen with western religion, the rescue by the British Army.... but I digress)

Click to expand...

I don't think the films racist at all and this is coming from someone of Indian descent. Yes, the indian villagers are helpless and need Indy to save the day. But, Indy is the hero of the story and of course he will be portrayed as the hero. It's got nothing to do with race, after all one of the film's heroes is a small Chinese boy. It's true at the end of the film the British cavalry arrives to save the day, but hey you do see Indian soldiers fighting against the Thug army. I feel that there's a difference between glorifying the politics of a certain era (the Rambo films and the Reagon period for example) and taking place during a time with certain politics. I feel Temple does the latter. But hey, thats just my opinion.

bob,

I agree with your observation that the ToD experience should have had a 'profound effect' on Indy's character -- but bottom line after Temple of Doom the Indy timeline picks up at the beginning of Raiders with Indy attempting to steal a relic that is still being actively worshipped by the Hovitos. You're 100% right, it doesn't fit. However, unfortunately, I've fashioned my rationalization and I'm sticking to it. As an aside, I think the Idol theft is a bigger inconsistency that Indy's conduct in the Eaton/Musgrove and the 'careful fellow' scenes -- where he clearly has no respect for the power of the Ark.

I also share your frustration when you talk about how these little glitches keep the franchise from acheiving clear separation from cookie-cutter franchises like James Bond. It's that sort of frustration that compels me to cover old ground like the prejudice point. Listening to Lucas and watching the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles is some proof that here's an action-adventure franchise that ostensibly has more interest in history and academics than other film franchises -- but then what does the audience get? A big serving of monkey brains? It burns me.

I neglected the question, or I didn't go far enough with my answer. And I didn't question the mercenary nature of Indy, so it doesn't help my reasoning...

Right after Peru, in the classroom, Indy tries to pursuade Marcus to let him go after the idol again, and he has three pieces of what appears to be something he found in a dig(or something to the effect); but its not priceless enough, nor cheap enough to throw away(it still will have couple of thousand dollars worth of value to an museum). And that is just enough to finance his transportation. Nothing too wrong or shady here; he's a honest mercenary.

He does the same thing in Temple, but on a more questionable scale. Here, we would call him an dishonest mercenary. Trading over a small emperor to a Chinese gangster, he doesn't appear to regard it with an scholarly mind, its insignificant, either to him or to the world, and this is what marks him in that grey area; it problably holds some sentimental value for Lao Che(whatever reason it may be) but thats no good reason still. B

If you have the first emperor of the Manchu dynasty(Manchu, thats right, right?) then isn't that a little irresponsible or irredeemable to give up something this important to cash in a diamond (never mind the reasonings he did it though, since they are unclear, and also for the sake of arguement).

It hints like this that have us view Indy's methods and ethics; his quest to the cleansed hero we will later see down the road in Temple and Raiders, and in Crusade. Yes, I disagree with the notion that Indy's a mere mercenary for the US government in Raiders(although he is still one on a basic level). There are two sides to his quests in Raiders and Temple, that of his scholarly side and his moral pledge(his masonry side if you will) to keep evil away from things that are too big for their britches(Day of the Dead acromyn).

bungle92 said:

I don't think the films racist at all and this is coming from someone of Indian descent. Yes, the indian villagers are helpless and need Indy to save the day. But, Indy is the hero of the story and of course he will be portrayed as the hero. It's got nothing to do with race, after all one of the film's heroes is a small Chinese boy. It's true at the end of the film the British cavalry arrives to save the day, but hey you do see Indian soldiers fighting against the Thug army. I feel that there's a difference between glorifying the politics of a certain era (the Rambo films and the Reagon period for example) and taking place during a time with certain politics. I feel Temple does the latter. But hey, thats just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes maybe calling the film racist is going a little too far, but the movies 'politics' (not the right word i know but I cannot think of another) are seriously dated and I think that the Big Three were a little naive in the way that they did not seek to update the presentation of India.

Swords I agree to a certain extent with your point of view (in your first post), there cannot be a proper character arc as such within the genre; Indy is a fully formed entity throughout the series (it will be interesting to see how Indy IV approaches his character as surely in 15 years something would have changed)

I am thinking that possibly the reason that ToD is a prequel is because Marion was going to be brought back for another movie perhaps as Indys wife (although this is all speculation Marion is clearly written as the love of Indys life, the love story in Raiders goes far beyond what the genre demands or what the next two films feature) and as Marion could not feature in this movie and Indy had to have a different love interest it was decided to make it a sequel

Well, in ToD novelization it is clearly said, that the diamond Indy wants to trade Nurchachi for is actually an important artifact seeked by "the university" (which is something I assumed while watching the movie). And nobody says Henry didn't have a back-up plan to retrieve the emperor's remains later.

For me, Indiana IS a mercenary, but one with a heart - thus his decision to leave the Sankara stone in the village. In Raiders, he continues his career as a paid adventurer, until he actually bears witness to the power of the Ark. That is actually what may have changed him - after all, he doesn't care about the Grail in Last Crusade. After Brunwald, his quest is to stop the Nazis, not to take the cup and keep it for himself or sell it to a museum.

It is also possible, that his intentions in the beginning of Raiders are purer, than most people assume. After all, Belloq says: "Too bad you don't speak Hovitos. You could have warned them" or something to that effect. So, whatever Indy hopes to do with the idol, it is surely much better for the tribals than what Renee intends.

bob said:

is there some character arc or some proper reason for ToD being a prequel as oppossed to a sequel.

Click to expand...

Its all about the hat. In Raiders Indy has a vere betup hat and in TOD his hat looks like new so I think we the audience are to think it is the same hat in the two movies the hat Indy has in TOD starts to look more like the hat in ROTLA buy the time we get to the rope bridge scene in TOD.

Making TOD a prequel was a style thing for Lucas. He said in an interview when Episode I came out, that he likes to make prequels because it was a classic way of storytelling from the Thirties and Forties. In fact, he references "Citizen Kane" and it's non-linear way of telling the story of Charles Foster Kane, as being a major cinematic influence on his career.

The Indy trilogy is non-linear because that is a particular storytelling technique that he is partial to. Lucas said he likes to start a story from the middle and then go back to the beginning.

You have to remember that Lucas started off as an Avant-Garde experimental filmmaker in college, and that was all he wanted to do. He only wanted to make non-linear, plotless art pieces, until Coppola told him that storytelling was the way to go.

So, really, TOD is a prequel because of "Citizen Kane".

Luckylighter said:

Making TOD a prequel was a style thing for Lucas. He said in an interview when Episode I came out, that he likes to make prequels because it was a classic way of storytelling from the Thirties and Forties. In fact, he references "Citizen Kane" and it's non-linear way of telling the story of Charles Foster Kane, as being a major cinematic influence on his career.

The Indy trilogy is non-linear because that is a particular storytelling technique that he is partial to. Lucas said he likes to start a story from the middle and then go back to the beginning.

You have to remember that Lucas started off as an Avant-Garde experimental filmmaker in college, and that was all he wanted to do. He only wanted to make non-linear, plotless art pieces, until Coppola told him that storytelling was the way to go.

So, really, TOD is a prequel because of "Citizen Kane".

Click to expand...

I take issue with that on one point; that ToD is a prequel solely because Kane was. Obviously, Mr. Welles had a reason for telling Kane's story the way he did; I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Lucas would tell the story of Jones in a vaguely similar manner without similarly just reasons.

Even though you are trying to appreciate Temple of Doom as a prequel, I've always felt that in terms of the development of the character of Indiana Jones, it made more sense as a sequel to Raiders and a prequel to Last Crusade. ToD seems have the missing step between "hocus pocus" and appreciation for the supernatural seen in Last Crusade.

In regards to George Lucas, I think the man has a hard time not copying people, including himself. He says in several places in his interviews on the ToD DVD, that ToD was supposed to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Jones saga. While having the hero get himself into a jam in the second act is commonplace, the Indy trilogy isn't one story in three acts. I'm not saying that Lucas can't identify classic elements and rewrap them in a new and interesting way... but honestly, how about not blatantly admitting to copying HIMSELF???

I just pretend that every time something supernatural happens, Indiana Jones closes his eyes, so he only has a hunch that the stones or ark killed whoever( perhaps they ran away, fell, or someone killed them all, whatever). so that explains him for being at the least unsure

Re: Re: Attempting to appreciate Temple of Doom as a prequel

Joe Brody said:

So by the time we get to the start of Raiders -- where Indy is dealing with a Christian artifact that he may well have no respect for

Click to expand...

      You probably either meant "at the start of LC... Christian artifact" or "at the start of Raiders... Peruvian artifact".

      We understood what you meant, though.


-G

So what in the world is wrong with Indy being involved in the Supernatural...I mean it happens in most of our lives doesnt it?
The fact that it has a huge part in all three movies tells us it is part of what Indy is. This is what makes the books exiting and fun as well, like Hollow Earth...one of the best Indy Books!