Lam: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull -- A Parody

               Surprisingly, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had many parodies in the film that referenced back to both Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The references made to Raiders of the Lost Ark generally were related to Marion, while the references made to the Last Crusade were related to Henry Jones, Senior or the concept of the father. Among all of the references in the film, I feel the most prominent one is a mirror of a scene from the Last Crusade. During the scene when Indiana and Henry Senior escape the Nazis by motorcycle, Indiana laughs as they evade the Nazis, but Henry Senior scowls at him. This same scene is mirrored in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when Mutt and Indiana evade the Russians on motorcycle again. Almost the exact same screenplay was used for that scene. However, it does include one major difference. This difference is the knowledge of the father figure. In Last Crusade, Indiana knew that Henry Senior was his father but chose to not to acknowledge him. Meanwhile, in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indiana, at this point of the film, does not have the knowledge that he is anyone's, let alone Mutt's, father.

                This scene is a parody because it induces a mocking tone or pokes fun at a scene in a prior film and usually proves to be ironic. In this case, the situation is ironic because Henry Senior was a very serious and stout man who did not like Indiana's recklessness and his excitement and joy that came from the reckless behavior. Now, many years down the line, Indiana has aged and reached the age where "life stops giving you things and starts taking them away." After experiencing the loss of his father and Marcus Brody, Indiana finally becomes the father figure. This is partially what makes the scene so ironic. It is that Indiana has both become the father spiritually and physically with the introduction of Mutt's character. Mutt seems to be a more reckless version of young Indiana, perhaps due to the genes from both his mother Marion, a very fiery woman, and Indiana, an also very reckless man. In this scene, Mutt portrays the new reincarnated Indiana, but with even more vigor. Indiana does not exactly scowl at Mutt but instead gives him a glare. At the same time, you notice that it seems that Indiana even realizes that this was how he was when he was Mutt's age. The feeling did not seem to be one of contempt but one of reluctant acceptance that kids will be kids. Indiana takes this position until he learns that Mutt is actually his son. This parody almost seems as if the Indiana Jones franchise has run out of ideas with only the development of a son figure as the last chapter to Indiana Jones's life (Pfeiffer 176).

Gaspari Crystal Skull

In the newest edition of the Indiana Jones franchise we see a lot of repetition of themes that are used in the original trilogy. The film starts off with a dangerous confrontation, Indy is introduced into the film with images of his shadow and the back of his head and hat. On top of this we have totalitarian Russian villains not unlike the Nazi's of Last Crusade and Indiana is betrayed by someone he thinks is on his side.

       These are some interesting similarities, but surprisingly there are many many more. The character development follows an almost exact iconic replica of some of the scenes in movies past. Harrison Ford's character is basically just going through the steps of re-acting parts of the past movie. The scene when they take the plane to Peru, Indy does his classic move of ignoring whoever he's flying with by pulling his hat down over his face and falling asleep. We also see the recurring theme of atonement with the father utilized by Indy's staring at a picture of his father on the desk, and the introduction of Mud (Shia Lebeauf) who is in my opinion, not a good successor as a Jones. Jones unknowingly adventures with his son until he meets with mad Dr. Oxley and his past fling Mary. It is only when they are in fatal danger that he Indy is told that Mud is his son, Henry Jones III.

From this point on the movie differs vastly from the other trilogy in the past, but it is very unrealistic and ridiculous. I don't really think that it is a good representation of the Indiana Jones franchise.

Mather - Indiana Jones' Past and his development

The opening scenes of The Last Crusade (1989) are to me, some of the most important scenes in the Indiana Jones trilogy. That being said, I don't believe they offer as much as character development as other scenes in the trilogy. I view character depth differently than character development. The opening scenes most definitely add depth to Indiana Jones' (Harrison Ford) character, but they don't progress the Indiana Jones we know in the movies outside of the introductory scenes of The Last Crusade. "The scenes, which feature Indy (played by River Phoenix) as a Boy Scout trying to prevent the theft of a sacred artifact by scavengers in a deserted gold mine... Indy's battle with the thieves takes him from inside the mine, to a chase on horseback, to a cat-and-mouse game aboard a circus train with deadly animals." (Pfieffer 180) These scenes not only start off the film in an exciting way, but they introduce the origins of the iconic things that make Indiana Jones who he is. The scenes explain Indy's fear of snakes after he falls into a train car full of snakes, they explain the origin of the bull whip, which young Indy uses to fend off a circus lion, and it explains the origin of the Stetson hat, which Indiana is seen making extra effort to save throughout the movies. The "Indiana Jones" hat has been parodied ever since, and it's importance is solidified when the viewer sees how Indiana Jones becomes attached to his hat. The scene ends with Indiana being told by the guy who 'beat' Indy, that "you lost today kid, but that doesn't mean you have to like it." This quote obviously resonates with Indiana Jones' character, as every movie displays Indiana Jones' unwavering persistence. If one thing is to be said about Indiana Jones, it's that he doesn't give up. This is solidified in The Last Crusade, as the scene immediately following that quote shows Indiana on a boat, trying to recover that same artifact that he attempted to acquire in the opening scenes.

So while the opening scenes add depth to the character, they don't develop Indiana Jones as well as other scenes. That is not to discredit the importance of character depth or development. Both are absolutely integral in how the audience connects with the character. In the Temple of Doom (1984), Indiana Jones transforms from the mercenary who believes that anything goes, to the character in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) that serves his country in the fight against the Nazi's. One could also point to his treatment of the female characters in the trilogy for his development. In Temple of Doom, Willie Scott is the relatively useless damsel in distress that Indiana Jones seems fine with sacrificing, to the man in Raiders of the Lost Ark that loves Marion. He is clearly distressed when he believes she died in the truck explosion, and even goes as far as hesitating to kill his rival, Belloc (Paul Freeman), because the blast would endanger Marion as well. Indiana Jones would be the same character, and would develop in the same way if those opening scenes had been different. They are obviously integral to Indy's past, but as far as the audience goes, they exist to help explain Indiana's character, and not to develop him.

Tom Mather

Murray - Indy's past

The final Indiana Jones movie was a great asset to the trilogy because it did add more depth to the character of Indiana. Character depth can only ever add to a story because humans are so innately deep.  The trilogy acts as a metaphor for how we meet new people.  We meet Indy at face value in the first film and see who he is.  In the second film it as though we have become friends with Indy and are now gaining insight into who he was not long ago.  In the final film we not only have now acquainted ourselves with him but now have spent some time together and are allowed to see him how friends see each other.  Friends have grown with each other but also are privy to personal information about their past. This point was made clear when Jeffery Boam stated “I could bring an added dimension to the Indy character and basically get inside him and let the audience find out how Indiana Jones becomes Indiana Jones… By the time is over, Indiana Jones won’t have many secrets left” ( Pfeiffer 176). In With the intro to the last film we have secured a friendship with Indy not just observed his life.  In this intro there are some very personal facts that only friends would know of each other.  The scar on Indy’s chin for example was explained to the viewer by Indy accidentally whipping himself.  Often times people will discuss their old battle scars and tell stories of their past.  Likewise, Indy’s iconic dress is another subject under conversation which gets explained.  These fluffier pieces of information are juxtaposed next to some deeper conversations as well.  One of these deeper topics is why Indy mistrusts people especially those in positions of power.  Like the way we get to know our friends better it is the small nuances of the way a friend reveals themselves are often the most important.  When the young Indy states “everyone is lost but me” the viewer can now understand the now blatant correlations between the Indy we know and the events that shaped him.  Perhaps the most imperative detail we get from the opening scene is Indy’s relationship with his father.  As a friend would not push the subject the viewer does not get to push the subject of Indy’s relationship with his father.  Only for a moment does the viewer get a glimpse of it but like a long friendship the questions answer themselves with time and the current event our friend Indy must endure.  Indy is the viewer’s friend.  The viewer now has known Indy and finally gets insight into who the depth of the person we so enjoyed at face value. 

Kunzig – Attraction of the Dark Side – Week 3 blog make-up.

The way I understand it, being on the Dark side is not defined by whether or not the character has joined forces with the Empire. It is defined by the possession and use of negative feelings such as anger, hatred, jealousy, or revenge. When a Jedi uses these negative feelings to fuel his powers or abilities, he is in effect using the Dark Force, which is more powerful than the Light Force and can therefore be very tempting.
Given this definition, while Luke has in my opinion never truly considered joining the Empire, he has most definitely slipped into the Dark Side in his efforts to fight Darth Vader. This is because he did not fight Vader with a pure heart, with nothing but the good of the galaxy in mind. He also fought Darth Vader out of hatred, anger and revenge, because he believed him to have killed his father. Real "Jedi knights do not give in to feelings of vengeance" (Pfeiffer 133), but Luke most certainly has, more than once.
One of the instances in which he fought with anger was during his training with Yoda, when he fought an illusion of Darth Vader. The second is when he fought him in person in Cloud City. However, this is also when he learns that Vader is actually his father, and I think this is what saved him – he lost all desire for vengeance since the man he thought had killed his father was his father, still alive. This gave him hope. Obviously he refused Darth Vader's offer to join the Dark Side, because that kind of thing doesn't just happen – a Jedi would have to be tempted into using the Dark Force repeatedly until the line between good and evil no longer matters to him.

Lando also slipped into the Dark Side for a moment, when he betrayed his old friend Han, delivering them to Darth Vader. He did so to save his city, which Vader had threatened, but the means to that end was betrayal, which brings him into the Dark Side. However, he was never fully on the Dark Side, and at some point, probably when he saw Han frozen in a block, he realized what he had done and joined the Rebellion.
Darth Vader is the final example of a character tempted by the power of the Dark Side. Unlike the others, he was deep in it before he was saved by his son, Luke. It was Luke's unwavering belief that there was still good in him, and finally seeing Luke being tortured by the Emperor, that made something click in Vader, and brought him out of the Dark Side in the end of the third movie.

O'Connell: Last Crusade - Makeup

Taking place so far in the past, the opening scenes of Last Crusade make up for the lack of character development in the previous films, showing Indiana as not the ideal of masculine bravado we’re used to, but a young squire, exhibiting just a suggestion of the full-blown hero he will be in the future. River Phoenix’s performance perfectly suits adolescent Jones’ as a confident and educated young man with much of the daring do he is known for in the future, but as of yet holding little power and finding himself at the mercy of forces larger than him. The opening scene is a microcosm of Indiana’s later adventures as he puts his life on the line for his ideals, and ends up betrayed by those he seeks to serve -- in this case, the sheriff. It also elaborates upon the origins of a good deal of character traits that were otherwise left unnoticed. “Within a few precious minutes, the scene manages to explain the origins of everything from Indy’s fear of snakes to his acquisition of his trademark Stetson hat.” (Pfeiffer 180)

While in the past two films, Indiana is something of a male Mary Sue with his idealized, nigh flawless character and powerful screen presence, the opening scene presents to us a more vulnerable Indy, as is the theme throughout Last Crusade. Our hero is time and time again robbed of his dignity and seen with egg on his face. This allows us to see Indiana through his father’s scrutinizing eyes, making the opening scenes almost as illustrative about Henry Jones, Sr. as Jr. Going to his father for help after obtaining the crucifix, Henry Sr. fails to take his son seriously, and ignores his claims, instead forcing him to count backwards in greek. The emasculating shame Indiana feels reminds us that he is still only a child, and a shadow of the hero we see him as later in his timeline.

Indy hates the thieves for their selfish desires, reiterating his position that the artifact “belongs in a museum”. However, the man in charge of them dresses exactly like Jones does in adulthood. This draws a parallel between them, where Indy considers himself to have the moral high ground, but in the future he is little more than a glorified grave robber himself at certain points in his career, like during the events of Temple of Doom. The man plays the roll in Indy’s life that is later filled by Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Arc, snatching victory out from under him after he believes himself to be safe. At the same time, the man encourages Indy to continue his pursuits, giving him his signature hat and giving him hope for the future through negative example, displaying to him the graverobbing thievery to which he could succumb and motivating him to retain his ideals.

Oria, Hanover Street (Makeup)

         The first half of the film Hanover Street establishes a love affair between an American pilot, David Halloran, and an English nurse.  It is later revealed that she is married to a man that Halloran is meant to fly into occupied France.  This was the initial reason Harrison Ford accepted the role of David Halloran in the first place.  Prior to this film, Ford claims that, “I had never kissed a female human being on screen before. The characters I played were totally sexless, and here was a movie that was being touted as a romance. That was a clear, obvious reason for doing it,” (Pfeiffer, 84).  While it may have been seen as a romance film, the second half of the film is filled with action and adventure.  Halloran embarks on the mission to transport Sellinger to occupied France.  By doing so, Halloran ends up stuck on the mission with the husband of his lover.  On this mission, the qualities of a hero come into questions. Sellinger applauds Halloran for being a hero.  Sellinger juxtaposes himself against Halloran claiming that if someone were drowning, Halloran would be the one to save him or her and Sellinger would be waiting to give them his coat.

         Sellinger points out the qualities of a hero.  These qualities are someone who jumps to action when something goes wrong.  Someone who does not think before acting and is brave enough to risk their own life.  A hero is one who is willing to put others before themselves.  Sellinger believes that Halloran embodies these qualities.  Sellinger is clearly envious of Halloran’s bravery.  He attempts to prove his manhood and become his idea of a hero.  Rather than send someone else on the mission, Sellinger takes the man’s place.  He would rather die than remain dull. 

         While Halloran fits this description of a hero, he also does not fit it.  He is brave and quick to act but he is also a bit reckless.   He is the hyper masculine war hero.  Before meeting the English nurse, he does as he pleases and has nothing to loose.  It is not until he meets her does he become more of a hero.  Halloran begins to fulfill the selflessness aspect of a hero rather than just being brave. In the end, Halloran chooses to let his love go.  He realizes that he cannot have her.  This is the moment where he truly learns to sacrifice his desires for the well being of others.  Although he does not see it, Sellinger could be considered a hero as well.  He is willing to risk his own life, but for all the wrong reasons.  It is in this way that the two together make up the hero of this film.