A Critique of the Indiana Jones Series
July 10, 2008
by Nate
For Libby:
Mark Kennedy, animator and writer of the immensely enjoyable blog Temple of the Seven Golden Camels, writes about why the character arcs in “Raiders” makes [sic] the first film superior to the other films in the series. It strikes me how similar the mistakes made with the Bourne franchise are.
Comments
On July 10 at 11'17 PM
, Tanya Hadlock-Piltz wrote:
Yeah, the first movie is better in terms of the writing and the symbolic imagery than the other two. However, Sean Connery totally sells the third movie for me. It is less of a bildungsroman, for sure, but it has more lolz.
On July 11 at 1'16 PM
, Libby wrote:
To justify the third movie, these are some points that occured to me on the bus this morning:
-Belloq describes Indy as having fallen from the pure faith, which to me says he could have possessed it once, say when he was young and idealistic and a boy scout, before he grew up and became jaded
-the scene on the deck of the SS Coronado happens after Raiders, when he’s learned to be a good person again
-after having found his truth or enlightenment or faith or however you want to call it with Marion, he lost her again. The pain of that may have been to much for him to want to believe anymore. He’s still learned from the experience and is behaving as a good person, but he can’t quite make it to faith anymore, not until the third movie when he learns how to get there on his own. (This is where I start going all Kierkegaardy and talking about the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith.)
On July 11 at 9'51 PM
, Tanya wrote:
Libby’s comment sparked more thoughts: in the 3rd movie, Indy is looking for his Father. He is estranged from his Father, angry at him, and then (when it appears he has been kidnapped) doubtful if his Father even exists any more. We actually encounter Connery rather late in the movie, and the first thing that happens is that Connery says “you’ve blown it, kid, I gave you my diary for safekeeping and look what you’ve done!” It is only when he takes up his Father’s work (in solving the riddle of the Grail) that he can save his father’s life and be reunited with him, uh, spiritually. Rather heavy-handed in its parallels’ to man’s faith (or lack thereof) in God, but on a symbolic level Much better than Movie #2. Or am I way off? Also, the center of much of the movie is the diary, the Book, and you have that lovely Nazi-book-burning scene, wherein Hitler signs the diary without knowing what it is. I dunno, I guess I just get a kick out of it.