Re: "What's with this Marion thing!?!" and other complaints

Posted by Laurie Jensen from proxy2.frmt1.sfba.home.com on November 13, 1998 at 20:15:06:

In Reply to: Re: "What's with this Marion thing!?!" and other complaints posted by Rik Duel on November 13, 1998 at 16:05:43:

: 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.

: Rik

I think Rik pretty much summed up my feelings on the whole Marion issue. I have expressed a desire to have Marion return, but that doesn't mean I want them to turn into the Donna Reed Show or Pleasantville before the advent of Reese Witherspoon and Toby Maguire. I've always imagined Indy and Marion as having a pretty volatile on and off relationship, which is why I feel she is best for the character. They can never be completely happy because they are so much alike, and there will always be conflict and problems. Marion is also as independent as Indy, and I can see her being a modern, self-sufficent woman who is basically uninterested in a traditional marriage and children type of committment. Think of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn who were a couple for decades without marriage or cohabitation. Even if there is no romance I would want Marion back, because she's a interesting character who has a past with Indy. One of the problems with TOD is that Indy doesn't have a prior involvement with anyone else in the film, unlike Raiders and LC which had Marion, Marcus, Sallah, Henry, and even Belloq. There were lot of story threads that came from these characters, and they added to the complexity of Indy, made him exist in less of a vacuum.

The comparison between Indy and James Bond is not that great, IMHO. I've never seen Indy as nearly as much a womanizer as bond, who usually goes through several women in a movie. Indy also seems capable of real love, something I've never gotten from Bond, who is a much more one-dimensional, symbolic figure. Indy sweats, gets dirty, loses to the bad guys a lot, gets pissed off, and often just bumbles through on sheer guts and native intelligence. Bond is too sleek, unemotional, and all knowing for my taste, and the franchise doesn't interest me unless the charismatic Connery is in the lead.

As for the analogy between those who like Marion and dislike of TOD, I don't know where this comes from. I think TOD is a better film than the derivative LC, though not in the same class as Raiders. The violence and gore of TOD don't bother me in the least; my objection is the Willie character who is a shrieking, wimpy bore, and the heavy handed and unfunny comedy sequences devoted to her. The whole Indy/Willie romance doesn't work because there isn't a whole lot of chemistry there. Here you have the mature, classy Ford/Indy trying to relate to this yelling, hysterical woman and it just won't jell. I know the object was to create a different leading lady than Marion, but couldn't they have made her less annoying and more admirable? Even the duplicitous Elsa had more on the ball and was more deserving of Indy's interest. I have to agree with Rik that there is an attempt to make Indy more Bondlike in this movie, but that it didn't really work for the audience, because of the first film's impact and the public's expectations about Harrison Ford. The general public (non-Indy fanatics basically) see Ford as an honorable man who is steadfast and upholds traditional values while unwitting the bad guys. I think the nicer Indy in LC is a reaction to Harrison's superstardom and giving the people what they want (LC and Raiders outperformed TOD at the box office, I believe).

As for Marcus, I believe that some mention of him being dead should be made, but not some heavy church service or funeral scenes with mourning. This isn't supposed to be intense drama. But to make no mention of Marcus' absense would just be silly and be yet another example of lapsed continuity. People are going to wonder where he is if they don't bring it up. I have no interest in seeing another actor playing Marcus; I think Denholm Elliot made the role his own and Marcus should be left to his rest.

Finally, if Karen Allen is too old, what about Ford, who's pushing 60? Sigourney Weaver is 50 too, and she kicked ass in Alien IV, while making Wynona Ryder look like a petulant 12 year old. I'd rather have a mature, interesting relationship with Ford and Allen than another thrown in, uninspired, phony romance. JMHO.

Follow Ups:

Re: "What's with this Marion thing!?!" and other complaints nitzsche 00:55:13 11/14/98 (4)
- Re: Jeeze, you guys! ~The Raider~ 09:08:00 11/14/98 (3)
  - Re: Jeeze, you guys! nitzsche 12:47:48 11/14/98 (2)
    - C'mon, you guys! ericao 01:06:34 11/15/98 (1)
      - Last Groo 08:27:24 11/15/98 (0)
JMHO? Mithrandir 20:52:54 11/13/98 (1)
- Re: JMHO? Laurie Jensen 22:37:01 11/13/98 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : 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.

: : Rik

: I think Rik pretty much summed up my feelings on the whole Marion issue.  I have expressed a desire to have Marion return, but that doesn't mean I want them to turn into the Donna Reed Show or Pleasantville before the advent of Reese Witherspoon and Toby Maguire.  I've always imagined Indy and Marion as having a pretty volatile on and off relationship, which is why I feel she is best for the character.  They can never be completely happy because they are so much alike, and there will always be conflict and problems.  Marion is also as independent as Indy, and I can see her being a modern, self-sufficent woman who is basically uninterested in a traditional marriage and children type of committment.  Think of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn who were a couple for decades without marriage or cohabitation.  Even if there is no romance I would want Marion back, because she's a interesting character who has a past with Indy.  One of the problems with TOD is that Indy doesn't have a prior involvement with anyone else in the film, unlike Raiders and LC which had Marion, Marcus, Sallah, Henry, and even Belloq.  There were lot of  story threads that came from these characters, and they added to the complexity of Indy, made him exist in less of a vacuum.

: The comparison between Indy and James Bond is not that great, IMHO.  I've never seen Indy as nearly as much a womanizer as bond, who usually goes through several women in a movie.  Indy also seems capable of real love, something I've never gotten from Bond, who is a much more one-dimensional, symbolic figure.  Indy sweats, gets dirty, loses to the bad guys a lot, gets pissed off, and often just bumbles through on sheer guts and native intelligence.  Bond is too sleek, unemotional, and all knowing for my taste, and the franchise doesn't interest me unless the charismatic Connery is in the lead.

: As for the analogy between those who like Marion and dislike of TOD, I don't know where this comes from.  I think TOD is a better film than the derivative LC, though not in the same class as Raiders.  The violence and gore of TOD don't bother me in the least; my objection is the Willie character who is a shrieking, wimpy bore, and the heavy handed and unfunny comedy sequences devoted to her.  The whole Indy/Willie romance doesn't work because there isn't a whole lot of chemistry there.  Here you have the mature, classy Ford/Indy trying to relate to this yelling, hysterical woman and it just won't jell.  I know the object was to create a different leading lady than Marion, but couldn't they have made her less annoying and more admirable?  Even the duplicitous Elsa had more on the ball and was more deserving of Indy's interest.  I have to agree with Rik that there is an attempt to make Indy more Bondlike in this movie, but that it didn't really work for the audience, because of the first film's impact and the public's expectations about Harrison Ford.  The general public (non-Indy fanatics basically) see Ford as an honorable man who is steadfast and upholds traditional values while unwitting the bad guys.  I think the nicer Indy in LC is a reaction to Harrison's superstardom and giving the people what they want (LC and Raiders outperformed TOD at the box office, I believe).

: As for Marcus, I believe that some mention of him being dead should be made, but not some heavy church service or funeral scenes with mourning.  This isn't supposed to be intense drama.  But to make no mention of Marcus' absense would just be silly and be yet another example of lapsed continuity.  People are going to wonder where he is if they don't bring it up.  I have no interest in seeing another actor playing Marcus; I think Denholm Elliot made the role his own and Marcus should be left to his rest.

: Finally, if Karen Allen is too old, what about Ford, who's pushing 60?  Sigourney Weaver is 50 too, and she kicked ass in Alien IV, while making Wynona Ryder look like a petulant 12 year old.  I'd rather have a mature, interesting relationship with Ford and Allen than another thrown in, uninspired, phony romance.  JMHO.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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