The Indiana Jones Franchise (Steven Spielberg/James Mangold, 1981-2023)

[Antoine Doinel]

"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.

Sigh. There is no conspiracy to make conversative pictures to drum up nationalistic pride or quell dissent. There just as many left wing movies (admittedly, usually not summer blockbusters) about the evils of Americans but guess what? They tank at the box office (cueing Barmy to thread).

Why do movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones XXIV get made? Because people like stuff to be blowed up real good and Lucas likes taking home bags of money every day after work.

[David Ehrenstein]

What's your idea of a "left-wing movie"? Oliver Stone's paranoid trash?

[Barmy]

What's really sad is this stupid cartoon has a 13-page thread.

](*,) :-k =;

[Antoine Doinel]

What's your idea of a "left-wing movie"? Oliver Stone's paranoid trash?

Stop-Loss, In The Valley OF Elah, Jarhead, No End In Sight, Redacted, Lions For Lambs....do I need to go on?

And yeah, probably Stone's ridiculously stupid W. that will probably become a "talk-back-to-the-screen" classic.

And for the record, I'm against the war and I'm about as liberal as they come, but Hollywood has spent a good part of the last four years churning out anti-war films and documentaries that no one is going to see.

[Grand Illusion]

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

I think the whole search for power in mysticism and especially the final rite are examples of Nazi occultism, regardless of what specific myth they use.

I was just wondering when the idea Nazi occultism gained popularity because we were talking about the recency of the movies' themes, so I checked Wikipedia for "Nazi occultism." Raiders is actually referenced on that page. Not empirical evidence of anything, just interesting.

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.

It's all in fun. We're just talking about an Indiana Jones flick. It's not like we're debating important world issues.

*looks up*

Oh... #-o

[stroszeck]

The really strange part of all this is that had Spielberg/Lucas really wanted to do this thing for the MONEY alone, they could've EASILY cranked out between 1 - 3 more sequels since 1989. So why wait for so long, and fill us with false promises of no CGI - i mean i remember watching and reading interviews with Spielberg just within the last couple of years where he talks about how great Indy was because of the lack of advanced video-gamish graphics and how everything that happened on screen was done through good old old-school hollywood special effects. There is no way that this film is only 30% CGI. I mean better than 3/4 of the film looked almost as "murky" (if i may use this already played out adjective) as snippets from the Benjamin Button preview, which is a film by Fincher who loves that kind of shit.
This whole thing started with War of the Worlds and the CGI evil aliens (which make a crappy cameo here too), where again the scene with Indy and the mushroom cloud or Indy on the back of the cars and the saucer lifting up all ring just.......false. fake.

And what the fuck is up with the gophers???? Not only is stuff like that not funny but its not cute either. I wish at LEAST he made that snake real, instead of CGI -- that was like the final straw for me and it happens like right in the middle of the thing so I just sat back and didn't give a fuck any more. And fuck Harrison Ford too. He can't act worth shit any more. This is how he SHOULD'VE PORTRAYED older Indy.

[David Ehrenstein]

"do I need to go on?"

Hell, you need to BEGIN!

You've offered up a list of mushy centerist movies offering no real critique of this government and its policies -- which perforce precede Iraq by decades. Centuries even.

[Barmy]

erm, Southland Tales #-o =D>

[Grand Illusion]

"do I need to go on?"

Hell, you need to BEGIN!

You've offered up a list of mushy centerist movies offering no real critique of this government and its policies -- which perforce precede Iraq by decades. Centuries even.

Yeah. You should pick more overtly political movies like Indiana Jones.

[filmnoir1]

The point i was trying to make is that this film merely continues a pattern begun by George Lucas in the 1970s and that is to depict a world that is blissfully ignorant or historical or political reality. This is why American Grafitti is set in 1962, before America's involvement in Vietnam has consumed the nation and before Civil Rights have galvanized the youth in the country. Lucas's vision speaks to this idea of constant juvenile beliefs and as a result of his mantra that films should be fun and escapist, then we see a vision of the world that is all surface and no substance. In effect, Lucas is the perfect example of the postmodern "artist" like Tarantino because all they can do is to parrot other director's ideas and never really offer anything original of their own. However, what is more striking and frightening about this willful neglect is how their set pieces such as the jungle sword fighting or the awards ceremony in Empire Strikes Back merely craft useful Fascist images.
I too, was dismayed by the overabundant use of cgi in the new Indy film, but Lucas wishes to have complete control over every environment, person, and thing in his world despite the negative repercussions that emerge because of this constant need to be in control. Thus in some sense, Lucas's films and his views of the world represent the anxious white male struggling to hold onto a regressive world where blacks were little more than set dressing in films, where women were simply sex objects, and politcs was nothing more than utlra ideological baiting. In short, Lucas is constantly trying to roll back the positive effects of identity politics in both the American cultural and political realm.
It is okay to be angry and voice displeasure about this film and many others. Yet, what purpose does it serve, if there isn't someone out there championing an alternative vision of the world? And while the Iraq war films have tanked at the box office it is still important that these films were made because as we learning more and more often American politics has been corrupted to the point where only those with money matter. Perhaps this is the largest problem of all. What would America look like if it were not driven by consumerism, debt, and market economics that just say "enjoy?"
Finally films that have tried to espouse a more progressive view of the world are dwindling because of the pernicious influence of capitalism on the American ethos. George Clooney tries to criticize with his first two films (Good Night and Good Luck and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). Also films like Lord of War, United 93, World Trade Center, Crash and numerous others are attempting to fashion narratives that are compelling and utilitarian. But then nobody wants to think in the summer. Let's just sit back and enjoy these big bloated spectacles so that capitalism can triumph. After all when did ticket sales mean that a film was good or worthy of attention?

[Antoine Doinel]

The point i was trying to make is that this film merely continues a pattern begun by George Lucas in the 1970s and that is to depict a world that is blissfully ignorant or historical or political reality. This is why American Grafitti is set in 1962, before America's involvement in Vietnam has consumed the nation and before Civil Rights have galvanized the youth in the country. Lucas's vision speaks to this idea of constant juvenile beliefs and as a result of his mantra that films should be fun and escapist, then we see a vision of the world that is all surface and no substance. In effect, Lucas is the perfect example of the postmodern "artist" like Tarantino because all they can do is to parrot other director's ideas and never really offer anything original of their own.

Why can't some films just be escapist entertainment? No one gets on a rollercoaster expecting a political commentary when they get off. And if you're seriously entering an Indiana Jones film expecting it to offer some kind of political context for modern day America, you're seriously misguided. Is Lucas a conservative? Probably. Is he trying to consciously roll back decades of political progress? Uh, no. Maybe if he was making highly personal/political rightwing films. But he's not. He's merely continuing to develop the franchises he created because, hell, it's easy, he has complete oversight (and that doesn't make him a fascist - it's called creative control and many other directors have it as well) and he makes unprecedented money off it. His motivation is the bottom line, and while it won't make him a martyr (and let's not pretend a celebrity lefty like George Clooney - who I like - is sacrificing anything his "art") it does allow him a very comfortable lifestyle. In some people's eyes, that would make him the perfect example of the American dream.

Edit: maybe I spoke too soon. Lucas might be a facist after all.

[Steven H]

Its also fun to analyze the most popular films for what they tell us about ourselves. Popular myths etc etc. I find it a bit more interesting to read someone complain about a film's politics and maybe read into it a bit much than see that kind of talk shut down due to the "escapist film" clause. Besides, at this point its kind of hard to turn back the clock and pretend popular entertainment, culture, politics, and so much else aren't interconnected. And yeah, you can learn a little bit about America from even our amusement park rides.

I think Lucas makes film from a point of nostalgia more than to be purposefully apolitical, but I like picking at that part of my brain and giving it some thought, even just to disagree.

By the way, what a terrible film (I kept saying to myself "really? did they really do that?".) I will never forgive my girlfriend for this. I was more entertained briskly walking past the giant cardboard Kung Fu Panda cutout on the way in than I was for the entire two hours of Mac, Mutt, n'Indy.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm right on board with you Steven. But I'll go it way further..

The precise reason that crap like the worst excesses of the past 8 yrs of this administration flies right thru the hamper of the media (and that includes digital media as well as the major news organisms and conglomerates) is the impulse of the Group to snicker at someone like filmnoir1 who exhibits Intelligent, Passionate, Questioning Anger.

"Er.. who forgot their medication today?"
"...dude.. shave."
"He's not really to blame. He just found out his Philosophy Phd is the long form application for Starbucks."

They did it to Kerry, they're doing it now the Obama (elitist), and they did it to the press who were afraid to take the antipatriotic splat by not going along w the war.

Not precisely whats going on w filmnoir1 and posts like it of course, but connected to the impulse. Snicker at a passionate dude, and respond personally to his righteous indignation, as though he's being unappreciative to all the Good he's been graciously given.

The fact is that movies of this magnitude (and there are very few of them each year.. hell each decade) always have a social impact-- they dominate commerce/merchandising between release date and first dvd release, their images color highways, fast food joints, toy stores, malls, etc, they are everywhere you turn for months straight and consume office talk, dinner table talk, family get together talk, magazine talk, television talk, etc, they make huge impressions on young people, and plant cultural images and stereotypes which will stay in their heads forever-- moreso than any other specimen of film ever gets to. Spielberg & Lucas have a sociological power to access the minds of people of every age group that gets politicians slavering. Every kind of public person under the son-- from president, congressman, prime minister, author, corporate figurehead, etc-- creams in their haberdashery at the thought of having so many doors of commerce, so many eyeballs, so many impressionable and nonimpressionable minds, clamoring all at once and in full-globe stampede, to assume a submissive "open" position to receive what they are giving out. The politics may not be consistently overt (and I havent seen the film), but these men know they have great power and enjoy weilding it... and franchises like this have enormous power to sustain cultural stereotypes of "otherness" and illustrating lines of American "rah rah" and identity. Though there are apparently no snarling darkies in turbans in this episode.. instead of sinister Nazi's we have commies of course here this time... simple villainous cultural images can go along way towards creating a unified visceral response later on down the line. And the Shia are the good guys of course...

ANyhow, that's my share of breathless seriousness for this time of the night. I just hate that "dude. It's entertainment. wtf man?" response.

Sometimes it's okay to post something beyond

New [url=http://www...com]fab pics[/url] from the set of [url=http://www...com]Utilizing Tanya McFlip[/url].

New trading cards of studio heads' portraits.

First peek at Limited Edition James Caan Doilies.

[filmnoir1]

Thanks Herr Scherck for having the wherewithal to support me and for recognizing that blockbusters do matter because as you rightly point out these films become cultural events that transcend the screen. In some cases, they can even transcend a culture. It is important to at least be cognizant of the impact that these films can and in some cases do have on those people who view them. No art exists in a vacuum and thus despite this overwhelming desire to let people off the hook because of authorial fallacy, it is important to look beyond the intended (this is of course an extremely problematic word) meaning/purpose and ask how someone else might interpret or understand a media text.
It is the public's willingness to look the other way that has led us into these dark times when a politician can something so false and yet everyone simply eat it up with a spoon. Embedded within the notion of escapism is the kernel of fascist joy because as long as people sit back and enjoy, they may not ask the hard questions, thus allowing those with real power and influence to continue an agenda that is harmful to the globe but great for corporate capital.
Finally i am not opposed to the idea of a movie being fun. Leatherheads was alot of fun, as was Speed Racer. I am just opposed to this idea that films are merely made for money or escapism. In fact, films have been ideological weapons of great importance from the very beginnings of cinema. This is why the Western is the genre that defines America, and why so many countries pride themselves on their film production, because it is a way of manufacturing national identity. Film/television is one of the most powerful mediums in the world to influence people and to represent ideological issues through visuals.

[Grand Illusion]

The precise reason that crap like the worst excesses of the past 8 yrs of this administration flies right thru the hamper of the media (and that includes digital media as well as the major news organisms and conglomerates) is the impulse of the Group to snicker at someone like filmnoir1 who exhibits Intelligent, Passionate, Questioning Anger.

This isn't righteous indignation; it's self-righteous indignation. First off, the initial post is baiting into a political debate, and quite frankly, I'm way past the point where I can waste time in an inevitable stalemate argument over the internets.

Second, anything remotely conservative has already been called regressive, fascist, racist, and the result of neo-cons holding sway over the "working people of America." And any response has already been labeled the result of "'Conservative' outrage." I'm sorry, HerrSchreck, but the well has been poisoned.

I agree with dissecting popular cinema. But that's not how this was proposed. If you start off by using Indiana Jones as a pedestal to proselytize your own personal politics, I reserve the right to snicker as I would at any preacher. Then the original post moved on to calling Lucas a racist who is constantly trying to roll back the positive effects of identity politics. Really? That personal attack based off of Indiana Jones? Sometimes, the correct response is rote dismissal.

PS. I'm usually the one to drag my friends to intelligent cinema. And my own anti-war film (although I'd rather not be pidgeon-holed) was just available for viewing at the Cannes Short Film Corner. Just to hopefully ward off the seemingly inevitable claims of "Fascist! Fascist!" that this post may elicit.

[akaten]

Following on from David remarks about how populist work is pure junk with no formal of thematic redeeming qualities for cinephiles to ponder over unless done so in a wider socio-political context I recall God of Gamblers: namely the scene in which a badly dubbed queer Indian man, complete with cardigan and poodle is told by Chow Yun Fat to stop trying to speak Cantonese and go back to India, at which point Andy Lau mugs him and pushes him down a hill.

Or how in the CSI: Miami/New York cross over episode, they argue about who is more likely to execute their suspect, of course Bruckheimer's Finest - David Caruso wins the day by pointing out:

"But your state rarely uses the death penalty."

Videogames have far surpassed popular cinema of course, Resident Evil 4 tells us what lurks beyond the woods of Evil Dead, a hidden society of murderous Spanish villagers yet to emerge from the dark ages. Who needs control rooms (or Ico with its faux-tenderness) when you Leon Kennedy, whose US Special Force Training has turned him into a grade Asshole Dante wannabe can order Paris Hilton, the President's Daughter he really shouldn't want back to go hide in a dustbin. Whistle and she'll come a running...

I can only pray that Resident Evil 5 isn't affected by the PC Brigade, so that we can to quote the producer, "go to the birthplace of man," and "defeat hordes of enemies," with "realistic weapons."

I think the only way to have fun with from such unabashed junk is to do so at their, rather than our considerable expense.

[Belmondo]

Ah, yes. KOCS tells us something about ourselves and the state of popular culture. What I think it tells us is that we have entered the temple of doom as far as what movies from very talented people could be instead of are.
Personally, I go right to the Billy Joel song from fifteen years ago, "We Didn't Start the Fire" for a complete, thoughtful, sophisticated analysis of the history of our time. I knew that western civiization had declined and fallen when I heard that some high school teachers used the lyrics from that song to teach current events.
Next up - Modern History 101 as articulated through the artistry of Spielberg and Lucas with particular emphasis on the theme that populist junk IS modern history

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm right on board with you Steven. But I'll go it way further..

The precise reason that crap like the worst excesses of the past 8 yrs of this administration flies right thru the hamper of the media (and that includes digital media as well as the major news organisms and conglomerates) is the impulse of the Group to snicker at someone like filmnoir1 who exhibits Intelligent, Passionate, Questioning Anger.

They did it to Kerry, they're doing it now the Obama (elitist), and they did it to the press who were afraid to take the antipatriotic splat by not going along w the war.

Not precisely whats going on w filmnoir1 and posts like it of course, but connected to the impulse. Snicker at a passionate dude, and respond personally to his righteous indignation, as though he's being unappreciative to all the Good he's been graciously given.

The fact is that movies of this magnitude (and there are very few of them each year.. hell each decade) always have a social impact-- they dominate commerce/merchandising between release date and first dvd release, their images color highways, fast food joints, toy stores, malls, etc, they are everywhere you turn for months straight and consume office talk, dinner table talk, family get together talk, magazine talk, television talk, etc, they make huge impressions on young people, and plant cultural images and stereotypes which will stay in their heads forever-- moreso than any other specimen of film ever gets to. Spielberg & Lucas have a sociological power to access the minds of people of every age group that gets politicians slavering. Every kind of public person under the son-- from president, congressman, prime minister, author, corporate figurehead, etc-- creams in their haberdashery at the thought of having so many doors of commerce, so many eyeballs, so many impressionable and nonimpressionable minds, clamoring all at once and in full-globe stampede, to assume a submissive "open" position to receive what they are giving out. The politics may not be consistently overt (and I havent seen the film), but these men know they have great power and enjoy weilding it... and franchises like this have enormous power to sustain cultural stereotypes of "otherness" and illustrating lines of American "rah rah" and identity. Though there are apparently no snarling darkies in turbans in this episode.. instead of sinister Nazi's we have commies of course here this time... simple villainous cultural images can go along way towards creating a unified visceral response later on down the line. And the Shia are the good guys of course...

ANyhow, that's my share of breathless seriousness for this time of the night. I just hate that "dude. It's entertainment. wtf man?" response.

....yes, Herr, I get your point and generally I'm right on board with Everything Is Politcal. But I temper that with Pick Your Battles. In short, a bunch of chin stroking, leftist, film enthusiasts getting conspiracy minded about Lucas/Spielberg's True Intentions with this film has all the political relevance of putting a bumper sticker on your car. Let's not kid ourselves that po-mo film deconstruction on summer blockbuster film is some kind of political act of any degree of importance.

[David Ehrenstein]

Finally films that have tried to espouse a more progressive view of the world are dwindling because of the pernicious influence of capitalism on the American ethos. George Clooney tries to criticize with his first two films (Good Night and Good Luck and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). Also films like Lord of War, United 93, World Trade Center, Crash and numerous others are attempting to fashion narratives that are compelling and utilitarian. But then nobody wants to think in the summer.

Those "attempts" are beyond pathetic. Good Night and Good Luck is a nicely wrought nostalgia piece. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind much less effective.

We have no Peter Watkins in this country. Or even Godard.

In short, a bunch of chin stroking, leftist, film enthusiasts getting conspiracy minded about Lucas/Spielberg's True Intentions with this film has all the political relevance of putting a bumper sticker on your car. Let's not kid ourselves that po-mo film deconstruction on summer blockbuster film is some kind of political act of any degree of importance.

IOW "Just lay back and throw your legs up over your head."

[colinr0380]

The thing is that this is not an either/or argument, it is a 'this and this and this...' argument to build a big picture of what context a specific film fits into.

It is necessary to judge films on all sorts of criteria - it is just as important not to discount the "is it well made/entertaining or not?" questions (especially in films whose main stated purpose is as entertainment pieces), as it is not to discount the "what does this tell us, obviously or tacitly, about the times and culture in which the film is produced?" analyses (everything does, and to go off topic for a moment, the interesting/strange thing about this recent spate of political films is the relative timidity at actually taking a particular stance on an issue, or if they do take one doing it in the context of previous work (e.g. Redacted's similarities with Casualties of War) or in a 'safer' historical context where allusions to current events can be noticed or not. This situation could be argued in political terms but just as good a case could be made that this is as much for commercial reasons, of appealing to a widest audience as possible to try to keep the film successful at the box office (no point alienating half your audience in one shot by saying the Iraq war's bad/President Bush is great!). Then you could argue whether this is the filmmaker's personal fault, using case studies going in depth on specific films, or whether it is more just the reality of making a big buget film for an international studio with big names that flattens any sparks of protest or controversy into safe blandness. Starship Troopers is still for me the best film made about our current climate and it helps that it is also a big sci-fi actioner so it attracts a big audience!)

All these kinds of questions (as well as more practical analyses looking at where it fits in Spielberg's career, how it compares to the other Indy films in particular, the importance of the film to the studio, and to the actor's careers, how it fits in with the development of CG etc, etc) are important to a critique of any film.

[akaten]

We have no Peter Watkins in this country.

Neither do we limeys, might as well not exist as he gets about as much interest and due consideration here as the rights of an illegal alien courtesy of our nations' moral compass, The Daily Mail. Shameful!

Not sure about the whole chin stroking pass off Antoine cause baby I'm smoother (KMD - Peachfuzz) and considering I for one spoke incessantly of that great blot on the minds of an entire generation in a manner indecipherable to all but the most ardent fans: if there's a cultural void afoot I'm diving head first!

Likewise from what I've read the other "accused" speak of many films with a great enthusiasm which are, for most to be fobbed off out of hand.

Following up Colin about the stock question, in this case its entertainment value...think I raised this concerning The Deer Hunter but I feel that sometimes the received line of thought can be besides the point of the piece at hand, a distraction from what is really at work. Another way of putting it would be as followed - toilet seat up or down, which establishes your feminist credentials?

Thats why I commend filmnoir1 and others for trying to explore wider issues, and can only ask that they continue trying to draw out these concerns for what, and I think this is a crucial word to use, is a calculated film, because while some films have issues, others have got issues, if you catch my drift.

[Steven H]

....yes, Herr, I get your point and generally I'm right on board with Everything Is Politcal. But I temper that with Pick Your Battles. In short, a bunch of chin stroking, leftist, film enthusiasts getting conspiracy minded about Lucas/Spielberg's True Intentions with this film has all the political relevance of putting a bumper sticker on your car. Let's not kid ourselves that po-mo film deconstruction on summer blockbuster film is some kind of political act of any degree of importance.

I can kind of see the angle with the "picking the battles" thing, but hey, I guess we've picked it, right? Now we're "kidding ourselves"? I think you're really on the wrong side of fence with this one, first trying to shut down the conversation and then personally attacking everyone who disagrees with you. I mean, there's nothing politically interesting about a Fictional Reagan-Era Butt-End-Of-The-Cold-War American Hero who now fights soviets and aliens instead of nazis and religion? It's screaming "DECONSTRUCT ME PLEASE" (now there's a bumper sticker) as far as I'm concerned.

*strokes chin*

[Antoine Doinel]

As for "chin stroking lefties", I'm including myself in that bunch. I'm not trying to shut down the conversation at all, but as problematic as Indiana Jones may be, I find it more disquieting that there is level of discussion going on for this film when I think something like Ben Stein's odious Expelled film, though seen by far fewer people, sets a much more dangerous and insidious precendent for the future of right wing filmmaking.

Now there's a film with a right wing agenda that is getting away with all kinds of shit with barely any attention from the mainstream press.

[David Ehrenstein]

Oh not really. And is Armond White supporting it? Nope.

[Antoine Doinel]

Does anyone in the mass body politic even know or care who Armond White is? Nope.