criterionforum.org

The only thing I've ever liked in the entire series is Kate Capshaw and company doing "Anything Goes" at the start iof Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The rest is Fritz Lang if he hadn't studied architecture. There is no sense of place -- or space -- in the latest entry whatsoever.

Go buy the DVD's of The Tiger of Eshnapur and The Hindu Tomb: real movies from which Spielberg has yet to learn.

And from which these films borrow from hugely, in tone, substance and ambition. (I take it you meant The Indian Tomb/Tiger of... by Lang, not "The Hindu Tomb". Also the original, written by Lang but taken from him at the last minute & directed by Joe May.)

Although I think in France the '59 came out as something like La tomb hindous or something.

Here

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052295/

and here

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052924/

Correct (I hate citing imdb.. irks me). So we're talking the same films, Lang's 1959 remakes of the 1920 Indian Tomb 2-parter.

There's a lot to enjoy here. The Red Scare, the reason ancient civilizations artificially elongated their skulls, some very clever humor, the jeep chase section, as well as fun performances from John Hurt, Ray Winstone, and a deliciously evil Cate Blanchett. It was enough to mitigate the lack of danger in some sequences, some poor CGI, and some clumsy overkill scenes like the fridge or the waterfalls.

I thought the Roswell and ensuing plotlines around that were perfectly congruous with the rest of the series. It made sense as a tie in to the Cold War and space race. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist after all, not a theology professor. He doesn't always have to go after biblical artifacts. What he finds is pseudo-science, but what is pseudo-science but another name for mysticism?

I don't know why anyone would expect Munich out of this. This is also the director that brought us Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T.. We know where his heart is.

David Ehrenstein wrote:The only thing I've ever liked in the entire series is Kate Capshaw and company doing "Anything Goes" at the start iof Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

That was a very nice opening, I liked the segue into a big Busby Berkeley style number that could only possibly be choreographed for the camera than for any nightclub audience and then the re-emergence into a 'naturalistic' club scene for the big finale!

Embarrassed to admit that I've not yet seen the Fritz Lang Indian films but knowing Lang (especially M and Metropolis which I keep compulsively rewatching!) he has certainly always got that handle on space and place and an amazing ability at powerful cross-cutting of action - something that I think is increasingly being seen as irrelevant, not least in blockbuster action films but which I think is incredibly necessary as part of drawing the audience into your filmic world and setting up the rules of the game.

I don't really understand how a situation where footage can be farmed out to teams of interchangable editors to sift through and make sense of works for creating anything less than an impersonal film itself (though the exception to this rule could be Sam Peckinpah when the teams of editors were needed for the sheer amount of footage but it was shot in such a way that there wasn't much room for interpreation about how the scene should be constructed!) I've also never understood the Bond approach of farming out the big action sequences of a film to a second unit crew - sure they are more adept at creating the stunts than a Michael Apted or a Lee Tamahori but that leads to a kind of disconnection between the narrative and the action, meaning the action truly does just become there as spectacle, not as something more meaningful to the story itself. The same thing could be said for CGI - one of the comments that has stuck with me from the critics commentary on the Matrix films was when during the big fight scene in Zion during Revolutions one of the critics said that "to some extent [the Wachowski's] are barely directing this" - how much is what we see on screen during all the CG sequences in films less about the director being involved and more just giving basic outlines of sequences to the artists and letting them create from scratch? I suppose as in every part of filmmaking it depends on the filmmaker - you can get very hands on directors checking the footage being produced and how the sequence is being edited, and those who just manage everyone doing their various tasks with a more minimal amount of personal creative input (I seem to remember some of the features on the War of the Worlds DVD showing Spielberg taking a more hands on approach to the CG, but in the end I guess unless you are personally au fait with the technology a lot of the choices will remain in the hands of the CG artists).

In some senses though isn't that the main job of a director - having the overview of the whole film, knowing what will help the film and what will not and juggling the elements so that they all come together as a coherent and powerful whole (i.e. there's no point having a spectacular twenty minute battle in Zion when the main narrative has been abandoned to have it. Therefore you have to rein in the CG, similar to the way you might have an actor who is committed to their character but who may be unbalancing the film as a whole and it falls to the director to modulate a performance to work for the whole production not just to showcase that actor in that scene), while the various departments focus on their tasks to the exclusion of all else?

I perhaps wouldn't be quite so harsh as your comment and would suggest Spielberg seems to have this ability of spatial awareness, certainly more than most recent directors, but has not developed it to the same masterful extent - yet! (at least I hope he can!)

I really enjoyed this film. I thought the look of it and the whole 1950s setting (greasers, Howdy Doody, etc.) and atmosphere was right on the money. I actually did not find the CGI at all distracting and blended in pretty nicely on most occasions. I found the only time it seemed quite obvious was the mushroom cloud bit but other than that it didn't bother me at all.

I think the Michael Wilmington summed up the reasons why I enjoyed this film so much. It really was a great nostalgic trip and to see Karen Allen and Harrison Ford reunited was a real treat.

The notion of the Warshowski's "barely directing" could be applied to any number of people these days. Rivette brought it up, shockingly enough, in an interview where he declared his antipathy to Some Came Running -- a film he originally admired. Looking at it again years later, and after directing a number of films himself, Rivette delcarwed that Minnelli was doing "nothing" with the actors, leaving them "stranded" on screen. He constrasted this with Charles Walters who he feels really directed his actors. And I agree.

Spielberg occasionally shows a good touch with actors. E.T. and A.I. come to mind. But then there's a soggy mess like Always. Generally he can be counted on to keep the action moving at a ripping pace. But not in his latest film. The damned thing is completely inert.

Grand Illusion wrote:what is pseudo-science but another name for mysticism?

What? They're not synonyms at all, they're antitheses. Pseudo-science is something that pretends to a basis in proper scientific method; mysticism (when the word is not being used to describe heretical religious beliefs involving complete surrender of the self to godhead) describes obscurantist religiosity based usually on muddled beliefs in occult forces and mystical beings. One pretends to science, the other pretends to myth, but neither pretend to each other. The problem with pseudo-science, at least in this context, is that it has no tradition; its basis is in pop-culture, which on top of being on some level frivolous, is too recent. The Hebraic/Christian artifacts worked because they suggested centuries of folktale and lore, and the accumulated gravitas of storytelling tradition. Temple's Khali stuff worked too, because it had behind it not only Gunga Din, but the suggestion of old and demonic far-east cult ritual.

I'm glad the Roswell stuff worked for you, but weren't you at least a little dissapointed that it seemed, in the end, to mean so little?

Mr_sausage wrote: I'm glad the Roswell stuff worked for you, but weren't you at least a little disappointed that it seemed, in the end, to mean so little?

I, for one, appreciated Oxley's immensely profound "space between spaces" explanation.

Also, is anyone else concerned that some other dimension in the space/time continuum is now potentially controlled by Marxist/Leninists? Does the domino theory extend through worm holes?

It's the Indiana Jones Random Plotline Generator!

Mr_sausage wrote:What? They're not synonyms at all, they're antitheses. Pseudo-science is something that pretends to a basis in proper scientific method; mysticism (when the word is not being used to describe heretical religious beliefs involving complete surrender of the self to godhead) describes obscurantist religiosity based usually on muddled beliefs in occult forces and mystical beings. One pretends to science, the other pretends to myth, but neither pretend to each other. The problem with pseudo-science, at least in this context, is that it has no tradition; its basis is in pop-culture, which on top of being on some level frivolous, is too recent. The Hebraic/Christian artifacts worked because they suggested centuries of folktale and lore, and the accumulated gravitas of storytelling tradition. Temple's Khali stuff worked too, because it had behind it not only Gunga Din, but the suggestion of old and demonic far-east cult ritual.

I'm glad the Roswell stuff worked for you, but weren't you at least a little dissapointed that it seemed, in the end, to mean so little?

Well, I don't want to mince words, but pseudo-science and mysticism are just other ways of explaining things we don't understand without using rationality. I'd say they're cut from the same coin, and their anti-thesis is actual scientific thought.

Regardless, I don't think Roswell is "too recent." It's no more recent than the Nazi Occult was when it was used as the central plot of Raiders.

Spoiler

I loved the detail about ancient civilizations elongating their skulls because it implied that the early gods were indeed alien. And we were about to meet those gods.

I do agree that the gravity of the situation should've been spelled out more. And the "space between spaces" explanation was trite and unnecessary. There's really no debating that. I'm not saying that this is as good as Last Crusade, my personal favorite. There is just a lot to enjoy here. And while not as important as eternal life, the secrets of early civilization were a big enough draw to get me from puzzle to puzzle and set piece to set piece.

rs98762001 wrote: . . . from the first shot of the fucking CGI gopher onwards.

All I could think about during the first twenty minutes of the film was this:

HA! Me too!!!!!

Had the reconstituted alien been revealed to be Bill Murray the film would have really had something.

Grand Illusion wrote:Well, I don't want to mince words, but pseudo-science and mysticism are just other ways of explaining things we don't understand without using rationality. I'd say they're cut from the same coin, and their anti-thesis is actual scientific thought.

Hmm. So they are synonyms because both do not try to answer questions rationally? Well, that does show an understandable scientific bias on your behalf. But I can't help but think it unfair that you lump every non-rational, and I may guess, non-empirical, manner of knowing into the same undifferentiated category. I don't care to dispute that with you, but I find that just a bit disheartening.

Grand Illusion wrote:Regardless, I don't think Roswell is "too recent." It's no more recent than the Nazi Occult was when it was used as the central plot of Raiders.

What Nazi occult? The Maguffin of Raiders is ancient hebraic myth. The Nazis just happen to be looking for it.

Spoilers below:

Grand Illusion wrote: I loved the detail about ancient civilizations elongating their skulls because it implied that the early gods were indeed alien. And we were about to meet those gods.

Yeah, that's the exact plot of Stargate: Rah is an alien who built the pyramids and was worshipped as a god, ect. Of course it has a basis in actual, pseudo-scientific belief (van Danikaan, ect.), as no doubt this one does. Honestly, I liked the gods back when they were gods, not things that fly in trans-dimensional aircraft.

Grand Illusion wrote:I do agree that the gravity of the situation should've been spelled out more. And the "space between spaces" explanation was trite and unnecessary. There's really no debating that. I'm not saying that this is as good as Last Crusade, my personal favorite. There is just a lot to enjoy here. And while not as important as eternal life, the secrets of early civilization were a big enough draw to get me from puzzle to puzzle and set piece to set piece.

I kind of feel bad I'm arguing with you, man. Think of it as my way of killing time, and that I have no wish to stop you from liking anything about the movie.

I would like to read the draft by Frank Darabont, if anyone has it please forward it/pm me... Thank you!!!!!!

Antoine Doinel wrote:Further evidence that Lucas has lost the plot:

If George Lucas had had his way the new Indiana Jones movie would be called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars", and the iconic archaeologist adventurer would be battling space aliens instead of communists.

Actually, not quite.

The current film started when Lucas commissioned a script which resulted in a 1995 script by Jeb Stuart (of Die Hard fame) called "Indiana Jones & the Saucer Men From Mars". To get the whole backstory on the script, check out this article at TheRaider.net.

But, basically, the script has Indiana Jones in 1947 battling Russian spies in New Mexico after getting involved in a top secret investigation into an alien crash in Roswell, New Mexico. The script, while still an action/adventure script, is vastly superior to the one released as "Crystal Skull" for a variety of reasons. KOCS still has quite a few remnants from the Saucer Men script, including surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge in a fake town in the desert blasting zone (though - is slightly better than the KOCS version).

But you can all see for yourselves, if interested - here is the 1995 Jeb Stuart original submitted draft of the Saucer Men From Mars script..

While no masterpiece, this would have easily been better than Temple Of Doom and arguably better than Last Crusade - in other words, the film they should have made 10 years ago.

Forget the CGI monkeys, ants etc. i'm surprised more people haven't acknowledged the murkiness of the way this one was shot. Where, pray tell, is spielberg's grasp of direction from earlier films? What is missing is the spectacular geometry of his shots from the earlier films he did -- yes, even 1941 had some awesome, multilayered and well choreographed shots of pure physical action.

Was this entire film shot on green/blue screen???

and where are those great scenes with hundreds upon hundreds of extras? I think at most we see something like 20 russians piled up in a couple of places here and there....

one final quip: Doesn't the acting, especially by Harrison Ford, feel particularly stilted or even uncomfortable at times? LIke when he is being interrogated it almost looks as if he is spitting out lines in the middle of some acting class in Pasadena. And why put John Hurt in a film only to have him play a complete fucking moron? Why????

I haven't seen the film yet (I'll catch it on cable or DVD I guess) but a lot of people have been pointing out the lousiness of the film's cinematography, which fascinates me to no end. There were even people ragging on it on the CML, which is frequented by lots of professional DPs.

davidhare wrote:Let's face it - he's never made a film that looks in any way beautiful.

I would generally agree, but I get the impression it's a big step down from his norm. I wouldn't call his films beautiful, but they're usually technically competent which doesn't sound like it's the case here.

While it's neither beautiful nor a particularly good film, his look for Saving Private Ryan was remarkably effective, though less so now that it's been imitated endlessly.

His work on Indy IV is disappointing, no better example being the opening scene. Beautiful and sunny desert landscapes--clearly the real thing--transition to a washed out, back lit, murky green screen air force base. One minute it looks like genuine desert, the next like a foggy winter day. I still wouldn't call his work incompetent, but it is dull and ordinary and unmistakably of this decade, with no effort made to harmonize the style with the rest of the series.

I saw this on Monday with a packed theater, which was in large part I believe the result of high gas prices and the the nostalgia that American's have for the Indy character and a time when life was supposedly safer and more clean cut. It is this sense of nostalgia a' la the "baby boom" generation which marks nearly every moment in this film. As Fredric Jameson argued nostalgia is dangerous because it creates a sense of affect for a time and place without real historical awareness. It is this lack of history or a knowledge of history that I believe has led to the US becoming involved in a war that knows no end (at least as long as the neo-cons hold sway over the working people of America).
There are numerous problems with this film. Many of which i would first attribute to George Lucas and his inability to craft competent dialogue as well as his absolute lack of original ideas or thoughts. While Star Wars has been lauded a movie that changed a nation and a generation, it is time to start asking what does this idea even mean? Are we advocating the belief that crass commercial capital should be dictating American art and philosophy? After all where would Lucas be without Kurosawa and the Hidden Fortress, Kagemusha, and Throne of Blood?
Again, Lucas demonstrates that he has learned nothing in his so-called attempts to combat the pernicous forces of the studios/transnational media conglomerates. This is one of the reasons that the movie opens with a drag race between 1950s teens and a hot rod that look as if they stepped right out of the frame of American Grafitti. The image of the 1950s that Lucas sells in this film lacks a historical or political referent. Thus it serves Zizek's point that American culture is simply a culture of "enjoy" or "enjoyment." Don't ask questions like where are the African Americans in the film, why does Indy spout the line I like Ike to the Russians, and why is the character of Marion simply constructed as a nagging shrew who serves to either scream or be in need of rescue? To answer all these questions would take multiple posts, and yet what can be easily acknowledged is that George Lucas is simply displaying that he is still the naive voice of the privileged whites in America who believe that things were better when everyone knew their place and simply remained there. Thus despite Lucas's constant protestations that he is really a liberal at heart, he continues to craft stories that embrace and embolden conservative/regressive policies and beliefs.
There are only a couple of moments in the film where Spielberg seems to be in control. The first is when we see the amazing double reflection of the hot rod's chrome hubcaps within those of the Army car as they drag race down the long deserted New Mexico road. The second is when Indy is called out of his classroom by the Dean. As he exits he tells the students to read a certain section of their texts and then they will discuss the ideas of migration versus exodus, which is clearly a reference to his Jewishness. The third occurs when we see the saucer lift up from within the jungle. All of these moments call to mind the poetics of Spielberg's direction.
My last point is to ask as I continually ask my students and friends why this film and why now? The Indy films in the 1980s spoke to the policies of Reagan and his white conservatism. Again, like Iron Man we have another film that sells the notion that the US is the greatest power on the planet and that it is because of one man's efforts to thwart all threats. This film will make millions but what is the larger cost of films like these?

filmnoir1 wrote:My last point is to ask as I continually ask my students and friends why this film and why now?

Because there's money to be had.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote:My last point is to ask as I continually ask my students and friends why this film and why now?

Because there's money to be had.

Specifically a chance to get a demographic to the theatre that doesn't normally go in large numbers these days, ie 30 - 50 yr olds, in addition to rebranding (and reselling the other 3 films) to a new generation to boot. That is (sadly) the only feasable reason they decided to go with the mess of a script they had now - with Ford's age it was a now or never scenario and they chose now and went with what they had.

The script I posted above might've been a major improvement in a lot of catagories (after some editing, perhaps) and supposedly previous scripts also were much better - but continued demands to re-write to try and please the 3 major parties involved ended up shaving off most, if not all, artistic reasons for doing the film and left it mostly as a product to tug on the heart strings and wallets of a large group of people the box office hasn't been able to reach for some time.

"My last point is to ask as I continually ask my students and friends why this film and why now? The Indy films in the 1980s spoke to the policies of Reagan and his white conservatism. Again, like Iron Man we have another film that sells the notion that the US is the greatest power on the planet and that it is because of one man's efforts to thwart all threats. This film will make millions but what is the larger cost of films like these?"

The discouragement of of non status quo political thought. It is not simply impossible to make a commerical feature about the U.S. and its crimes against humanity, it is literally unthinkable.

I'll wait for the screams of "Conservative" outrage before continuing.