Indiana Jones and the Disappointed Masses

C - Sam the Cooking Guy. He's a local (local as in San Diego) cooking show host who just released a pretty solid cookbook. Nifty.
L - David Day's office. *GULP*
O - An elusive copy of The Usual Suspects that doesn't cost me $20.
S - Trying to get my old video editor job back at the library.
A - Losing an important prop for a film shoot that shoots tomorrow. Awesome, right?
T - Expectations: they'll kill any chance of a great experience.

So, I saw Indiana Jones. The new one. The Crystal Skull, as they call it. I came out of it with a very ho hum attitude. I was frustrated. I was let down. I was, like so many, disappointed in the film. It felt weak, unnecessary, and at times, utterly ridiculous. I sat around in a pity storm all day, thinking about how sad I was that a beloved franchise and character were completely mishandled and mistreated. Why so much CGI? Why the trip into the science fiction? Why Lucas? Why Spielberg? WHY?

However, in spite of my unrelenting questioning of the filmmaker's motives, I couldn't help but wonder how so many critics, who usually tend to be very harsh on films of this nature, are almost unabashedly accepting of it. The film currently ranks a 79% Fresh rating at RottenTomatoes.com (which is an amalgamation of critical reviews from across the internet). They hold no shame in proclaiming that Indy is back, and that this film serves the franchise well. Huh? Did we see the same film?

So, I kept thinking. A lot. Did I miss something? Was the magic there, but I chose not to see it? Did I accentuate the negative? Was I, in spite of my long-running, pre-film mantra of "This'll never be Raiders", really expecting the second coming of a classic? I don't know. I really can't say. I do know that I'm not alone in my distaste for the film. Several friends absolutely hated it, calling it terrible names and pushing it off the swings into the dirt at one point. This, of course, angered me. Why? I dunno. Probably because I want to like it. I want it to be the Indy I remember.

I've been thinking a lot about phenomenology (thanks theory), and Indy is a perfect example of this idea. Phenomenology, according to Dudley Andrew, says that a film-going experience is not solely shaped by the narrator's (the filmmaker's) presentation of the film, but also by the experiences of the viewer. It is clear that, in spite of what my friends may believe, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's failure as a film cannot be solely placed on the filmmaker's shoulders (which is where they instantly went to). Why is this? Because while they disliked it, many people did not, critics included. Thus we see phenomenology at play: [LONGTIME FANS + MIDNIGHT SHOWING] (high expectations, or their own personal experience) + [SUBPAR SEQUEL] (yes, the filmmakers are at fault for many things) = [PURE UNADULTERATED DETEST]. However, lets plug in the critics to this equation: [LONGTIME FANS] (who isn't?) + [FREE CRITICS SCREENING] + [SUBPAR SEQUEL] + (and here's the x factor)[LOWERED EXPECTATIONS FOR ANY AND ALL BIG BUDGET BLOCKBUSTERS] = [A RATHER PLEASANT, FUN, FILMGOING EXPERIENCE].

So, class, what have we learned? Well, that maybe, Indiana Jones is not plagued by a bad script, or bad ideas, but rather by an audience not ready to accept a new Indy film. They may pretend to be; they may have even lined up, hundreds upon hundreds of 'em, at 9:30pm on Wednesday the 21st to see the film at 12:01am, but they weren't ready. I wasn't ready. Count me among the many incapable of letting this new entry into the canon of fantastic adventure films. Is that so wrong? No, probably not, as we are all entitled to our opinions, and certainly phenomenology insists that we allow our own experiences to play into the film viewing, but that's not the point. My point is, I think, that we need to stop blaming Spielberg, Lucas, Ford, LaBeouf, Allen, Winstone, Koepp, Hurt and maybe, if we're super vindictive, Connery. Yes, the film stumbles, and is without a doubt superbly inferior to the best of the series, but can we honestly say, given our excessive fandom for this beloved series, that this was indeed a bad film? No. We cannot. We are a biased majority, bent on destroying all that does not please. It's in our very nature. Fans are ruthless consumers of anything out of the ordinary. Lost anyone? The show strays from answering mythology questions for barely one half of a season (it's a character-based show, people, not some elaborate video game enigma for you to solve at your own disposal and patience level), and there's a significant (10 million viewers) drop in viewership, and constant cries from all sorts of detractors that the show is dead, and that it's lost what it once had (pretty quick to judge a show after only one season...Oh, and by the way, most of those detractors have eaten their words....).

I plan on seeing Indy again, and in the very near future. Am I crazy? Maybe. But I just got a job, and $5.50 (yeah, cheap!) is pretty expendable at this point. I want to enjoy it. I need to enjoy it, or else my summer will be ruined. Yeah, that might sound premature and childish, but I cannot continue to believe that my own high expectations didn't, in some regard, hurt my acceptance. I can't live with that, and I'm certainly not waiting until DVD to find out.

But, please, humble blogites, see this movie and judge for yourselves. The fans'll have their opinion, and they'll fight it till the day they die, but it's up to you to know how the film is. Keep your expectations low. Remember that both Spielberg and Lucas have both changed as filmmakers. Remember that this is Indiana Jones, a series made famous for having the spirit of God melt the faces of Nazi's, ruthless cults tear the hearts out of humans (who continue to live), and a 1,000 year old knight guarding a carpenter's cup that can heal a bullet wound like OxyClean gets out red wine stains from the whitest of carpets; it's all ridiculous... It's all out of this world. Remember that, and maybe this film's leap into the 1950s won't feel all that dissimilar.