Indiana Jones 5 and the Inevitable Hopelessness of it All

Would Indiana Jones be better if Ford hadn’t gotten old? Sure. But he actually looked better fit than he has in years (alas that the same can’t be said for Karen Allen, who seriously needed to lose some weight). As to alien artifacts vs. religious ones being the MacGuffin, or the nazis being replaced by commies, that didn’t bother me at all.

On the other hand, it wouldn’t have bothered me to have seen a new actor take over the role and keep the time frame of the thirties. But Spielberg, Lucas perceive of the series as only being complete and legitimate if all of them (including Ford) participate, so I’d rather have Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Medicare Account than no Indiana Jones at all.

That looks godawful, but I’ll still watch it because of Stewart.

You can’t switch actors without a complete reboot, and the odds against such a thing turning out to be worthy of the original films seem to be nigh insurmountable.

Saving Private Ryan was good, but that was back in 1998. Now he’s directing The Adventures of Tintin: the Secret of the Unicorn. I wish I was kidding about that. What happened to him?

I’ve never understood the complaints about the Tintin project, but then I was a huge Tintin fan growing up. Those books were essentially proto-Indiana Jones adventures to begin with. I’d be more interested, at this point, in seeing a Tintin movie than a new Indy film. Tintin is a good vehicle for Spielberg to return to his classic pulp/action roots without being tied down to aging actors, for one thing.

I also think the claim that Spielberg has lost his touch, or is coasting, is overly simplified. While it’s true that he probably hasn’t made a completely satisfying movie since Schindler’s List, in some ways his powers as a director have grown. He is capable of putting together absolutely masterful sequences, such as the Normandy landing in Private Ryan, the initial tripod attack in War of the Worlds (a scene that absolutely beggars the Bays and McG’s of the world and reminds us what a real action director is capable of), and several sequences in Munich (e.g. the revenge against the female spy, which is brilliantly staged). The rest of his output, from Minority Report to AI to Catch Me If You Can, might be viewed as anything from “interesting failed experiments” to “equivocal successes.” I don’t really like any of those films but I have been meaning to revisit AI.

I find late Spielberg to be fascinating. His visual sense, his preternatural knowledge of what is the best camera angle for the action he’s trying to depict, and his mastery at coordinating camera movement with blocking (he is probably the best at this since Kurosawa), are undiminished – if anything they are better than they were in the '80s. He’s merged the slickness of his '80s work with a successful, judicious use of handheld camera and an edgier, rawer feel. And as much as he is derided as a sentimentalist, he is capable of shockingly matter-of-fact brutality. There’s a harshness that appears in Spielberg’s films again and again, and always surprises me. The problem with Spielberg is that he never quite seems to be able to sustain the full length of a feature film anymore. Something in the story always buckles – there’s always some critical miscalculation at the macro level. This is often more on a writing level than a directing level; not knowing how much shape Spielberg imposes on the scripts he directs, I’m not sure to what degree he’s directly responsible. I find these shortcomings deeply frustrating, but I also think Munich and War of the Worlds are important films and reward study.

I dislike Crystal Skull, but I don’t think that’s anywhere near the most interesting or relevant work that Spielberg has done in the past decade. If anything, it’s a minor sideshow – a go-along-to-get-along gig with his old buddies Lucas and Ford.

Stewart? Jon? Kristen?

jimmy? (Oh wait, Spielberg scrapped the Harvey remake…)

Sorry, I messed up the spelling - I meant Stuart, from Spin City.

Aaah, you mean Cameron Frye of course!

I can remember Crusade’s plot vividly but can’t remember anything from Raiders except the ark melting everyone’s faces at the end…

I’m sure I’ve seen Crusade more times than Raiders though.

Hey! The Tintin script was written by Steven Moffat, and the source books are some of my favorites ever, so I am really looking forward to it! You might want to see who is in it, also. The “Unicorn” in the title is the name of a sunken ship, heh.

Indiana Jones 1 - odd number = good
Indiana Jones 2 - even number = bad
Indiana Jones 3 - odd number = good
Indiana Jones 4 - even number = bad

hmmm…

Indiana Jones 5 - odd number = PLEASE!

The problem is that it’s not Harrison Ford anymore. It’s going to be hard not to fail.

Some of those films weren’t supposed to be enjoyable, though. It’s like complaining that there wasn’t a flying car chase in There Will Be Blood.

Dramatic filmmaking isn’t about charm. Except for masterful trailer re-edits.

He is doing what he wants with complete free reign?

I love the campy serial Temple of Doom.

I disagree - no reboot would be necessary. Just a good story and an actor capable of the part. This isn’t quite the same thing as James Bond going through something like half a century on screen, always reflecting the current times and going through half a dozen actors. Indy’s Stetson and whip don’t need to be rebooted, unlike Bond’s Walther PPK and Aston Martin DB-5.

But Spielberg and Lucas want to stick with Ford rather than the prime pulp period, and its their baby. None of the following films have been as good as the original, but all have entertained me.

Oh God, the inverse Star Trek curse!

I pretty much agree 100%. Really, Spielberg’s biggest problem these days is his scripts. He seems ready to move straight into production without giving the script time to take shape. Hell things would be a whole lot better if he would ditch David Koepp.

My only problem with Minority Report were the odd “comedy relief” scenes that played against both the tone and action of the movie. Trim those out and he’s got a great movie.

War of the Worlds had the one great scene in it when the alien machine rises up out of the ground and begins an absolutely terrorizing attack, but I dunno about the rest of it. Still, it was an interesting slant on the original George Pal rendition (one suspects that Spielberg never bothered to read the book).

I dislike Crystal Skull, but I don’t think that’s anywhere near the most interesting or relevant work that Spielberg has done in the past decade. If anything, it’s a minor sideshow – a go-along-to-get-along gig with his old buddies Lucas and Ford.

Probably so. I think Spielberg is more interested in new challenges rather than revisiting old ones at this point in his career, but likes working with Lucas and Ford.

You are not mistaken. Damn, I could not have gotten that more wrong.

Absolutely. The concept was rock solid, the failures are due to the execution from script to screen and everything in between.

Very well put Telefrog. That’s also the main difference for me. Even in Temple of Doom, I felt that sense of peril a lot throughout the movie. The first three movies really felt exciting. I always bought into the scenarios enough that I really felt like Indy was in danger every time. In Indy 4, I never felt that.