Indiana Jones- A Hero Essay

acsgrlie

New member
So, I had an assignment for a greek mythology class to watch a movie and compare to a greek myth. Obviously, I chose Indiana Jones and compared him to the hero myth. Well, here it is :)

A hero has always been a staple in Greek and modern myths. Whether he or she has special superpowers or uses their own cleverness, they’re someone the ordinary man can look up to and admire. Indiana Jones is one of the most popular heroes because he is an ordinary man whose adventures always lead him into situations where he faces unimaginable challenges and terrifying foes. Using only his bravery and knowledge of archaeology he manages to succeed time and time again. Indiana Jones fits into the mold of a mythological hero with some modern qualities as well.

In Greek mythology, and in many folktales, there are certain motifs that often appear in a hero’s tale (Morford & Lenardon, 394). He faces opposition from the beginning and must prove his worth by overcoming challenges. In the beginning of Raiders, Belloq makes Indy the fool by stealing the idol away from him and the rest of the movie Indy is trying to beat Belloq on a race to the Ark while fighting off Nazis and thugs. His enemies instigate his achievement. The villains are usually clearly defined from the beginning, but as we see, the more deceitful they are, the more Indy tries harder to beat them. In Temple, Indy finally frees the children after becoming a member of the occult himself and only when the Nazis injure his father does Indy agree to go get the Holy Grail in Last Crusade. He is helped by an ally. Indy always had a sidekick who proves to be a great asset to him (Sallah, Short Round, and his father). He faces obstacles, labors, or a quest. Each Indiana Jones adventure takes on a quest that is completed by the journey’s end. The Ark of the Covenant, Shankara stone, and Holy Grail are all found and disposed of returned by the time we return to the real world. Conflicts with opponents present him with physical, sexual, and spiritual challenges. Indiana is always faced with physical challenges like jumping from trucks, sword/fist fights, booby traps, etc. Spiritual challenges are most present in Raiders and Last Crusade. In Raiders, Indy fully understands the power of the Ark by the end and the Ark is almost similar to Pandora’ Box with all the death that followed the opening of it. In Last Crusade, Indy had to be truly faithful to God to succeed in the three challenges before finding the Grail. In the last one, he even must make a “leap of faith” into the seemingly deep abyss (Spielberg). Success is rewarded with marriage, wealth, and power. Indy is rewarded for his labors through wealth from the museum and power from admiration by his students and colleagues. He also saves the many villages in his travels but most of his reward is knowledge through suffering and lasting spiritual enlightment. Being an archaeologist, having confirmation that these artifacts actually did exist and certain customs were really done had to have been satisfying. Also, after receiving momentary immortal life, one can expect a feeling of rebirth or purification.

In class, we talked about the qualities we thought any hero ought to have to be considered a hero. Among those were a double identity, absence of parents, bravery, a fatal flaw, and a sidekick (Panagakos 2008). Although Jones’ double identity isn’t as pronounced as Clark Kent or Bruce Banner, for instance, there is a difference between Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. the Professor and Indiana Jones the Archaeologist. Dr. Jones is a soft-spoken, glasses-wearing, tweed-dressing professor who only wishes to go out and discover all the ancient artifacts he teaches about. Indiana Jones is a globetrotter, facing danger at every turn. His whole demeanor changes when he wears the leather jacket, fedora hat, and has a whip and pistol at his side. Dr. Jones is known as his professional name while he prefers Indiana (Spielberg). Although it is not addressed until later in the films, Indiana had no personal relationship with his father. His mother was absent for most of his life, unknown whether she abandoned him or passed away, and his father was obsessed in his own personal quest for the Holy Grail (Spielberg). Consciously or unconsciously, Indy grew into the same obsession his father had with archaeology and followed in his footsteps of becoming a professor.

The one constant in all three films so far, is Indiana’s fear of snakes. Up to this point, this is the only real thing that the character dreads. In Raiders, Indiana voices his fear to his friend, Sallah “Snakes…why’d it have to be snakes?” (Jones). We find out later the reason behind his fear is due to a traumatic train ride in his childhood. Unlike most of the heroes who allow their fear or characteristic become their fatal flaw, Indiana faces his fear for the discovery of the Ark. This goes hand in hand with the bravery he represents multiple times. He’s faced Nazis, cults, tribes, thugs, and always manages to defeat them one way or another. Another main component for any hero is the sidekick as mentioned before. Heracles had one with Iolaus (Morford & Lenardon, 568) and Indiana has many sidekicks throughout his adventures. First, there is Sallah, an Indian digger who aids him in infiltrating the Nazi dig site and ultimately possessing the Ark. Then, the youngest and loudest, Short Round. Indy took on the surrogate father role to Short Round after finding him trying to pick his pocket and they struck up a great partnership. Shorty bought about a new, fatherly, side of Indy that made him feel even more human. Finally, there is his father, Dr. Henry Jones. As I stated before, the two never had a relationship during Indiana’s childhood which left them estranged in later years. They made for an interesting pair with Indy performing his usual feats for his unimpressed father and his father’s unconventional problem solving ways while being introduced to his son’s rather violent, adventurous lifestyle.

Indiana Jones is not the ordinary classic hero. Although he shares some classic mythological qualities, he is also a modern hero. The first of the Indiana Jones’ adventures, Raiders of the Lost Ark, puts a new spin on the classic hero tale. Firstly, the role of the heroine is portrayed almost as the hero’s equal. Marion Ravenwood is headstrong, knows how to take care of herself, and throw a punch. She is presented as in integral part of the story for without her medallion, Indy would have never found the Ark. When put in danger, Marion shows she is very resourceful and attempts her own rescue by bringing back the drinking game that made her a winner in the beginning of the film. Her attempt was unsuccessful but it showed that she could think for herself and do more than other female heroines. Although her motives seem only for financial gain, we learn that she still has passionate feelings for Jones and that is why she repeatedly aids him in his quest. Similar to how Ariadne helped Theseus kill the Minotaur and the help Jason received from Medea in winning the Golden Fleece (Morford & Lenardon, 395). Secondly, Steven Spielberg presented us with a hero that had an ordinary job and lived a relatively normal life. With no superpowers, Indiana Jones became the “blue collar hero”. Perhaps the reason why the character is so beloved is because most people feel they can relate to him on some level since he is from their world. One of the things that make Indiana a great hero is that he relies on his inner strength and knowledge to persevere as opposed to supernatural objects or powers.

Spielberg also incorporates the usual pile of stock characters we see in almost every heroic tale. The wise old man is represented through Marcus Brody, Indy’s wise old mentor at the University and who later joins him on the search for the Holy Grail. Rene Belloq, in Raiders, could be seen as the nice scoundrel. He is very charismatic and uses his charm to try to persuade Marion and the audience almost grows fond of him before he meets his fate. In Temple of Doom, Wu Han is the friend who meets the unfortunate death. The love interest is always a constant in Indy’s life. First represented by Marion, most like his equal. Then by Willie Scott who was the stereotypical damsel-in-distress. Lastly, Elsa Schneider was also the betrayer, coming out as a Nazi after gaining Jones’ trust. The setting also stays true to the classic myth of a hero battling all elements. The environments themselves lead the hero to challenges like Odysseus and Charybdis (Morford & Lenardon, 532) and Indiana Jones and the jungle (Spielberg).

Interestingly, I found that Indiana Jones had a great resemblance to Perseus. After visiting the nymphs, Perseus receives three special objects: a cap of invisibility, a pair of winged sandals, and a wallet or pack (Morford & Lenardon, 548). We recognize Perseus through spotting these objects in Greek art. Similarly, Indiana is recognizable through his fedora hat, whip, and messenger bag. Perseus places the head of Medusa in his pack after killing her (Morford & Lenardon, 556) just as Indy does with the precious Shankara stones in Temple (Spielberg).

In conclusion, Indiana Jones has multiple mythological ties to the original classic myth of the hero. Spielberg created a whole new level of the “action hero” with Raiders and its sequels. While it remains true to the myth, a few modernizations have also been made. Indiana has no real help from supernatural elements and possesses no superpowers of his own. He also does not die in any sense, except for a few close calls. He shares a few qualities of the modern hero but is also unique in that he overcomes his “fatal flaw”. Indiana Jones is one of the greatest fictional heroes of our generation and will forever live on in cinema history.
 
Last edited:

Lao Che Pun

New member
Interesting...but you might want to further clarify how you define Indy as a "blue collar hero" as most people would consider archaeology as a "white collar" profession.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Lao Che Pun said:
Interesting...but you might want to further clarify how you define Indy as a "blue collar hero" as most people would consider archaeology as a "white collar" profession.

True. That's a big part of what distinguishes him from the Rambos of the film scene.
 

Canyon

Well-known member
acsgrlie, great article! (y) I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. :D

Just to clarify, Indy's mom died from scarlet fever when he was 12. Also, the sacred stone is spelt Sankara (even though it is sometimes pronounced with a 'h'). ;)
 

kongisking

Active member
Canyon said:
acsgrlie, great article! (y) I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. :D

Just to clarify, Indy's mom died from scarlet fever when he was 12. Also, the sacred stone is spelt Sankara (even though it is sometimes pronounced with a 'h'). ;)

We're not TRUE fans until we've at least once corrected someone for making tiny little mistakes about our favorite series. Heh, we rock. :hat:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
It's a good essay, but the main thrust of it should have centered about the fact that he is really an antihero. He is a grave robber, displays no particularly obvious morals, is very instinctual, only seems to help people when forced to and can be quite a callous killer.

He is largely interested in gaining the prize - fortune and glory - but never gets to retain even that. He only manages to get out of situations by great effort and luck and by the skin of his teeth.

But all of this is what appeals to us, the audience. He is not lofty in any ideals or morals, he is very human and is driven by a very self-centered interest. As part of being very instinctual, he is very adaptable, from Professor to Adventurer, and the audience loves this juxtaposition or maybe 'contradiction'.

He is not really a blue collar hero, but more so he is an everyman character. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I think an important distinction is that he is an ordinary man who puts himself into extraordinary situations and has to make a heroic effort to get through.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Mickiana said:
...can be quite a callous killer.
In the original trilogy, when was he a "callous" killer? I can only think of instances where his killing was necessary, or at least justified.* I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember a particular instance where he murdered someone. And it's possible that I misunderstand what you mean by "callous."




*I imagine that what I perceive as necessity in this case is pretty debatable, but I would say that in the context of the films, killing is justifiable if the "victim" is someone who attempted to kill Indy first.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
In the original trilogy, when was he a "callous" killer? I can only think of instances where his killing was necessary, or at least justified.* I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember a particular instance where he murdered someone. And it's possible that I misunderstand what you mean by "callous."




*I imagine that what I perceive as necessity in this case is pretty debatable, but I would say that in the context of the films, killing is justifiable if the "victim" is someone who attempted to kill Indy first.

Heroes on TV and film today can be very touchy feely when it comes to killing. Take Sydney Bristow from Alias as an example: she won't kill unless it's unavoidable, even when the bad guys are shooting at her.

However, in ROTLA, Indy wasn't so politically correct. He was more realistic, which was ironic. The Swordsman in Cairo could have been wounded, but Indy killed him, which meant it was safe to turn his back on him and carry on with his mission.

In that regard Indy places his operation above the value of human life.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Any killing requires 'callousness'. Reasons might be called for that justify to some arbitrary degree a particular situation, but the removal of life is part of that instinctual aspect that looms large in the character of Indiana Jones. He is ambitious and he will kill others to get his way. This dark side of human nature is what further appeals to the audience because we can all relate to those feelings.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
WillKill4Food said:
In the original trilogy, when was he a "callous" killer? I can only think of instances where his killing was necessary, or at least justified.* I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember a particular instance where he murdered someone. And it's possible that I misunderstand what you mean by "callous."
[/SIZE]
How about in ROTLA, in the "you-wanna-talk-to-God-let's-go see-him-together" scene when Jones rises from the table and goes for his weapon with the intent to murder Belloq right there on the spot before the children saved him. Wouldn't call it callous, but it wasn't self-defense either, but rather pure alcohol-and despair-fueled revenge for Marion's "death."
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Having not seen much of Alias, I can't comment much on your example of the female lead who
Montana Smith said:
...won't kill unless it's unavoidable, even when the bad guys are shooting at her.
But I still believe that at least most of the instances where Indy kills someone in the movies were life-or-death situations that almost necessitated such harsh actions.
And to be certain, there were definitely times when he made a point of not killing. In Club Obi Wan, Indy mentions that Lao Che's son had attacked him the night before in an attempt to get Nurhaci's remains without a fair bargain. Lao Che's son was "dishonored," but Indy spared his life and left him with only a broken arm. Likewise, (as far as we see in the films) Indy did not kill the Nazi guards whose uniforms he stole. I suppose it could be argued that he had ulterior motives in these cases; Lao Che wouldn't have been willing to do business with a man who killed his son, and a blood-stained uniform would probably attract attention. Still, there are other times in the trilogy where he opted not to kill.
Montana Smith said:
The Swordsman in Cairo could have been wounded, but Indy killed him.
At the risk of being pedantic, you know, the Swordsman might not have been mortally wounded... But yeah, the intent was probably to kill.
Mickiana said:
Any killing requires 'callousness'...
What about mercy-killing? Euthanasia? I assume that in your case, you're talking about "murder," but while killing may require one to be emotionally hardened (or Stoic), I don't think Indy is ever particularly insensitive or cruel in his killing, with perhaps the exception of the Nazi colonel in the Raiders chase scene who Indy angrily throws under the truck.

(As a side note, I do now remember that some of the soldiers in that chase scene were merely thrown out of the truck, which may be fatal in the real world, but in the slapstick comic world of Indiana Jones, I think they could have survived).

Montana Smith said:
Indy places his operation above the value of human life.
Since he often acts to prevent people from getting killed, I really disagree that he places his goals above "the value of human life." I think he just does what he must, to make sure its
Montana Smith said:
...safe to turn his back on [the enemy] and carry on with his mission.
So while I agree that Indy's dark side
Mickiana said:
...appeals to the audience because we can all relate to those feelings.
I'm not sure that it is entirely accurate to say that,
Mickiana said:
He is ambitious and he will kill others to get his way.
That sounds too strong to me. I personally cannot think of an instance where he just wantonly kills somebody. This description seems to me to apply more to Belloq, Toht, or really any of the villains in the series.
DeepSixFix said:
How about in ROTLA, in the "you-wanna-talk-to-God-let's-go see-him-together" scene when Jones rises from the table and goes for his weapon with the intent to murder Belloq right there on the spot before the children saved him.
Well, I'm talking about "callous" killing, so I'll let you answer it yourself...
DeepSixFix said:
Wouldn't call it callous...
Oh, there ya go. He was inebriated and an emotional wreck at that point, and given what Belloq had taken from him, his anger was justified, as he sought
DeepSixFix said:
...revenge for Marion's "death."
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Since he often acts to prevent people from getting killed, I really disagree that he places his goals above "the value of human life." I think he just does what he must...

Isn't that the same thing?

In ROTLA he's able to combine his ambition to recover the Ark with the necessity to prevent greater loss of life or a worse future, assuming that Hitler would use the Ark to win the coming war. (In real history Hitler had set Germany on a war economy so that war was inevitable, or else Germany would collapse. It would be Lebensraum or bust. Therefore we might assume that this real threat is hanging over Indy in 1936).

For Indy killing those that stand in the way of his objective is the lesser evil.

Killing isn't his prime concern, but it is a means to an end. He's not afraid to end life, and shooting to incapacitate doesn't always appear to be his first option. As opposed to some modern 'heroes', Indy is an anti-hero. He doesn't grieve over taking life, he just moves on with his operation.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Ambition and killing often go hand in hand. That doesn't sound too strong to me. Sounds plainly descriptive. "Wantonly" and killing don't go together very well, at least not in this discussion. The treatment of the killing with black humor was a way of softening it for audience appeal, but it was killing nonetheless.
 
Top