Location: "What was it again? The penitent man will what? Oh No."
Posts: 1,117
When watching Raiders...
Can you picture that Indiana Jones going through what he did in the Temple of Doom, just little less than a year ago.
Can you picture the permanent whiplash scars on his back as he teaches?
Can you picture that Indy being drugged by Lao Che, again by Mola Ram with the Black Sleep of Khali, fighting off Thuggees, riding a Mine Cart and cutting a rope bridge?
Can you picture the Indy in the lecture hall with the Washington Men going through the Temple of Doom?
Can you picture the smiling Indy on the rooftop of Sallah's pad going through the misery at Pankot Palace?
At the end of the day, I honestly can. Even though both movies hold dramatically different tones, I can still picture Jones resting back at home after what happened in Doom. Telling Brody he needed some time off to recover before getting back to teaching. I like to also think it's a bar story for Jones. Hopefully his peers would believe him. He does have the scars to prove it.
What about you? It can be hard, I can see that. Maybe that leads to people disliking it, beyond the other reasons that have been stated numerously on this board.
Maybe it's because I saw Temple first. It seems whichever "Raiders Picture" you see first, seems to be your favorite. Temple is mine. Raiders is better.
But this is just a basic question of seeing the character in Raiders, and believing what he did no less than a year ago in Doom. I know we accept it happened because the 4 movies are the true canon, but can you honestly picture it? If it took place in 1930 would it be easier to believe?
Well one part in "Raiders" at Indiana's house he says to Marcus something like "You know I don't believe in superstition and hocus pocus" but in the previous adventure he said of the shankara stone "Yes, I understand its power now." I guess he forgot!
...can you honestly picture it? If it took place in 1930 would it be easier to believe?
Thoughts?
I think, yes, it would be easier to swallow if ToD was in 1930. Having just watched ToD a couple of days ago, with a fresh memory of it, I think Indy had too much growth left to reach the Raiders Indy in less than a year. Honestly, in ToD, Indy is a bit of a bastard. I mean, except for his apparent affection for Short Round, he cares little for anybody or anything besides himself. He puts on a good front when people are watching, and seeing terrible things gets him going in the immediate. But when it's out of view, most of what he does is all about him.
I think ToD is the crack in his hard shell, and Raiders he seems more like a guy who acts hard, but really isn't. But he's still new to the selfless stuff. Belloq's remarks in the bar cut harshly because Indy knows that Belloq is right... until recently. But I don't see how he could have processed the events of ToD so much in less than a year.
Well one part in "Raiders" at Indiana's house he says to Marcus something like "You know I don't believe in superstition and hocus pocus" but in the previous adventure he said of the shankara stone "Yes, I understand its power now." I guess he forgot!
I've never taken that as a literal statement of Indy's true opinion. We know he has two seaparate lives. Marcus knows his second 'adventuring' life, because Indy brings him artifacts. But I never believed that Indy revealed everything to the people he worked with at Barnett/Marshall. Some things are just too strange to repeat without bringing ridicule upon himself.
Also, by telling Marcus that he didn't believe in "superstition and hocus pocus" he was also putting his friend at ease, by minimising (in Marcus' mind) the danger that potentially lay ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca Jones
I think, yes, it would be easier to swallow if ToD was in 1930. Having just watched ToD a couple of days ago, with a fresh memory of it, I think Indy had too much growth left to reach the Raiders Indy in less than a year. Honestly, in ToD, Indy is a bit of a bastard. I mean, except for his apparent affection for Short Round, he cares little for anybody or anything besides himself. He puts on a good front when people are watching, and seeing terrible things gets him going in the immediate. But when it's out of view, most of what he does is all about him.
I think ToD is the crack in his hard shell, and Raiders he seems more like a guy who acts hard, but really isn't. But he's still new to the selfless stuff. Belloq's remarks in the bar cut harshly because Indy knows that Belloq is right... until recently. But I don't see how he could have processed the events of ToD so much in less than a year.
This is close to my perception of Indy between the two films. Indy has never seemed the classic hero to me, but rather the rogue who will eventually do the right thing. He's motivated foremost by pride and ambition - which is what Belloq saw as their great similarity.
Watching Raiders (1936) with TOD in mind (1935) explains to me why Indy suspected the light trap in the Chachapoyan Temple. It also explains why he's so keen on laying Marcus' fears to rest, because he knows that occult happenings are for real, and the Ark will likely have the dangers associated to it in myth.
All good points, Michael. I never really thought about it before you brought it up, but, honestly, I can't really picture Raiders Indy going through Temple Indy's adventures just a year earlier.
I would think the Temple adventures would make Indy less cavalier, less "making it up as I go along." Not that he'd be skittish, but I think he'd be more cautious and take it all more seriously, if only to avoid getting 30 lashes or being poisoned multiple times. Maybe his strength of character allowed him to recover to a point of being able to face life and death situations with a smirk on his face and scars on his back.
Location: "What was it again? The penitent man will what? Oh No."
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepSixFix
Well one part in "Raiders" at Indiana's house he says to Marcus something like "You know I don't believe in superstition and hocus pocus" but in the previous adventure he said of the shankara stone "Yes, I understand its power now." I guess he forgot!
Montana explained this perfectly. I'll just add that I always found it fun that Indy never really did believe it until he saw it. "Nothing Shorty, it's just a ghost story."
The part in Temple of Doom that I like to think echoes what Indy was in the start of Raiders was the part at the Khali Statue right before Pankot Palace.
Everything about it just screams what the man is capable of doing while trekking through a jungle. He had the ability of what he did in South America in Raiders, in Temple, is all I'm saying.
I'll just add that I always found it fun that Indy never really did believe it until he saw it. "Nothing Shorty, it's just a ghost story."
Interesting, but from the first time I saw TOD, I thought from his intonation that Jones wasn't sure himself and was just placating Short Round with those words.
Location: "What was it again? The penitent man will what? Oh No."
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepSixFix
Interesting, but from the first time I saw TOD, I thought from his intonation that Jones wasn't sure himself and was just placating Short Round with those words.
No I completely agree. I was just trying to use a quote from Doom. But you're absolutely right, he was not sure of everything.
It's also Doom's equivalent to the "hocus pocus" line in Raiders
Crusades "Do you believe the in the Grail" line to Marcus.
And Crystal Skull's "I dunno kid, it's just a legend."
No I completely agree. I was just trying to use a quote from Doom. But you're absolutely right, he was not sure of everything.
It's also Doom's equivalent to the "hocus pocus" line in Raiders
Crusades "Do you believe the in the Grail" line to Marcus.
And Crystal Skull's "I dunno kid, it's just a legend."
I see it more that he's not going to openly commit himself until he's more sure of the facts. As a historian and archaeologist he would have been taught to approach new discoveries with a scientific mind. It's wrong to leap to fantastic conclusions, or to ascribe interpretation to evidence without fully analyzing it. To maintain his air of professionalism, he's compelled to throw cold water on any outlandish ideas. Privately, he's likely already accepting the possibilities.
The other reason that I mentioned, about protecting those who haven't already experienced the occult happenings is similar to the conclusion of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness: The narrator Marlow lies to Kurtz's Intended about Kurtz' last words. He doesn't reveal that the last words were, "The horror! The horror!" Marlow has experienced a strange and alien world which poses danger to a soft European mind-set, content to live within the safe illusory light of civilization; as opposed to the dangerous mind-expanding horror of the dark wilderness.
What Indy does is mimic Marlow's lie. He protects the innocent from the world of the occult, which could threaten to destabilize the world they've come to accept. Like Marlow, they will have to experience the reality for themselves (lest their mind be filled with more illusions).
