Rocket Surgeon said:
Well I don't agree with that at all!
Maybe more gratuitous because it's initially done without apparent reason. But MORE violent? No.
The Mongolians death is far more graphic and personal which is the point of the post, Raiders is not family fare, (and comparing it to an R Rated film which Raiders was initially, supports my Crystal Skull comparison/contentions).
Perhaps KOTCS is just a symptom of the way cinema is viewed nowadays. There has been so much hype in the media over the past years about violent films and computer games, and their apparent influence on young audiences.
Uber-violence isn't necessary to enhance the telling of a great adventure story, unless the director is portraying something true-to-life. I don't mind a bit of blood-letting, though, if it helps to bring a story to life. Remember the films of the 1950s, especially westerns, when people got shot and there was no blood, and not even a bullet hole in their clothes. That was a kid-friendly style, but on the other hand it might have taught the very young that shooting somebody doesn't have an effect.
Cinema ratings have changed a lot over the last 20 years or so. Movies that were an 18 certificate here in the UK in the 1980s appear quite tame now. Films such as
Silent Hill, as I mentioned earlier, are much more graphic (and more psychologically disturbing), and yet only receive a 15 certificate.
It seems that the ratings boards accept that kids grow up faster today, that they are ready to watch at 15, a film that would have once been an 18.
To achieve a rating lower than 15, however, as Lucas would want for an Indiana Jones film, means that he has to steer a route through the media hype over violence influencing younger kids, which wasn't such a hot issue in 1981.
The violence portrayed in Raiders is akin to that of a war movie that you're likely to see on a Sunday afternoon.
Indy is primarily an adventurer, and violence to him is an occupational hazard. Violence is a means to an end, and the end justifies the means. There is a funny line in the novelization of Last Crusade, when Indy is searching for a German soldier to mug for his uniform as disguise. He knocks out one solder and takes his uniform, but finds that it's too small. Henry Sr. comments: "Next time pick on someone your own size."
Whilst a grave robber isn't your average role model, Indy
does have limits, and his aim is ultimately just. He isn't a serial killer, but he will do what's necessary to prevent Hitler, Stalin or Mola Ram from achieving their objectives.
Rocket, you wrote ealier that, "CS took the violence off screen." That said though, KOTCS
does contain it's share of violence.
Indy's introduction is being dragged from the boot/trunk of the car and thrown to the hard ground. That's quite a shocking way to treat an 'old guy' right from the start.
In the rocket sled room Indy fights desperately with Dovchenko and is almost strangled.
There's the controversial nuclear explosion, which is a representation of the single most violent act of the 20th century. (The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much a demonstration of American power to the Soviet Union, as they were an attempt to bring about Japanese surrender).
After this, I admit that most of the 'violent' moments are more of the playful kind (in the cafe, in the jungle), apart from the final fight with Dovchenko, which ends with his being carried off by the ants, which would be horrific if it happened for real.
As for "taking the violence off the screen", Raiders did that with Toht's torture of Marion. Whereas Mola's heart ripping was only removed from some editions of the film, which would make Temple more gratuitous than Raiders.