web
counter
 

Entirely Too Much Attention To Detail: The Lucas Edition

By C. Robert Dimitri | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (12)



Last CrusaFedora (1).jpg

The aim here is not to nitpick or criticize. It is simply to indulge in affectionate thought experiments and tangents related to movies that I have enjoyed over the years. What are the unspoken motivations, the unexplored avenues, and the seemingly insignificant details that lie between the frames? Oh, and if you have not seen the movies I write about in this column, you are a little behind the times, but I offer a spoiler warning regardless.

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade

“That belongs in a museum!”

Last Crusade_Fedora.jpgPer Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, this was a mantra and fervently held sentiment for cinema icon Indiana Jones from a very young age. If we are to take Indy’s beliefs based on presented actions, archaeological artifacts belong in spaces where they are available for public viewing, appreciation, and education. I can only assume that this was a value instilled by his father, Henry Jones, Sr. Perhaps the principle was drummed into young Indy’s brain in between his Greek language exercises.

A harrowing 1912 chase across the Utah desert gave birth to a few Indy trademarks, and it culminated with the villainous “Panama Hat” snatching the newly excavated Cross Of Coronado from Indy, who had just stolen it from the minions of Panama Hat that found it.

Yes, “Panama Hat” is the credited name of the character portrayed by the late Paul Maxwell. Who knew that back in the old days fedoras were used to epitomize good, as contrasted with Panama hats, just as popular culture today gives the good guys Macs and the bad guys PCs?

Twenty-six years later, we find Indy aboard Panama Hat’s ship, using fisticuffs and a wisecrack to take the Cross Of Coronado back from Panama Hat so that the average people of the world might finally gaze upon the conquistador’s golden bounty.

Indiana Jones was one of my childhood heroes, but why is it that my adult perspective gives me a little sympathy for Panama Hat?

Panama Hat was a fan of Coronado. That ship that Indy destroyed in his mission to take back the relic? Its name is the Coronado, as Spielberg’s visual punchline informed us. I’ll grant you that the museum is probably the best place for the Cross Of Coronado, but Panama Hat was not just greedily, indiscriminately hoarding artifacts. This guy loved Coronado. For all we know, Panama Hat had a whole trove of Coronado souvenirs. Panama Hat was in the wrong, but was his villainy any different than that of the nerd that wants his beloved limited edition action figures sitting on his personal shelf?

Indy’s militant museum philosophy deserves additional scrutiny, though, due to what we discover only a few scenes later. Ushered into arch-villain Donovan’s abode, Indy coolly compliments Donovan on the quality of the artifacts in Donovan’s home.

Wait a second, Indy. This guy Donovan has valuable archaeological pieces in his own home? Don’t they belong in a museum? Would Donovan let just anyone drop by on a Sunday afternoon to check out his collection?

Oh, I see how it is, Indy. You tell us that Donovan has been generous in his donations to the museum before. So he can buy his way into your good graces, Indy? You’re willing to look the other way on the stuff Donovan kept because of that?

Perhaps you were just being polite and biting your tongue, but even if that is the case, shouldn’t Donovan’s home decorating have tipped you off, Indy, that this was the bad guy? Instead, you walked right into his trap.

Therefore, what’s missing from the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? I would not want to spoil that wonderful image of our heroes riding off into the sunset, but Indy has some unfinished business back at Donovan’s house. There is cataloging to be done, and there are display cases to be made!


Willow


Madmartigan.jpgWhen it comes to swordsmanship, Madmartigan is great. Warwick Davis’ Willow told us so. Yes, Madmartigan can single-handedly out-duel and skewer a bevy of Bavmorda’s baddies and flaunt it with a cocky grin and a superfluous twirl of his blade. As great as Madmartigan is, even he realized that he had his work cut out for him at the cursed, dead fortress of Tir Asleen.

Cornered by the forces of Kael and Sorsha, Madmartigan goes into one-man army mode, as he makes the most of his limited resources by hastily setting up booby traps and outposts within the castle that would make it possible for one warrior to hold back a hundred. What truly evens the odds, though, is the sudden appearance of a two-headed fire-breathing dragon-like creature accidentally spawned by one of Willow’s sorcery mishaps while battling a troll.

Madmartigan fights valiantly, of course, but it’s this dragon that wreaks the most havoc upon the enemy troops. After saving Willow from another troll, Madmartigan takes advantage of a brief respite in the battle by handing Willow a sword. I would think at this point the two of them should take advantage of the confusion and try to escape with defenseless little baby Elora Danan. What does Madmartigan do instead? He leaves diminutive Willow to fend for himself and leaps onto one of the heads of that dragon (which has no interest in attacking them at that moment) with the aim of killing it.

What inspired Madmartigan to make this rash decision that allowed Kael to wound Willow and abscond with Elora? Was it simply the crazed bloodlust of battle? Was it the “madness” of his name fully manifesting itself, in spite of his strategically measured maneuvers in that battle up to that point? Was it a subconscious impulse that had the goal of impressing and thus romancing Sorsha, a tough warrior herself? (Mission accomplished, if so.) Or did Madmartigan stop to consider the many lives that the creature was taking? Do the soldiers in Bavmorda’s army not have their own humanity? Perhaps they were swept up in an ill political cause with the hope of merely putting food on their families’ tables, and now they were being eaten alive. Perhaps this idea gave Madmartigan pause.

Or maybe in the spirit of the old mountaineering bon mot, Madmartigan slew that monster simply because it was there.


Lucas

lucas-slow-clap.jpgLucas has what I consider to be an earned happy ending. Corey Haim’s brainy title character does not win the girl, but he overcomes the adversity of bullying, rejection, a relative lack of economic means, and his own ill-conceived attempt at becoming a football player that landed him a trip to the hospital. His reward: the transformed hearts and minds of all his fellow students, as revealed through a standing ovation in the school hallway and the gift of a letter jacket. However, there is something missing from those final images of the movie. It is a loose end to this happy ending that would seem to be shared by all of the characters.

Who is missing from that festival of joy that transcends all those divisive lines of high school cliques? Courtney Thorne-Smith’s character Alise.

The last prominent shot we saw of Alise was her glowering at Kerri Green’s Maggie, who stole the heart of Alise’s boyfriend Cappie. It was the iciest of gazes, hurling figurative daggers from one cheerleader at another. In the celluloid world, Alise had no happy ending. The events of Lucas have left bitterness and loneliness as her only companions.

You can argue that Maggie is a better match for Cappie. You can argue that Maggie is a nicer person than Alise. Maggie is humble and has no problems handling a cicada. Conversely, Alise acts entitled and completely freaks out at the sight of a cicada. Even so, Alise did care about her relationship with Cappie. She has been spurned. In a movie with more than one instance of obnoxious bullying, she certainly is a more sympathetic character than the jackasses on the football team that tormented Lucas.

Whom do we see in that end smattering of smiles directed at heroic Lucas? Maggie? Yes. Cappie? Of course. Winona Ryder’s Rina, who had a crush on Lucas all along? Absolutely. What about those same jackasses that nearly got an undersized kid killed with their incessant peer pressure? Yes! They are redeemed! There they are clapping for Lucas!

One might think this is a happy ending for all these students, finally united in the better perspective of respecting all of their fellow students with all of their differences. But poor Alise? Nowhere to be seen.

I acknowledge my concern could be biased by my teenage crush on Courtney Thorne-Smith, she of such classics as Summer School, L.A. Law (in which she had a recurring role as Michael Kuzak’s Laker Girl significant other), Side Out (the C. Thomas Howell volleyball flick), and Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds In Paradise. Still, though, if you are going to sell me on a happy ending for that entire high school, I at least want to see a smile from Alise, who I can only assume skipped school that day so that she could stay home weeping.

There is good news, I suppose. Maybe it is for the better that you escaped that relationship when you did, Alise. That Cappie guy? There seemed to be just a hint of crazy behind that “nice guy” persona of his. Who played him again?

C. Robert Dimitri’s older sister took him to the theater to see both Willow and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade for his birthday. He first saw Lucas on VHS with his parents. C. ROBERT DIMITRI WILL RETURN IN “ENTIRELY TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO DETAIL - THE TRUE LOVE EDITION.”










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Poor Man's ... (Movie Edition) | Which Would You Prefer In Your Rom Coms? More Blood Or More Helen Mirren? What If You Didn't Have To Choose?









Comments

Charlie Estevez!!!!

Posted by: Kballs at April 6, 2011 1:07 PM

Former Anthropology major and aspiring Museum Professional StoatCat here with this important message:

Sometimes shit doesn't belong in a museum, and grave robbing, as a general rule, is wrong.

Also, even the best-intended and professionally conducted archaeological excavations irrevocably alter or destroy the context of whatever it is you are digging up. Good stewardship of historic sites mandates that you pursue a course of action that treats the site, the artifacts, the landscape, and the community (living and dead) with respect, and that you do as little damage as possible. Indiana Jones is often a topic of discussion in the first week of Archaeology 101, for the exact line of argument you lay out, Dimitri. He may be an Archaeologist by 1930s standards, but the consensus most freshman Archaeologists eventually come to in class is that he falls somewhere between "really shitty Archaeologist" and "outright treasure hunter and grave robber". For me, I tend to put him in the latter category, as he's always after some McGuffiny trinket, which almost always ends up lost or broken, and nearly always leaves the site crashing into rubble behind him. Of course I hear you screaming "It's a fucking action movie, bitch! Fuck realism and just enjoy the thrills!" But that's just it: a movie about a real archaeologist would be more dull than watching paint dry (No One Will Be Seated During the Ground-Penetrating Radar Scene!). Indiana Jones is not a movie about a bad-ass Archaeologist/Museum Guy, it's a movie about a badass Treasure-Hunting Grave-Robbing Museum Guy.

Museums are great and wonderful places and mostly on the side of the angels now, but there's no denying that a lot of the stuff in museum collections got there via theft, smuggling, conquest, and chains of shady and unethical people from grave robbers up through museum directors of yesteryear (and some from today!). If you're interested, read up on NAGPRA, the repatriation of Egyptian antiquities, and Nazi-stolen artwork.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitchiness.

Posted by: StoatCat at April 6, 2011 1:10 PM

StoatCat, your comment is exactly why visiting the British Museum when I lived in London made me feel very, very dirty. Most people saw treasures; I saw a be-plaqued testament to hundreds of years of British Imperialism. It didn't help that at that time, Greece was asking firmly but politely to have the Parthenon Marbles that Lord Elgin stole returned to them. I have a picture by the Rosetta Stone, too. I wonder if the Egyptians may have wanted that back?
/sad trombone.

Posted by: Ian at April 6, 2011 1:34 PM

StoatCat >> Thank you. That is exactly the sort of detailed response that I was hoping to inspire.

Posted by: C. Robert Dimitri at April 6, 2011 1:36 PM

Belongs in a museum? Nah. Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory.

Posted by: TylerDFC at April 6, 2011 1:37 PM

I'm just gonna give Indy some credit here - I think his comment to Donovan was appraising the stuff the villain had there, and noting to himself that it SHOULD have been in a museum, and filing that away with Donovan's general dicknishness.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at April 6, 2011 1:49 PM

The issues get even trickier when you try to repatriate stuff. Go look up Kennewick Man, or consider the shoddy state of antiquities and historical sites in nations like Italy and Greece, which often lack the resources to really protect the staggering amount of cool old stuff lying around inside their borders. The question arises, which is a better home, the safety of the museum or the care of the rightful owners? And theeennnnn there's the question of who IS the "rightful owner". And then there's the question of national and international law. And so on. And so on. And so on...

Posted by: StoatCat at April 6, 2011 2:07 PM

I'll tell you what is accurate. The last scene from Raiders. Most things in a museums collection are stashed away in some warehouse (or basement, basements prone to flooding where the stuff will get ruined) where no one will ever see it.

But hell, I am sure someone had a really great time finding the stuff. You can be guaranteed not to make a whole lot of money if you are a) an archeologist or, b) working for a museum.

Posted by: MRod at April 6, 2011 3:34 PM

i'd like to contribute something constructive, but the mere mention of Indy trips my warm fuzzy kid memories and ignites a compulsion to fire up the ol' dvd player and write the rest of the day off. guy had a frickin bullwhip and a leather bomber, why waste time discussing ethics?

Posted by: idleprimate at April 6, 2011 4:49 PM

Stoatcat, as Mr. Dimitri is one of my favorite writers on this site, I was delighted to see this latest work. Though excellently written as usual, I wasn't familiar enough w/ the storlines of the particular films he chose to become overly engaged.

YOUR commentary, on the other hand, was entirely entertaining, informative, and so grammatically perfect as to nearly make me weep - not a single misspelled word, improper punctuation or wasted thought in either of them.

Please comment more often.

Posted by: Tony at April 6, 2011 7:02 PM

Thanks Stoatcat! Unrelated sidenote, here in Austria museums give back paintings and artifacts on a fairly regular basis, usually after prolonged legal procedures. The items are rightfully returned to descendants of the original owners who were murdered in the Holocaust. This is as it should be, and when I read about it in the morning paper I'm glad.
However, every time I rush to said museum for a last look at of whatever Schiele or Klimt is about to be crated up and shipped off, a teeny tiny voice in my head mourns the fact that it will soon be in a private collection and no longer on display to the public (in any country). I know this teeny tiny voice is wrong, morally, historically, politically, socially, simply wrong. But it saddens me nonetheless.

Posted by: cinekat at April 7, 2011 4:31 AM

Assuming the law of treasure trove is the same in Utah as it is in New York, Panama Hat was the legal owner of the cross and had every right to keep it in his private collection. (Whether his henchmen had the right to attack young Indie with knives and guns in order to get the cross back is a different question. Short answer: No!)
Indie was a theif and, ultimately, a murderer (ok, maybe it was only manslaughter) as a result of his efforts to acquire the cross for a museum. He probably committed other crimes (such as breaking and entering) prior to the openning scene on the Coronado.
Of course, any museum that accepted the cross from him, let alone paid him money for it, would most likely be commiting a crime since Indie would not be able to provide a provenance showing he had good title. And Panama Hat's heirs could probably win a claim to recover it.
They actually poke fun at this in Raiders when Marcus agrees on behalf of his museum to buy some Hovito(?) artefacts "no questions asked" and declines to hear about how they were acquired, assuring Indie that he is sure everything Indie does complies with the international treaty for the preservation of antiquities.
As important as it is to respect cutlural patrimony and individual property rights, I agree with StoatCat that the imperialism of Europe probably saved many of the antiquities that survive today. And many of the places of origin are still probably unable to preserve these things effectively. I could go on for a while about all this (and I haven't even started on the issues around stolen art from the holocaust)...
Really an interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

Posted by: GCS at April 7, 2011 6:19 AM