Elsa's Death

Would You Have Liked the Movie More if Elsa Had Lived?


  • Total voters
    69

Niteshade007

New member
Since so many would save Elsa if they could save any character from an Indiana Jones film, I was curious to see how people felt about her death and how it affected the movie. So, the question I ask is: Would you have liked the movie better if Elsa had lived?
 

Niteshade007

New member
Attila the Professor said:
She had to die...the Indy films allow some moral ambiguity, especially throughout the film, but by the end...she couldn't have lived.

True, but also by the end, she seems to be genuinely against what the Nazis are doing. She even helps get rid of Donovan (if you choose to look at it as a purposeful trick as opposed to accidental pick). Her undoing is wanting the grail as a prize. Something to take home with her. That doesn't necessarily make her a bad person. She views the people she works with as cruel, as is made fairly obvious when Donovan shoots Henry Sr. I believe she even tries to move towards Henry, but Donovan stops her (I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've watched the movie). Of course, the same could be said of Belloq. He doesn't like that the Nazi's threw Marion into the pit with Indy, but also, he was fine with Indy being in there. I don't think Elsa ever really wanted someone to get hurt (with the exception of the bad guy Donovan, whether this is for personal gain or a moral decision is debatable). She just wanted her prize and wanted to go home.
 

U.S.Raider

New member
Niteshade007 said:
She just wanted her prize and wanted to go home.
I agree with that. She wasn't all in all a horredous person but her falling to her doom really set up the next sequence with Indy in the same position as her. I wouldn't have minded if she lived but I think it's better that she didn't. Besides, she didn't have a horse to ride off into the sunset with. ;)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Niteshade007 said:
She just wanted her prize and wanted to go home.

Just so. Your points are well-taken, but even if she was not consciously wanting to cruel. Never mind that she is emotionally manipulative, entirely apart from what do appear to be some genuine (and warped) feelings for Indy. As Henry says, "Elsa never really believed in the Grail; she thought she'd found the prize." If we accept the faith part of the narrative, and for the moment, I shall, then her lack of genuine belief in what the Grail stands for religiously is what does not allow her to see the true meaning of the "eternal life" the Grail conveys. If we do not accept the faith portion of this, and look at a more secular notion of redemption, we can argue that despite Elsa's concern about Henry being shot and her assistance in the death of Donovan (which I stand with you in believing), her motives are not pure, and that even if there is a way to make up for her siding with the Nazis and appearing with Hitler on the highest level, what she does doesn't approach that.
 

Kingsley

Member
Greed killed her... she (almost) got the grail in one hand, and Indy in the other. And she choose... poorly.

She didn't deserve to die (In my opinion Death is beyond deserving), but it's better so. If some people think LC is "light", things like these speak against that.
 

Indy's Fist

New member
I think her death was very important to the heart of the story. If Indy saved Elsa then Indy's father wouldn't have needed to save him. This part of the movie shows that Indy is not motivated by greed. It also establishes what Indy is willing to do to help his father realize his life's dream. In a moment Henry Jones Sr. proves his love to his son. He calls his son by his adapted name and then in an unspoken way tells Indy, "I love you more than that cup, more than anything." It's very moving and quite inspirational, even for a popcorn flick!;)
 

U.S.Raider

New member
Attila the Professor said:
her motives are not pure, and that even if there is a way to make up for her siding with the Nazis and appearing with Hitler on the highest level, what she does doesn't approach that.
hmmm... point well taken.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
She had to die...the Indy films allow some moral ambiguity, especially throughout the film, but by the end...she couldn't have lived.

Attila the Professor said:
Just so. Your points are well-taken, but even if she was not consciously wanting to cruel. Never mind that she is emotionally manipulative, entirely apart from what do appear to be some genuine (and warped) feelings for Indy. As Henry says, "Elsa never really believed in the Grail; she thought she'd found the prize." If we accept the faith part of the narrative, and for the moment, I shall, then her lack of genuine belief in what the Grail stands for religiously is what does not allow her to see the true meaning of the "eternal life" the Grail conveys. If we do not accept the faith portion of this, and look at a more secular notion of redemption, we can argue that despite Elsa's concern about Henry being shot and her assistance in the death of Donovan (which I stand with you in believing), her motives are not pure, and that even if there is a way to make up for her siding with the Nazis and appearing with Hitler on the highest level, what she does doesn't approach that.

Am I reading your posts correctly...that people who aren't morally superior deserve to die? Hopefully this attitude is limited to characters in films.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
HovitosKing said:
Am I reading your posts correctly...that people who aren't morally superior deserve to die? Hopefully this attitude is limited to characters in films.

Well, I would probably, much else being equal, that if someone has to die, I'd rather have the morally inferior of the two (however that might be defined) be the one to die.

With that said, I think it's clear enough that this is a literary question, not one of pure real-world ethics. It wouldn't be in keeping with the rest of the film, or the world established for the previous two films in the series, were Elsa to live. She had redeeming qualities, to be sure, but when you're dealing with a morality play, which is one of the things Last Crusade is, then <I>some</I> redeeming qualities aren't enough. Nothing is condemned as extensively in the Indiana Jones universe as greed and grandiosity.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Well, I would probably, much else being equal, that if someone has to die, I'd rather have the morally inferior of the two (however that might be defined) be the one to die.

Yeah, I see yer point there. Still, it's painful to watch poor Elsie falling into the misty abyss.
 

IndySeven

New member
Elsa's death was a huge mistake. The idea of the leading lady dying at the end just doesn't seem right in an Indiana Jones movie. Keeping her alive would've made the movie a whole lot better.(y)
 

kongisking

Active member
Split decision here:

On one hand, I would have liked to see Elsa have a redemptive moment and choose the right side (think of Mirage in The Incredibles, good example), thus giving a bit of moral triumph to the movie, as well as a nice message that the world isn't always in black and white; there can be redemption for the wicked.

But, I also find myself agreeing with Indy's Fist's observation that Elsa's death was a critical character moment in the film, and had to happen in order to allow the "Let it go..." scene. The reason why Last Crusade is my sentimental favorite is because of that very scene; Indy's sacrifice as well as Henry's discovery is the most powerful and heartstring-pulling scene in an adventure film to date (although I shed plenty of tears for POTC), and the best moment in the entire trilogy. I still get very choked up when Henry says "indiana" for the first time, John Williams emotionally-winning music in the background, and it's the look on Indy's face which brings out the tears in me. Like Spielberg said on the DVD, "it's scenes like that which made this movie worth making."

So, I guess my final decision would be that Elsa's death was for the benefit of the film, and that she had to die in order to allow Indy and Henry's connecting moment. Even though it would have been nice to see Elsa see the error of her ways, in the end her death was absolutely necessary and provided the motivation for the most touching scene in the t(Quad)rilogy. And that's that. :hat:
 

Niteshade007

New member
I'm one of the few I guess that would have hoped for a moral redemption type scene. I think one of the many reasons I dislike Last Crusade is because it ends on such a low note. I find it hard to find the whole "let it go..." part particularly moving because I'm still like "did that just happen? They killed the Indy girl?" Also, the ridiculousness of Indy watching someone die trying to grab the cup, and then thinking he could grab the cup is just a little too ridiculous for me. It's like watching someone jump in front of a car, thinking to yourself "Damn, that was stupid," and then jumping in front of a car immediately afterward. As I have pointed out, Elsa wasn't a truly bad character. She had flaws, but which character didn't?
 

Matinee Idyll

New member
Attila the Professor said:
her motives are not pure, and that even if there is a way to make up for her siding with the Nazis and appearing with Hitler on the highest level, what she does doesn't approach that.

See the German film "Mephisto" for even more moral ambiguities regarding "siding with the Nazis". Amazing film Prof, you'd dig it.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Matinee Idyll said:
See the German film "Mephisto" for even more moral ambiguities regarding "siding with the Nazis". Amazing film Prof, you'd dig it.

Well, the title sounds appropriate enough...all right, I'll look into it.
 

nezobiwan

New member
Niteshade007 said:
Also, the ridiculousness of Indy watching someone die trying to grab the cup, and then thinking he could grab the cup is just a little too ridiculous for me. It's like watching someone jump in front of a car, thinking to yourself "Damn, that was stupid," and then jumping in front of a car immediately afterward.

I don't find it as ridiculous as you do for one simple reason....

IT'S THE HOLY &^$*#$ GRAIL!

Most morality plays have a 'holy grail' in them--something that stands for what the hero is pursuing--in the case of Indy 3, the holy grail is ACTUALLY the reconnection with his father. Elsa sees the holy grail as THE HOLY GRAIL and she's too shallow to realize that it isn't as important as having someone who loves you. Indiana Jones, because he's our hero, also has flaws and momentarily sees the illusion of the Grail. Just like Elsa, he thinks that the cup is the most important artifact in the world (this is his egotistical archaeologist side). His ability to overcome this desire for the material is what makes him a better person than Elsa and thus more deserving to live. (Do I really have to make a case for Indy to live? Haha)

Why it isn't like "jumping in front of a car after seeing someone else jump in front of a car" is because you never know what someone is thinking--why they are acting so stupidly--until you are in their position. After Elsa falls, Indy gets to see Elsa's point of view and he thinks, "Well now I can see why she wanted this so bad--I can touch it: all I have to do is grab it! My arms are longer, so it'll be easier for me--I'm not going to fall!"
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Also, apart from the analogy being a more imperfect one than most, in that the man who jumps in front of the car doesn't do so as a result of other factors, as Indy does when the earth he's on collapses. There's just a problem of initial agency, is all.

Related to the problem of the analogy is that Indy probably has some reason to think he'll be able to get it, since he has experience in hanging from things and what not. Apart from that, he's seeking his father's validation, as if he gets the Grail he would probably expect his father to drop all of his animosity and, perhaps, be a father now that his obsession has been fulfilled. It takes Henry doing just that in the act of the naming and of the "let it go" to show Indy that the Grail has no meaning any longer.
 

Niteshade007

New member
I'll admit that the analogy wasn't a perfect one, but I still fail to see how the situation in and of itself isn't ridiculous. If one were to witness the death of someone, and then immediately afterwards repeat the actions that led up to that fate, it makes the repeater's actions seem more than just a little stupid. Yes, it's the holy grail, but when someone is that close to death (especially after watching someone die in the exact same way) things like gaining your father's approval don't really seem like it would be that important.

Perhaps I'm looking at it too simply. From my point of view, meaning someone who has not been put in that sort of situation, it comes across as rather stupid. Way more ignorant even then Elsa, because she didn't quite realize that it would lead to her demise. Indy has actually witnessed someone's death as a result of reaching for the grail, and then repeats the same actions. Isn't that the definition of insanity? Repeating the same actions expecting different results.
 
Top