Post-Indiana Jones thoughts

My buddy Shep-dawg, Shep-dawg's wife, and I just went and saw the new Indiana Jones tonight. I'll admit I wasn't too hopeful going into it, having grown up with the original trilogy and having a firm idea in my mind of Indy as a particular person, and now having to face him as an old man.

However, it wasn't as terrible as I thought it would be. In particular the first thirty to forty minutes (in which our hero survives kidnapping by Russian agents, a running fight through the same warehouse featured at the end of Raiders---and a not-to-subtle nod to the treasure he uncovered in that episode---and the sudden splitting of atoms) was pretty good. Heck, I've seen worse (such as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or The Mummy 2).

Anyway, a few thoughts (WARNING! SPOILERS BELOW!):

1. Even though she's made a career out of convincing portrayals against type (an elf, an English queen, the late, great Kate Hepburn), it's just a little hard to buy Cate Blanchett as a Russian dominatrix. Hopefully this won't be the first in a series of compromises for the sake of commerce. I know, I know, artists have to eat too, and the "best" and most interesting serious parts aren't exactly as common as the throwaway action film bit-parts. Still...

2. Apparently Lucas and Spielberg didn't want to risk having our aged Mr. Ford try to maintain the audience's interest on his own. Why else would they throw in Cate, Shia, Karen Allen (see #3), Ray Winstone, and perpetual loony-type John Hurt for good measure? Actually it seems that this is something that has increased over the course of the previous three movies. In Raiders it was mostly a contest between Indy and his French antagonist; the other actors were simply there to hold their places. In Temple of Doom, we had comic relief from Indy's Chinese sidekick, and the romantic tension with Kate Capshaw. In Last Crusade, it was almost as much about Sean Connery's character as it was his son's. If they go for Indiana Jones #5, then it will probably swell to Oceans 11/12/13 proportions, with half-a-dozen or more side players supporting Indy (and probably mostly getting in the way, much like the above actors did in this one).

3. Regarding Karen Allen? Well, to put it politely, age hasn't been kind to her. There, I said it. So shoot me...

4. Indiana Jones #4 ends with...a wedding? Hmmm; well, I guess if Lucas and Spielberg really want this to be the last one, then we might as well tie up that particular loose end. If they try to go for a #5, though, then they'll probably have to do some lame Oceans 13-esque plot manipulation to get the wife out of the picture for the action...'cause, I mean, Karen Allen as a viable sidekick on another adventure?...Naw, I don't think so...

5. The closing scenes suggest the faint possibility of Indy's son stepping up to the plate for the next run (if there is any). Hopefully, not; Lucas and Spielberg would do well to leave this thing alone for good.

When Temple of Doom came out in 1984, Lucas mentioned in an interview that he chose the particular time period for the storie(s) (the 1930's) because the non-Western world still had a great sense of mystique and romance about it back then. I would argue that this is no longer so; the Internet, globalism, and international commerce seem to have shrunken our world to less-than-mysterious proportions. Thus, in an age where high-tech computer systems can tell us more about ancient civilizations in five minutes than we could learn in a lifetime through maps, books and traipsing through the jungle, the old-fashioned archeologist Indiana Jones really doesn't seem to be all that relevant anymore.*

Still, we go to see him at the movies anyway. Maybe we're all incurable romantics at heart, even in the 21st century.

* Famous last words, probably.