From the first two
movies, the audience develops a sense of Indiana as a tough, self-reliant adventurous
man. Indiana becomes the protagonists in the movie where the hero can overcome
even the most ridiculous task at hand. This picture perfect knight is intriguing
to the audience in Raiders of the Lost Arc, but loses momentum in Temple of
Doom as the audience is no longer appalled at the same story in a different
context. Indiana’s character needed to be furthered developed to appeal to the
audiences. There is no apparent reward for Indiana’s missions other than money
and glory until The Last Crusade when the role of Indiana must become Henry Jr. instead of
Indiana, in order to find his true place in the world. The only way he can
accomplish this is to come to terms with his relationship to his father.
The opening
scene slightly reveals the disconnect with his father as he approaches him with
the Golden Cross, eager to tell him what happened only to be told away. Indiana
was hopping to be given parenting advice as any young boy would when encountering
themselves in a unique situation. The camera makes a point of view shot to emphasize
this disconnect by creating a tight frame on the father’s hand to demonstrate his
concentration on his work and a reaction shot on Indiana to show his reaction
to his father’s way of telling him to go away. The dismissal of his father can be noted as a
sign of selfishness for putting his own work ahead of his son.
After this
deception, Indiana is confronted with corruption which leaves him at an even
darker place as he hands the cross over to the authorities who then hand it to
the crooks. On this scene the character proximities change from personal to
social to emphasize the shattering of confidence Indiana had on authorities,
when the cross is taken from him it’s a social proxemics where there is no
doubt to everyone that what is happening is corrupt. Then the personal shot is
used to stress the change in Indiana from a boy to young man who is able to see
that the world can be a cruel one. As fedora
hat approaches him, the angle of the camera moves from looking down at Indiana
to a neutral angle. Here, Indiana’s journey begins.
Pfeiffer writes that in terms of Harrison Ford, Connery who playes as Indy's father played such convincing "paternal role that Ford was constantly reminded of his relationship with his father" which played well thorughout the entire movie ( Pfeiffer 2002). Out of the trilogy The Last Crusade was my favorite because it brought together all the loose ends that the other movies had left behind. I
Pfeiffer writes that in terms of Harrison Ford, Connery who playes as Indy's father played such convincing "paternal role that Ford was constantly reminded of his relationship with his father" which played well thorughout the entire movie ( Pfeiffer 2002). Out of the trilogy The Last Crusade was my favorite because it brought together all the loose ends that the other movies had left behind. I
I agree with you and I think that his film in the series is definitely the most unique and brings something different to the table for us to look at. The father son relationship is very interesting, and makes us look at the characters differently. At the same time though, we also have a different type of quest in some ways. The holy grail is a artifact sought after in other movies as well, and it holds a special power of immortality which is so dangerous that there is a secret order protecting it. In the scope of things, yes the bad guys are still trying to get the treasure before Indiana Jones and his crew do, but overall there is definitely a much more epic urgency in this film regarding the quest. That being said, this film is also much more blown out of proportion, they blow up planes and fight tanks and entire temples crumble. I think the most shocking and memorable part of the movie though, is when Donovan drinks from the wrong grail and magically ages and dies instantaneously. This to me was an extremely entertaining and cool part of the film. However entertaining this film is, I think that you are right in assessing the deeper character description and back story we see in this film. There are sides we see of these characters that would never be brought up if it weren't highlighted as an important part of this film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that Indiana’s character was in need of more in-depth development. All the audience could observe from the first two films is a stereotypical hero that always knew the exact right thing to do or say in any situation. The problem with this type of character is that although he does possess some character flaws, he is almost too perfect. He is on such a high level in terms of heroism that his it is unrealistic. The fact that his is so different from us deems his character as not being relatable. Yes, he is afraid of snakes and does not treat women well but the character lacks depth and substance. It was important that in the third film Indy’s character is tied together and we have a context to explain his quirks. In the opening scene we observe Indy’s call to action. Angered by the fact that authority is not always going to do the “right” thing in situations gave him his motivation to simply make things right. The moment a change is made apparent in Indy occurs when grave robber gives Indy his hat and tells him, “You lost today, kid. But that doesn't mean you have to like it.” This is where all of his drive is to recover artifacts is derived.
ReplyDelete