The wrong pressure point?

Robyn · May 14, 2009

Kevin said:
She didn't have to, he made his indifference clear. "You heard him..."

Not ineffectual, efficient. Shooting Mutt would have been a waste of time, and a waste of a bullet. She knew she "had the wrong pressure point", so she moved on.

I disagree, first of all they had plenty of bullets to go around, and I think it's clear that Spalko and crew only let live who can be of use to them, it was out of character for her not to shoot Mutt, especially once she found out Mutt was not a pressure point for Indy, Mutt would no longer be of use to her, she needed Oxley alive to give info, she needed Indy alive to help her find the way and she needed Marion alive to get Indy to do what she wanted. So I agree with Rocket, she should have shot Mutt in the leg to prove not just that she means business but that she does what she says,

StoneTriple · May 14, 2009

ronicle said:
Yeah I think so too, Indy seems rather protective toward girls, even if he hadn't known it was his child, I think he may not have called Spalko's bluff if Mutt had been a girl

I agree. He would have cared more.

Rocket Surgeon · May 14, 2009

Kevin said:
She didn't have to, he made his indifference clear. "You heard him..."

She couldn't, not she didn't have to...all the more reason to make the situation clear.

Kevin said:
Not ineffectual, efficient.

If she/they were efficient they would have unloaded the dead weight, (Mutt), and would not have been around to screw up the camp/burn down the tent...and STILL they let him live! To what end? He served no purpose. Efficiency would be served by killing him so that their threat to Marion was palpable. Hell if they collected anymore prisoners they could have been declared a mobile country.

Kevin said:
Shooting Mutt would have been a waste of time, and a waste of a bullet.

Why?

Kevin said:
She knew she "had the wrong pressure point", so she moved on.

She knew she wanted to but then he wouldn't be around for the wedding.

Kevin said:
Well, if we look at this realistically, everything in the script is written to work a certain way, since it is, after all, a made-up story.

My point exactly...we CAN agree on something!

Kevin said:
But I think, given the Russians' lack of compunction about killing up to that point, that her threat to kill was plausible.

I don't agree, the only beating she handed out was a cut on the cheek. They killed some unsuspecting guards...who else? Some Indians, (that no one else ever knew about)?

Kevin said:
Why? Everything we see in the film shows that they are driven in pursuit of their goals. They may derive satisfaction in accomplishing those goals, but I see nothing to support the contention that they got any pleasure out of the means they used to accomplish their ends.

"Put gun down"

Kevin · May 14, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
She couldn't, not she didn't have to...all the more reason to make the situation clear.

If she/they were efficient they would have unloaded the dead weight, (Mutt), and would not have been around to screw up the camp/burn down the tent...and STILL they let him live! To what end? He served no purpose. Efficiency would be served by killing him so that their threat to Marion was palpable. Hell if they collected anymore prisoners they could have been declared a mobile country.

Mutt was not dead weight, he was a bargaining chip. I am sure that she was planning to kill Mutt, Indy, and Marion after she had what she wanted. She had learned by that point that it might be a good idea to keep her prisoners alive until her objective was accomplished, as they might prove useful in the future. "How fortunate our failure to kill you." After the escape attempt, she kept Mutt and Marion alive to use as leverage in case she needed Indy's help again.

Rocket Surgeon said:
I don't agree, the only beating she handed out was a cut on the cheek. They killed some unsuspecting guards...who else? Some Indians, (that no one else ever knew about)?

LOL, how many people does she and her men have to kill before you believe she is serious? However, I think your statement proves my point about psychopathy...they kill to accomplish their goals, not for fun.

Rocket Surgeon said:
"Put gun down"

You could make the argument that he was happy that Indy no longer has the drop on him. Dovchenko is a soldier, and any soldier is happy when they have the upper hand.

I think the overriding point is that this scene served two purposes. First, it served to bring Marion into the film. Second, and I believe more importantly, this scene, along with the discussion between Mutt and Indy in the Peruvian marketplace, served to illustrate how indifferent Indy was to Mutt, in order to contrast with his more protective, fatherly behavior once he learns Mutt is his son.

Kevin · May 14, 2009

ronicle said:
I disagree, first of all they had plenty of bullets to go around, and I think it's clear that Spalko and crew only let live who can be of use to them, it was out of character for her not to shoot Mutt, especially once she found out Mutt was not a pressure point for Indy, Mutt would no longer be of use to her, she needed Oxley alive to give info, she needed Indy alive to help her find the way and she needed Marion alive to get Indy to do what she wanted. So I agree with Rocket, she should have shot Mutt in the leg to prove not just that she means business but that she does what she says,

Spalko wanted the information inside Oxley's mind. She threatened to kill Mutt, and got no response from Indy. She then threatened Marion, and Indy is suddenly the most helpful guy in the world, decoding the pictographs, giving directions. Why in the world would she shoot Mutt in the leg at that point? To prove a point? To what end? She didn't need to "prove she does what she says" to anybody, Indy was already helping. Shooting Mutt would have probably just pissed Indy off.

Rocket Surgeon · May 14, 2009

Kevin said:
Mutt was not dead weight, he was a bargaining chip.

A role that Marion fufilled, Mutt was uneccessary

Kevin said:
I am sure that she was planning to kill Mutt, Indy, and Marion after she had what she wanted. She had learned by that point that it might be a good idea to keep her prisoners alive until her objective was accomplished, as they might prove useful in the future.

Is THAT why there was a truck full of soldiers shooting at them with AK's?

Kevin said:
"How fortunate our failure to kill you."

Thanks for the quote, it kills your arguments. I think it might be time to get out of that hole you're digging before it gets too deep. Your arguments are bursting at the seams.

Kevin said:
After the escape attempt, she kept Mutt and Marion alive to use as leverage in case she needed Indy's help again.

Indeed, there seems to be no other reason. As pointed out before, holding on to Mutt was redundant. Shooting Henry Sr. was pretty powerful motivation.

Kevin said:
LOL, how many people does she and her men have to kill before you believe she is serious?

She never killed anyone. She stopped Dovchenko from beating Jones in the beginning and spent the rest of the time running her mouth. She was a paper tiger.

LOL

Kevin said:
However, I think your statement proves my point about psychopathy...they kill to accomplish their goals, not for fun.

You keep thinking, you'll figure it out.

Kevin said:
You could make the argument that he was happy that Indy no longer has the drop on him. Dovchenko is a soldier, and any soldier is happy when they have the upper hand.

Nice back peddle...I provided an example to support my claim, now

You, support Claim!

Kevin said:
I think the overriding point is that this scene served two purposes. First, it served to bring Marion into the film. Second, and I believe more importantly, this scene, along with the discussion between Mutt and Indy in the Peruvian marketplace, served to illustrate how indifferent Indy was to Mutt, in order to contrast with his more protective, fatherly behavior once he learns Mutt is his son.

Unfortunately it exposed Spalko as a weak villain.

Kevin · May 14, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
A role that Marion fufilled, Mutt was uneccessary

Two bargaining chips are better than one, no?

Rocket Surgeon said:
Is THAT why there was a truck full of soldiers shooting at them with AK's?

Different situation, they were trying to escape.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Thanks for the quote, it kills your arguments.

How exactly does this quote kill my arguments?

Rocket Surgeon said:
She never killed anyone.

Just like Himmler never killed a Jew. The entire contingent of soldiers was under her command, following her orders.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Nice back peddle...I provided an example to support my claim, now

You, support Claim!

I claimed that there was no indication in the film that the Russians took any pleasure in killing. You provided an example which you thought indicated that they did take pleasure in killing. I provided an alternative (and let's be honest, more probable) reason for Dovchenko's smile. Where is the back peddle? I still hold that they only killed when they had to, not because they liked it.

Rocket Surgeon · May 14, 2009

Kevin said:
Two bargaining chips are better than one, no?

Unecessary, redundant, inefficient...no.

Kevin said:
Different situation, they were trying to escape.

Not different, a result of keeping to many "barganing chips" around.

Kevin said:
How exactly does this quote kill my arguments?

The decision to kill him negates any forethought regaring usefulness.

Let's see, her logic would be: If you run away I will try to kill you. Comeon man...she was sloppy. She left Ox's brain on the crystal fire too long and she was going to do the same to Indy. She didn't learn anything. She didn't notice auto writing?!?! She was as ineffective as she was stupid.

I always thought Gen Ross callinging her Stain's "fair haired girl" was odd until now. She was a dumb blond with a bad hair cut/die job!

Kevin said:
Just like Himmler never killed a Jew. The entire contingent of soldiers was under her command, following her orders.

Maybe she was more like Captain Bligh then Himmler...

Kevin said:
I claimed that there was no indication in the film that the Russians took any pleasure in killing. You provided an example which you thought indicated that they did take pleasure in killing. I provided an alternative (and let's be honest, more probable) reason for Dovchenko's smile. Where is the back peddle? I still hold that they only killed when they had to, not because they liked it.

You're right. :hat:

IndyJr · Jun 3, 2009

ronicle said:
In the movie, Spalko threatens to kill Mutt if Indy doesn't cooperate, but apparently if she's trying to scare Indy she's going to have to try harder, so "Clearly I have chosen the wrong pressure point. Perhaps I can discover a more sensitive one." So she brings out Marion and threatens the same thing, that seems to do the trick. But are they trying to say that Mutt's life doesn't mean much to Indy? Only Marion's? I always wondered about that scene...

Back then, Mutt was nothing to Indy except some guy who came with him on an adventure for some Crystal Skull.

The wrong pressure point?

Robyn

New member

StoneTriple

New member

Rocket Surgeon

Guest

Kevin

Member

Kevin

Member

Rocket Surgeon

Guest

Kevin

Member

Rocket Surgeon

Guest

IndyJr

New member