Did Mac let go or just lose his grip on the whip?
- Thread starter pete33
- Start date
Darth Vile
New member
pete33 said:
That's the shame of the whole Mac arc for me. The whole movie was setting Mac up to finally do the right thing then... WTF? Spielberg should have showed Indy gripping on for dear life to save his friend, at the expense of his own safety (which never comes across in the movie). Spielberg should have had Mac cut the whip with a knife, as a self sacrifice, to ensure his best mate didn't follow suit. A shame that one because I like the character of Mac and I like Ray Winstone's performance.
Indy's brother
New member
Seems to me that the scene was intended to be reminiscent of Elsa's demise in LC. Another character (though better written) with dual allegiances. Elsa's choice was more obvious....erm, obviously. With this in mind, I prefer think this was a conscious choice on Mac's part. After quickly realizing that his goose was cooked and that he would only take Indy with him if he continued to hold on. Finally a chance at redemption with his old friend. With the temple collapsing, he could no longer ally himself with Spalko, anyway, making his choice in the matter that much simpler. Much like Elsa siding with Indy at the moment of truth, for totally different reasons, I believe Mac's character was also intended to come around to Indy. The Mac/Elsa greed in their respective films' climaxes (Mac stuffing his pockets/Elsa attempting to cross the great seal) are another moment that these character's arcs seemingly mirror each other.
So I'm going with intentional here, regardless of how murky or ham-fisted the scene was presented in the final film. Since I haven't read The Complete Making of, or the novelization, perhaps some insight could be gained by a Ravener with these sources.
For now I leave you with this excerpt from the final shooting script, that seems to give credence to my theory of the film's intent:
Of course, none of this is to say that the original intention of this scene wasn't altered on the fly, or in editing.
So I'm going with intentional here, regardless of how murky or ham-fisted the scene was presented in the final film. Since I haven't read The Complete Making of, or the novelization, perhaps some insight could be gained by a Ravener with these sources.
For now I leave you with this excerpt from the final shooting script, that seems to give credence to my theory of the film's intent:
Of course, none of this is to say that the original intention of this scene wasn't altered on the fly, or in editing.
IndyBr said:
It's also the only interpretation, at least in a "Did he let go or didn't he?" binary, that makes any kind of sense. He wouldn't offer a resigned "Jonesy, I'm gonna be all right" if he planned on making it out of there. He let go.
I fail to see what's confusing about a character for which the whole point is his inability to decide upon a moral stance and a side to fight for deciding to sacrifice himself for his mate in the end. Indeed, it's the only conceivably satisfying ending for the character.
None of which is to say that it couldn't have been executed better.
Last edited:
pete33 said:
He was weighed down, was the notion.
But I'm not talking about what was physically possible for him, although I'd strongly contend that it was set up such that the pull from the saucer (originally meant to be simply a portal...which <I>does</I> make it seem somewhat less probable) was enough to destroy the temple complex. That means it's definitely enough to pull Mac in as well.
The bigger point is that the only truly satisfying conclusion for the character was one in which his longtime friendship to Indy ultimately wins out in the sort of act of self-sacrifice we saw in the film. Mac's loyalties are clearly mixed throughout the film, but his regard for Indy is apparent throughout, especially in the scene in the tent. It's a perfectly sensible character note.
Montana Smith
Active member
pete33 said:
He chose to sacrifice himself because he knew he'd been a very naughty boy.
In the end he paid the price for his gambling addiction, just as Elsa paid the price for her obsession to the Grail.
What else do you do with an awkward character who crosses the line in a simple tale?
He was in it for the money, and all his paymasters were already gone. Eventual return to civilization would have had nothing pleasant waiting for him.Montana Smith said:
It was not a redeeming act in any sense, but still one of the few that did make sense when you think about it.
Of course, they could have executed a few things better with that scene. As with the movie as a whole, even though I still maintain the overall stance it wasn't that bad.
The intention of the scene got seriously muddled by some awkward editing/staging choices. Mac utters his "I'm gonna be alright" line at an earlier moment than makes sense, and the key moment where it's clear that Indy is in danger and Mac doesn't want to cause his friend to get taken with him is conspicuously absent. Mac simply flies away, screaming in terror as he does so. It's too ambiguous in a bad way.
Spielberg's re-envisioning of the portal (from an encroaching sinkhole) combined with the decision to cross-cut the scene with Spalko's demise probably contributed to this.
Spielberg's re-envisioning of the portal (from an encroaching sinkhole) combined with the decision to cross-cut the scene with Spalko's demise probably contributed to this.
Last edited:
Montana Smith
Active member
Lao_Che said:
That is the answer.
Mac chooses to no longer put Indy at risk, and earns himself something of a redemption in the process.
As Finn said, Mac had nothing to go back to. In my words he'd become "an awkward character". Since the Indy tales aren't deep psychological analyses it would be difficult having Mac rattling around Indy's orbit in the future. So a final, decisive end was required.
replican't
Guest
I think Ray Winstone took one look around him, realised the pub was open and thought "sod this for a game of soldiers".
