Is Indy an atheist (in Raiders)?

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
Re Montana:

Divorce or someone's death would be the next logical step.

Yes, the family outing - I will always condemn it.

There are plenty of good myths and mysteries out there. I hope Lucas digs up a good one. Bring back a non sentimental Indy, one who brings out plenty of whip, shoots someone's ass off and is prepared to look a mystery in the face.

And also bring back Indy's free will. He had no choice but to believe the skull, since it took over his mind and controlled his journey. By the same token Indy met Marion for the first time in years after the skull had spoken to him. So you could say that his decision to get married was influenced by external forces as well. Between now and Indy V there's a chance he can see ther 'error' of his ways, and consign it to temporary insanity! ;) (Indy was destined to be a bachelor, even Bond was only married for an hour or so).
 

WillKill4Food

New member
First, I'd like to agree with most of the talk about religion. Indy couldn't be an atheist since he's experienced so many supernatural events, but I wouldn't call him a Christian (though, it must be pointed out that he was particularly pious during the trials leading up to finding the Holy Grail). He seemed to revere Siva in Temple of Doom, and his opposition to Kali was probably just based on the negative light the goddess was painted in for that film. The "real" Kali (as much as any deity can be "real") worshiped by Hindus is, as someone said before, not the demon Kali the film portrayed. Anyway, if he was "religious," he'd probably be more of the Gandhi persuasion: all religions are true.
"I came to the conclusion long ago ? that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu ? But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."

That being said, I'm curious about the last comment.
Mickiana said:
Bring back a non sentimental Indy, one who brings out plenty of whip, shoots someone's ass off and is prepared to look a mystery in the face.
Which Indy is that? The one who risked life and limb to save Marion? The one who gave up "fortune and glory" to bring the Sankara stone back to the village? Or are you talking about the one who tried to save Elsa regardless of her betrayals?
Indy, it seems, has always tried to put up a gruff exterior, but in every movie (KotCS included) he has proven that he is certainly a sentimental guy.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Indy, it seems, has always tried to put up a gruff exterior, but in every movie (KotCS included) he has proven that he is certainly a sentimental guy.

I think that for Indy, doing 'good' or doing the 'right' thing is not his natural impulse. He starts from the position of the self-seeking individual, but eventually finds it hard to carry that through. He's compelled to look outside himself, and that's the factor that prevents him from becoming Belloq.

He's a believer in all manner of strange concepts, but he's not the ideal defintion of a 'Christian'. Getting married in a church seemed to be as much a cover to hide the realities he's witnessed. Maybe by showing conformity he protects himself. It's easier to fit in, without having to present the mind-bending reality that lies just beneath the surface of things to others.

It's the reason he presents the strange as myths to his colleagues and professional contacts. Until he's verified the facts, they remain myth. And even after he's verified the facts for himself, he keeps the the reality hidden from others.

Plotwise, that also has the effect of retaining the mystery in Indy's world. If everyone knew that the occult was a living thing, then Indy wouldn't be that special investigator, but just another tourist.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Montana Smith said:
I think that for Indy, doing 'good' or doing the 'right' thing is not his natural impulse.
I'm not entirely sure that doing the 'right' thing is anybody's natural impulse in certain situations. That's what makes altruism so admirable.

Montana Smith said:
He's a believer in all manner of strange concepts, but he's not the ideal defintion of a 'Christian'. Getting married in a church seemed to be as much a cover to hide the realities he's witnessed. Maybe by showing conformity he protects himself. It's easier to fit in, without having to present the mind-bending reality that lies just beneath the surface of things to others.
Not an ideal Christian at all. In Raiders he doesn't believe in the power of the Ark, and in Crusade he is skeptical about the Grail until the end. He was probably raised a Christian (his father slaps him for 'blasphemy' and in Raiders, Indy questions whether the federal agents had attended Sunday School), but I doubt he has ever been particularly devout. And once more, his reverence for Siva suggests that Jehovah is not the only God he respects, hence the 'all religions are true' nature of Indy's universe. That being said, I don't think that having a church wedding indicates that he is a Christian at all. In the 1950s, I can't imagine him having a wedding anywhere else.

Montana Smith said:
It's the reason he presents the strange as myths to his colleagues and professional contacts. Until he's verified the facts, they remain myth. And even after he's verified the facts for himself, he keeps the the reality hidden from others.
I've always wondered how Indy could be so skeptical of superstition at the beginning of Raiders after what he had seen in Doom. The audience, of course, knows that the answer probably lies in the fact that the screenwriters wrote Raiders first, but in the universe of the films he must have been posturing in front of Marcus to either quell Brody's fears or ignore the realities he would be facing himself.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
I'm not entirely sure that doing the 'right' thing is anybody's natural impulse in certain situations. That's what makes altruism so admirable.

Precisely. Indy doesn't conform to any notion of a 'typical' fictional hero. He remains a rogue, but never crosses the line into Belloq territory.

WillKill4Food said:
Not an ideal Christian at all. In Raiders he doesn't believe in the power of the Ark, and in Crusade he is skeptical about the Grail until the end. He was probably raised a Christian (his father slaps him for 'blasphemy' and in Raiders, Indy questions whether the federal agents had attended Sunday School), but I doubt he has ever been particularly devout. And once more, his reverence for Siva suggests that Jehovah is not the only God he respects, hence the 'all religions are true' nature of Indy's universe. That being said, I don't think that having a church wedding indicates that he is a Christian at all. In the 1950s, I can't imagine him having a wedding anywhere else.

That's why I see the church wedding as a cover, or merely as an expression of normality. Indy has witnessed things that throw doubt on the singularity of truth that the Bible purports to present.

WillKill4Food said:
I've always wondered how Indy could be so skeptical of superstition at the beginning of Raiders after what he had seen in Doom. The audience, of course, knows that the answer probably lies in the fact that the screenwriters wrote Raiders first, but in the universe of the films he must have been posturing in front of Marcus to either quell Brody's fears or ignore the realities he would be facing himself.

His skepticism has never posed any problem for me. It seems natural to be skeptical of anything new and strange, no matter what you've seen in the past. Especially so, since Indy is a professional. He has a reputation to uphold. He's dedicated to exposing facts, and also, it would appear, to keeping some things hidden from others for their own good.

To me, Indy will always be associated with Conrad's Marlow.
 

Junior Jones

New member
WillKill4Food said:
...Anyway, if he was "religious," he'd probably be more of the Gandhi persuasion: all religions are true.

Jiddu Krishnamurti told him just about the same thing when they met in 1910.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Junior Jones said:
Jiddu Krishnamurti told him just about the same thing when they met in 1910.

Just as well he didn't go the non-violence route as well!

Or maybe that was why he wouldn't fire his gun in KOTCS.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
First, I'd like to agree with most of the talk about religion. Indy couldn't be an atheist since he's experienced so many supernatural events, but I wouldn't call him a Christian (though, it must be pointed out that he was particularly pious during the trials leading up to finding the Holy Grail). He seemed to revere Siva in Temple of Doom, and his opposition to Kali was probably just based on the negative light the goddess was painted in for that film.
I disagree about Indy being "particularly pious" during the 3 trials in "Crusade". To me, he got by on his brains, experience and blind luck.

A case could be made for him showing reverence towards Shiva in "Doom" but where did you get the notion that Indy opposes Kali?:confused: He opposes the Thugs, not their deity.
WillKill4Food said:
The "real" Kali (as much as any deity can be "real") worshiped by Hindus is, as someone said before, not the demon Kali the film portrayed.
No, the film portrayed the goddess, Kali. Apart from the face, all the characteristics of the statue bear the marks attributed to her physical representation. (The demon, Kali, is something totally different and the "someone" you're referring to didn't know what they were talking about).;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
I disagree about Indy being "particularly pious" during the 3 trials in "Crusade". To me, he got by on his brains, experience and blind luck.

Yes. Being "pious" implies an individual is living their life with devotion to an ideal. During the trials Indy was merely being practical and following rules that would keep him alive, since it's possible to understand a religion without being devoted to it personally.

Stoo said:
A case could be made for him showing reverence towards Shiva in "Doom" but where did you get the notion that Indy opposes Kali?:confused: He opposes the Thugs, not their deity.

No, the film portrayed the goddess, Kali. Apart from the face, all the characteristics of the statue bear the marks attributed to her physical representation. (The demon, Kali, is something totally different and the "someone" you're referring to didn't know what they were talking about).;)

I might be wrong, but the Hindu gods remind me of the Greek deities: that is, they are essentially neutral until invoked (called upon) by a mortal, or another deity. They aren't absolute good or evil, but instead possess human qualities and vices. They can be persuaded to support various human ventures. Even the gods with brutal or unkind duties have a vital role to play which brings about balance.

Since deities can be fickle, the Thuggees may themselves be overstepping the mark in their devotion to Kali. Mola Ram might be said to have outlived his usefulness, hence the ease with which Indy's invocation of Shiva causes Mola to fall to his death. Kali may just have abandoned him and his cult, since we know that they weren't real Thuggee!

To survive, Indy himself has to believe in things beyond the guidelines and instructions in Bible. If he were a pious Christian he would be forced to ignore the very knowledge that will keep him alive.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Stoo said:
I disagree about Indy being "particularly pious" during the 3 trials in "Crusade". To me, he got by on his brains, experience and blind luck.
I would agree with that about the first two trials, but not the "leap of faith." Harrison's body language seemed to indicate that Indy was putting his faith in something—if not God, then his biological father, at the very least. In saying that he was "particularly pious" here, I meant that he was being (somewhat uncharacteristically) reverent to the faith of his father (who, to me at least, seems to be a Christian). At the 50 second mark of this clip, you see injured Henry Sr. telling Indy to "believe," and Harrison clutches his chest and looks to me like a man who is trying to put his faith in something.

Stoo said:
A case could be made for him showing reverence towards Shiva in "Doom" but where did you get the notion that Indy opposes Kali?:confused: He opposes the Thugs, not their deity.
Kali is never portrayed in a positive light in the film. They made no mention of the fact that Kali is worshiped by plenty of normal, peaceful Hindus. There's no example of Indy showing the slightest bit of respect for Kali. Meanwhile, we have things like Indiana Jones saying that Mola Ram will meet Kali "in Hell" and the temple devoted to her is not your typical Hindu temple, at all.

Indian diplomat Shashi Tharoor also took offense at the portrayal, saying that: ""If they had to libel a cult, why not invent one, rather than abuse a goddess revered by millions? (The film is set in the 1930s, when Kali worship did not include human sacrifice a century after the elimination of the Thugs, who by comparison with Spielberg's Amrish Puri, seem positively humanitarian.) Where in a Hindu temple would one worship grotesque skulls and skeletons, and find slogans on Kali scrawled on the walls like so much political graffiti?"

In an article about the demonization of Kali by Western films such as Gunga Din, a writer for Hindu Voice UK says that, "...in the case of Hindus and especially in case of the much-maligned Goddess Kali, you can still make this kind of 'Fascist' film, as was to be proven by Steven Spielberg with his Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom. Here again we come across Kali as a bloodthirsty demoness lusting after human flesh and worshipped by adoring throngs of entranced, arm-waving, dehumanized followers, this time led by priest Mola Ram. In the narrative there are lines like, 'Mola Ram. Prepare to meet Kali... in Hell!'"

Stoo said:
No, the film portrayed the goddess, Kali. Apart from the face, all the characteristics of the statue bear the marks attributed to her physical representation. (The demon, Kali, is something totally different and the "someone" you're referring to didn't know what they were talking about).;)
So yes, I was definitely unclear in what I said. As you say, Kālī Ma (not the demon Kali) is clearly the goddess worshiped by the Thuggee in the film, but you have misunderstood what I meant by "portrayed." The goddess of Hindu mythology is a multifaceted deity, whereas the characterization of her in the film makes her almost satanic (or, as I said before, demonic). You may disagree, but if the Hindus quoted above see that too, I'm inclined to that there has to be a little bit of truth in what I said. The portrayal I am talking about here is the verbal portrayal. Thus, no Hindus today worship "the demon the film portrayed," as I said in the prior post.

That being said, I disagree with you about the physical portrayal. You say that "apart from the face, all the characteristics of the statue bear the marks attributed to her physical representation." Yes, apart from the face... Here is a poster of the multi-armed Hindu goddess. Here is a picture of the demon Kali. Finally, here is a picture of the Temple of Doom statue. That's not very detailed, so here is a replica statue that bears the likeness from the film, and here is a rough approximation of the Kali from Temple in Lego. For reference, here is the portrayal of the goddess in a Sinbad film.

Now, whereas the Sinbad Kali is blue-skinned and has a feminine face just like the poster Kali (and most other interpretations of the goddess), the Temple of Doom Kali has a black body and a sinister skull-like face with a snout. The snout is particularly evident in the Lego approximation. The goddess Kali does not have a snout; nor does she look skeletal. However, the demon Kali has a snout and a menacing face. It is probably not very important to mention, but he also has dark olive (not blue) skin.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the demon Kali is actually not "something totally different" as you said. In reality, the face of the statue is something totally different from the face of Kali the goddess, but the face does bear some resemblance to the demon Kali's face.

If the production crew was willing to have the Hindus in Pankot eating Chinese cuisine (monkey brains) and non-existent delicacies (eye-ball soup and "snake surprise"), do you not think it likely that they could (and probably would) be guilty of making a similar mistake with the likeness of Kali?

The pictures seem to confirm that they did...

EDIT:
Regardless, the Hindu Voice UK article I linked to earlier really does a splendid job of summarizing what I've said. Again, the link to the article is here (you'll have to skip the annoying ad). I think we can both agree that Hindu Voice UK probably knows more about the subject than either of us.
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
Please excuse the double post, but it was too long if I tacked this on at the end.

Montana Smith said:
Being "pious" implies an individual is living their life with devotion to an ideal. During the trials Indy was merely being practical and following rules that would keep him alive, since it's possible to understand a religion without being devoted to it personally.
Actually, no. "Pious" can simply mean "marked by or showing reverence for deity." One definition has it used as the opposite of secular. I don't want to get into semantics, but there was nothing wrong with saying that Indy was being "pious." I can hardly see how you could argue otherwise (unless you disagree with Merriam-Webster).

Montana Smith said:
I might be wrong, but the Hindu gods remind me of the Greek deities: that is, they are essentially neutral until invoked (called upon) by a mortal, or another deity. They aren't absolute good or evil, but instead possess human qualities and vices. They can be persuaded to support various human ventures. Even the gods with brutal or unkind duties have a vital role to play which brings about balance.
I think that is generally true. The "real" nature of Kali (again, as much as any deity can have anything "real" about them) is discussed at length in this article (once more from Hindu Voice UK).

Montana Smith said:
Since deities can be fickle, the Thuggees may themselves be overstepping the mark in their devotion to Kali.
Further analysis of this seems to be useless to me, given that (as I've argued in other threads) the filmmakers did not really give a damn about how correct their interpretation of Kali was. In my opinion, Temple of Doom suffers as a result.

Montana Smith said:
Mola Ram might be said to have outlived his usefulness, hence the ease with which Indy's invocation of Shiva causes Mola to fall to his death.
But again, I don't think the mythology of Temple can really be compared to Hindu mythology when it comes to this. The film seems to portray it as good versus evil. Christianity, which is the religion that most Americans come into contact from day to day, has that dichotomy of good and evil (though Christians are poor at defining it), but Hinduism, as you said, lacks the black and white version of reality. The filmmakers, to me, seemed to take the shades of gray of Hinduism and up the contrast in the film, so I think in Temple of Doom it looks like you have Siva representing the light and Kali representing darkness. Mola Ram's invocations of Kali clearly work—that's why he can pull out a man's heart and sacrifice it in flames. That scene seems to confirm that the Kali of the film accepts Mola Ram's murderous activities, and I think the audience is to believe that Kali wants the stones as much as Mola Ram. Again, this does not bear much resemblance to Hindu mythology, so I don't mean to "libel a goddess revered by millions," but the film certainly does in the portrayal.

Montana Smith said:
If he were a pious Christian he would be forced to ignore the very knowledge that will keep him alive.
Semantics again. It is possible to "revere" a deity (especially for one fleeting moment) without devoting your life to it or practicing religion. Thus, Indy was "pious" but he was not necessarily a "pious Christian." Christians do not have the monopoly on piety. I don't want to delve into this further, but I think you get the point.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Actually, no. "Pious" can simply mean "marked by or showing reverence for deity." One definition has it used as the opposite of secular. I don't want to get into semantics, but there was nothing wrong with saying that Indy was being "pious." I can hardly see how you could argue otherwise (unless you disagree with Merriam-Webster).
...

Semantics again. It is possible to "revere" a deity (especially for one fleeting moment) without devoting your life to it or practicing religion. Thus, Indy was "pious" but he was not necessarily a "pious Christian." Christians do not have the monopoly on piety. I don't want to delve into this further, but I think you get the point.

Merriam-Webster also defines "pious" as "marked by conspicuous religiosity", with synonyms such as "constant", "faithful", "dedicated", "steadfast".

Personally that doesn't describe to me the way Indy treats religion - which is at the root of this thread's title. As a character Indy is much more pragmatic. He picks and chooses and weaves his way through myth, he believes when necessary, and looks to the power of various gods and entities. It seems more like an educated respect for the divine, without ever becoming too deeply embroiled in a single version of it, since Indy knows there are multiple divinities.

With his knowledge he couldn't be "faithful" to any one religion, without being faithful to all of them, which would become impossible as soon as it became apparent that Indy's world was characterized by multiple gods, and not just multiple names for the same God.

Specifically in Raiders, as in the thread title, Indy adopted pragmatism rather than piety to survive. It wasn't showing reverence to God, but simply the act of closing his eyes, as he had been warned to do. He was following instructions, just as he interpreted the instructions to safely enter the Grail Temple. Did he have religious faith in taking that step into nothing, or did he believe there ought to be a bridge there because his father's research pointed to there actually being a bridge there?

The bridge was shown to be an optical illusion, though it only works on camera from one perspective. So whether or not it was a banal trick, or the work of mysterious forces is open.

The very material spinning blades and the stepping stones indicate the work of man, rather than the work of an occult power, such as that channelled through the Ark).

The Grail Temple resembles the Chachapoyan Temple in ROTLA, with it's man-made traps. In the latter there was the light trap, and the former the bridge. Both are distinguished as being open to explanation.

WillKill4Food said:
Further analysis of this seems to be useless to me, given that (as I've argued in other threads) the filmmakers did not really give a damn about how correct their interpretation of Kali was. In my opinion, Temple of Doom suffers as a result.

But again, I don't think the mythology of Temple can really be compared to Hindu mythology when it comes to this. The film seems to portray it as good versus evil. Christianity, which is the religion that most Americans come into contact from day to day, has that dichotomy of good and evil (though Christians are poor at defining it), but Hinduism, as you said, lacks the black and white version of reality. The filmmakers, to me, seemed to take the shades of gray of Hinduism and up the contrast in the film, so I think in Temple of Doom it looks like you have Siva representing the light and Kali representing darkness. Mola Ram's invocations of Kali clearly work—that's why he can pull out a man's heart and sacrifice it in flames. That scene seems to confirm that the Kali of the film accepts Mola Ram's murderous activities, and I think the audience is to believe that Kali wants the stones as much as Mola Ram. Again, this does not bear much resemblance to Hindu mythology, so I don't mean to "libel a goddess revered by millions," but the film certainly does in the portrayal.

Yes, it's a pulpy parody of history as we know it. There are some familiar reference points, but that's as far as it goes before we have to leave behind what we take for reality.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
I would agree with that about the first two trials, but not the "leap of faith." Harrison's body language seemed to indicate that Indy was putting his faith in something?if not God, then his biological father, at the very least. In saying that he was "particularly pious" here, I meant that he was being (somewhat uncharacteristically) reverent to the faith of his father (who, to me at least, seems to be a Christian). At the 50 second mark of this clip, you see injured Henry Sr. telling Indy to "believe," and Harrison clutches his chest and looks to me like a man who is trying to put his faith in something.
The Leap-From-The-Lion's-Head scene in "Crusade" is a chuckler. Back in '89, I LAUGHED in the theatre when Indy was standing at the edge, mustering up his supposed 'faith' before taking his 1st step into the chasm. The disguised bridge was a great solution to show that Indy's pseudo-belief would get him past that final obstacle.
WillKill4Food said:
There's no example of Indy showing the slightest bit of respect for Kali. Meanwhile, we have things like Indiana Jones saying that Mola Ram will meet Kali "in Hell" and the temple devoted to her is not your typical Hindu temple, at all.
"Things like"? The "in Hell" line is the only bit. What other things provide evidence for Indy's opposition to Kali? The look of the temple doesn't qualify.
WillKill4Food said:
The goddess of Hindu mythology is a multifaceted deity, whereas the characterization of her in the film makes her almost satanic (or, as I said before, demonic).
Sorry, but you did not say, "demonic". You said the film portrayed "the demon Kali" which it does not. If you had said, "demonic", I wouldn't have bothered replying because she is obviously depicted as such.
WillKill4Food said:
That being said, I disagree with you about the physical portrayal. You say that "apart from the face, all the characteristics of the statue bear the marks attributed to her physical representation." Yes, apart from the face... Here is a poster of the multi-armed Hindu goddess. Here is a picture of the demon Kali. Finally, here is a picture of the Temple of Doom statue. That's not very detailed, so here is a replica statue that bears the likeness from the film, and here is a rough approximation of the Kali from Temple in Lego. For reference, here is the portrayal of the goddess in a Sinbad film.

Now, whereas the Sinbad Kali is blue-skinned and has a feminine face just like the poster Kali (and most other interpretations of the goddess), the Temple of Doom Kali has a black body and a sinister skull-like face with a snout. The snout is particularly evident in the Lego approximation. The goddess Kali does not have a snout; nor does she look skeletal. However, the demon Kali has a snout and a menacing face. It is probably not very important to mention, but he also has dark olive (not blue) skin.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the demon Kali is actually not "something totally different" as you said. In reality, the face of the statue is something totally different from the face of Kali the goddess, but the face does bear some resemblance to the demon Kali's face..
1) Hello? I wrote, "Apart from the face" so why are you even focusing on that?:confused: (and who cares about LEGO Kali?)

2) Skin colour: In artistic representations, the goddess is depicted as having either blue OR black skin. (The statue in "Golden Voyage of Sinbad" is NOT blue. It's carved from stone and it's gray. One of my fave adventure films, by the way.) Anyway, the skin colour is irrelvant compared with point #3.

3) The statue in "Doom" has multiple arms, one hand with a sword & another holding a severed head, a necklace of skulls, a skirt of severed arms, etc. which are all physical characteristics attributed to the goddess. The demon, Kali, does not fit the bill. The demon is a minor character in Hindu mythology and not worshipped by anyone. The picture you linked to is but *one* interpretation based on what scant descriptive information there is to go on. It seems your basing your argument on a single Wikipedia image.

The filmakers did not make a "mistake", as you wrote, they took artistic license. Regardless, this is WAY off-topic!;)
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Montana Smith said:
Merriam-Webster also defines "pious" as "marked by conspicuous religiosity", with synonyms such as ...
YES. Imagine that. A word having multiple meanings. Welcome to the English language. Regardless, the point is that the word "pious" fits the bill as per my previous description.

Montana Smith said:
Personally that doesn't describe to me the way Indy treats religion - which is at the root of this thread's title.
Agreed. You may note that I never said that Indiana Jones was usually "pious." Instead, I used words like "uncharacteristically." The whole point was that the bridge scene DOES NOT describe his treatment of religion. Likewise, I DID NOT say he was a Christian, but I also opposed the idea that he is an atheist. He could not be, having so much experience with the supernatural. He lives in a world where "all religions are true" or something along those lines.

Montana Smith said:
With his knowledge he couldn't be "faithful" to any one religion, without being faithful to all of them, which would become impossible as soon as it became apparent that Indy's world was characterized by multiple gods, and not just multiple names for the same God.
And I did not say that he is faithful to any religion. You're just repeating yourself and me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I get the feeling that you think the opposite. If you read my original post, I've said that. You're assuming that "pious" meant "faithful" the one time that I used it, but in context the other dictionary definition (meaning "reverent") is applicable. You misunderstood me, which is partially my fault, but it all comes down to semantics, which should not be the basis for discussion. It kills discussion, actually, as demonstrated below...

Stoo said:
The Leap-From-The-Lion's-Head scene in "Crusade" is a chuckler. Back in '89, I LAUGHED in the theatre when Indy was standing at the edge, mustering up his supposed 'faith' before taking his 1st step into the chasm. The disguised bridge was a great solution to show that Indy's pseudo-belief would get him past that final obstacle.
Okay, I agree. You're acknowledging that he had some vestige of "faith" in that scene. In my original post, I pointed out that it did not represent his general attitude toward religion. You're basically saying the same. I don't understand the contention.

Stoo said:
"Things like"? The "in Hell" line is the only bit. What other things provide evidence for Indy's opposition to Kali? The look of the temple doesn't qualify.
It's kind of stupid to say that the look of the temple is irrelevant. Really. If I made a film that showed a Catholic cathedral filled with skulls and snakes and fire, would I be showing a positive depiction of Christianity? Don't you think that Indy (if his character did not oppose Kali) should have pointed out that Kali's worshipers were not all evil cultists?

Stoo said:
Sorry, but you did not say, "demonic". You said the film portrayed "the demon Kali" which it does not. If you had said, "demonic", I wouldn't have bothered replying because she is obviously depicted as such.
I had already referred to her as a deity, so the metaphorical sense of saying she had been portrayed as a "demon" should have been implied. Also, as I said before, "portrayal" meant "characterization as a whole," not just her physical appearance. I'm sorry to have been unclear, but arguing about semantics remains pointless. I clarified in a later post what I meant. This isn't a game to be played, scoring points because words have different meanings to different people.

Stoo said:
1) Hello? I wrote, "Apart from the face" so why are you even focusing on that?:confused:
BECAUSE THE FACE IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE DEPICTION. Obviously this is the case! I hate it when people type in all caps but this deserves to be screamed! You can say "Oh, well apart from the face..." but that face is integral to what the viewer thinks about her. A beautiful goddess is not as frightening as a skeletal monster. Hindus who worship Kali do not envision her with that face! So showing her as a monster with a skull and snout is clearly differing from the norm and showing her as demonic.

Stoo said:
(and who cares about LEGO Kali?)
The answer was in my original link to the LEGO Kali, but the point was to show the snout. I could not find a great deal of pictures of the Temple Kali, so I used that one because it emphasized the snout. Of course, all that is in the original post, but since you didn't bother to read it...

Stoo said:
2) Skin colour: In artistic representations, the goddess is depicted as having either blue OR black skin. (The statue in "Golden Voyage of Sinbad" is NOT blue. It's carved from stone and it's gray. One of my fave adventure films, by the way.)
Most of the pictures of her that I've seen have been blue. Most of the statues have been black or gray or some earth-tone. I would imagine that has something to do with the materials that statues are made out of. I do remember that TIME magazine used a black Kali on the cover of one forties issue that about the partitioning of India, but regardless, there was probably a reason that the statue in the temple was black instead of blue, and the point was that they had tried to make her more menacing and, as you said before, demonic. As for Sinbad, I haven't seen the film, but my eyes are good enough to tell that it is blue or some gunmetal tent in that picture I linked to.

What's most important, in my opinion, is that all of the stuff I just said (and most of what you attacked) was mentioned in my last post.
me said:
...blue-skinned and has a feminine face just like the poster Kali (and most other interpretations of the goddess)...
me said:
...It is probably not very important to mention, but [the demon] also has dark olive (not blue) skin...
There, in the first post, I pointed out small details that I acknowledged could be irrelevant. You've merely said the same thing.

Stoo said:
The picture you linked to is but *one* interpretation based on what scant descriptive information there is to go on. It seems your basing your argument on a single Wikipedia image.
I could not find another picture of the demon Kali that I knew for a fact was intended to be the demon and not the goddess. The Google images results showed many instances of "the demon Kali" as the caption for a picture of the goddess. But, I did find this picture of the demon "Samvara," on site that sells prints. The demon has a snout and bears a resemblance to the statue in Temple of Doom. The face of the statue looks very much like the demons of Hindu mythology. Coincidence or not, it's as plain as day. And in the end, the popular notion of Kali is that she is demonic. I found one website (whose author identified herself as a Republican) that said something to the effect of "Hindus worship this demon under the name Kali, but I call it for its real name: Satan." Who do you think she got her information from? How would she even know of Kali if not by Indiana Jones?

Stoo said:
The filmakers did not make a "mistake", as you wrote, they took artistic license. Regardless, this is WAY off-topic!;)
Since you're so fond of numbered points:
1.) How do you know they didn't make a mistake?
2.) What is so "artistic" about libel?
They made a mistake about monkey brains. They've made mistakes in other films, with anachronisms and such. What makes you think that this was not a mistake? And if it was "artistic license," doesn't that merely the prove the point that they were trying to make her look demonic?
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Before someone calls me out, let me clarify:

"Gunmetal tent" should be "gunmetal tint." I was discussing hue, not shelter.

Also, when I said that Stoo was talking about things I had mentioned in my previous post, I meant that he was scrutinizing things I had said though I had myself qualified* them previously, but only to a small extent. I did not mean that I had had any in depth discussion of them in my post, because that is clearly not the case. I don't proofread before I post, and I can see now that this is probably to my own detriment.




*Since some of us are big fans of semantics and the thesaurus, perhaps I should make it clear that by "qualified" I meant "limited, restricted, or made exceptions about," as opposed to any of the other many meanings that the word has.
 

Sharkey

Guest
WillKill4Food said:

*Since some of us are big fans of semantics and the thesaurus, perhaps I should make it clear that by "qualified" I meant "limited, restricted, or made exceptions about," as opposed to any of the other many meanings that the word has.
How about you learn to express yourself and stop blaming others?

Proof read your posts too.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Sharkey said:
How about you learn to express yourself and stop blaming others?
Snark-ey might be a more fitting name for you. As much as I do hate to beat a dead horse though, there are some more things I need to clarify/take back.

WillKill4Food said:
YES. Imagine that. A word having multiple meanings. Welcome to the English language.
Please excuse the hatefulness of that comment as a byproduct of my frustration, but the point was that either meaning was equally applicable, and I did not mean what you thought I meant.

WillKill4Food said:
It's kind of stupid to say that the look of the temple is irrelevant. Really. If I made a film that showed a Catholic cathedral filled with skulls and snakes and fire, would I be showing a positive depiction of Christianity?
Here I really think we were suddenly arguing two different things. I'm so used to arguing that the filmmakers showed a negative depiction of Kali that I must have ignored what you were saying about Indy himself being opposed to Kali. However, I think that what I said still applies. But you aren't stupid, as I'm sure you know, and I (stupidly) misunderstood/misread your post. That's my fault; I had had way too little sleep at the time I wrote that.

That being said...
WillKill4Food said:
BECAUSE THE FACE IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE DEPICTION. Obviously this is the case! I hate it when people type in all caps but this deserves to be screamed!
I really shouldn't have gotten so heated, and I apologize for that. I was just really frustrated, but I think its because you misunderstood me. I didn't have a problem with your saying that the statue of Kali was typical except for the face; I had a problem with you saying that the statue was "something totally different" from the demon Kali Why? Well, because the face is similar. That's what I had meant to stress, and I did a poor job of it, if only because the connection was clear in my head and so I failed to make it clear in words.

WillKill4Food said:
But, I did find this picture of the demon "Samvara," on site that sells prints. The demon has a snout and bears a resemblance to the statue in Temple of Doom. The face of the statue looks very much like the demons of Hindu mythology. Coincidence or not, it's as plain as day.
It probably wasn't "as plain as day," considering that I forgot to post a link to the picture I was talking about. It's here. For good measure, here's another Samvara.

Now that that's over with, let me just once more apologize if I came off in a bad way, but I was just frustrated and lacking sleep.

But back to the way that the depiction of the temple reflects Indy's feelings toward's Kali...
In a work of visual art, say a drawing or a painting, it is often up to the viewer to assign meaning to the artwork. Songs are like that a lot of the time, as well. I'm not sure that narratives are like that though. More abstract prose and poetry are, but stories (such as films) that have a clear plot don't offer as many opportunities for interpretation.
So, whatever insight into Indy's mindset that we have should come from the film. We can say that Indy didn't oppose Kali, but we get a pretty clear picture that he did. The most direct way is the "in Hell" line, but I said "things like" as opposed to just the "in Hell" line. Admittedly, I haven't watched all of Temple in a while, but I am fairly confident that he does not at any point mention that Kali's worshipers do not always engage in such activity. That alone does not indicate that he opposes Kali, but in the film, Indy's mindset can only be that which is given to him by the filmmakers. I don't know whether Harrison Ford or anyone else on the set opposed the depiction of Kali or Indians in the film (it would be interesting if anyone had the means or the time to find out), but Lucas, Spielberg, and the screenwriters were the ones who gave Indy his attitudes. Since the filmmakers' portrayal of Kali is completely negative (and she is demonized) one can only assume that the character who drives their story forward must harbor the same feelings.
Now, you could say that Indy is separate from them, but he's their creation, and the film is not without context. It's only logical that (in a tale like this one*) whatever worldview you ascribe to the main character of the story should probably align with the filmmakers. I doubt that Lucas and Spielberg have some hatred of Kali or anything like that, but she seems to be shown as being an evil being. To me, this attitude carries through to Indy.
Maybe that sounds like a stretch, and maybe it is, in which case the "in Hell" line is pretty much all I've got. But that line is pretty damning (quite literally).





*It would be foolish for me to say that the worldview of every character in a story represents the worldview of the author/teller. Were that the case, any tension in a story would require the author to have a split-personality. That's not what I mean. The ideology of Colonel Cathcart in Catch-22 does not represent Joseph Heller's attitudes towards war. BUT Yossarian's mindset does pretty much convey Heller's, which only makes sense, being that Yossarian is the protagonist. With Indy, it's the same deal.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Being way off-topic, most of our conversation is well-suited for the Thuggee - Fact & Fiction thread...I really wish we were discussing it there but since we're here...
WillKill4Food said:
I really shouldn't have gotten so heated, and I apologize for that. I was just really frustrated, but I think its because you misunderstood me. I didn't have a problem with your saying that the statue of Kali was typical except for the face; I had a problem with you saying that the statue was "something totally different" from the demon Kali Why? Well, because the face is similar. That's what I had meant to stress, and I did a poor job of it, if only because the connection was clear in my head and so I failed to make it clear in words.
Apology accepted, WillKill, and don't worry about getting heated with me as I also can be quite abrasive at times.:cool: However, there are still a few things I wish to clear up...

I did not say the statue in "Doom" was totally different from the demon. By writing, "The demon, Kali, is something totally different", I meant that (in Hindu mythology) the demon doesn't bear a resemblance & has no relation to the goddess other than having the same name. I've never argued against the fact that the Kali goddess in "Doom" was overtly portrayed as evil. My debate is that the depiction was NOT meant to represent the obscure & unrelated Kali DEMON, which you seemed to imply with your original statement.

Arguing about semantics is not pointless because it helps clarify certain misunderstandings. If we were speaking in person, this business could've been settled in matter of seconds.
WillKill4Food said:
Okay, I agree. You're acknowledging that he had some vestige of "faith" in that scene. In my original post, I pointed out that it did not represent his general attitude toward religion. You're basically saying the same. I don't understand the contention.
The 'faith' I think he had was that 'something' would enable him to cross the chasm (due to his experience & the way he passed the previous 2 trials). Not necessarily G_d's handiwork or Divine Intervention but some real-world possibility. In retrospect, it's easy to think he suddenly became pious...but in 1989, I didn't buy the instant "Christian faith" angle. To me, it was laughable in the same way that people (who've never exercised religion in their daily lives) start praying when faced with a near-death situation.
WillKill4Food said:
It's kind of stupid to say that the look of the temple is irrelevant. Really. If I made a film that showed a Catholic cathedral filled with skulls and snakes and fire, would I be showing a positive depiction of Christianity?
I asked when does Indy show his oppostion to Kali and you wrote that it's partly because the temple looks evil. In "Crusade", the Grail temple doesn't look like a friendly place (the one with the creepy caverns and a device which cuts people's heads off) but it doesn't signify that Indy opposes Jesus.
WillKill4Food said:
BECAUSE THE FACE IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE DEPICTION. Obviously this is the case! I hate it when people type in all caps but this deserves to be screamed! You can say "Oh, well apart from the face..." but that face is integral to what the viewer thinks about her. A beautiful goddess is not as frightening as a skeletal monster. Hindus who worship Kali do not envision her with that face! So showing her as a monster with a skull and snout is clearly differing from the norm and showing her as demonic.
Re: "Beautiful goddess". (The Walton guy said the same thing.) Kali's image is NOT one of beauty! It is wild, violent & bloodthirsty. Her tongue sticks out to catch blood and her look is supposed to be frightening. The portrayal in "Doom" is even worse & more horrific because of the face-change.
WillKill4Food said:
The answer was in my original link to the LEGO Kali, but the point was to show the snout. I could not find a great deal of pictures of the Temple Kali, so I used that one because it emphasized the snout.
Even though you were ambitious with providing links for my benefit, I know what the statue in "Doom" looks like and am fully aware of the differences between it and the 'real' Kali. That said, using LEGO manifestations as reference is a poor decision. (Harrison Ford's head is shaped like a BBQ propane tank and he has a polka-dot beard...Just look at the LEGO figure!):p
WillKill4Food said:
Most of the pictures of her that I've seen have been blue. Most of the statues have been black or gray or some earth-tone. I would imagine that has something to do with the materials that statues are made out of. I do remember that TIME magazine used a black Kali on the cover of one forties issue that about the partitioning of India, but regardless, there was probably a reason that the statue in the temple was black instead of blue, and the point was that they had tried to make her more menacing and, as you said before, demonic. As for Sinbad, I haven't seen the film, but my eyes are good enough to tell that it is blue or some gunmetal tint in that picture I linked to.
The word, "Kālī" is the female form of "Kāla" which means "black". Kali is known as "the black one", "the dark mother", etc. The original texts describe her as being black. There are PAINTINGS of her with black skin.

"Golden Voyage of Sinbad" is a great adventure film and well worth watching. The colour tint of that statue fluctuates shot-to-shot from warm to cool grays. The colour doesn't always match up perfectly because the stop-motion miniature was combined through an optical printer so it does turn blue-ish gray sometimes. For all intents & purposes, the statue is meant to be gray. (Before it comes to life, the full-sized, stationary prop is a dark, warm gray.) Go watch the movie, WillKill!:whip:
Since you're so fond of numbered points:
1.) How do you know they didn't make a mistake?
2.) What is so "artistic" about libel?
They made a mistake about monkey brains. They've made mistakes in other films, with anachronisms and such. What makes you think that this was not a mistake? And if it was "artistic license," doesn't that merely the prove the point that they were trying to make her look demonic?
Numbered points save bandwith and cut to the chase:
1) Because the film's production designers got Kali's other physical features right.
2) Libel or not, "artistic license" is all about changing facts to suit the story.

Indiana Jones movies are not historical/cultural documentaries. Yes, they made every aspect of Kali appear to be truly evil - I'm not arguing against that. I'm merely stating that the depiction wasn't intended to represent the demon of the same name.:cool:
 
Top