Indy Marathon - Sunday 5/18

[mousepod]

iSm... you can "balderdash" me all you like, but the truth of the matter is that the Indy series (and especially the first two) are a series of setpieces strung together... in fact, several setpieces were written for the first movie (the raft, the mine car) and were ditched for time and budget constraints, and were put into the second movie. The actual plot came second.

... and as a Hitchcock fan, I dispute your use of "macguffin" - I think the Ark, the Stone and the Grail all serve a purpose other than to move the story along...

I see your Balderdash and raise you a Shenanigans.

[innerSpaceman]

As Hitch rightly pointed out, the Maguffin is the object which the characters care greatly about, and the audience not at all. But the bargain between the film and the audience is made only when the characters care about the Maguffin ... and the movie is improved to the extent the characters demonstrate their concern for it.


Temple of Doom had zero Maguffin and Last Crusade had a boring one.



Also, as Jen pointed out yesterday, Raiders of the Lost Ark has a decidedly more adult tone than its sequels. I hated the dumming-down for kids that started with Temple of Doom. Short Round may be a great character, but he's a symptom of that slide.

The sickly sweet ForGod'sSake Save-The-Children stuff, the replacement of snappy 30's banter dialogue with stupid kid-stuff talk, the trading of twisted comic-style gore for retardedly juvenile gross-outs, the substitution of gritty outdoor shooting for glossy no-scuff set-boundness, and switching a girl you'd like Indy to sleep with for one you'd like Indy to kill are but others.


Indy 3 had some adult themes, but played them out childish ways. With some exceptions, most of the dialogue was dumbed down.

Also, the humor in Raiders was just keener and sharper than in the other films. Shooting the simitar dude, the Nazi coat hanger, and leaving Marion tied up to a pole were big laughs, and really rather witty ... especially when compared with the type of laughs in the other two films (and there are laughs, I'll admit.)



After seeing all the films back-to-back, it's harder to remember when each came out years apart ... and I expected each to stand on their own. They did not. They're much better now as part of a series, where I can just enjoy this or that setpiece or bit of business without expecting a begining, middle, end, resolution, climax or (lost) arc.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

As Hitch rightly pointed out, the Maguffin is the object which the characters care greatly about, and the audience not at all. But the bargain between the film and the audience is made only when the characters care about the Maguffin ... and the movie is improved to the extent the characters demonstrate their concern for it.

I just found this "illuminating" article from yesterday's Columbus Dispatch:
Who's Got The MacGuffin?

to partially quote:

The best way to spot a true MacGuffin is to substitute anything else for it and ask whether the movie would change. If the microfilm in North by Northwest were papers or jewels or a safe-deposit box key, would the rest of the movie change? Not at all.
While the MacGuffin propels the story, it shouldn't be mistaken for an essential plot device. The shark in Jaws isn't a MacGuffin but a key character. It has to be a shark, or the story can't be told.
What about Indiana Jones? Are his adventures driven by MacGuffins?
Lucas and director Steven Spielberg think so, but, with all due respect to the most successful filmmakers in the universe, they're wrong -- at least by Hitchcock's definition.
To Lucas, the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Sankara stones of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the crystallized skulls in the forthcoming Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are the MacGuffins that drive the plots.
But if, as Hitchcock argued, a true MacGuffin is arbitrary and of no dramatic importance, none of the first three qualifies (we don't know yet about the fourth). The contents of the Ark mete out terrible justice to the Nazis in Raiders, a Sankara stone provides security for a poor village in Temple, and the Grail saves the life of Indy's father in Crusade. Each is critical to its story exactly as it is.

So I guess we'll agree to disagree. Or rather, I'll agree with Alfred Hitchcock... and you can agree with George Lucas.

[mousepod]

Dumb fact I learned while watching the "making of" last night. The nazi coat hanger gag was originally meant to be used by Christopher Lee in 1941, but Spielberg couldn't get it to work...

[Alex]

Not being able to leave with the cup doesn't to me imply that it has no value for immortality. If all drinking from it does is heal you, couldn't you return every 10 years for a rejuvenating sip? And if you do have to stay there, is it necessary for the dingy cave to remain a dingy cave? Tear down the mountain, build a fortress, and particularly in another 30 years start living a fully connected if admittedly physical restrained life.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, couldn't you have a swanky cave all decked out with potato chip chairs in a sunken living room with a full bar? Couldn't you get the hottest babes in the world to come there and remain hot forever with a drink of grail water before drinking your cumloads on a daily basis for the rest of eternity?


The mythology was very poorly set out. But, as it exists, there's no requirement to stay in that room to be immortal. For all we know, the two other Brothers Templar were found impure for all the incestuous gay sex they had with each other on the long road back to France from the Crusades ... where their butchery of the Muslim hoards would not have counted against them in the eyes of the Christian God. They blew their shots at immortality when they blew each other.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

They blew their shots at immortality when they blew each other.

Stop trying to derail this thread with sex talk.

[katiesue]

I may be wrong, but don't they find out about the you can't take the grail out of the cave part after they actually get there?? So coudn't the nazi's have wanted it for it's imortality qualities not knowing that you couldn't get it out of the cave?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by katiesue

I may be wrong, but don't they find out about the you can't take the grail out of the cave part after they actually get there?? So coudn't the nazi's have wanted it for it's imortality qualities not knowing that you couldn't get it out of the cave?

That may have been the goal of the top brass, but while it'll bring them some personal glory, it's hardly a war-winning weapon, sending one cup around one person at a time.

Even Elsa said that the Nazi's just wanted it for bragging rights, while she was in it for the immortality.

[Stan4dSteph]

My favorite part of Raiders is when the Nazi guy eats the fly.