Why wouldn't Marion tell Indy she had a son?

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
A good read, Attila.

Always the great risk with posts this long. They become things that sit there more than they are interacted with. But thanks.

Montana Smith said:
It didn't register before that Leipzig was in East Germany. That makes Indy's feeling of resignation all the more drastic, opting to work in a satellite of the Soviet Union. It also says a lot about his feelings about America, that he might feel less restricted under Communist rule.

It's one of those things that we have to hope was written in with full awareness of what it meant,rather than asking, "hey, what's a place in Europe with a university?" The schizophrenic nature of Koepp, et al.'s approach to putting solid work into things - be it historical, cultural, thematic, or character-based - makes it hard to tell what was a fully conscious choice.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
It's one of those things that we have to hope was written in with full awareness of what it meant,rather than asking, "hey, what's a place in Europe with a university?" The schizophrenic nature of Koepp, et al.'s approach to putting solid work into things - be it historical, cultural, thematic, or character-based - makes it hard to tell what was a fully conscious choice.

Leipzig is an old university town, so that's one positive step in the right direction. Reading the Wiki page reveals that Indy would have been in good historical company if he'd gone there:

Leipzig University, founded 1409, is one of Europe's oldest universities. Nobel Prize laureate Werner Heisenberg worked here as a physics professor (from 1927 to 1942), as did Nobel Prize laureates Gustav Ludwig Hertz (physics), Wilhelm Ostwald (chemistry) and Theodor Mommsen (Nobel Prize in literature). Other former staff of faculty include mineralogist Georg Agricola, writer Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, philosopher Ernst Bloch, eccentric founder of psychophysics Gustav Theodor Fechner, and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt. Among the university's many noteworthy students were writers Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Erich Kästner, mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, political activist Karl Liebknecht, and composer Richard Wagner.
 

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
To start off, I'll confess that there could have been things more insulting than what we got in Indy and Marion's relationship in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Marion could have been in some sad, unhappy state wherein she needed Indy to save her or something, making him into a sort of hero he decidedly is not. But that's not to say that it wasn't insulting.
Insulting is a pretty harsh word of choice.


I think it is misplaced with what has come before, because it is the moment in the film wherein real human stakes are turned into an opportunity for an opportunity for easy laughs and nostalgia.
There are plenty of laughs in the film up to this point.....I disagree it's out-of-place within the tone of the film.

But then Marion is dragged out of her tent, saying a line that I was somehow convinced was a direct repeat of a line from Raiders with "Russkie" put in place of "Nazi." Even so, there's still similar lines in Raiders: "You traitor, get your hands off me" "Don't you touch me" "Get your damn hands off me." Thus, it's hard not to see it as an intentional callback.
Certainly. Even the way she stands, with her hands on her hips saying "Indiana Jones..." is clearly an "homage" if you will to her first scene in 'Raiders.' I don't see it as a criticism though.

Part of the oddness of this scene may be the way that Spalko, Dovchenko, and the other Russians are all turned into set dressing as these domestic squabbles are somehow allowed to play out without interruption. Maybe another piece of the problem is that the suburban lifestyle whose alien nature to Indy is shown so well in the Doom Town sequence is given center stage here with Marion and Mutt's exchange ("I didn't get any phone calls..."?), as it is later with the fencing. (Indy can have a family, but treating Marion as a "fencing mom" is easy humor that isn't rooted in the character, but rather in a type.)

There's too much smiling, frankly, without much edge to it. Marion - or should I say, Karen Allen? - seems far too pleased to be able to say these words to Indy. I'd even be happy with Indy's giddiness were it not accompanied by barely concealed happiness on Marion's part. They don't feel like they're in danger, and there's no way of denying that they are. That's why the exchange ending in "Same old, same old" <I>works</I>, and quite well; it has, like the "I thought we were friends, Mac" exchange, a sense that they are words that need to be said that are being said as succinctly as possible in the midst of a dangerous circumstance.
Just happy to be in the film? I don't agree with this at all. She's a professional. Her part is fairly small, but I think her performance is fine. I think it's more fair to say any criticisms are rooted within the script and the direction they took her character than her performance.

I don't have issues with the humor involving Marion and the fencing; it's all relative lighthearted humor to me and it feels within the tone of the film's humor (the humor is based on Marion's over-enthusiastic attitude, as most parents are when it comes to their kids).....perhaps the scene could've benefitted from more intense action involving Indy, similar to how the tank scene in 'Last Crusade' balances humor between Marcus and Henry Sr. and intense action involving Indy.

But it's still not a bad scene....it's extremely well-filmed by Spielberg and I think it still has a furious momentum (a staple of all the pinnacle Indy "chase" scenes). Indy taking control of vehicles, punching Russians and almost getting rammed off a massive cliff is still entertaining. But the ants scene is probably the best part of the whole sequence - probably because it involves Indy.

Her return may be enjoyable, but is it otherwise fulfilling or substantial? You imply that I think humor has no place in this, but there can still be humor in a scene without the performances themselves turning into cartoonish displays of giddiness and confusion on Indy's part and oversold enthusiasm and sarcasm on Marion's. There's humor in all of the most serious exchanges in Raiders, after all! Colonel Musgrove turns ever so subtly into an excited schoolboy when he knows the answer! Belloq notes Indy's poor choice of friends with the monkey! Belloq and Marion's whole scene in the tent is pretty funny, but also rooted in character <I>and</I> context, since it's dependent upon her trying to escape as well as what appears to be legitimate mutual interest between them. Raiders is a master class in integrating all the elements of basic Hollywood storytelling - dramatic relationships, conflicting desires, action, humor, spectacle, superb set-dressing - and it does most of these things all at once, and better than its successor films, in most cases.

It wouldn't have been tough to do what they did in Raiders, if they looked at it as a particular form of quality action filmmaking rather than an attempt to rebottle the same magic formula again by replaying similar pieces of dialogue.
Is Marion's involvement fulfilling or substantial? Ya, I think it is; there's a whole arch to the film that deals with family. Like I mentioned before - Indy is a lost character in the beginning. Mutt is character who is a little lost himself - he has no father, he has quit school, has an attitude. The end of the movie is about them finding each other. The film itself is a family film, and the content is a celebration of family.

Rebottling similar pieces of dialogue? I didn't see that. 'Raiders' is a great film, don't get me wrong, but lets not put it on a pedestal.
 

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
He <I>was</I> going to just leave the Ark behind and take Marion home, but <I>not</I> as soon as he got the chance. It's not a static characterization. Indy has an arc of development in which he finally reaches a point - not one of desperation, as when he prepares to get himself killed in order to murder Belloq - where he can give up the Ark for a higher cause of love. (It's a stealthy thing, here: the talk of what the Nazis are going to do with the Ark in the scene with Army Intel is shoved aside for what Indy and Marcus will gain from having the Ark for much of the remainder of the film, making its place in history and its status as a significant find foremost in our mind.) The scene in the canyon is the core of the film, and, as I suggested a few posts above, it would not be that if it didn't incorporate Indy's relationship with Marion into it in a substantial way that makes it come into conflict with his other goal. It's masterful stuff.

Crusade has development throughout the film as well, and so does Temple, although there's not really any of that left after "Right. All of us." I like a lot of character moments in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but they tend to be just that: moments, rather than some pattern of character development. I like a couple bits between Indy and Marion at camp, and "They weren't you, honey" works, but that's the final moment of conflict between them, which I don't buy. Anything better than that was a casualty of too many characters, one supposes, with the result that all of them got short shrift.
I never really got the impression in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' that Indy was ever willing to let the Ark go (and let it fall into enemy hands).....his bluff in the canyon is just an attempt to get Marion back.

In my opinion, 'Last Crusade' has the most masterful ending, where the roles are reversed and Indy finally lets the cup go when his father finally calls him "Junior." The theme of the two finding their "real" prize in the form of their newfound relationship (and not the artifact) is presented much more clearly and profoundly IMO.

I think the development in 'Crystal Skull' is there as I wrote in my previous comment.
 
Montana Smith said:
If it was in the script she would have told him. The fact is that Marion, like everyone else, didn't even know she had a son until recently. :p

Montana the spoiler showing his fangs!:D
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Montana the spoiler showing his fangs!:D

Playtime's over!

But seriously, KOTCS destroys its own magic. There's far less (if any) attempt to ask us to believe in the characters or their predicaments. I couldn't care less whether Marion, Mac, Oxley, Stanforth or Mutt lived or died.

Well, that's a lie. I wanted Mutt to die. :whip:
 
Montana Smith said:
Playtime's over! But seriously, KOTCS destroys its own magic. There's far less (if any) attempt to ask us to believe in the characters or their predicaments. I couldn't care less whether Marion, Mac, Oxley, Stanforth or Mutt lived or died. Well, that's a lie. I wanted Mutt to die. :whip:
Interesting way of putting it...I would be shocked if they had killed off anyone besides Mac possibly Oxley, I would most likely have called it a gimmick to bolster a weak script/boring film.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Interesting way of putting it...I would be shocked if they had killed off anyone besides Mac possibly Oxley, I would most likely have called it a gimmick to bolster a weak script/boring film.

Marion isn't the woman she used to be. We never knew Oxley, and apparently neither did John Hurt. Mac was little more than nothing.

And Mutt is Shia LaHam. (I recently watched Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and wanted Mutt to die in that one too).

Shia has a good excuse for failing in KOTCS: he's not a very good actor.

Winstone and Hurt had no excuses beyond confusion over their intended roles.
 

Cole

New member
Montana Smith said:
Marion isn't the woman she used to be. We never knew Oxley, and apparently neither did John Hurt. Mac was little more than nothing.

And Mutt is Shia LaHam. (I recently watched Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and wanted Mutt to die in that one too).

Shia has a good excuse for failing in KOTCS: he's not a very good actor.

Winstone and Hurt had no excuses beyond confusion over their intended roles.
...how so? What more is it that you were expecting from the Mac and Ox characters? Anyone can make general accusations, that's not very hard.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Cole said:
...how so? What more is it that you were expecting from the Mac and Ox characters? Anyone can make general accusations, that's not very hard.

As if I haven't already elaborated such things in detail many times before. :rolleyes:

Mac was a cardboard flip-flopper. He was a nothingness. He doesn't present himself as ever having been a credible partner to Indy. There was no chemistry at all.

Oxley was nuts until required to do his bit of exposition. Being nuts for so long left him alienated as a character. There was no sense that he was a father to Mutt. No sense of the affection that would earn him the "Ox" monicker.

These weren't characters, in the manner of Marcus or Sallah, but simple devices to push Indy in a certain direction.

KOTCS doesn't flow, but is instead a collection of scenes. Some brilliant. Some awful. That's why I've never hated, nor loved the movie.
 

Cole

New member
Montana Smith said:
As if I haven't already elaborated such things in detail many times before. :rolleyes:

Mac was a cardboard flip-flopper. He was a nothingness. He doesn't present himself as ever having been a credible partner to Indy. There was no chemistry at all.

Oxley was nuts until required to do his bit of exposition. Being nuts for so long left him alienated as a character. There was no sense that he was a father to Mutt. No sense of the affection that would earn him the "Ox" monicker.

These weren't characters, in the manner of Marcus or Sallah, but simple devices to push Indy in a certain direction.

KOTCS doesn't flow, but is instead a collection of scenes. Some brilliant. Some awful. That's why I've never hated, nor loved the movie.
Then it seems your complaints should be rooted in the script and not the actors' portrayals. I doubt they could've found actors to portray the characters any better as written.

It's possible to be a character and a device at the same time.....Mac/Ox aren't particularly given major screen time - not to mention Mac betrays Indy - so it's a little unfair to compare them to beloved sidekicks of Indy like Marcus and Sallah. The central relationship of the film is between Indy and Mutt.

The witty banter between Indy and Mac in the opening sequence is sufficient enough in establishing their history I think. And the exposition of the Ox character makes him one that Indy, Marion, and Mutt all care about....I think it creates for a nice little moment at the wedding scene when we finally see him sane and cleaned up.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Cole said:
Then it seems your complaints should be rooted in the script and not the actors' portrayals. I doubt they could've found actors to portray the characters any better as written.

It's possible to be a character and a device at the same time.....Mac/Ox aren't particularly given major screen time - not to mention Mac betrays Indy - so it's a little unfair to compare them to beloved sidekicks of Indy like Marcus and Sallah. The central relationship of the film is between Indy and Mutt.

The witty banter between Indy and Mac in the opening sequence is sufficient enough in establishing their history I think. And the exposition of the Ox character makes him one that Indy, Marion, and Mutt all care about....I think it creates for a nice little moment at the wedding scene when we finally see him sane and cleaned up.

A poor script is most definitely the root cause of the problem. It gives little opportunity for actors with a track record to shine, because it seems that those actors couldn't find it in themselves to drag anything more out of it.

If you go back to Star Wars, Alec Guiness said that he had no clue about science fiction, and didn't really know what was going on in the film. Yet he was meticulous, ever the professional. He made copious notes, and he threw himself into the role of Obi-Wan. Watching KOTCS (and especially Winstone's interviews) it appears that neither could find enough in the script to encourage them to present more believable character transitions.

The flip-flopping of Mac was akin to The Chuckle Brothers saying "To me", "To you". :p

In such an environment it's obvious why Marion wouldn't tell Indy he had a son. Lucas and Spielberg were bringing a character back to the screen whom they knew could alienate the children he was created for. They needed a younger Indy to be front and centre to off-set the older guy. Marion couldn't tell Indy they had a son because she, like the creators, didn't know she was going to need one.
 

Cole

New member
Montana Smith said:
A poor script is most definitely the root cause of the problem. It gives little opportunity for actors with a track record to shine, because it seems that those actors couldn't find it in themselves to drag anything more out of it.

If you go back to Star Wars, Alec Guiness said that he had no clue about science fiction, and didn't really know what was going on in the film. Yet he was meticulous, ever the professional. He made copious notes, and he threw himself into the role of Obi-Wan. Watching KOTCS (and especially Winstone's interviews) it appears that neither could find enough in the script to encourage them to present more believable character transitions.

The flip-flopping of Mac was akin to The Chuckle Brothers saying "To me", "To you". :p

In such an environment it's obvious why Marion wouldn't tell Indy he had a son. Lucas and Spielberg were bringing a character back to the screen whom they knew could alienate the children he was created for. They needed a younger Indy to be front and centre to off-set the older guy. Marion couldn't tell Indy they had a son because she, like the creators, didn't know she was going to need one.
Ya, well it's not like Star Wars was some garbage film. I'm sure I can go through Alec Guiness's filmography and find more than a few duds, no matter how great of an actor he was.

I'm not sure what more Winstone and Hurt could have "dragged" out of their characters......that was already my point. They are elite actors, I enjoy their performances, and I think they got everything out of their characters. But the characters themselves are not particularly big roles and I think you're overestimating the impact they "should" have had.
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Cole said:
Insulting is a pretty harsh word of choice.

What else could we see it as? You bring a film series back after nineteen years, and one of its central characters back after after twenty-seven, and you don't bother to make their character interactions credible, or to treat them with much in the way of sincerity or humanity?

Cole said:
There are plenty of laughs in the film up to this point.....I disagree it's out-of-place within the tone of the film.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying there weren't jokes previously. What I'm saying is that this is the first place what should be treated as a serious character moment - as Mac's betrayal is, as Indy's dejected state in the Stanforth scenes - is seen as an opportunity for laughs. After all, twentysome years of resentment are funny, right? It's insulting because it's denying an audience any opportunity to take these characters seriously as human beings, something that Raiders excelled at, that Last Crusade was darned good at, and that even Temple of Doom managed fairly well at times. And, yes, Crystal Skull does so from time to time, but it <I>doesn't</I> with the one relationship revived from a prior film in which both participants are still alive.

Cole said:
Certainly. Even the way she stands, with her hands on her hips saying "Indiana Jones..." is clearly an "homage" if you will to her first scene in 'Raiders.' I don't see it as a criticism though.

It's a point for criticism because it's a mythology gag, the sort of thing that takes us out of the film and disallows our suspension of disbelief.

Cole said:
Just happy to be in the film? I don't agree with this at all. She's a professional. Her part is fairly small, but I think her performance is fine. I think it's more fair to say any criticisms are rooted within the script and the direction they took her character than her performance.

Look, I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of the older actress. There simply <I>aren't</I> parts written for them. Sadly, Marion Ravenwood, KotCS edition <I>was</I> one of them, but just barely. Perhaps Kasdan wrote it. Maybe it was all Koepp. They can write it in their scripts, a woman can smile, and smile, and thus not seem quite human. Yes, yes, of course she's <I>human</I>, but she's not treated with any sort of seriousness.

Let me ask you straight: do you think the scene at the camp, and the film at the whole, would have been better if the dialogue between Indy and Marion had been, despite the same words, been acted in a manner more similar to the dialogue at the Raven? Do you think you'd still have to make apologies for the film's characterizations on the basis of how small they are? Or would that added bit of sincerity have sold the relationship better, and thus improved the film?

Cole said:
I don't have issues with the humor involving Marion and the fencing; it's all relative lighthearted humor to me and it feels within the tone of the film's humor (the humor is based on Marion's over-enthusiastic attitude, as most parents are when it comes to their kids)...

<I>Precisely.</I> It's a cheap gag based on how most parents are said to be. That's not characterization, that's treating Marion as a type.

Cole said:
...perhaps the scene could've benefitted from more intense action involving Indy, similar to how the tank scene in 'Last Crusade' balances humor between Marcus and Henry Sr. and intense action involving Indy.

Perhaps. Just as likely it would have benefitted from fewer monkey gags, crotch gags, and dumb "soccer mom" gags. Good humor is rooted in character. There's even a little of it in that sequence, in Indy and Mac's interactions, in the "I don't think he plans that far ahead" exchange, and even in Oxley's sudden comprehension of who "Henry Jones Junior" is once he pulls his bazooka trick. Those have something to do with character. Those other bits don't.

Cole said:
But it's still not a bad scene....it's extremely well-filmed by Spielberg and I think it still has a furious momentum (a staple of all the pinnacle Indy "chase" scenes). Indy taking control of vehicles, punching Russians and almost getting rammed off a massive cliff is still entertaining. But the ants scene is probably the best part of the whole sequence - probably because it involves Indy.

I quite agree. But a good scene can still have bad elements that keep it from greatness.

Cole said:
Is Marion's involvement fulfilling or substantial? Ya, I think it is; there's a whole arch to the film that deals with family. Like I mentioned before - Indy is a lost character in the beginning. Mutt is character who is a little lost himself - he has no father, he has quit school, has an attitude. The end of the movie is about them finding each other. The film itself is a family film, and the content is a celebration of family.

Yeah, it's sort of about family. It's also sort of about knowledge, its pursuit, power, use, and misuse, as I often say. But that it is about these things doesn't make it <I>good</I>. I'd further argue that all this bit about knowledge is threaded throughout the film pretty effectively, even if the "knowledge was their treasure" line is a rather hackneyed thematic signpost.

Mutt and Indy have a somewhat interesting relationship, but nothing that's interesting about it is dependent on Mutt actually being Indy's son. It's using a revealed fact as drama, rather than any sort of character conflict. It's why I keep coming back to a variant on the script in which Mutt is just some kid - a student, or a street tough with a prep school background - who is pulled between Oxley's, Indy's, and Mac's divergent approaches to treasure hunting. Then we aren't forced to deal with their lackadaisical approach to Marion's return.

I also disagree that Indy is a lost character at the beginning. He could have been presented as such, and it would have been compelling; he is much more strongly presented as an exile. Rejected by his country, fired by his university, and ready to go to Communist Leipzig to continue his profession. He's out of place, not lost. That's the point of the suburbs and the atomic bomb moments, not just to be cool.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
And continuing, with a critical comparison...

Cole said:
Rebottling similar pieces of dialogue? I didn't see that. 'Raiders' is a great film, don't get me wrong, but lets not put it on a pedestal.

Raiders takes its characters seriously. That's pretty hard to deny. Crystal Skull, by and large, does not. If Crystal Skull had pursued the spirit of Raiders - a dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions <I>and</I> superb action filmmaking - rather than repackaging its own elements, it would have been a stronger entry in the series.

Cole said:
I never really got the impression in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' that Indy was ever willing to let the Ark go (and let it fall into enemy hands).....his bluff in the canyon is just an attempt to get Marion back.

Then why is the scene in the film? Why do they stop the action for a dialogue scene at a critical point in the film? Why don't the Nazis just capture both Indy and Marion on the Bantu Wind, instead of having the submarine base as a location? They have it because the film has three primary dramatic arcs:

1) Indiana Jones is going after the Ark of the Covenant. His friends tell him its mysterious, and possibly powerful. He sees it as an opportunity for professional advancement, with both the research and monetary benefits that entails.
2) Indiana Jones hurt Marion Ravenwood some years ago. He gets her involved in a dangerous adventure involving the Nazis, and must leave her in their possession while he's pursuing the Ark. She resents him for this, despite caring for him.
3) Indiana Jones competes with his old rival, Rene Belloq for the Ark, for Marion, and even for the golden idol. Belloq says that he and Indiana are quite similar, and the film presents this as true (two-shot, an uncontested "you know it's true").

There are two scenes in the film with all four of these individuals present. One is the scene in which Indiana's adversaries are destroyed, but that's really the denouement. The climax of the film comes where these three story strands come together, where Indy finally does something to combat the idea that he and Belloq are alike by reversing his earlier decision of leaving Marion in the tent and instead threatening to blow up the Ark if he doesn't get her back. There'd be no reason for Belloq's speech about history to be treated with the gravity that it is were it not dramatically important. There'd be no reason for Indy's slow lowering of the rocket launcher and willing capture if he had been bluffing. He's not bluffing. He really is threatening the blow up the Ark. He can't actually summon up the ability to do it, however, for all of the reasons that Belloq states. It's a brilliant scene, and everything in the film is leading up to it. Everything after just ties up loose ends.

I'm belaboring this point because it shows that Raiders takes its characters and their interactions seriously, and what they do they do for dramatically significant reasons. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't. I love Winstone's work in the film, but can anyone really claim that Mac is acting for dramatically significant reasons, as presented in the film? You have to go outside the film, to Winstone's other comments, about being a double agent for so long that he doesn't know what side he's on, to find a really compelling interpretation of the character. Same goes for Indy and Marion getting back together; it happens because the script says so, not because the script constructs a series of credible events rendering it inevitable.

Character matters. You can't expect people to become engaged by a film unless those making it believe so.

Cole said:
In my opinion, 'Last Crusade' has the most masterful ending, where the roles are reversed and Indy finally lets the cup go when his father finally calls him "Junior." The theme of the two finding their "real" prize in the form of their newfound relationship (and not the artifact) is presented much more clearly and profoundly IMO.

It's a great ending, but the one in Raiders encompasses more of what precedes it in the film.

Cole said:
I think the development in 'Crystal Skull' is there as I wrote in my previous comment.

Not much, there isn't. There are events, but not development, and we aren't invited to fill in the gaps in-between.

In short, I agree with this:

Montana Smith said:
But seriously, KOTCS destroys its own magic. There's far less (if any) attempt to ask us to believe in the characters or their predicaments. I couldn't care less whether Marion, Mac, Oxley, Stanforth or Mutt lived or died.
 
Last edited:

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
What else could we see it as? You bring a film series back after nineteen years, and one of its central characters back after after twenty-seven, and you don't bother to make their character interactions credible, or to treat them with much in the way of sincerity or humanity?
Completely disagree.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying there weren't jokes previously. What I'm saying is that this is the first place what should be treated as a serious character moment - as Mac's betrayal is, as Indy's dejected state in the Stanforth scenes - is seen as an opportunity for laughs. After all, twentysome years of resentment are funny, right? It's insulting because it's denying an audience any opportunity to take these characters seriously as human beings, something that Raiders excelled at, that Last Crusade was darned good at, and that even Temple of Doom managed fairly well at times. And, yes, Crystal Skull does so from time to time, but it <I>doesn't</I> with the one relationship revived from a prior film in which both participants are still alive.
It's not funny to them, it's funny to us. And that doesn't mean it's devoid of humanity.

It's a point for criticism because it's a mythology gag, the sort of thing that takes us out of the film and disallows our suspension of disbelief.
You could say the same for every homage ever put on film. I disagree. I don't think it's so much that it's hokey.

Look, I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of the older actress. There simply <I>aren't</I> parts written for them. Sadly, Marion Ravenwood, KotCS edition <I>was</I> one of them, but just barely. Perhaps Kasdan wrote it. Maybe it was all Koepp. They can write it in their scripts, a woman can smile, and smile, and thus not seem quite human. Yes, yes, of course she's <I>human</I>, but she's not treated with any sort of seriousness.

Let me ask you straight: do you think the scene at the camp, and the film at the whole, would have been better if the dialogue between Indy and Marion had been, despite the same words, been acted in a manner more similar to the dialogue at the Raven? Do you think you'd still have to make apologies for the film's characterizations on the basis of how small they are? Or would that added bit of sincerity have sold the relationship better, and thus improved the film?
Nobody's making apologies. I can only judge what was put on film. It would've been very difficult to do another dialogue like the one at Marion's bar in 'Raiders'.

<I>Precisely.</I> It's a cheap gag based on how most parents are said to be. That's not characterization, that's treating Marion as a type.
A type? What type? She's a mom, isn't that characterization? I'm not disagreeing it's a "gag," but that's not particularly unfamiliar to Indiana Jones.

Perhaps. Just as likely it would have benefitted from fewer monkey gags, crotch gags, and dumb "soccer mom" gags. Good humor is rooted in character. There's even a little of it in that sequence, in Indy and Mac's interactions, in the "I don't think he plans that far ahead" exchange, and even in Oxley's sudden comprehension of who "Henry Jones Junior" is once he pulls his bazooka trick. Those have something to do with character. Those other bits don't.
I think you're overanalyzing. It's just lighthearted humor for innocent entertainment.

Mutt and Indy have a somewhat interesting relationship, but nothing that's interesting about it is dependent on Mutt actually being Indy's son. It's using a revealed fact as drama, rather than any sort of character conflict. It's why I keep coming back to a variant on the script in which Mutt is just some kid - a student, or a street tough with a prep school background - who is pulled between Oxley's, Indy's, and Mac's divergent approaches to treasure hunting. Then we aren't forced to deal with their lackadaisical approach to Marion's return.
The character conflict is Mutt resenting Indy as his father....but he finally starts accepting him after their adventure; most likely out of admiration for what they just went through. I don't get what you're talking about - Mutt being pulled by different approaches to treasure hunting? I wouldn't call Marion's return lackadaisical.

I also disagree that Indy is a lost character at the beginning. He could have been presented as such, and it would have been compelling; he is much more strongly presented as an exile. Rejected by his country, fired by his university, and ready to go to Communist Leipzig to continue his profession. He's out of place, not lost. That's the point of the suburbs and the atomic bomb moments, not just to be cool.
If he's not a lost character, than he is certainly a lonely character (and don't the two go hand-in-hand?) - just watch the bit about losing his father and Marcus and "reaching the point where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away." There's nothing to keep him in the States without his job.
 

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Raiders takes its characters seriously. That's pretty hard to deny. Crystal Skull, by and large, does not. If Crystal Skull had pursued the spirit of Raiders - a dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions <I>and</I> superb action filmmaking - rather than repackaging its own elements, it would have been a stronger entry in the series.
I struggle to say 'Raiders' "takes itself seriously": this is still a film based on the old B-action serials. I feel more comfortable calling it the most intense. 'Skull' follows the trend of the series with a more lighthearted tone, certainly.

'Skull' is still a "dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions".....it's not a comedy. And it's not the only Indy movie with comedy.

Then why is the scene in the film? Why do they stop the action for a dialogue scene at a critical point in the film? Why don't the Nazis just capture both Indy and Marion on the Bantu Wind, instead of having the submarine base as a location? They have it because the film has three primary dramatic arcs:

1) Indiana Jones is going after the Ark of the Covenant. His friends tell him its mysterious, and possibly powerful. He sees it as an opportunity for professional advancement, with both the research and monetary benefits that entails.
2) Indiana Jones hurt Marion Ravenwood some years ago. He gets her involved in a dangerous adventure involving the Nazis, and must leave her in their possession while he's pursuing the Ark. She resents him for this, despite caring for him.
3) Indiana Jones competes with his old rival, Rene Belloq for the Ark, for Marion, and even for the golden idol. Belloq says that he and Indiana are quite similar, and the film presents this as true (two-shot, an uncontested "you know it's true").

There are two scenes in the film with all four of these individuals present. One is the scene in which Indiana's adversaries are destroyed, but that's really the denouement. The climax of the film comes where these three story strands come together, where Indy finally does something to combat the idea that he and Belloq are alike by reversing his earlier decision of leaving Marion in the tent and instead threatening to blow up the Ark if he doesn't get her back. There'd be no reason for Belloq's speech about history to be treated with the gravity that it is were it not dramatically important. There'd be no reason for Indy's slow lowering of the rocket launcher and willing capture if he had been bluffing. He's not bluffing. He really is threatening the blow up the Ark. He can't actually summon up the ability to do it, however, for all of the reasons that Belloq states. It's a brilliant scene, and everything in the film is leading up to it. Everything after just ties up loose ends.

I'm belaboring this point because it shows that Raiders takes its characters and their interactions seriously, and what they do they do for dramatically significant reasons. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't. I love Winstone's work in the film, but can anyone really claim that Mac is acting for dramatically significant reasons, as presented in the film? You have to go outside the film, to Winstone's other comments, about being a double agent for so long that he doesn't know what side he's on, to find a really compelling interpretation of the character. Same goes for Indy and Marion getting back together; it happens because the script says so, not because the script constructs a series of credible events rendering it inevitable.

Character matters. You can't expect people to become engaged by a film unless those making it believe so.
Of course character matters, but that doesn't mean rich, complex stories are a necessity.

We're already discussing this in another thread so I'll leave it there.

It's a great ending, but the one in Raiders encompasses more of what precedes it in the film.
Disagree because of what we're discussing in the other thread.

Not much, there isn't. There are events, but not development, and we aren't invited to fill in the gaps in-between.
I've already pointed out what I think the development in the film is. Calling them events and not development doesn't mean much to me.
 
Top