Indiana Jones V

[Seb Lucas]

I consider Raiders to be close to a masterpiece and maybe, along with Jaws, one of Spielberg's most perfect contributions to cinema. I am not a fan of Spielberg's allegedly serious movies. I agree with the critic Pauline Kael that they are always marred by sentimentality and overstatement.

Unfortunately Raiders is the only Indy I like. I am happy for Disney to start again with new actors (no Ford impersonators please) but they need to bring back some class.

In Raiders Spielberg managed to build an improbable story that was almost believable, with a surprising and admittedly ridiculous supernatural climax that nevertheless packed a punch. Raiders made hyperbole look real. That takes talent. The following films had a far less assured touch and felt hokey and derivative. You could almost believe that Joe Dante had directed the later Indy films.

With the schmaltzy Last Crusade it already felt like Disney had taken over. The slapstick, young Indy circus train opening (pure Disney) the sentimental and banal introduction of Indy's dad (another Disney touch) and finally an almost complete lack of creativity in the appropriation of yet another trope from the Judaeo/Christian tradition - the Holy Grail.

I didn't hate Indy 4 as much as I hated Last Crusade, but I still wish they hadn't made it.

If they can limit the CGI, do some old-school stunts and build a script that doesn't read like it was composed by a semi-literate fanboy, it should be possible to produce a new Indy film with new talent. I think Indy is bigger than Ford, as Indy 4 proved. Raiders will always survive no matter what comes afterwards.

 

[Edward]

Crystal Skull was set in 1957 and it's barely nine years old. Not that it would be that much better, but they could easily set this one in the mid- to late-1960s and not many would notice Ford has aged 12 years (assuming they stick to the 2020 release date). But if they did that, my concern would be that they wouldn't be able to resist including the war in Vietnam, the counter culture, the race to the moon, or any number of "hot button" issues from the late-60s in the story somehow.

It just doesn't sit right with me. Unlike many, I enjoyed what they tried to do with pastiching 50s sci fi in Crystal Skull. To take it into the sixties, I think you'd have to change so much it just wouldn't work.

 

[Zombie_61]

It just doesn't sit right with me. Unlike many, I enjoyed what they tried to do with pastiching 50s sci fi in Crystal Skull. To take it into the sixties, I think you'd have to change so much it just wouldn't work.

I don't disagree, but if Ford will be "playing the role of Indy in a proper manner" they'll have to do some makeup or CG trickery to make Ford look younger (neither of which is ever really convincing for long periods of time on screen), involve some form of time travel, or move the story into the late-60s or 70s. I think the character works best when the story is set in the 30s or 40s, but that tramp steamer has sailed until they re-cast the role with a younger actor.

 

[Edward]

The logical option to me seems to use Ford as a bookending device to introduce another actor playing a younger Indy. Then the new guy can sell the next film alone. Sort of like what they were rumoured to be doing with Mutt before Laboeuf had his funny turn.

 

[GHT]

The logical option to me seems to use Ford as a bookending device to introduce another actor playing a younger Indy. Then the new guy can sell the next film alone. Sort of like what they were rumoured to be doing with Mutt before Laboeuf had his funny turn.

That scenario worked very well with the TV series: 'Morse.' Following the death of John Thaw and the 'retirement' of Lewis, the program was reworked in an earlier period and called: 'Endeavour.'

 

[Seb Lucas]

GHT is right but we are being a bit too concrete about this. There have been many incarnation of Bond, Batman, Superman, Dick Tracy, Flash Gordon, Spiderman, Sherlock Holmes, The Saint, etc, etc. Why not more portrayals of Indy? I'd just settle for a vital script and an inventive MacGuffin, with all schmaltz on hold. I don't care if it's set in 1930 or 1945 or stars 'Joe the Construction Worker' as long as it bloody works.

 

[Edward]

That scenario worked very well with the TV series: 'Morse.' Following the death of John Thaw and the 'retirement' of Lewis, the program was reworked in an earlier period and called: 'Endeavour.'

I remember that; it's been done with other things too. And, of course, there was the Young Indy tv series as well. Technically, Ford is only one of four actors who have played Indiana Jones (two playing young Indy at various ages in the TV show, and River Phoenix as Young Indy in Last Crusade), so it's not completely unthinkable. Of course, unless they do Indy as a child or very young adult, it would be much more of a direct comparison I think. That said, my preference would still be to see them do that - have someone else playing the same character within the same continuity - rather than trying to totally rework it as something else.

GHT is right but we are being a bit too concrete about this. There have been many incarnation of Bond, Batman, Superman, Dick Tracy, Flash Gordon, Spiderman, Sherlock Holmes, The Saint, etc, etc. Why not more portrayals of Indy? I'd just settle for a vital script and an inventive MacGuffin, with all schmaltz on hold. I don't care if it's set in 1930 or 1945 or stars 'Joe the Construction Worker' as long as it bloody works.

True, though most reinventions of these things come and go fairly quickly. Given the strength of Indiana Jones in popular culture, and the long duration of the franchise - we're not talking about something once popular that is being revived. Nor are we talking about something where the time period doesn't matter - thus Bond is always contemporary, superheroes are reinvented anew for each generation, and such. The period setting for Indy is core - it's not like you can just plop him into the modern era and make it work (well, you can try, but while National Treasure was fun.....). I think it's something that could have done much easier in 1992, say, rather than now. Imagine if they'd finished with Bond when Connery left, and those films were as iconic now as they still are: how much harder would it be to make a redux now? Sometimes, of course, some reimaginings can work well (I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters). Others.... Steve Martin as Clouseau? Well, it was better than him as Bilko.... neither really worked, which was not the actor's fault.

In any case, it's going to happen: Disney were never going to spend that sort of money and let the property lie dormant. Personally, though, I'd rather see them work around the established films than doing something completely different - more Force Awakens than Star Trek, if that makes sense (though I liked both of those). I do wonder whether - as mentioned above - Lucas will have some clauses in the contract which affects this, in the same way as supposedly he was able to restrict them from making a Star Wars film that crossed paths with the same timeline points as his films. For me, the big Indy story that is still to be told is his WW2 period as a spy, and how he became decorated. I think there could be some fun to be had with Indy getting into the European war ahead of the US's official entry, during it, and the immediate aftermath, all connected with the Nazis fascination with the occult and search for key artefacts.

We'll see in a few years' time, I suppose...

 

[Edward]

Here's a thought, though: how would *you* reimagine Indy's look, given a chance? Would you? Would you take away his gun, or the whip, or the fedora? Or reimagine the bag?

The one detail I think I would look to change would be the jacket: I'd switch it up for an Aero Royale, in goat, with a tan A2 type cotton lining. Subtle difference, but a more period-correct look to my eye. Keep the rest.... Maybe, gunwise, I'd give him a broom-handled Mauser (it's sort of a shame they didn't do that originally, as it would have been an amusing cross-reference, given Han Solo's blaster was a converted bh Mauser, though obviously a lot of it will have been planned to echo the equipment in the material that inspired Indy, plus Ford wasn't the original choice), and possibly an early Brady Bag in place of the gasmask bag.

Anyone else have thoughts on what they'd do?

 

[Seb Lucas]

I think they need to re-imagine the whole thing. New guy, new costume. And they definitely need to replace that 1980's leather jacket and its droopy shoulders with a period jacket, not some plastic designer thing by Matchless. A half-belt, an A1 or something like the Aero Royale.

As a quick survey at work I asked a group of staff members under 30 what they thought of Indiana Jones films. Of 12 people only 4 had seen an Indy film on TV: Raiders and LC. No one had seen the last film.

 

[MikeKardec]

In Raiders Spielberg managed to build an improbable story that was almost believable, with a surprising and admittedly ridiculous supernatural climax that nevertheless packed a punch. Raiders made hyperbole look real.

The key to everything: The audience only wants to know what happens next. Raiders was magnificent at putting us in this space. A lot of films trip themselves up by thinking too much and trying to answer unanswered questions ... ESPECIALLY sequels!

The period setting for Indy is core - it's not like you can just plop him into the modern era and make it work (well, you can try, but while National Treasure was fun.....).

Possibly the best and quickest off the mark Indy rip off was Romancing the Stone. It worked well because it was so much of its own animal. It really caught a lot of the energy of Raiders ... if you're going to take advantage of a trend, do it intelligently. In the end, however, Raiders didn't launch much of a trend. Big splash, only a few ripples. Some of that may have been because of the Young Indy series, though I've only met a few people who had much patience for it.

Period is critical for Indy because it was the last era when the world was "open" to the common man ... I think that requires colonialism, lax border controls, the last unexplored places. You'd think that would make those times a moment of extreme "white privilege" and they were but it was also remarkable how many others, as long as they could put on the mask of certain classes could get around. By the time WWII was over the world was so paranoid and conscious of "others" it was getting impossible. Before the war you'd still have spies who actually spied rather than just being the embassy guy who hired local traitors. That combined with the world beginning to fall apart in the preamble to WWII utterly make the perfect Raiders environment.

It's also best to keep the stories small. Raiders actually set the bar too high for sequels. Was God going to make another appearance? You need to work your way up to that sort of stuff and then STOP. Like Star Wars it was a great one-off that struggled to become a franchise. Yet the first one was so good it provided enough wattage to keep the lights on long enough to hit icon status.

Steve Martin as Clouseau?

What a mistake THAT was. It seemed obvious from SPACE that if you absolutely had to recreate Clouseau, Kevin Klein is an excellent choice as the Inspector and Martin is the better Dreyfus. Wacky!

 

[Edward]

It does show how crucial casting the right actor - as opposed to a good actor - is. No doubting Martin's talent, but he just wasn't the right man for that particular job.

It will be interesting seeing, I think, what someone else might do with Indy. You can see what Ford brought to his big roles when you know the other people who were offered it first: Tom Selleck couldn't get out of Magnum. Christopher Walken reportedly turned down Han Solo first. They'd both have been extremely different characters with those guys in the role - especially Walken!

I think they need to re-imagine the whole thing. New guy, new costume. And they definitely need to replace that 1980's leather jacket and its droopy shoulders with a period jacket, not some plastic designer thing by Matchless. A half-belt, an A1 or something like the Aero Royale.

This is, of course where look an practicality have to compromise. The original plan was an A2, but partly they wanted a less military look, and partly they realised that the waistband knit would be a problem for the whip.

I'm kind of expecting we'll see little change from the signature Jones get up, as part of a ploy to get the audience to accept a different actor....

As a quick survey at work I asked a group of staff members under 30 what they thought of Indiana Jones films. Of 12 people only 4 had seen an Indy film on TV: Raiders and LC. No one had seen the last film.

....though granted, this had never occurred to me. I first encountered Indy with Temple when I was ten; it is plausible Disney will remake it as a kiddy flick, aiming for a very different audience than the original. I can see how that would work better for them than doing what Lucas tried to do with Star Wars, which was make the prequels kiddy films, but the storyline aimed at an audience who were familiar with the originals. Of course, that's only one reason they turned out so awful.

 

[Seb Lucas]

If you were 15 when Raiders came out you would be in your early 50's now. It's ages ago. Reagan, The Cold War, VHS video, Muhammad Ali retired that year.

 

[Edward]

If you were 15 when Raiders came out you would be in your early 50's now. It's ages ago. Reagan, The Cold War, VHS video, Muhammad Ali retired that year.

Ha. Yeah. I was six, I think, when Raiders arrived and I've been culturally irrelevant for Hollywood purposes for at least a decade now.

 

[MikeKardec]

You can see what Ford brought to his big roles when you know the other people who were offered it first: Tom Selleck couldn't get out of Magnum. Christopher Walken reportedly turned down Han Solo first. They'd both have been extremely different characters with those guys in the role - especially Walken!

Those two guys perfectly triangulate Ford. Selleck would have been to straight and wimpy (I don't mean physically but in those days, as opposed to now, he had more of an "aw shucks," the light comedy personna), Walken had the sleeziness that in it's Ford incarnation was amusing and gave Indy an edge but in Walken would have created an entirely different universe, possibly demanded different writing.

I'm reminded that Sean Connery's role in The Hunt for Red October was originally intended for Claus Maria Brandauer. You can see how Red October is scripted to make you wonder if the sub captain is going to try to start WWIII, but with Connery (who saved the West so many times as Bond) the give away is immediate. Brandauer in the same role? Oh yeah, you could believe he was Thinking The Unthinkable in a minute.

 

[Seb Lucas]

That's a good insight, Mike. Casting can take an identical script in different directions. I know people adore Ford as Indy and they feel it is blasphemy to have a new guy in the role. I personally would like to see it tried. But really if the movie ends up anything like The Mummy or becomes a banal children's superhero film. I will be sick.

 

[Frunobulax]

They should just go back and do one from the dog's perspective.


Sent directly from my mind to yours.

 

[MikeKardec]

That's a good insight, Mike. Casting can take an identical script in different directions. I know people adore Ford as Indy and they feel it is blasphemy to have a new guy in the role. I personally would like to see it tried. But really if the movie ends up anything like The Mummy or becomes a banal children's superhero film. I will be sick.

Even the sequels had a hard time taking Indy seriously. Someone who actually understood Pulp Adventure stories and the Adventure movies of the period worked on Raiders of the Lost Ark ... that sensibility vanished when it came to the other films. Maybe it was Philip Kaufman or Lawrence Kasdan. In those days it was VERY hard to underrate Kasdan! But when that talent departed the series collapsed. I've mentioned it here before but you can see it in the one scene from Raiders that snuck into Temple of Doom, the Shanghai nightclub sequence. It's great and somewhat era specific (though overdone in a cartoony way) while the rest of the film is clueless.

Typically, the majority of the film makers either took themselves too seriously (as in Young Indiana Jones) or didn't take it seriously at all (the sequel features). To succeed, in my opinion requires someone with some respect for the form. Pulp Adventures tended to be fairly realistic and when Raiders put a toe over the like it had the mysticism of the Ark to carry it through anything that was "too" much. It really never tried to emulate a theme park ride or anything like that. By the time they got to Last Crusade they were trying to make silly inside jokes and show how deep they were in the Indy universe. Big mistake, it just pushes you out of the experience and it's just a big wink at the audience.

The best way to proceed is to drop back, now that they have a healthy franchise on their hands, and do something relatively simple rather than trying to win in the "top THAT" sweepstakes. A more limited budget might be a big help!

 

[Seb Lucas]

That's so true. I don't think Lucas or Spielberg really understood what they had accomplished when they made Raiders. The sequels only took some superficial and obvious elements of Raiders but there was no real vitality or invention in the narrative and plotting. I remember going to see Temple of Doom when it came out and was astonished by lackluster effects like wobbly matte paintings. A technique perfected decades earlier. The filming in parts was as careless as the plotting. I was so disappointed when I saw it. And, for the most part, I've been disappointed in mainstream film ever since.... but that's another story.

The truth is action cinema is almost as hard to do well as comedy. Comedy should never be played for laughs and action should never be played for spectacle. Glib, self-awareness spoils almost every act.

 

[Edward]

All done and said, even if it is rubbish, it'll be like that dreadful remake of Rocky Horror: forgettable, and irrelevant as we'll still have the Ford films. Lucas isn't in a position to delete a superior original and only make something substandard available this time.

I suspect we may see something which bears the same relationship to the originals as the Ghostbusters redux. Which was, if not quite as good as the original, still a lot of fun and held true to the original concept while doing its own thing.

 

[Zombie_61]

...I don't think Lucas or Spielberg really understood what they had accomplished when they made Raiders...

Back in 2006 HBO aired a documentary called Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters. One of the people featured in the doc was George Clooney. I wish I could find the exact quote, but Mr. Clooney said something to the effect that no one in Hollywood knows how to make a hit movie because if they did they would do it all of the time. He added that the best they can do is hire the people they believe are best for each job, film the movie, release it, and hope it finds an audience.

Taking this a step further, I'd say those same people are more often than not equally clueless about why a movie succeeds or fails even after audiences make that determination. They might think they know, so they take this and that from the first movie and include those elements in the sequel, and that's why so many sequels are watered-down versions of the original movie. And, of course, there's that "top that" mentality that MikeKardec mentioned above. "Now that we know what works, we can do it better!" Wrong.