|
Review by Dragan Antulov
3 stars out of 4
Time can be very unkind to movies. In first few months and
years after the premiere, a movie might make record profits
at the box-office, earn multitudes of "Oscars" and generally
be regarded as one of the greatest contemporary films. But,
only after few years that same film gets utterly forgotten,
and future film scholars have a lot of trouble in explaining
its initial success. 1980s blockbusters seem to be very good
illustration of this phenomenon, and not even George Lucas
and Steven Spielberg, those two symbols of blockbuster
success, could save their films from such fate. INDIANA
JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, their second instalment in
very popular adventure film trilogy, directed by Steven
Spielberg in 1984, is a good example - a very popular and
critically hailed film in its time, and now virtually
despised by contemporary critics, misunderstood by the
contemporary audience and practically disowned by their own
creators.
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is product of its era,
albeit somewhat unusual one. When screenwriter and producer
George Lucas begun working on the follow-up to his classic
adventure masterpiece RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, he decided to
make prequel instead of sequel and set the plot in Shanghai
1935, one year before the events of the first film.
Archaeology professor Indiana Jones (played by Harrison
Ford) has located the remains of the first Manchu emperor
and he comes to luxurious night-club to complete the deal
with local gang boss Lao Che (played by Roy Liao). He is to
receive precious diamond in the exchange for the artefact,
but the deal goes bad and in the ensuing chaos he would have
to settle with clueless bar singer Willie Scott (played by
Kate Capshaw). Pursued by Lao Che's gangsters, they get to
the taxi driven by 9-year old Short Round (played by
Jonathan Ke Quan) who takes them to airport where they all
three would board plane for India. The flight is not the end
of adventure - plane crashes in the Himalaya mountains and
trio, barely escaping death, has to travel to Delhi. On the
way they reach small impoverished Indian village and the
local shaman (played by D.R. Nanayakkara) tells them about
evil Thugee cult whose minions took away the sacred Shankara
stone and all the children. Jones agrees to help them and
the trail lead him to Pankot Palace, place which used to
shelter Thugess many centuries ago but now seems to be ruled
by benevolent child Maharaja (played by Raj Singh) and his
Oxford-educated prime minister Chattar Lal (played by Roshan
Seth). Jones is still suspicious and soon he finds secret
passages that lead to the cave which was recently turned
into temple of goddess Kali and where the evil chief priest
Mola Ram (played by Amrish Puri) wants to gather all the
Shankara stone and thus get the magical power that would
enable him to rule the world.
Like many sequels of its era, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE
OF DOOM had misfortune of being compared with its
predecessor, and in most of such cases predecessors happened
to be much better. In the case of this film predecessor was
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, not only the first instalment in
trilogy intended to repeat the success of STAR WARS, but
also an undisputed classic of adventure genre. Lucas and
Spielberg were aware of this and they tried very hard to
make second instalment of the series as different as
possible from the first. They succeeded in that but those
changes weren't necessarily for the better and INDIANA JONES
AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is almost universally viewed as much
inferior to the first film of the trilogy.
The most palpable change is in the screenplay, this time
written by Wilard Huyk and Gloria Katz. While the first film
had very basic, but still coherent plot, the second one is
nothing more than the series of action sequences and gags
loosely sawn together. Characterisation is even worse,
except in the case of Indiana Jones. His character has been
clearly established in the first part and screenwriters
actually don't need to experiment, but short episode with
his turning to the Dark Side seems refreshing. Harrison Ford
plays him very well, being equally convincing in tuxedo and
his legendary adventurer's outfit. Unfortunately, this is
not the case with his partners. Character of weak, stupid
and utterly useless female partner Willie Scott represents
spectacular departure from the high standards set for
Indiana Jones' girl in the first film. Her constant
complaining, crying and screaming is funny at first but
later gets repetitive and irritating; Kate Capshaw might be
the best actress around but she can't remedy the limits of
her character, which seems insulting to the female gender in
general, despite being modelled as a parody of dumb blonde
and damsel in distress stereotypes in 1930s movies. Bond's
9-year old sidekick Short Round looks much better in
comparison, although his character has opportunities to be
equally irritating. He was probably introduced to the film
in order to make it more attractive to the younger audiences
- those who were basis of Spielberg's commercial success in
1980s.
Unfortunately, Spielberg, in his effort to make this film
appealing to adolescent and pre- adolescent crowds succumbs
to infantilism that plagued many 1980s films. So, one child
among protagonists is not enough and the film must have
villains that use thousands of children for the slave
labour, sacrificing plausibility in the process. Such
infantilism, that plagued many films made in the mid 1980s
(like MAD MAX BEYOND THE THUNDERDOME), is compromised with
the heavy use of realistic violence. If spiders, bugs,
snakes, skeletons and decomposing bodies don't scare the
children in the theatres, people being ripped to pieces and
burned alive, all with appropriate amounts of blood and
gore, definitely would. Even the 1980s MPAA censors were
aware of this, and Spielberg used all his clout to create
compromise PG-13 rating that managed to save at least part
of his core audience. Of course, MPAA censors were, as
usual, more squeamish about sex than violence, so Spielberg
reduced eroticism for couple of weak double entendres,
leaving critics to interpret the Freudian meaning of the
tunnels that play important part in the second part of the
film.
Screenplay was weaker than the previous film, but at least
Spielberg kept his directing skills. From the opening, that
pays homage to 1930s musicals, to the end, movie is series
of excellent scenes. The action is always exciting and
rhythm very fast, never allowing the film the slow down;
which is perhaps a good thing, because characterisation and
plot problems would otherwise become even more obvious.
Photography of Douglas Slocombe creates good atmosphere, and
the production design in Pinewood studios is superb, as well
as Sri Lanka locations (which some of us might recognise
from THE BRIDGE AT THE RIVER KWAI). Special effects are also
very good and still look convincing, despite being made with
pre-CGI technology. Music by John Williams is very good, and
although not being particularly memorable (except in the
ritual scene), serves as perfect illustration for the events
in film.
There is another reason why INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF
DOOM enjoys much worse reputation today than sixteen years
ago. All the villains in the film happen to be non-white,
and even in 1984 British satirical show SPITTING IMAGE
accused this film for racism in a parody gag called
XENOPHOBIA JONES. We could only imagine how would PC police
of contemporary Hollywood react to the similar script today.
Because of that, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM seems
quite refreshing compared with contemporary action and
adventure films. Spielberg is also one of the rare Hollywood
filmmakers who defies stereotypical negative portrayal of
the British Empire in historical films. This film not only
features British colonial troops in the role reserved for US
Cavalry in early westerns, but also references certain good
things the Empire did for its subjects.
All in all, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is deeply
flawed film that didn't age quite well, but most of those
flaws are well hidden by Spielberg's mastery. From our
perspective it is still a very good piece of Hollywood
entertainment, much superior to the more recent examples of
same genre.
Copyright © 2000 Dragan Antulov
|