The Two Types of Indiana Jones Movies

I wasn’t one of those people who hated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when it arrived in theaters last May. It had numerous problems for sure, but I was happy to disengage the rational side of my brain and go along for the ride. Now that the movie is available on Blu-ray, I’m finding that Indy 4 is actually growing on me. Once you know where the story is going and don’t care too much about how logically the parts of the movie connect, and once you’re already prepared for the movie’s questionable parts (*cough* fridge sequence *cough*) it’s easier to appreciate the moment-to-moment action and the set pieces in Crystal Skull. And there’s some good stuff there! The “ant arena” is a pretty brilliant concept, for example. Sure, the CG ants look somewhat fake, but the scene is a great variation on the traditional creepy crawler sequences featured in all previous Indiana Jones movies. The ants are also a clever way of creating a “ring of death” around the inevitable big fist fight. The motorcycle chase is well done, as are the cemetery scenes in Peru. (Mutt’s Tarzan moment in the jungle still sucks, though; and the sword fight doesn’t feel any less tacked on.)
I was surprised to find myself going back to the movie multiple times. Not giving it undivided attention, mind you, but using it as a background distraction while working on other things. Like a certain Quake level that I have affectionately started referring to as “that one“.

With all that said, Crystal Skull clearly isn’t in the first tier of Indy movies. Almost everybody I talked to had a similar reaction when the movie was first released: “It wasn’t as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but it was pretty enjoyable. Somewhere on the level of Temple Of Doom.” That got me into thinking: what is the difference between those movies? Why are part 1 & 3 better than 2 & 4? And I realized something fundamental about how well an Indiana Jones movie works for me: it’s not its globetrotting nature (or lack thereof). It’s not the degree of darkness that creeps into the story. Or the presence of Nazis. It goes deeper than that, and I realized that there’s two types of Indiana Jones movies: mythical and mystical.

Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade are mythical Indy movies. The source of adventure is a well-established western legend, and the legend’s truth does not have an impact the story until the very end of the film. These days, after four movies, we expect every legend presented in Indiana Jones to turn out to be true, but when Raiders of the Lost Ark came out, nobody knew how the story was going to end. The Nazis and Belloq believed in the Ark’s powers, but Indy’s pursuit was mostly fueled by a desire to rescue Marion, and to keep the Ark out of his arch-nemesis’ hands. When the Ark revealed its supernatural powers at the end of Raiders, it came somewhat unexpected, and wasn’t quite in line with the physical action that had dominated the movie.
The same goes for The Last Crusade. Even though the Holy Grail is the nominal reason for the chase, Indy gets involved to find and rescue his father. Once again the mythical Grail doesn’t impact (or even enter) the story until the very end. When the possibility of its existence is mentioned, it is there so that the characters can examine their personal faith. “Do you believe, Marcus?” Indy asks early on. “Do you believe the Grail actually exists?” Brody’s answer, “The search for the Cup of Christ is the search for the divine in all of us”, is a fitting summery of the story to follow: a journey that is as much self-discovery and illumination of character as it is the chase for the actual Grail. It’s not about what the Grail does. It’s about what the Grail stands for.

Temple of Doom and King of the Crystal Skull are mystical Indy films. Here, the legendary items that Dr Jones chases after take a more central role as the story unfolds, and related supernatural elements enter the story long before the finale. This changes the tone of those movie’s universe profoundly, putting all other events in a different context. In a world where human sacrifices don’t die after their heart has been ripped out, everything is possible. A villain who opens the gates to Hangar 51 through telekinesis immediately elevates the movie to a heightened reality. The action sequences in Indy 2 & 4 become more fantastical, while the perceived danger to the characters drops – the rules of reality have already been bent, and we expect anything and everything to happen that aids in the unlikely rescue of our heroes. The mine car chase in Temple of Doom would feel out of place in Indy 1 & 3. (Yes, I know that that sequence was originally planned for the first movie, but I’m saying that, if included, it would have broken with Raiders’ tone.)
The crystal skull of the 4th movie takes the mystical quality of the universe to a new level: it opens doors, repels ants, and even takes telepathic influence on the main character in ways that are invisible to the audience (leading to one of the least convincing bits of character motivation ever to be put on film: “I have to return it.” – “Why you?” – “Because it told me to.“) George Lucas has always used a loose definition of the “MacGuffin“, the plot device that provides major character motivation without being of importance to the audience (or taking direct influence on the story). Compared to the Ark, Shankara stones and the Holy Grail, the crystal skull in Indy 4 definitely doesn’t pass the test. It’s a driving force in the movie’s story on more than one occasion, and usually not for the better.

I don’t think there’s any discussion that the mythical Indy movies turned out better. The tone of those movies is more grounded, character motivations are more honest, and the action is more believable. I’m glad to have figured out some of the reasons – but of course all of this might be hogwash. Feel free to post your own theories in the comments