INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

I'd like to start this post by first saying that I am a fan of Spielberg (the director), I think his best films are close to being my favourites for their respective genres especially E.T, Schindler's List, Jaws, Jurassic Park and both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. However, I don't like Spielberg (the person). I find in most the interviews with him, even ones that are clearly in love with the guy he comes off as arrogant and seems to believe all the genius hype. This becomes even more clear when an interviewer has the balls to make a criticism over one of his films. I watched a programme where he was interviewed by the majorly opinionated Mark Kermode who suggested that Munich was flawed due to its over-the-top dedication to seeming even-handed. Spielberg completely changed and became guarded and clearly became colder towards Kermode after that. In a separate incident there was a pullout in an issue of Empire Magazine dedicated to Spielberg with lots of saccharine praise from friends and co-workers and so on. I think it was George Lucas though, who revealed a well-known actor auditioning for a role in Raiders commented that he loved the director's movies but hadn't enjoyed 1941. Apparently Spielberg had him immediately removed.



Anyway I realise this is a massively long introduction that doesn't seem to have that much to do with the title but I watched Temple of Doom the other day and I liked it more than I remembered. It is still by some distance the worst film of the trilogy but it is watchable fare. The action scenes, particularly the mine cart chase and the mid-flight dinghy escape, are exciting and well directed if a little on the ludicrous side. Indiana Jones is still a likable hero.

So what is wrong with the film?

Well, I'm going to leave aside the racism that seems more in keeping with the film's period than the period the film was made. Spielberg has confessed the film is weaker, (Spielberg the humble!) but blamed that on George Lucas's insistence that the film be darker. Now, George Lucas is an idiot who I don't believe has done anything right since 1980 but I'm going to stick up for him. Lucas is the father of the 'darker' sequel. He is the reason why every awful Spiderman sequel gets billed as being "darker" (read -emoed/ emo'd/ whatever). He made Empire Strikes Back. He had the balls to make it darker and it really worked. It was only natural that he suggest, in the second big trilogy he was involved in, to make the film "darker".

The problem is Spielberg doesn't seem to have the guts to go full out. Do you know how when skidding you should turn into the skid rather than away. And do you know that sporting phrase if you don't go in hard then you get hurt. Well I think that's what happened, the film was hurt not by the fact it was darker, but the lack of commitment to that tonal change. Spielberg tried to turn against the skid and that is where the film (replacing a car in this lame analogy) crashes. It's the parts of the film that are clearly supposed to lighten the tone and keep the kids happy amidst all the heart-stealing-voodooish-stuff and blank-eyed chanting. Willie (played by Spielberg's wife Kate Capshaw - *ahem*) is easily in my list of the most annoying fictional characters ever created. After Karen Allen as a likable rogue tomboy who manages to be both tough and sexy in Raiders we get a shrieking, idiotic, sexist charicature of a woman. Do I become a hypocrite of complaining about her sexist representation by then adding she's not nearly hot enough to forgive her prima-donna bullshit? Yes? Then taking looks clearly out of the picture she is a horrendous character. Added to that is Short Round and his opposite number the Sultan kid, it's late and I can't be bothered to look up his name. Both are annoying and ridiculous in equal degrees. First, Short Round, a poor kid from China who is so au fait with American culture he sports a Yankees cap and talks about fortune cookies - an American invention. His cutesy copying of Jones gets more and more grating as the film goes on. The Sultan kid, who Spielberg portrays negatively thoughout is redeemed at the end after a ridiculous pantomime villain perfomance stabbing a voodoo doll merely because he is a child. There seems to be no reason for him being a child except so that he can fight Short Round.

Okay so my point is, the film isn't thaaaaat bad but its flaws aren't, as Spielberg believes, down to flabby George Lucas, but because of the cutesy, kiddie-appealing bits that have been ruining Lucas and Spielberg films for the last few decades. (See Ewoks, Jar-Jar Binks, Gophers, Greedo shoots first, removing cops guns etc etc)