First I want to say, IT'S GREAT TO BE BACK! I hope you've all had wonderful things happen in your lives while the Raven was closed. But now, the door is open again (it squeaks terribly, doesn't it? I'll have to let Marion know...), I have my drink in my hand, and my gun is nestled cosily in my handbag, not far from my reach should any Sherpas and their funny potholder-looking hats attempt to get cheeky.
Anyhoo, I'd like your comments. At the end of the classroom scene in Raiders, a perturbed looking student stalks past Indy and smacks an apple by his desk. Can you taste the sarcasm there, folks? Why do you think he did that? I'll tell my theory after you all tell me yours. I want to see how close I am in theory.
I have to wonder if it may have something to do with the fact that all the girls in the class seem to have a crush on Indy. Maybe this guy felt he needed to suck up a little in order to get noticed. Especially with all the ladies in class trying to get Indy's attention. The guy doesn't seem to happy when he storms out of the class.
Originally posted by Marcus Petrius It also characterises they guy who gives Jones the apple as the teachers pet. Just consider the way he looks and the fact that he's one of the few guys in there.
My opinion at least.
I'd go along with Mike on this one. I think the student felt like a bit of a dork giving the apple -- but for whatever reason, the student felt compelled to go foward and give the apple anyway, presumably either to curry favor or to show respect to a great teacher.
The 'apple' issue was discussed recently but for whatever reason I couldn't find it using the 'search' function (am I the only one having problems using the search function?). I think the cliche notion of giving an apple to a teacher is linked mostly with the younger gradeschool environment and not college. I take the apple as just another instance of the writer/director trying to demonstrate Professor Jones' popularity.
I too like the fact that Marcus pockets the apple and what it infers.
I'm most likely reading too much into it -- but I think Marcus casually inspecting the apple and then pocketing it has significance on three levels: (i) first it infers that Marcus may be a bit of a scoundrel himself (as dicussed several months ago), (ii) second, it infers an old, close relationship between Marcus and Jones, and (iii) third, as a control issue -- it enforces Marcus as being 'senior' to Indy -- he takes Indy's apple.
There's a lot of give and take between Indy and Marcus in the classroom scene: Indy giving Marcus the small artifacts, plans for dinner and Indy's honorarium, and the negotiation for the money for the flight to Marrakesh (sp?). This back-and-forth continues in the Musgrove/Eaton meeting (they finish each others sentences) and in Indy's house: Indy opening the door, giving Marcus the drink, Marcus updating on the negotiation that he had with the government on behalf of the Museum and Indy and Marcus giving Indy advice. All this back-and-forth quickly and effectively establishes the relationship. The audience is being served up with a lot of information in these two scenes and that information is served up in a very digestable manner because of these details. It is this sort of non-verbal exposition that makes Raiders a superior film.
Last edited by Joe Brody : 06-09-2004 at 09:33 AM.
Originally posted by LASTCRUSADER I have to wonder if it may have something to do with the fact that all the girls in the class seem to have a crush on Indy. Maybe this guy felt he needed to suck up a little in order to get noticed. Especially with all the ladies in class trying to get Indy's attention. The guy doesn't seem to happy when he storms out of the class.
That's what I always figured. Or he does hope to improve his grade. Or he is just a dork. A really big dork.
I like the stuff you guys pointed out about Marcus and Indy's relationship. It's funny how you can take what seems like such an insignificant scene and analyze it that much. Provides new takes on the films that are always fun to read
Originally posted by Indyologist Anyhoo, I'd like your comments. At the end of the classroom scene in Raiders, a perturbed looking student stalks past Indy and smacks an apple by his desk. Can you taste the sarcasm there, folks? Why do you think he did that? I'll tell my theory after you all tell me yours. I want to see how close I am in theory.
COME ON! Every indy-ologist should know this one:
It's was very deep and subtle forshadowing for IJ-IV. The student in RotLA was actually working on a dig in present day Turkey with Abner Ravenwoods first wife.
Apparently the Garden of Eden has recently been found, and while under utter secrecy, this student was able to not only penetrate the dig, but was able to steal the forbidden fruit (resulting in Brody's demise, that will shown in the fourth film.)
Originally posted by Matthias1138 I like the stuff you guys pointed out about Marcus and Indy's relationship. It's funny how you can take what seems like such an insignificant scene and analyze it that much. Provides new takes on the films that are always fun to read
I wasn't, as you can see. I was actually trying to slow down these über-speculants. Somehow I find it a little unbelieveable that Spielberg had THIS much in mind when shooting the scene.
Go easy Finn, I was hardly making grandoise assumptions that rise to the level of "über-speculation" (although, "über-speculant" is a lable I would readily self-apply). The only assumption that was a bit of a stretch is that the apple snatching evidences scoundrel-like tendancies.
I'm also not saying that the supposed genius-that-is-Spielberg cooked up all the details summarized in my post above. For all I know, Elliot ad-libbed the apple snatch. But what I do know is that the three scenes (the classroom, the Eaton/Musgrove meeting, and the 'careful fellow' scene) contain A LOT of exposition. And I'd argue that the exposition (verbal and non) in those three scenes is executed as good as it's ever been in an action film (compare the ham-handed village scenes in ToD). One of the things that makes the scenes effective is that there is so much movement in these scenes dominated by dialogue (Brody pocketing the apple, Indy turning over the chalkboard, Indy tossing his S&W. I don't care who thought of all the movement, but this movement is not accidental -- it's an established trick to keep the viewer engaged. And I think wordless gestures like the apple-snatch get bonus points when they help to define a character (like Indy turning the chalk board visibly demonstrates his passion for the subject). Bottom line, film-making is a collaborative process and some combination of the writer/director/actors/creator/cinematographers/set designers/etc. made something that worked and worked exceptionally well.
Last edited by Joe Brody : 06-09-2004 at 02:20 PM.
Originally posted by Finn I wasn't, as you can see. I was actually trying to slow down these über-speculants. Somehow I find it a little unbelieveable that Spielberg had THIS much in mind when shooting the scene.
I guess I was referring to Joe and no, Spielberg didn't mean for all of this talk about such stuff when he shot it, he probably just though it looked good
Sigh... picky picky. Anyway, when I said "Spielberg", one should have understood that I meant all the people working with that scene, e.g. did Denholm Elliott think: "Now if I take this apple, it presents this biggest explanation to the deep relationship between Indy and Marcus" or "I'll put this apple in my pocket, let's give the audience the dibs go 'hey' abd say 'That bastard stole Indy's apple!'..."
Despite the fact these little touches can be seen as major symbols of the relations between two characters, I still like to think more down-to-earth and find simpler (and thus more likable) reasons why they were there... of course, if you ever run to a really boasting, bigwig movie maker (not meaning that GL, SS, HF or whoever working with the Indylore would be like this) and ask him was this there because of this, he can easily say "Yes, exactly" even if there was a way simpler explanation.
I'm not saying these are 'major' symbols. I'm just saying that these small actions have meaning and were given concsious thought by someone as a means to help fill the frame, keep the viewer engaged, and, hopefully, shed a little light on the characters.
Can you watch those three scenes and take all of the movement in those scenes and discount it to the 'simplest' explanation possible?