The Filmclub: Adventure (Nov 21 -27 )"Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981)

[Rani]

I vote "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

I also think we need to get more advertising for the film club, last movie had only 4 people reviewing it...

[Margie]

Raiders of the Lost Ark. One of my favorites:thumbsup:

[chrisWhite]

Robin Hood, as I've never seen it before.

[fwtep]

I vote for "The Adventures of Robin Hood."


I think everyone has seen the other choices a zillion times (except maybe "Treasure").
Is there something more that can be said about Raiders?
The new Robin Hood DVD looks fantastic.The vast majority of people on this list are fans of current filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, etc., so what could be better than studying the films that influenceed them?
Robin Hood is a lot of fun and also has one of cinema's all-time classic scores.
The Skipper's dad is in it and he looks just like his kid. "Hey little buddy!" :)
Fred

[Trojan123]

Raiders is worthy of discussion- mainly because we have all seen it. This discussion should be more in depth than others.

SB

[ArtisticVisions]

My vote goes for Raiders as well.

[Bleen]

Amazing idea you had!
I vote for (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Because it has Bogart, and it's directed by John Houston
I havent' seen it (still can't understand why)
It's ranked 30 on the AFI's top 100, while "Riders..." is ranked 60 :p (j/k).

I'm looking forward to this!

[fwtep]

Raiders is worthy of discussion- mainly because we have all seen it. This discussion should be more in depth than others.
SBI thought the idea was to expand our horizons a bit though. As for how in-depth a discussion of Raiders would be, I doubt it would go much beyond fan-boy talk, but I guess we'll see.

Fred

[ZaKKoS]

I vote for everything except ROTLA and Romancing the Stone
The first because everyone have seen it and I agree with fwtep, the second because I didn't liked it (5/10).

[Trojan123]

I thought the idea was to expand our horizons a bit though. As for how in-depth a discussion of Raiders would be, I doubt it would go much beyond fan-boy talk, but I guess we'll see.

Fred

Yes, I agree. But hopefully a discussion on Raiders will be more in-depth than a typical fanboy movie... a "see it again for the first time" type thing. The more familiar with the topic we are, the deeper we can discuss it.

SB

[Varinder]

Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Well it is

Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981)

by popular vote.
-R

[ArtisticVisions]

Picked up Raiders today; will post my thoughts tomorrow.

[Bleen]

Well, seems I'm the first....
To begin, I'd like to say I only viewed the movie one time before writing this, so it won't be an in-depth review. I also wrote this as I was thinking things so it's a little rough. I must also say I'm not a native english speaker so please bear with my writing. Thanks.

When "Raiders..." premiered I was just 1 year old. Needless to day, I didn't go to the cinema to watch it. I saw it a few years later on video, when I was 7 or 8 years old. I never saw the movie again until yesterday. I saw Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom on video, and Indiana Jones and the last crusade on cinema. I remember actually SEEING the first scenes of that movie on the big screen on 1989. But this is about the first movie.
I remembered a couple of scenes from the film quite clearly. The whole scene when Indy enters the temple, avoids the traps, gets the idol and manages to escape with it was burned into my brain. The rock chasing sequence is specially memorable. I also had a few memories of the "fight" between Indy and the swordsman, and the movie's climax (the "hand of God") so to say.
Watching the movie again after so long, and when Indy's character is already very known to me (I played Indiana Jones in the search of Atlantis a lot of times) makes the movie very different than when it was first released.
We already know the character, so there would be no need to present it to us nowadays. So I struggled to think "I don't know who this guy is, I don't know anything about him, let's the movie present him".
Indy's face isn't shown to us until he uses his whip to avoid being killed by the guy who betrays him. The whole sequence before that is a "searching" sequence, which starts with the very first shot of the film. The Paramount logo is faded into a mountain, then appears Indy's silhouette. As Indy and his two helpers search for the temple, the titles of the movie are shown. I now wonder what the two spanish guys were doing with Indy. He clearly leads the quest. He doesn't need a guide. When he hurries back to the plane, we see it is somewhat close to the site, and that Indy knows his bearings. They aren't carrying much, just a basket of stuff. And Indy doesn't need that. He only needs a map and his usual equipment. When he later goes to egypt to search for the ark, he does so whithout any equipment. So why are the two guys there? For the sake of the plot I guess. I find it similar to the arrow on the tree. Why is there an arrow on a tree? if the aborigins wanted to hide their presence, it would be unwise to throw one. On the floor, I would understand, but no one inadvertently leaves an arrow stabbed into a tree. But the viewer doesn't care for these trifle things. He's soon mesmerized by the unique universe the movie quickly builds.
So, back to the Indy character. It's clear to me that the important thing here is the quest, the search, for that is what the movie first shows to us. A quest for something in a remote, exotic place. Indy is presented as a synonym of wits. He percieves he's being betrayed and he manages to outwin a gun with a whip. What else could you call that if not wits?
He's got a rough appearence, and his actions seem sure. He's the one leading the search. He isn't afraid. And when he enters the temple, he knows about all the traps beforehand. This contrasts with the attitude of his "helpers", who seems to be afraid and unsure all the time. Indy telling the remaining assistant that the previous explorer was very, very good validates the situation and makes it seem more dangerous. It helps to create expectation and suspense. We are given the information something very dangerous is inside. The soundtrack also aids in this.
We are also presented to the antagonist, Rene, who, as Jones, is an arqueologyst. He's presented as a person who would use the dirtiest tricks just to get what he wants. He not only robs Jones of the idol he so hard fought for, but he also wants to kill him. One can't help but feel the situation is unjust.
Maybe the character of Indiana Jones wouldn't be very interesting if we didn't see his alter-ego, professor Jones. The movie uses a lot of time to present Jones the adventurer, and makes this presentation top priority in placing it first in the film. The movie will be about Jones the adventurer, not professor Jones. Professor Jones is a totally different person. A guy teaching a class in an university is seen as someone knowledgeable, as someone with certain status. Jones is also very popular with the (female) students, and seems to be a little clumsy regarding this issue.
Some goverment agents come to him for help, and then comes the "I will explain the whole quest" sequence, in which he and Marcus explain what they will be looking for, give a few hints about "god's power" (so the ending wouldn't be so far-fetched), and that the Nazis are also looking for it.
Let's try and think why is 1938~1939 chosen as a time frame. Why the Nazis, and not make a contemporary movie where the enemies are the russians? (need I remember that at the time this movie was made, Russia was an enemy to the US?).
I think that maybe Spielbelg didn't want to fall into political issues, or maybe repeat what so many other films where doing at that time, making the Russians the enemies. Or maybe he wanted the whole thing to be more rustic, to do without modern technology. Certainly the 1940ish technology helps the movie a LOT. Think about how much less interesting would be an Indiana Jones living in the 1980s. Also, we already knew the outcome of WWII, and the Nazis were a defeated enemy. Spielberg wanted to detract our attention of political issues, not think about the nuclear threat and the cold war.
So, Jones is given a very important mission, but recieves no support team. No intelligence contacts on the places he has to go, no help, no equipment. One man vs the Nazis. And that is another great thing about the movie. If Indy had a network of agents and a platoon on his comand the movie would be totally different (and probably quite bad). Indy uses his own contacts and friends as aids.
One of these, Marion, seems to have had a bad experience in a past romance with Jones. Her best trait seems to be her ability to be able to take insane amouts of alcohol. For some strange reason, she owns a bar in Nepal. Well, it's a "quest for something in exotic places" movie, so one cannot complain. Here we discover that Indy is no gentleman. And this is another trait of Indy's personality, and another thing that makes this character so special.
I must add that it's memorable the resource of showing the indy's trips in the form of red lines crossing a map, with images of the trip mid-faded with it. It helps you not only feel the trip in a short amout of time, but also abstract yourself to the distance and, for people who have poor geography knowledge, actually see where in the world is he headed. It also looks much better than a label over the destination's first shot, as it is usually done.
The chasing in egypt which ends in the "death"of Marion contains a scene I'd like to comment on. It's when a swordsman starts swinging his weapon, showing off his skills to Indy, who gives him a "come on" face and simply pulls out his gun and kills him. Besides being one of the best jokes on the film, it states something. Between an elaborate form of fight, with historical and cultural backgrounds (swordfighting); and a simple, modern one, the one which will win is the one which is more powerful. Gun beats sword. Indy is not only annoyed at the form of fighting, but also at the way of behaving. When facing a difficult fight, he choses simplicity. He never questions the life of the opponent, or tries to use his whip or some other trick, he just shoots. Could this be questioning the "cowboy" attitudes sometimes the americans had with other countries?
There are some other great moments in the movie, like the plane sequence, where lots of things are happening at the same time. The plane itself is spinning around, like a dog trying to bite its own tail. And this is the impression I had of this part of the movie. Things get more and more complicated, until it all gets out of hands and ends with a big "boom". Excelent entertainment.
The truck chasing sequence is also worthy of comment. A man with a horse, with no strategy whatsoever, overpowers a troop of armed army men in military vehicles. I find very interesting the fight between Indy and the last remaining soldier, a veteran. This information is shown to us when the soldier's hat is blown away by the wind. What more do we need to know? This man is clearly experienced, and this will be a tough fight.
We inmerse ourselves so much in Indy's world what we never question stuff like how could he infiltrate the Nazi submarine and travel a lot of time in it without being discovered. This is cleverly left out of the movie.
At the end of the movie the situation becomes so unfavorable to our heroes that the only way they could be saved is with a "deux ex machina". Only the direct intervention of God can solve this situation. It's something completely external to the movie that magically solves a situation. It is sometimes used when the scriptwriter creates a situation so unsolvable he has no way of fixing it unless he uses a resource like this. But this time, the events seem to have been planned from the beginning so this would happen. We see hints of this at the book shown at the beginning of the movie, when Indy uses the scpeter on Egypt, and when the Nazi's signs are magically burned from their crate. Something not of this world is in the ark.
How Indy and Marion can escape the Nazi-infested island with a big, heavy box is not shown. But, again, we don't question this.
The end of the movie is a clear critique to the bureocratic democratic system, allowing something as important as the ark to become another identical box in an archive.

This is what comes to my mind now. I'll gladly discuss things I've written, and I'd love to comment on other people's thoughts about the movie.

[Margie]

Let's try and think why is 1938~1939 chosen as a time frame. Why the Nazis, and not make a contemporary movie where the enemies are the russians? (need I remember that at the time this movie was made, Russia was an enemy to the US?).
I think that maybe Spielbelg didn't want to fall into political issues, or maybe repeat what so many other films where doing at that time, making the Russians the enemies.

Good review of your impressions! There's a lot to discuss, but this particular point caught my attention, so I'll comment on that first.

I think the reason is to give the film at least some grounding in reality, to make it believable. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a "hero quest", an archetypical tale which Spielberg was so fond of and Lucas founded an entire Empire on. As such, it's anything but realistic, but that doesn't mean you can do away with reality alltogether.

Why the Nazi's and not the Russians?
Well, for one thing, the Soviets wouldn't have anything to do with religion (re: Marx: religion is opium for the people) There was no freedom of religion (or freedom of anything) in Soviet Russia and the entire communist party was strictly atheist. Why would they want the Ark of the Covenant?

But it is true that Hitler and the people closest to him (especially Herman Goering) were obsessed with religious mysticism. Hitlers whole evil ideology was based on convoluted mystic ideas.
Allegedly, though historically not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he made great efforts to find religious relics, such as the lance that pierced Christ in the flank and the Holy Grail.
This makes the Third Reich a far more likely candidate to search for the lost Ark of the Covenant.
On a side note: The whole scene where the French archeologist opens the Ark and insists on observing the proper ritual, is completely ludicrous if seen from an Orthodox Jewish point of view. There's a very detailed description in the bible how the Ark should be approached. For a start, it can only be done by specially ordained Levite priests after purification and a ritual sacrifice. From the little I know about Orthodox Judaism, there were probably a thousand rules and regulations more to observe before even coming near it.

And besides: it's a great excuse to cast an over the top Gestapo type. :)


Guys, if I sound pedantic at times, please forgive me and remember I am by profession a teacher of art/cultural and general history. I can't help but analyse films with all the knowledge I have. But the object is to learn, right?
Both Spielberg and Lucas are highly educated in the arts and history.

[Rani]

*SPOILERS AHEAD*



First time I watched this movie. I'll begin from the end and say that this is good entertaining flick and is fun to watch. The movie is not spectecular but also isn't bad, I would rate it 7 out of 10.

The reason this movie doesn't deserve to get one of the higher marks (8-10) in my eyes is that it fails to mortalize Indiana enough.

I'll explain:
Movies of this genre are based mostly around one character and the way it overcomes the many obsetcles & foes that stand in his way, that character is not a reguler human, it has superior skills (compared to others) that allow him to get to his goal, whether it's greater wits or greater physical abilities or both.

While the viewer expects the hero to "win" eventually and be some sort of a super-human what makes the hero's journey (i.e. the movie) intersting are his weaknesses and his mortality.

It's the film's/director's/writer's job to make sure that the hero will give the viewer the feeling that the hero isn't a super-human (although the viewer knows that in some ways he is), or in other words- mortalize him.

Rambo (from "Rambo") is a good example of a bad hero (super-human) which all his shots always hit, he is practically invincible, can win against far greater odds and generally has no weaknesses/signs of being a "reguler human".

Captain Jack Sparrow (from "Pirates of the Carribean") is a good example of a good hero, one that is presented with weaknesses (quite alot actually, even in the first time he is shown in the film he is placed on top of a sinking ship) and regular human emotions.

Indiana Jones falls somewhere in the middle, we get to see him as a normal human in the university, we get to know that he had some sort of an affair with marion in the past and he is even partially defeated a few times in the movie (at the start with golden idol, later when he reveals the ark and gets locked with snakes and lastly after the rocket-launcher bluff) but all these aren't enough to make him "feel" mortal when you also consider his triumphes (like the fight in the market against the many assasins (which by the way looks very artificial) or the truck part in which he rides the horse in the open and effectively dodging all bullets and etc'), which in my humble opinion outweighs his mortalness and makes him feel like some sort of a superman.

But aside from the above issue the movie has no other major flaws and has many parts which I rather liked, like some of the sarcastic lines exchanged between Indiana and the french guy ("maybe in a thousand years even you will be worth something!" is probably the best), the swordfight in which Indiana shoots the guy, seeing Indiana as a professor in the university (which I realy liked) and the part when Indiana and Marion arrive to Cairo and walk in the market in which Karen Allen is simply adorable.


The movie could have been improved by making Indiana feel more mortal by showing us more of his professor alter-ego or his regular self instead of his macho side and making some of the scenes more believable (like the one when he to talks to the french guy in that place with everybody holding guns to him) and less Rambo-ish (the truck scene).

That's about all I have to say about that.


The whole scene where the French archeologist opens the Ark and insists on observing the proper ritual, is completely ludicrous if seen from an Orthodox Jewish point of view. There's a very detailed description in the bible how the Ark should be approached. For a start, it can only be done by specially ordained Levite priests after purification and a ritual sacrifice. From the little I know about Orthodox Judaism, there were probably a thousand rules and regulations more to observe before even coming near it.

Indeed. I know nothing of that ritual he was doing.
Still, the fact that I'm an orthodox jew and I know that some of the things in the movie aren't quite fitting with the bible stories (IIRC anyone who touched the ark died unless he was a priest (son of Aaron, brother of Moses), then again maybe I'm confusing it with something else...) it didn't realy bother me and didn't disturb me watching the movie at all.

[Trojan123]

Wouldn't you know it: four days off from work, and all I see is the (excellent) remake of War of the Worlds and (the amazing) Polar Express. But no Raiders.

I've seen this movie a zillion times... but not recently so bear with me on this.


Raiders of the Lost Ark was a return / redefinition of the action movie with a memorable action hero: a man who travels the world in search of rare and precious relics in the spirit of Jason and his search for the golden Fleece. However instead of an ancient man in ancient times, we have a more modern man in more modern times: modern enough for audiences to identify with, far enough back for easy suspension of belief. Over the top as the premise is, the sell of a University professor with a whip on a quest to beat the NAZI Germans to the fabled Lost Ark of the Covenant is one made with credibility by the creative team of Lucas and Spielberg.

Why the 1930's? Why NAZI Germany? Quite simply, why not? In the 30's times were modernizing, yet the world was still large and open. Where housing tracts and malls now occupy, wide open fields once laid out where flying wings can land, or cars can chase trucks with a hero in the drivers' seat and a bed full of Germans- the infamous scourge of the 20th Century. Hitler is well know with being obsessed by the occult, so it is of no wonder why an archaeologist would be racing the troops of Hitler with the biggest artifact of mankind. Let us remember tho, that this was on the behest of the United States Government a few years before America's involvement in WW2. Admittedly, it is difficult to imagine that while we are watching Indy engage Belloqu in a Cairo marketplace, the same Hitler is beginning to mobilize against the Christians, the Jews and Gypsies back in Europe. Perhaps it is for the best: would we really want to be reminded of Mein Keimph during escapist adventure? Allow it to stay in the backs of our minds. We know who the bad guys are, and we have a good guy to take them all on. This distinction of a definite distinction of good vs. bad is also what makes this movie successfull, as this definite good guy vs. bad guy even holds up during these muddled days of moral relatism where Hollywood "anti-heroes" are projected as commonplace, where the character's dark side is glamourized more than his good side.

Lets be honest: aren't we all glad that Han Solo landed the role of Indiana Jones instead of Thomas Magnum?

This is not to say that the protagonist is perfect; he is far from indestructable, contrary to his tough guy exterior. Granted, not many men can engage in fisticuffs and beat a bunch of men in Cairo just a couple of days after engaging in a shoot-out in a himalayan bar where almost everyone else but him gets hit. But even Indiana has his limits: confronting a sword wielding warrior with a single bullet is not beyond him. Remember how he sat on a bed after leaving on ship, rubbing every bump, bruise, cut, scrape, and bullet wound. "It's not the years" he tell Marion "it's the milage." This man bleeds and feels pain. He has courage, stamina, weakness, and fear- of snakes in particular.

Although each character is new to the audience, the characters of Raiders are old and familiar to Indy. No time is wasted in trying to learn who these new other people are; we just pick up on people like Marion, a former romantic interest from Indies past. She is connected to him by a former teacher and mentor, the mentioned but unseen Abner Ravenwood who taught Indiana what he knows, but also sparks the interest of the Germans who also seeks out the fruits of Abner's expertise. Indy is joined by another collegue of his past, Sallah. Salla id a good family man who is also loyal to Indiana and helps him to sneek in under the the noses of Belloque and the Gemans to unbury the Ark. Although they are new to us, they are still somewhat familiar in how they are presented. We easily pick up on who they are.

As stated before, Raiders of the Lost Ark is an action adventure. We see the typical Hollywood staples of action like bare knuckle fight scenes, car chases, shoot-outs and explosions in exotic locations such as native ruins in Peru, the Map Room with the Well of Souls in Egypt and a hidden U-Boat base. These locales provide a colorfull backdrop to the adventures that Indiana faces. The beginning of the film takes us inside the ruins of a temple- one laced with traps and devices that has fatally stopped those who dared to enter before. If poison darts don't stop you, the spikes that shoot out from the wall will. Or the bottomless pit. Or the temple that collapses when the idol is retrieved from its pedastal. Or the giant boulder that chases the one individual who actually succeeded in avoiding all the perils. Thrilling as these scenea are, they pale in comparison to the flight mechanic who makes second best to an airplane propeller during a gut wrenching, eye flinching fist fight that takes place on, under, and around an operating flying wing. However, my personal favorite was the desert chase where Indy tries to commandeer the transport truck which carries his desired prize. After dispaching several Germans, he himself is thrown out of the front of the truck, where he slides under the moving vehicle, drags behind it and climbs back to the drivers seat- where he gets pissed off, bangs the troopers face in the dash a couple times and flings him over the hood... and the truck wheels roll right over the top of him. The arms and legs going up adds a nice touch.

The final confrontation between good and bad happens at the end of the film- however it is not Indiana Jones who beats the baddies, but God himself. As the Germans try to open the Ark they discover that the Ark is more than an artifact of Biblical history, and more than a mere relic of mysticim to the secular: the wrath of God comes alive and shows no mercy to the minions to those who would show no mercy to his chosen people- the NAZI Germans. I don't know if that's what Lucas and Spielberg had in mind, but that is what I saw happen. Not only did the 20th Century persecutors of the Jews burn, melt and explode, but the reality of the Old Testament proved that the Bible might be real after all, and not just lore... at least in the world of Indiana Jones.

After all is said and done, the greatest find of modern man is simply crated up in a box and stored in a vast warehouse... perhaps waiting to be discovered again.

SB

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.