A discussion of the "Character" of Indiana Jones...............(double meaning), Yes indeed, a subject close to my own heart.
Is Indiana Jones' character defined only by the movies, or by the novels, or by.............well, by something more???????
Did either do him justice??
What was Lucas' true, original idea? .....or does that even matter??? Did Lucas just let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak? And did the character of Indiana Jones just kind of develop on his own????
I kind of think so.
Of course, a prerequisite to understanding Indiana Jones is an understanding of the timeframe of the 1930's. And an understanding of the original movie and print serials of that time.
Jones is an inheritantly GOOD person......but he is nonetheless a passionate man, and not immune to the temptations of the flesh. He is both Heroic and Human..................yes maybe that's it, he is both Heroic, and yet Human.
Perhaps that is why he is so popular.
Don't we all want to be both Heroic, and human (well, we can't escape the latter can we? But can we all be the former????)
Indiana Jones has to be defined by the movies, he is a man of action, probably best compared to the hero of the old west. He is a man of few words, so he is defined by his acions. Indy only does what is "right" but seldom sets out to do them for the right reasons (saving children in ToD when he is out to seek a cash reward, seeking the ark to be well paid, and ensure him as the worlds most famous arch.
Indy is different from the old west heros since he will ask for help, his trusted friends, mentors, hell even children had to save him ("Better than the U.S. Marines").
He acts with out thinking, and pays the price when he is wrong, but can back it up both mentally and phycically.
Basiclly Indy is what every guy really wants to be, without any real tragic flaws. I don't think George or Steven ever set to create this charcter, which I see as a combination of the (original 1920's Hardy Boys, James Bond, Insp. Jacques Clouseau, and Shane (with a little bit of Eastwood's Man with no name thrown in.) I am sure there are hundreds of other characters also.
The real question, can anyone else besides Ford ever play Indy?
Each movie is terriffic. They are all different, otherwise they would all be the same movie. A few nit-picks:
1: The woman in ToD screams too much, and some might not like Short Round.
1: The ending of RotLA was'nt quite up to the rest of the movie.
1: LC had less edginess to it at times. When he said "rats", I knew what I was to see next.
“We have always done the same kind of work. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am a shadowy reflection of you. But it would have take only a nudge to make you the same as me, to push you out of the light.”
Rene Belloq’s assessment of Jones from Raiders has always fascinated me, in part because of Belloq’s accuracy. Prefacing these words with a statement about how he and Jones share the same “religion”, archaeology, but have fallen from the true faith through their unorthodox and occasionally questionable methods, Belloq’s words come uncomfortably close to the truth about Indiana. Dr. Jones is driven in his quest for archaeological treasures and is willing to cut scientific corners, work with questionable persons (Lao Che, Barranca) and even resort to violence in order to obtain the valuables he seeks. Jones could easily cross the line, and become a mercenary like Belloq, but for the strength of his individual, unspoken code of honor. Jones will never cooperate with the furtherance of evil (the nazis), acts to defend the lives of innocents (the children in ToD), and even tries to save the life an enemy that betrayed him (Elsa Schneider). Jones certainly skirts the line between good and evil, but his internal loyalties always keep him on the side of light. It’s this duality, this inherent goodness shadowed by a hunger for treasure and a willingness to occasionally let the ends justify the means, that makes Indy the enduringly interesting character that he is. He’s far from perfect and can be swayed by dark passions, but ultimately can be relied on to do what is right. Personally, I prefer this kind of hero, as opposed to the unbelievable champion of good that is never tempted by darkness and never chooses a questionable path.
true, in way way, yet i have the impression that this statement from belloq is too "evil" and therefore sounds a little unrealistic. it makes belloq look like a disney monster saying "I'm so eeeevil". i had preferred a little less self-critical and exaggerated statement. but the general thought is a nice idea, also because it makes jones more interesting. he isn't the clean guy that will always obey the law and be nice to anyone. the whole scene is very well done indeed.
Ummm, I'm thinking paden just sumed up what I said a few posts ago. I still have to stand by, Raiders is the best movies ever made, period end of story, but ToD is the most important for Indy's chacter devlopment.
Did someone really say, they are all different, un nevermind . . .
“We have always done the same kind of work. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am a shadowy reflection of you. But it would have take only a nudge to make you the same as me, to push you out of the light.”
Rene Belloq’s assessment of Jones from Raiders has always fascinated me, in part because of Belloq’s accuracy. Prefacing these words with a statement about how he and Jones share the same “religion”, archaeology, but have fallen from the true faith through their unorthodox and occasionally questionable methods, Belloq’s words come uncomfortably close to the truth about Indiana. Dr. Jones is driven in his quest for archaeological treasures and is willing to cut scientific corners, work with questionable persons (Lao Che, Barranca) and even resort to violence in order to obtain the valuables he seeks. Jones could easily cross the line, and become a mercenary like Belloq, but for the strength of his individual, unspoken code of honor. Jones will never cooperate with the furtherance of evil (the nazis), acts to defend the lives of innocents (the children in ToD), and even tries to save the life an enemy that betrayed him (Elsa Schneider). Jones certainly skirts the line between good and evil, but his internal loyalties always keep him on the side of light. It’s this duality, this inherent goodness shadowed by a hunger for treasure and a willingness to occasionally let the ends justify the means, that makes Indy the enduringly interesting character that he is. He’s far from perfect and can be swayed by dark passions, but ultimately can be relied on to do what is right. Personally, I prefer this kind of hero, as opposed to the unbelievable champion of good that is never tempted by darkness and never chooses a questionable path.
I agree for the most part.
For me, Indy isn't an archaeologist, really. He's screwed up so many sites and isn't very good at preserving these things and even sells artifacts to people on the black market.
I think he's best described as the Govt. official described him.
1.) Raiders of the Lost Ark
2.) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
3.) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4.) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
These movies suck! From fans, Willie, cartoon Nazis...
Oh, not that kind of ranking...sorry.
I guess you can read any kind of tone into the written word if you want to.
Raiders is the best, unconditionally...but if Willie were in it, hmmm.
The most work and care went into Raiders as evidenced by (among many other things)the content of TheComplete Making of Indiana Jones.
Everything else is mined from this film and pales in comparison.
ToD is next, simply because it brought Indy back...even if it was a Jerry Lewis movie at times.
Last Crusade, while going back to familiar conventions, invested heavily in Indy's family, and was simply a fun bright movie which gave us another follow up to Raiders.
Crystal Skull mined Raiders like no other before it. Skull brought us back locations, characters but most important, Indy and John Williams.
Okay seriously, call the film by name and don't be a weiner by refering it as "the other one". The film has a name and act mature enough to call it by it.
We get it, you don't like it, no biggie. Just don't be an ass about it. All I'm saying.
Okay seriously, call the film by name and don't be a weiner by refering it as "the other one". The film has a name and act mature enough to call it by it.
We get it, you don't like it, no biggie. Just don't be an ass about it. All I'm saying.
'The other one' is how I shall refer to it. What's it got to do with you? Freedom of speech. Look it up.
Okay seriously, call the film by name and don't be a weiner by refering it as "the other one". The film has a name and act mature enough to call it by it. We get it, you don't like it, no biggie. Just don't be an ass about it. All I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Mac
'The other one' is how I shall refer to it. What's it got to do with you? Freedom of speech. Look it up. All I'm saying.
Wow, thanks DMac, I think I've adopted new phrase for Kingdom of the Red Headed Step Child.
Don't back down to Johnny Storm, but how can you like Temple over Raiders? Did you see that one first?!?
