Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
I just saw it again a couple days ago...
I thought it kicked ass.
I just saw it again a couple days ago...
I thought it kicked ass.
Heroes Driving the Action
- Thread starter David Jimerson
- Start date
Reidwriter
Member
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
Intersting point about Indy's failure to get the arc first.
So basically his storyline is a failure but the overall storyline is a success, the nazi don't control the arc.
As far as the issue of his faith, I don't know if him closing his eyes was an act of faith or an act of biblical knowledge. I think if it was an act of faith then he would have experienced a character change, I mean he saw the power of god kick some serious butt, but instead he was right back to being Indie and gave no more thought to it than a voodoo doll that actually may work.
Intersting point about Indy's failure to get the arc first.
So basically his storyline is a failure but the overall storyline is a success, the nazi don't control the arc.
As far as the issue of his faith, I don't know if him closing his eyes was an act of faith or an act of biblical knowledge. I think if it was an act of faith then he would have experienced a character change, I mean he saw the power of god kick some serious butt, but instead he was right back to being Indie and gave no more thought to it than a voodoo doll that actually may work.
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
what was lame about that part, was that out of the holiest item on earth, they had some sort of ghostly demons flying out.. that was just stupid, and ignorant. like having a fish flying in the air instead of a bird.. shoulda been angels with flaming swords or something - ripping people new ones. ..anyway.. and now back to your regular scheduled programming..
what was lame about that part, was that out of the holiest item on earth, they had some sort of ghostly demons flying out.. that was just stupid, and ignorant. like having a fish flying in the air instead of a bird.. shoulda been angels with flaming swords or something - ripping people new ones. ..anyway.. and now back to your regular scheduled programming..
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
Well, that's true. In "Last Crusade," the Grail healed Henry Sr., and the bad guys died of their own greed. The Grail didn't do it.
Well, that's true. In "Last Crusade," the Grail healed Henry Sr., and the bad guys died of their own greed. The Grail didn't do it.
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
I agree with Barry's analysis of the script and story. A movie hides much of its story and character development in subtext and decisions they make. Paul Shrader in a preface to the TAXI DRIVER script says "I only put enough plot in to keep things interesting so I can reveal my character". In other words "No Indiana, no movie". I think most people only see the plot as the other stuff is very subliminal. It is built in there though. That's why it takes years to complete a screenplay some time. I agree on the THEME of FAITH. Great insight from Barry.
Also a movies down-ending plot (also see Butch Cassidy) does not negate the movie I would think.
I agree with Barry's analysis of the script and story. A movie hides much of its story and character development in subtext and decisions they make. Paul Shrader in a preface to the TAXI DRIVER script says "I only put enough plot in to keep things interesting so I can reveal my character". In other words "No Indiana, no movie". I think most people only see the plot as the other stuff is very subliminal. It is built in there though. That's why it takes years to complete a screenplay some time. I agree on the THEME of FAITH. Great insight from Barry.
Also a movies down-ending plot (also see Butch Cassidy) does not negate the movie I would think.
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=writing;num=1078873253;start=0#3 date=03/09/04 at 16:04:08]It's not what happens. It's WHY it happens.[/quote]
Outstanding point! What every director should know and be able to convey to actors he/she is working with.
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=writing;num=1078873253;start=0#3 date=03/09/04 at 16:04:08]It's not what happens. It's WHY it happens.[/quote]
Outstanding point! What every director should know and be able to convey to actors he/she is working with.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
Actually, Indy did bring about the resolution, indirectly. If not for the fact that it was Indy who realized that the Nazi's had the wrong staff for the map room, which led them straight to the ark.
Let's face it these guys would not have found the Ark if not for Indy. So he helped them find the instrument of their destruction.
Actually, Indy did bring about the resolution, indirectly. If not for the fact that it was Indy who realized that the Nazi's had the wrong staff for the map room, which led them straight to the ark.
Let's face it these guys would not have found the Ark if not for Indy. So he helped them find the instrument of their destruction.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Heroes Driving the Action
Here’s my thoughts about the Indy discussion...and I admit that it’s been a long while since I’ve seen any of them.
Superman was a dull character until they invented kryptonite to “humanize” him. Superman without weakness, fault, or vulnerability leaves little for us to identify with and in terms of story, it removes any element of peril for the hero. That’s just plain boring, which is why Kryptonite appeared.
I feel that Indy is taken to the opposite extreme as the ultimate humanized hero, where in every moment he could become “too big for his britches” but something in the storyline takes him back down a notch. He’s constantly walking into danger, making wrong assumptions and innocuous choices that wind up putting him in greater danger. Add on top of this a layer of cynicism and humor in reaction to all the various twists that befall him, and we have one of the most memorable characters in movie history.
So I suppose I take slight issue with Barry Green saying that the film is amazingly short on character development. I think it’s written, directed, and acted so well that it is amazingly EFFICIENT on character development.
We don’t get the typical expository scenes about the character’s history, we don’t get the predictable establishment/payoff of tiny pieces of otherwise inconsequential information. We aren’t forced to sit through a long heart-to-heart where Indy gets to tell the audience what he’s all about and what random childhood event is driving his character today.
What’s left is a character that is somewhat light on back story, yet is so fleshed out in his behavior, that he’s understandable. We’re able to identify with, sympathize with, empathize with, and finally root for him. He fails often and he stumbles repeatedly, yet he’s simultaneously plucky and cynical.
I don’t think that the story is light on character development. Instead I see a well-rounded character who dynamically changes in the face of different hardships, yet retains a standard thread of attitude through all the events.
As far as the driving conflict of the movie, while on the surface all the Indy movies seem to be a battle of “man vs. evil”, in the end they all seem to have the underlying theme of “man vs. himself”. It’s Indy’s struggle of reconciling his science and his faith. Indy’s driving force isn’t only to defeat the nazis, he also wants to be the infamous man who discovers the arc and puts it on display in a museum, yet in the end it’s crated up and lost in a random government warehouse because that’s the *right* thing to do.
As a scientist he wants to see what’s inside the arc, but when the time comes for him to take a good scientific look, the ingrained awareness of scripture causes him to doubt his scientific arrogance and he averts his eyes. As a scientist, there is no way he could believe that spirits would come out and melt everyone, yet somehow after reading those passages for so long, something caused him to doubt that assuredness.
Of course, since he did get that little peek, you could also argue that he was spared the wrath of god because his heart and motives were somewhat pure.
So, again, I think that while the film is driven by all these huge action scenes, presenting a sense of physical conflict and a struggle of good versus evil, the heart of the film lies in Indy struggling with himself. He always wants to be the know it all, he always wants to be in control, and in the end he finds himself helplessly tied to a pole while the Nazi’s take complete control.
The film ends with the object of this struggle being purposely lost again, a resolution that is completely opposed to everything an archeologist would stand for...purposely LOOSING rather then FINDING.
So we are given an arc that completes the story, but Indy remains largely the same at it’s conclusion. However, while we’re often expected to see characters differently at the end of a film, this film can’t be expected stand on it’s own. It’s a serial, and in a serial you can only afford your characters a few changes, lest you lose the only reason that serials work...a consistent character driven through differing adventures.
Indy doesn’t change much because we need to see the same guy go through the next adventure, and if he were submitted to a life-altering or personality-altering transformation in each film, we’d have nothing to root for. It’d be effectively a different hero in each film.
In the end, I think the Indy films work more because the characterization of Indy is consistent, that his personality flaws drive the danger and his heroism and faith always saves him.
Now, would the film be anywhere as watchable if Tom Selleck actually did wind up playing Indy? I seriously doubt it...leading me to believe that Harrison Ford should be given the true credit for Indy.
Here’s my thoughts about the Indy discussion...and I admit that it’s been a long while since I’ve seen any of them.
Superman was a dull character until they invented kryptonite to “humanize” him. Superman without weakness, fault, or vulnerability leaves little for us to identify with and in terms of story, it removes any element of peril for the hero. That’s just plain boring, which is why Kryptonite appeared.
I feel that Indy is taken to the opposite extreme as the ultimate humanized hero, where in every moment he could become “too big for his britches” but something in the storyline takes him back down a notch. He’s constantly walking into danger, making wrong assumptions and innocuous choices that wind up putting him in greater danger. Add on top of this a layer of cynicism and humor in reaction to all the various twists that befall him, and we have one of the most memorable characters in movie history.
So I suppose I take slight issue with Barry Green saying that the film is amazingly short on character development. I think it’s written, directed, and acted so well that it is amazingly EFFICIENT on character development.
We don’t get the typical expository scenes about the character’s history, we don’t get the predictable establishment/payoff of tiny pieces of otherwise inconsequential information. We aren’t forced to sit through a long heart-to-heart where Indy gets to tell the audience what he’s all about and what random childhood event is driving his character today.
What’s left is a character that is somewhat light on back story, yet is so fleshed out in his behavior, that he’s understandable. We’re able to identify with, sympathize with, empathize with, and finally root for him. He fails often and he stumbles repeatedly, yet he’s simultaneously plucky and cynical.
I don’t think that the story is light on character development. Instead I see a well-rounded character who dynamically changes in the face of different hardships, yet retains a standard thread of attitude through all the events.
As far as the driving conflict of the movie, while on the surface all the Indy movies seem to be a battle of “man vs. evil”, in the end they all seem to have the underlying theme of “man vs. himself”. It’s Indy’s struggle of reconciling his science and his faith. Indy’s driving force isn’t only to defeat the nazis, he also wants to be the infamous man who discovers the arc and puts it on display in a museum, yet in the end it’s crated up and lost in a random government warehouse because that’s the *right* thing to do.
As a scientist he wants to see what’s inside the arc, but when the time comes for him to take a good scientific look, the ingrained awareness of scripture causes him to doubt his scientific arrogance and he averts his eyes. As a scientist, there is no way he could believe that spirits would come out and melt everyone, yet somehow after reading those passages for so long, something caused him to doubt that assuredness.
Of course, since he did get that little peek, you could also argue that he was spared the wrath of god because his heart and motives were somewhat pure.
So, again, I think that while the film is driven by all these huge action scenes, presenting a sense of physical conflict and a struggle of good versus evil, the heart of the film lies in Indy struggling with himself. He always wants to be the know it all, he always wants to be in control, and in the end he finds himself helplessly tied to a pole while the Nazi’s take complete control.
The film ends with the object of this struggle being purposely lost again, a resolution that is completely opposed to everything an archeologist would stand for...purposely LOOSING rather then FINDING.
So we are given an arc that completes the story, but Indy remains largely the same at it’s conclusion. However, while we’re often expected to see characters differently at the end of a film, this film can’t be expected stand on it’s own. It’s a serial, and in a serial you can only afford your characters a few changes, lest you lose the only reason that serials work...a consistent character driven through differing adventures.
Indy doesn’t change much because we need to see the same guy go through the next adventure, and if he were submitted to a life-altering or personality-altering transformation in each film, we’d have nothing to root for. It’d be effectively a different hero in each film.
In the end, I think the Indy films work more because the characterization of Indy is consistent, that his personality flaws drive the danger and his heroism and faith always saves him.
Now, would the film be anywhere as watchable if Tom Selleck actually did wind up playing Indy? I seriously doubt it...leading me to believe that Harrison Ford should be given the true credit for Indy.