![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Still one-handed, so excuse any typos I missed!)
A friend at work passed along this Christianity Today article on Indiana Jones and the Deadly Blather. (Warning: this article contains plot spoilers for all four films.)
I have yet to see the 4th film (though my sister gave it an enthusiastic endorsement, since it gave her exactly what she'd been hoping for in a Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel since 1981: more Marion Ravenwood), but I was under the impression that it hadn't done quite as well in the box office as had been expected or hoped.
The question I posed to my co-workers after reading this article (and being officially 'spoiled' regarding events in the 4th movie, which is no longer playing in my city anyway) was the following:
My co-workers' unanimous response (from the two who'd seen all four films) amounted to, "It's the story-telling, Stupid":
and
I'd be interested in anyone else's thoughts, if you've seen all four films and have any comments on the article (and I'll gladly stipulate that CT isn't exactly the first publication one looks to for either rigorous scholarship in the fields of theology and religious studies, OR cutting-edge social or cultural commentary, and that this particular article is no exception to that general rule!).
A friend at work passed along this Christianity Today article on Indiana Jones and the Deadly Blather. (Warning: this article contains plot spoilers for all four films.)
I have yet to see the 4th film (though my sister gave it an enthusiastic endorsement, since it gave her exactly what she'd been hoping for in a Raiders of the Lost Ark sequel since 1981: more Marion Ravenwood), but I was under the impression that it hadn't done quite as well in the box office as had been expected or hoped.
The question I posed to my co-workers after reading this article (and being officially 'spoiled' regarding events in the 4th movie, which is no longer playing in my city anyway) was the following:
. . . if the 1996 'Coinherence' analysis of the first three films (which this author cites) is extended to the 4th film, as he suggests, to indicate a substitution of 'family values' and worship of science for anything remotely resembling a sense of the sacred or of holy mystery in the popular mind-set of the 1950's-as-depicted-in-2008, I wonder if the latest movie's failure to achieve quite the expected level of financial success is a relevant factor to consider?
I mean, did this latest film under-perform partly BECAUSE of the loss of any respect for religious questions? Or was it just that Lucas and Spielberg have forgotten how to tell a decent story?
My co-workers' unanimous response (from the two who'd seen all four films) amounted to, "It's the story-telling, Stupid":
I think a good writer could have done something intriguing with the crystal skulls/aliens (although I don't know what), since, as in all good sci-fi, aliens can be metaphors for God. I don't think Spielberg's heart was really in Crystal Skull; he just did it as a favor to Lucas.
and
They forgot how to tell a story. A good Maya story could have been done. I haven't read the whole article yet. But I'll say this: the issue with Lucas is that he has lost himself in technology. It is the substitute for the story. If I follow [RevDorothyL]'s summary correctly, it seems like the columnist's article is more of a metaphor for Lucas himself.
I'd be interested in anyone else's thoughts, if you've seen all four films and have any comments on the article (and I'll gladly stipulate that CT isn't exactly the first publication one looks to for either rigorous scholarship in the fields of theology and religious studies, OR cutting-edge social or cultural commentary, and that this particular article is no exception to that general rule!).
(no subject)
(no subject)
So, I guess it's not just the fault of changing times or the temptation of better CGI effects, then -- it's more along the lines of "even-numbered Indy films DO suck", in any decade.
(no subject)
One example: in the opening sequence of Raiders, when Indy is about to liberate the gold statuette, Spielberg used light and angles (and music, of course) to create the sense that the statue was either alive or a focus for unseen energies. Indy had more to worry about than ancient booby traps, it seemed to say. And of course that sense of the weird/mystical continued right through to the climax with the Ark of the Covenant and the melting Nazis.
The fourth movie lacked this element entirely. There was nothing spectral, no sense of the invisible: the thrills were limited to prosaic things like giant ants, atomic blasts and aliens who were very much part of the physical world.
Temple of Doom tried for the supernatural stuff; it wasd just an awful movie. The Grail movie included supernatural ideas but just couldn't make them compelling. The fourth movie doesn't even go there.
(no subject)
I liked "Last Crusade" a bit better than you did, but I agree that the supernatural elements were less compelling: what I liked about it, I think (besides the portrayal of Indy as a beleaguered college prof. who runs out on his office hours, rather than cope with all the student questions he's not usually around to answer) was the father-son work. The grail legend was too peripheral to anything I at least find central to my Christian faith for me to get too invested in that part of the story.
So I guess I'd have to agree with you that the first movie was the only one with a real sense of the numinous, after all.
(no subject)
That said, while I think he's sort of got a point about the changing focus over the four films, the failed story-telling and writing has got to be the reason for the falling box-office.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)