Heroes Driving the Action

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
Kinda spilling over from the film discussion thread . . .

We all know basic structure of a story, that there are heroes and villains and the plot of the story is the conflict between them. It's the hero who should be the one who takes decisive action to resolve the conflict.

Food for thought: "Raiders of the Lost Ark." I'm sure most of consider this one of the more ass-kicking movies of all time.

But what if the hero, Indy, hadn't been there at all?

The Nazis would have found the Ark, taken it, opened it up . . . and died. Indy, the hero, really didn't do much to facilitate the resolution.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Wasnt Indy's quest to get the Ark before the Nazi's do? He seems to have initially failed at first and only after the NAzi bastards dided did he get the Ark.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

He wanted to get it before the Nazis did. He failed.

Point is, though, if he had never tried, they'd still be dead.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Movies are rarely about what they're about. And, as a corollary, good conversations in movies are never about what they're about. You could be talking about changing a tire, but the true meaning would be something very different.

What happens in a movie is usually the least important thing. It's WHY it happens, that makes a movie great.

It's been a number of years since I've seen the original Raiders, so I'm not too fresh on the story. But what I remember is that it was a personal battle between Indie and Bella (was that his name?), and one of the key lines that sums it up was "You see, once again, there is nothing that you can possess, that I can't take away."

Take a different example: Thelma & Louise. I mean, at the end of that, they drive off the cliff and kill themselves. That's what happens. But that's not why it was a triumphant ending. The triumph comes because in the beginning, all they wanted was to get away from the lives they had. They wanted to go away for a weekend, and then later they decided they would never go back to the lives that they had.

So when they drove off the cliff, they were exerting the ultimate in self-determination and female empowerment. They decided, and they acted on the decision.

Okay, whilst thoroughly rooted upon the soapbox, let me give you another one: Mulan. This is one of the most underrated of the Disney animated films, and it's one where it's so easy to see the true story that's going on. On the surface, it's about a girl who dresses like a man and fights the Huns that are invading China.

But underneath, none of that has anything to do with what the real story is. The real story is a girl who doesn't fit in to society, because she's a creative thinker who challenges the old ways, and in ancient China, that's a big taboo. She can't just be a brainless wife, like they're trying to program her. All she wants, all she has ever wanted, is for her father to accept her for who she is. She goes through this incredible journey, faces death, fights the leader of the invading army, saves the Emperor, and even wins a medal and has the entire nation of China bow to her. But that's not the story. The story is when she takes that medal home and gives it to her father, saying only that she wanted to make him proud. And he tells her that she is the greatest gift of all, and that he's always been proud of her.

It's not what happens. It's WHY it happens.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Right . . . and the reason (why) the conflict is resolved should come about as a result of what the hero does.

Thelma and Louise didn't get pushed off the cliff -- they chose to go over. (Didn't see Mulan.)

Be it a conflict between Indy and Nazis or a conflict between Indy and Bellocq (which works out to the same thing, actually), either way, Indy, the hero, did not bring about the resolution. The Ark -- the power of God -- did. All Indy did was stand there and not watch it. I say again, it would have happened whether he was there to not see it or not.

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of it being deus ex machina -- but it really is. Hmmm. God himself came down and resolved the conflict.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Well, that depends on what you define the "conflict" as. Have to see it again.

I seem to remember there being a significant element of faith involved as well... the "conflict" may have been Indie's journey to resurrect his faith in a higher power.

What I'm saying is, I don't think the battle against the Nazis for the ark, was what the story was about. I don't remember it well enough to know though.

But if the battle was a personal battle between Bellocq and Indie, and Bellocq can take away anything that Indie has, then the one thing he CAN'T take away is Indie's faith. And it was his faith that told him to not look. And it was returning to that faith, and believing in it, even though he wouldn't get to see the great treasure in the ark, which was the real conflict and resolution.

But again, I haven't seen it in too long.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

I dunno, Barry -- I think you're reading way too much into it. Nothing about the conception, creation, and/or execution of the story leads me to believe it was, or was ever intended to be, that deep. Spielberg himself never saw it as much more than a B-movie with an A-movie budget.

But, who knows . . . movies often take on lives far more richly textured than intended after they've been beloved for a few decades. If man's struggle with his faith is what you saw, then who am I to argue?
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Okay, that does it! ;)

I'm puttin' it on the NetFlix list.

Although I'm pretty sure the faith thing is a big thing. I mean, it's the culmination of the whole trilogy: his faith is what leads him to make the jump, to choose the right "carpenter's cup", and even gain eternal life (if he'll just stay there). In the very beginning of the first one he's the one who lectures the gov't guys about the bible, sunday school, etc., which he's basically forgotten. And by the culmination of the 3rd picture he's drinking from the (THE) Holy Grail and earning eternal life...

But anyway, I'll get it in a few days, watch it again and see if I can find what it's supposed to be about.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

To sort of defend Barry (not saying that you need it :P)...I'd say that regardless of whether or not the whole faith vs man theme was *intended*, it has been interpreted as existing. We all know that Raiders has been a favourite for years; something about it 'worked'. Maybe it was BECAUSE of the subtle implications. I mean, Indy actually is a CHARACTER, not just some mindless action hero, and *thats* why I think the movies have held up for so long.

Spielberg's original INTENTIONS are irrelevant, what IS relevant is the fact that it IS more than just a "B" movie. Frankly, I'd say it's one of the best damn "B" movies I've every seen!
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

The Original RAIDERS of the LOST ARK is the single defining moment when I realized "Oh my god! I want to make films."

That movie holds up even today. It's too bad the films declined with each successive sequel. I know that 4 is in the works and I hope they can find that magic again.

What I liked about RAIDERS is that it was taken seriously. It was even nominated for BEST PICTURE!

TEMPLE was good, but not great.

LAST CRUSADE was such a disapointment on many levels. I had serious issues with the entire film:

1. Marcus, after being kind of cool and serious in the First Film is reduced to a bumbling idiot in this film.

2. The relationship between INDY and JONES SR. was just ridiculous.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Hmmm. Don't think I've ever heard from anyone who could stand "Temple of Doom". (other than the classic "Chilled Monkey Brains!")

I really didn't think "Last Crusade" was that bad... it was okay. Yes, the relationship between them was absurd, especially since Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford!)

Maybe I'm harsher on Temple Of Doom than is fair, because expectations were so very high after the first one. Maybe that's another reason why I don't care for Alien 3 so much either. But nothing, nothing can compare to the disappointment of "Big Top Pee Wee"...
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Hey John,

Looks like you blew right through your 2000th post and didn't even get a cigar...

Maybe you shoulda got another star, you and Jarred could be the only 6 star generals on DVXUser.com

-Rodger
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

2000.

Jeez. Scary. I wonder if every word I typed here was put into my screenplays? lol

2000!?
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

While I didn't like Temple of Doom that much, I did in fact like Last Crusade. I admit that it was a little over-the-top with the Indy/Dad relationship, but I thought that it just made the film a different TYPE of film than the original Raiders. It was a little more light-hearted, and I kinda liked that.

Not to diss Raiders, though. It still was AWESOME :D. And I was the same, John; it's one of the films that makes me want to make movies!
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

Okay, I just watched it last night.

And...

I think I've gotta agree with Jubal28.

I didn't expect to, I expected to find the underlying thread, but -- either there really wasn't one, or it was SO underlying that I missed it.

This is a film that is amazingly shallow on character development -- it really is 90% action.

With that said, I think I was on the right track with the faith thing, seeing as in the beginning Indy's character is established as having no superstition whatsoever (when the native runs screaming from the idol, Indy just walks right by it) and then when talking with the militaryintelligence guys he's describing the Ark and shows 'em the picture, with it zapping the enemies, and they ask what that is and he says "wrath of god... you know, if you believe that stuff." Then later with Marcus, he flat-out says "I don't believe in magic, hocus-pocus or superstition." Marcus tries to prepare him that it may be real, and then the filmmakers show us that the "superstition" actually IS real (in the cargo hold, the Nazi markings magically burn off, etc.) They bring religion into it, when Bellocq tells him "you're the same as me. Archaeology IS our religion." And they set up a dramatic conflict then, because when Indy has the bazooka and is threatening to blow up the ark, Bellocq tells him "go ahead, because I know you won't, because you want to see it opened as much as I do."

So when he refuses to look, even though we know he wants to so much, it seems like that should be the defining moment, the pinnacle of the story, when he overcomes the obstacles he's been facing.

But where is it? Why doesn't he look? He starts out looking, I mean when they pull the lid off, there's all sorts of special effects and clouds of gas and light shows and whatever, and Indy's watching it the whole time... it's only right before the first ghost comes out that he decides not to look. But why? Where was the foreshadowing that "looking is bad"? If they had established something like "the Jews believed that for the unworthy to look in the Ark is to invite death" or something, well, that would have established the dramatic tension and the will-he-or-won't-he moment, will he be so curious because he's like Belloq, or will he believe in the magic/superstition so that he won't look, which shows that he's not like Belloq after all...

But they didn't do that.

They do over the course of the trilogy explore the faith/belief-in-magic thing, like I said earlier, but taken on a one-film basis, it's incomplete.

Looking at Indy over the course of this film, what changes about him? He goes after Marion in a big way, but they invalidate that in the second film, so so what?

The only thread I could pick up on was the desire to prove to himself that he WASN'T the same as Belloq. Belloq tries to convince him, at the beginning, that they are the same. Then in the middle (after Marion's dead, when Indy's drunk) he tries again to convince him that they are the same. Then, at the end, at the face-off with the bazooka, Belloq again tells him that they are the same.

So, at the end, Belloq looks and Indy doesn't, and that makes the difference. But how? Why? It's not set up well. Seems like there's a crucial scene missing -- I'd love to read the original screenplay to see what got cut!

On a side note, Belloq made such a point of telling Indy that he could take away anything Indy had, yet in the end it was Indy taking everything Belloq had: he took the girl, the ark, and he even had life, which Belloq didn't.

But as far as the action goes, and the resolution of the conflict between Indy and Belloq, it basically almost is deux ex machina. The nazis are defeated, whether Indy looks or not. The only thing that changes is that Indy's saved because he doesn't look. But why doesn't he look?

There's something missing.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=writing;num=1078873253;start=0#16 date=03/18/04 at 09:56:24]... But why doesn't he look?

There's something missing.[/quote]

It's a play on the old testament. This is the reason for the "holy of holies" to separate the people from viewing the arc once God established it as His place to reside. It's mixed up for sure scripturally speaking, but this is no doubt where our hero understands not to "look" when the arc is opened.

-Rodger
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

But it should have been in the script.

Perhaps the picture that he has, when showing the ark blasting the enemies, should have clearly showed the Israelites averting their eyes. And someone should have made mention of it -- "why are they averting their eyes?" etc. If they had done that, that little bit right there might have been enough to fix the missing link.

I'll bet thirty bucks there's something like that in Kasdan's script.
 
Re: Heroes Driving the Action

All right, I woulda lost $30 on that bet.

I found what claims to be the script over at Drew's Script-O-Rama.  Interesting read -- very, very different than the movie (although some scenes are identical).  There's a lot of scenes in there that were actually implemented in the sequel (hiding behind the rolling gong, and the mine car chase) -- similar to Cameron's treatment of Terminator, where basically the original Terminator script contained a lot of stuff that didn't show up until Terminator 2.

Anyway, the script is quite different than the film in a couple of ways.  First, Indy and Marion are not present during the "unveiling" -- she's tied to a pole outside the makeshift temple, and he's off battling Nazi's.  Belloq blows himself and all the Germans up, all by himself -- and there are no angels or cherubim, it's just a blast of energy that does it.

Second, there's some messianic undertones to the whole thing.  When first discussing the ark with the military intelligence guys, Indy says "oh yeah, there's one other thing, the ark won't be recovered until the True Messiah appears."  Then there are a few times in the script where there are some coincidental uses of religious terms: Indy lands in a car and the driver shouts out "Jesus" (as an exclamation? Or announcing his arrival?) and when they're in the Well of Souls and Indy bursts through the wall, Marion is left behind and she yells out "Please, help me lord" and Indy comes back in and grabs her and rescues her.  Curious coincidence?  Did Kasdan have designs on turning Indy into a modern representation of the Messiah, a la Matrix?

In any case, Indy takes a much more active role in rescuing the ark during the screenplay version.  After Belloq blows himself up, Indy and Marion steal the ark and load it up onto mine carts, and then there's a mine cart chase as they run from the head Nazi and exchange gunfire, etc., and then the mine cart bursts out of the side of the mountain and lands on a boat and they escape.

The deux-ex-machina in the movie version seems to be purely a Spielberg decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top