Jan
26
Quintessential Quadrilogies | Indiana Jones
Filed Under Movies
I originally meant to do one of these each week, but I spent so much time fine-tuning my “Terminator” entry, that schedule went out the window. Maybe I can make this a bi-weekly thing. Maybe. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Hey, they made four Indiana Jones movies. Let’s talk about ‘em. The Indiana Jones films, at least in my opinion, are interesting in that each subsequent installment offers diminishing returns. I’ll hear none of that nonsense about “Last Crusade” being the best sequel. Nuts to that. “Temple of Doom” is the best Indy movie that’s not called “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” As far as franchises go, sometimes you’ll see an uptick in quality between movies two and three. First sequels tend to disappoint because they don’t live up to the original. Second sequels have the onus of sucking less than first sequels, so there’s not as much pressure on them to be good. And frequently they are. But they also struggle with trying to be more like the original film as well as bringing something new to the table, a difficult balancing act.
Full disclosure: I didn’t hate “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” or IJATKOTCS as it’s known among certain circles of people who are fond of unwieldy acronyms. No, it’s not a terrific movie, but it’s still leaps and bounds better than some of the other fourth installments we’re going to cover here. It’s also unique in that the creative team involved with movie four in the Indiana Jones franchise — Steven Spielberg and George Lucas — was actively involved with all the films in the series, for better or worse.
“Raiders of the Lost Ark,” which I refuse to call “Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark,” remains one of the greatest popcorn films of all time. I rank it among “Back to the Future” and “Die Hard” when it comes to my absolute favorite Hollywood movies. There’s really not enough hyperbole you can throw at this picture. It’s just that good. Lucas, Spielberg and mega-star Harrison Ford created one of the great, if not the greatest, screen legends of the 20th century, an Americanized James Bond. Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, Jr. is at once a bespectacled professor of archaeology and a whip-cracking acquirer of rare antiquities. When the U.S. government asks Jones to track down the Ark of the Covenant, he finds himself in over his head, trying to outsmart his rival Belloq, romance his old flame Marion Ravenwood and keep the ultimate WMD from falling into the hands of the Nazis. If this movie doesn’t have it, you don’t need it. Even the weird deus ex machina the climax can’t sink this movie. I love it to pieces.
Movie two in the series, “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” however, is remarkable for completely different reasons. Having to deliver against the wild expectations of audiences who’d eaten up “Raiders” with a spoon, the first sequel simply tries to top everything that came before it. This chapter is more serialized than the previous entry, as the first third is more an assemblage of setpieces than a story. Strangely, in the chronology of the series, it’s technically a prequel to “Raiders” and bakes in a needless character arc for Jones. The film also provides him with a young sidekick, Short Round, as well as the shrill love interest, Willie. Jones finds himself tasked with finding the Sankara stones which have been stolen by Mola Ram, a Kali-worshipping cultist. Doubling-down on his villainy, Mola Ram’s also kidnapped a pile of children. Tonally, the film’s all over the map. It’s culturally insensitive and misogynistic. Children are in danger. Hearts get ripped out. But damn if it isn’t a thrill ride. I still dig it the most as far as the sequels go.
The third film, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” is lighter and buddies up Jones with his wily old man, Dr. Henry Jones Sr., played by none other than Sir Sean Connery. The film happily coasts on the effortless charisma of its two leads, since its story hardly breaks any new ground. In this installment, Jones is searching for the Holy Grail,and once again trying to remain a step ahead of the Nazis. If anything, this film feels like “Raiders Redux.” I think that was the point. But to keep things interesting, both Lucas and Spielberg address their daddy issues with “Last Crusade.” Where the scenes between father and son in the film are the high points, the rest of the movie is draggy at times and does a disservice to its supporting characters Sallah and Marcus Brody by playing them for laughs. “Last Crusade” tries too hard to atone for the darkness of “Temple of Doom” rather than striking that perfect balance between light and dark that the first film has. It also demonstrates Lucas’ bizarre obsession with prequels (again) by opening the film with a completely unnecessary flashback to Jones as an adolescent. Here, we learn all sorts of stupid trivia about him: how he got a whip, that scar on his chin and of course the fedora he wears on all his adventures. So?
My positive review of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is here. I think my appreciation for the film has flagged since my initial viewing. It’s easily the weakest entry in the series, but not as devastating awful as, say, “Jaws: The Revenge” or “Batman & Robin.” In a world where “The Phantom Menace” has its apologists, I can’t believe IJATKOTCS doesn’t get a pass from fans. It’s miles better than any Star Wars prequel.
Another key contribution to the series, something that gives it that extra oomph, is John Williams’ triumphant score. The Indiana Jones theme is among the composer’s best work and has filled movie theater lobbies with the perfect pre-show fanfare for almost three decades now.
The series’ shaky continuity and logic gaps are noteworthy. What the hell happens to Short Round after “Temple of Doom?” If the Holy Grail grants immortality to anyone who drinks from it, why’s Henry Jones Sr. dead by the fourth film? What’s more, Indiana Jones destroys virtually every archeological site he ventures into. When he’s not losing whatever it is he finds to competitors or shadowy government types, they’re buried under so much rubble. Wouldn’t he be considered a pariah in his chosen field? To his credit, he does return the Sankara stones to their rightful owners.
Then again we don’t watch the movies for an accurate depictions of archaeology. They’re adventure films first and foremost, and for the most part, damn entertaining ones at that.
-Brad Lohan
Comments
One Response to “Quintessential Quadrilogies | Indiana Jones”
Leave a Reply
Some days I just pretend that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the only Indiana Jones movie, and Spielberg and Lucas called it good after that. Christ, those are good days.