Indy's brother said:
Since when is the world of Indiana Jones "reality"? Sure it's based in reality, but a reality which only serves as a starting point to tell a story. For the purposes of ROTLA and LC, there have to be protagonists and antagonists. The German soldiers were the right arm of the antagonists.
Oh come now. These films are not meant to show all the intricacies of human nature, or the moral dilemmas of german soldiers getting caught up in the hype of National Socialism thereby becoming pawns in Hitler's chess game of world domination. All that's needed is a basic understanding that these soldiers are being used as a weapon by the larger evil element of these stories. To postulate their individual plights when not a single one of these soldiers was painted in more than one dimension is to misunderstand their role in these tales. This is pulp fiction, not historical drama.
As per many of my other posts in other threads, I firmly view the world of Indy as existing in a parallel universe - Indy's world is not ours. That much is evidenced by the Raven in Nepal (an impossibility in our world), the Germans in Egypt (most unlikely under British eyes); the weapons and vehicles existing before their date of invention and production etc.
Yet, within Indy's 'other' world there are elements that we are meant to recognize, and therefore trigger our emotions. If we are to discuss Indy's morality in detail, then are we not also to discuss the nature of the protagonists?
On one hand it is a pulp film, full of anachronism, inaccuracy, and unreality. Yet on the other, ROTLA has the power to inspire us to write in great detail at places such as this. There are things worth discussing in this film, and its successors.
Indy's brother said:
For WWII buffs, yes, I agree with you. Of course in the eyes of a child, there is no difference.
I believe in education, and it can't start too young. ROTLA is a film that is remarkable for its grey areas, it has stood the test of time because, in part, it avoided the simplicity of black and white issues. Hence our discussing the character of Indy himself.
I can now easily overlook all the anachronisms, and even the impossible escapes, because they are taking place in a world that isn't ours.
Indy's brother said:
He's not flawed enough to walk one foot in the villain role and the other in the hero role (my understanding of "anti-hero") I think he is flawed enough to make him realistic, no more no less. I can see a valid argument for the anti-hero mantle, but I think that is an interpretation for the individual viewer to make, not necessarily a truth about his character. Maybe I'm old fashoined, simple, stubborn, or just still locked in the impression I got from indy when I was first introduced to him at the age of 10. He seemed like a full-fledged hero to me then, and didn't influence me to do anything amoral in his name since.
By "anti-hero", my definition of the term is as written in the Wikipedia page of the same term:
"In fiction, an antihero...is generally considered to be a protagonist whose character is at least in some regards conspicuously contrary to that of the archetypal hero, and is in some instances its antithesis."
Indy doesn't always set out to do things for heroic reasons. but rather for personal gain or glory ("fortune and glory"). He isn't an archetypal hero. In
Temple of Doom he doesn't immediately agree to help the village, but is finally persuaded when the Indian boy falls into his arms. In KOTCS he's still inclined to grave-robbing, and is only shamed by his son into returning the dagger to it's rightful owner.
Children will not necessarily see these intricacies, and see only the hero. Yet, adults will be more inclined to spot the points where Indy's character diverges from that of the traditional hero. In one sense that makes him suitable for family viewing, as it's possible to view him from different perpectives.
To me, he will always be a rogue. In heroic terms I'd place him closer to a Homeric hero - such as Achilles or Odysseus, who are at times morally ambiguous, as opposed to a saviour of mankind such as Flash Gordon.