Summer of the Crystal Skull Page 2

page 2

john cribbs

This one came with a warning label from George Lucas that surfaced during an interview just before the film's debut: "When you do a movie like this, a sequel that’s very, very anticipated, people anticipate ultimately that it’s going to be the Second Coming. And it’s not. It’s just a movie. Just like the other movies. You probably have fond memories of the other movies. But if you went back and looked at them, they might not hold up the same way your memory holds up." So that's what it's all about - memory. Blame your memory, not me. "You thought I actually cared about making good, quality films but it turns out you're an idiot. I tricked you guys into liking some terrible movies in the past, but let's be honest I can't get away with it that easily anymore - just look at the prequels! So set your expectations low." Wasn't Empire a "very, very anticipated" sequel? As if we needed further proof that Lucas only sees quality when there's a surge in his company's stocks; the quote reminds me of the story of when somebody told Lucas she loved THX: 1138 and he responded, "Why? It didn't make any money!" Well, after the prequel debacle I was definitely done giving money to the corporate fathead who had replaced a young visionary filmmaker. The day Crystal Skull opened, I stayed home and watched the trilogy in glorious stereo sound out of what I like to call "explosive protest." And you know what? My memory was correct about them being amazing.

As far as I'm concerned it proves that I care less about the Star Wars movies than the Indy saga - although I was willing to give Phantom Menace a shot, I had solid evidence that Revenge of the Sith was going to be terrible but as much as the snobby seven-year-old John inside of me resented it I went ahead and saw it. So I clearly don't hold Lucas' series in the same kind of esteem I do the Indy's, which I'd be depressed to see ruined by grumpy old Harrison Ford, CG fire ants and Shia LaBeouf gussied up like Marlon Brando in The Wild One. "I made it for kids" was Lucas' own WMD excuse for the shittiness of the new Star Wars series, which leads to the theory that maybe you have to be a kid to like these kind of movies. With the Star Wars prequels I'd actually consider that argument: I remember coming out of Revenge of the Sith and seeing kids in the bathroom arguing over who got to be Obi Wan and who had to be Anakin. But Indiana Jones? Come on.

I know I'm an Indy fan. Even though I watch Empire Strikes Back every year on my birthday, I've seen definitely seen Raiders and probably Crusade more times collectively. I don't feel the need, as so many do, to talk about being "changed" by the movies or how I was the first person in America to see them opening day and was first in line when the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Specatular opened at Disneyland and how I got married during a midnight screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don't need to prove my love of this trilogy to any man, woman or child. But if you're unconvinced, just check out some of the crap I've stomached over the years out of love for Indiana Jones:

- The shitty Atari and NES games

- A Greedo-firing-first Lucas retitling the first movie "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark", and the various trilogy sets I've had to purchase over the years (original vhs releases, first trilogy vhs set release, letterboxed trilogy vhs set release, the dvd trilogy set release...before too long, the Blu Ray trilogy set release!)

- The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, in which a grumpy old bastard in an eyepatch claimed to be Indiana Jones the way that old dude claimed he was Jesse James in the 50's. This came as close as anything to ruining the legacy of the movies (and making me wish Indy HADN'T tasted the immortality juice of the holy grail.)

- The surfacing of the totally awesome, grainy, shot-for-shot re-enactment of Raiders of the Lost Ark by a bunch of kids (I'm actually not complaining about that, it's so great I just had to bring it up.)

Crystal Skull was where I drew the line. For whatever reason, I wasn't willing to endure a new Indiana Jones movie. Typing the words "indiana jones crystal skull" into google today to find images to go with this article was probably the most concrete movement I've taken towards acknowledging the movie's existence at all. None of my friends understood my position at the time and apparently nobody understands it now, two years later. Back then I thought I could just ignore the movie and that would be that, but it proved unacceptable to not have an opinion on it one way or another. And more I sulked and disapproved and resented the more the mere concept of a fourth movie became for me a sacrilege, something that man was not meant to disturb. Death would always surround it. It would not be of this earth.

So today, on the second anniversary of its release, I decided to respond to Chris' email. In the spirit of the Summer Movie, and inspired by Shia LeBeouf's recent wrecking of his career to publicly reveal his own disappointment over the finished product, I thought I would finally address this Crystal Skull controversy and explain why I didn't see and probably never will see the fourth Indiana Jones movie. The reason, it turns out, is more complex than I had even realized.

I wasn't aware of this until the new movie came out, but apparently there are people out there who have problems with Last Crusade. That's really interesting, since I think it might be the best "part three" of all time. So many trilogies and quadrilogies suffer the second sequel slump: The Godfather, Mad Max, Aliens, Ingmar Berman's thematically-connected Spider God series, Blade, Poltergeist, The Three Mothers, Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, The Karate Kid, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Super Fly, the Mahabharata, Angels in the Outfield and the Dollars trilogy (just kidding with that last one - wanted to make sure you were paying attention.) And even though I give Return of the Jedi more credit than most let's face it, it's got nothing on the first two movies. But Last Crusade is genuinely great - fantastic, non-stop action, witty dialogue and humor (thanks to Tom Stoppard), excellent acting, and a satisfying story that creates thoughtful parallels between the mission and the main character's attempts to win his father's love. Man, what a great movie! It's still the summer flick I remember loving the most and have (unfairly) held all subsequent big studio movies up to. From the second the closing credits began to roll, and we watched Indy, Henry, Marcus and Sallah ride into the sunset, I knew that this was the perfect end to the adventures of Indiana Jones. I never wanted there to be another one, because it would be pointless. What's more (and here's where I read into things a little too much), Indy had incidentally taken a drink from the cup of Christ, which supposedly grants the gift of immortality. So Indiana Jones would live forever, technically in the world of the films and symbolically in the hearts of the movies' legion of fans.

Also, you know, it's called "the last crusade." We knew Jason wasn't going to hell and Freddy wasn't dead but come on, this is Indiana Jones. The man says it's the last one, you believe him.

Maybe I would have changed my mind if they had gotten another one into theaters three years later. Or five years. Maybe even ten. But they didn't, and the lack of further adventures gave the trilogy an even richer vintage over time. There were rumors every two or three years during the interval that a new movie was in the works but each one lost steam and died before they became anything more than that (M Night Shyamalan writing a new Indy flick? Say it ain't so!) It got to a point where I'd just get annoyed every time new developments were announced. I honestly believe it wasn't a sense of nostalgia that fueled my reluctance to accept another movie - it's just that the three movies, like all great trilogies (Apu, BRD, Dead or Alive, the Basket Case and It's Alive and Evil Dead series, the Muppet movies and the Dollar trilogy and, yes, original Star Wars films) stands up so perfectly by itself and remains perpetually watchable. I had seen a great final film, the ideal wrap-up to a dynamite trilogy, and was completely satisfied. No after-dinner wafer required. Check please.

Then in the wake of the reality of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull my reason for skipping it became more complicated. People were taking sides and my alligence was requested by both parties. The most important thing to understand is that I'm not on anybody's team. In his email, Chris seems to be confusing me with someone who has gone on record saying that Crystal Skull is terrible, an "affront" to the legacy of Indiana Jones. But the people he mentions as my alleged teammates* (talkbackers, Trey Parker & Matt Stone) are people who actually saw the thing. The Skull-bashers rallied with phrases like "Tarzan scene," "fuckin aliens" and "nuking the fridge," trying to attach the movie's negative aspects to Lucas' botching of the prequels. And while the detractors compared the new film unfavorably to the old ones, the supporters did the same thing in reverse: "Oh you think such-and-such scene from the new movie is ridiculous, what about Short Round beating up an adult Thuggee warrior in Temple of Doom?" (the pro-Skullers have spoken: comparisons swing both ways.) But then why does George Lucas need to rush to the film's defense by claiming it's not fair to judge this one against the trilogy, that getting your hopes up is a bad thing? That doesn't fly. You can see why I wouldn't want to be associated with either of these camps, or be involved in the debate at all. By steering clear of the film, I was Switzerland, just sitting on the sidelines letting everyone sling their muddy opinions at one another. Not playing for anybody's team has always been my position when it came to the new movie. I'm not with the lovers, I'm not with the haters. I'm just not involved. Leave me out of it! My position isn't that Crystal Skull is bad, it's that I don't believe it's worth seeing. Not for me anyway.

For their part, enthusiasts didn't do much to convince me I should weigh in. Outlaw film writer Vern's big argument in the movie's favor was that the action scenes are actually well shot and have "geography," unlike the films of Michael Bay. But you can't judge a movie for what it's not - just what it is. You can rightfully slam Transformers for its atrocious substitutions for proper lighting, editing and action scenes, but you can't use that argument to say a competent movie is therefore good by virtue of the fact that it doesn't make those same inexcusable missteps. You need to use the merits of that movie to speak for it, not the flaws of another. But the entire argument on either side was based on what these movies had that the others didn't, which I'm sure isn't how Spielberg would want it to be critiqued. In his positive review, Roger Ebert said, "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." Well what the fuck man? Like it or you relinquish the right to call yourself an Indiana Jones fan? That sounds strangely familiar.

Incidentally, although defenders of Crystal Skull use it as a whipping boy, two writers from this website singled out the excellent bookend sequences of Temple of Doom as part of their "100 Great Movie Moments."

A few times over the last two years I've tried to get me to change my own mind. After all, John McClane returned for a fourth movie 12 years after the last Die Hard installment and that turned out to be more than decent. Rocky got back into the ring after a 16 year absence and despite being a million-to-one-shot that movie was the best one since the original. Even further back, Arthur Conan Doyle set his final Sherlock Holmes story 17 years after its predecessor, moving his famous sleuth to a new age and epoch (the dawn of World War I) and placing him completely out of his element. It worked for him. But David Koepp is no Arthur Conan Doyle, and while I realize Tom Stoppard isn't the easiest guy to follow, the man who ruined two other would-be Spielberg classics (Lost World and War of the Worlds) was not an ideal scribe to bring the famous archaelogist back to life.

What it comes down to, Christopher, is that I don't want to risk seeing the movie and not liking it. If you still plan on using someone's distaste for Crystal Skull as a measuring stick for disregarding them and their opinions, how awkward's it gonna be if I finally give in and see the thing and don't think much of it? Our relationship will be more awkward than Indy and Elsa's when it turns out she was a Nazi all along. Or Indy and Mac's when it turns out HE was working for the Russians. Wait...how would I know about that?

Ahem, anyway - you can forget it. I'm never going to see it.

The end.

Just kidding - CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

* I will also clarify that Drew "Moriarty" McWeeney is NOT on the anti-Crystal Skull train (he wrote a largely positive review in which he said he expected to hated it but ended up liking it "a lot more" than Last Crusade)

<<Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next Page>>

home about contact us featured writings years in review film productions