Indiana Jones and His Five Adventures
“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is surprisingly good; the problem with CGI; and the real Indiana Jones trilogy
[Update: July 16, 2024. Just a few days ago, Simon Dillon posted an essay titled “Ten Landmark CGI Films.” Dillon notes the “lazy reliance on computer-generated imagery” but argues that there are occasions where CGI can be effective. I can’t disagree with some of his examples: Men in Black, Terminator 2, and Jurassic Park. Nevertheless, CGI is still overused by too many directors (and in unconvincing ways), and so I continue to stand by what I wrote below. Nevertheless, kudos to Dillon for pointing out some exceptional examples of CGI.]
“Indiana Jones” is the creation of George Lucas and was conceived as his bid to revisit the action-packed film serials of the 1930s and ’40s. Some film buffs have argued that a more direct influence on Lucas may have been Secret of the Incas, a feature film from 1954. Nobody can confirm that George Lucas has seen this movie, but take a look at Wikipedia’s summary: “American adventurer Harry Steele earns a living as a tourist guide in Cusco, Peru, but plans to make his fortune by finding the Sunburst, an Inca treasure.” That sure sounds like a precursor to Indiana Jones to me. Whatever the case may be, the Indiana Jones franchise has now come to a close with last summer’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, and so I thought it would be a fun idea to watch the five movies again in sequential order and then rank them. This essay is intended for fans of the franchise who, I assume, have seen all the movies. For everyone else, be forewarned: There will be spoilers!
Raiders of the Lost Ark
What new superlatives can be said of a movie nearly 43 years after its release and one that I’ve seen at least a dozen times? In 2021, The Guardian published a celebratory piece titled “‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ at 40,” and of the many responses Guardian readers gave, this one stands out: “It’s an example of a perfect action movie. From the opening sequence in the jungle to the last scene in the warehouse it barrels along at a stunning pace, crackles with energy, the actors perfect for their roles, the action scenes perfectly choreographed, the script zings with quotable one liners and the score iconic.” Raiders of the Lost Ark was a surprise blockbuster and the highest-grossing film from 1981. I say “surprise” because shortly before it was released “pre-release polling showed little audience interest in the film leading up to its June 12, 1981, release date.” What were audiences looking forward to that summer? Superman II.
Zippy dialogue is one great thing, and no action picture can survive without fast pacing and crackling energy, but if there’s one underrated aspect to Steven Spielberg’s work (when he’s not in a Munich or Amistad mode), it’s his sense of humor. Consider two examples from his non-Indy canon: the moment in E.T. when the mother opens the closet door and doesn’t see E.T. amid all the dolls, and the classic “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear” shot from Jurassic Park when the gang is driving away as fast as they can from the Tyrannosaurus Rex. In Raiders my favorite fun moment occurs when Major Arnold Toht, the Nazi who visits the tent where Marion is being held captive, takes out what the audience believes to be some kind of torture device, but then Toht shakes it into place to become a coat hanger. The scene is made even funnier when René Belloq, who is guarding Marion, breathes a sigh of relief at the sight of the hanger (a subtle signaling of his affection for Marion, by the way).
And let’s not forget the stunts. All the Indiana Jones movies have great stunts to one degree or another, but the truck chase and specifically the under-the-truck “crawl” is probably the best sequence from any of the movies:
Or as Collider wrote of this moment: “Congratulations, you’ve just watched the best thing you’ve ever seen in your life.” Is it the best stunt ever? Well, you’ll find incredible stunts in lots of films, even in some from the silent era: Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last and Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill, Jr. (no second take for Keaton if that stunt went wrong!), but if you were to draw up a list of the Top Ten Hollywood Stunts of All Time, this scene from Raiders would have to make the cut.
So remarkable is Raiders of the Lost Ark that Steven Soderbergh set out to do an experiment: He desaturated the movie into black & white, stripped out the dialogue and John Williams’s score, and added music by Trent Reznor. What was Soderbergh’s reason for doing this? It was “to watch this movie and think only about staging, how the shots are built and laid out, what the rules of movement are, what the cutting patterns are, to [see] how all the various elements of a given scene or piece are aligned, arranged, and coordinated. I operate under the theory a movie should work with the sound off, and under that theory, staging becomes paramount.” Great stuff, and as Cole Haddon points out in his analysis of Soderbergh’s experiment the movie does look fantastic when rendered in black and white.
Raiders of the Lost Ark eventually made it into the American Film Institute’s list of “The 100 greatest American films of all time.” It’s currently ranked at number 66. Not bad.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
A prequel to Raiders. Why a prequel? I guess Spielberg thought he couldn’t revisit the Nazi theme for a second film. The movie begins well. It’s 1935, and Indy is in a nightclub, trying to close a deal after delivering a rare artifact to a Shanghai crime boss. The boss reneges on the deal, and bullets inevitably start to fly, with Indy trying to grab a bottle of antidote (Indy has just been poisoned) that gets kicked around on the nightclub floor during the melee. Despite this decent opening (the opening of Raiders is better because it’s scarier), a certain tone sets in: a guy gets crushed to death, a young man gets roasted alive, people get eaten by crocodiles, and there are depictions of child bondage and slavery. And if that isn’t enough, we’re treated to a scene where Indy gets whipped by his own whip alongside Short Round, the young street urchin, who also gets whipped. Despite the problems with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which I’ll get to later, at least that movie, flawed as it is, never descended into darkness. And credit for Spielberg is nevertheless due for the way he handles set pieces.
And then there’s the female protagonist. In Indy’s first adventure he faced off with Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, a badass who could stand up for herself and go toe to toe with Indy, whereas Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott, by irritating contrast, comes off too much like a screaming damsel in distress (over at Reddit you’ll find an Indiana Jones forum with some Willie Scott defenders; alas, I’m not one of them). Marion is brave no matter what you throw at her, whereas Willie can’t handle anything (that scene around the campfire where she screams at every animal she comes across grows tired real fast). But I can understand why Spielberg wanted Indy to play against a different type of character, because if Willie had come across as another badass in the same mold as Marion, Spielberg might have been accused of trying to repeat himself. And so Spielberg opted for a different approach, and for me it doesn’t work: Willie is supposed to be annoying and is annoying, which means she’s not terribly likeable. (Creating unlikable characters while keeping an audience’s interest can be tough to pull off, but it can be done. See Goodfellas.)
Also, because we know from Raiders that Indy is an educated and thoughtful guy, it stretches credulity to suggest he would warm to Willie Scott, a woman who, how shall I put this, isn’t on Indiana’s level. Producer Frank Marshall, who was involved with all five of all the Indiana Jones movies, has remarked that Indy has always had a love-hate relationship with the women in his life. That may be, but while there’s no reason for Indy to hate Willie Scott (she’s just annoying), I can’t buy the notion that he would be attracted to her.
Raiders of the Lost Ark has charm in abundance, whereas Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is too dark and grim to be charming. Although not completely devoid of humor (Willie’s “We’re not sinking, we’re crashing!” isn’t a bad line), it’s a strange and often unsettling picture.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The first two Indiana Jones movies open with in media res set pieces that show Indy at work. In Raiders Indy’s job is to get the Golden Idol; in Temple of Doom he’s seeking remuneration after delivering an ancient artifact to a Shanghai gangster. For Last Crusade we’re treated to young Indiana Jones, played by River Phoenix. It’s a great narrative move: Who wouldn’t want to know how Indy first got his taste for archeology and adventure? Phoenix was pitch perfect in his role as a young Indy (nice nod toward something Indy said in Raiders that young Indy says here: “I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go”). Also, the traveling circus train’s House of Reptiles is a fantastic way to establish Indy’s hatred of snakes. And another nice touch: We see Indy learn how to use a whip — and cut himself in the process.
Of the first three movies, Last Crusade gives us the fullest picture of who Indiana Jones is and how he became an archeologist. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford worked beautifully as father and son. Jeffrey Boam, who wrote the screenplay, said, “Given the fact that it’s the third film in the series, you couldn’t just end with them obtaining the object. That’s how the first two films ended. So I thought, let them lose the Grail, and let the father–son relationship be the main point. It’s an archaeological search for Indy’s own identity and coming to accept his father is more what it’s about [than the quest for the Grail].”
A great illustration of the father and son bond is also one of the funniest scenes from any of the movies. Indy’s gone over a cliff while on a tank fighting a bad guy. “I’ve lost him,” says Jones, Sr. The three of them — Indy’s Dad, Sallah, and Marcus — think Indy’s dead, but Indy, having just climbed up on some branches a dozen or so feet away out of their sightline, goes up to them to see what’s going on and what they’re looking at:
We knew Indy wasn’t dead, even before we see him struggling with the branches, and yet Connery’s performance here is quite moving — and then amplified when the two hug. “I thought I lost you, boy.” It’s this relationship at the core of this movie that accounts for why Last Crusade is easily the richest and most emotionally engaging of the first three films. (And as for funny lines, Last Crusade has the funniest line of all the five movies: “He chose…poorly.”)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Nazis are long behind us, and now we’re in the “Red Scare” of the 1950s. We’re also in an era of ufology, and so the story in Crystal Skull is an attempt to merge the two genres: Indy is still an adventurer looking for artifacts, but this time there’s an unearthly angle. I get it that Indiana Jones can be seen as an adventurer of any stripe, but throwing aliens — excuse me: “interdimensional beings” — into the mix just didn’t work for me and for lots of other Indiana Jones fans. (I also had the same feeling with the bizarre western and sci-fi mashup of Cowboys and Aliens, not one of Harrison Ford’s better pictures from his later years.)
And then there are those moments where we are asked to suspend our belief just a bit too much. Now it’s true that all five Indiana Jones movies have their moments of unreality — getting hypnotized by drinking blood? — but Crystal Skull has too many scenes that are too far removed from believability: Shia Labeouf swinging on vines through the jungle to get back on a truck; a sword fight in a jungle — on top of moving automobiles; a car that goes over a cliff and lands on a cliff tree — and the car stays there as if by magic — and then the car ends up going over a waterfall three times and everyone survives. As for the Indy-in-the-fridge moment, what bothered me most about the scene is not that he’s in the fridge but what he’s doing outside the fridge: He’s looking at the nuclear explosion. Aren’t the guys in Oppenheimer very far away and watching the explosion with goggles on? Sheesh. And then there’s Crystal Skull’s overuse of computer-generated imagery (CGI).
Hollywood has been using all kinds of special effects since the silent era, but the first use of computer-generated imagery was first seen in Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo. But where CGI was used sparingly for many years long after Hitchcock’s flirtation with it in 1958, it’s only been in recent years, maybe for at least the last two decades, that we’ve been treated to a glut of CGI, which has become a crutch and an easy way out for too many directors. Or as Maya Salam puts it in a comment about Spaceman, a drama starring Adam Sandler, “It doesn’t take much to derail an audience’s suspension of disbelief, snapping them out of a film’s fantasy, and that shift is often the result of overreliance on C.G.I.” Correct — especially when it comes to action sequences (though CGI can look pretty decent when it comes to set design). Too many movies today are drenched in CGI, and if we’re not seeing this excess in a superhero movie (Ant-Man and the Wasp anyone?), it’s in Dolittle. Now consider this chase scene from Crystal Skull:
An action sequence in any movie has to be enthralling, and to be enthralling we have to believe that the characters are in real trouble. But for this sequence, no one believes that the cars are careening by the edge of a cliff. Not for a moment do we believe that the characters in those vehicles are in any real danger, and as a result the CGI takes us out of the realm of realistic action. Now, consider again the under-the-truck moment from Raiders. It looked real because it is real. Although that’s not Harrison Ford under the truck, a stunt actor doesn’t change how we feel in that moment. The scene is exciting because a real person is doing it.
But we’ve come a long way (and not always in a good way) since Raiders of the Lost Ark. Look at what Geoffrey O’Brien had to say about our modern era’s use of digital effects when writing about Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man. Mind you, I liked Spider-Man, but it’s difficult to find fault with anything that O’Brien says here:
The paradox of digital effects is that the more real they look the less real they feel; the most primitive models and painted backdrops of the early silent era convey far more of a sense of events occurring in actual space, and thus far more possibility of emotional consequence. … Like the digital Rome of Gladiator, which never looked like anything other than an architect’s blueprint, the aerial ballets of Spider-Man lack a crucial element: air. … The scenes of digitally simulated combat — like most scenes of digitally simulated combat — have little more life to them than the rapidly shifting arrangements of numbers on the screen of an electronic calculator. Not for one moment do we believe that any entity is colliding with any other entity: the heft of actual being and actual contact is replaced by a terminally weightless play of microdots.
Despite Crystal Skull’s CGI excesses (viewers were tipped off when they saw the CGI prairie dog that opens the film) the movie does have its enjoyable moments. The warehouse escape, the scene in the library (Indy’s “You have to get out of the library” is a funny line in light of the context), and that scene in the graveyard — but who were those attackers? — were well done, but a movie can’t survive on a few good scenes let alone a story that doesn’t lead to a satisfying conclusion. We were never told what the “interdimensional beings” were doing on Earth apart from a nebulous comment from Indy, who said the beings were seeking knowledge. What knowledge? Nothing concrete was made of this. And what did they intend to do with this knowledge? The movie never tells us. Remember that swirling whirlpool of earth and debris and whatnot near the end as the saucer emerged? If we’re told that the beings were archeologists — and archeologists want to preserve what they find — why, on their departure, do the beings apparently or seemingly destroy everything they collected? All told, it wasn’t a strong screenplay. Or as producer Kathleen Kennedy admitted years after its release: “We may not have had as strong a story as we wanted.”
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
In the opening of James Mangold’s Dial of Destiny is 1944 (Spielberg stayed on as a co-producer and with a strong creative hand), we see an effectively de-aged Harrison Ford who has just been kidnapped by some Nazis. This twenty-five minute sequence is extremely well done and has several humorous moments that are redolent of what Spielberg might have done (such as the knock on the car window before Indy slugs the Nazi). Some may quibble about some of the de-aging (which to me looks much better than Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman) or the fact that Mangold had to rely on Ford’s present-day gravelly voice for these 1944 sequences (an Auto-Tuned voice to make Ford sound younger would have been a synthetic-sounding disaster), but you’ll get no complaint from me. I’m here for the ride. It’s art(ifice), people! Lighten up. All told, this opening flashback sequence is exciting, funny, and oftentimes beautiful to look at. I love this gorgeous long shot:
There are two things that Dial of Destiny does better than Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull (well, one thing from each of those films).
Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Helena Shaw is utterly unlike whiny Willie (not sorry for the alliteration) in Temple of Doom. If anything, Helena and Indy’s bickering is a refreshing throwback to the bickering between Indy and Marion in Raiders. Or as John Williams put it: “The best part of it for me is the writing and the interplay of dialogue between Harrison and Phoebe, like the old-style Hepburn-and-Tracy kind of bickering. It’s witty and bright and snappy, like a duet that goes on for two hours.” Indeed.
As for Crystal Skull, compare that film’s antagonist with the antagonist in Dial of Destiny. Cate Blanchett’s Irina Spalko seems almost a caricature of a Russian villain, not quite campy but close, whereas Mads Mikkelsen’s Jürgen Voller has a realistic smug menace about him. Spalko was never menacing.
And for a third consideration, Temple of Doom’s Short Round, played by Ke Huy Quan, is wide-eyed and earnest, and has an innocent chirpiness we’d expect from a twelve-year-old, whereas Ethann Isidore’s Teddy from Dial of Destiny is slightly older and therefore more adult-like. Teddy comes off as a sneaky, seasoned-by-the-streets fifteen-year-old, and that makes him out to be a more interesting and intriguing character (Helena only befriended Teddy after he tried to pick her pocket).
But here’s something for scholars of the Indiana Jones franchise to consider (hold on to your Indy hat). In terms of emotional engagement, Dial of Destiny is the most mature of the five Indy movies, which also makes literal sense, as Indiana Jones is now older and wiser. If Crystal Skull is the most cartoonish of the five movies, Dial of Destiny is the most human. True, Raiders has a beautifully handled character arc involving Indy and Marion (culminating in that moment in the ship’s cabin where Marion tends to an injured Indy), but Dial of Destiny has its emotional moments as well, particularly the scene on the boat when Indy talks about what led to his separation from Marian. (And not to give away anything that relates to Indy’s divorce, I love the sly moment near the end of the picture when Indy moves the refrigerator magnet; you’ll only know what I’m referring to if you recall what he did with it near the beginning of the movie.) Also, Mangold decided that in light of reality (Ford’s age) the movie would embrace the issue of mortality and of time running out — a richer theme, in my estimation, than Marion and Indy in Raiders coming to terms with their traumatic history.
Mangold also said he wanted to capture Indy’s sense of feeling obsolete in the world. By placing the movie in 1969 and the film’s inciting incident occurring on Moon Day no less, he created a nice dynamic and contrast: Archeology is about the past; the Space Age is about the future. “The movie isn’t about time travel,” said Mangold. “It’s about time, it’s about getting older and it’s about the world changing around you.” (A nice touch: Dr. Jones receives a clock as a retirement gift. There’s nothing like being reminded that you only have so much time left in the world.) And if the movie hadn’t taken Indy’s twilight years into consideration, nobody would have accepted an adventure story of a man nearing 80 (Ford was 79 during filming) running out into the world yet again to give chase after another long-sought-after artifact. So Dial of Destiny had to be a story connected to Indy’s age — and to his “final triumph,” as Helena puts it.
Dial of Destiny also deepens a theme first made in Last Crusade. Near the end of Last Crusade you’ll recall that the Grail has fallen into a crevice and that Indy is holding on to his father with one hand while with the other he’s inches away from reaching the Grail. But he can’t get to it. It’s out of his reach. Indy’s father: “Indiana, let it go.” In other words, “Don’t let history destroy you.” In Dial of Destiny it’s when Indy and Helena end up at the Siege of Syracuse in 212 B.C. Helena has to literally knock some sense into Indy to convince him that living in the past would destroy him and the future. Trying to grab a relic of history that’s just out of reach is one thing. Trying to live in history is another. Nicely done.
Mangold and the inestimable John Williams also made a nice touch near the end of the picture. Almost every time we hear the Indiana Jones theme in any of the five movies it’s usually deployed in a come-to-the-rescue, triumphant mode: Indy’s here to save the day! However, when Indy realizes that the man approaching him is the great mathematician and inventor, Archimedes, we hear the iconic theme, but the music is far from rousing. Instead, it is muted and held back. This moment isn’t about saving the day. It’s about confronting history in the flesh. Humility is required — and John Williams’s score at the moment accentuates this sensibility beautifully.
It’s true that while Dial of Destiny lacks a freshness that only the first film in this series could have (but Dial’s story is great and the script is terrific), it is certainly the most moving of the five (it’s hard to not tear up at the end), and a fitting and poignant end to the series — and “a well-earned victory lap,” to quote The New York Times. Lastly, Mangold’s decision to end the film on a closing iris shot is a brilliant nod to how many B-movie serials ended and consequently it works as a perfect farewell to Indiana Jones.
And now it’s on to my five-star rating system, with an analysis below:
★ = poor
★★ = fair
★★★ = good
★★★★ = great
★★★★★ = put-it-in-a-time-capsule masterpiece
Raiders of the Lost Ark ★★★★★
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ★★½
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ★★★★★
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ★★¼
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny ★★★¾
You’ll notice that my ratings for Raiders and Last Crusade are the same. Which is my favorite of the two? Depending on my mood, you might catch me on a day where I would say Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is my favorite of the five pictures, but then I think of Raiders of the Lost Ark, which understandably made it to the AFI list.
Dial of Destiny may not be a put-it-in-a-time-capsule masterpiece, but it’s a movie that’s more deserving of three stars. Four stars comes closer to capturing how the movie resonated for me (I liked it when I first saw it; I loved it the second time) but for now I’ll give the movie an eminently respectable three stars — and a bit more.
As for Temple of Doom’s biggest fans, they will no doubt balk at my rating of Dial of Destiny, that I would dare to say it’s a better movie than Temple of Doom. I’ll concede that all of us have a natural bias toward youth, and so most of us will instinctively prefer to see an Indiana Jones movie where Indy is a younger man. But I gave Dial of Destiny a stronger rating not simply because it has a better story — and because Waller-Bridge’s sassy Helena Shaw is simply way more appealing than Capshaw’s screechy and shallow Willie Scott — but because it doesn’t have Temple of Doom’s dark and gruesome tone. Mangold set out to do a fun movie that recalled the spirit of Raiders and Last Crusade. He succeeded.
Now, a word about trilogies. Whenever people mention “The Bourne Trilogy” they’re referring to The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatum, the first three films in the five-film franchise (as of this writing there may be a sixth film). It’s a real trilogy insofar there’s a thread that connects the three pictures. The series starts out with Jason Bourne not knowing who he is, and by the end of the third movie he does (Ultimatum even ends brilliantly with a shot that mirrors the first shot of Identity). No such connection can be made for the first three Indiana Jones movies. They don’t constitute a trilogy in any narrative or thematic sense. Look again at my ratings and notice what connects the movies that received my highest ratings: Nazis. It was Nazis after the Ark of the Covenant, then it was Nazis after the Holy Grail, and finally it was a Nazi and his American goons after the Antikythera. Yep, Indiana Jones facing off with Nazis three times. So there you have it, and to my mind it cannot be denied: The true Indiana Jones trilogy is Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
And that’s it for Indiana Jones. So long, Indy. Wait! Before I go, some readers may wonder if any other actor will ever play Indiana Jones. It’s fair to imagine someone else playing the part. After all, several actors have played James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, and Peter Parker. But sometimes there are actors who seem indelibly associated with certain characters. Ten years ago there was some chatter about Mark Ruffalo playing Lt. Columbo, but nothing came of it — and probably for good reason. As for Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is on record as saying he doesn’t want anyone taking on that role, but if I had to choose an actor to play that part, I would go with the rumor: Chris Pratt. Even better: If I were responsible for casting a new Indiana Jones and could time travel (heh), I’d go with a younger Kyle Chandler. But if it turns that Harrison Ford “owns” Indiana Jones and that no one else will ever don the hat and carry a whip, well, that’s fine by me.
Barry Lyons is a freelance writer in New York City. Have you ever noticed how in some movies and TV shows characters lack peripheral vision? You can read “I Have a Peripheral Vision Problem” here.
