No Noir For You. . . .

[Joe Brody]

So far it's sunshine and Soviets. Things aren't exactly going to plan, are they?

Reminisce, rant, critique.

 

[Attila the Professor]

Yeah, well, it might still turn out ok, perhaps even good, but I'm not sure I ever really expected it to be worthwhile. Wish I had more to say than that, but - this is exactly what could have been expected. I'm going to go in with an open mind and hope for the best, but - it will never even approach what we want or what would actually justify its existence.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

If the spoilers are correct regarding the MacGuffin, I'm worried. Really worried.

I've always wanted this movie to happen because I wanted to see Indy again. It never would be good enough to live up to all these years of hype, and I'm still going to be there on opening day excited as all hell to see it, and it's still waaaaaaaay too early to cast judgment on anything involved in the production (like in the "Complacency" thread), but I will admit to not being as enthused as I was on June 18th.

But hell....we all might still have a smile on our faces when Thanksgiving rolls around and we see that trailer....

 

[Echo22]

Having not read the spoiler thread, I don't catch your drift. Curious what the original expectation was. I figured the Russians would be involved and that the locations would be sunny......still unclear what the big let down is.

 

[Finn]

No need to panic... all we have is rumors. And it's more a rule than anything that some rumors usually tend to be pretty wacky amd worrysome.

 

[Dene]

The vibe I'm getting from this thread is that if those rumours are true, that's a bad thing?

It's how the film is presented that's the important thing surely, and in any case what's wrong with the Maguffin?

 

[Deadlock]

Ah, Joe, you read my mind.

(It's like we've been exchanging PMs on the subject already... )

As Finn has said, all we have is rumors and some leaked photos. Enough to declare that all is lost? Not quite. But...

...More than enough to rant upon!

I'm concerned about "Summer Lovin'" Indy IV for a few reasons.

1. Evil Empire du Jour: We all know that Indy has faced off against the Nazis twice now... and that in the absence of Nazis, Commies are the next best thing. Honestly, Indy doesn't need endless legions of thugs to mow through (except in the video games), a single truck-full is usually enough at any one time. As has oft been said, what made the villains worthwhile in Raiders was the very personal rivalry with Belloq and the serial evilness of Toht. An Evil Empire is unnecessary. Now, are the Soviets as the antagonists a forgone conclusion? No. We have some protesters and some military vehicles... I sincerely hope it's just for some 1950s color (red).

2. Short Round is dead, long live Short Round: Since it's pretty obvious that Shia's not going to be a younger Indy in a flashback (which I thought might be appropiate if Abner returns), I declare him "Short Round Part Deux". Son or not... doesn't matter. Though Die Hard sucessfully teamed up an aging McClane with a younger foil, does Indy need to do this too (again)? With the previous precedent, the pompodour, and the possibility of 1950s slang... I'm uneasy.

3. No noir: Besides my personal taste for Indy as a darker, more mercenary character (which I believe Raiders Indy to be), I think a noirish rendition would have been appropos considering the setting. 1930s = serial. 1950s = noir. (If only Yale had been shot at night... in the rain... )

 

[Echo22]

I have enough faith in Spielberg and Ford to keep this from becoming something too far out of reach of the original three. Lucas also to an extent. His only problem has been the overflow of CG effects and green screen in the SW prequels. We now know, to some extent, that that won't be a major ingredient in Indy 4. The cast is excellent, so far. John Williams is on board again. They're filming in Hawaii - so the film will look the part. I can't see that there's much to really worry about. And many of the rumors that we've been either hearing or ignoring are just that - rumors. I would have so much fun with the internet if I were Spielberg. I'd be going crazy with false info to throw everyone off the scent - because it's just so easy. But let's face it - we've had monkey spies, ghosts, voodoo dolls, seven hundred year old knights. Some of the stuff going around about the next installment will fit right in - if at all accurate.
I'm still optimistic.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Ah, Joe, you read my mind.

(It's like we've been exchanging PMs on the subject already... )

As Finn has said, all we have is rumors and some leaked photos. Enough to declare that all is lost? Not quite. But...

...More than enough to rant upon!

I'm concerned about "Summer Lovin'" Indy IV for a few reasons.

1. Evil Empire du Jour: We all know that Indy has faced off against the Nazis twice now... and that in the absence of Nazis, Commies are the next best thing. Honestly, Indy doesn't need endless legions of thugs to mow through (except in the video games), a single truck-full is usually enough at any one time. As has oft been said, what made the villains worthwhile in Raiders was the very personal rivalry with Belloq and the serial evilness of Toht. An Evil Empire is unnecessary. Now, are the Soviets as the antagonists a forgone conclusion? No. We have some protesters and some military vehicles... I sincerely hope it's just for some 1950s color (red).

2. Short Round is dead, long live Short Round: Since it's pretty obvious that Shia's not going to be a younger Indy in a flashback (which I thought might be appropiate if Abner returns), I declare him "Short Round Part Deux". Son or not... doesn't matter. Though Die Hard sucessfully teamed up an aging McClane with a younger foil, does Indy need to do this too (again)? With the previous precedent, the pompodour, and the possibility of 1950s slang... I'm uneasy.

3. No noir: Besides my personal taste for Indy as a darker, more mercenary character (which I believe Raiders Indy to be), I think a noirish rendition would have been appropos considering the setting. 1930s = serial. 1950s = noir. (If only Yale had been shot at night... in the rain... )

1. We don't even know if the Soviets are even in this, and if they are, they might not play that big a role anyway.

2. I'm a little worried about him too.

3. I don't think noir is appropriate for an Indiana Jones film.

 

[Zorg]

Even if all the rumours turned out to be true, I wouldn't be worried. We have all the most important parts in place: Ford, Spielberg, Williams. We have a lot of talent involved in every part of the film, writing, cinematography, set design... I don't see any reasons to panic. They're putting all the effort and love into this production, which it deserves. The result will be good. Of course it won't mach hopes for a noir Indy film, which to me seems first of all unrealistic and not at all suitable for Indy.

Indy is a hero from the light side. Shooting the Yale sceenes in the dark and rain would make it feel like Batman Begins. Would you really like to see something like that? They wouldn't be true to the spirit of Indy if they did that. Doom is as dark as Indy with all probability will ever get, and to the most of the fans that is the way to go.

 

[deckard24]

It's most likely Ford's Bogartesque air about him that would make one wish to see Indy in a more noir setting. I for one would love to, but I agree I don't know how appropriate it would be. Deadlock you hit the nail on the head with the "mercenary" description for the Raiders Indy. I always saw Indy as a darker character like Bogart's Dobbs from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, just not completely gone to the darkside. This grittier, self absorbed, obsessive Indy was prevalent for ToD, but seemed to disappear by the time LC rolled around. I just watched LC recently and as usual I was entertained and enjoyed the hell out of it, but it was so lighthearted that it felt at times almost like a spoof on Indy and the series.

I still have great faith in Spielberg but I am a little suspicious of the plot and where they might go with it. Labeouf doesn't bother me at all anymore, and in fact I've actually come to like the guy in the movies I've seen him in and interviews. I guess my one hope for IJ4 is that it has its laughs like they all did, but not as the corner stone for which the movie rests. I don't want Space Cowboys Indy with old guy jokes left and right, and borderline cartoonish bad guys. Yes, RotLA and ToD had over the top villains, but there was a little bit of reality thrown in and they felt like serials from the 30's. Like I said LC almost felt like a parody(with great characters like Sallah and Marcus thrown in for comic relief), so I really hope Spielberg looks back to what made Raiders a success not just to his personal favorite Last Crusade. We know he can balance comedy, suspense, drama, romance, and action, but he can go off course at times ie. Hook.

 

[Zorg]

I can understand your worries very well, deckard. And I'm confident Spielberg & co. have enough good taste not to go (too far) with the Indy getting old joke. It seems the point to make this film is to show what Indy is like when he's older, not to laugh at him getting old. Indy is the love child of these people (okay, that sounds wrong but don't take it like that , and they will treat him with respect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any fun at his expense.

A noir Indy could be interesting to see somewhere, sometime, but not in a major Hollywood film. Exploring that side of Indy should remain the job of fan art and fan fiction writers.

 

[oki9Sedo]

It's most likely Ford's Bogartesque air about him that would make one wish to see Indy in a more noir setting. I for one would love to, but I agree I don't know how appropriate it would be. Deadlock you hit the nail on the head with the "mercenary" description for the Raiders Indy. I always saw Indy as a darker character like Bogart's Dobbs from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, just not completely gone to the darkside. This grittier, self absorbed, obsessive Indy was prevalent for ToD, but seemed to disappear by the time LC rolled around. I just watched LC recently and as usual I was entertained and enjoyed the hell out of it, but it was so lighthearted that it felt at times almost like a spoof on Indy and the series.

I still have great faith in Spielberg but I am a little suspicious of the plot and where they might go with it. Labeouf doesn't bother me at all anymore, and in fact I've actually come to like the guy in the movies I've seen him in and interviews. I guess my one hope for IJ4 is that it has its laughs like they all did, but not as the corner stone for which the movie rests. I don't want Space Cowboys Indy with old guy jokes left and right, and borderline cartoonish bad guys. Yes, RotLA and ToD had over the top villains, but there was a little bit of reality thrown in and they felt like serials from the 30's. Like I said LC almost felt like a parody(with great characters like Sallah and Marcus thrown in for comic relief), so I really hope Spielberg looks back to what made Raiders a success not just to his personal favorite Last Crusade. We know he can balance comedy, suspense, drama, romance, and action, but he can go off course at times ie. Hook.

Temple of Doom Indy is totally different to Raiders Indy. He might be more of a selfish rogue in Temple of Doom , but he's much more light-hearted and friendly. He's always bantering in that movie, whereas in Raiders he's virtually humourless. And before anyone says what about "Snakes" or "making this up as I go" lines, yes, those are funny, but Indy isn't trying to be funny when he says them.

 

[Indy1986]

we can speculate as much as we want but in the end it will turn out diferent anyway
i think no judgement before may is appropriate

 

[NileQT87]

they were making jokes about harrison's age, i think, way back in the last crusade.

"that belongs in a museum!" "so do you!"

though, that sounds an awful lot like a line from raiders where belloq tells indy about burying the watch in a desert for a thousand years and it becomes priceless, and then saying the same about indy.

ditto with "it's not the years, honey. it's the mileage."

indy has always had a lot of age jokes. if they keep them somewhat in that milieu... i don't think it will be too bad.

 

[Joe Brody]

[...]It's how the film is presented that's the important thing surely[...]?

[...]We have a lot of talent involved in every part of the film, writing, cinematography, set design... I don't see any reasons to panic. They're putting all the effort and love into this production, which it deserves. The result will be good. Of course it won't mach hopes for a noir Indy film, which to me seems first of all unrealistic and not at all suitable for Indy.

Indy is a hero from the light side. Shooting the Yale sceenes in the dark and rain would make it feel like Batman Begins. Would you really like to see something like that? They wouldn't be true to the spirit of Indy if they did that. [...]

Who said 'panic'? The proper contrast in setting and tone for the fourth film from Last Crusade has gotten a lot of analysis here at the Raven over the years. The Indy IV production is proving to be as leaky as the Bantu Wind, and given the images seen thus far, I don't think anyone here is sitting at their keyboard wetting their pants. In the Complacency? thread I confess to being concerned simply because -- as you point out -- there is a lot of talent involved, just as there was a lot of talent involved in Last Crusade. The problem is that Last Crusade turned out to just be a really good (read: 'not great') film largely for the reasons discussed in the Complacency Thread. To bastardize Deadlock's observations, what we know about the Indy IV production thus far is that it smacks a good deal of the look & feel of Last Crusade -- with the very suspect side-kick angle thrown in.

As for Indy being a hero from the "light side", watch Raiders again and let's talk (and let's just hope that General Greivous doesn't make a cameo in Indy IV). Deckard24 gets it:

[..] Th[e] grittier, self absorbed, obsessive Indy was prevalent for ToD, but seemed to disappear by the time LC rolled around. I just watched LC recently and as usual I was entertained and enjoyed the hell out of it, but it was so lighthearted that it felt at times almost like a spoof on Indy and the series.

That's it -- Last Crusade was lighthearted, and while enjoyable, we don't want a retread. I'm sure the powers-that-be are smart enough to know that. But Indiana Jones riding piggyback on a sunny Yale campus is enough to give us all a moment's pause. . .

But let's face it - we've had monkey spies, ghosts, voodoo dolls, seven hundred year old knights.

Good point. I can take a lot . . . but I draw the line well short of aliens (and for the record, chilled monkey brains was over the line).

For a really good discussion, I'd love to have someone posit exactly why a noir-ish tone is not appropriate (for any reason) for Indy IV instead of just stating an unsupported conclusion.

 

[Finn]

I think that what we see from the pictures now don't tell us everything about the film's theming. When I think 'noir' and 'Indy' together, I don't see dark, rain and trench coats, but something more in relation to Unforgiven, which despite carrying a lot of bright shots, is very dark and gritty film with a mixed bag of undertones.

It begins with sort of a happy ending where the (anti)hero has redeemed himself but yet is dragged back into his former lifestyle one more time. Now, I don't think they're looking for even closely as serious presentation here, but the way they're going to treat this whole age aspect can't be told from the pictures.

If this new adventure is "just another day in the office" for our favorite adventurer, then there's another Crusade to be expected. But if instead this is a story about semi-retired man dragged back into his old profession, a relic of times gone by fighting an enemy he doesn't want to fight and being given constant slaps in the face by the presence of youth and vitality of Shia LaBeouf's character, we may be in again for a wholly different Indy experience after all.

 

[Dene]

The Indy IV production is proving to be as leaky as the Bantu Wind, and given the images seen thus far, I don't think anyone here is sitting at their keyboard wetting their pants.

Don't know what you're talking about. I'm excited as hell.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this will adopt the same tone as Last Crusade. FWIW I too think that film was overly jokey, but the silly humour in it wouldn't sit well with today's audiences anyhow. Don't forget that Moore-era Bond was only a few years old at the time of its production -- but it's over two decades ago now.

I'm not getting drawn into this too much. I have no warning bells whatsoever about Indy 4 and have absolutely loved seeing the pictures of the production these past few weeks.

One thing that really thrilled me was seeing the taxicabs on location -- it reminded me that this film is set pretty much at the same time as North By Northwest. Now if that's the kind of fun we're in for (and it's not so ridiculous a comparison), bring it on Mr Spielberg!

 

[Deadlock]

If this new adventure is "just another day in the office" for our favorite adventurer, then there's another Crusade to be expected. But if instead this is a story about semi-retired man dragged back into his old profession, a relic of times gone by fighting an enemy he doesn't want to fight and being given constant slaps in the face by the presence of youth and vitality of Shia LaBeouf's character, we may be in again for a wholly different Indy experience after all.

Good post.

The sunny backdrop doesn't mean the themes have to be as sunny. I hope you're right.

The reason that I was favoring a traditional noir approach (yes, even to the extent of trenchcoats and "dark and stormy nights") goes something like this... The previous movies were set in the 1930s and we're meant to be (in the way they written and shot) similar to the films that came out of that era: adventure serials. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but either the behind the scenes DVD or the excellent articles here (or here, or here) at TR.N go into detail.

However, as the last article I linked to noted, Indy does break the serial mold in several capacities. One of the most critical is the fact that he is neither invincible nor the epitome of virtue.

I can't say it better than Michael French, so I'll just quote the article...

After Marion seemingly dies in a truck explosion in Cairo, Indy is seen sitting at a small table with a shot glass and a half-empty bottle of whiskey. This scene hints at a facet of Indy's character that Spielberg wanted to explore, but Lucas and Ford underplayed. Spielberg suggested that Indy should have an alcohol problem, much like Humphrey Bogart's character in Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The classic serial hero never had a problem with chemical abuse or women.

...

The relationship between Indiana Jones and Renee Belloq, the French archaeologist working for the Nazis, is not comparable to Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless. In Raiders, Belloq and Indiana have a discussion in Cairo in which Belloq shows Indy just how alike the two of them are. Both are very loose archaeologists, more easily defined as grave robbers than intellectual professors. Through Indy's obsession with finding artifacts for museums, Lucas hoped to legitimize Indy's grave robbing tendencies. Of the Ark, the focus of obsession for the two men, Belloq says, "Men will kill for it. Men like you and me." This is an honest statement, for both Indiana and Belloq kill throughout the film in their attempts to take possession of the Ark. Belloq kills through the Nazis under his temporary command and Indy kills with his Webley. This is a reference to the serial western where the lone cowboy stands against a whole slew of Indians or Mexican bandits.

In Raiders, the lines between cowboy and bandit are not so clearly drawn. The Lone Ranger never sat down with the evil Mexican bandit to hash out their similarities. The Lone Ranger was never looked upon as anything but pure good. Within the tense conversation, Belloq makes the observation to Indy, "Our methods do not differ as much as you pretend. Archaeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the purer faith." This complex relationship between the hero and the villain further sets Raiders apart from the typical serial.

I think that these "deviations" from the classic serial formula actually take Raiders more towards noir than anything else.

So, now with Indy IV being set in the 1950s, why not follow the approach of Raiders? Why not have the look and feel of the picture be influenced by the films of the era that movie is set in???

That's right... FILM NOIR.

Doing so would revive the themes that made Raiders the best and provide added protection from being another retread.

 

[Finn]

So, now with Indy IV being set in the 1950s, why not follow the approach of Raiders? Why not have the look and feel of the picture be influenced by the films of the era that movie is set in???

That's right... FILM NOIR.

This argument is a two-edged sword. Yes, it would follow those thematical footsteps that it mimicks the key fiction genre of the decade it's set in, but on the other hand it wouldn't handle too well with what's been established with the character of Indiana Jones.

Rain, darkness, trenchcoats... you can't make an adventure film with them. No, you'd have to make a detective story.

Only - he is an archaeologist, not a private dick. I can see the theory, yes, that instead of being an adventurer per se, he is more like a character who portrays the themes of whatever decade he's set in. But unfortunately he's now too connected to those 30s adventure serials to be nothing else. They should probably have made one ten years ago, set in the 40s where he fights in World War II to make the transition to 50s clear for all.

Should they do that 50s story now, many people would simply leave the theater wondering what the hell they just saw.

The way they can convincingly turn this into something different is to handle it with the "passing era" theme, as presented mostly in some westerns. Think beforementioned Unforgiven, think Butch and Kid, think Wild Bunch. Only this time, we're not looking for the last frontier, but the one last relic that's to be found using the old school method.