Favorite Friday: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)

Full disclosure: Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time.

I say that and people look at me like I have two heads. What nobody realizes, however, is that there is a difference between "favorite" and "best". It's not that Raiders is the best movie ever made. There are other movies that are better than it certainly. Or if not better, than more "important" than it in terms of what they have to say. Let's just throw it right out there: Raiders is pop entertainment. Two hours of pure pop entertainment, in fact. It's not a message film like On the Beach or Schindler's List. It's not meant to make you consider the human condition or anything like that. It is, at it's heart, a pure early 80s summer blockbuster, and one of the best at it.

Conceived as an homage to the great serials of the 1930s and 40s, in particular the Republic serials, Raiders has a simple premise. In 1936, the Nazis are looking for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, the fabled chest that allegedly contained the original Ten Commandments (the stone tablets, not the movie). The U.S. Government asks archeologist Indiana Jones to beat the Nazis to the prize. Jones reunites with an ex-lover whose father has an artifact the Nazis need to aid in their search. The Nazis call upon Jones number one rival Belloq to help them. The Ark is found and trades off who owns it several times before the end of the movie. Yep, that's about it.

Don't let the fairly simple description above fool you. I mentioned that Raiders was a throwback to Republic serials and nobody was better at simple premises than Republic serials. Raiders tells a simple, straightforward story but tells it thrillingly. Once the movie starts, it never really takes a breather. I would argue that it is one of the most action packed movies you'll ever see. Keep in mind, this was in the pre-CGI world, with actually stuntmen pulling off such mind blowing stunts as Jones being chased by a very large boulder to Jones chasing after a speeding truck on horseback to Jones being dragged behind said truck and climbing back on. That last mentioned stunt is a clever nod to one of the most famous serial stunts, typically called The Yakima Canutt Stunt, where the hero is sliding under a speeding wagon and climbs back on. Actually, that's the genius alone of the original Indiana Jones trilogy. Like the James Bond movies of the era, all the stunts are for real and all the more amazing for it.

Harrison Ford got the role of Indy when Tom Selleck had to turn it down due to his Magnum, P.I. commitment. I like Selleck and I've seen his audition. He's a fine actor, but Ford nailed Jones and made him into an iconic movie character. Ford IS Indiana Jones, a not entirely likeable good guy--he does have a touch of greed to him--who rises above the occasion to kick some Nazi rear. Karen Allen plays his feisty ex-flame Marion Ravenwood. She's the best of the heroines in the series, instantly recalling the true Serial Queens like Kay Aldridge and Linda Stirling. She may get into trouble, but she puts up a fight and uses her wiles to attempt to escape. The scene where she tries drinking head bad guy Belloq (Paul Freeman) under the table in an attempt to escape from him is alternately hilarious and suspenseful.

This is Spielberg's second movie involving Nazis. He's said that he regrets portraying them the way he does in this, especially after Schindler's List, which was his first time at portraying them as they really were. What Spielberg seems to forget, however, is that their portrayal in this movie is appropriate for the type of movie it is. It's a serial, after all, and anyone who has seen Spy Smasher or Manhunt in the African Jungles knows where the Nazis in this film were modeled off of. On top of that, the three main villains--Belloq, Toht (Ronald Lacey), and Dietrich (Wolf Kahler) are perfect representations of the best of the serial villains. They're a nasty, murderous bunch--in particular Toht, who threatens Marion with a hot poker in one scene and throws her into the Well of Souls in another. Incidentally, Freeman went on to appear (not as Belloq) on the early 90s Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

Look, this is a movie that has it all: amazing action scenes, genuine suspense, and just the right amount of humor. It truly is representative of the classics of the serial genre and if it were an actual cliffhanger serial, it would be the greatest one of all. One can tell that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had a genuine affection for serials. If you pay attention, you can even find every chapter break in it. Count them. There's 12 actual chapters in it. Plus, if you're a serial nut (like I am), you can tell which serials which scenes were nods to.

Proof of the greatness of this movie is the sheer number of imitators it spawned. This happened frequently back in the late 70s and early 80s. Jaws gave rise to any number of shark movies (and still does for that matter). Star Wars inspired movies like Battle Beyond the Stars and Starchaser: The Legend of Orin. Halloween begat Friday the 13th, My Bloody Valentine, and so on. Alien gave use movies like The Thing. And Raiders inspired movies like Treasure of the Four Crowns (truly awful) and Romancing the Stone (actually fairly decent). The problem with the Raiders imitators is that they just looked at the treasure hunter aspect or the serial aspect and missed the whole fun aspect. When Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow came out (another serial inspired film), I went to it eagerly. After watching it, however, I turned to a friend of mine and said "it just didn't have the wow factor Raiders did".

I'm quite certain that if you wanted to judge the best Spielberg movie, some artsy critic would point to something like Saving Private Ryan or Lincoln, both of which are excellent movies indeed. However, I'm not an artsy critic. I'm a film buff and while I recognize the superiority of those two movies, I'll go back to Raiders again and again and again and never get bored with it. I first saw Raiders at age 11 on the big screen in March of 1982. It captured my imagination then and 32 years later, it still captures my imagination. After all, isn't that what a favorite movie does?

Thoughts on Star Wars 7, 8, & 9

So, today it was announced that Disney has bought LucasFilm and will proceed to make Star Wars episodes 7-9, with the first one to be released in 2015. This news has been met with much rejoicing and some questions by fans, the main question being "will Disney release the original cuts of the films on Blu Ray?" Truthfully, that's an irrelevant question. IF it happens, and that's a mighty big if, it won't be for a few years anyway. The questions that should be asked should be asked of this new series that's coming.  For instance:
Who is going to direct these films (Lucas said he won't)?
Who is going to be in them?
Most importantly, what the heck are they going to be about anyhow?

I have some worthwhile suggestions for the first question anyhow. Spielberg is the most obvious choice, though I don't see him doing it. The directors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are also top suggestions. Anyone who can make a movie like Thor that interesting the way Kenneth Branagh did knows how to blend fantastic worlds and real characters and make it work. Joe Johnston has two very serial-like films under his belt: Captain America and The Rocketeer. And it goes without saying that if Joss Whedon's The Avengers isn't the all time best comic book movie ever, it's in the top five. Frankly, those are the directors you want attached to Star Wars. I think they, better than anyone else, would get it. Hell, they might even get it better than George Lucas himself!

The question of casting ties into the what will it be about question, and both are kinda sticky. As it's 7, 8, and 9 we're talking about, does that mean that Han, Luke, and Leia will be in them? If so, who is going to play them. I may be speaking for myself, but at this point, I don't want to see Harrison Ford, Mark Hammil, and Carrie Fisher reprising those roles. As much as I enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the first shot of Ford as Indy had me thinking "Oh my God! He looks ancient!" That was in 2008. By the time of 2015, Ford will likely look a day older than Moses. Hammil has looked like the Joker for a while now. As for Fisher...while she doesn't look awful, she sure doesn't look like she did in 1983. And while that statement may lead to a "so, like...duh!" comment from the readers, contemplate this: by the time the new Star Wars comes out, Fisher will be almost 60. Show of hands of people who really want to see a 60 year old Princess Leia.

Oddly enough, however, there really isn't anyone in Hollywood right now that I would care to see in these parts. I suppose an argument can be made for Robert Downey, Jr. as Han, Hayley Atwell as Leia, and Chris Evans as Luke, but I'd rather see them in the Iron Man and Captain America films (or The Avengers 2) than in Star Wars.

I suppose the original actors can be brought back in cameos or as the wise old sages and new heroes and villains be introduced. Then again, the wild age difference between Ford and Fisher would really come to light if such a thing were to happen. And I don't want people to think I'm just being mean spirited towards Ford. He's a fine actor--always has been--but hell, even Roger Moore recognized when he was too old to be playing James Bond. Sorry, Mr. Ford, your day as swashbuckling action hero is sadly over.

This brings up what the film will be about. This is perhaps even stickier than who should be in it. After all, if you watch the films now, you can plainly see that the saga goes full circle. Annakin Skywalker meets the Jedis, grows up to try to become a Jedi, loses his mind and goes evil killing little kid Jedi (but no actual adult Jedi...hmmm....), finds his kids, kills the Emperor, and dies doing so theoretically redeeming himself. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the main bad guys are dead and the heroes have triumphed. So what exactly can follow? What can possibly be the story? Is it 30 years later and some far flung remnat of the Empire rises up to cause trouble? Is it right after Jedi and the messy clean up has to happen? That one might make for a better one-off movie, but if it's the previous idea, then the danger becomes that the films just end up repeating themselves. We already kind of had that with Phantom Menace, which borrowed it's climax from all three previous films. Do we want it again? More to the point, do we need it?

I would argue no. When I was a lot younger, I really wanted Indiana Jones four. As I got older, I realized how little such a film was needed. And when it finally came out, while it was fun, I felt no need for a fifth film. I still hope that Spielberg gives up the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones film and just carries on with Tintin or some such. Similarly, now that the prequels are out--and one can argue the necessity of the prequels, too--I don't feel that 7, 8, and 9 are absolute necessities. In fact, I'd rather Disney not make these movies but instead concentrate on the Marvel films. I know they'll make the Marvel movies regardless, but I'm far more excited about those possibilities than anything that will go on in the future Star Wars universe. But, that's just me.

The Genuis of Steven Spielberg

I was flipping through channels the other night and stumbled on Schindler's List. It was the scene where Schindler and Stern are actually typing the list. I sat there and watched it for a good few minutest before flipping again--only because I have it on DVD and I'm one of those weird people who'd really rather watch a movie from the beginning. At any rate, the topic of today's blog was decided in those five minutes.

As mentioned before, Spielberg is one of my two favorite directors. He has, in fact, directed my two favorite movies of all time, and directed quite a few others that would make it into my top 50. He is also the guy whose movies ultimately made me want to make movies.

Now, I know a lot of guys say that and certainly a lot of guys want to be Spielberg. I won't cop to that, per say. In my case, Spielberg's making of Raiders of the Lost Ark and talking about how it was inspired by old time movie serials led to eventually watching old time movie serials which led me to making movie serials. But yes, there's a lot of guys who simply want to be Steven Spielberg. His movies have inspired as many imitators as Hitchcock's.

Let's take Raiders as an example. To this day, movies are imitating the adventures of Indiana Jones. Anyone seen The Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser? How about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow? I was really interested in seeing that one when it was out a few years ago. The director, Kerry Conan, even said he was putting chapter breaks in the film and that it was pure, old fashioned serial adventure. Never mind the fact that the actors did the whole thing in front of green screens and the entire world was CGI. But I wanted to see it and gave it a shot. When it was done, I turned to my buddy and said, "it was okay, but it didn't have the wow factor of Raiders."

Come to it, there's only been one imitator of Raiders that ever really worked--Romancing The Stone. And that one is less an imitator and more of a romantic comedy adventure film than any of the others. Well, okay...the first Mummy movie worked to a decent extent, too. Never bothered with the sequels, though I may.

Jaws has been imitated to death as well. Again, even as late as this decade, there's shark attack movies. Most of them are done for TV now since people stopped being suckered into going to the movies for them. But they all make the same fatal mistakes: show the (fake looking) shark to death and just have a high body count. Spielberg's movie did neither which is why it remains a masterpiece.

But like I said earlier, Hitchock is still imitated and he's been dead for nearly 30 years. Disturbia is nothing more than a reworking of Rear Window. And while it was decent enough, Shia LaBeouf is no Jimmy Stewart. This, of course, proves what the average movie buff has known for years: Hollywood is totally out of ideas. But I digress. Back to Spielberg.

There are, of course, two sides to the Spielberg coin: Spielberg the spinner of fantasy and Spielberg the guy who likes to win Academy Awards. The earlier is the type of Spielberg I prefer. It's not that the latter doesn't make good movies--you'd be hard pressed to argue that Munich isn't a good movie--it's that the earlier has a style of movie that is infinitely rewatchable. Of his more serious works, the only one I really care to rewatch is Schindler's List, and that mostly because of the wonderful interaction between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Saving Private Ryan was extremely well done (and depressing), but I'm not exactly jumping up and down to put it in the DVD player. Ditto Munich.

The problem seems to be that older Spielberg has seem to forgotten that, as Rod Serling once pointed out, you can make as potent a point in fantasy as you can in serious drama and make it in a more entertaining manner. E.T. is perhaps the perfect example. E.T. is practically the template for later Spielberg films. It's also as powerful and well done as those later films, it's just that it's the story of a boy and his alien instead of some "realistic" drama. In fact, it's probably as powerful as film as Private Ryan--I defy anyone to not cry when E.T. dies (I still do and I've seen the film multiple times). But it works better than the later films because it creates a genuine sense of magic and wonder. It's unfortunate he felt the need to monkey with the film in 2002. The removal of the guns does nothing for the story. Thankfully the first version of the DVD had both versions on it.

1993 was a major turning point in the films of Steven Spielberg. That was the year he gave us both Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. JP is perhaps the last really big Spielberg thrill ride. It is on a par with Raiders and Jaws. Next to the 1933 King Kong, it is the best dinosaur movie ever. Like Jaws, it has an excellent cast and makes a point--the debate over cloning and evolution--amidst all it's suspense. And every frame of the movie works. The special effects are amazing. It really looks like the cast is right there with real dinosaurs. It does everything that Spielberg's best does and it does it better than even most of them. I ended up seeing JP in the theaters four times. Only a couple of 3-D movies share that.

Of course, after Schindler, Spielberg announced an intention to stick with more serious fare for the rest of his carreer. Thankfully, he has slowly started to go back to what made him great in the first place in the past couple of years. War of the Worlds proved he still had it even if it wasn't as thrilling as his earlier work. And while Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't as good as the original trilogy, it didn't completely disappoint me either. But I'd still like to see one more Jurassic Park type thrill ride out of him. I have no doubt that he can still do it.

One thing worth mentioning is that Hitch made essentially the same type of movie for nearly 50 years. And he never really complained about it and--except for a couple of late carreer missteps--never really lost his touch, either. Spielberg for a time was our generation's Hitchcock, a master of suspense and wonder. It would be nice to see him completely go back to being that again.