Spielberg's the Biggest Director in Hollywood -- So Why's He Cashing In On Indiana Jones Again?

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted May 7, 2008 | 04:06 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Alexander the Great. Julius Caesar. Genghis Khan. Steven Spielberg. In an era where conquest is achieved not though territorial annexation but through cultural ubiquity, Spielberg is king. And now his most famous creation is back, looking out from billboards, signs and posters, sporting a case of 27 year-old three-day shadow: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Clearly, the S in Dreamworks SKG is not a man who needs to look far for a dollar or who has wanted for success in recent years. So why, at this point in his career, would he bring back Indiana Jones - and the aging, long-in-the-tooth Harrison Ford - rather than letting well enough alone?

In recent years, we've seen an increasing number of latter-day sequels attempt to revive aging franchises: Terminator 3, Rocky Balboa, Rambo, in which pre-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone showed off impressive musculatures underneath sagging, leathery skin. So what are Spielberg and Ford doing in their company? Though he's famous for Indy, for all the mass entertainments Spielberg has made, he's only made one sequel that wasn't in the Indiana Jones series, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, one of his worst movies.

Then again, like his friend George Lucas, Spielberg took his inspiration from the cheesy movie serials of the 1930's, filling the screen with good guys, bad guys, and the supernatural - you could argue that much of Spielberg's career has followed the pattern of the serials he grew up loving. And that includes bringing back the old heroes for yet another episode.

His movies' black-and-white simplicity has made Spielberg the most famous and successful moviemaker of his era. Lauded for his unerring, crowd-pleasing eye, for making glossy mass entertainments with high budgets, big explosions, and huge box office returns, he's equally criticized for his movies' relative lack of intellectual curiosity, moral ambiguity, or formal complexity. His movies are often told through the eyes of children, and those children are often put in harm's way, which is a good way to create an empathetic connection, but also a good way to manipulate an emotional reflex. However, his technique is so masterful that it's hard to fault him until you get out of the theater.

His devotion has always been to the indelible image, the sort of five-minute snapshot that people say was worth the price of admission. And he's created a tremendous number, movies that can be rewatched ad infinitum and that will be be fun forever: Jurassic Park, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, War of the Worlds, Duel, Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, E.T., Catch Me If You Can, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Spielberg's movies reveal a man of personal themes, or obsessions: dinosaurs, aliens, futuristic sci-fi, World War II, children's stories, creepy crawlies, and Warner Brothers animation (like Animaniacs, which he produced). And, though it once would have been unthinkable in Hollywood, the Holocaust.

When Hollywood was founded, its Jewish power brokers were famously so self-conscious about their shared ethnicity that they tacitly agreed to mute Jewish themes in their films. Times changed, and Schindler's List has a lot to do with the change. However, that and the terrific Munich are Spielberg's only two overtly Jewish movies, however. Although he battles Nazis, Indiana Jones is a decidedly non-Jewish hero, even if his famous fedora wouldn't look out of place in Crown Heights. The movie is more in line with the Old Testament fire and brimstone of Cecil B. DeMille than with Jewish tradition, and that holds true for most of Spielberg's movies. But unlike those of his predecessors, the lack of overt ethnicity in his movies seems to come less from personal embarrassment and more from a desire to tell universal stories.

And those stories seem to resemble one another -- substitute a shark for a dinosaur, or a dinosaur for a Nazi, and a lot of the filmmaking technique in each of his best movies looks pretty similar. His love of animation isn't hard to understand, since so many of his movies involve both special effects and nonhuman villains, from his debut Duel through Jaws, Jurassic Park, and War of the Worlds. He is the preeminent FX director of his day, and the new Indiana Jones movie will undoubtedly feature effects more eye-popping than any the '80s sequels could muster. Thankfully, it's set in 1957, so there will be no attempt to digitally mask Harrison Ford's natural aging process, twenty-seven years after the release of Raiders.

We can only hope a similar good sense will inform the rest of the movie. And if there's a single moment to match Elliot's bicycle silhouetted against the moon, or the Nazis' faces melting off when the Ark is opened, or Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler seeing the dinosaurs for the first time, or the beach landing on D-Day, it will have all been worthwhile.

 
 

Comments
8
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Why is Spielberg cashing in on Indiana Jones? Well, because unlike you--he wants to continue his success. He doesn't want to be stuck living in Chinatown (which by the way, is for Chinese people), eating at the same chinese buffet daily.

And in reference to your previous post: What is Courage? Clearly something you lack (as demonstrated by your pathetic articles).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 05/07/2008

Steven Spielberg is a billionaire. He doesn't need to work ever again. He could light a $1 bill on fire every second for the rest of his life, never make another movie, and still have billions. He doesn't need to do anything, so if he makes a movie, he does it because he wants to.

Also, as I said in the piece, I LIKE Spielberg's movies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 05/08/2008

It's George Lucas's film just as much (if not more so) than Spielberg's. Your question was, why is he doing this sequel? Because Lucas wants (needs?) it -- not Spielberg.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 05/07/2008

I've always had trouble separating George Lucas's influence on Indiana Jones from Steven Spielberg's. Of course Lucas is a billionaire too, so it's not like he needs the money.

I think the two of them have different strengths. Lucas isn't much of a director any more -- except for a few really cool moments, the new Star Wars trilogy sucked, and Lucas didn't direct anything in the 20 years between A New Hope and A Phantom Menace. (Yes, I love A New Hope and always will, and I hear American Graffiti's good too, though I haven't seen it yet.) In those 20 years, Lucas founded Industrial Light & Magic, Skywalker Sound, LucasArts, and the company that would become Pixar, becoming a behemoth in essentially every field of movie effects to come, graphical effects, sound, computer animation, and video games -- it didn't dominate its field back in the 90's the way that Skywalker Sound, ILM, and Pixar did, but for about a decade LucasArts was arguably the best video game developer in the world. Of all his projects, LucasFilm was probably the least active.

So you could be right that this is sort of an ego trip for an aging filmmaker who wants to stay in the game and see his name above more movies. I think you'll be able to see Lucas's fingerprints all over the digital effects in the new Indiana Jones movie, and Spielberg's in the visual gags.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 05/08/2008

If people didn't enjoy seeing favorite actors in new dramas with the same roles, we wouldn't have series television. Otherwise, explain the success of FRIENDS or SEINFELD or CSI. We enjoy revisiting old friends on screen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 05/07/2008

I actually made this argument in one of my first Huffington columns, that the serialization of movies through persistent sequels essentially makes them television-like. Long-running movie series like James Bond, or the Godzilla or Zatoichi series in Japan, blur the distinction almost completely. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-remington/why-every-summer-movie-en_b_50851.html

But a lot of us think of movies as completely self-contained 2-hour experiences, while television shows are things we schedule every week. Do you see a difference between movies and TV, other than length?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 05/08/2008

"it's set in 1957, so there will be no attempt to digitally mask Harrison Ford's natural aging process,"

Don't bet on it. But to paraphrase the old commercial, only his personal trainer will know for sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 05/07/2008

"And if there's a single moment to match Eliot's bicycle silhouetted against the moon, or the Nazis' faces melting off when the Ark is opened, or Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler seeing the dinosaurs for the first time, or the beach landing on D-Day, it will have all been worthwhile."

Exactly! You answered your own question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 05/07/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com