Political Correctness in Indy V

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Dr.Sartorius said:
Is your real name Milo Yiannopoulos?:rolleyes:

There there, don't go assuming everyone gets the humor. Try to highbrow this place up and you will only drive our clients away. We go for the "your dumb" sort of insult along with a thrown beer bottle or two. Burn the joint down sort of thing.
 
Raiders112390 said:
the way the valuables are handled by Vogel and the Germans, almost if they're "dirty"...I always viewed it long before this thread as being a veiled reference to the thefts from the Jews. Some things are better conveyed by not being expressly stated.
It may also be that the Standartenfüher is revolted and enraged by the Hatayans.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
IndyBuff said:
I hope they leave political correctness far away from Indy. I'm tired of everything having to be so watered down and sensitive that we can't say or do anything without someone throwing a fit. Just give us a bloody, rough and tumble adventure!:whip:

QFT!

Hollywood has gone off the deep end in the last 5-8 years with SJW political correctness, and I would expect nothing less from Indy V unfortunately. Let's just hope they don't beat us over the head with it. Rather than focusing on anything political, including thinly veiled political messages or statements, just give us an action packed adventure that rights the wrongs of KOTCS and corrects the series and makes it at least nearly as good as the OT.
 

deepermagic

New member
DoomsdayFAN said:
QFT!

Hollywood has gone off the deep end in the last 5-8 years with SJW political correctness, and I would expect nothing less from Indy V unfortunately. Let's just hope they don't beat us over the head with it. Rather than focusing on anything political, including thinly veiled political messages or statements, just give us an action packed adventure that rights the wrongs of KOTCS and corrects the series and makes it at least nearly as good as the OT.

The hopeful part of me would like to think that Disney would learn after The Last Jedi to pull the reigns in with the propaganda....but the realist in me assumes they're just going to double down. The responses to the backlash for TLJ were troubling. It seems people involved took the dismissive stance that the only people who complained were unhygienic misogynist racists and that they were quite happy their SJW agenda stepped on people's toes. Their stance was such that if someone was upset about the propaganda, to them it was a success. That's the disturbing part that makes me feel like they'll do the same with Indy 5.
 

Lambonius

New member
DoomsdayFAN said:
and makes it at least nearly as good as the OT.

It's not like the original trilogy is apolitical, though. For its time, it's actually pretty explicitly progressive, especially Raiders.

A Jewish director puts together a film about a heroic academic with literal Nazis as the bad guys, with fleshed out, diverse characters, both male and female, and from different nationalities that were commonly one-note stereotypes in the original serials that inspired it.

Look at Salah, for example. In the classic 1930s serials, a character like his, the fez-wearing "ethnic" sidekick, would be a walking punch line. But Raiders gave him real depth, a family, agency as one of the main characters who is the "best digger in Cairo." Sure, he had his comedic moments, but they did not come at the expense of a fully developed character. One of the mini-tragedies of Last Crusade, as much as I love the film, is that they reverted Salah into much more of a bumbling racist caricature, obsessed with ****ing CAMELS for God's sake. ;)

The same could be said of Marion--she had her damsel-in-distress moments in Raiders, but mostly she was presented as fully formed and capable, every bit Indy's equal.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
I agree with Lambonius. It was all there in the original Indy trilogy.

And to suggest that Star Wars was never political before TLJ is insane.

All art is political. Even when it's avowedly apolitical, that very act is political.

I think some commenters are talking about political content that they don't agree with, rather than political content fullstop. And with any long-running franchise, change is inevitable. Whether it's James Bond, Star Wars or Indy, you're going to see change in this regard...
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
It's not like the original trilogy is apolitical, though. For its time, it's actually pretty explicitly progressive, especially Raiders.

A Jewish director puts together a film about a heroic academic with literal Nazis as the bad guys, with fleshed out, diverse characters, both male and female, and from different nationalities that were commonly one-note stereotypes in the original serials that inspired it.
Hello, Lambo.:hat: Don't mean to be so contrary but I disagree with you. The original trilogy wasn't as 'explicitly progressive' as you imply.

"Doom" made a bold choice putting a Chinese kid as Indy's sidekick but it still had its (now-problematic) dinner scene and also featured a blonde bimbo for the leading lady. Back in 1984, Leonard Maltin on Entertainment Tonight called her, "a silly, outmoded, dumbbell stereotype". Here's my recording.

As for fleshing out one-note stereotypes, there are exceptions, but almost all characters in the serials are cardboard cut-outs, regardless of race, sex or status. It's not that progressive to flesh out diverse characters if the white-knight hero needs fleshing out, too, no?

Sure, Sallah was treated with respect in "Raiders" but he was still played by a white guy like countless other Arabic roles in the past. (Come to think of it, Rhys-Davies' performance in "Crusade" could possibly be one of the last times that's ever happened. Anyone know?)

Disney received backlash for casting Johnny Depp as Tonto in 2013. Consider the reaction if a similar thing was done for Indy 5.

Lambonius said:
Look at Salah, for example. In the classic 1930s serials, a character like his, the fez-wearing "ethnic" sidekick, would be a walking punch line.
No-o-o-o. :gun: From the 45+ serials that I've seen, comedy is exceptionally rare and ethnic sidekicks are even rarer. "Terry and the Pirates" is the only one I know of with ethnic sidekicks (two Asian guys). They get involved in scraps, often saving the day.

If humour does show up in the classics cliffhangers, it's usually confined to brief, cute scenes with animals. Otherwise, it's placed in the very last scene of the final episode so that all of the winners can stand around laughing. The only one I know of where an ethnic character is the butt of such a closing joke scene is, "Daredevils of the Red Circle", which ends with a black butler (a very, minor character) getting his head caught in a secret, sliding door. OK, admittedly, the guy's name is Snowball and he does say, "Sumbaddy git me outta heeyah!", but it's the only instance I know of...and there are other serials that end with white guys in similar, embarrassing predicaments.

Do you have any examples of walking-punch-line-ethnic-sidekicks in the serials? :confused: I'd like to know which titles. Otherwise, it must be said that you're dead wrong about this.

Lambonius said:
The same could be said of Marion--she had her damsel-in-distress moments in Raiders, but mostly she was presented as fully formed and capable, every bit Indy's equal.
Women from serials of the '30s-'50s were smart, brave & daring babes who even got to rescue the male hero once in awhile. Some stories even had a woman in the lead role and others had female lead villains commanding a bunch of men. If those dames ran into trouble, it's because they were gutsy enough to get themselves there (usually). You won't find many hapless, Fay Wray types among them.

It's easy to see why Marion could be viewed as progressive in 1981, however, the only difference between her and heroines of the '30s-'50s serials is that she had personality (and an unglamorous introduction)! :eek:
 

Lambonius

New member
Fair points, definitely. I'll concede that I'm not as familiar with the original serials as I'd like to be. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 1930s films like the original King Kong, where you had a fairly stereotypical damsel-in-distress and blatantly racist portrayals of the Skull Island natives. If I recall correctly (or maybe I am thinking of the Peter Jackson remake?) there was also the classic "China-man" stereotype crewman, as well.

My thinking on Raiders is informed somewhat by a course I took in college about Jewish perspectives in film history, and we dissected a handful of Spielberg films, including Raiders, with a critical reading of them in that context. I can't look at Raiders with its Nazi bad guys and academic good guys, and not see echoes of Schindler's List (though obviously, very different in myriad ways.)

Also, regarding Temple of Doom (which constantly swaps places with Raiders as my favorite Indy film,) it is FAR more problematic, as you pointed out. The banquet scene in particular would offend the hell out of people if the movie came out today. With respect to cultural sensitivity, it's definitely a fair few steps backwards from Raiders.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
Fair points, definitely. I'll concede that I'm not as familiar with the original serials as I'd like to be. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of 1930s films like the original King Kong, where you had a fairly stereotypical damsel-in-distress and blatantly racist portrayals of the Skull Island natives. If I recall correctly (or maybe I am thinking of the Peter Jackson remake?) there was also the classic "China-man" stereotype crewman, as well.

My thinking on Raiders is informed somewhat by a course I took in college about Jewish perspectives in film history, and we dissected a handful of Spielberg films, including Raiders, with a critical reading of them in that context. I can't look at Raiders with its Nazi bad guys and academic good guys, and not see echoes of Schindler's List (though obviously, very different in myriad ways.)

Also, regarding Temple of Doom (which constantly swaps places with Raiders as my favorite Indy film,) it is FAR more problematic, as you pointed out. The banquet scene in particular would offend the hell out of people if the movie came out today. With respect to cultural sensitivity, it's definitely a fair few steps backwards from Raiders.

Unless you take into consideration that the individuals at the banquet scene were not "normal" Indians. I mean it's revealed that Lal etc were not normal - that everyone at that table with the exception of Captain Blumberg, Indy etc were posessed by an evil cult. I don't find it as such a portrayal of Indians as much as of members of an insane cult POSING as Indian royalty.

The real Indians we see in the Village are sympathetic characters, and I can easily imagine a poverty, famine and hunger-stricken Indian village in 1935 resorting to eating bugs.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I really hate the word "problematic." As soon as someone says it, I know exactly where they stand on every issue. A worry of mine is that such individuals will impose on the rest of us a new Hays Code in film in the near future, one based upon forced inclusion, forced diversity, forced slapping down of men with the words "mansplaining" "Nazi" "racist" and "manspreading" thrown about very easily or where films are mandated to "teach the real version of history.

Disney's Star Wars is just a tiny step into the dystopian future that awaits us.
 

deepermagic

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I really hate the word "problematic." As soon as someone says it, I know exactly where they stand on every issue. A worry of mine is that such individuals will impose on the rest of us a new Hays Code in film in the near future, one based upon forced inclusion, forced diversity, forced slapping down of men with the words "mansplaining" "Nazi" "racist" and "manspreading" thrown about very easily or where films are mandated to "teach the real version of history.

Disney's Star Wars is just a tiny step into the dystopian future that awaits us.

I'm in complete agreement. If I heard you say that in a bar, I'd buy you a drink to show my appreciation.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Toht’s Arm said:
All art is political. Even when it's avowedly apolitical, that very act is political.
Nonsense, Toht. What is political about painting a landscape or composing a melody, etc.?

Raiders112390 said:
...everyone at that table with the exception of Captain Blumberg, Indy etc were posessed by an evil cult. I don't find it as such a portrayal of Indians as much as of members of an insane cult POSING as Indian royalty.
Blumberg? Isn’t his name, Captain Spielburtt? :confused: Anyway, those dinner guests aren’t “posing” as royalty because Thugs came from all walks of life, rich & poor. An evil rajah is still a rajah, no matter what he eats.

Raiders112390 said:
I really hate the word "problematic." As soon as someone says it, I know exactly where they stand on every issue. A worry of mine is that such individuals will impose on the rest of us...
Wow. Hilarious. You are so completely far off-target in my case so thanks for the laugh! :D Hey, Lambonius, we are now both fully fledged Social Justice Warriors simply by using the word, “problematic”. Perhaps I should have said, “controversial”, because the dinner scene has never been a problem for me.

Raiders112390 said:
Disney's Star Wars is...
...garbage in the storytelling department. All 3 films, so far. (n)(n)(n)

The biggest danger for Dr. Jones lies within Kathleen ‘The-Force-is-Female’ Kennedy. As the head of Lucasfilm, her attitude towards male “Star Wars” fans is deplorable so I have no confidence that she'll deliver Indy 5 untainted by her publically-stated agenda. Like I wrote in this same thread over a year ago, it's 100% guaranteed.

deepermagic said:
If I heard you say that in a bar, I'd buy you a drink to show my appreciation.
You ARE in a bar! :D It's called The Raven. Now, could ya pass the peanuts, please? ;)

This conversation just made me realize that ”Skull" was the 1st Indy film to have an all-white cast.
 

Lambonius

New member
Stoo said:
This conversation just made me realize that ”Skull" was the 1st Indy film to have an all-white cast.

Are you sure that wasn't just Kaminski's lighting? Hi-ohhhh! ;)

Regarding the banquet scene in TOD, I remember watching a making-of documentary back in the day where Spielberg explicitly says that they were going for a comically over-the-top gross-out scene. The whole point was to play up the weirdness of Indian cuisine for laughs. I guess you could argue it's more about making fun of the Western perception of Indian cuisine as being radically "exotic," but the point stands. It wasn't an in-lore Thuggee cult decision, it was meta-gag aimed at the audience.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Lambonius said:
Are you sure that wasn't just Kaminski's lighting? Hi-ohhhh! ;)

Regarding the banquet scene in TOD, I remember watching a making-of documentary back in the day where Spielberg explicitly says that they were going for a comically over-the-top gross-out scene. The whole point was to play up the weirdness of Indian cuisine for laughs. I guess you could argue it's more about making fun of the Western perception of Indian cuisine as being radically "exotic," but the point stands. It wasn't an in-lore Thuggee cult decision, it was meta-gag aimed at the audience.

Some of the books ( I believe the Ultimate Guide) states Indy realized Hindus would not eat food like that. This made him think something wasn't right in Pankot palace.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
dr.jones1986 said:
Some of the books ( I believe the Ultimate Guide) states Indy realized Hindus would not eat food like that. This made him think something wasn't right in Pankot palace.

I believe that was also something in the original script that was cut. There may be a deleted scene of it somewhere but I remember reading that the script initially had Indy and Captain Blumburt discussing how something was wrong.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
63. EXT. THE PELASURE GARDEN - NIGHT 63.

Hundreds of lanters illuminate the garden where after dinner
drinks are served, cigars lighted and hookah pipes puffed on.

Indiana comes out of the pavilion into the garden with Capt.
Blumburtt and they talk quietly.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
Rather bizarre menu, woundn't you
say?

INDIANA
Even if they were trying to scare
us away, a devout Hindu would
never touch meat.
(looking around)
Makes you wonder what these people
are...
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
This exchange should've been kept in, too:
WILLIE
(happily)
No? Well, I guess he just hasn't
met the right woman...

As Willie chatters on with the Prime Minister, Indiana wanders
off. He moves to a wall where bronze statues and strange devo-
tional objects are displayed.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
(joining Indy)
Interested in local curios?

INDIANA
No. But I am interested in the
occult. And this is a krtya.

Indiana picks up a small clay figurine and examines it.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
(grimacing)
Charming.

INDIANA
It's like the voodoo dolls of West
Africa. The kryta represents your
enemy -- and gives you complete
power over him.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
That God all that mumbo jumbo
rubbish is disappearing.

INDIANA
You think so?

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
Of course. Admittedly, it's taken
time. Britian's controlled India
for almost two hundred eyars now.

Indiana smiles at the somewhat pompous bureaucrat.

INDIANA
You're hanging on better here
than you did in America.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
(smiling sourly)
This is a different situation, Dr.
Jones. These people are like
children. We have to lead them
slowly into the twentieth century.

Indiana puts the doll down and looks over at Chattar Lal and
Willie.

INDIANA
The Prime Minister doesn't seem
that naive.

CAPT. BLUMBURTT
No, he's a very shrewd old boy.
Power behind the throne and all
that. He actually runs this whole
province.

Indy and the Prime Minister exchange distant looks as Willie
comes back over to Indiana. She talks to him conspiratorially --
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
If you kept these two sequences in, you'd have an in-movie justification for its "offensive portrayal of Indians" and you'd have a more fan-acceptable version for "why does an Indiana Jones movie feature voodoo?"
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
If you kept these two sequences in, you'd have an in-movie justification for its "offensive portrayal of Indians" and you'd have a more fan-acceptable version for "why does an Indiana Jones movie feature voodoo?"

I agree, I think both of these scenes would have been a nice edition. I think Spielberg was always trying to do an over the top gross out scene that you would have seen in actual comedies of the 30's. If you included that dialogue it would have been clear that it was not meant to offend Indians. The second scene would have also been nice to show the complexities of the British Raj. It would explain why someone like Chatter Lal who is educated and wants to see his country free again would resort to siding with an evil cult. I think that was always meant to be there but certainly not as clear in the film without this dialogue. The Ultimate Guide does say that Indy was thrown off by the banquet, nice to see James Luceno used the script as a way to flesh out this idea that was left out of the finished film.
 
Top