 |
 |
Brian Taves <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > - Maybe Lucas is up front because #2, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE > OF DOOM, was pretty widely acknowledged to be at best a disappointment, > indulging in Asian stereotypes that make GUNGA DIN (1939) look like a social > consciousness film. Maybe, but it seems to me that the particular genre that Lucas was emulating with the IJ movies is steeped in stereotypes. I'd even argue that without stereotypes, from Nazis to white American adventurers the genre doesn't work. Anyway, I liked IJatToD well enough. I thought it retained most of the sense of fun from the first one. I didn't think that IJatLC did as well, though it had its moments. > - The title of that second film became part of the Republican slogans in > the 1984 presidential campaign, VP George H.W. Bush decrying the > Democrat's "Temple of Doom" at their San Francisco convention as opposed > to Reagan's "shining city on a hill." Given that we have a better idea of > Lucas's personal politics after Annakin gone amuck uses one of George W.'s > lines in REVENGE OF THE SITH, I doubt Lucas was pleased by the > appropriation. If Lucas is a liberal then I have to wonder at his use of archetypes in the SW series, which is based on the same semantics as is American conservatism. At least I say that based on my understanding of what George Lakoff says on that topic. > - There's the evidence of the popular failure of the 1992-94 tv series THE > YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES. By abandoning the fantasy overtones of > the movies in favor of realistic adventure with a historical setting, > Lucas shifted genre conventions, and I suspect audiences preferred the > encounters with supernatural forces that form the heart of the movies. I loved the YIJC series. My kids loved it. It ran for two or three years, by what you write. What's the popular failure? > - The excessively long gestation time for this new Indy sequel has allowed > the original to turn into a cliche, and it is basically impossible to > revive that same sense of wonder in a revival a quarter century later, as > SW 1-3 proved. Back to my first point: the original was a cliche. It works mainly because it was a cliche. At least that's how I see it, given how heavily it drew on an existing history of American cinema. > Given this history--not to mentiton that Harrison Ford today is only six > years younger than John McCain--it is little wonder that Lucas approaches > another Indy release with some trepidation. That bit, that HF is now oooolllldddd, that's what makes me wonder what the heck Lucas is thinking, especially since IJ is still going to be chasing after Nazis. Perhaps someone will cast a "grow old" spell on IJ... but no, the movie is made, I've seen some previews, and they're definitely trying to make HF look 20 years younger, a feat that appears to be a stretch for him... > Finally, there's the question of Spielberg--a highly uneven director > considering that for over 30 years he's had unlimited assets at his > disposal. Hopefully Indy 4 will be better directed than his recent THE > TERMINAL or WAR OF THE WORLDS ... but that's a debate for a film list. I didn't see either of those. I did see AI, and that movie did disappoint me. I have to blame Spielberg, because he did have final say over what went in and what got cut. It's said that Spielberg cannot abide a sad ending to a storie, even when a sad ending would make it infinitely better. In that respect there should be no problems with the IJ movies, which, by the nature of the genre, always have a happy ending. AI was SF. Contrary to accusations that SF is mere escapism, SF stories often have sad (or at least not happy) endings, especially the good ones. AI was leading up to a sad ending, and then Spielberg happened. -- Helge Moulding mailto:[log in to unmask] Just another guy http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name