Why the tie?

[Adolf Hitler]

I know we are all guilty of over analysing stuff here but PLEASE!! Its only an f'in Tie. I wore a tie at work yesterday today I didn't... Plus...

Wearing a tie in the desert in Cairo or the Jungles of S.America erm no
Wearing a tie in Rural Darkest India... erm no
Wearing a tie in Europe... more than likely.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you. I thought I was limited myself to my incredulity over this thread.

 

[oki9Sedo]

I've talked about this a bit in the past within the context of how Last Crusade very specifically deals in a way even more so than the other two films about the fine line between the civilized and the barbaric. Indy's necktie, and the fact that he engages in an entire action sequence in a suit, are a part of this meditation on chivalry and such, same with it taking place in Europe for much of the time. His father being there has to do with this too.

Okay, on a subtextual level he's wearing a tie because the screenwriter was making a point about the fine line between civilization and barbarism.

But on a literal level, plain and simple, why is he wearing a tie? Because he's going to see his dad? That was the original question.

I'd love to see your answer if someone asked why Indy kicks the German mechanic in the groin in Raiders: "Its all related to Indy's fear of his burgeoning homosexuality. Deep down he knows he is homosexual, and kicking the groin of the bald, buff, shirtless German mechanic, who is secretly attracted to, is an act of denial."

 

[oki9Sedo]

I've seen a few complaints about indys tie in the last cruesade and I don't see what the fuss is all about. I think it's indys best outfit in the entire series. he is a professor and a scholar, is it so unreasonable for his outfit to shed some insight into his character?

I really liked it myself. I love it when they play on a really iconic costume in a sequel. It helps make the films unique. In Temple they played on his costume at the end by having him losing his jacket and a sleeve of his shirt. In Crusade, he had a black tie.

On a side note, I'm surprised he didn't find the tie uncomfortable.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I'd love to see your answer if someone asked why Indy kicks the German mechanic in the groin in Raiders: "Its all related to Indy's fear of his burgeoning homosexuality. Deep down he knows he is homosexual, and kicking the groin of the bald, buff, shirtless German mechanic, who is secretly attracted to, is an act of denial."

Heh.

Seriously, the real subtext of a groin kick (or any phallic mutilation) lies within the metaphorical act of castration. In Freudian thought, the pen*s (phallus) is the sign of power to have a phallus is to dominate--to attack the phallus is to castrate--without a phallus the opponent is no threat (sexually/physically).

That's how that subtext works really...

You joke. But there's more to it than you want to let on.

And I hate the tie. Always hated the tie. Yet another thing I dislike about LC...

 

[oki9Sedo]

Heh.

Seriously, the real subtext of a groin kick (or any phallic mutilation) lies within the metaphorical act of castration. In Freudian thought, the pen*s (phallus) is the sign of power to have a phallus is to dominate--to attack the phallus is to castrate--without a phallus the opponent is no threat (sexually/physically).

That's how that subtext works really...

You joke. But there's more to it than you want to let on.

Very interesting, thats a far more intelligent psychoanalytical dissertation than I could muster. Its 6:00pm on a Friday evening in Ireland and I'm exhausted, I must say.

What do you make of the arm biting then?

And I hate the tie. Always hated the tie. Yet another thing I dislike about LC

Do you not kind of like the way they play on his iconic costume a little bit in each film? Temple had him jacketless and with a sleeve missing for the last half an hour, and Crusade had him wearing a tie.

Also, given that the film revolves around knights and the Holy Grail, Venician libraries and German castles, as well as Indy's strained relationship with his father, wearing a tie seems kind of fitting.

 

[herr gruber]

...

Why are these threads delving into Indy's personal regions? This thread is going on about castration and pen*s psychology and another thread is going on about breasts! I now understand the PG-13 rating association with Indy.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Why are these threads delving into Indy's personal regions? This thread is going on about castration and pen*s psychology and another thread is going on about breasts! I now understand the PG-13 rating association with Indy.

I was just making a friendly jab at Attilla the Professor, thats all.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Very interesting, thats a far more intelligent psychoanalytical dissertation than I could muster. Its 6:00pm on a Friday evening in Ireland and I'm exhausted, I must say.

What do you make of the arm biting then?

Do you not kind of like the way they play on his iconic costume a little bit in each film? Temple had him jacketless and with a sleeve missing for the last half an hour, and Crusade had him wearing a tie.

Also, given that the film revolves around knights and the Holy Grail, Venician libraries and German castles, as well as Indy's strained relationship with his father, wearing a tie seems kind of fitting.

Hmm... arm biting. Not sure--though it's a primal act. Biting is the defense of animals and young children. I'm sure there's something to be said for that.

I really only know precious little of psychoanalysis. I read a few articles from time to time but that's it. I just find it interesting.

As for the costume, yeah I agree it's fitting. But it's fitting for all the things I also dislike about that film.

But you're absolutely right about the variation of the costume. And honestly I think the Temple torn-sleeve is the most iconic of all the costumes. It's certainly my favorite. Its ruggedness always suggests real power somehow. I suppose it's that famous low-angle shot on Harrison after the "all of us" line. It's very ominous and threatening.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Hmm... arm biting. Not sure--though it's a primal act. Biting is the defense of animals and young children. I'm sure there's something to be said for that.

But you're absolutely right about the variation of the costume. And honestly I think the Temple torn-sleeve is the most iconic of all the costumes. It's certainly my favorite. Its ruggedness always suggests real power somehow. I suppose it's that famous low-angle shot on Harrison after the "all of us" line. It's very ominous and threatening.

That scene still gives me goosebumps. John William's score is like emotional masturbation in that whole scene, not to mention Harrison Ford's performance and Spielberg's camerework. It almost gives me a high!

Thats interesting what you said about the tie being fitting, but only because its fitting with all of the bad things about the film. What bad things?

 

[ResidentAlien]

That scene still gives me goosebumps. John William's score is like emotional masturbation in that whole scene, not to mention Harrison Ford's performance and Spielberg's camerework. It almost gives me a high!

Thats interesting what you said about the tie being fitting, but only because its fitting with all of the bad things about the film. What bad things?

Ha. I actually wrote an impromptu essay to my Professor the other day about that very thing. We were discussing sexual subtext in films and someone mentioned Indiana Jones and I got all worked up because I strongly disagreed. So I got back home after class and wrote a long essay describing all that (again, it's based on psychoanalysis as that was the topic of discussion that particular day...). Lemme check my email. If I think it's appropriate to share, I'll post it here. It dealt with all this stuff.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Yeah, it looks alright...




As for Last Crusade, that's been a major point of frustration for me for
sometime. Life-long Indy fan (total geekdom, I admit...), and as a child Last
Crusade was my very first favorite film. Though as a more mature viewer I now
see the film's many flaws. As I mentioned in class, the reliance (and
ultimate degradation) of two prior mentor characters for comic relief is a
prime irritation. I think the film too much abandons its serial roots in
favor of a more family friendly adventure. The filmmakers even admitted
making it for the fans after the failure of (the far superior Temple of Doom).
It comes off as a poor man's clone of Raiders. What I love about Temple is
that like an old-time serial, it's our hero in a different setting, different
dame, all new adventure. Adventure-a-week sort of thing. Last Crusade tries
to create some frustratingly contrived universe where everything makes sense
in a classical way. Indy is given a father and thus loses his independence
and, as we've discussed with Neale's article, his mystery. He's tied too much
with society. Revealing his childhood also perpetuates that mistake. He's
destroyed as a figure of wonder--he loses his menace and becomes (like most
everyone else in the film) a bumbling idiot. One of the most unfortunate
scenes being when he tumbles down the staircase in the castle. And then
there's the scene where he punches Marcus in the face while dodging a shovel
from Col. Vogel. It's cheap comic relief and completely inopportune. I
suppose that's the primary reason why the tank chase while never stack up to
the truck chase and flying wing from Raiders. It's a pale rehash without the
commitment. That's highlighted, I think, by the cheesy way which Marcus
leaves the tank.
The comedy in the other films (though Temple is considerably more goofy) fits
in context with the films. Raiders is a more dry, verbal wit. The exception
though is Willie in Temple (she's utterly unfortunate...).
But yes, I feel in many ways, Connery castrates Indy. Rather than a pure
hero, with a temptation for the darker path, we have a child subservient to
his father. Connery overwhelms not only in context of the character, but also
overall in the film. He negates Indy. The film is Indiana Jones and the Last
Crusade, not Henry Jones Sr. and the Last Crusade.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Ha. I actually wrote an impromptu essay to my Professor the other day about that very thing. We were discussing sexual subtext in films and someone mentioned Indiana Jones and I got all worked up because I strongly disagreed. So I got back home after class and wrote a long essay describing all that (again, it's based on psychoanalysis as that was the topic of discussion that particular day...). Lemme check my email. If I think it's appropriate to share, I'll post it here. It dealt with all this stuff.

Raiders is full of homoerotic moments. None of them intentional obviously, its just a funny way to watch the film.

1. In the opening, Belloq puts his foot up on a rock with his crotch all of two inches from Indy's face.

2. Indy hugs Marcus, flips his head back and does this profoundly gay "Oooooh!" thing when Marcus delivers the great news about the Ark.

3. Don't get me started on the fight with the bald, buff, sweaty, shirtless German mechanic.

 

[sunshinestate1992]

. I think the film too much abandons its serial roots in
favor of a more family friendly adventure. The filmmakers even admitted
making it for the fans after the failure of (the far superior Temple of Doom).
It comes off as a poor man's clone of Raiders. What I love about Temple is
that like an old-time serial, it's our hero in a different setting, different
dame, all new adventure. Adventure-a-week sort of thing. Last Crusade tries
to create some frustratingly contrived universe where everything makes sense
in a classical way. Indy is given a father and thus loses his independence
and, as we've discussed with Neale's article, his mystery. He's tied too much
with society. Revealing his childhood also perpetuates that mistake. He's
destroyed as a figure of wonder--he loses his menace and becomes (like most
everyone else in the film) a bumbling idiot. QUOTE]
Exactlly

 

[oki9Sedo]

Yeah, it looks alright...




As for Last Crusade, that's been a major point of frustration for me for
sometime. Life-long Indy fan (total geekdom, I admit...), and as a child Last
Crusade was my very first favorite film. Though as a more mature viewer I now
see the film's many flaws. As I mentioned in class, the reliance (and
ultimate degradation) of two prior mentor characters for comic relief is a
prime irritation. I think the film too much abandons its serial roots in
favor of a more family friendly adventure. The filmmakers even admitted
making it for the fans after the failure of (the far superior Temple of Doom).
It comes off as a poor man's clone of Raiders. What I love about Temple is
that like an old-time serial, it's our hero in a different setting, different
dame, all new adventure. Adventure-a-week sort of thing. Last Crusade tries
to create some frustratingly contrived universe where everything makes sense
in a classical way. Indy is given a father and thus loses his independence
and, as we've discussed with Neale's article, his mystery. He's tied too much
with society. Revealing his childhood also perpetuates that mistake. He's
destroyed as a figure of wonder--he loses his menace and becomes (like most
everyone else in the film) a bumbling idiot. One of the most unfortunate
scenes being when he tumbles down the staircase in the castle. And then
there's the scene where he punches Marcus in the face while dodging a shovel
from Col. Vogel. It's cheap comic relief and completely inopportune. I
suppose that's the primary reason why the tank chase while never stack up to
the truck chase and flying wing from Raiders. It's a pale rehash without the
commitment. That's highlighted, I think, by the cheesy way which Marcus
leaves the tank.
The comedy in the other films (though Temple is considerably more goofy) fits
in context with the films. Raiders is a more dry, verbal wit. The exception
though is Willie in Temple (she's utterly unfortunate...).
But yes, I feel in many ways, Connery castrates Indy. Rather than a pure
hero, with a temptation for the darker path, we have a child subservient to
his father. Connery overwhelms not only in context of the character, but also
overall in the film. He negates Indy. The film is Indiana Jones and the Last
Crusade, not Henry Jones Sr. and the Last Crusade.

Thats very interesting, and very well put together.

Although, complaining that the presentation of Indy' father to us and makes him less independent and less mysterious is missing the point. Rather, it IS the point.

Part of Last Crusade's humour stems from the fact that the big, badass Indy has a dad who gives out to him and embarrasses him. He's a son who has a father who gives out to him for swearing and laughing at dying Nazis during a motorcycle chase. Have you ever known somebody pretty tough and badass, and then seen them with their parents? They're certainly presented in a different light then. The humour is based around that.

I agree about Marcus being reduced to comic relief being a bad decision, thats for sure. The writer's excuse was that its because he's out of his element- in college he's a respectable, articulate, intelligent scholar, who has sage advice to give on anything and everything, but in an adventure in the desert he becomes a bumbling, senile fool. I don't buy that at all. People like Marcus, when faced with extremely stressful and unprecedented challenges, are level-headed, they don't turn into a parody of Alzheimer's disease.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Thats very interesting, and very well put together.

Although, complaining that the presentation of Indy' father to us and makes him less independent and less mysterious is missing the point. Rather, it IS the point.

Part of Last Crusade's humour stems from the fact that the big, badass Indy has a dad who gives out to him and embarrasses him. He's a son who has a father who gives out to him for swearing and laughing at dying Nazis during a motorcycle chase. Have you ever known somebody pretty tough and badass, and then seen them with their parents? They're certainly presented in a different light then. The humour is based around that.

I agree about Marcus being reduced to comic relief being a bad decision, thats for sure. The writer's excuse was that its because he's out of his element- in college he's a respectable, articulate, intelligent scholar, who has sage advice to give on anything and everything, but in an adventure in the desert he becomes a bumbling, senile fool. I don't buy that at all. People like Marcus, when faced with extremely stressful and unprecedented challenges, are level-headed, they don't turn into a parody of Alzheimer's disease.

Sure, but my complaint is at what point does he cease to be a hero and instead become a pale shadow? I think he's hardly more than a shadow in LC--he's become entirely eclipsed. It's a shame.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Sure, but my complaint is at what point does he cease to be a hero and instead become a pale shadow? I think he's hardly more than a shadow in LC--he's become entirely eclipsed. It's a shame.

He does all his action hero stuff in Crusade, during the punch-up with Panama Hat's goons in the prologue, the motorcycle chase, speedboat chase, dogfight, tank chase etc. Its definitely less striking than it was in Raiders and Temple of Doom since he has been reduced to a son who gets given out to by his dad rather than the tough, independent hero in those films though.

 

[Gear]

He had a different tie in the Venice scenes, and he took all the clothes off after the fight at the docks.

Oh yeah, come to think of it your right. Well, then I agree with the suggestion that Indy wore it because he was meeting his father; who camanded lots of respect. Plus, Indy's pretty scruffy: dirty, old Fadora, a bull whip with a half unbuttoned shirt and a... well put through leather jacket, but of coarse dont forget Indys stuble AND his father already did'nt like his... methods of archeology. Indy was trying to "clean himself up" for his dad.

 

[herr gruber]

...

As I've mentioned before, if his father wants a 'clean looking' son, what sort of example is he setting him since he himself has a beard!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Indy were to emulate his dad he would look like he does in YIJC.

 

[oki9Sedo]

As I've mentioned before, if his father wants a 'clean looking' son, what sort of example is he setting him since he himself has a beard!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Indy were to emulate his dad he would look like he does in YIJC.

A clean, proper-looking beard, not a scruffy one.

 

[herr gruber]

...

Oki9sedo, Connery's beard would have been scruffy initially. He had to grow it to perfect it. Indy could also go through the 'scruffy phase' and end up just like daddy. I can't believe the pettiness of this!