The Problem with the Soviets

I didn't have a problem with Indy 4 using Russians as the villains. I just didn't think they came across as remotely threatening or intimidating in the movie.

Blanchett looked hot, but her accent was ridiculous and her delivery had no real power or force behind it. She just had no real presence on the screen at all, beyond that black hair of hers.

And her soldiers didn't make much of an impression either.

Perhaps you should put yourself in Indy's shoes, as somebody living in the 1950's. Back then, the threat was very much real.

I think this film captures 50's music and attitudes, the atomic age, communist threats and McCarthyism perfectly.

Click to expand...

I totally agree! I love the naive, innocent and perfectly gee-whiz hotrod scene at KOTCS's beginning! Great way to introduce the period!!!

As for Spalko, I thought she was one of cinema's best villains because she was, like Darth Maul before her, an enigmatic presence. You don't know much about her, but her cold stare and Terminator-esque attitude totally sells her character as a really chilly "female dog" with great fighting skills (KARATE-CHOP!!!! ) and a disturbingly hot chick. I also love how Blanchett gives Spalko a more mysterious, less out-and-out villainy and more anti-heroine (femme fatale).

Spalko is a true patriot who adores her country, and is not doing what she's doing because she's evil: it's because she is a devoted servant of her homeland and, in a twisted sick way, thinks that she is doing the right thing. Remember, from the Soviet point of view, Americans were just as hated and mistrusted. The best villains don't think they are evil, they think their actions are justified. This is why Spalko so readily teams with Indy and collaborates with him, because IMO she harbors a respect for Indy and perhaps even a semi-competitive crush! Just my opinion, but I think she does have a thing going for Indy...

What was cool for me about KOTCS was that it depicted Russian Commies as villains and U.S. government officials (NSA, I believe) as villains. The fifties were a time when paranoia over the communist threat was as dangerous as the threat itself and I think Indy 4 captured this well.

kongisking said:

I totally agree! I love the naive, innocent and perfectly gee-whiz hotrod scene at KOTCS's beginning! Great way to introduce the period!!!

As for Spalko, I thought she was one of cinema's best villains because she was, like Darth Maul before her, an enigmatic presence. You don't know much about her, but her cold stare and Terminator-esque attitude totally sells her character as a really chilly "female dog" with great fighting skills (KARATE-CHOP!!!! ) and a disturbingly hot chick. I also love how Blanchett gives Spalko a more mysterious, less out-and-out villainy and more anti-heroine (femme fatale).

Spalko is a true patriot who adores her country, and is not doing what she's doing because she's evil: it's because she is a devoted servant of her homeland and, in a twisted sick way, thinks that she is doing the right thing. Remember, from the Soviet point of view, Americans were just as hated and mistrusted. The best villains don't think they are evil, they think their actions are justified. This is why Spalko so readily teams with Indy and collaborates with him, because IMO she harbors a respect for Indy and perhaps even a semi-competitive crush! Just my opinion, but I think she does have a thing going for Indy...

Click to expand...

Spalko is, hmmm, an anti-villain perhaps. She is on the "bad team" per se, but damn if she isn't so resourceful and independent that she practically upstages the heroes, which I'm not sure is the best trait you want for your heavy.

People complaining that the accent/character was too stereotypical are missing the point. Spalko is a play on B-movie villains, keeping in the spirit of the film's pulpy intentions.

My only regret with the Spalko character, like many of the other characters in the film, is that they could have done so much more with her: let's see her psychic powers work at least once...and perhaps make her rapier more of a fatal weapon, versus a glorified pointer/fencing tool.

The Russians did come across as somewhat 'replacement Nazis'. It would have been nice if more creative villains could have been created as opposed to just substituting one armed force with another.

I would have preferred to see the villains not have had any affiliation with any one country (OK, I know Russia was a member of the USSR at the time). I think that is why the Thugee Cult worked so well ... even their own country (India) wanted rid of them so everybody hated them for their no-good shenagigans and this enforced them as being just pure evil

I liked the Russians as the villains because of the era and the actually tied in the ideology with the object they were looking for. I do think if it had been Neo-nazis though, Spielberg would have taken more glee in killing each of them off!

indytim said:

The Russians did come across as somewhat 'replacement Nazis'. It would have been nice if more creative villains could have been created as opposed to just substituting one armed force with another.

I would have preferred to see the villains not have had any affiliation with any one country (OK, I know Russia was a member of the USSR at the time). I think that is why the Thugee Cult worked so well ... even their own country (India) wanted rid of them so everybody hated them for their no-good shenagigans and this enforced them as being just pure evil

Click to expand...

The villain HAS to be an armed force. More to the point, the villain has to be someone IN POWER at the time of the adventure. That's why the Neo-Nazis or Nazi refugees or escaped Nazi war criminals would not have worked as well: they had no power base beyond their own resources. When they were in power, they had all the resources of the Reich, backed by Hitler's own looming presence; when they were defeated, they were so utterly brought down that there was little menace they could have projected in comparison to the Russians.

In the same fashion, the Soviets have all the resources of the USSR behind them in the 1950s, and though Stalin is dead - to the detriment of the film, according to my theory - all the Soviet characters in the film are people raised and trained under the Stalinist system, and think according to the Stalinist mindset. They are Stalin's children, his legacy. They dance to a tune he composed long ago.

True, one could say that about the ex-Nazi angle, too. They were Hitler's legacy, his children, and they too dance to his tune. But the difference between the Soviets, missing Stalin, and the Nazis missing Hitler, is that even though they both miss their masters in 1957, the Soviets are still a large, monolithic force, and the Nazis are not. They are in power, and the Nazis are not. Indy needs an antagonist that has remarkable and immense resources to call on, or he isn't the same hero. A hero is determined by the magnitude of the villainy he faces.

Erik Pflueger said:

The villain HAS to be an armed force.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. Armed with weapons sure but not necessarily an army. Indy is in danger of falling into being a heroic parody like Rambo if he's taking on an entire army by himself. One of the best examples of a lone hero against a group of villains is Die Hard. There were only about a dozen of them and headed by one of the best baddies in movie history ... Hans Gruber If Indy was up against only a small gang of villains but with Alan Rickman at their helm I'd be more than happy

Horchata said:

the nazis were the perfect enemy. can a villan be more evil than the nazis?

Click to expand...

Yeah, except the Nazis didn't have hundreds of nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. soil with the threat of total annihilation, which lasted from the 50's until the 80's. I think the U.S.S.R. was as big of, if not a bigger threat to the U.S. than the silly little goose-stepping Nazis, that had delusions of grandeur. Maybe Europeans have a different take, I don't know. All I know is that the Soviets were a threat for 30-something years and the Nazis were a threat for 13 or so years.

indytim said:

I'm not sure I agree. Armed with weapons sure but not necessarily an army. Indy is in danger of falling into being a heroic parody like Rambo if he's taking on an entire army by himself. One of the best examples of a lone hero against a group of villains is Die Hard. There were only about a dozen of them and headed by one of the best baddies in movie history ... Hans Gruber If Indy was up against only a small gang of villains but with Alan Rickman at their helm I'd be more than happy

Click to expand...

You DID read the rest of my post, right?

Who said anything about the ENTIRE army? There has to be the POTENTIAL of reinforcements, yes, but Indy's never faced anything more than a few dozen people in a film. It's the enormity of the force that those few dozen REPRESENT that I'm referring to.

And one more thing: you never mentioned if you would be "more than happy" if Alan Rickman were at the head of a small gang of Russian villains or villains of another stripe. And remember, the point of the thread is whether or not the Soviets worked as villains.

You were saying you wanted a non-nationality villain. You equated this with Rambo going up against a new country every sequel - as if this were somehow a bad thing, as if countries were not capable of evil acts, as if it were wrong to call such countries out on such acts. You wanted an antagonist that was truly evil. In the period of which we speak, the 1950s, I can think of few forces that would produce worthy foes for Indy that were as evil as Stalinist Russia.