Posted by Rik Duel from essex.powerup.com.au on November 13, 1998 at 16:05:43:
In Reply to: "What's with this Marion thing!?!" and other complaints posted by Dietrich on November 13, 1998 at 11:18:40:
That begs the question, then. What's the character about?
True. George Lucas's pitch to Spielberg was of a mercenary-adventurer-by-day, playboy-by-night character. This was the way that the character was explored in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And I know that Temple of Doom had a lot of fans, but it didn't come close to Raiders in my opinion.
It seems to me, that a lot of the original concept was revised for the Last Crusade. Gone is the mercenary, "fortune and glory" attitude that was expressed in Temple of Doom, instead replaced with a "that belongs in a museum" attitude. And I think there's a very good reason that we don't see Indy in a tux or calling women 'doll': The creators had, it appears to me, re-thought their idea of Indy, and what made up the character that they'd introduced in Raiders.
But for me, Last Crusade was also too extreme a jump for the Indy character. I think you're all probably aware by now that my Indy is the one from Raiders. And I think that that lies somewhere in-between the two extremes shown in Last Crusade and Temple of Doom. Indy is responsible to a degree, in that all his finds go to the museum, but he also has few qualms about going to extreme lengths (like stealing from the chachapoyan temple in Raiders - that gold idol was still revered by the indians there, it was not some forgotten, ancient archeological dig) to find significant artifacts to display in the museum. I think that Indy didn't just want the ark in a museum, he wanted it in his museum.
Now, I for one do want to see Marion back again. Not to get married and have kids, don't be ridiculous. And not just because she was the first. But because in my opinion she was the most interesting. She was the perfect foil for Indy. If there was any one thing about Temple of Doom that I couldn't stand it was Willie Scott, no disrespect for Kate Capshaw. Indy's character in Raiders was not a clearcut womaniser. In the script, yes. he flirted with all of his students, and even had one in his house when Marcus came calling. But in the final version, the only thing we see is a look of bewilderment from Indy as he tries to read the writing on a young student's eyelids. Now I agree that Indy does have a roving eye, and like I say, I definitely don't think that Marion and Indy should appear as a couple, with no love lost since the final scene in Raiders. But I think that Indy and Marion should be like some other serial characters of the fifties, Flash Gordon and Dale Arden, or Superman and Lois. I don't think that Indy is James Bond. Even if that was the original concept, I just don't see it in Raiders.
The death of Denholm Elliott also is another thing that you mention. And my feelings on this are just that - feelings. I could no easier see another actor play Marcus than I could Indy or Marion. I think that if we can't have Marcus in Indy IV, then we should be given an insight into why. I think that a reference to the loss of a friend would fit the bill perfectly.
If any of you feel differently about any of this, then that's fine. These are just my thoughts and feelings that I've vomited out. If you think and feel differently, then that's your prerogative. But Indy can obviously be interpreted in a number of ways, and I don't think anyone can afford to be too critical of the ways that others interpret Indiana Jones.
Post a Followup: