Sasha Spielberg in Diner Scene

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Joe Brody said:
I totally agree. However, I take the family presence -- coupled with Frank Marshal's comments (about Indy films being like a family get together) -- as evidence that the making of an Indiana Jones movie is no longer about making a quality film. For Spielberg, Kennedy, Marshall and Lucas -- making an Indy film means a time to relax, kick the brain in neutral, and escape the rigors of normal filmaking.

So having the director's daughter in the movie simply equals a lack of quality filmmaking? Your just talking pure nonsense now.

By this account, Rocky isn't a high-quality movie as Stallone had his brother and father appear in the movie. And Scorsese must be a lousy filmmaker as well, why couldn't he bother to cast older extras instead of casting his parents in "Goodfellas". The list goes on.

I don't see anything vastly wrong with casting family members, especially when they're basically small cameos. Isn't that what filmmaking about? Expressing your personal self and experiences onto film?
 
Last edited:

Indy's brother

New member
That scene was distracting to me from the first time I saw it. Indy and Mutt frame her "cameo" as if there is something that I as the viewer need to see. Maybe if Ford didn't deliver this lines in that scene like he was about to fall asleep, it wouldn't have stood out so much. Now that we know the reason the shot was set up this way, it bothers me a little less since I'm no longer wondering why the attention is being slightly diverted; but now I see this as less of a scene about the back story of the skull, and more like it's the, "Here's that Steven's Daughter scene."
 

sandiegojones

New member
jonesissparrow said:
Am I the only one who thought it wasn't it big deal and the fact she was incredibly hot!:confused:
No. It's not a big deal and it has no bearing on the quality of the film either. 99.99% of the film audience would not have noticed (I didn't realize it until the 3rd viewing).

If one does think it's a distraction then think of it this way....that's Willie Scott's daughter!
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Forbidden Eye said:
I don't see anything vastly wrong with casting family members, especially when they're basically small cameos. Isn't that what filmmaking about? Expressing your personal self and experiences onto film?

No, not really. Art isn't supposed to be a some sort of wellness spa or therapy session.

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, no, but when there was already commentary about how it was such a good time to make it and how it was "for the fans," you can't help but get the impression that their aims weren't as high as they might have been, and there wasn't as much seriousness of purpose as there ought to have been.

I spend a lot of time directing plays. I also very much enjoy the people I work with. But that's not why I work with them, and while the bits of downtime there are are one thing, once a rehearsal starts, there's a real level of seriousness that's required. And I'm not doing avant-garde stuff either - <I>Glengarry Glen Ross</I>, <I>12 Angry Men</I> - they're fun plays, including substantial comedy. But they're also deeply serious. And you are doing a discredit to the work and to your audience if you undertake carelessly, and if you ever make any decisions purely for your own enjoyment. You've got to create a coherent piece, and that can be your only goal.

I enjoyed the fourth film. It had a lot of good stuff in it, but there was a much better film struggling to get out. There were those moments that were dreck, that were careless, that should have had 15 minutes where they said, "do we really think this is the right moment? Does this feel real enough? Does this fit into the world we've created?"

No, having the director's daughter in there doesn't bother me, as a single thing. But it's indicative of an entire approach that bothers me.
 

bennihana123

New member
Attila the Professor said:
No, not really. Art isn't supposed to be a some sort of wellness spa or therapy session.

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, no, but when there was already commentary about how it was such a good time to make it and how it was "for the fans," you can't help but get the impression that their aims weren't as high as they might have been, and there wasn't as much seriousness of purpose as there ought to have been.

I spend a lot of time directing plays. I also very much enjoy the people I work with. But that's not why I work with them, and while the bits of downtime there are are one thing, once a rehearsal starts, there's a real level of seriousness that's required. And I'm not doing avant-garde stuff either - <I>Glengarry Glen Ross</I>, <I>12 Angry Men</I> - they're fun plays, including substantial comedy. But they're also deeply serious. And you are doing a discredit to the work and to your audience if you undertake carelessly, and if you ever make any decisions purely for your own enjoyment. You've got to create a coherent piece, and that can be your only goal.

I enjoyed the fourth film. It had a lot of good stuff in it, but there was a much better film struggling to get out. There were those moments that were dreck, that were careless, that should have had 15 minutes where they said, "do we really think this is the right moment? Does this feel real enough? Does this fit into the world we've created?"

No, having the director's daughter in there doesn't bother me, as a single thing. But it's indicative of an entire approach that bothers me.
Couldn't put it better myself :p
 

Darth Vile

New member
Attila the Professor said:
No, not really. Art isn't supposed to be a some sort of wellness spa or therapy session.

And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, no, but when there was already commentary about how it was such a good time to make it and how it was "for the fans," you can't help but get the impression that their aims weren't as high as they might have been, and there wasn't as much seriousness of purpose as there ought to have been.

I spend a lot of time directing plays. I also very much enjoy the people I work with. But that's not why I work with them, and while the bits of downtime there are are one thing, once a rehearsal starts, there's a real level of seriousness that's required. And I'm not doing avant-garde stuff either - <I>Glengarry Glen Ross</I>, <I>12 Angry Men</I> - they're fun plays, including substantial comedy. But they're also deeply serious. And you are doing a discredit to the work and to your audience if you undertake carelessly, and if you ever make any decisions purely for your own enjoyment. You've got to create a coherent piece, and that can be your only goal.

I enjoyed the fourth film. It had a lot of good stuff in it, but there was a much better film struggling to get out. There were those moments that were dreck, that were careless, that should have had 15 minutes where they said, "do we really think this is the right moment? Does this feel real enough? Does this fit into the world we've created?"

No, having the director's daughter in there doesn't bother me, as a single thing. But it's indicative of an entire approach that bothers me.

Actually I'd disagree.

If we agree that there is this thing called "art", then we must have some general consensus on how that "art" is both created and experienced. Personally, I feel that “art" (as a social construct) is a result of a creative process... and ultimately the more of one’s self that is put into the process, the greater the perceived artistic experience is. If one uses the production of art as "therapy", then so be it. As an aesthetic, I’d posit that the artists experience is more fundamental than the audiences (although clearly there is some level of mutual satisfaction that needs to take place when discussing art in commercial terms).

Of course movie making can be a much more collaborative process than other art forms such as fine art... but those same sensibilities still exist. If Spielberg gets an aesthetic/artistic experience out of making a more lightweight/fun movie, I don’t feel that makes it any less. We, the audience/consumer, may prefer a “deeper” more meaningful piece, but that doesn’t/shouldn’t detract from the artist’s personal aesthetic and objective.

Artists have been employing friends and family for hundreds of years… I don’t think it’s symptomatic of any degradation of art, but rather, it’s simply an additional control mechanism for the artist. I’d much rather employ people I know.

A movie director does owe something to the material, and I’d agree that there is a more substantial movie in KOTCS “struggling to come out”... but I think that applies equally to all three Indy sequels. What I would say is that KOTCS is more schizophrenic than any of the others. It appears to flit between the serious and the lightweight much more often… and as a result, never gets that balance quite right. I would imagine that this is borne out of Lucas/Spielberg simply wanting the best of both worlds, rather than a lack of “seriousness of purpose”.

I don’t for a second believe that we exist in a world where “art”, and the artistic experience, cannot be achieved as a result of “fun”… which for Lucas/Spielberg, was clearly a primary aim i.e. to enjoy the process of making another Indy movie. I see no evidence of cynicism on their part, other than returning to a franchise that was guaranteed some measure of success. I'm sure they even feel that they put the same amount of leg work in (even if we know there wasn't the same amount of overseas location shooting).
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Or Spielberg just gave his daughter a very small roll in Indiana Jones 4 because he can and or wanted to.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
By the way, Sasha wasn't the get a 'role' in the movie because he was related to someone. The kid asking advice from Indy in the library was Tom Hanks' son, Chet Hanks. In case you wish for a chance for some extended disapproval of nepotism.


<small>Also, there's this persistent rumor that The Raven's mods had bit parts as Ugha warriors, but take that one with a grain of salt.</small>
 
Get off Sahsha's back! She earned that role. She's done a lot on her own! Look at her filmography!

The same way as her mother no doubt...

Look at what Capshaw did with the springboard of a summer blockbuster!

Oh and she has her fathers nose which makes it even more funny that she's all sock hopped out in a malt shop in waspy new england...THAT was more unbelieveable then aliens!
 

Gear

New member
Attila the Professor said:
No, not really. Art isn't supposed to be a some sort of wellness spa or therapy session.

I disagree, even if you're just speaking narrowly about film and plays. Art is many things, and among those it is a medium for discharging your tensions and general energy.


Attila the Professor said:
And you are doing a discredit to the work and to your audience ... if you ever make any decisions purely for your own enjoyment. You've got to create a coherent piece, and that can be your only goal.

Again, are you speaking only in regard to plays? I beg to differ. Art is supposed to be a product of yourself and what you are, it shouldn't be based on what others want. The creative process is varied from individual to individual.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
For some great ideas about art, read the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

Oh, and Sasha is cute. And good luck to her for her connections. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Question is, will she appear in Indy 5?
 
Last edited:
Mickiana said:
For some great ideas about art, read the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

Some, to be sure...not all.

"All art is quite useless."

Mickiana said:
Oh, and Sasha is cute.

To each his own...God makes em God matches em.

Mickiana said:
And good luck to her for her connections. It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Really? After recommending Oscar Wilde you go cliché?:confused:



I
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Oh and she has her fathers nose which makes it even more funny that she's all sock hopped out in a malt shop in waspy new england...THAT was more unbelieveable then aliens!
:confused: Rocket...oh, nevermind...I'll just pretend I didn't read that...

Her character, "Slugger", actually has dialogue which can be heard quite well with a decent sound system or pair of headphones. Plus, I agree with Lance and others that Sasha is a fox.
 
Stoo said:
:confused: Rocket...oh, nevermind...I'll just pretend I didn't read that...

To quote Rodney..."No Offence".

Really, I'm just going for the joke...but have you been to New Haven!?!;)

To quote a recent post, my comment was just like Temple of Doom: there was no emotional investment. It was gratuitous, empty...simply fun to scoff at.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
To quote Rodney..."No Offence".

Hey, great! So all you have to do when you say something really offensive is to later tack on a wholly insincere "no offense" and all's forgiven, eh?

Wow, great strategy.
 

Hans

New member
Yah, i heard that and Geogre lucas and his whole family is in revenge of the sith in the senate:whip:
 
Lance Quazar said:
Hey, great! So all you have to do when you say something really offensive is to later tack on a wholly insincere "no offense" and all's forgiven, eh?Wow, great strategy.

If you KNEW the context of the quote, you might realize I wasn't ASKING for forgiveness.

Lancey Lancey Lancey, saying she has her fathers nose is only offensive because you think it's so. Don't force your racist ideas onto my post. If I said something was as odd as putting Malcom X into KKK Gear, I'm pointing out an inconsistant and unlikely juxtaposition,not endorsing a moral point of viewor argument.

Unfortunately it is YOU who is taking this on your own sordid tangent, (and Stoo who is alluding to it, giving it undue exposure without commenting). Way to take the bait!
 
Last edited:

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
If you KNEW the context of the quote, you might realize I wasn't ASKING for forgiveness.
Um, duh. I thought it was fairly obvious from my comments that I knew you were being insincere. Hence my use of the word "insincere."

[quote
Way to take the bait!

"Take the bait"? I called you out on something offensive you said. I doing so I took your "bait"...so I guess you WERE trying to be offensive. Okay, thanks for the clarification!

Don't force your racist ideas onto my post.

Ah, the classic "I know you are but what am I?" gambit. Brilliant! Once again, I have been wholly outmaneuvered.

p.s. the Jewish population of New Haven in the Fifties was 20,000.

The known population of aliens on planet earth from 1950 to present is still hovering at around zero.
 
Top