Here is an exchange I had with the Stephen Greydanus, author of
www.decentfilms.com, movie reviews from a Catholic perspective, in which I make the case that Raiders is not very moral from a Catholic perspective. My original email is at the bottom.
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:10:54 -0600
> Subject: Re: Moral problems with Raiders of the Lost Ark
> From:
critic@decentfilms.com
> To:
t_pellman@hotmail.com
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Thanks for writing. You make an interesting argument, and I appreciate the
> style of thinking you're pursuing. I'm not convinced, though. Some
> thoughts:
>
> 1. You say Belloq's statement in the bar that Indy isn't so different from
> him "rings true." Yes. It's meant to, as the subsequent lines from Indy
> and Belloq suggest. Indy is not a pure hero; the movie doesn't lift him up
> as an exemplar of virtue. The locus of holiness in the film is not Indy or
> Marion, but the ark. That Indy is a morally flawed hero doesn't amount
> make "Raiders" a morally flawed movie.
>
> 2. Certainly we're meant to root for Indy as he goes against the Nazis to
> regain the ark. But I think that's at least partly because *we* look at
> the Nazis from our post-WWII point of view as the ultimate villains, and
> also because *we* believe the ark to be more than a mere historical
> artifact. Indy's moral grounds in undertaking the action are not identical
> to our moral grounds in rooting for him.
>
> Those points noted, I think Indy's use of deadly force may be less
> unjustified than you suggest:
>
> 3. As you note, the villains leave Indy and Marion to die in the Well of
> Souls. True, it's the main bad guys who are responsible here; the rest of
> the Nazi soldiers are just following orders. But it could equally be said
> that if Indy and Marion were caught after escaping, there isn't a soldier
> in the group who wouldn't shoot Indy and Marion on orders from those same
> villains. Indy and Marion are in deadly peril at every moment after they
> escape from the Well of Souls, and Indy responds in kind.
>
> 4. As further context, it was the Nazis who made the first use of deadly
> force in Nepal. Indy's first resort there, as elsewhere, is his non-lethal
> whip (even the famous gag with the swordsman was originally supposed to be
> a sword-whip duel, but Ford wasn't up to the physical challenge that day);
> thus he disarms Toht to prevent him from permanently disfiguring Marion --
> and urges him to let her go. The Nazis escalate and Indy and Marion are
> forced to defend themselves with deadly force. The villains later made
> further use of deadly force by trying to poison Indy.
>
> 5. You say "From Indy's point of view the ark is merely a grand prize. No
> one is harmed by it being in the German's possession. There is nothing
> heroic about retrieving it from them." It's not entirely clear to me that
> this is true. Certainly Indy has "been to Sunday school." He glibly
> brushes off Marcus's cautions as "a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus" --
> perhaps too glibly. And when the time comes, he knows enough to tell
> Marion to close her eyes, not to look. It may be that on some level at
> least Indy has not entirely discounted the possibility that if the Nazis
> possess the ark it could be disastrous for the world.
>
> 6. Granted a level of sporting spirit, the big bald German is a sadistic
> bully whose death is not on Indy's head. He could easily have subdued Indy
> with minimal force any time he wanted to, which is certainly what the Lone
> Ranger would have done in such a situation. He chose fisticuffs instead,
> toying with Indy cat-and-mouse style, because it was more fun. Indy stood
> up to him as best he could, and while he could have warned the German
> before the other man's gruesome death, to do so would almost certainly
> have ultimately resulted in Indy's own death.
>
> 7. Indy's one-man assault on the Nazi caravan differs from the Communist
> ambush of the U.S. forces at Area 51 in several key respects. Indy,
> desperately outnumbered, "making it up as he goes," kills no one who isn't
> a clear and immediate threat to his own life -- who wouldn't quickly cause
> his own death. By contrast, the Communists at Area 51, following a
> well-prepared plan, have the drop on the U.S. forces, and could probably
> capture them unharmed had they wanted to; conversely, were they themselves
> to be captured, I'm not sure they would face capital punishment (although
> perhaps they might). In any case, the massacre was their plan going in.
>
> I don't say that these considerations entirely alleviate any moral
> concerns regarding Indy's behavior. But as per the earlier points I don't
> think it is necessary to clear Indy of all wrongdoing. The morality of the
> hero doesn't automatically carry over to the moral implications of the
> film.
>
> Hope that helps. Thanks for writing.
>
> Cheers, Steven D. Greydanus
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Film critic, Decent Films |
www.decentfilms.com
> National Catholic Register |
www.ncregister.com
> Christianity Today Movies |
www.christianitytodaymovies.com
> Member, Online Film Critics Society | Faith & Film Critics Circle
>
>
>
> > I am writing in hopes that you will reconsider the
> > moral/spiritual value rating for Raiders of the Lost Ark.
> >
> > I was twelve when Raiders first was released and I have been thus a nearly
> > lifelong fan of the film. But having watched it again recently I have
> > discovered that it is morally problematic. In a nutshell, this is because
> > of the number of German soldiers Indy injures or kills whose only crime
> > seems to have been -- participating in an archealogical dig and guarding it
> > and the retrieved relic as was their duty as soldiers. The Nazis on the
> > other hand kill --- NOBODY.
> >
> > They do attempt to kill Indy and Marion, though fail, true. But the only
> > culprits who are really responsible for that are the three principle
> > baddies.
> >
> > Consider Indy's situation on escaping the Well of Souls. The Germans
> > have the ark. From Indy's point of view the ark is merely a grand prize.
> > No one is harmed by it being in the German's possession. There is
> > nothing heroic about retrieving it from them. Yet Indy attacks the
> > airplane, killing the pilot, two mechanics and possibly some other ground
> > crew in the explosion -- none of whom were established to be in any way
> > villainous. They were just a bunch guys doing their rather ordinary
> > military jobs until attacked by Indy. What is the moral difference
> > between that and the attack by the Russians on the gate guards in the
> > opening of Crystal Skull?
> >
> > (Even at twelve I felt bad for the big bald German, who was just trying to
> > protect his airplane from an unknown enemy, and doing so in the kind of
> > fairplay manner reminiscent of, say, the Lone Ranger, e.g. never hits Indy
> > when he is down.)
> >
> > Then we have the same situation with the truck chase and battle. There is
> > no morally compelling for Indy to go after them. They are at worst
> > thieves, but most or all of the ordinary soldiers involved are ignorant of
> > any wrongdoing. They are threatening no one. No one is any danger if
> > Indy lets them go. But he attacks them and kills a number of them. Of course
> > they fight back!
> >
> > Belloc's statement in the bar that they are not so very different rings
> > true. "Men will kill for it. Men like you and me."
> >
> > Looking forward to your reply,
> >
> > Todd Pellman
