"Wouldn't it be really cool to make a James Bond movie? A proper one, with Sean Connery." – Steven Spielberg.
In a prophetic article on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Jonathan Rosenbaum predicted the rise of "set piece cinema". He called the directors of these films "disciples of Hitchcockian storyboards" in which "The Sequence becomes the raison d'etre of film-making". These sequences would themselves increasingly demand more time and money, as the only way to satiated audience would be to offer bigger and more outrageous set-pieces.
The James Bond franchise was arguably the first big budget series to exploit "set-piece cinema". To minimise financial risks, each Bond script is virtually identical. The stunts differ, the exotic locales are alternated, but beyond these superficial changes the Bond plot is always the same. By the time George Lucas started working on "Raiders", there'd already been 12 Bond flicks. The Bond formula had been set in stone and "proven" successful. All that was needed were a few minor cosmetic changes, and Lucas would have a franchise of his own.
As such, all four Indiana Jones movies follow the Bond formula precisely. First we have the pre-story action sequence, a self-contained action sequence in which Indy searches for an artifact. In "Raiders" it's a Golden Idol, in "Temple of Doom" it's a flask of Ashes and in "The Last Crusade" it's the Cross of Coronado. In each film, Indy finds the artifact and then promptly loses it to the villains.
After this pre-film action sequence, we then get the exposition. In the Bond films, this is where Bond learns of his mission. In Indiana Jones, this is where Indy learns of some religious myth. Bond and Indy then travel to an exotic location, Indy typically meets an attractive woman (who is always later captured), the audience is introduced to the sub-villain, and we're treated to two action sequences. At the end of the second act, Indy and Bond are then always captured by the central villain.
Of course our heroes then escape, there's a final big action sequence (always, in Indy's case, involving a vehicle), and an ending in which the bad guys are killed by the very artifact they sought. There are repeated plot beats, like Indy making a deal with the enemy, run-ins with henchmen, repeated scenes dealing with Indy's phobias, but basically the film follows the standard Bond formula. As Spielberg remarked after first reading the "Raiders" script: "It's Bond without the hardware".
As all Indiana Jones films are essentially the same, the only way to judge them are to pit their action sequences against one another. Each film has 5 action sequences. "Raiders" has one sequence involving a giant boulder, one involving an indoor gunfight, one involving a running battle with henchmen in Egypt, one involving a fistfight underneath a plane and one involving a moving truck. As what what constitutes action continuously gets "faster" and "harder", most of these sequences are deemed tame by modern audiences.
"Temple" also has five showcase sequences. One involving a song and dance routine, one involving a chase from henchmen, one involving an extended fist fight, one involving mine carts, and a final showdown on a rope bridge. Most of these sequences have aged well, the rope sequence the most tense moment in the trilogy, the others striking a tone that alternates between ultra sadistic and goofily over-the-top. More than other Indy films, "Temple" still feels audacious; part vaudeville movie, part musical, part quasi-racist B movie in the mould of 1930 serials. Opening with a rendition of "Anything Goes", it's totally ridiculous. Spielberg fans hate it.
"Crusade" likewise has five action sequences. One involving young Indy, one involving a Venice chase, one involving a showdown with air-planes, one involving a motorcycle chase and a final battle in which Indy faces a tank. While the opening and closing sequences are very strong, you sense Spielberg bored with everything in between.
In contrast, "Temple" is the Indy film which holds up best today, its cinematography richer, its camera work better, its pace faster, its tone unashamedly goofy (shades of Verhoeven) and with a hero who's simultaneously more muscular and more vulnerable than usual. Spielberg would go on to condemn and all but disown the film – he thinks its "sadistic" and "in poor taste"; he would say the same of "Jaws" - but it's the fact that "Temple" embraces the baseness that lurks in all his films that makes this Indy outing less hypocritical. Elsewhere "Doom" goes beyond emulating its influences ("Stagecoach", "Sierra Madre", "King Soloman's Mines", "Zorro", "Valley of the Kings", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Naked Jungle", the same plot as "Gunga Din", often misread as a pro-colonalist film) to replicate wholesale the Colonialist/Orientalist/racist/sexist tone of 1930s serials, characters exoticized and demonized, the Other base or thoroughly in need of white salvation and the script falling back on various racist binaries. This repeats the treatment of Arabs and Nazis in the other two films (the way Spielberg/Lucas yearn for 1930s popular culture goes hand in hand with the decade's rise in Reaganism).
Nowadays, of course, popcorn films are moving away from what Rosenbaum called "set piece cinema". With spectacle dead, the majority of modern pop-corn flicks abandon elaborate set-pieces and instead seek to bombard their audiences with information. This is the post-cinema, cyber age, blockbusters now overwhelming audiences with plot. Thirty years ago we marvelled at Indy outrunning a giant boulder. Today, we salivate over narrative gymnastics, popcorn plots seeking to excite us with the sheer density of their tales. You know, like checking email, watching Youtube, wheeling through an Ipod, ebooking and cyber-surfing all at once. Indy would weep.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – 8/10, Temple of Doom – 8.5/10, Last Crusade – 7.9/10
In a prophetic article on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Jonathan Rosenbaum predicted the rise of "set piece cinema". He called the directors of these films "disciples of Hitchcockian storyboards" in which "The Sequence becomes the raison d'etre of film-making". These sequences would themselves increasingly demand more time and money, as the only way to satiated audience would be to offer bigger and more outrageous set-pieces.
The James Bond franchise was arguably the first big budget series to exploit "set-piece cinema". To minimise financial risks, each Bond script is virtually identical. The stunts differ, the exotic locales are alternated, but beyond these superficial changes the Bond plot is always the same. By the time George Lucas started working on "Raiders", there'd already been 12 Bond flicks. The Bond formula had been set in stone and "proven" successful. All that was needed were a few minor cosmetic changes, and Lucas would have a franchise of his own.
As such, all four Indiana Jones movies follow the Bond formula precisely. First we have the pre-story action sequence, a self-contained action sequence in which Indy searches for an artifact. In "Raiders" it's a Golden Idol, in "Temple of Doom" it's a flask of Ashes and in "The Last Crusade" it's the Cross of Coronado. In each film, Indy finds the artifact and then promptly loses it to the villains.
After this pre-film action sequence, we then get the exposition. In the Bond films, this is where Bond learns of his mission. In Indiana Jones, this is where Indy learns of some religious myth. Bond and Indy then travel to an exotic location, Indy typically meets an attractive woman (who is always later captured), the audience is introduced to the sub-villain, and we're treated to two action sequences. At the end of the second act, Indy and Bond are then always captured by the central villain.
Of course our heroes then escape, there's a final big action sequence (always, in Indy's case, involving a vehicle), and an ending in which the bad guys are killed by the very artifact they sought. There are repeated plot beats, like Indy making a deal with the enemy, run-ins with henchmen, repeated scenes dealing with Indy's phobias, but basically the film follows the standard Bond formula. As Spielberg remarked after first reading the "Raiders" script: "It's Bond without the hardware".
As all Indiana Jones films are essentially the same, the only way to judge them are to pit their action sequences against one another. Each film has 5 action sequences. "Raiders" has one sequence involving a giant boulder, one involving an indoor gunfight, one involving a running battle with henchmen in Egypt, one involving a fistfight underneath a plane and one involving a moving truck. As what what constitutes action continuously gets "faster" and "harder", most of these sequences are deemed tame by modern audiences.
"Temple" also has five showcase sequences. One involving a song and dance routine, one involving a chase from henchmen, one involving an extended fist fight, one involving mine carts, and a final showdown on a rope bridge. Most of these sequences have aged well, the rope sequence the most tense moment in the trilogy, the others striking a tone that alternates between ultra sadistic and goofily over-the-top. More than other Indy films, "Temple" still feels audacious; part vaudeville movie, part musical, part quasi-racist B movie in the mould of 1930 serials. Opening with a rendition of "Anything Goes", it's totally ridiculous. Spielberg fans hate it.
"Crusade" likewise has five action sequences. One involving young Indy, one involving a Venice chase, one involving a showdown with air-planes, one involving a motorcycle chase and a final battle in which Indy faces a tank. While the opening and closing sequences are very strong, you sense Spielberg bored with everything in between.
In contrast, "Temple" is the Indy film which holds up best today, its cinematography richer, its camera work better, its pace faster, its tone unashamedly goofy (shades of Verhoeven) and with a hero who's simultaneously more muscular and more vulnerable than usual. Spielberg would go on to condemn and all but disown the film – he thinks its "sadistic" and "in poor taste"; he would say the same of "Jaws" - but it's the fact that "Temple" embraces the baseness that lurks in all his films that makes this Indy outing less hypocritical. Elsewhere "Doom" goes beyond emulating its influences ("Stagecoach", "Sierra Madre", "King Soloman's Mines", "Zorro", "Valley of the Kings", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Naked Jungle", the same plot as "Gunga Din", often misread as a pro-colonalist film) to replicate wholesale the Colonialist/Orientalist/racist/sexist tone of 1930s serials, characters exoticized and demonized, the Other base or thoroughly in need of white salvation and the script falling back on various racist binaries. This repeats the treatment of Arabs and Nazis in the other two films (the way Spielberg/Lucas yearn for 1930s popular culture goes hand in hand with the decade's rise in Reaganism).
Nowadays, of course, popcorn films are moving away from what Rosenbaum called "set piece cinema". With spectacle dead, the majority of modern pop-corn flicks abandon elaborate set-pieces and instead seek to bombard their audiences with information. This is the post-cinema, cyber age, blockbusters now overwhelming audiences with plot. Thirty years ago we marvelled at Indy outrunning a giant boulder. Today, we salivate over narrative gymnastics, popcorn plots seeking to excite us with the sheer density of their tales. You know, like checking email, watching Youtube, wheeling through an Ipod, ebooking and cyber-surfing all at once. Indy would weep.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – 8/10, Temple of Doom – 8.5/10, Last Crusade – 7.9/10