tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post3369187134906848256..comments2023-11-05T01:59:43.451-08:00Comments on Windmills of My Mind: DAY 9: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)Damian Arlynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-17257637150721046132007-08-17T08:42:00.000-07:002007-08-17T08:42:00.000-07:00Phenomenal write-up. For me, this is cinema at its...Phenomenal write-up. For me, this is cinema at its best and purest. Easily my favorite film of all-time and seeing it on the big screen last year was just... incredible.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16948964394469083456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-12235641666950071932007-08-16T02:46:00.000-07:002007-08-16T02:46:00.000-07:00Oh, Flash! Queen, Von Sydow, the delicious Ornella...<I>Oh, Flash! Queen, Von Sydow, the delicious Ornella Muti, Danilo Donati's sumptuous set and production design--no contest.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. <BR/><BR/>I feel like Alice having stepped through the looking glass.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-13146804160171833312007-08-15T23:22:00.000-07:002007-08-15T23:22:00.000-07:00Oh, Flash! Queen, Von Sydow, the delicious Ornella...Oh, Flash! Queen, Von Sydow, the delicious Ornella Muti, Danilo Donati's sumptuous set and production design--no contest. Kid's play is fun, but when adults misbehave...Noel Verahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904212081036547668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-50870697766254623202007-08-14T17:30:00.000-07:002007-08-14T17:30:00.000-07:00Perhaps saying Spielberg was "essentially" a metap...Perhaps saying Spielberg was "essentially" a metaphysical storyteller was a bit of hyperbole on my part, Chris, but I was mostly trying to emphasize an aspect of his work that I feel hasn't been properly focused on in critical circles (and which is becoming more and more clear to me as I examine all of his films in such close proximity to one another). Metaphysics are indeed an important element in a number of Spielberg's movies (<I>Close Encounters, E.T., Poltergeist, Always, Minority Report</I> and I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it as simply a "gimmick" in the Indiana Jones movies). Certainly Spielberg isn't as <I>existential</I> a filmmaker as Ingmar Bergman or Woody Allen, but even within the bounds of genre filmmaking, he clearly seems (to me at least) to be a metaphysical one.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-41360728941467450872007-08-14T16:50:00.000-07:002007-08-14T16:50:00.000-07:00Dennis:In my analysis of the significance of India...Dennis:<BR/><BR/>In my analysis of the significance of Indiana Jones' status as a cultural hero, I wasn't trying to pit him against Flash Gordon, who would probably come out ahead in the long run, but then again Gordon was actually created back in the 1930's. Indiana Jones, though heavily influenced by 30's/40's heroes, was an original character conceived by George Lucas and, as I say in my piece, I don't think Lucas and Spielberg intended to make what I would argue is the most important fictional hero to emerge in the last 30 years, it just rurned out that way. <BR/><BR/>Now, if we were talking about significant fictional heroes of the entire Twentieth Century, that would be another matter. Indiana Jones would arguably not even make the top 10. Personally speaking, I would put him in the top 5 but literary creations like James Bond, Rambo, Superman, Batman, Harry Potter and, of course, Flash Gordon would in all probabiity supercede him. At any rate, the <I>Flash Gordon</I> movie (which, incidentally, I also love; used to watch it a lot when I was a kid) might be a purer incarnation of 1930's simplicity and innocence, but that doesn't make it a better movie. As much affection as I might have for Hodges' movie, it seems practically inarguable to me that <I>Raiders</I> is the technically and artistically superior (as well as more important) film.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-14175654776417697222007-08-13T23:07:00.000-07:002007-08-13T23:07:00.000-07:00As retrofitted, serial-inspired fantasy heroes go,...As retrofitted, serial-inspired fantasy heroes go, I've always preferred Mike Hodges' all-camp all-the-time <I>Flash Gordon</I>, which came out six months before <I>Raiders</I>, to the more straight-arrow, replicate-the serials-instead-of-comment-on-them approach of Lucas and Spielberg. With <I>Raiders</I>, they really were about simply recreating the cheap thrills on a Panavision scale (and certainly not with creating an archetypal hero, which I would argue Indy is not), whereas Flash Gordon had some pretty humorous and well-imagined takes on the serial hero archetype and what kids might expect from a hero derived from the '30s but looked at through the prism of the '80s.<BR/><BR/>But I'll say this-- no one in <I>Flash Gordon</I> allowed a fly to crawl in and out of their mouth without breaking character the way Paul Freeman did. I've always been in awe of that found moment, and I bet Spielberg is too!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-18189370166503543192007-08-12T13:20:00.000-07:002007-08-12T13:20:00.000-07:00Weigard-- Oh, I didn't mean to present myself as a...Weigard--<BR/> Oh, I didn't mean to present myself as a hardened cineaste at the age of eight-- the melting faces climax scared the heck out of me, too! When I said "I was ready," I only meant that I was a much better filmgoer, and much more prepared to actually watch and enjoy the film (unlike my first moviegoing experience, when my very nice parents took me to see star wars at four, and I spent much of the film not knowing what was happening, and running around the theater like, well, some four-year old. My four-year old self would've driven my adult self crazy. (:).Brian Doanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903729233401672600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-16422591274829922762007-08-11T22:55:00.000-07:002007-08-11T22:55:00.000-07:00Hi Damian! I've really been enjoying your article...Hi Damian! I've really been enjoying your articles on Spielberg -- thanks for all your hard work! <B>Raiders</B> is probably my favorite of his films, and I thought I'd comment about a couple of points you mentioned where I disagreed slightly. One is in regard to Belloq being an inadequate villain. I think this is actually because, in essence, he's NOT the villain of the film. Perhaps a better term would be a rival, or maybe even a foil. I believe Belloq mentions at one point that he and Indy are basically the same, that they are seeking antiquities and doing whatever it takes to find them. We know that he's missing something in Indy's character, but even Indy seems to realize that Belloq is uncomfortably near the truth. After all, he's the guy who will leave Marion in captivity while he goes and hunts for the artifact. I also don't find Belloq entirely unsympathetic -- nor are we meant to, I would suggest. The speech he makes when Indy is threatening to blow up the ark seems to me not just playing on his knowledge of Indy, but also representative of his own views regarding history. While he appears at the start of the film to be the villain, the thorn constantly in Indy's side, by the end of the film, he comes across as almost a tragic figure, someone who sold his soul in the chase for relics. In that sense, the true villains of the piece are the Nazis, primarily personified in Toht (death indeed, as it sounds in German). I think his complexity makes the film that much better.<BR/><BR/>I'm also not sure that I'd call Indy a "believer" by the end of the film. It seems to me that he's basically a realist, a neutral observer. He doesn't believe in that "mumbo jumbo", and in his world, it seems to serve him well. With the Nazis, you get the sense that the "Jewish ritual" at the climax of the film is harmless, the power of the Jewish God nothing that need be taken that seriously -- their own beliefs end up blinding them to the truth. Indy, on the other hand, may not believe, but when he sees the hand of God about to do some serious striking down, he knows enough to get out of the way. So by the end, I still see him with this same attitude, that something strange happened on that island, and the reality had to be dealt with, but that's over, and something like that won't happen again. Probably.<BR/><BR/>Cinephile -- I'm stunned you were ready for this when you were 8. I had trouble with the gore when I saw it in the theater at 17! I hope I wasn't the only person who actually DID shut his eyes for the entire climax of the film. (Later, I found out how it ended on video.) I guess I've always been the sensitive sort, though. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-52469941621744414122007-08-11T00:05:00.000-07:002007-08-11T00:05:00.000-07:00In most of these pieces, you're following a relati...In most of these pieces, you're following a relatively standard positive pop crit opinion of Spielberg, which is a painless, reasonable position to take for the kind of annotation and biographical filmography tour you're doing. But this is surprising:<BR/><BR/>"Spielberg is once again demonstrating that he is essentially a metaphysical storyteller."<BR/><BR/>That's a pretty Big Argument, and it's a reading of Spielberg that hasn't previously been much made... unfortunately it's so massive, it needs some support. Any support. This isn't it:<BR/><BR/>"The existence/non-existence of the supernatural is a key question to all of the Indiana Jones films."<BR/><BR/>Because this is plainly a story gimmick in the Indy movies, one standard to fantasy stories. Dr. Jones' move from skeptic to believer is barely a plot point in RAIDERS, and seems to impact him not at all. In an "earlier" story he learned that Shiva and Kali are equally extant, manifest and undeniable. But that's not the same as making a coherent point about spiritual relativism; Indy comes face to face with the Judeo-Christian God and with Hindu deities. If it's the key question of RAIDERS, the question has an answer: in Indy-World mythos, there is a Real Live Old Testament God, and He will melt your face.<BR/><BR/>That's not a probing examination of the mysteries of faith; at least it is no more unique than the crises of belief in the supernatural suffered in DRACULA or THE WOLF MAN or THE BLOB or HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS, and only slightly more serious. Perhaps less: in the Indy pictures, the primary role of the gods is to serve as MacGuffin until in last-minute FX gags they become literal deus ex machina to resolve the plot.<BR/><BR/>"Spielberg is once again demonstrating that he is essentially a metaphysical storyteller."<BR/><BR/>Now, one can always do criticism/analysis/exegesis on Spielberg's metaphysics, or from any disciplines' perspective - that is, we can do psychological, queer or philosophical readings of any text. But those are different notions than what you're putting forth.<BR/><BR/>Even when Spielberg selects scripts that pay some lip service to ontological or theological problems as starting points for stories, or breeze past metaphysical questions, they are suppressed or given pat answers. This is not necessarily a criticism of a problem, or a weakness; his work just doesn't bear out that metaphysical argument is chief among Spielberg's philosophical preoccupations.<BR/><BR/>In the '90s and '00s Spielberg has increasingly tackled scripts that attempt to actively grapple quandaries in applied ethics. That makes for closer ties to his career-long concerns. It seems to me the strained, ambivalent human scale father/child relationships in Spielberg's work are conflated/inflated into fables of unwitting Everyman/child individualists against monolithic Daddy-systems of control, which may manifest as Bad Governments, as Conspiracy, and even as Bad Men Playing God; the obvious paths to trace are Spielberg as social critic, as moral philosopher, as essayist on personal / cultural politics. But when faced with the mystery of existence, Spielberg never comes up with better than shining a gold light in somebody's face while their jaw hangs open.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-73962870884157170052007-08-11T00:04:00.000-07:002007-08-11T00:04:00.000-07:00I love 1941. No, it doesn't have the expert pacing...I love 1941. No, it doesn't have the expert pacing of Raiders, but it has Spielberg amok, with huge setpieces that just got bigger and bigger, and more and more elaborate. <BR/><BR/>The climax in Raiders I submit is inspired by the climax of the Night in Bald Mountain sequence in Fantasia (the ghosts coming straight at the camera, the burst of fire up from a volcanic cone high in the air, to come rushing down again); Disney in turn was inspired by Murnau's Faust. And so on and so forth.Noel Verahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904212081036547668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-26624266828270153522007-08-10T19:24:00.000-07:002007-08-10T19:24:00.000-07:00Damian-- Another great essay. Raiders is one of my...Damian--<BR/> Another great essay. Raiders is one of my favorite Spielberg films, and it might be the most important to me, simply because it was the one that really introduced me to him as a director (I was too young to have seen Jaws in a theater, too young to appreciate the majesty of Close Encounters, and home video was still in its infancy then, so I couldn't really catch up yet, but I was eight when Raiders was released, and ready for its action). Your wonderful overview taught me some things I didn't know-- like the recurring actor who played the heavy by the airplane-- what a great touch! <BR/><BR/>Just a couple of comments-- I agree that the villains in the second two films are poorly defined, but I think Belloq is wonderful-- the perfect doppleganger for both Indy and Marcus Brody (think of how the Indy-Belloq conversation in the bar is the dark reversal of that between Brody and Indy earlier in the film), and Paul Freeman is great. Reading through your remarks, I was reminded again of what a great cast this film had-- perhaps not as full of "names" as some Spielberg films, but arguably his best working ensemble.<BR/><BR/>And the sex thing doesn't bother me-- as you say, the film is modeled on adventure movies of the 30s and 40s, so it seems in stylistic character to keep things relatively chaste (although I agree with burbanked that Kasdan's contribution is essential, and he writes some great dialogue that gives those romantic conventions a zingy spin).<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the great continuing series-- you've actually got me thinking I should buy 1941. (:Brian Doanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17903729233401672600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-69098177121386862642007-08-10T15:40:00.000-07:002007-08-10T15:40:00.000-07:00Great essay, but what about Philip Kaufman's invol...Great essay, but what about Philip Kaufman's involvement with Raiders?Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16443946766217092846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-66237363090764324792007-08-10T13:00:00.000-07:002007-08-10T13:00:00.000-07:00For some reason, I've never been that into Indiana...For some reason, I've never been that into Indiana Jones. As good a movie as it is, I've never really forgiven it for being responsible for Temple of Doom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-43072897657652420672007-08-10T12:31:00.000-07:002007-08-10T12:31:00.000-07:00Nice post, though I would dispute your assertion t...Nice post, though I would dispute your assertion that Spielberg's career was really "in jeopardy" following <I>1941</I>. Though the press did enjoy taking him down a peg for that movie, he'd directed two of the hugest hits of the 1970s, he was still every inch the wunderkind, and <I>everyone</I> at the time went gaga over the idea of him and Lucas teaming up.<BR/><BR/>I'd also disagree with your claim that Indy is the "most significant cultural hero to emerge in fiction over the last 30 years." I just don't see a lot of significance in the character. He's mostly recycled from previous adventure types, including of course Han Solo (who was also recycled). He's a bit too generic, frankly, for my taste, though the movies themselves are certainly enjoyable.<BR/><BR/>Like moviezzz, I think <I>Temple of Doom</I> was the wildest and most fun of the series. The first <I>Raiders</I> has its plodding moments.SteveWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313241937230776034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-23190360999477691292007-08-10T11:35:00.000-07:002007-08-10T11:35:00.000-07:00Another great analysis, Damian, and another terrif...Another great analysis, Damian, and another terrifically entertaining read.<BR/><BR/><B>Raiders</B> has always been My Movie - the one that informed and inspired my young mind and vaulted me into the realm of fantasy movie-making wannabe. As a kid, I was impressed by <B>Star Wars</B> - but <B>Raiders</B> made me fall in love. I agree with you, Damian, that it only gets better with age.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the mention of Mick Moore - I had never known this element of the making of <B>Raiders</B>, so hearing about his involvement was something of a revelation. The truck chase is, I think, the highpoint of the movie - in some ways better than the climax, and I never knew before that Spielberg didn't shoot it himself.<BR/><BR/>I'd disagree a tiny tiny bit with your reasoned assertion that the movie's plot is episodic. While it's true that the action scenes have an episodic feel to them, I really think that the power and precision of Kasdan's script is that each action scene conveys some important exposition or revelation on its own which spins us into the next sequence. If anything I think that Spielberg, Kasdan and Lucas took some of the conventions of serial movie-making and simply transposed them onto a more modern three-act screenwriting framework.<BR/><BR/>Great piece, though, and excellent callouts to the Spielberg secondary such as Moore, Kahn and (of course) Williams.Burbankedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060477901077195090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-51996605240784730532007-08-10T11:12:00.000-07:002007-08-10T11:12:00.000-07:00vI don't think that the film lacks "humanism" or h...vI don't think that the film lacks "humanism" or heart, I think Spielberg just doesn't underline those qualities quite so heavily as he does in other films. Certainly the look on Ford's face when he thinks Marion's been killed, and then again when he discovers that she's still alive, communicates a great depth of feeling and humanity. That those moments are more carefully parceled out makes them more effective in the moment, for me.<BR/><BR/>I was all of five months old when Raiders was released in theaters, and I didn't actually catch up with it until *after* I had seen The Last Crusade and The Temple of Doom. It has, as a result, always been the film in the series that has meant the least to me in terms of sentimental attachment, though I have begrudgingly come to accept that it is the best of the series.<BR/><BR/>And before I ramble on too long, just wanted to say, this is, along with Close Encounters, another movie that is fundamentally the work of the Young Spielberg. I'm pretty sure he's said in the last few years that, since completing Schindler's List, he could never again make a movie that presented the Nazis as run of the mill adventure-picture heavies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-12077440294216284752007-08-10T11:07:00.000-07:002007-08-10T11:07:00.000-07:00I always felt that it would have been great if the...I always felt that it would have been great if the rival artifact-hunter at the beginning of "The Last Crusade" -- the one who gives River Phoenix the signature hat -- had been played by Tom Selleck.<BR/><BR/>These are great articles -- and thanks to Matt Zoller Seitz for linking to them!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-24644840627597512892007-08-10T08:54:00.000-07:002007-08-10T08:54:00.000-07:00I agree with others who said that this film was on...I agree with others who said that this film was one of the formative experiences of their childhood. I loved this film when it came out and feel that it still holds up today. What the subsequent sequels and imitators didn't seem to understand was that Raiders is so much more than one breathtaking action set piece after another. It's about characters and they interact with each other. I always think about that line where Indy tells Marion, "Its not the years, it's the mileage." That line used to mean very little to me when I was younger now as I get older it resonates more and more. And that's one of the things that makes this film so special and the enduring classic that it is.<BR/><BR/>Great job on this article! I really enjoyed reading it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164105442273577128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-31030200487472299432007-08-10T08:01:00.000-07:002007-08-10T08:01:00.000-07:00Great series Damian.I have to admit that, even as ...Great series Damian.<BR/><BR/>I have to admit that, even as a kid, RAIDERS was a film that I wanted to like more than I did. I always found Ford to be a very wooden actor (I would have also liked to have seen Selleck in the role). <BR/><BR/>I felt the pacing of the film was off. Parts of it were very slow going. And, having seen it many times since the early 80's, I can't say it is a favorite of mine.<BR/><BR/>I know it isn't a popular opinion, but as a kid in the 80's, TEMPLE OF DOOM was a lot more fun.TALKING MOVIEzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11621046844665110326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-92160657387394895742007-08-10T06:29:00.000-07:002007-08-10T06:29:00.000-07:00this is great man...really enjoying your blog.this is great man...really enjoying your blog.Sheamus the...https://www.blogger.com/profile/16977591235815866630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-71940934691252286242007-08-10T04:42:00.000-07:002007-08-10T04:42:00.000-07:00This film, in typical Hitchcock fashion, is a lot ...This film, in typical Hitchcock fashion, is a lot more sexual than it first appears. The rope lands <I>limp</I> at Indy's feet when Belloq steals the ark. Indy and Marion are tied to a <I>pole</I> as a bunch of <I>white ghosts</I> kill the Nazis. The scene where the Nazis open the ark seems to be set strongly against the rampant masculinity that has, for the most part, defined the whole film. And then there's the whip...<BR/><BR/>But seriously, this was a very well written article. The combination of behind the scenes stories with detailed analysis makes for both an entertaining and thought-provoking read. Keep up the good work, DamianDan E.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03922932534988355330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-3791528898235542672007-08-10T01:51:00.000-07:002007-08-10T01:51:00.000-07:00Joe:I've long been of the opinion, Joe, that Raide...Joe:<BR/><BR/>I've long been of the opinion, Joe, that <I>Raiders</I> is the best of the Indy movies so I agree with you. Oh, and you're absolutely right in that Karen Allen is wonderful in the film. I'm so glad she's coming back for the fourth one.<BR/><BR/>As for Tom Selleck: well, if the screen test included on the "Indiana Jones trilogy" bonus DVD indicates anything it's that the guy might actually have made a decent Indy. One can see why Lucas and Spielberg were interested in casting him. Still, I think it all worked out for the best. :)<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can talk about <I>Raiders</I> and not mention Michael Kahn's editing. That would be like talking about <I>Manhattan</I> while ignoring Gordon Willis' photography.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ed:<BR/><BR/>That's interesting, Ed, because <I>Raiders</I> was a seminal film in my childhood as well (as I mention briefly in my post) but to me it just seems to improve with age.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-21469738464124448382007-08-10T01:37:00.000-07:002007-08-10T01:37:00.000-07:00Raiders was a seminal film for me in my early adol...<B>Raiders</B> was a seminal film for me in my early adolescence. I loved it to death and I still like it a lot, but it's actually grown weaker to me over the year. As much as I love Pauline Kael, she seldom changed my mind about a movie I liked or disliked but her review of <B>Raiders</B> was one that actually got me to thinking and agreeing with lots of her points.Edward Copelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12463676135131274426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6332525178317601464.post-34204558104924710432007-08-10T01:30:00.000-07:002007-08-10T01:30:00.000-07:00I like how Indy gets pummeled for the entire movie...I like how Indy gets pummeled for the entire movie, but somehow, Spielberg keeps the spirit and tone of the film out of the realm of comic book. Unlike the sequels, <EM>Raiders of the Lost Ark</EM> never stops to make fun of itself. <BR/><BR/>Karen Allen is so radiant in this. I only just realized that her first and last lines of dialogue concern getting a drink. I can see the whole movie as a metaphor for the perils of Marion Ravenwood's drinking.<BR/><BR/>I'll admit that I think Tom Selleck would have been a sensational Indy.<BR/><BR/>I thought it was great you mentioned Michael Kahn and the editing in your review, Damian. That sort of contribution tends to get ignored by most people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com