TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-06-2012, 12:12 PM   #51
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
...how so? What more is it that you were expecting from the Mac and Ox characters? Anyone can make general accusations, that's not very hard.

As if I haven't already elaborated such things in detail many times before.

Mac was a cardboard flip-flopper. He was a nothingness. He doesn't present himself as ever having been a credible partner to Indy. There was no chemistry at all.

Oxley was nuts until required to do his bit of exposition. Being nuts for so long left him alienated as a character. There was no sense that he was a father to Mutt. No sense of the affection that would earn him the "Ox" monicker.

These weren't characters, in the manner of Marcus or Sallah, but simple devices to push Indy in a certain direction.

KOTCS doesn't flow, but is instead a collection of scenes. Some brilliant. Some awful. That's why I've never hated, nor loved the movie.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 03:58 PM   #52
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
As if I haven't already elaborated such things in detail many times before.

Mac was a cardboard flip-flopper. He was a nothingness. He doesn't present himself as ever having been a credible partner to Indy. There was no chemistry at all.

Oxley was nuts until required to do his bit of exposition. Being nuts for so long left him alienated as a character. There was no sense that he was a father to Mutt. No sense of the affection that would earn him the "Ox" monicker.

These weren't characters, in the manner of Marcus or Sallah, but simple devices to push Indy in a certain direction.

KOTCS doesn't flow, but is instead a collection of scenes. Some brilliant. Some awful. That's why I've never hated, nor loved the movie.
Then it seems your complaints should be rooted in the script and not the actors' portrayals. I doubt they could've found actors to portray the characters any better as written.

It's possible to be a character and a device at the same time.....Mac/Ox aren't particularly given major screen time - not to mention Mac betrays Indy - so it's a little unfair to compare them to beloved sidekicks of Indy like Marcus and Sallah. The central relationship of the film is between Indy and Mutt.

The witty banter between Indy and Mac in the opening sequence is sufficient enough in establishing their history I think. And the exposition of the Ox character makes him one that Indy, Marion, and Mutt all care about....I think it creates for a nice little moment at the wedding scene when we finally see him sane and cleaned up.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 11:13 PM   #53
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Then it seems your complaints should be rooted in the script and not the actors' portrayals. I doubt they could've found actors to portray the characters any better as written.

It's possible to be a character and a device at the same time.....Mac/Ox aren't particularly given major screen time - not to mention Mac betrays Indy - so it's a little unfair to compare them to beloved sidekicks of Indy like Marcus and Sallah. The central relationship of the film is between Indy and Mutt.

The witty banter between Indy and Mac in the opening sequence is sufficient enough in establishing their history I think. And the exposition of the Ox character makes him one that Indy, Marion, and Mutt all care about....I think it creates for a nice little moment at the wedding scene when we finally see him sane and cleaned up.

A poor script is most definitely the root cause of the problem. It gives little opportunity for actors with a track record to shine, because it seems that those actors couldn't find it in themselves to drag anything more out of it.

If you go back to Star Wars, Alec Guiness said that he had no clue about science fiction, and didn't really know what was going on in the film. Yet he was meticulous, ever the professional. He made copious notes, and he threw himself into the role of Obi-Wan. Watching KOTCS (and especially Winstone's interviews) it appears that neither could find enough in the script to encourage them to present more believable character transitions.

The flip-flopping of Mac was akin to The Chuckle Brothers saying "To me", "To you".

In such an environment it's obvious why Marion wouldn't tell Indy he had a son. Lucas and Spielberg were bringing a character back to the screen whom they knew could alienate the children he was created for. They needed a younger Indy to be front and centre to off-set the older guy. Marion couldn't tell Indy they had a son because she, like the creators, didn't know she was going to need one.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 04:28 AM   #54
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
A poor script is most definitely the root cause of the problem. It gives little opportunity for actors with a track record to shine, because it seems that those actors couldn't find it in themselves to drag anything more out of it.

If you go back to Star Wars, Alec Guiness said that he had no clue about science fiction, and didn't really know what was going on in the film. Yet he was meticulous, ever the professional. He made copious notes, and he threw himself into the role of Obi-Wan. Watching KOTCS (and especially Winstone's interviews) it appears that neither could find enough in the script to encourage them to present more believable character transitions.

The flip-flopping of Mac was akin to The Chuckle Brothers saying "To me", "To you".

In such an environment it's obvious why Marion wouldn't tell Indy he had a son. Lucas and Spielberg were bringing a character back to the screen whom they knew could alienate the children he was created for. They needed a younger Indy to be front and centre to off-set the older guy. Marion couldn't tell Indy they had a son because she, like the creators, didn't know she was going to need one.
Ya, well it's not like Star Wars was some garbage film. I'm sure I can go through Alec Guiness's filmography and find more than a few duds, no matter how great of an actor he was.

I'm not sure what more Winstone and Hurt could have "dragged" out of their characters......that was already my point. They are elite actors, I enjoy their performances, and I think they got everything out of their characters. But the characters themselves are not particularly big roles and I think you're overestimating the impact they "should" have had.

Last edited by Cole : 01-08-2012 at 04:48 AM.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2012, 02:53 PM   #55
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Was Marion even sure that Mutt was his son? At what point did she give up prostitution?
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 01:44 PM   #56
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Insulting is a pretty harsh word of choice.

What else could we see it as? You bring a film series back after nineteen years, and one of its central characters back after after twenty-seven, and you don't bother to make their character interactions credible, or to treat them with much in the way of sincerity or humanity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
There are plenty of laughs in the film up to this point.....I disagree it's out-of-place within the tone of the film.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying there weren't jokes previously. What I'm saying is that this is the first place what should be treated as a serious character moment - as Mac's betrayal is, as Indy's dejected state in the Stanforth scenes - is seen as an opportunity for laughs. After all, twentysome years of resentment are funny, right? It's insulting because it's denying an audience any opportunity to take these characters seriously as human beings, something that Raiders excelled at, that Last Crusade was darned good at, and that even Temple of Doom managed fairly well at times. And, yes, Crystal Skull does so from time to time, but it doesn't with the one relationship revived from a prior film in which both participants are still alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Certainly. Even the way she stands, with her hands on her hips saying "Indiana Jones..." is clearly an "homage" if you will to her first scene in 'Raiders.' I don't see it as a criticism though.

It's a point for criticism because it's a mythology gag, the sort of thing that takes us out of the film and disallows our suspension of disbelief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Just happy to be in the film? I don't agree with this at all. She's a professional. Her part is fairly small, but I think her performance is fine. I think it's more fair to say any criticisms are rooted within the script and the direction they took her character than her performance.

Look, I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of the older actress. There simply aren't parts written for them. Sadly, Marion Ravenwood, KotCS edition was one of them, but just barely. Perhaps Kasdan wrote it. Maybe it was all Koepp. They can write it in their scripts, a woman can smile, and smile, and thus not seem quite human. Yes, yes, of course she's human, but she's not treated with any sort of seriousness.

Let me ask you straight: do you think the scene at the camp, and the film at the whole, would have been better if the dialogue between Indy and Marion had been, despite the same words, been acted in a manner more similar to the dialogue at the Raven? Do you think you'd still have to make apologies for the film's characterizations on the basis of how small they are? Or would that added bit of sincerity have sold the relationship better, and thus improved the film?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
I don't have issues with the humor involving Marion and the fencing; it's all relative lighthearted humor to me and it feels within the tone of the film's humor (the humor is based on Marion's over-enthusiastic attitude, as most parents are when it comes to their kids)...

Precisely. It's a cheap gag based on how most parents are said to be. That's not characterization, that's treating Marion as a type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
...perhaps the scene could've benefitted from more intense action involving Indy, similar to how the tank scene in 'Last Crusade' balances humor between Marcus and Henry Sr. and intense action involving Indy.

Perhaps. Just as likely it would have benefitted from fewer monkey gags, crotch gags, and dumb "soccer mom" gags. Good humor is rooted in character. There's even a little of it in that sequence, in Indy and Mac's interactions, in the "I don't think he plans that far ahead" exchange, and even in Oxley's sudden comprehension of who "Henry Jones Junior" is once he pulls his bazooka trick. Those have something to do with character. Those other bits don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
But it's still not a bad scene....it's extremely well-filmed by Spielberg and I think it still has a furious momentum (a staple of all the pinnacle Indy "chase" scenes). Indy taking control of vehicles, punching Russians and almost getting rammed off a massive cliff is still entertaining. But the ants scene is probably the best part of the whole sequence - probably because it involves Indy.

I quite agree. But a good scene can still have bad elements that keep it from greatness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Is Marion's involvement fulfilling or substantial? Ya, I think it is; there's a whole arch to the film that deals with family. Like I mentioned before - Indy is a lost character in the beginning. Mutt is character who is a little lost himself - he has no father, he has quit school, has an attitude. The end of the movie is about them finding each other. The film itself is a family film, and the content is a celebration of family.

Yeah, it's sort of about family. It's also sort of about knowledge, its pursuit, power, use, and misuse, as I often say. But that it is about these things doesn't make it good. I'd further argue that all this bit about knowledge is threaded throughout the film pretty effectively, even if the "knowledge was their treasure" line is a rather hackneyed thematic signpost.

Mutt and Indy have a somewhat interesting relationship, but nothing that's interesting about it is dependent on Mutt actually being Indy's son. It's using a revealed fact as drama, rather than any sort of character conflict. It's why I keep coming back to a variant on the script in which Mutt is just some kid - a student, or a street tough with a prep school background - who is pulled between Oxley's, Indy's, and Mac's divergent approaches to treasure hunting. Then we aren't forced to deal with their lackadaisical approach to Marion's return.

I also disagree that Indy is a lost character at the beginning. He could have been presented as such, and it would have been compelling; he is much more strongly presented as an exile. Rejected by his country, fired by his university, and ready to go to Communist Leipzig to continue his profession. He's out of place, not lost. That's the point of the suburbs and the atomic bomb moments, not just to be cool.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 01:44 PM   #57
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,435
And continuing, with a critical comparison...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Rebottling similar pieces of dialogue? I didn't see that. 'Raiders' is a great film, don't get me wrong, but lets not put it on a pedestal.

Raiders takes its characters seriously. That's pretty hard to deny. Crystal Skull, by and large, does not. If Crystal Skull had pursued the spirit of Raiders - a dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions and superb action filmmaking - rather than repackaging its own elements, it would have been a stronger entry in the series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
I never really got the impression in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' that Indy was ever willing to let the Ark go (and let it fall into enemy hands).....his bluff in the canyon is just an attempt to get Marion back.

Then why is the scene in the film? Why do they stop the action for a dialogue scene at a critical point in the film? Why don't the Nazis just capture both Indy and Marion on the Bantu Wind, instead of having the submarine base as a location? They have it because the film has three primary dramatic arcs:

1) Indiana Jones is going after the Ark of the Covenant. His friends tell him its mysterious, and possibly powerful. He sees it as an opportunity for professional advancement, with both the research and monetary benefits that entails.
2) Indiana Jones hurt Marion Ravenwood some years ago. He gets her involved in a dangerous adventure involving the Nazis, and must leave her in their possession while he's pursuing the Ark. She resents him for this, despite caring for him.
3) Indiana Jones competes with his old rival, Rene Belloq for the Ark, for Marion, and even for the golden idol. Belloq says that he and Indiana are quite similar, and the film presents this as true (two-shot, an uncontested "you know it's true").

There are two scenes in the film with all four of these individuals present. One is the scene in which Indiana's adversaries are destroyed, but that's really the denouement. The climax of the film comes where these three story strands come together, where Indy finally does something to combat the idea that he and Belloq are alike by reversing his earlier decision of leaving Marion in the tent and instead threatening to blow up the Ark if he doesn't get her back. There'd be no reason for Belloq's speech about history to be treated with the gravity that it is were it not dramatically important. There'd be no reason for Indy's slow lowering of the rocket launcher and willing capture if he had been bluffing. He's not bluffing. He really is threatening the blow up the Ark. He can't actually summon up the ability to do it, however, for all of the reasons that Belloq states. It's a brilliant scene, and everything in the film is leading up to it. Everything after just ties up loose ends.

I'm belaboring this point because it shows that Raiders takes its characters and their interactions seriously, and what they do they do for dramatically significant reasons. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't. I love Winstone's work in the film, but can anyone really claim that Mac is acting for dramatically significant reasons, as presented in the film? You have to go outside the film, to Winstone's other comments, about being a double agent for so long that he doesn't know what side he's on, to find a really compelling interpretation of the character. Same goes for Indy and Marion getting back together; it happens because the script says so, not because the script constructs a series of credible events rendering it inevitable.

Character matters. You can't expect people to become engaged by a film unless those making it believe so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
In my opinion, 'Last Crusade' has the most masterful ending, where the roles are reversed and Indy finally lets the cup go when his father finally calls him "Junior." The theme of the two finding their "real" prize in the form of their newfound relationship (and not the artifact) is presented much more clearly and profoundly IMO.

It's a great ending, but the one in Raiders encompasses more of what precedes it in the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
I think the development in 'Crystal Skull' is there as I wrote in my previous comment.

Not much, there isn't. There are events, but not development, and we aren't invited to fill in the gaps in-between.

In short, I agree with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
But seriously, KOTCS destroys its own magic. There's far less (if any) attempt to ask us to believe in the characters or their predicaments. I couldn't care less whether Marion, Mac, Oxley, Stanforth or Mutt lived or died.

Last edited by Attila the Professor : 01-13-2012 at 01:51 PM.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 10:17 PM   #58
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
What else could we see it as? You bring a film series back after nineteen years, and one of its central characters back after after twenty-seven, and you don't bother to make their character interactions credible, or to treat them with much in the way of sincerity or humanity?
Completely disagree.

Quote:
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying there weren't jokes previously. What I'm saying is that this is the first place what should be treated as a serious character moment - as Mac's betrayal is, as Indy's dejected state in the Stanforth scenes - is seen as an opportunity for laughs. After all, twentysome years of resentment are funny, right? It's insulting because it's denying an audience any opportunity to take these characters seriously as human beings, something that Raiders excelled at, that Last Crusade was darned good at, and that even Temple of Doom managed fairly well at times. And, yes, Crystal Skull does so from time to time, but it doesn't with the one relationship revived from a prior film in which both participants are still alive.
It's not funny to them, it's funny to us. And that doesn't mean it's devoid of humanity.

Quote:
It's a point for criticism because it's a mythology gag, the sort of thing that takes us out of the film and disallows our suspension of disbelief.
You could say the same for every homage ever put on film. I disagree. I don't think it's so much that it's hokey.

Quote:
Look, I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of the older actress. There simply aren't parts written for them. Sadly, Marion Ravenwood, KotCS edition was one of them, but just barely. Perhaps Kasdan wrote it. Maybe it was all Koepp. They can write it in their scripts, a woman can smile, and smile, and thus not seem quite human. Yes, yes, of course she's human, but she's not treated with any sort of seriousness.

Let me ask you straight: do you think the scene at the camp, and the film at the whole, would have been better if the dialogue between Indy and Marion had been, despite the same words, been acted in a manner more similar to the dialogue at the Raven? Do you think you'd still have to make apologies for the film's characterizations on the basis of how small they are? Or would that added bit of sincerity have sold the relationship better, and thus improved the film?
Nobody's making apologies. I can only judge what was put on film. It would've been very difficult to do another dialogue like the one at Marion's bar in 'Raiders'.

Quote:
Precisely. It's a cheap gag based on how most parents are said to be. That's not characterization, that's treating Marion as a type.
A type? What type? She's a mom, isn't that characterization? I'm not disagreeing it's a "gag," but that's not particularly unfamiliar to Indiana Jones.

Quote:
Perhaps. Just as likely it would have benefitted from fewer monkey gags, crotch gags, and dumb "soccer mom" gags. Good humor is rooted in character. There's even a little of it in that sequence, in Indy and Mac's interactions, in the "I don't think he plans that far ahead" exchange, and even in Oxley's sudden comprehension of who "Henry Jones Junior" is once he pulls his bazooka trick. Those have something to do with character. Those other bits don't.
I think you're overanalyzing. It's just lighthearted humor for innocent entertainment.

Quote:
Mutt and Indy have a somewhat interesting relationship, but nothing that's interesting about it is dependent on Mutt actually being Indy's son. It's using a revealed fact as drama, rather than any sort of character conflict. It's why I keep coming back to a variant on the script in which Mutt is just some kid - a student, or a street tough with a prep school background - who is pulled between Oxley's, Indy's, and Mac's divergent approaches to treasure hunting. Then we aren't forced to deal with their lackadaisical approach to Marion's return.
The character conflict is Mutt resenting Indy as his father....but he finally starts accepting him after their adventure; most likely out of admiration for what they just went through. I don't get what you're talking about - Mutt being pulled by different approaches to treasure hunting? I wouldn't call Marion's return lackadaisical.

Quote:
I also disagree that Indy is a lost character at the beginning. He could have been presented as such, and it would have been compelling; he is much more strongly presented as an exile. Rejected by his country, fired by his university, and ready to go to Communist Leipzig to continue his profession. He's out of place, not lost. That's the point of the suburbs and the atomic bomb moments, not just to be cool.
If he's not a lost character, than he is certainly a lonely character (and don't the two go hand-in-hand?) - just watch the bit about losing his father and Marcus and "reaching the point where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away." There's nothing to keep him in the States without his job.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:02 PM   #59
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Raiders takes its characters seriously. That's pretty hard to deny. Crystal Skull, by and large, does not. If Crystal Skull had pursued the spirit of Raiders - a dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions and superb action filmmaking - rather than repackaging its own elements, it would have been a stronger entry in the series.
I struggle to say 'Raiders' "takes itself seriously": this is still a film based on the old B-action serials. I feel more comfortable calling it the most intense. 'Skull' follows the trend of the series with a more lighthearted tone, certainly.

'Skull' is still a "dramatic story told through serious dialogue-based interactions".....it's not a comedy. And it's not the only Indy movie with comedy.

Quote:
Then why is the scene in the film? Why do they stop the action for a dialogue scene at a critical point in the film? Why don't the Nazis just capture both Indy and Marion on the Bantu Wind, instead of having the submarine base as a location? They have it because the film has three primary dramatic arcs:

1) Indiana Jones is going after the Ark of the Covenant. His friends tell him its mysterious, and possibly powerful. He sees it as an opportunity for professional advancement, with both the research and monetary benefits that entails.
2) Indiana Jones hurt Marion Ravenwood some years ago. He gets her involved in a dangerous adventure involving the Nazis, and must leave her in their possession while he's pursuing the Ark. She resents him for this, despite caring for him.
3) Indiana Jones competes with his old rival, Rene Belloq for the Ark, for Marion, and even for the golden idol. Belloq says that he and Indiana are quite similar, and the film presents this as true (two-shot, an uncontested "you know it's true").

There are two scenes in the film with all four of these individuals present. One is the scene in which Indiana's adversaries are destroyed, but that's really the denouement. The climax of the film comes where these three story strands come together, where Indy finally does something to combat the idea that he and Belloq are alike by reversing his earlier decision of leaving Marion in the tent and instead threatening to blow up the Ark if he doesn't get her back. There'd be no reason for Belloq's speech about history to be treated with the gravity that it is were it not dramatically important. There'd be no reason for Indy's slow lowering of the rocket launcher and willing capture if he had been bluffing. He's not bluffing. He really is threatening the blow up the Ark. He can't actually summon up the ability to do it, however, for all of the reasons that Belloq states. It's a brilliant scene, and everything in the film is leading up to it. Everything after just ties up loose ends.

I'm belaboring this point because it shows that Raiders takes its characters and their interactions seriously, and what they do they do for dramatically significant reasons. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't. I love Winstone's work in the film, but can anyone really claim that Mac is acting for dramatically significant reasons, as presented in the film? You have to go outside the film, to Winstone's other comments, about being a double agent for so long that he doesn't know what side he's on, to find a really compelling interpretation of the character. Same goes for Indy and Marion getting back together; it happens because the script says so, not because the script constructs a series of credible events rendering it inevitable.

Character matters. You can't expect people to become engaged by a film unless those making it believe so.
Of course character matters, but that doesn't mean rich, complex stories are a necessity.

We're already discussing this in another thread so I'll leave it there.

Quote:
It's a great ending, but the one in Raiders encompasses more of what precedes it in the film.
Disagree because of what we're discussing in the other thread.

Quote:
Not much, there isn't. There are events, but not development, and we aren't invited to fill in the gaps in-between.
I've already pointed out what I think the development in the film is. Calling them events and not development doesn't mean much to me.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:14 PM   #60
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Raiders takes its characters seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
I struggle to say 'Raiders' "takes itself seriously"

Is the distinction not clear? Comedies can still take their characters seriously; any kind of storytelling can.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 11:27 PM   #61
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Is the distinction not clear? Comedies can still take their characters seriously; any kind of storytelling can.

Yes, the distinction is whether the creators are seriously asking the viewer to invest in the characters or not.

In Raiders they certainly did. It's especially evident in the bar scene following Marion's supposed death. Some action movies would just gloss over the grief because it's a difficult subject. Instead the 'hero' would just go on a hot-blooded revenge spree.

With Marion's return in KOTCS I didn't get any sense of the deeper relationship. She seemed to be there as a crowd pleaser, and to present Indy with his successor and a twist on TLC's themes of responsibility.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 12:08 AM   #62
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Is the distinction not clear? Comedies can still take their characters seriously; any kind of storytelling can.
Misread, but still kinda the same thing. 'Skull' has a different tone but I don't think they took the characters and their relationships any less seriously. It's more about the tone of the two films that differ in their intensity and lightheartedness.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 12:18 AM   #63
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Misread, but still kinda the same thing. 'Skull' has a different tone but I don't think they took the characters and their relationships any less seriously. It's more about the tone of the two films that differ in their intensity and lightheartedness.

But they're not the same thing. Last Crusade takes a substantial step towards the comedic, but much of the humor is character humor, especially that rooted in Indy and Henry's relationship with each other. That rooting allows their relationship to be treated substantively in moments of comedy, moments of drama, and moments that combine the two. The moment that you rightfully pointed out as excellent in a recent post - the exchange ending in "Indiana? Indiana? Let it go" - is one dependent on groundwork laid by the "Junior" gag throughout the film.

It's the difference between the Ming vase bit, which is specific to these father-son academics with an emotional gulf between them, and Marion's fencing coach bit, which has nothing to do with her but rather could have been applied to any mom character. That's what I mean by calling it a bit based on a type rather than an individual character trait. One is serious comedy, both funny and meaningful. The other is just dumb, and not especially funny.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 02:33 PM   #64
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
But they're not the same thing. Last Crusade takes a substantial step towards the comedic, but much of the humor is character humor, especially that rooted in Indy and Henry's relationship with each other. That rooting allows their relationship to be treated substantively in moments of comedy, moments of drama, and moments that combine the two. The moment that you rightfully pointed out as excellent in a recent post - the exchange ending in "Indiana? Indiana? Let it go" - is one dependent on groundwork laid by the "Junior" gag throughout the film.

It's the difference between the Ming vase bit, which is specific to these father-son academics with an emotional gulf between them, and Marion's fencing coach bit, which has nothing to do with her but rather could have been applied to any mom character. That's what I mean by calling it a bit based on a type rather than an individual character trait. One is serious comedy, both funny and meaningful. The other is just dumb, and not especially funny.
Humor is humor. The fencing bit isn't as funny as the Ming vase bit because it's not as funny and not as clever; no further analyzing is necessary.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 03:00 PM   #65
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Humor is humor.





Not all of it is funny.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 03:09 PM   #66
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Humor is humor. The fencing bit isn't as funny as the Ming vase bit because it's not as funny and not as clever; no further analyzing is necessary.

Way to shut down the conversation...

Do you really think that the fencing gag has anything to do about Marion herself? And that it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a mom now so they now see lame, derivative "every mom is a soccer mom" jokes as suitable?
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 08:01 PM   #67
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Way to shut down the conversation...

Do you really think that the fencing gag has anything to do about Marion herself? And that it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a mom now so they now see lame, derivative "every mom is a soccer mom" jokes as suitable?
I don't think it's much of a topic.

Marion's a mom. She's enthusiastic about her son. I don't see it as inapporopriate.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 08:53 PM   #68
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
...no further analyzing is necessary.

But this is The Raven.

It's where we put the anal into analyzing.

Just for the hell of it.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2012, 03:03 PM   #69
Brooke Logan
IndyFan
 
Brooke Logan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael
Seriously, why wouldn't she?

I'm looking for really good excuses.

It's the main thing that irks me from KOTCS.

It didn't make sense to me and this is one of the things I didn't like about Crystal Skull.

I thought it was out of character for Marion to hide something like that. It seems almost cruel to me, to deny Indy knowing he had a child so Indy never got to partake in any part of his own son's childhood.

Especially because Indy and Marion were almost married and obviously had a very serious relationship.

I could see Willie Scott doing something like that (although I think she too would have too big a heart to hide Indy's own child from him), because she and Indy didn't have the long-term relationship so she might think he wouldn't want the child. Or another woman that he had a short fling with hiding it from him.

But Marion, I just can't see her doing that. To deny a parent the chance to know their child is a very serious wrong imo. Indy isn't perfect but it's not like he's some horrible person that a mother wouldn't want him to know she has their child....
Brooke Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2012, 03:45 PM   #70
I, Don Quixote
IndyFan
 
I, Don Quixote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Evergreen Terrace in Springfield...Illinois? Idaho? Oregon?
Posts: 170
I would of at least told him about Mutt. Whether he chose to come into their lives or not would be his choice. But this was also a time where being a single mother wasn't looked too kindly upon. Marion did what she thought would protect her and Mutt from redicule, and that was to keep him from a man who she felt couldn't be trusted, and became married to Colin. When he died, Ox came in and helped her raise him.
I, Don Quixote is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.