In case you hadn’t guessed - I love Indiana Jones. I don’t think there’s another film
series that comes as close to movie perfection in mainstream cinema.
(And that’s despite the continuity errors and cartoon violence - sometimes the little
flaws just make us love films even more.)
It’s a strong contender for my all-time favourite film series ever. And I confess
I’m stoked for Indiana Jones 5, which starts filming very soon and which seems to be slyly
teasing us with a new casting announcement each week. And boy is it shaping up nicely.
So in my excitement for Indy 5, I recently watched all the films again. Twice. Yes, even
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
(Although technically the second version of that I watched was my own fan edit I made
years ago and which, actually, is better than the official version!)
And rewatching the films made me realise that amongst all the amazing action scenes, the
iconic imagery, and the timeless music, all of which contribute to the films making an
immediate impact and being instantly memorable, the thing that really makes the films a cut
above the rest of their imitators is the character of Indiana Jones himself.
And that’s because apart from Indy being so cool, and always dependably Indy, he also
feels human. And a big reason for that is that each film gives him a character arc - growth.
But it’s subtle. He lands perfectly between other screen icons like James Bond and Han
Solo - who never really change (even in the Daniel Craig era) - and Luke Skywalker, who
some people think changed too much.
Raiders of the Lost Ark starts with Indy suffering from skepticism, failing against his rival,
and forced to confront his past mistreatment of Marion, only to resolve all three issues
by the climax of the movie.
Temple of Doom sees Indy’s motivation in life change from the pursuit of fortune and
glory to having respect for cultural heritage and just doing the right thing.
The Last Crusade has Indy overcoming his daddy issues and reconnecting with his estranged
father.
But Robin, I hear you say, the fall from grace that is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn’t
give Indiana Jones a character arc!
Aha, well, I’m you said that because actually it does and the doesn’t get enough, if any,
credit for it. The problem is that it handles Indy’s character arc so poorly that it’s
easy to miss, especially on first time viewing. And let’s be honest, not many people make
it past a first viewing.
And I think that’s one of the big reasons the fourth film is such a disappointment.
Because it seems like it lacks that depth of character that the other films have. It’s
a shame because the character arc is there and it’s baked into the very substance of
the film. It’s just handled so poorly that it gets lost in the mix.
Put simply, Indy’s character in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is that through a combination
of age, misfortune and his own mistakes, he’s lost everything. But by the end of the film,
he finds more than he ever knew he had.
It’s set up very simply and quite elegantly at the beginning of the adventure by Jim Broadbent’s
character when he says
He says this while Indy is lamenting the recent deaths of his dad and his lifelong friend
Marcus Brody.
Immediately prior to this, Indy has been put on an indefinite leave of absence from the
college at which he’s worked for decades because of the Red Scare and he’s been betrayed
by someone he counted as a friend. Indy is forced to leave the only place he’s ever
called home and frankly feels out of place in this new world where nothing can be taken
at face value and evil hides in plain sight, behind the American flag.
It’s a nice way in which the film uses the backdrop of the Cold War.
But then, out of the blue, Indy ends up finding the son he never knew he had, who helps him
repair relationships with an old friend he hasn’t spoken to in decades and the love
of his life whom he abandoned.
By the end of the film, Indy is no longer alone - he has a family.
Aaaand he even gets a promotion.
But this arc doesn’t register with the viewer. And I think there are two main reasons it
fails where the other films succeed. And that’s what I want to break down in this video.
The first way in which it struggles is with the McGuffin. The artefact that Indy chases
throughout the movie. In each movie, the McGuffin either represents or reflects Indy’s character
arc.
This is most obvious in The Last Crusade where the search for the Holy Grail represents Indy’s
search for his lost father. The film even states it out loud. [“I came to find my
father.”]
And it’s concluded wonderfully when Indy has to choose between seizing the Grail or
taking his father’s hand. And their repaired relationship is symbolised by Henry Jones
Sr acknowledging his son’s individuality and value by using his self-selected name
for the first time [“Indiana”] instead of [“Junior!”]
The Ark of the Covenant not only represents everything Indy is skeptical about, but is
the vehicle through which he finally defeats his rival and through which he reconnects
with Marion to repair that relationship.
The Sankara Stones are a metaphor for Indy’s motivation. He pursues them for the riches
they contain and the fame they can bring. [“Fortune and glory”]
All right, I said that earlier.
But he ends the film by giving up the opportunity to enrich himself and respecting what the
Stones mean as cultural artefacts.
The Crystal Skull is unusual in that it is the first McGuffin in the series to have a
will of its own, to be able to communicate directly with the characters. It tells both
Harold Oxley and Indiana Jones to return it to its own family in a direct parallel of
Indy’s character journey through the film.
Unfortunately I think that parallel isn’t made clear by the fact that the Skull’s
motivation isn’t revealed until the film’s climax - it’s literal denouement - except
by its deliberately mysterious request to “return” to where it came from. As an
audience, we don’t know that the Skull is trying to reunite with its family and therefore
the connection between the Skull and Indiana Jones’ character arc isn’t visible to
us the first time we watch the film.
Furthermore, unlike the Ark or Sankara Stones or even the Holy Grail, Indy’s not really
interested in the Skull. Sure, the film establishes that he had a teenage obsession with it and
that once he gets put on the trail his inner archaeologist is intrigued by it. But his
motivation to go on the adventure is unclear.
Does he go with Mutt Williams in order to find the Skull? To reconnect with Harold Oxley?
To save Marion? Who he doesn’t realise is Marion yet?
The film fails to sufficiently clearly establish Indy’s reasons for going on the adventure.
Therefore we as an audience aren’t able to easily connect the metaphorical significance
of the Skull with the character arc of the main character.
BUT I think we could make that connection if the film didn’t make another big mistake.
And that mistake is Jim Broadbent.
Now I’ve nothing wrong with Jim Broadbent as an actor and he gives a good performance
as Charles Stanforth. But his character undermines Indiana Jones’ entire character arc. It’s
clear he was conceived as a formulaic replacement for Denholm Elliott, who died in 1992. They
both fill that position of “Indy’s slightly bumbling English academic friend who gets
him started on his adventure”.
And this is the problem. The film goes out of its way to establish Stanforth as the new
Marcus Brody. And it does this not only by having them share a bottle of wine at home
and contemplating the sadness of old age but by having Stanforth resign as Dean of the
College in order to protect Indy from getting fired.
Basically, Charles proves himself to be the best friend anyone could hope to have. He
shows that Indy is not alone. So the very scene in which we’re introduced to the start
of Indy's character arc - he’s lost his job, lost his family, lost his best friend
- is shared with a bloke who’s gone above and beyond what any normal person would expect
a close friend to do.
As an audience, we’re left to wonder why Indy doesn’t just shack up with Charles.
So the film has to invent an excuse for Indy leaving.
He’s got another friend! Who can give him a job!
For the character arc to work, the starting and end points have to register clearly with
the audience, and the themes and plot of the film have to reinforce it. But not only does
the McGuffin nebulously connect to Indy’s arc, but thanks to the character of Charles
Stanforth, we never even notice the starting point of his journey.
We’re emotionally disengaged from the very beginning of the story because the film mishandles
the establishment of its hero’s character arc.
It would’ve worked so much better if Stanforth had been a brash, bullying Dean who fires
Indy on the spot. Played by someone younger who represents the paranoia of the postwar
generation. A character who begrudgingly gives Indy his job back at the end of the film.
The sad thing is that I think the only reason they didn’t do it that way is because they
felt compelled to replace Marcus Brody, who is to fans like me, irreplaceable.
Of course, this one change to the script wouldn’t have totally redeemed the film. (There are
other problems to fix.) But it would have made it more satisfying and therefore, less
forgettable.
And one thing an Indiana Jones movie should never be, is forgettable.
So hopefully this is the major thing that Indiana Jones 5 will get right. The tricky
art of having a character arc for the hero that registers with the audience, ties directly
to the McGuffin, but also isn’t ladled on heavily but with a lightness of touch, so
that the film remains a fun but unforgettable adventure. Easy.
But those are just my thoughts and I’d love to hear what you think. Please tell me in
the comments what you’d like to see in Indiana Jones 5 and whether you agree with my analysis
of the character arcs in the Indiana Jones films.
Thank you all for watching this video and a particular thank you to our patreon supporters
and youtube members who make this channel possible and get access to exclusive mini-podcasts
each week. Click on screen to watch more and I’ll see you next time!