I did an analysis on Raiders
- Thread starter loganbush
- Start date
martinland
New member
Sure, bring it on!loganbush said:
loganbush
New member
Haha that was a little delayed.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Raiders of the Lost Ark is an old-fashioned adventure tale inspired by the Saturday morning serials of the 1930s and 1940s. It follows the journey of archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) as he travels the globe in search of supernatural artifacts. It was envisioned by George Lucas and directed by Steven Spielberg. Raiders won four Oscars and was nominated for another four more, including Best Picture and Best Director. The film is fun, exciting, and a modern day classic.
Photography
The film falls in the category of classicism, leaning toward formalism, if only slightly. It reminds us of the classic Hollywood adventures during the Golden Age of cinema. The cinematography is well done, but at the same time it does not draw attention to itself but lets us focus on the characters and landscapes. It was nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar. The film is filled with various shots and they all seem to be framed perfectly. There are great establishing shots of different locales, ranging from sandy dunes to snowy mountains. The characters are often seen in long to medium shots, but when we need to see their faces and emotions we do. Some of the shots are more closely framed, like Indiana?s intimate conversation with Belloq at the bar. Much of the fame is at eye level, and some are placed at low angle for more dramatic effects. The Nazis are often shot at low angels to give them a threatening presence.
The lighting is pleasing to the eye and always appropriate to the scene. Natural lighting is used outside, like in the streets of Cairo or inside a mountain canyon where the sun brightly lights everything. In caves and chambers, backlighting is used along with suspicious shadows. The colors appear how you would want them to look. It is cool and dark in the rainforest and brown and tan in Egypt. The colors and lighting set the mood for Raiders well. The special effects are all created practically. This gives the movie a gritty, realistic feel. Although there are some supernatural effects, they mix mell with the human characters. When the Nazis are destroyed in the climax, real molds of the actors faces were used and then detonated. It might not look completely realistic, but you know you are watching something that physically exists explode. The movie is fun because the majority of effects you see were filmed at that moment. Harrison Ford is really ducking from an explosion in the same frame as him. The movie is photographed in a way that makes the best of the excitement happening around the camera.
Mise en scene
The film is photographed in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It allows the characters to talk farther apart and move around in the same shot. The camera is sometimes stationary and sometimes follows characters around. Some crane shots are used, like showing the Cairo marketplace or the ceremony of opening the Ark of the Covenant. People and objects often dominate the frame like the golden idol, Indiana?s gun, or the Ark. Subsidiary contrasts range from a temple crumbling around Indy to the Nazis surrounding him from behind. The scenes are usually not dense, but at the same time not boring. Sometimes the frame is filled up with crowds in Cairo, and sometimes Indy is the only figure in the foreground, with ruins or sands behind him. The placing of characters in the frame is always with purpose and enhances the film. Some shots are tightly framed, like Marion stuck in a plane cockpit, while others are very open like Indiana riding a horse across a large mountain. All of our characters talk to each other in intimate personal, social and public distances. Indy and Mario might share an intimate moment while Marcus Brody and a government agent speak at a public distance. Raiders won an Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration.
Movement
There is much movement in the film as is expected with an adventure picture. Most of it is not lyrical symbolical. The type of human movement we receive from the film is fist fights, truck chases, and explosions. The spirits at the climax do move around the air very lyrically, dipping and swilling around very balletically. But once they turn out to be evil, they cease moving and obliterate the Nazis. The traveling map scenes also involve fluid movement of a red line that shows where our heros are traveling on a map. In one scene Sallah asks Indy ?Why does the floor move?? while looking into a dark chamber and we find out that the entire floor is covered in slithering snakes. The characters must move cautiously while the snakes slide around wherever they can. As for the camera movement, there are many dolly shots and a few moving crane shots, and there are never any handheld shots. No slow motion or other mechanical distortions of movement are used.
Editing
In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the editing is executed perfectly. It seems like every different cut and the length of the scenes is perfect throughout the entire movie. Nothing needs to be added or taken away; every shot in the movie has a purpose. The editing falls between the styles of realism and classicism. There is a great sequence of parallel editing when Indy and Sallah are searching for the Ark while Marion talks to Belloq while being held captive. The editing is perfect and a nice pace is set between the conversation of two characters and the exploration of two others. There is a nice montage of Indy investigating the map room in the desert while John William's powerful and haunting score is mostly the only sound we hear. There are no flashbacks or flash-forwards, the story moves along and unfolds itself with no distractions or abnormal techniques. None of the cuts throughout the movie seem out of place and they happen naturally. It is no wonder that it won the Oscar for Best Editing.
Sound
The sound plays a huge role in the movie. Usually sound does not stick out and only accompanies, but the sound effects are really fun to hear. It was nominated for the Best Sound Oscar and it is easy to tell why. The sound and dialogue are mostly all synchronous. From whip cracks to gun shots to the eerie hum of the Ark, the sound effects add an impressive element to the story. It would be easy to add pre-recorded generic sounds to the film thinking people would only be interested in the visuals, but the sound team recorded many of the sounds from scratch. They give the visuals an effective punch.
The musical score for Raiders, by the genius John Williams, is one of the greatest ever composed for a movie. It gained an Oscar nomination but surprisingly did not win. It is almost impossible to describe the exhilarating music that accompanies the movie. The Indiana Jones (also known as the Raiders) theme is one of the most recognizable movie themes in history. The music sets the mood for entrancing scenes in the map room, or action-packed scenes like the desert chase, or scary scenes like the opening of the Ark. Sometimes the music drives you to stand up and cheer, and other times it will quiet the whole scene down for a soft moment. One thing is for sure: whenever you hear the Raiders theme, you know Indiana Jones is about to do something extraordinary and exciting. The score alone is a masterpiece.
Acting
The cast for Raiders is exemplary. The greatest decision the filmmakers chose for this movie must have been the casting of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. He is perfect in the now iconic role and has fun doing it and makes the character believable. Many of the funniest things Indy does or says were improvised by Harrison Ford. Indy is not your typical action hero because he is not invincible. He gets cut and bleeds and does not heal in the next scene-he is pummeled more. As he states it ?It?s not the years...it?s the mileage.? Indy always seems to barely escape danger and acts on the moment. Maybe the best insight about who he is happens when Sallah asks him what to do next and he replies ?I don?t know, I?m making this up as I go.? Indiana Jones takes on an army of Nazis riding a horse and wielding only his fists. The movie is unpredictable like that and pulls out fun surprises. Harrison Ford created the character of Indiana Jones just as much as anyone else did.
The acting is superb all around by the various villains and good guys, several of whom are played by Oscar winners or nominees. All of the characters get to shine and all have great lines that they deliver well. Karen Allen plays a strong woman named Marion, and the only person to consistently stand head to head with Indiana. John Rhys-Davies plays Sallah, an Egyptian friend of Indiana?s. Denholm Elliott is Indy?s older mentor, who is weary of Indy going after such a dangerous object. Paul Freeman plays a French archeologist Belloq, the main villain, who is always a step ahead of Indiana. Their performances make the movie very fun and exciting.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Raiders of the Lost Ark is an old-fashioned adventure tale inspired by the Saturday morning serials of the 1930s and 1940s. It follows the journey of archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) as he travels the globe in search of supernatural artifacts. It was envisioned by George Lucas and directed by Steven Spielberg. Raiders won four Oscars and was nominated for another four more, including Best Picture and Best Director. The film is fun, exciting, and a modern day classic.
Photography
The film falls in the category of classicism, leaning toward formalism, if only slightly. It reminds us of the classic Hollywood adventures during the Golden Age of cinema. The cinematography is well done, but at the same time it does not draw attention to itself but lets us focus on the characters and landscapes. It was nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar. The film is filled with various shots and they all seem to be framed perfectly. There are great establishing shots of different locales, ranging from sandy dunes to snowy mountains. The characters are often seen in long to medium shots, but when we need to see their faces and emotions we do. Some of the shots are more closely framed, like Indiana?s intimate conversation with Belloq at the bar. Much of the fame is at eye level, and some are placed at low angle for more dramatic effects. The Nazis are often shot at low angels to give them a threatening presence.
The lighting is pleasing to the eye and always appropriate to the scene. Natural lighting is used outside, like in the streets of Cairo or inside a mountain canyon where the sun brightly lights everything. In caves and chambers, backlighting is used along with suspicious shadows. The colors appear how you would want them to look. It is cool and dark in the rainforest and brown and tan in Egypt. The colors and lighting set the mood for Raiders well. The special effects are all created practically. This gives the movie a gritty, realistic feel. Although there are some supernatural effects, they mix mell with the human characters. When the Nazis are destroyed in the climax, real molds of the actors faces were used and then detonated. It might not look completely realistic, but you know you are watching something that physically exists explode. The movie is fun because the majority of effects you see were filmed at that moment. Harrison Ford is really ducking from an explosion in the same frame as him. The movie is photographed in a way that makes the best of the excitement happening around the camera.
Mise en scene
The film is photographed in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. It allows the characters to talk farther apart and move around in the same shot. The camera is sometimes stationary and sometimes follows characters around. Some crane shots are used, like showing the Cairo marketplace or the ceremony of opening the Ark of the Covenant. People and objects often dominate the frame like the golden idol, Indiana?s gun, or the Ark. Subsidiary contrasts range from a temple crumbling around Indy to the Nazis surrounding him from behind. The scenes are usually not dense, but at the same time not boring. Sometimes the frame is filled up with crowds in Cairo, and sometimes Indy is the only figure in the foreground, with ruins or sands behind him. The placing of characters in the frame is always with purpose and enhances the film. Some shots are tightly framed, like Marion stuck in a plane cockpit, while others are very open like Indiana riding a horse across a large mountain. All of our characters talk to each other in intimate personal, social and public distances. Indy and Mario might share an intimate moment while Marcus Brody and a government agent speak at a public distance. Raiders won an Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration.
Movement
There is much movement in the film as is expected with an adventure picture. Most of it is not lyrical symbolical. The type of human movement we receive from the film is fist fights, truck chases, and explosions. The spirits at the climax do move around the air very lyrically, dipping and swilling around very balletically. But once they turn out to be evil, they cease moving and obliterate the Nazis. The traveling map scenes also involve fluid movement of a red line that shows where our heros are traveling on a map. In one scene Sallah asks Indy ?Why does the floor move?? while looking into a dark chamber and we find out that the entire floor is covered in slithering snakes. The characters must move cautiously while the snakes slide around wherever they can. As for the camera movement, there are many dolly shots and a few moving crane shots, and there are never any handheld shots. No slow motion or other mechanical distortions of movement are used.
Editing
In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the editing is executed perfectly. It seems like every different cut and the length of the scenes is perfect throughout the entire movie. Nothing needs to be added or taken away; every shot in the movie has a purpose. The editing falls between the styles of realism and classicism. There is a great sequence of parallel editing when Indy and Sallah are searching for the Ark while Marion talks to Belloq while being held captive. The editing is perfect and a nice pace is set between the conversation of two characters and the exploration of two others. There is a nice montage of Indy investigating the map room in the desert while John William's powerful and haunting score is mostly the only sound we hear. There are no flashbacks or flash-forwards, the story moves along and unfolds itself with no distractions or abnormal techniques. None of the cuts throughout the movie seem out of place and they happen naturally. It is no wonder that it won the Oscar for Best Editing.
Sound
The sound plays a huge role in the movie. Usually sound does not stick out and only accompanies, but the sound effects are really fun to hear. It was nominated for the Best Sound Oscar and it is easy to tell why. The sound and dialogue are mostly all synchronous. From whip cracks to gun shots to the eerie hum of the Ark, the sound effects add an impressive element to the story. It would be easy to add pre-recorded generic sounds to the film thinking people would only be interested in the visuals, but the sound team recorded many of the sounds from scratch. They give the visuals an effective punch.
The musical score for Raiders, by the genius John Williams, is one of the greatest ever composed for a movie. It gained an Oscar nomination but surprisingly did not win. It is almost impossible to describe the exhilarating music that accompanies the movie. The Indiana Jones (also known as the Raiders) theme is one of the most recognizable movie themes in history. The music sets the mood for entrancing scenes in the map room, or action-packed scenes like the desert chase, or scary scenes like the opening of the Ark. Sometimes the music drives you to stand up and cheer, and other times it will quiet the whole scene down for a soft moment. One thing is for sure: whenever you hear the Raiders theme, you know Indiana Jones is about to do something extraordinary and exciting. The score alone is a masterpiece.
Acting
The cast for Raiders is exemplary. The greatest decision the filmmakers chose for this movie must have been the casting of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. He is perfect in the now iconic role and has fun doing it and makes the character believable. Many of the funniest things Indy does or says were improvised by Harrison Ford. Indy is not your typical action hero because he is not invincible. He gets cut and bleeds and does not heal in the next scene-he is pummeled more. As he states it ?It?s not the years...it?s the mileage.? Indy always seems to barely escape danger and acts on the moment. Maybe the best insight about who he is happens when Sallah asks him what to do next and he replies ?I don?t know, I?m making this up as I go.? Indiana Jones takes on an army of Nazis riding a horse and wielding only his fists. The movie is unpredictable like that and pulls out fun surprises. Harrison Ford created the character of Indiana Jones just as much as anyone else did.
The acting is superb all around by the various villains and good guys, several of whom are played by Oscar winners or nominees. All of the characters get to shine and all have great lines that they deliver well. Karen Allen plays a strong woman named Marion, and the only person to consistently stand head to head with Indiana. John Rhys-Davies plays Sallah, an Egyptian friend of Indiana?s. Denholm Elliott is Indy?s older mentor, who is weary of Indy going after such a dangerous object. Paul Freeman plays a French archeologist Belloq, the main villain, who is always a step ahead of Indiana. Their performances make the movie very fun and exciting.
loganbush
New member
Drama
The sets are done very well and some are downright massive. Some are shot on stage and some on real location, like an ocean or the desert. The journey takes us to locations across the globe, and the set design is very well done. There are military planes and trucks, shipping boats, and ancient ruins to name a few of the sights to see. The costumes are excellent, especially the outfit worn by Indiana Jones. The trademark fedora and leather jacket are as iconic as the theme music. There are a variety of costumes to fit the assortment of different characters. Nazis, Arabs, and natives are scattered throughout the adventure. The array of costumes add to the visual appeal of the environment.
Steven Spielberg once again confirmed he is a master of movie magic when releasing this film. He knows when to use drama and emotion and when to play on pure entertainment. The characters are all very dimensional and he makes us care about what happens to them. Many times you are not even sure if Indy?s going to make it. The film has more depth to it than nearly any action-adventure movie. It not only has exciting spectacles but also dramatic, love, and scary scenes.
Story
The story is straightforward, but always takes sharp turns when you least expect it. The basic plot involves an adventurer and archaeologist Indiana Jones in the year 1936. The United States government gives him information about a powerful artifact called the Ark of the Covenant, which was used to by the Israelites to carry the Ten Commandments. It is believed to have unlimited power and Hitler is sending teams after it. The United States wants to get a hold of it before the Nazis do and Indiana agrees to go after it. It is a roller coaster of a story that is fun and engaging. The action scenes keep building and getting bigger and bigger until the end of the adventure is met by a supernatural and frightening climax. The very last scene is one of the best in history, and is also a nod to Citizen Kane. Themes in the story include good versus evil and the consequences of disturbing with powers. The story fits the classical paradigm and leans towards a formalistic narrative. Its genre can be classified as an action-adventure but there are meaningful themes and emotions just slightly under the surface.
Writing
Lawrence Kasdan authored the screenplay and he also wrote classics like The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. The script is filled with comedy, romance, and intelligence. There are not really any symbols or metaphors used, although the entire film is an homage to the old serials of Old Hollywood. The viewer?s point of view is third person, as we follow all of the characters at some point, although we mainly stick with Indiana Jones. It is a great script and if you pay attention to what the characters are actually saying it is very engaging and interesting, and of course very fun.
Ideology
There are themes of religion, since the Ark is a biblical artifact, but they do not dominate the story at all. The tone is actually pretty dark in some areas and it is much more than a typical adventure movie, or even a great one. The action scenes are always fun, but they are heavier in tone than what most people seem to think. Indy can be running around looking through an assortment of baskets accompanied by light hearted music, and in the next scene he shoots a man in the face. There are scenes in Raiders that can be fairly heavy in tone which grounds the film to be taken seriously and makes it more memorable.
The ideology of Indiana versus the Nazis differs vastly. Indiana?s mission as an archeologist is to persevere and study the past, not exploit it. Hitler wants the Ark for purely malevolent purposes. Even Belloq, who is working with the Nazis, has conflicting view points on the Ark and falls somewhere between Indiana and the Nazis. He does not want to exploit the Ark but is merely interested in its power. He tells Indiana the Ark is a way to speak to God. All of these characters are motivated by different viewpoints and obsessions, but there is no clear cut good versus evil. They will use any means necessary to gain one more step ahead of the rest and towards the treasure, and so they become ?raiders? of the lost Ark.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is considered to be a perfect film by many and is just as enjoyable on multiple viewings. It is a well rounded movie with great talent in front of and behind the camera. There is are no experimental techniques, fast editing, or cheap tricks. Just great storytelling and movie magic, which does not seem to exist anymore. It is a very memorable film with iconic scenes that takes you on an incredibly fun adventure, and it will stand the test of time forever.
The sets are done very well and some are downright massive. Some are shot on stage and some on real location, like an ocean or the desert. The journey takes us to locations across the globe, and the set design is very well done. There are military planes and trucks, shipping boats, and ancient ruins to name a few of the sights to see. The costumes are excellent, especially the outfit worn by Indiana Jones. The trademark fedora and leather jacket are as iconic as the theme music. There are a variety of costumes to fit the assortment of different characters. Nazis, Arabs, and natives are scattered throughout the adventure. The array of costumes add to the visual appeal of the environment.
Steven Spielberg once again confirmed he is a master of movie magic when releasing this film. He knows when to use drama and emotion and when to play on pure entertainment. The characters are all very dimensional and he makes us care about what happens to them. Many times you are not even sure if Indy?s going to make it. The film has more depth to it than nearly any action-adventure movie. It not only has exciting spectacles but also dramatic, love, and scary scenes.
Story
The story is straightforward, but always takes sharp turns when you least expect it. The basic plot involves an adventurer and archaeologist Indiana Jones in the year 1936. The United States government gives him information about a powerful artifact called the Ark of the Covenant, which was used to by the Israelites to carry the Ten Commandments. It is believed to have unlimited power and Hitler is sending teams after it. The United States wants to get a hold of it before the Nazis do and Indiana agrees to go after it. It is a roller coaster of a story that is fun and engaging. The action scenes keep building and getting bigger and bigger until the end of the adventure is met by a supernatural and frightening climax. The very last scene is one of the best in history, and is also a nod to Citizen Kane. Themes in the story include good versus evil and the consequences of disturbing with powers. The story fits the classical paradigm and leans towards a formalistic narrative. Its genre can be classified as an action-adventure but there are meaningful themes and emotions just slightly under the surface.
Writing
Lawrence Kasdan authored the screenplay and he also wrote classics like The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. The script is filled with comedy, romance, and intelligence. There are not really any symbols or metaphors used, although the entire film is an homage to the old serials of Old Hollywood. The viewer?s point of view is third person, as we follow all of the characters at some point, although we mainly stick with Indiana Jones. It is a great script and if you pay attention to what the characters are actually saying it is very engaging and interesting, and of course very fun.
Ideology
There are themes of religion, since the Ark is a biblical artifact, but they do not dominate the story at all. The tone is actually pretty dark in some areas and it is much more than a typical adventure movie, or even a great one. The action scenes are always fun, but they are heavier in tone than what most people seem to think. Indy can be running around looking through an assortment of baskets accompanied by light hearted music, and in the next scene he shoots a man in the face. There are scenes in Raiders that can be fairly heavy in tone which grounds the film to be taken seriously and makes it more memorable.
The ideology of Indiana versus the Nazis differs vastly. Indiana?s mission as an archeologist is to persevere and study the past, not exploit it. Hitler wants the Ark for purely malevolent purposes. Even Belloq, who is working with the Nazis, has conflicting view points on the Ark and falls somewhere between Indiana and the Nazis. He does not want to exploit the Ark but is merely interested in its power. He tells Indiana the Ark is a way to speak to God. All of these characters are motivated by different viewpoints and obsessions, but there is no clear cut good versus evil. They will use any means necessary to gain one more step ahead of the rest and towards the treasure, and so they become ?raiders? of the lost Ark.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is considered to be a perfect film by many and is just as enjoyable on multiple viewings. It is a well rounded movie with great talent in front of and behind the camera. There is are no experimental techniques, fast editing, or cheap tricks. Just great storytelling and movie magic, which does not seem to exist anymore. It is a very memorable film with iconic scenes that takes you on an incredibly fun adventure, and it will stand the test of time forever.
That's not bad. That's B/B+ for me 
I'm a teaching assistant in film studies, I'm quite used to grade papers, and that's a little bit didascalic but is ok. On major flaw for an analisys class is that it often crosses the border between analisys and critic. To cut short remember that when you describe something and estabilish links between its elements, it's analisys, when you comment on the quality, indicating that a movie (or some of its formal aspects) is good or bad, you're doing critics.
I'm a teaching assistant in film studies, I'm quite used to grade papers, and that's a little bit didascalic but is ok. On major flaw for an analisys class is that it often crosses the border between analisys and critic. To cut short remember that when you describe something and estabilish links between its elements, it's analisys, when you comment on the quality, indicating that a movie (or some of its formal aspects) is good or bad, you're doing critics.
Montana Smith
Active member
I would edit out some of the references to "Nazis", replacing them with "Germans" (or "Belloq and the Germans").
It's a pet-hate, assigning ideological bias, and insisting a creative absolute that did not exist within the film - in fact it was remarkably absent from the film, which in itself is worthy of commentary. The nature of good, evil, allegiance, obedience, acquiescence, and genuine ignorance.
Into that mix comes Indy's mission, both motivated and justified by personal and political reasons. At times Indy's own ambition is not too far from Nazi ambition, such as stealing the Chachapoyan Idol from the Hovitos who revere it, justifiying his actions with a flimsy excuse that it belongs in a museum. The Nazis justified similar actions, appropriating wealth from the Jews, because it belonged in Aryan hands.
I find that there is a lot to be read into this outwardly 'simple' adventure tale, and for me that gives the series and the character of Indiana Jones an enduring quality.
It's a pet-hate, assigning ideological bias, and insisting a creative absolute that did not exist within the film - in fact it was remarkably absent from the film, which in itself is worthy of commentary. The nature of good, evil, allegiance, obedience, acquiescence, and genuine ignorance.
Into that mix comes Indy's mission, both motivated and justified by personal and political reasons. At times Indy's own ambition is not too far from Nazi ambition, such as stealing the Chachapoyan Idol from the Hovitos who revere it, justifiying his actions with a flimsy excuse that it belongs in a museum. The Nazis justified similar actions, appropriating wealth from the Jews, because it belonged in Aryan hands.
I find that there is a lot to be read into this outwardly 'simple' adventure tale, and for me that gives the series and the character of Indiana Jones an enduring quality.
WillKill4Food
New member
Ah, yes. This reminds me of a previous comment of yours, from another thread.Montana Smith said:
I don't understand why you use party membership to assign ideology to a person. In 2003, a moderate or liberal American could have supported the invasion of Iraq without being a Republican. Indeed, many did. Regardless, when the Wehrmacht soldiers had to swear an oath of loyalty not to Germany but to Hitler, I think we can at least say that calling them Nazis is not entirely inaccurate. My understanding was that the reason German soldiers were not Nazi-party members was that they had to be technically "non-political" to be in the army. However, my understanding of this is limited, so I could be wrong.Montana Smith said:
Montana Smith
Active member
WillKill4Food said:
A great number of the German generals despised Hitler and what he stood for. However, that didn't stop them from accepting the benefits of re-armament, and what that would do for their careers, reputation, and Germany. Many foolishly thought the little Austrian Gefreiter could be controlled and used.
The generals were able to keep the army out of politics by forbidding a soldier membership to the Party. When Stauffenberg almost succeeded in killing Hitler in July 1944, Hitler finally lost his patience and last bit of trust in his generals. He overturned their wishes, and permitted membership.
I see a difference between support for the Party, and everything the Party stands for, and support for one's country, since the country will outlive it's leadership.
There is a difference between soldiering out of patriotic pride, and volunteering for the SS (Allgemeine or Waffen). The latter implies an ideological bias that goes beyond the simple protection of your homeland (regardless of the reasons that caused the danger to the homeland in the first place).* Propaganda plays a large part in patriotism and falsely placed committment. If the German people were able to speak openly Hitler would not have lasted as long as he did. That's why I mentioned allegiance, acquiescence, obedience, ignorance. There are many reasons why people do things, and referring to all Germans as Nazis clouds the more interesting issue surrounding motivations.
The German state was Nazi, because the Party was insidiously planted into all parts of the state. It's people were not necessarily synonymous with Nazi-ism.
Today it's commonplace in the media to refer to "Nazi Germany", because it conveniently distances that dark period from "present Germany".
It's also convenient for some to refer to the German opposition in ROTLA as Nazis because it conveniently places them as villains who can be killed without fear of conscience. (Like making most of the villains of the Star Wars Prequels robots, so there is no moral outrage when the Jedi cut swathes through hundreds of them like so many Saturday morning cartoons).
I prefer to see the more complex relationships, motivations and justifications, not only in ROTLA, but also in history in general. The causes of history are so rarely black or white, which makes the study of history a never-ending process of evaluation.
* There is even a case where membership of the SS did not imply loyalty to Hitler: the 7. Prinz Eugen SS-Gebirgs-Division comprised Hungarians, Romanians and Yugoslavs who were given no choice whether they could serve in the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS. The division was called up in wartime, and these soldiers were fighting to protect their land from the Soviets (who had finally been forced into open opposition when Hitler broke the German-Soviet truce in 1941). Foreign units were assigned to the SS, because they were not German nationals.
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
Montana Smith said:
A good read... however the movie, rightly or wrongly, does refer to them/or associates them early on as Nazi's... and this theme obviously continues into TLC. I'd also agree with you that Raiders/TLC almost turned Nazi's into the new "Red Injuns" of Hollywood i.e. cinematic shorthand for evil/nasty etc. etc.
Montana Smith
Active member
Darth Vile said:
Thanks, Darth.
In old British and American wartime newscasts (i.e. propaganda films of the time) they referred to Germany and Germans as "Nazi" and "Nazi", since the intention was to create unity against a single enemy. When Indy, Marcus and Military Intelligence are discussing Hitler's plans, they are rightfully speaking of a Nazi plot.
This is confirmed when Indy has his first encounter - with Toht, the Nazi Gestapo agent.
However, once he's in Egypt things become more complicated. The task of guarding Tanis and securing the Ark wasn't given to political troops (Nazi SS) but to regular troops, under a regular officer (Dietrich). Was that a failure of the costuming department? Or by design?
Now, we know that Lucas and Spielberg paid only lip service to history (as with placing The Raven in Nepal, and countless other anachronisms), but the knowledge of the difference between an SS and a regular German army uniform could not have escaped them. The men guarding Tanis were set up as regular troops (and this is further confirmed by the deleted scene where one soldier cannot bring himself to execute Sallah. Displaying a human angle that crosses borders and cultures). There was a time when the creator's were willing to explore more deeply the motivation of the men involved, but that endangered the justification of Indy's actions. In retrospect, Lucas and Spielberg probably would have chosen SS uniforms - as they did for TLC.
I like to see that amid the rip-roaring pulp adventure, there are still some subtleties of character that remain, and they raise ROTLA above it's contemporaries and rivals.
WillKill4Food
New member
Were these generals not the exception? And did the enlisted Germans (e.g. the soldiers in RotLA) tend to oppose Hitler's ideology?Montana Smith said:
Montana Smith
Active member
WillKill4Food said:
That's an interesting question. I've read much on the period, including numerous personal memoirs. You have to allow for a lot of self-fashioning and image preservation when reading those personal accounts. A lot of dissociation went on after the war.
However, there was a trendency among the aristocratic officer class to look down on the little Gefreiter, but they were also the men for whom war would mean a return to fame, and the active life of command.
Then there were generals like Guderian who openly argued with Hitler over policy, and got away with it (barring a case of dismissal and re-instatement).
One of the most interesting cases is that of Admiral Canaris, head of German Military Intelligence, who was actively working against Hitler's policies, whilst still holding his position.
The wiki page on Canaris is a useful overview of his situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris
There were many attempts to remove Hitler, and until July 1944 the generals were able to keep the army separate from Party membership.
Many in Germany were ignorant of the real situation in the 1930s. The country was emerging from political and economic chaos, and looking to a strong leader to restore Germany's position in Europe (Versailles and it's aftermath having imposed a continually humiliating position on the country, and a it's severity a prime cause for a second Great War).
Some openly joined the Nazi Party, and in every society there is a type of person who will take advantage of a given situation for selfish means (feeding economic, power or sadistic needs).
Others would have had little choice but to accept the situation (the acquiesence I referred to).
Some stood against it, but imprisonment and death were the frequent cure for that.
When we label soldiers from this society as 'Nazis' we overlook a myriad of human emotions. This doesn't just relate to the Germans in ROTLA, but to any case where the whole country is made to be synonymous with the party of it's leader.
In modern usage "Nazi" is synonymous with "villain", which implies that any person in a German uniform is also a villain, and therefore fair game for killing. The deleted scene of Sallah's intended execution would have made amends against that interpretation, but it would also have called into question Indy's activities. However, a pulp hero doesn't stop to question his actions, and, I suppose, the audience is not meant to.
Since Indy was presented as a rogue, I have long viewed him as an anti-hero, which makes him all the more interesting a character. As an anti-hero, unbound by heroic considerations, he can fight his way through a convoy of German soldiers (who are likely ignorant of their mission, or of Indy's status), while forming his own justification.
This adds another layer to the film. It's not simply the great patriotic American hero despatching goose-stepping Nazis. Indy is aware of what Hitler's possession of the Ark might mean, and he could base that on Hitler's desire to possess it. The consequences, if the Bible myths proved to be accurate, would bring about a greater number of deaths. The Germans in the convoy then become pawns in a greater game, regardless whether they were sympathic to the Nazi cause, or whether they were just soldiers lucky enough to be in employment during hard economic times.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Great Post.Montana Smith said:
Where can I find that material?Montana Smith said:
Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:Great Post.
Thanks, Rocket!
Rocket Surgeon said:
Some I've found online, such as Keitel's memoirs (he was a Hitler-toady), and the diary of Hitler's doctor, Morell.
The Nuremberg Trials are on the net and are a fascinating, if sometimes grisly, read. They also include original communiques and reports from the time, such as SS-Einstatz-Gruppen officers reporting that the stress of rounding up and executing civilians was proving too much for many of their soldiers, and were requesting replacements so they could rotate the duties more frequently. It's horrific details like that which get to the heart of the issue of acquiescence/duty; propaganda/reality, and normality/abnormality.
Some books I've picked up in second hand stores and markets, such as Guderian's Panzer Leader.
Some I've have to buy from seller's in Germany (when I was writing a day-by-day history of the 1. Gebirgs-Division I located the diary of one of it's officers, and the history written by it's commanding offier - both were in German text).
An excellent book is Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer, purported to be the firsthand memoir of a German soldier on the eastern front. It's a harrowing tale that puts you into the boots of a soldier, and gives you cause to think.
I probably have hundreds of books on the subject, and never take a single volume lightly or on face value. You have to be wary, as with any study of history.
It's after getting involved in the study of the period and it's protagonists, that the simple black and white view becomes a murky grey.
loganbush
New member
Yure said:That's not bad. That's B/B+ for me
I'm a teaching assistant in film studies, I'm quite used to grade papers, and that's a little bit didascalic but is ok. On major flaw for an analisys class is that it often crosses the border between analisys and critic. To cut short remember that when you describe something and estabilish links between its elements, it's analisys, when you comment on the quality, indicating that a movie (or some of its formal aspects) is good or bad, you're doing critics.
Well thank you. It was my first analysis and our eclectic teacher gave us very few guidelines. Good advice.