Below is a critique of Indiana Jones 4, beware if you have not seen it, there are spoilers, and I will not call them as they come. Read at your own risk.
The first is one of the things that makes most modern George Lucas films worse than his earlier films: green screen. Lucas has a huge man-crush on computer effects. Now this is a Spielberg film yes, but Lucas was always at his right hand from the very beginning, in fact he is the one who really came up with the idea of Indiana Jones in the first place. And Lucas vision for this film no doubt opened the door for green screen. We don't always realize it until we compare movies of the same series (Star Wars IV-VI as compared to I-III for example) to see how things like lighting and acting are affected. Also, there is an imperfection that though our eyes do not always notice, our brain processes, something that when one thinks about it, just makes a scene ridiculous, particularly when the green screen background is combined with computer effect action.
The next one, the worse thing about this movie is also George Lucas' fault (I happen to know this from interviews Lucas and Spielberg have given), and that is that while the movie maintained the typical Indiana Jones religious/supernatural element, it was ultimately not left to the supernatural, it was explained with Aliens. Lucas can call them inter-dimensional beings until the cows come home, we all know they are aliens. They look like aliens, and they take the spot of aliens in history's myths: namely Rosewell crash, area 51, and ancient civilizations worshiping aliens as gods and receiving good fortune from them for doing this. Not only is the alien bit just not the same, but the fact that there is an explanation is problematic. In the past movies the supernatural in religions were simply respected and a given, never needing an explanation. The Ark was an unspeakable power that melts faces. This is never explained away, it's never even explained as to why the Ark went all Ghostbusters on the Nazi's in the first place (although a person with good Biblical knowledge would have known that the Ark in the Old Testament always caused chaos, disaster, and trouble to anyone other than Israel, it was never a power for other armies to wield, and apparently the novelization of the Indiana Jones movie the back side to the headpiece of the staff of Ra included a warning not to gaze upon the ark when it is opened). In the Temple of Doom we all just accept that the high priest of Kali can rip out hearts with his bare hands, and not only that, the person will still be alive (this may have been the most awesome scene in any movie I saw when I was a kid and was the clear reason that for the first half of my childhood, Temple of Doom was my favorite Indiana Jones movie). Add the fact that the stones glow and burn holes through backpacks and we see that there was no need to explain now supernatural things in religion happened. Finally the Holy Grail had the power to heal, preserve the life of a knight of the first crusade, blow up the cave if you crossed the line, and if you drank from the wrong grail, you aged faster than Mark Hamill. And no matter how strange these things were, we bought it, and they played a central role towards the entire story. Lucas' insistence on aliens/inter-dimensional beings (something Spielberg insisted he was against, but like he always does in regards to Lucas and Indiana Jones, gave in) also goes contrary to the level of respect and place of the religious in the Indiana Jones movies (more on that later).
An honest appraisal suggests a real tension for all true Indy fans (Indy as in Indiana not Indy movies, and if you needed the difference, you are NOT a true Indy fan) and that is the nostalgic feeling and likewise disappointment that this movie can create. It may not be a fair critique, that is, if there were no other Indiana Jones movies, much of the hate for this movie would not be, but this one is weighed against the past ones, and like pretty much all revisits of any series after a long period of time, it offers disappointment. But that is not so much the fault of Indiana Jones 4 as it is that Nostalgia will always create this tension. You get really excited over the notion of seeing the famous archaeologist again on the big screen, but then it somehow does not meet your expectations. All of the sudden it occurs to you that Ford looks pretty freak'n old. Add to that how well done Indy 3 was, in terms of acting, a great script, a strong story, and the feeling of finality with the last scene being Indiana Jones riding into the sunset to the theme song. Then Henry Sr. and Marcus are not in the next one, it is an unfortunate change in the cast of characters that just could not match the great dynamics of Indy 3.
This brings us to the character choices, Ford's supporting cast certainly did not match up to 3. The father-son dynamic between Indiana and Mud was not nearly as profound or hilarious. However, the choice to bring back Marian was a good one. Not only did it add to the nostalgia, which as discussed, though it disappoints, we all want, but also because they were, beyond Ford and Connery, the best pair for the series. She was easily the best Jones girl, the other two being either annoying or a Nazi with an inconsistent accent. Their bickering works. It is interesting because the choice for Temple of Doom to be a prequel to Raiders (which it was if you did not know, I didn't for years until my friend enlightened me) was to prevent having to explain what happened to Marian and hers and Indy's relationship. Of course this was quite a foolish action because Indy 3 they never felt the need to explain it. And making it a prequel leaves it's ending never able to be explained (we can safely assume Willie was too much an annoying Diva, but am I the only one who thinks explaining what you did with a 10 year old orphan needs more explaining than what happened to your girlfriend from the previous film? Also by the way, Shorty and Indy made a better father-son dynamic than Indy-Mud). Ironically, the choice to bring Marian back for Indy 4, though I think it was the best, forced them to explain what happened between him and Marian, precisely what they were trying to avoid by making Indy 2 a prequel. Shia Labeauff, though not a bad choice, does tend to struggle between whether he is an action or comedy actor, and was true to that type here, which makes a bit of a less interesting role. He was also too usable for action scenes. Whereas in past movies Indiana pretty much handled the action with minimal help here and there, Buff has his own central sword fights and action sequences (there could be an argument for Shorty having the same in Temple of Doom, but it was always obviously secondary to the Indiana action, not so in some of the scenes in Crystal Skull). Kate Blanchet probably does not make for nearly as interesting or intimidating Arch Enemy as past ones, but she handled the role quite superbly. Indiana's spy friend was a bad addition, he was annoying, and the entire back story that Jones served as a spy was unnecessary and stupid.
The choice of the Russians was the obvious enemy for this, and worked well. They were a superpower and the obvious "bad guy" of the time for Americans like the Nazis were in previous era for the Indy movies. And for the most part, the overall environment was believable for the time (with exclusion to ridiculous green screen moments, especially in the chase scene in the jungle).
The movie maintained pretty well the expectation of what makes an Indiana Jones movie and should be recognized for that. It had the hand to hand combat scene with the tough guy, an opening sequence that requires a retreat from danger and shows someone getting the better of Indy (losing the idol in number 1, the diamond in number 2, and the cross in number three, now with the body taken away here, although in three the sequence transitions to him years later recovering it, so in some ways that breaks the "typical" opening pattern depending on where you judge to be the end of the opening sequence) but Indiana still getting out by the hair of his skin (although the fridge survival seems so unlikely until Mythbusters shows otherwise, I won't buy it that it worked). There were secret rooms, booby traps, and moments of revelation as to approaching the lost religious relic (or in this case, returning it to the secret, sacred city). As in all the Indy movies there was a pivitol vehicle chase scene (in 1 it was to steal the truck with the Ark, in 2 the rail car scene, in 3 the tank assault, in 4 the jungle scene with the military aquatic-land rover). And a snake makes a nice cameo for Indy's severe phobia to be revisited.
Perhaps the biggest thing is that as in all the movies, not only does Indy end up empty handed (the Ark is taken by the gov in 1, the last stone is returned to the village in 2, the grail falls and is burried in the cave collapse, and the crystal skull is left in the sacred city in 4) but he ultimately does not beat the bad guy. A key piece to every movie is that it is really in some way the relic that fights against and defeats the bad guy just when all seems lost. This may be what makes the inter-dimensional being thing worse, because since it breaks down the religion that is featured, it illegitimizes the theme that religion is not a weapon for evil. In every movie, the bad guy's desire to use the relic for power becomes their own demise, the Ark melts them, the stone tries to escape and in his desire to have it the priest loses his grip and falls to his death, the false grail ages Donovan and Dr. Schneider falls to her death trying to retrieve the cup after she tried to take it out of the cave. And finally, the Russian woman's desire for knowledge overfills her and keeps her captivated while the temple is falling apart. Not only does this say something artistically about the purpose of religion (regardless of what one thinks of any specific religion), but it respects the place of the supernatural in the Indiana movies. This is why the entire explanation and flying saucer ending is so heartbraking, because it violates what the story claims to be sacred, it has to explain the unexplanable and therefore smears the entire ending upon which every Indiana Jones film is written. It is in my opinion the worst part of the whole film.
The major thing then that really doomed this movie, along with simply the doom of trying to stand up against nostalgia, is that George Lucas is too sophisticated. Not only has his advances in computer technology changed film and therefore allowed Crystal Skull to feature some bad/outrageous scenes (look at every scene that bothers you most in this movie and I will wager it features some outlandish thing requiring a computer effect or green screen in its design), but also because he stated the reason for the aliens was because since the period they were covering changed, he wanted it to mirror the change/feature of the film industry of that period (which were B science fiction films). Very artistic move, that led to an incredibly stupid outcome.
As I noted above, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had a sense of finality to it with Indy riding into the sunset. Crystal Skull sought its own way to end the saga with Indiana getting married and the "hat" (oh yes, this movie respected the hat) about to go on Mud's head (as if a passing of the torch) before Indy snatches it away as he walks out of the church. It does not end in as "Indiana" worthy of a way as Last Crusade did in my opinion, but was a fine way, particularly with Ford's last minute grab of the hat before Mud could put it on, which to me would have cheapened the whole hat thing and been for a set up to new Indiana Jones (Jr) sagas, which would have just been a disappointing final thought. No matter how much you like Shia, he is no Indiana Jones.
Overall, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull has plenty to criticize, but as I said that is because it is toying with nostalgia, which will cause people to watch it but never put it on equal ground with its predecessors. Had this been its own movie apart from a previous series, it would probably have not been as initially popular but likewise be criticized less, because it was not in the end a BAD movie. It was entertaining, had good humor and action, and we are taken on another adventure. I usually walk away with bad taste in my mouth, particularly around the ending as I explained, but overall this does follow much of the classic Indiana Jones pattern and gave us one more adventure with the famous archaeologist before he bites the dust. Give it more credit, and enjoy it for what it is, not what we want it to be, because I don't think it could ever have been that.
No comments:
Post a Comment