A Filmmaker's take on 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'

TheMutt92

New member
Actually a really interesting read. Its funny how you don't even think of some of these connections and hidden references till someone throws them in your face. :p
 
I thought the essay was brilliant,he did not pick up on some things I noticed but did a hell of a job breaking done spielbergs processes and use of imagery in just about every shot.;) thanks for that.(y)
 

What Truck?

New member
Interesting!

Thanks to indyjones2131 for posting that essay - it was a great read.

One additional moment of dark satire I noticed was the fact that Dovckenko was carried off by ants. From the first viewing, I thought it was a great touch that a communist was taken down by a hive mind.

Every time I see the ants scene I picture one of those communist posters with heroic ants replacing Soviet soldiers and carrying Dovckenko to their lair for the good of the motherland under the banner of the hammer and sickle.

Needless to say, I find this image inappropriately hilarious.
 

James

Well-known member
It's always nice to read a fresh opinion on the film, even if some of the interpretations tend to go a little overboard.

The author has a good eye, and touches on several things that have previously been discussed here. For example, the Warehouse/Akator parallel and Mushroom Cloud/Flying Saucer bookend. Spielberg mentioned that he was putting a lot of emphasis on composing each particular shot, and the random screenshots certainly bear that out. (Much like the screencap thread we had here not too long ago.)
 

WeAreGoingToDie

New member
I found these simple observations to be interesting:

In a reverse of Raiders, this film starts in the warehouse and ends in the South American jungle exactly 20 years later.

[Indy] flees for a job offer in Leipzeig (once a place of enemies in earlier films, now an accepted scholarly destination)
 

indyjones2131

New member
Glad y'all liked it.

I was fascinated with the visual link between the Area 51 gate (where Dovchenkos men open fire on the guards) and the door at Akator. Very interesting and yet something that I probably would have never noticed. I'd known that set design is a huge part of the storytelling in filsm, but who knew it was on such a level.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
I remember reading this back in October of 2008, around the time of the infamous South Park's "China Probrem" episode. I really was mixed in feelings over this film, which is not good for something I've waited so long for. However, this blog made me more appreciative of the film as a whole, and really made me love it a little more.

The writer of this article is Kevin McLeod, who has produced film, documentary, music videos, commercials, was a developer of the groundbreaking A.I. Webgame The Beast (Warner Bros.), coproducer of the documentary The Cruise (Artisan).

Hope you guys enjoy this if you haven't read it before. I apologize to the Mods if this has been posted already, but I haven't found it in any other thread.

Enjoy and post whatever your thoughts are!
:hat:

http://www.mstrmnd.com/indiana_jones
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
It <I>has</I> been posted before, actually, but I only found it by googling for the url of the article; I vaguely remembered having seen it before.

I've merged that thread into this one, retaining the new title, and I do encourage folks to give this a read - I need to go through it fully myself, but it looks like it has a pretty interesting take, especially taking into account some recurring motifs.

Thanks for calling this to our attention again. More from me on this later.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
It <I>has</I> been posted before, actually, but I only found it by googling for the url of the article; I vaguely remembered having seen it before.

I've merged that thread into this one, retaining the new title, and I do encourage folks to give this a read - I need to go through it fully myself, but it looks like it has a pretty interesting take, especially taking into account some recurring motifs.

Thanks for calling this to our attention again. More from me on this later.

Crap =/

Alrighty, just making sure it got some attention, too bad I got beaten to the punch.:p
 

Indy's brother

New member
It certainly is an interesting read, even if ridiculously far-reaching at times. I would love to read a response from Spielberg as to how accurate this guy's interpretations actually are.

(personally I think the author read a little far into alot of this stuff)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
It certainly is an interesting read, even if ridiculously far-reaching at times.

My precise thoughts. A unified theory about the elements of a film often requires a leap of faith. One part in particular exhibits this: the point that ROTLA begins in South America and ends with a warehouse; KOTCS begins with a warehouse and ends in South America. That's not a true statement. Thematically, the story of ROTLA ends with America's warehouse of secrets, and KOTCS simply goes back to that image to form a link to the original. KOTCS ends in a completely different place, and with a completely different mood.

Indy's brother said:
I would love to read a response from Spielberg as to how accurate this guy's interpretations actually are.

(personally I think the author read a little far into alot of this stuff)

These forms of unified theories are best made with works whose authors are dead, so there's no one coming back to discount the nice tidy argument!
 

Indy's brother

New member
There are some valid points in the article to be sure, most notable are the book-ending elements (warehouse doors, etc). I am interpreting this write-up as the writer taking a creative and entertaining license with his analysis
 

Cole

New member
Indy's brother said:
It certainly is an interesting read, even if ridiculously far-reaching at times. I would love to read a response from Spielberg as to how accurate this guy's interpretations actually are.

(personally I think the author read a little far into alot of this stuff)
Very much agree - quite a few points seem far-fetched to me.........but I appreciate anyone who thinks beyond their popcorn when watching a film (ya, I just stole a Spielberg quote there), and it opens avenues for discussion.

At the end of the day, what matters most is your own unqieu, personal interpretation. Nobody's wrong.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I largely agree with the general consensus...although I do think there's probably something to be said for delving more fully into this. Anyone want to tackle that thread he keeps returning to about time travel (which I'm pretty sure I don't buy, but might just not misunderstand).

The other thing I'll add, speaking generally, is that he takes the rather easy route of skipping anything that doesn't fit in with his interpretation. Much of what happens at Marshall College, for instance, including the fairly important character points about Indy being forced out and his loss of place in the world. Even though the author correctly identifies the script's obsession with variations on the word know and knowledge, it doesn't do very much with that, doesn't do much to explain why some forms of knowledge work while others don't. And it doesn't deal with the reconciliation with Marion or the on-again, off-again relationship with Mac at all, which, considering their relative unimportance to the plot (especially Mac), are substantially more important to consider on thematic grounds.

I think this paragraph is one of the better ones, though:

Mstrmnd said:
A wide reveal shows us a massive building, on the scale of several aircraft hangars...Perversely labeled only on the inside, "51," the facility's appearance as the first archeological decrypt (Indy's skills are normally used to find ancient treasures in original settings), means this film is evolving the notion of treasure. Indy himself has contributed artifacts here (his complicity is in question). The room is both maze and reliquary locale, cobwebs blanket the anonymous and endless wooden crates like other tombs of earlier empires: a powerful indictment of modern America's concept of itself. It simply collects the previous civilization's treasures and hides them, not with the panache of a mystical or mythical want, but with cold-headed bureaucracy/technocracy. A soulless empire that counts Indiana as a member.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Seems like a few of his observations are interesting, and probably as intentional by Spielberg & Lucas as he demonstrates they might be.

However, most of them come across as either coincidences or dot-connecting by someone who wants to see more than there actually is.

There are way too many to point out, but one that comes to mind is the blogger's thoughts that the neon sign of the cafe is positioned in the frame as a foreshadowing of the camera angle used later with the mushroom cloud. Foreshadowing? - of course it is. The angle? - he picked one that worked within his context, when in fact the thing is seen from several angles as the convoy drives past it.

I also find it a stretch to suggest that every single round thing is somehow related to the ship at the end. Sometimes, things are just round without having a hidden, deeper meaning.

I found it mildly interesting.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Addendum;

The point I was trying to make is that you can find all sorts of connections and parallels in films if you look hard enough - if you want them to be there. I just think there are a lot of coincidences vs intentions. Particularly if it's a film series made by the same creative team throughout, as this one has been. The team has a style, same as a musician, an author, an interior designer, a painter, etc.

Case in point. A couple of years ago, I made a post comparing the two end shots of Raiders & Kingdom, just as the titles are going up. They have a very similar composition - the kind of similarity the blogger would have a field day with. Truth is, I'd be willing to bet it's just a coincidence.

I think Attila is right on the money - the blogger skips long portions of the film, as well as some deeper plot points and characters, if they can't be forced to fit into his view of the hidden meanings of the film. His blog seems more like an exercise in a creative writing class than an expose. There seems to be little regard for whether he's correct or not. That's what I meant when I said I found it mildly interesting - it's an interesting read, but only for his style.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
I largely agree with the general consensus...although I do think there's probably something to be said for delving more fully into this. Anyone want to tackle that thread he keeps returning to about time travel (which I'm pretty sure I don't buy, but might just not misunderstand).

The writer jumps on the idea of time and time travel, and just like the rest of the essay, forces it into thier perspective of the film.

There are some definite references to time in KOTCS, such as the hot rod from Indy's classic adventuring era, the running sand 'hourglass' that opens the entrance to the temple, and the running theme of time passing and Indy ageing.

When it comes to time travel the writer, I feel, makes too much out of a simple idea. In the back story time moves much faster in the Interdimensional Beings' dimension, and much more slowly for the humans in theirs. Therefore, the conquistador theft of the the skull, and the Roswell scouts of 1947 were events which woiuld have happened very close together from the perspective of the 'alien' dimension. 1947 might have been only a few hours or days after the skull went missing. By 1957 an hour might have passed, hence no more scouts. The experience of the waiting IDBs would have been quite different. They have had to endure the long passage of human time.

In this case the many cultures and ages represented in the treasure house aren't evidence of time travel, but of the IDB's interaction with humans at different points in our history. In order that they didn't miss huge chunks of human history, they would have to be remain in our dimension. They act of going back to their own dimension and returning would mean missing many years of human history.

The problem with the "Saucer Men" essay is that it takes too much for granted, in building a case that has already been decided upon by the author. It isn't so much an investigation as a thesis should be, but a matter of fitting and twisting 'evidence' to fit a pre-determined theory. Some of that twisting is particulary painful and obvious, and is similar to the writing of Daeniken, who is the inspiration for the idea behind KOTCS.

Daeniken makes for interesting reading, but, like the essay, you have to take it with a sackful of salt. Daeniken was a bad historian, though a great imaginist. Which would also cover your other point, Attila:

Attila the Professor said:
The other thing I'll add, speaking generally, is that he takes the rather easy route of skipping anything that doesn't fit in with his interpretation.

An objective view has to take in everything, even that which threatens to destabilize the pre-determined theory. The subjective view is self-destructive, on all but a cursory level.
 
Last edited:

la_russe

New member
you seem to be making their argument

StoneTriple, not only do I think the blogger has many very relevant points because of the link, I also give it more regard because of your points, I think you're doing what's known as the old "fool the believer with their own argument" switch, both examples you cite specifically, the mushroom cloud and the end shots of both Raiders and KOTCS are far from coincidental or random. Both mushroom cloud shots use upwards movement that pause at their end on mushrooms, not random, very specific, and the examples there with images make clear note of this. And Raiders and KOTCS, shot by different cinematographers different designers, shot over 20 years apart, have ending shots that are identical in many ways, an observation you yourself have posited. This link is obviously onto things quite interesting.
 
Top