There’s a whip and a fedora, and a crystal skull

Warning: spoilers follow.

I watched “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” yesterday for the first time. I was unable to avoid a certain amount of spoilers beforehand, and I knew that some saw the film's box office performance as disappointing (these people need to have their credentials checked) and that many others were disappointed in the film itself. Then again, many critics loved it.
I didn’t go into the cinema completely unbiased. Yet, disappointment with any over hyped film, such as this one, is inevitable for many people and shouldn’t influence one’s own judgment. George Lucas experienced mass fan disappointment first hand with especially “The Phantom Menace”, though for me it was “Attack of the Clones” that was the series’ nadir. To say that “Indy 4”has disappointed some people is an accurate statement and an inevitable one. To say that one was disappointed by the film is not criticism and is rather meaningless in itself.

However, to say that “Indy 4”betrayed itself, well, that’s a different, more valid route. That is my point of departure for the following discussion of the film.
Spielberg, whom I hold in almost unequalled respect and admiration as an American filmmaker, managed to make the film too Spielbergian and not ‘Indy’ enough. Sure, the iconography is present – whip, fedora, by-the-numbers villains – and the iconic soundtrack is used to rousing effect. The first two thirds of the film is vintage Indy, with the good doctor fleeing Russians and encountering one of the great American dangers of the 1950s. The character has grown older and moved on with the times, as has the series itself, eschewing a nostalgia-themed opening (see “Temple of Doom”) for something quite political. In this opening scene I realized that the laws of physics, which have never been taken seriously by the Indy franchise, were completely dismissed by the fourth entry. Not a problem; this is after all, an Indiana Jones movie. And to the film’s credit, Indy is in almost every scene, delivering more trademark dry one-liners and pulling off breathtaking stunts. Harrison Ford once more gives us a solid, old-fashioned action hero whom we want to believe in.

Then Indy meets a young man, Mutt, played by Shia LeBeouf, and the two set off on an adventure that sends them to South America, where a ghost from the past shows up unexpectedly (unexpectedly, that is, if you haven’t seen the trailer or been online for the past year). There are some excellent series moments set in Peru before the film collapses into itself thanks to something that only the Spielberg-Lucas teaming can be responsible for: an alien conspiracy theory. All those stories about alien beings handing down knowledge to certain South American civilizations long gone turn out to be true. Spielberg and Lucas have been responsible for the key SF films of our time, and they just couldn’t resist making an Indy adventure film another one of those. There’s a great reference to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” early in “Indy 4”, in retrospect setting the film up to fail from the get go. No alien ship breaking free from a mountain with Indy looking on passively could ever be as impressive as people melting in the presence of the open Ark of the Covenant, escaping the Thuggees, or traversing multiple traps to get to the Holy Grail.

There is no reason why the big finale had to involve aliens, and why, as a result, the main villain – a perfectly cheesy Cate Blanchett as Russian psychic researcher and soldier (try saying that without grinning) – is dispatched with in such an unspectacular manner. The alien narrative, to me, unfolds upon the viewer like a saucer-shaped sellout, a last option, a big reveal that falls flat. (To put it into perspective, when that ‘alien knowledge-scene’ played out I inadvertently thought of “Mission to Mars”. Yes, “Mission to Mars”.)

I need to be clear that my complaints don’t come from the fact that the film isn’t “my” Indy movie, the one I’d like to have made or seen, but from a critique of the actual film as part of a ridiculously enjoyable, well crafted series of pulp-fuelled adventure films. So what worked in the film? The Indy-Mutt combination. Regarding Mutt’s entrance, I will fondly remember the Brando-reference when I revisit the film on DVD. The opening action set piece and the chase sequence in the city both got me to lean forward. (The chase that ends in the university library and the dialogue that follows, is a highlight.) Actually, a lot of everything worked until the ‘real meaning’ of the Crystal Skull kicked in, even though the film stole visually from “Last Crusade”.

What didn’t work? The alien narrative, as should be clear. Brendan Gleeson’s semi-sidekick, who is made out of British cardboard. John Hurt’s Oxley, whose dementia disappears inexplicably, even in terms of Indy movie-causality. I’m not complaining about the dodgy forest effects because dodgy visual effects, particularly rear projection visuals, are a staple of the Indy movies and just add to the fun, even here. And when the effects are good, they’re great, as in the ‘attack of the ants’ sequence. Undermining all the fun is the alien skull.

When I watch the film again, I’ll watch it knowing that it all comes to an inglorious, vapid end, with little to look forward to, something ripped off of both “Raiders” and “Last Crusade” but not nearly as potent. This isn’t just the weakest film of the four; it’s also a personal low for Spielberg, who should have known better. It’s a fine adventure film, but as an Indy film “Crystal Skull” is deeply flawed. As the film ends, Indy says something about “their treasure was knowledge”, thereby highlighting the film’s MacGuffin-defying plot device, and I thought, “Bollocks”. I suppose one can read the whole alien thing as Spielberg’s homage to the SF films of the 1950s (the saucer seems to fit the design) but that will again simply emphasise the lack of real ideas that the final 30 minutes of this film spurts out.

The authorative Roger Ebert writes in his review, “I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a hierarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage.“ I agree. Even with all its faults, “Indy 4” is impossible not to like. And no-one talks about “Indy” in terms of the “best”, but rather in terms of personal favourites. It is now certain that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is not my favourite.