by Cpt Kirks 2pay on Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:09 pm
Love all the for and against posts for Doom and Crusade, folks.
The Fortune and Glory whole debate is something I never crossed into. I never understood it (neither did Mom!). As far as I'm concerned it has no relevance to Indy, I never quite knew why he said it. I mean, any decent man, let alone a good intentioned hero is gonna forget about a rock in a museum collecting dust, when he could give it to the villagers and save not only them but in effect the entire world. Sure there was more than one, but seeing as the village Sankara got stolen so easily, don't you think that having some spares for them would be a good idea??!?! So Fortune and Glory was never an issue for me. I know it's there, I know why people talk about it, but I just don't get it.
At the end of the day, both are great films, it used to be that on some days I'd prefer Doom, some others I'd prefer Crusade, but now I hold to it that Doom edges out Crusade, not by a long stretch though.
But I think that Crusade's issues should be addressed by me now. Everyone says 'duuuhh well, Crusade has better characterisation'. Well, here's the thing that Spielberg and Lucas forgot and overlooked and misjudged their so called insightful knowledge of what the audience wants. That, number one - better characterisation don't necessarily a better movie make!!!
But secondly, let's have a good look at this characterisation. You had the brilliant Marcus Brody from Raiders returning. So glad was I to see this - only to be turned into some bad comic relief bumbling foolish sidekick, the butt of the jokes. The movie made him look bad and betrayed all the loyalty and respect that I gave him and the series, as well as doing the same to himself. Sallah returned, but didn't seem as great as he was in Raiders too.
The villains? Well they are dull quite frankly. Julian Glover, Elsa Schneider and that stereotypical nazi in tow. They did nothing for me. A good action movie relies on danger, fear, it's where the excitement and sweaty palmed intensity comes from. But with these guys I got none of this. They were pretty mediocre, no impact.
You wanna compare characterisation to Doom? OK, you had a true personofication of Cult Evil in Devil Worshipper Mola Rham. This guy I thought was larger than life and blew away the 3 villains in Crusade. I find he's pretty much the tallest most standout villain of the series, though for all his less pantomineish and more down to earth villain, I still think tha Paul Freeman as Belloq is the best. But Mola Rham basically is running Temple of Doom by supplying all the Evil that one needs from such a cult that is practically running Hell down in the catacombs. Plus he did what every villain should do. He scared the craps out of me!!!
Willie Scott though annoying, was still an entertaining enough a female lead. She wasn't acted badly, just written without much redeeming features, but again, she was up against the shit more than Marion was, so what do you expect from her? Thing is, is that the whole Jar Jar element applies here. Sure both characters are annoying, but man they ARE still classic characters for what they are trying to be. They stand out, they are quite archetypal in the movie genre that they are in for the type of character that they are. They are so easy to define, but most of all - are memorable. Alison Doody? Who was she? Can you remember much about Elsa Chneider as you did Willie Scott?
OK, you've got the biggest issue with Crusade. Now I could copy and paste what I wrote about Sean Connery's Henry Jones from the talkbacks of what I wrote about him, but that's cheating and a bit ranty. But I ain't gonna write about him with as much length as I did there either. So I'll keep it short.
Let's skip the other more basic and less important issues about why Henry Jones was good, as he sure was. Let's talk about the real fundementals here.
Indiana Jones is a boy's own adventure, a form of unadulterated fantasy and escapism. It's a movie for the kids basically - or the kid in us for all us grown ups. We all wanna get away from the troubles of the world and just become kids playing away getting into trouble. Getting into action, getting our lives threatened, rolling about - but not getting killed. It's part of our moviegoing psyche.
BUT - the introduction of Henry Jones sort of ruins this for me. As NOW we all go on this so called adventure, but we have to do it with our old man in tow. Now, don't get me wrong, the addition of all of this Henry Jones character does a lot of good for this adventure, it brings it importance and maturity and humanity. But you gotta consider that it also ruins the fun of it as well, well it does for me personally.
For the presence of an arguing, bickering, disapproving and serious father figure onto what was once a free flying boy's playing about escapist adventure now holds you down. It slows you up, pulls you back down to earth, shouts and tells you off for running around having fun there and tells you to behave yourself. It basically is your old man ruining the fun for you.
I haven't worded this as effectively as I did in the TBs i'm sorry. But it basically is him telling you not to be a kid, but to grow up. It's like he's sitting on the fairground ride with you telling you not to shout and scream out loud, telling you again, not to have as much fun as you can. For being young is about going on adventure and going on adventure is what Indiana Jones is all about. Now with the father figure there, you cannot be so young. The adventure element of Indiana Jones is suppressed and quashed. It is suffocated. Not completely, but enough. It ruins it for me. Again, the most important element of Indiana Jones is the Adventure and it sort of gets destroyed. Sorry to keep repeating my words, but that is the point that I am trying to make.
I dunno about you guys, but I don't get on with my dad that brilliantly, and when I'm out of the house, no matter what age, I don't wanna think about him, I don't want him along when I go out to play as a kid, or try to pick up chicks as a teenager or still do both as an adult. I certainly don't wanna be reminded of him when I go to the movies to fucking escape all of this - and Indiana Jones IS ESCAPISM!!!!!!!!
So there's this side of the Indy issue. Yes, you can come at me and tell me all the good that Sean Connery as Henry Jones brings to the movie - and you'd be right, I'd agree probably. But he also brings a bit much negativity also. You gotta take into account the real meaning of Indy, what the films are about in their deepest most ultimate essence, what it is that Spielberg gets to in our real internal psyche, what he's been so great about doing in his films. Here it gets ruined a bit too much for my taste.
It's like Spielberg is telling his young Indy audience to grow up. Well, I as an Indy fan, don't wanna grow up, Steven.
OK. Flame on!