Ç WANT TO SEE THE PRESENTATION I DID FOR THE AMERICAN LITERATURE ASSOCIATION? | Main | SAVE THE REPUBLIC (Or at least go there) È
June 4, 2008
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF TEPID REVIEWS
I saw INDIANA JONES yesterday. I enjoyed it; despite some perhaps unnecessary Jason Bourne antics on the part of Shia LaBouef, the movie crackles along in typical Spielberg fashion. Man-eating insects, scary natives out of some Imperalist nightmare, crypt-robbing, Harrison Ford looking at once bewildered and confident (that wonderful combination of professor and action star), motorcycle chases, angry villains trained in fisticuffs, those really cool map scenes that indicate Indy's globe-hopping, waterfalls, and that inimitable John Williams score.
It clicked to me as I watching this film how the synergy of Lucas and Speilberg came together on the earlier movies. Let's forget Lucas' current pariah status and remember him as creating two and a half awesome, iconic Star Wars movies. And let's forget that Spielberg has since won Academy Awards as the director of important films and is perhaps the biggest name brand director in Hollywood since Alfred Hitchcock. What Lucas brought to these movies was the mythology, the mystery, and seriousness with which Indy takes in his endeavors. I can imagine Lucas being the one who decides that the Ark, or the Sankara Stones, or the Grail, or Crystal Skulls, would be a pretty neat object for Indy to hunt for. And while each could be conceived as a Macguffin, they're not, necessarily . . . you can't say that the Ark of the Covenant with all its religious and archaeological significance, is just "the thing they're trying to get to keep the story moving" - rather, it (as well as the Crystal Skulls) are about knowledge, while the Stones and the Grail are about immortality. Pretty potent themes.
While Lucas was off dreaming up the mythology and, ever the good student of Joseph Campbell, archetypal significance, Spielberg and his screenwriters came up with the whiz-bang set-piece obstacles that Indy had to overcome. The result was pretty magical: I love all three films almost equally.
If the new film is something of a drop-off in terms of mythology and whiz-bangy-blow-up-i-ness, its not a disappointment. I think the Crystal Skull is a pretty cool concoction: it doesn't have a familiar, built-in story for us to ride along with, and the story is cleverly written in a way that teaches us new things about myth, foreign customs, and archaeological method (one of the things that's so brilliant about the series is the way, as I noted, that Indy is at once a conservative scientist and adventurous iconoclast).
It was fun to have Karen Allen return as Marion Ravenwood, and certain scenes involving quicksand and fire ants helped relive the magic of the earlier movies. Cate Blanchett makes a perfectly scary, sexy villain. Spielberg obviously fell in love with her - every scene has her owning the frame, cloaked in light or darkness, glaring at someone behind her firm, military posture. Unlike the villainess of CRUSADE, there's not an ounce of self-loathing, romantic obsession, or insecurity - she's pure Communist, objective pursuit, and I could make an argument that while this may be the worst movie of the lot, she's easily the best villain (on this note, I should point out that I've never really liked Blanchett before, but the one-two punch of I'M NOT THERE and INDY now has her on my list of favorite actors.) As great as Belloq was, he couldn't sword-fight.
I mentioned Shia LaBouef and his sudden turn into the super-hero midway through the movie. At one point, he fences while standing on two moving jeeps, and that's a little much. I guess I could have done without all the 50s nostalgia. Nostalgia for a period was never really the strong suit of this franchise, but it does seem to be the direction Spielberg is going in his film-making (CATCH ME IF YOU CAN was particularly meticulous in recreating the 60s as some kind of sunwashed TV show).
So I don't understand why it's being met with a large degree of boredom. I was not in the least bored. If the film came out in 1992, minus the age jokes and a crucial subplot, I don't think I would have been disappointed.
----
A PLEASANT SURPRISE: The latest Will Ferrell movie to die in the movie theaters, SEMI-PRO, was actually really funny. It's not as good as the brilliant TALLADEGA NIGHTS, and wastes Woody Harrellson, but it is definitely worth a rent. It makes me optimistic about STEPBROTHERS.
| By Andytown | 1:03 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://memphisblogs.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/540