** (out of ****)
There has been a very dangerous trend afoot by younger Gen Xers and older Millennials to try and convince the rest of us that 1984 was a great year for movies - as written in this USA Today article and this piece published by Screen Rant - on par with the golden year of 1939, cited by several film historians as Hollywood's greatest year.
By and large their reason for believing this is because these movies were released when they were born and the memory of them invokes a strong sense of nostalgia. They also - generally speaking - lack a knowledge of film history and therefore elevate these movies to a higher status than they deserve. I haven't been aggressive in arguing this point over the last 16 years on this blog but I have gently tried to distinguish a difference between mainstream popular entertainment and classic cinema that exhibits great artistic merit. This distinction is lost on the viewers of these generations.
In 1939, Hollywood released "Gone with the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz", "Wuthering Heights", "Stagecoach" and "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". Gen Xers and Millennials, understandably, haven't heard of these movies, with the possible exception of "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz". In 1984, "Ghostbusters", "Gremlins", "The Terminator" and Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom" were released. These movies are admittedly better known to modern audiences but in no way are they as significant as the 1939 movies. The 1939 movies had more to say about society and were the inspiration for the movies that followed. Including for the ones released in 1984.
Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom" was the eagerly awaited sequel - or prequel if you prefer - to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981), the movie that introduced us to archeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford). It was also the second highest grossing movie of 1984 - in the United States - only behind "Ghostbusters", taking in more than $170 million.
It has been said Spielberg created "the summer blockbuster" with "Jaws" (1975). Within a mere nine years he, along with buddy George Lucas, who served as an executive producer, helped dumb down American cinema turning it into live action video games, contributing to the sorry state of affairs the Hollywood blockbusters have become today. That is the impact "The Temple of Doom" has had on American movies the past 40 years. Some will say that is a harsh opinion. I assure you, I don't come to it lightly.
A lot of "movie critics" were enthusiastic to over look the flaws in "Temple of Doom" when it was initially released. The highly respected New Yorker critic Pauline Kael began her review of the movie writing "The great thing about a tall tale on the screen is that you can be shown the preposterous and the implausible." She goes on to refer to Spielberg as a "magician" and declares "The Temple of Doom" "leaps from one visual exaggeration to another - overbearingness is part of its breakneck style." That all sounds like a really nice way of saying - and excusing - that the movie has no plot. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert noted "This movie is one of the most relentlessly nonstop action pictures ever made, with a virtuoso series of climactic sequences that must last an hour and never stop for a second."
This is not to say these statements are necessarily false. The first half hour of "Temple of Doom" is in fact a real crowd pleaser, mixing elements of action, suspense, and humor. I suspect much of this would still work well with modern audiences in getting the appropriate responses. It is also my favorite parts of the movie, demonstrating the greatest sense of charm and style, and paying homage to Hollywood escapism from the 1930s and the movie serials that proceeded it. "The Temple of Doom" owes as much to Fritz Lang's "The Spiders" (1919) as anything else.
"The Temple of Doom" sets the stage with a musical number of Cole Porter's Anything Goes, from his 1935 Broadway show of the same title. It helps to immediately establish its 1930s escapism and reveals Spielberg's intention - and promise - that this movie will turn into a roller coaster where anything goes! Interestingly the song, sung by nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) is done in Mandarin, since they are in Shanghai. Is this a commentary on Hollywood's worldwide influence? As well as a reminder of the corporate takeover of the movie industry, reflective of Reagan's America? In the 1980s Hollywood lost its independent spirit from the previous decade. Directors began to lose some control over their films, while the studios became stronger. The 1980s as a whole saw a decline - both commercially and critically - in the work of Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Peter Bogdanovich, and Francis Ford Coppola. All giants of the prior decade. Meanwhile Spielberg achieved some of his greatest commercial success in the decade as either director or producer - "E.T." (1982), "The Goonies" (1985), "Back to the Future" (1985), and "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
The opening sequence in "The Temple of Doom" has the distinct feel of an espionage thriller with Indiana Jones as something of a suave James Bond-type secret agent. He has been hired by a crime boss, Lao Che (Roy Chiao), to retrieve the remains of an emperor. In exchange Jones will receive a priceless diamond. As in any good spy movie there is a double cross in the works and Jones has been poisoned. Che and some of his henchmen have to be beaten and killed in order for Jones to get his hands on the antidote. That is if Willie will get out of his way long enough, instead of searching for the diamond, which has been tossed aside on the nightclub's dancefloor.
Here we get our first glimpses into the movie's "dark side", which was criticized at the time. "The Temple of Doom" is at times a parade of intense violence and disturbing images. Such as when Jones grabs a flaming skewer and throws it into a man's chest, instantly killing him. This is contrasted with a sense of playful silliness orchestrated by Spielberg with Jones scattering around frantically for the antidote while Willie scatters around with equal zest for the diamond. And there is Jones' quick thinking ways to avoid bullets being shot at him.
Soon enough though Jones and Willie escape the nightclub - called the Club Obi Wan (get the "Star Wars" reference) - in high octane fashion as Spielberg introduces us to one of his favorite character types - the precocious kid. In "The Temple of Doom" that character is Short Round (Ke Huy Quan). Short Round is driving the get-a-way car, even though his feet can barely hit the gas pedal. We go from the excitement of the nightclub violence to a fast paced car chase. Spielberg is craftily accelerating the presence of danger. I would imagine however the real purpose of the Short Round character is to present a soft side to Jones, especially after we've seen him kill a man, and create the illusion of a family between Jones, Willie, and the kid. Swiss Family Robinson they are not.
The Shanghai portion of the movie ends as Jones and company fly away on a plane unknown to them being flown by two of Lao's henchmen, creating another rousing action sequence involving jumping out of a plane with a water raft as a substitute parachute. As our trio of heroes are now in India. In the village they have arrived in great tragedy has struck. A sacred stone has been stolen along with all of the children. The villagers, believing God has sent Jones, plead with him to retrieve it. Combing the horror of the situation with light comical touches in the way Jones is greeted made me think of a similar scene in "Return of the Jedi" (1983) when C-3PO is mistaken for a God.
In between these moments of action two other layers are being developed in the background. One involves a clumsy and underdeveloped attraction between Jones and Willie. I suppose the idea here was to replicate the formula from old romantic comedies where two characters seemingly hate each other only to end up falling in love. In those movies however the audience was given a hint there was a romance slowly building. In "The Temple of Doom" this outburst a lust and attraction comes out of left field. Even Pauline Kael noticed this commenting, "It seems as if they're getting together just because they're male and female."
Additionally "The Temple of Doom" almost goes out of its way to make a fool out of Willie. Much of the movie's humor involves deriding her. She screams and hollers at every turn as the movie provides an onslaught of misfortune and embarrassment at her feet. She is routinely attacked and harassed by animals from elephants to bats and snakes. There was been a long tradition of trying to knock down beauty by demoralizing a character. In more modern times I noticed similar treatment given to Beth Behrs' character on the sitcom "2 Broke Girls". It can also be interpreted as a subtle attack on class with the wealthy character being humiliated and their ego deflated. In one popular scene the three characters are in the jungle as Jones and Short Round are playing cards, arguing about which one of them is cheating. While this is happening Willie encounters a bat face to face. She screams in fright, running in the background from one side of the frame to the next. She faces a baboon next and finally an owl. All the while the boys argue about their game and even take time to acknowledge the thing they don't like about Willie is all the noise. Indeed the sequence is expertly shot and framed. But after everything else we have seen prior it simply feels like beating a dead horse. How much more can we poke fun at Willie and never provide her with a moment to redeem herself?
It turns out there is a great deal more to be done with Willie. Later in the movie we get to a dinner scene at the palace. Our guests are feed an exaggerated assortment of unsavory animals from monkey brains, huge beetle like insects, to snakes and soup with eyeballs. I won't go as far as some and claim this is culturally insensitive but it is a barrage of disgusting images. I understand it is meant to be funny. And it might be to 12 year old boys but it is also meant to be unsettling. Pay attention and notice it is only Willie we get to see react to the meal. Jones is never shown having to eat this. What do you think that implies? What purpose do you think it serves? Go beyond the surface and intellectually dishonest justification that it is merely funny.
Whatever lightheartedness these sequences may offer to some viewers, "The Temple of Doom" makes a dramatic shift in tone when we are introduced to the high priest Mola Ram (Amrish Puri), who is responsible for stealing the sacred stone. He and his cult are engage in a human sacrifice ritual. At one moment Mola removes a man's heart and holds it in his hand. The stolen children are shown to be treated like slaves constantly whipped. It wouldn't surprise me if young children were scared by these images.
However it is from approximately this moment on I lost all interest in the movie. Any joy in this story is gone and the movie is stringed together by a series of action sequences I thought resemble something from a video game. There is a long sequence with the characters in an ore cart being chased by the bad guys. It looks like a roller coaster ride one would find at Universal Studios. It is just a brainless sequence that reminded me of a scene from "Return of the Jedi" again. In that movie there is a chase sequence in a forest with characters riding on flying motorcycles. To me it feels like Spielberg is letting the special effects get the best of him, overtaking the flimsy story.
Of course it makes no difference about what I say, Steven Spielberg in the 1980s was a pop cultural phenomena. If we can claim one director defined a decade, Spielberg was 80s cinema. And "The Temple of Doom" is a beloved picture with many defenders ranging from Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert - who even dedicated an entire episode of their At the Movies television show to Spielberg - to Jeffrey Lyons, Neal Gabler, and Pauline Kael. However there has been some modern revaluating of the picture, with some finding political correctness flaws with it. "Movie critic" Matt Zoller Seitz, than writing for the New York Press mentioned in a review of Spielberg's "The Terminal" (2004) that Spielberg inadvertently suggests "deep down, everyone shares his white, suburban, middle-class American value system. Seitz goes on to interpret "The Temple of Doom"s ending as "the white hero returning liberated Indian slave children to a once-barren village now dotted with lush green foliage - an ad for imperalist do-goodery, some four decades after the British left India." In an article written by Scott Tobias for The Guardian, he admits with modern eyes the movie feels like "an ill-considered mixed of leaden romance, gross-out comedy and a level of cultural insensitivity that edges into the grotesque."
I'd never been much of a fan of Spielberg's movies from the 1980s. To me he was nothing more than a hit-maker. A director that made soulless commercial art, devoid of any true personal touches and feeling. He drew on a love of the history of movies, not to enrich his own but to copy and paste them. Spielberg said as a child it was one of Cecil B. DeMille's pictures that made him fall in love with the movies. There is no better comparison than DeMille and Spielberg. DeMille was - unfairly - criticized by his contemporaries as a hypocrite lashing out about religious morality but flooded his own movies with sex and violence. More importantly, he was considered a director who created spectacles. And that is what Spielberg does. It wasn't until "Schindler's List" (1993) my feelings toward his work began to change.
It's hard not to see the impact Spielberg has had on American movies. He was responsible for the "big event" picture. There is a direct line between "The Temple of Doom" and today's comic book movies. With each looking to combine elements of action and laughter. Creating seemingly cynical beaten down heroes who somehow always find love. And finally by connecting technology with art. Spielberg didn't create the clichés found in his movies but because of a general lack of interest in film history, younger generations of filmmakers glob onto what they believe are "Spielberg touches".
"The Temple of Doom" was nominated for two Academy Awards, winning one for its visual effects. The other nomination was for John Williams' score. It was co-written by Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck, who would both go on to write the infamous "Howard the Duck" (1986), which George Lucas was also an executive producer on. Huyck directed "Howard" as well and never made another movie afterwards. The Indiana Jones franchise however has lived on. A third movie was released called "The Last Crusade" (1989). That seemingly put an end to the movies, completing a trilogy. But either due to nostalgia or an insatiable desire for money, the franchise has been revived. After 19 years a new Jones adventure was released, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008) and more recently, "The Dial of Destiny" (2023).
"Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom" is a brainless, cheap thrills action movie. It is well made. There is no denying Steven Spielberg's visual eye but this is far from a truly artistic, quality movie. It can described as a fun, crowd pleaser, in certain moments, but should not be viewed as anything more than somewhat pleasant popcorn entertainment, at best. Lets not elevate it to something greater along with the other movies released in 1984.
Posts
