Re: Revisionist history...

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Steve from ppp-8.COL.cableone.net on September 22, 1999 at 06:22:59:

In Reply to: Revisionist history... posted by ROB T. on September 21, 1999 at 22:18:11:

: I've noticed on this forum that whenever anyone questions the motives of any of the characters in the Indy films everyone starts screaming, "Revisionist history" and gripes about "Political Correctness."
: Sometimes that's a valid complaint but not always.
: When I questioned the reasoning for having Shorty and Anakin do the things they do it was defended by bringing up that children were less valued in the thirties. I don't think that Indy would have put Shorty in that situation in the thirties anymore than he would've in the nineties.
: I disagree with the situation in the films because it implies that someone on the set of these films made a conscious decision to treat these characters this way. I don't feel that was the case. I think they just didn't think about it at all and I have a problem with that. It shows a certain carelessness on the filmmakers part that would be okay if Lucas and Spielberg were lessor directors. Since they are at the top tier of filmmakers I think it's alright to hold them to a higher standard than say some guy who just got his first film assignment.
: Both of these problems could have been solved very easily without taking anything away from these films. In "Temple of Doom" Indy could have told Shorty to stay in the village and Shorty could have sneaked out and followed Indy and Willie.
: In "Phantom Menace" they only needed to change Anakin's motive for participating in the pod race and given Qui Gonn some other way to get ahold of a hyperdrive system.
: Both questions fixed and neither film loses anything.
: I feel that both films took the easy way out and both films suffer because of it.
: It has nothing to do with political correctness, it's just logical.


I can see your point, but at the same time I also realize that children have not always occupied the place in our minds that they do today. I can remember my dad reciting stories of growing up back in the 30's. Back then when they had company over, the adults always ate first, and if there was anything left, then the children got to eat. This was real common here in the south. Today this idea is appalling. I honestly do feel that you are looking at this children situation with eyes clouded with political correctness, or perhaps ethocentricity. Like you, Indy was a product of his times. His attitudes reflect that. I think that the film reflects this too, and therein lies the problem. There's no conspiracy here to undermine the position children have in our society today. There is an acknowledgement of the fact that children have not always been lucky enough to enjoy the status that they presently do. In times past many children had to grow up really quick, just like Shortround. And if they survived, they were pretty savvy people. This film depicts this well. Indy wasn't taking an innocent child with him. He was taking a streetwise kid, who had learned how to survive, and succeeded. And in the end we discover that no matter how big or old you are, evil can be conquered. Now that is something I hope I have taught my own children. Steve


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]