Whiplash: Indiana Jones and the Lowered Expectations

I think CE3K & ET are marvelous movies, and I look forward to Spielberg's more adventurous choices. But to sniff at Indiana Jones? You're the guy who could never enjoy a meal at a chain restaurant because 'everybody goes there' and you know what to expect. I suppose we should dismiss most of Hitchcock, since he kept revisiting the same territory, too... seeing another Indy is like visiting with a dear friend you haven't seen in, oh, about 20 years: they're older, they're different, but you share a lot of great memories and you still love them anyway.

We go to the movies for lots of reasons. David Thomson expressed a similar dismay that Spielberg would go back to this well again— but I ask you, what does the artist owe us? Could he not indulge himself, now and again, to enjoy his work with his old friends and work to provide enjoyment to the audience? For all that Spielberg has given us, I should think we would be thankful for what there is and what promise is (still) left, instead of refusing the big, juicy cheeseburger he's made for us because we're holding out for filet mignon.

Sub-head: "Spielberg, Lucas aim to avoid 'Da Vinci' scenario." Make your own joke here.)

--Done! And it's a hell of a joke I don't mind saying. I'm not revealing it here but it involves a cat, a priest and... oh I don't want to give it away.

Since then, no Hollywood film of that magnitude has screened for the fest crowd.

--Sweet. It's like saying Crystal Skull is Spielberg's best movie since Munich.

the "pumped-up crowd... cheered more enthusiastically during the opening credits than it did at the end"

--Ouch!

Rare indeed is the contemporary action or epic/fantasy spectacular that doesn't bore me out of my crystal skull

--Agreed. Check my comments on Dennis' Speed Racer post or my own post on the Crystal Skull.

"E.T." ...[is a] masterpiece... about the language of film, written in light)

--You had to put that in didn't you? Now that one damn line is going to dominate the comments. I hope I'm wrong.

Did I ever tell you the one about the cat, the priest and the filmmaker? Ah, that's for another time.

I find All of this blogosphere backlash, and backlash backlash hilarious cause 95% of normal people have no idea about that stuff and dont care.

JE: My point -- and Ebert's -- exactly. The Cannes reaction may or may not make for a story, but it doesn't necessarily translate beyond that festival.

I have no idea how Cannes could change the average viewers decision to see or not see this film. I grew up (born in 80) on the Indiana Jones films. So. I'm going to go see the movie sooner or later no matter what the crowd at Cannes thought of it. And I know dozens of others who feel basically the same. Indiana Jones, like it or not, is an institution. The Da Vinci Code is not. I haven't been waiting with baited breath for this movie, but I'm more or less curious to see what they've come up with. I don't even think that the average person is going to care much what critics think of the movie. They either want to see it or they don't. I want to see it and i hope it's at least entertaining.

"Now, I think Spielberg is a movie genius (and "Close Encounters" and "E.T." are masterpieces about the language of film, written in light"

Definitely not. He's a massive cheesemonger, who layers on the schmaltz thick and fast. John William's scores supposedly "uplifting" scores are incredibly irritating. Every Spielberg film is about "the importance of family" and "being a good father". He literally has nothing else to say apart from that. His view of the world is incredibly simplistic, black and white and childish. There's no complexity in any of his work.

He does try very hard to be an "artist" with films like Munich and Saving Private Ryan, but he really can't pull it off.

There are a couple of good Spielberg film Schindler's List and The Color Purple (I need to rewatch Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Although there is one sequence in Schindler's List which is so inappropriate and ridiculous; all the Jews are herded into the gas chambers, completely naked and terrified, and at the moment they think they're going to die Schindler has managed to have the gas changed to water. I think it's really inappropriate to use such contrived Hollywood methods to generate tension when dealing with such a depressing and grim subject matter. But Spielberg can't help himself.

This is--at the risk of sounding like a Luddite--the reason I avoid almost all film fest coverage, save for yours at Toronto. (mostly because I know people who live there and I like seeing multiple perspectives on the same things.)

My editor asked me to turn a review for Indy 4 around almost IMMEDIATELY, which I did. I'd heard--vaguely--that the movie was having a somewhat lackluster (here, defined as "less than rapturous") reception, but I don't really care about that stuff. Sure enough, the review I finished two hours after credits rolled went up almost immediately.

My personal portfolio/archive site, though, won't have it up till Thursday. There are just certain ways things are done, people...

Spielberg is reportedly doing a "Tintin" adaptation next, and that I want to see. He hasn't already made one three times before and, as an admirer of his work, I appreciate that.

This comment is funny considering Spielberg plans to produce three of them back-to-back. He'll direct the first, Peter Jackson is directing the second, then they'll co-direct the third.

And if you're unaware, the Tintin films will be using motion-captured 'animation', ala The Polar Express and Beowulf...

"Spielberg is reportedly doing a "Tintin" adaptation next, and that I want to see. He hasn't already made one three times before..."

You don't think a Spielberg "Tintin" is going to be Indiana Jones with a cowlick? That's what I thought when I heard that project. Maybe I should have more faith in Hollywood.

Of course it's an underdog. Ford is old, Lucas squandered his reputation, Spielberg is not the god of movies the way he was when the third film was released, there aren't many encouraging aspect to the trailer, and the poster makes it look like Ford has a descending cheekbone. I don't who really believes any of these guys have it in them to make another one of these things as good as they did before, and the pre-release response - grins and shrugs - confirms this suspicion. An Indiana Jones movie should blow you away, not garner your general appreciation.

I am both ecstatic and somewhat bewildered by your final paragraph, Mr. Emerson! I agree, films like A.I., Munich, even Minority Report are more audacious, bold, daring, and cinematically engaging, some of the best work of one of the best film makers we have. But, Spielberg described this film as a sweet dessert after the 'bitter herbs' of Munich. Though I would be the last person to describe Munich as bitter (in fact, parts of it are just movie heaven, IMO).

But Indy is just fun, James Bond escapitst goofy nonsense. But with that impeccable, transcendent Spielbergian craft. I wouldn't complain about another Indiana Jones film any more than I would complain about another James Bond picture.

I approach my Indiana Jones not so much as a fan of the series but as a fan of Spielberg in all of his manifestations. Truly, the hat and whip does little for me, to heck with how iconic they are. As a series, Star Wars is the one that I have an unabashed fondness for. But I love Spielberg's goofy work (which the Jones' series typifies) just as much as I love his 'serious' films. Would I rather he made something as daring as Munich? Of course, but I can't complain that he just wants to put us us on a roller coaster for two hours!

JE: Ryan, I'm just sayin' I'd like him to build a new rollercoaster out of some different parts. (And that I like the mine roller-coaster in "Temple of Doom" the best, in part because it was a commentary on the movie-as-thrill-ride metaphor that became so popular in reviews of the 1980s. Besides, can't somebody else direct an Indy movie? Bond has had many different directors. Even the "Star Wars" series had several -- and Irvin Kershner made the best one!

Lowered expectations may be a result of George Lucas's comments of a few weeks ago, which sounded to a lot of people like an admission that the movie was not any good. Survivors of the Star Wars prequel disasterbacle know that Lucas would rather die than acknowledge any artistic shortcomings in his projects. And so began the buzz: the movie is SO BAD even George Lucas realizes it's a turkey!
And here we are.

Although Jim Emerson didn't like Raiders of the Lost Ark it happens to be my favorite Spielberg film because I thought E.T. and Close encounters were too pretensious and labored, while with Raiders he wasn't trying to make Henry V but just make a great entertainment.(I admit it is not an artistic acheivement but I never thought any of spielbergs films were)

JE: Sam, I should clarify that I don't dislike "Raiders." I like it just fine. I just don't think it's as fun or entertaining as, say, "Jaws," "CE3K," "E.T.," "Catch Me If You Can" or "Temple of Doom." But then, I think Spielberg's movies are all artistic achievements of one sort or another. OK, maybe not "1941"...

This revisiting theme of trilogies doesn’t excite me, but for someone who doesn’t know an Indie film (no pun intended) from a blockbuster will let their expectations get the best of them. For example, “Live Free or Die Hard” after its 12 year stint of absence came back doing well critically while grossing the highest of the series at the box office, but months later, my friends who liked it before started to backlash against it. Now we have “Terminator 4” (a series that has always done phenomenal at the box office) coming out and I wonder what plans they have for it, besides the crappy PG-13 rating that they also gave to “Live Free or Die Hard”. I guess the only difference between Indian Jones and the other two, other than Spielberg helming all four pictures, was that they haven’t premiered at Cannes.

I don’t know if Cannes can reverse the viewer’s decisions whether they’ll like the movie or not. Then again, people are hesitant to go with their gut feeling in fear that they won’t belong with the majority. If I’d been in attendance at the Cannes Film festival and everyone was heckling a movie it would hamper my idea of the film (and people as well). More than likely, I’ll just wait for it to come out on DVD and let the hype that’s built up cool down.

Jonathan: OK, fine.

Spielberg, Lucas aim to avoid 'Da Vinci' scenario."

1) "We aimed to avoid having the audience boo our film," they said.

2) "Before the screening we were very nervous," they said. "As much as we aimed to avoid it, we were afraid that if we showed 'Indy 4' here at Cannes, it might turn into movie about a Vatican conspiracy, and that wasn't what we had in mind at all when we made the picture. If that were to happen, boos and catcalls might be heard, and, generally speaking, we aim to avoid that sort of thing."

John Eggfish - you are being sarcastic, right? Right?

As I said on Ebert's blog,too, Buzz Buzzington has been a friend to genre films and film nerds like us since before the internet. It did not mean anything to the general public then, either.

Me? Well I am looking forward to the film, the way I look forward to anything by Spielberg (even 1941 is a distinctive work, I think). Why else would I host a blog-a-thon about the films? Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, wink, wink everyone.

Jim - that you are not excited about Kung Fu Panda is disheartening. He's a panda. AND he does Kung Fu!

Sometimes I'm a bit slow so forgive me but the "Jonathan: OK fine" kind of confused me. What was the "OK fine" in reference to? Was the rest of the comment directed at me? Is it my joke you want to hear (I've forgotten it now)? Is it in reference to my "ET" comment prediction (which didn't really come true but I kind of wish it had - I'd rather have that discussion than one on Indiana Jones)? Why does my head always hurt so much when I think?

And in reference to your response to Sam - aren't all movies artistic achievements? Putting together a film, producing a painting, composing a piece of music - they're all works of art. They just might not all be good works of art. The phrase "work of art" has been re-defined to mean "great" or "masterful" but really it's just a simple descriptive statement. Thomas Kincaide produces 'works of art' but their quality is highly debatable.

JE: Yes, I was just responding in jest to your assertion that you had a joke that you wouldn't share! As for "art" -- I started to address that, but it just got too complicated, and led me back to the whole "Are video games art?" debate that Roger Ebert sparked a few years ago. I agree with you -- skill and artistry goes into the making of any movie or a video game. The quality and level of accomplishment varies. Is the form itself art? It can be. Hey, whatever happened to that Thomas Kincaide movie? (Seriously. Somebody was making one. Shudder.)

It's not like John Eggfish's criticisms of Spielberg are anything new. Many people have the same type of problems when it comes to Spielberg's work. The one thing that really, really irritates me about Spielberg is what he did with the 20th anniversary edition of E.T. That was so idiotic that it made me lose a lot of respect for him.

Hey Jim,thanks for responding to my comment

I know you're just being facetious, Ali, but all too often I encounter the "but its high concept is crazy!" argument as a POSITIVE one, and it drives me nuts.

Jim: Glad I'm not the only one who likes Temple of Doom most of all. I saw a (bad) print of it in the theater again some years ago, and I found myself swaying around in my seat to that mine-car chase... even though I'd probably seen it three dozen times in my life already.

Despite being a director who's incredibly flexible (Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can both in the same year) Spielberg certainly gets a lot of flack. ET, Close Encounters, and Raiders were probably his peak but you'd swear this man hasn't pumped out anything of quality since the way some people talk. The man has an uncanny ability to communicate through images to his audience and even at his worst he's better than most. And keep in mind directing movies is a young man's game, it's not uncommon for even the most talented to faulter in their golden years. Spielberg's been doing this for 30 years and he still chooses to venture into new territory for better or worse.

Hey, whatever happened to that Thomas Kincaide movie?

And starring Peter O'Toole and Marcia Gay Harden no less. Here's the link:

Thomas Kincade's Home for Christmas

Sadly, no release date yet. Don't they know how desperate I am to see the fictionalized backstory surrounding the creation of one of the twentieth century's greatest works of art, that snow cottage painting thing? Don't they know that? I guess they just don't care.

The only Kincaide I want to hear about when it comes to movies is Kit Ramsey's character in the movie within a movie in Bowfinger. "It had rained that day. But was it normal rain? Or was it chubby rain?"

Armond White said that A.I. Artificial Intelligence is better than E.T. Extra Terrestrial(In Fact A.I. is Armond's #1 film on his Sight and Sound ten greatest).I'am just curious if anyone on this blog agrees with this.

You'll get around to seeing it...eventually? EVENTUALLY? Isn't that sort of Commie talk? Have you cleared these thoughts with Lucasfilm, Ltd.??

I actually sort of like 1941. Couldn't say why. It's probably not a fair comment, but I've only seen a few minutes of the original Raiders film on tv; it really didn't seem like a very good movie. I'm just not interested in finding out for sure.

I go between admiring his work (the last part of AI was marvelous and elegant, I thought), and thinking of him as vastly over-rated (ET, Close Encounters, etc) or an out-and-out hack (Jurassic Park). Other films are probably great, if seriously flawed (the framing structure and "Earn this!" from SPR; the bizarre PSA ending of Schindler).

So, that's Spielberg all tied up in a pretty bow. And you don't even have to thank me.

Drew, I agree, you mention _Minority Report_ and _Catch Me if You Can_ in the same year, _Jurassic Park_ and _Schindler's List_ were made in the same year too (as each other, not the same year, obviously, as Minority report and Catch me if you can), and if he's going to keep making movies with Tony Kushner I'd be loathe to complain.

It's been fun watching the backlash and backlash-backlash regarding Spielberg over the years. After getting hammered for the better part of a decade, it now appears the anti-anti-Spielbergers have gained ascendance, mostly by complaining about how everyone doesn't give Spielberg enough credit. Either that or we are now living in the Armond White-generation of film critics. Oh crap, I just scared myself.

I'll go watch Indy 4, yes, with lowered expectations. I don't think Spielberg's done a damned thing in the last 20 years that's of any major interest except for Schindler's List which is still far from a great movie. But he's also hardly the worst director in the biz either - if I fall into the anti-Spielberg camp (or maybe it's the pre-anti-anti-Spielberg camp) it's only because he's gained so much fame that he's become virtually synonymous with the concept of "film director" (So you're making a movie? Gonna be another Spielberg, huh?) It's kind of like carping about Michael Moore because he's become synonymous with the documentary. It's not that he's bad, it's just there's so damned many other better ones.

Anyway, I'll see Indy. I'm hoping it'll be watchable.

Well, after seeing the movie for myself last night I think I now share your sentiment. Though seeing was believing, in this case. It felt like Spielberg (and Kaminski) took a step back artistically. It tried to do so many things to appease the fans and wound up doing none of them well. I can honestly say I never, ever want to see another Indiana Jones picture again (not that I thought it was awful, it just struck me that his involvement in it was lackadaisical at best). It was completely forgettable and throwaway, which for me is about the worst thing you can say about a Spielberg film.
And, in response to what Sam wrote, while I don't agree with the sentiment of A.I. being the greatest film of all time, or even one of the greatest of all time, I probably share Armond White's sentiment about that film more than I share anyone else's. If you read the reviews from when it came out, Ebert's included, they're all so aggravatingly middle of the road. That annoys me more than the reviews that out and out hated it! Truly, I think a majority of film critics simply didn't give it enough credit. But that is an attitude that's beginning to change.

E.T. overrated? I am truly baffled by this critcism. That is one of the few movies out there that affects me the same way no matter what age I am. I react the same way now as I did when I was eight. I also find it kind of strange that people have been saying the second half of A.I. is the best part when I always thought the first half was. The ideas being explored, projecting love on our possessions, were far more intriguing. Spielbergs movies aren't perfection but even at his most uneven there is some truly outstanding brilliance that many other directors may never touch.

Larry: Commies only like the pictures where Indy fights fascists (Nazis), not Reds!

I don't think Spielberg's done a damned thing in the last 20 years that's of any major interest except for Schindler's List

You shot who in the what now?

Always? Jurassic Park? Amistad? Catch Me If You Can? Minority Report?

MUNICH?

I don't want to go all Armond White (whose review of the latest Indy film is less a paean to Spielberg, and more one to his own pomposity), but to dismiss Spilberg's efforts of the past twenty years in such a glib manner is mindblowing.

Ali,

I'm happy to have blown your mind, and I won't charge for the service.

Of the films you listed, I haven't seen Catch Me If You Can. The rest, quite frankly, range from utterly mediocre to, well, utterly mediocre. I love parts of Spielberg films, almost always the beginning. A.I. is darn near great until and nicluding the scene where David's mother drops him off in the woods then it takes the inevitable SPielberg plunge off the cliff. Same for Minority Report. A fantastic beginning and a wonderful bit of world creation but it just gets progressively worse until the flat-out insultingly stupid final act.

I actually thought War of the Worlds as Spielberg's best film in a while... through the first half. Then you get to the Jurassic Park recreation in the basement with Tim Robbins and it all goes to hell.

I have always thought of Spielberg as a gifted technician with tragically bad taste. He was splendid in his first decade. I even think 1941 is grossly underrated (though grossly overlong). But since Temple of Doom (a fine movie) it's been all downhill.

Someone mentioned John Williams and oddly just yesterday I was watching Last Crusade and not 10 minutes in was reminded why I don't like his scores. River Phoenix is racing to get on the circus train and suddenly I'm pulled out of the movie wondering if the orchestra is ever going to shut up.

"Mad Max 2" made "Raiders" look like a Tonka toy?? Um...no. That is perhaps the wrongest you've ever been. Otherwise, nice blog.

Since we are talking about a movie series I curious of what jim emerson thought of The Lord of The Rings Trilogy.So I'm wonder if anybody can find his original reviews for the films.

What I love about reading comments on these blogs is that it is an invaluable reminder that as much as we may wish it to be otherwise, our opinions on films are extremely subjective. People joust with declarations that they each find obvious and others find astonishing. Usually it's only when the comments become so detailed and expressive that they're nearly essays do they become really meaningful.

Which is a shame, it'd be kinda nice if I had some statistics to back up the obvious and incontestable fact that Minority Report is a vastly superior movie to AI, but, alas.

This article makes me laugh. A write up about write ups that aren't worth writing up about.

[JE: You got it!]

Temple of Doom f-ing rocks! There's no reason to say otherwise.

This is how I finished my own review of "Crystal Skull"..."No doubt I’m going to see it again at which point I’ll write my second reaction. Sometimes when a film has been so built up in a person’s head it takes a second viewing to review it properly."

Stephen,

Piggy backing on my last comment and in response to yours. Sometimes it seems even our own opinions are subjective, depending on as Jim has mentioned, it depends on our own expectations at the time of different viewings.

Phillip--

No kidding! For example, I almost always enjoy a movie I know very well more if I'm watching it with someone who hasn't seen it before. Vicariously picking up on the excitement and/or humor as if I wasn't familiar with it really changes the experience.

I often like Spielberg's work but I can't say I love it because even with the Spielberg films I like I have reservations about because with E.T. I think is a wonderful family picture but far from a cinematic masterpiece,it more great fun then great art.Also,as for CE3K I think it is a visual dazzler which is the reason I like it but the reason I don't love it is that it is all magic but very little depth and it follows a familiar aliens coming to earth/UF0 formula.Third I think with Saving Private Ryan that although he brilliantly creates the hell of combat the film storyline is a bit conventional.So I think Spielberg is a good earnest director but I don't think he is as good as his contemporaries like Scorsese or Coppola,his movies just seem too hollywood to me.

Stephen,

I went to "Battlefield Earth" four times at the theatre with different groups of people for that reason...still can't get over how bad it is.

Also saw "Young Frankenstein" a few years ago in Minneapolis with a packed house. The movie had never been so funny. great movie, but in that instance, the best comedy ever made.

I read this post and the comments, and found them enlightening.

Sadly, making movies is an expensive business, and so any Hollywood studio is prey to the need to get every last possible dollar out of a film - to "maximize the return on investment, or ROI". So naturally they do what works for the largest segment of the population.

As Asimov remarked, "sophistication is a minority exercise". Subtleties of cinematography, lighting, composition, characterization, dialogue and theme will fly right over the head of 99% (or more) of the movie going public. And so we're left with movies that emphasize plot over all else - and the easiest way to satisfy a plot-driven audience is to have plot twists.

Regarding Spielberg, I haven't seen his entire ouevre - I haven't seen 1941, nor all of Schindler's List or Munich. I haven't even seen E.T. Certainly I can partly agree with Mr. Eggfish - sometimes Spielberg is a little too schmaltzy (hence my avoidance of E.T.). But as for "his message" being only about being a good father or whatnot - why is that insufficient? Try reading Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, and then Xenocide (all by Orson Scott Card), and tell me if the child who consciously decides alone of his siblings to not be a genius doctor, diplomat or whatnot, but just to be a genius at being a good father and husband...isn't on some levels making the right choice. There aren't enough good fathers and husbands in the world for my liking.

As for managing expectations, it can cut both ways - how about "Snakes on a Plane"?

I agreed alot with John Eggfish about Spielberg and I think he nailed it when he said that Spielberg's view of the world is black and white and childish and it is for these reasons that I cannot consider Spielberg to be one of the great american directors but I do think he is talented and he certains knows how to entertain audiences(As I said before I like E.T. and CE3K and I'm also quite fond of Raiders,Last Crusade and Jurrassic Park but I don't love them)but at the same time I wish his films were driven by narrative or emotion than by schmaltz and special effects.I think Spielberg is talented but Overrated