Montana Smith
Active member
Lance Quazar said:I disagree with your characterization. There is very little at all that is "jarring" in the first three films within the context that those movies create for themselves.
That was what I said, Lance. You used the term "the context that those movies create for themselves", and I referred to them as beyond "real-world sensibilities". I think, so far, we might be agreeing.
If you take the films out of their context, and try to see them as realistic portrayals, then there are plenty of moments that a viewer will find jarring.
I gave up trying to see Raiders as 'real', since that viewpoint just doesn't work on so many levels (physical, historical, natural etc). The same, then, goes for the other three films.
Lance Quazar said:One could argue (convincingly, I'm sure) that there is very little that is less "realistic" in KOTCS than in the other films.
However, the movie is full of dissonant and phony moments throughout.
That's the nature of the beast now, with Lucas trying to please everybody, from the original fans to the kids who never heard of the character before. I'm hoping that now that Indy has been re-established, Indy V need not go so far to draw young viewers in. I think that Lucas has a tendency to go over the top in his efforts to bring in the kids, whilst still tackling the bigger issues (e.g., The Phantom Menace [/I,]etc). The kids will demand spectacle, otherwise they aren't going to get interested in a geriatric hero.
Lance Quazar said:But take a look at the other films. The opening sequence in "Raiders", whilst filled with all kinds of obviously unrealistic moments, sets the stage for what follows. A universe is created and its rules are put in place.
The light trap was the moment where a classic adventure tales suddenly promises to be something much more.
Lance Quazar said:The rest of the movie is consistent with the tone and parameters established in the beginning. Sure, there are plenty of "unrealistic" moments, but nothing that stretches the "credibility" of what has already been establish. It's consistent and it makes sense within the rules it creates.
We go along for the ride. Nothing really "takes us out of the movie" or stands out as being a particularly inconsistent, awkward or inappropriately "fake" moment. We have made a pact with the filmmakers to stretch our credibility to a very specific degree. We will suspend disbelief only so far - and the filmmakers never go back on their promise.
For a long time the being dragged behind the truck stunt bothered me, having read about similar KKK torture and their outcome. That was the moment that stood out as fake - until I began to see Indy as occupying a different context - a semi-real world where heroes can survive intact.
Lance Quazar said:In fact, one of the things that made Indiana Jones such an endearing and memorable character off the bat was the degree to which the filmmakers gave at least the appearance of vulnerability to the guy. Indy has phobias. He is fallible, utterly failing in the opening sequence and consistently throughout the film. Indy shows pain, he gets knocked on his ass. He does incredibly, mind-blowing things, but later on has to recuperate and nurse his wounds.
All of these qualities serve as a very effective counter to the far-fetched events and stunts and actions of the story. We're grounded, in a sense, and, while few human beings could ever really do what Indy accomplishes, we find him a believable - even relatable - hero..
That was a nod to real world sensibilities, making him more human, more interesting, but he's still more indestructible than a human in our world.
Lance Quazar said:I would argue that the subsequent two sequels, particularly "last crusade", stretch the template that "Raiders" had established with increasingly fanciful happenings, which venture more towards the cartoonish. They are stretching our suspension more and more.
Temple of Doom was very cartoon-like - black comedy meets horror meets slapstick, and that slapstick continued with Last Crusade. Those elements were also present in Raiders, but with Raiders it was the first film in the series, and it was establishing itself.
Lance Quazar said:But it doesn't really break until the fourth movie. By that point, the filmmakers have left behind all pretense of making Indiana Jones a relatable, vulnerable hero in situations which we can believe in. Or at least not actively DISbelieve in.
There's a reason "Nuke the Fridge" entered the lexicon. At that point and from that point forward, the Indiana Jones team seems to have given up and gone back on those promises they made way back in 1981 with "Raiders."
Lucas was trying to please diverse sectors. Each outing has to deliver a little bit more, until you find that Indy being dragged behind the truck along a desert road during which he doesn't rip his shirt or his flesh, becomes surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge. Both instances are absurd - and they're just two examples from many across the four films. These movies portray a world that never existed, not 'Saving Private Ryan'.
Lance Quazar said:One could argue that getting flung a mile or two in a metal fridge and surviving is no less plausible than jumping a massive gap in an out of control mine cart only to land perfectly on the tracks on the other end.
Every cliffhanger Indy survives is the result of luck and coincidence. Each survival requires things to go right, and sometimes they have to go right in perfect sequence. Maybe KOTCS was intended to be the last Harrison Ford Indy film, and they were coming up with the most daring cliffhanger possible.
Lance Quazar said:But the filmmakers make no concessions, as in earlier films, to ground Indy with flaws and vulnerability (though I think that trend really began in earnest in "Last Crusade", but fortunately there wasn't anything as outlandish in that movie to really break the spell.)
Indy was suffering the effects of age in KOTCS - his hip was giving him gip, and his judgement was off (landing on the wrong vehicle in the warehouse).
Lance Quazar said:Story, plot and stunt elements in KOTCS are frequently (if not consistently) take the movie into "implausible" and cartoonish territories the other films did not dare to tread. And they abandoned any attempts to balance that by making the character himself believably human.
Since I was forced to see Raiders as implausible, and Temple of Doom as even more cartoon-like, I've grown up with the expectation that an Indiana Jones film will be outlandish. What carries the films is the characterization, and in KOTCS there are moments when Indy is painfully human. It's sad to see a super-hero who was once top of their game becoming older, and accepting that the dream cannot continue forever. If Indy V happens, I think it will play out to be quite sad and sentimental. The end of an era.