What can I say? I like Short Round.
I guess I understand that the significant departure from the scope, characterization and pacing of Raiders badly jarred those whose first impression of Indy was the epic swashbuckler who traversed desert sands, canyons, and hostile marketplaces in search of the emblematic Ark. In my case, Temple was my introduction to Dr. Jones and I reveled in the highly animated, ridiculous stunts and dialogue. Today, every single minute practically injects nostalgic and elated neurotransmitters in my medulla oblongata, which Wikipedia tells me isn't supposed to deal with emotions in the first place. That's not to say I don't enjoy Raiders or Last Crusade, but they simply don't pack the same childhood fulfillment.
Since it was a prequel, Indiana's search for the Shankara Stones was appropriately narrower in archaeological significance and his intentions were (initially, before the missing-children-factor) less altruistic than ever. In my opinion, it takes talent to explore a character's growth in a logical and satisfying manner. But it may take even more talent to go back and lay down a character's roots in a way that's both fresh and consistent with the established legend.
But this article isn't about Indy's roots. It's about his seeds and whether they're packed in any fruit worth biting into (wow, how's that for a ridiculously-constructed metaphor?)
I have a friend (at least, I hope he's still a friend) who absolutely hated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I didn't even have to ask him or hear him speak of his contempt directly to witness the magnitude of hatred aroused by this film. After seeing it, his Facebook profile, much to my delighted amusement, became a shrine of Hate for George Lucas. His profile picture became a picture of George with a big "NO" sign over his face. It was great.
Though I figured it might have been overboard, I still trusted his judgment enough to assume that Indy 4 was going to be something of a trainwreck. I walked in with low expectations the day after getting back from Europe (thus missing the release date). Of interest, I went to see it with my whole family, including my dad who NEVER goes to movies. My parents were the one who initially recorded Temple of Doom on VHS for me to watch over and over again. The fact that this installment roused my father out of his Hollywood boycott speaks to the power of the franchise, but I digress.
Did George Lucas ruin Indiana Jones?
My argument: No, but it would take a schmuck far schmuckier than George Lucas to achieve that. It is clear that at least one person (probably George) did his damn best to dress it up inappropriately. It doesn't help that screenplay author David Koepp is a painfully obvious example of how modern screenwriters can't transition worth shit. And for everyone who assumed Spielberg would keep this movie from raising eyebrows (or bile), it just doesn't seem like his heart was in it for this one. But even in all of its clumsiness, Crystal Skull manages to be far more entertaining than the drivel studios pump out this century and, in my opinion, makes a compelling case for more franchise entries in the distant future.
So, some discussion on the elements of the film:
The Opening Credits.
Personally, I think the title sequence is brilliant (minus the gopher). It firmly establishes the piece in a new decade while channeling some of the kinetic energy that make prior Spielberg films so great. The titles themselves are discreet, direct, and a throwback to both the original movie and the golden age of action cinema. It may seem like a petty compliment, but you can often deduce a lot about a movie by its titles.
The Villains.
Okay, the Indiana Jones series has never been particularly excellent at creating realistic henchmen that don't manage to insult some ethnicity in their exaggerated antics, but Crystal Skull seems distinctly offensive in the twenty-first century post-Saving Private Ryan cinema world. In that film, we learned that enemy soldiers can be human too, but that doesn't have to stop the hero from busting a cap in his gray matter or us from enjoying it. Indy 4 subscribes to the theory that the best way to make an audience relish gray-haired Indy's ass-whoopings is to make his targets mindless commie drones who bark at each other in menacing Russian.
As for Cate Blanchett, I can admit that my dread at watching her put on a Boris-and-Natasha act was partially unwarranted. Her severe haircut and clockwork-assassin-from-Hellboy mannerisms are more distracting than Mola Ram's bone-and-feather hat thing. This is unfortunate, because Blanchett sometimes shows some genuine creepiness behind her thick and cartoony accent and I get the sense that she let the campiness get in the way of creating the first compelling female villain in the series.SPOILERS. Her demise is particularly disappointing, mostly because the whole "unable to resist greedy desire to probe the universe's secrets" thing has been done at least twice before in the Indy movies. Also, I expected the American spooks questioning Indiana to play a bigger role as obstacles in his quest. It seems their sole purpose was to introduce the completely irrelevant plot device of firing Dr. Jones from the university. I guess this is Spielberg and Lucas' attempt at creating a George Clooney-esque commentary on McCarthyism, but all it does is take you out of the adventure in an annoying fashion. END SPOILERS.
Oh, well. At least it wasn't Nazis again.
The Sidekicks.
I like Mutt. So sue me. This probably has something to do with the fact that I like Shia LeBeouf and believe his presence helped Transformers. On the internet, Mutt's name is often mud. Yes, we can all see the gears working in their heads, considering replacing Harrison with Shia for the next batch of movies. To some this is understandably anathema. Me? I would rather see more Indiana Jones movies than Jar Jar Binks biopics and since George Lucas seems intent to do at least one of those, I fully support Shia's potential contribution, especially after watching him create another cool character in this movie.
It'll be interesting to see if the studio will let LeBeouf age a decade or so before revisiting the character. You know, pace the series, a concept entirely foreign to today's Hollywood.
SPOILERS. And boo-hoo, Indiana has a son, oh no. I know there are people who believe Indiana Jones should be permanently unattached, free to dig ancient graves without worrying about a tarnish on his legacy, but I find the implications of his late foray into fatherhood interesting, particularly when you think about his relationship with his own dad. I agree that the "surprise, he's your son" plot device is kind of tired, but Karen Allen delivers fairly well on that revelation. And speaking of Marion, I'm glad to see the character back, but Allen is really hit-or-miss on the delivery of certain expressions and one-liners. It's as if she can't decide where Marion lies on the spectrum between "badass shot-taking she-warrior" and "jilted and complacent widow." Come to think of it, Spielberg doesn't seem to know what to do with her either. Her "big reveal" in the commie camp is totally anticlimactic, without so much as a kazoo to emphasize her arrival. Seems like John Williams fell asleep at this part of his screening. Also, what's up with her completely disappearing for a portion of the jungle chase? I seriously thought she might have bitten the dust at one point. Finally, the wedding was lame. Sure, I get that Indy's ball-and-chained, but if I wanted to see a relationship resolved by increasingly irrelevant symbolic ceremonies, I would have seen something like Made of Honor. Does James Bond ever get married? No. And if he did, you'd be damn sure the bitch would either turn or him or suffer a terrible death that would prompt James to rocket-launcher someone's ass Goldeneye 64 style. I'm off-topic. END SPOILERS.
That still leaves Mac and Oxley to deal with. Mac was another character who had the potential to leave questions and impressions in the audience's mind, but who simply turned out to be a caricature. I find Oxley far more compelling and entertaining and it's a shame he only starts speaking full sentences late in the movie. One thing though, his role in the sand pit scene is laughable and not in a "oh, that silly Oxley" kind of way, but in a "wow, Koepp, couldn't figure out any other way to get the heroes recaptured, huh?" kind of way.
The Effects.
To keep it brief, I believe at some point I was promised traditional stunt work and special effects...I was lied to. Even the freakin' animals were CGI. What happened to the trained monkey from Raiders? It's hard to believe a monkey that awesome didn't have about 50 Acting Monkey Jrs. Or what about the YouTube gopher/praire dog thing? Did he demand too much money when you offered him the role?
No! No, it's just that ever since ILM came to mean "really fake-looking shit," the quality of special effects has taken a turn for the worse.
To be fair, this nitpick only applies to a couple of scenes, mostly. The actual fighting and set design do harken back to a time when stunt crews and set designers were valuable. As far as fight choregraphy goes, the most entertaining sequence of the film involves a series of vehicle entanglements in the jungle (as well as one of Shia's most infamous scenes) followed by "big damn ants."
Unfortunately, there's still an entire dungeon for the heroes to pillage and explore after this and it isn't quite as impressive. And to make up for the effort of traditionality in the first 2 hours, the movie decides to hit you hard with Pixar-inspired glory at the end.
The Relic.
I really liked most of what they did with the legend of El Dorado and the crystal skull. I appreciated the South American setting, the incorporation of the conquistadors, the "living dead," all of that. The mystery behind the skull itself is both interesting and silly...
SPOILERS. Perhaps what fanboys curse the most is the "sci-fi" element. To one extent, I agree. Indy has no business witnessing flying saucers and alien corpses, not without at least two movies of convincing transition from Earthly treasures to extraterrestrial ones. Lucasfilm already has its space franchise. Indiana is partly defined by an element of realism (juxtaposed with the supernatural relics he retrieves).
Even so, it is common legend that spacemen DID influence the ancient tribes of pre-Columbian Mezoamerica. So, I'm not troubled by the idea of the Saucer People being the natives' gods. I do have an issue with the Saucer People making a forced appearance looking like a cross between Close Encounters and the pygmy things from Galaxy Quest. The movie could have been much less heavy-handed, alluded more and revealed less, and had a more subtle payoff. I mean, I had a little bit of trouble accepting the immortal knight in Last Crusade. This ending felt like a different movie series entirely. END SPOILER.
Also, the skull is pretty.
The Man.
Like I said, it takes an act of Crystal Skull Gods to mess up an Indiana Jones movie. That's because Indiana Jones is one of the most iconic and exhilarating heroes of our time. He's up there with Hercules and that guy who won American Gladiators. He's witty, charming, intelligent, resourceful, and packs a powerful punch. He also has an impeccable sense of style.
If this continuation had been attempted at this time with an actor other than Harrison Ford, it truly would have been a travesty. It was also a good call to age the character at the same rate as the actor. Physically speaking, Ford packs the same wallop. There is, however, a certain gravity around the character now. Yeah, I miss Indiana's cocky chuckles and smiles, but I'll admit, his more somber demeanor is appropriate. And it doesn't stop him from being sure of himself and awe-inspiring in those around him.
Indiana simply is The Man. I don't expect Mutt Williams to fill his shoes. But he could potentially make a damn good effort at an homage.I've made a lot of complaints about the movie. More than I planned to make, actually. But there's a school of thought that believes that human beings are most critical about that which has the potential to bring them the most joy. I noticed all of these things during the film, because that's what I inevitably do with movies. But, also, throughout the whole thing, I was genuinely entertained, pleasantly surprised, and occasionally reminded of those moments as a child when I had nothing better to do than pop in an old VHS tape and watch Indy get in and out of ridiculous situations.
Bring on Mutt Williams.
SPOILERS. Or Mutt Jones, I suppose. END SPOILERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment