An Internal Monolouge About The Conversation

This post is in conjunction with the LAMB's Movie of the Month for July.

How does one write about a film that has been analyzed and dissected for over thirty years? Especially when the film maintains as much social and political resonance as when it was made? Can I dig too deep into a movie and make something out of nothing? Maybe Troy really is NOT an allegory for the war in Iraq and maybe The Conversation is just a movie about paranoia and the invasion of privacy. But what if it’s more?

What if the movie is trying to show me what I am becoming as a viewer, as a voyeur? What if my drive and ambition is not focused on what the movie is about, only the ‘larger picture’? What if, as Harry says, “I don’t care what they’re saying, I just want a nice, fat recording.” Could it be that I forsake the entertainment value of pictures in order to find a deeper artistic meaning, something that can satisfy me on another level that might not be intended at all? Perhaps I should just enjoy Transformers rather than debate the merits of bloodless combat and the attempt to make us identify with inanimate objects.

I have sat alone in a darkened room, and played over and over again a piece of plastic in order to find something that I believe it there, but cannot pinpoint. At times, I have become sick of perfectly good movies because I have merely spent too much time with them, albeit, by my own doing. At that point, I wonder if have become like Harry Caul. Clearly, Harry is terrific at what he does and enjoys it to a certain extent. However, he can never take full satisfaction by his accomplishments since he pushes himself to do better and distances himself personally from the subject matter.

Have I done the same? In order to try to become a better writer and critic, have I given up been entertained by entertainment and instead become obsessed with what I perceive to be underlying themes, subliminal messages and nods to current events? How can I enjoy The Dark Knight when I’m marveling at the commentary on society’s values instead of a tricked out Bat-pod? When I worry that censorship will infringe of the basic human rights to make some dick jokes? How can I think about The Conversation as a simple movie by Francis Ford Coppola and Gene Hackman when the morality and ethical questions raised by the subject matter are political fodder for our current presidential campaigns? Or whether or not Harrison Ford’s character was gay? Will it make a difference at all? Probably not.

Have I become so ensconced in my own world that I cannot let anyone in? Sure, I like going to movies by myself or with select friends, but when Harry lets people into his world, it comes crashing down. What if the same thing happens to me? What if Harry is showing me that the end result might be the destruction of my world, at my own hands, with nothing to show for any of it? Does the paranoia people perceive in Harry perhaps play as protection for actor and director? If Harry has nothing else but his work and his privacy and his work has been taken away from him, will he stop at nothing to defend his privacy? Of course, there could have never been a bug in his apartment, but that’s not enough to convince Harry. If you told me tomorrow they were going to remake North by Northwest, I would be furious until my dying day, never convinced that it would NOT happen, only waiting for it TO happen and it would be enough to push me over the edge.

Where did I go wrong? Should I have just listened? Or like Harry, should I dig deeper? Is it prudent to go looking into situations beyond your control for answers you might not like? I’m not involved in any capacity in the films I watch, except as an audience member, so why should I try to become an active participant? Why can’t I take a step back and maintain my distance as an observer? Why can’t I just call them ‘movies’ every once in awhile? Will I succumb to the same fate as Harry when I become tortured by my own thoughts and imagination and impotence to affect change in these movies and give it all up for the saxophone? Will anyone remember that I used to play the trombone in grade school? Am I getting way too existential? Do I even know what that word means? Do I sound like I do?

Will I ever enjoy movies like I did when I was young? Or has being behind the curtain and seeing the strings, learning the rope trick, the three ring trick and the disappearing coin trick jaded me to the movie magic that filmmakers are trying harder than ever to deliver to me and the masses?

Well, Dark Knight did make me feel like it was 1989 again.

Kingdom of the Crystal Sequel

I just got back from seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I feel… satisfied. I am satisfied in the knowledge that I was right. Crystal Skull was good. It was not great, but it was a good movie and I had fun. Also, because it was a midnight showing and we were let in two hours before the movie started, some people brought beach balls and my friend Robert stabbed one with a four inch knife. Little did we both know it would be so foreshadowing.

I did not have high hopes for the movie and it did not let me down at all. The subplot of the artifact and the chase for it were far fetched and implausible, but the real story was the characters and their relationships. We get a lot of information in the beginning from what Indy was doing during the war to what happened to older characters. Instead of fighting Nazis in the Great War, now Indy is battling Commies in the Cold War. And to really believe it’s the Fifties, in the first twenty minutes we get Elvis, coupes and Shia LeBeouf, looking like Brando from The Wild One, as Mutt Ravenwood. A name as ridiculous to type as it is to say. The best part of the film, like Last Crusade, is the interaction between Indy and Mutt and the movie moves swiftly to give us the two of them adventuring together through South America to find alien artifacts before the Russians do. Once the movie reintroduces Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood, it does not stop to take a breath until the finale.

I enjoyed the movie for the all the nods to other Lucas/Spielberg movies, from the obvious Close Encounter nods to the not so obvious like Indy hiding in a refrigerator. There were the requisite Indy moments with snakes and fedoras. There were great Harrison moments like his back and forth with Marion, echoing Raiders and Empire, and saying, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” Cate Blanchett was excellent in her role as a KGB spy, as was the extended Jones family, Allen and LeBeouf. And I even liked how Spielberg somewhat subtly implies that the Red Scare might be the same as our current political climate. It was a fun movie and I had a great time watching it.

But, it was not without flaws. Besides the Spielberg Revisionist History 101 lesson, I was disheartened with some of the action sequences. Especially after Spielberg’s insistence they would shoot on film and do everything as practical as possible. As it turns out, not even the men behind Star Wars and Jurassic Park can do everything. The simple sequences are old school absolutely, but the more exciting sequence is very badly green screened and becomes a letdown. Once Shia and Cate pick up swords, it swiftly becomes a CGI-a-thon. For being over two hours, it seems very short, even as I desperately had to go to the bathroom at the end, when water is rushing through the temple. Ray Winstone’s double crossing friend and even the presence of the FBI agents at the beginning feel like something that could’ve been dropped from the final draft. Also, story wise, Indy and Mutt just seem to click to well together for a father and son who didn’t even know the other existed. And when Mutt remembers he has a grudge, it rings false because you can see the sheer joy and affection in his eyes both as a character and an actor.

I enjoyed the movie, but it was certainly not the best of the franchise. While I was not so quickly deflated like a beach ball, I was bummed that I had waited almost twenty years for a movie that was not so awesome. Even with Phantom Menace, I knew Vader would grow up and fight Ewan McGregor. No such luck here, unless Shia becomes Sith Lord, Darth French Beef. If he is being primed to take over as the next Indy, then forgetting his other work and going off this film alone, I would look forward to watching it. He and Harrision are the best part of the film and if they make another one with the two of them on another adventure, I bet it will be better than this. Let me know what you think out there, as I’m sure we’ll all go see it this weekend.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is now playing everywhere. Like, everywhere. Find a theater, it’s there.

My Body is a Temple... OF DOOM!!!

This post is in coordination with the Indiana Jones Blog-a-thon at Cerebral Mastication.

The Indiana Jones films are generally held among the top three greatest film franchises in history. While the movies never received the critical acclaim and Academy Awards like the Godfather films or the widespread cult following and expanded universe of the Star Wars series, Indiana Jones remains one of America’s favorite heroes. Growing up, I was enamored of Harrison Ford and the dual roles of Han Solo/Indiana Jones. And my favorite film of the three remains to this day, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Whenever I have shared my secret in the past, people ask me if I’m nuts. I reply, “I no nuts, I crazy!” Crazy for Temple of Doom, that is.

I do not understand the universal dislike for this entry in the series. It seems that people who don’t like Temple of Doom are the same people who don’t like Last Crusade, so why would they bother sticking around for a fourth film when they have been let down over sixty percent of the time? Are they Star Trek fans? Perhaps my disgruntled contemporaries are looking at the films with a far too critical eye. Personally, I choose to think of the movies of my youth with fonder memories, remembering how they impacted me then and how they influence me now. In fact, as I write this, I purposefully failed to watch the movie again, relying solely on my memory.

I’m sure now, as I think back, that my main attraction to Temple of Doom was the character of Short Round. Johnathon Ke Quan was living out my dream on screen as a tiny brown kid, running around with Indy and providing the comic relief. His presence draws kids in by being the only kid in a movie aimed at kids, yet he is now widely held in contempt as some kind if predecessor to Jar Jar Binks. One of the most remarkable things about the movie is that it IS a kid’s movie, yet it never feels like one. For a movie that people call ‘too dark’, it has more comedy in it, I think, than Raiders. Speaking of dialogue, isn’t Temple of Doom the most quotable of the Indy films? I contend that while Last Crusade is the basis for most Sean Connery impressions (including mine) and Raiders has the better script, the second movie aims for a serious tone, but is unintentionally hilarious and instead of enjoying it, I think most would prefer to criticize it. The lighter moments strive to ease the tension of the overall theme of child slavery and ritual sacrifice. Who can take any of the action and danger seriously when there’s a bunch of kids running around the place? Although the children are forced into hard labor against their will, they are never really shown being brutalized. For a mine, the place is run like boys only summer camp. It is precisely because children are the motivating element, yet removed from any real sense of harm that may rebuff adults, but attracts children. As kids, my brother and I used to love to throw the tag ‘of DOOM!’ at the end of things. Cafeteria…of DOOM! Three ring binder… of DOOM! Monthly assembly… of DOOM! Admittedly, we held few things in as much contempt as school, but we longed for fortune and glory, had no time for love and whenever we got in the car with my mother, we would tell her, “Hang on lady, we going for a ride.”

I remember watching Temple of Doom at a family gathering once when I must have been around eight. It might have been the first time I saw the film because when the servants pulled the lids of the monkey skulls and the entire table began to dig into the brains, I cracked like a whip to the bathroom and threw up dinner. After brushing my teeth, I returned, undaunted, to finish watching the movie. It was the first time a movie ever made me vomit, but certainly not the last, thank you very much Patch Adams.

Playing devil’s advocate, I understand that while I may romanticize Temple of Doom, I feel that far too many people over-romanticize Raiders. It was intended as a B movie and it generally does not try to swing for the fences. I think of it now as one of those movies that are great, but it is really just a series of scenes. Idol switching, rolling boulder, natives, plane, map, Karen Allen, baskets, pistol, bad dates, Nazis, trucks, staff room, snakes, melting face and a warehouse, there’s your movie. Sure, there’s history, pathos, action, but does Indy get possessed by the Nazis? You get a good face melting, but its Disney Channel compared to a man getting his heart ripped from his chest! The violence in this film is almost sprung from necessity as the Thugee cult is more of a religious zealotry than the fascist government of the National Socialists. Nazis hurt people for wealth and gain, while Thugees hurt people on the path to spiritual fulfillment. Complaints that the movie is too dark baffle me. Does anybody remember Empire Strikes Back? The sequel to the wildly successful Harrison Ford movie that explores real human emotions and it regarded as the best film in that series? It ends horribly with the Rebels on the run, Luke’s faith in the world shattered and no Han Solo for like the last twenty minutes! Godfather Part II was intentionally darker in nature to offset the notion that the first film glamorized the Mafia lifestyle. That movie ended up being Best Picture of the year. So, why then does Temple of Doom have such a negative stigma of being a dark movie? Perhaps, during the time of its release, only a year after Return of the Jedi, people were truly into the Eighties and growing weary of the depressing, dreary movies that had dominated the Seventies and early Eighties. They were ready for their Beverly Hills Cop, their Ghostbusters and such lighter fare that had better jokes and lighter, campy action. They would have enjoyed Raiders 2, but the filmmakers went another way, only to try to tweak the formula further in 1989.

The movies are amazingly interconnected of more levels than merely a timeline. The fact that characters rarely repeat is as significant as those who do. Karen Allen was the favorite Indy paramour and a no-brainer to return for the fourth film. However, her character in the first movie seems like an extension of Princess Leia and slightly out of place. The scenes between her and Indy are good, but they do not have the pop of the classic 1940’s film couples they were inspired by, like Bogart and Bacall. Kate Capshaw’s Willie character falls into the more established damsel in distress role with her sexual advances towards Indy, her singing career and her inability to ever save herself from peril. Their relationship has much more conflict to me, a very Moonlighting, love-hate, ‘let’s yell and slam doors when we really want to scream and tear each other apart’ dynamic. For me, the real love story in the movie is not even between Indy and Willie, but between Indy and Short Round. Foreshadowing the direction that the third movie would take, the father-son angle is obvious between the two, with Short Round idolizing Indy and Indy reluctant to embrace the father figure role, preferring Short Round as a partner and treating him like an equal. It pays off in Last Crusade when we learn of the relationship between Indy and his father, Henry and discover his father issues and most certainly will have repercussions in Crystal Skull with the reveal of his own son.

Before I seal this cavern up again, one question still perplexes me. Why does Temple of Doom play so well with animation? On my favorite cartoon Family Guy, there have been many references to Raiders, but in the Courtship of Stewie’s Father episode they end with a Temple of Doom bit that has everything from Peter and Stewie as Indy and Shirt Round and Michael Eisner falling to his DOOM! as alligator food. And let us not forget, let us not forget dude, the short lived Clerks cartoon made half of an episode a Temple of Doom homage with Randal finding himself enslaved in a underground rock quarry and held captive until Dante manages to free him and the other children.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom will always hold a special place in my heart, alongside other sentimental classics from my formative childhood years, such as The Right Stuff, Beetlejuice and Full Metal Jacket. I can appreciate other people’s opinions and tastes. I only wish they could do the same and understand some people like movies with lava pits, elephants and car chases that occur on rails. Don’t trash a movie because it’s not as good as you remember or expected it to be. Especially when it’s something you used to cherish and hold dear. If everybody thought like that, there would still be fist fights breaking out over the new Star Wars movies. Ok, maybe just serious showing matches, but can we not let go of our anger, realize there are more movies for us to watch, worse movies for us to get upset about and that the lightsaber fights in I, II and III are WAY cooler? I implore you, dear readers. For as a wise Chinaman once said, “You listen to me, you live longer!”

Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom is available on DVD from Paramount. Don't be a schmuck, wait until Christmas and buy all four on Blu-Ray.