Redux: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Redux Review #168: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Paul Freeman (René Belloq), Ronald Lacey (Major Arnold Toht), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), with Alfred Molina (Satipo), Wolf Kahler (Colonel Dietrich), Anthony Higgins (Major Gobler), Vic Tablian (Barranca / Monkey Man), Don Fellows (Colonel Musgrove), William Hootkins (Major Eaton), Bill Reimbold (Bureaucrat), Fred Sorenson (Jock), Patrick Durkin (Australian Climber), Pat Roach (Giant Sherpa / 1st Mechanic), and George Harris (Simon Katanga) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

Review: 

"Indiana Jones was never a machine. I think one of the things we brought to the genre—and we didn’t coin the genre; it’s been around a lot longer than we’ve been around—but one of the things that George [Lucas] and I and, originally, Larry Kasdan, the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, brought to the genre, was the willingness to allow our leading man to get hurt and to express his pain and to get his mad out and to take pratfalls and sometimes be the butt of his own jokes. I mean, Indiana Jones is not a perfect hero, and his imperfections, I think, make the audience feel that, with a little more exercise and a little more courage, they could be just like him. So he’s not the Terminator. He’s not so far away from the people who go to see the movies that he’s inaccessible to their own dreams and aspirations."

What is it about Indiana Jones that drives so much fascination after 45 years? As the story goes, George Lucas, fresh off American Graffiti, had ideas in mind about wanting to do a movie like the ones he used to see a kid. He thought of doing an adventure with a college professor who basically was like James Bond on as "a bounty hunter of antiquities" that liked the nightclub. A little collaboration with his friend Philip Kaufman (director of films such as The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid [1972] and The White Dawn [1974]) led to the ditching of the nightclub but also led to the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Lucas paused on the idea when Kaufman was off to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) to focus on, well, Star Wars (1977). Incidentally, one person who wanted to do a Bond type of adventure thriller was Steven Spielberg; the success of Star Wars in May 1977, with Lucas and Spielberg each on vacation in Hawaii, spurred things along for an eventual collaboration (after months of Lucas waiting to see if Kaufman would do it fell through). Spielberg brought in Lawrence Kasdan, who Spielberg suggested because he had just convinced Universal Pictures to purchase Kasdan's script for Continental Divide. They spent several days in 1978 doing a pitching session that argued and paced out what would happen in the story (which you can find here, because it was taped). Kasdan was once quoted as stating that everything in the film "resonates from other movies", specifically adventure films like Seven Samurai to The Great Escape, where they chased that feeling while the film did not take itself too seriously*. Filmed in 1980, Raiders was Spielberg's sixth feature film as a director, falling right between 1941 (1979) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). It was released on June 12, 1981 with mild expectations because of the impending release in America of Superman II that was coming on June 19 (incidentally, audiences could also choose between Raiders or Clash of the Titans, or History of the World, Part I); the result was a massive hit that reportedly saw over 70 million tickets be sold in a time when people could see a movie in theaters for a year. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards that went down from Best Picture to Cinematography, winning for art direction, editing, sound, visual effects, and a special one for sound editing (that year, Chariots of Fire, a movie that I'm sure everyone knows beyond that one song, won Best Picture*). There were four sequels of varying quality (Temple of Doom - really good, actually; Last Crusade - a charmer; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - better the next time around; Dial of Destiny - fine the one time I saw it) and a television show with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

It's easy to go on and on about the influences that shaped Indiana Jones (matinee serials, China [1943], Secret of the Incas [1954], others) or just go point by point about the beauty of the film from its cinematography by Douglas Slocombe or the tremendously diverting score by John Williams all the way down to Harrison Ford being the one to lead it over, say, Tom Selleck. It was released in a time where you could show multiple people get shot (along with the whole Ark thing), snakes going around dead bodies, blood splatter right as a dude gets chopped by a plane blade...and get a PG rating. The easiest way to describe the movie is that it is an adventure with tremendous respect for its viewer that has something for everyone in a manner that seems effortless but is actually the result of so many worthy things going so well. It is the kind of movie that benefits from re-watches in what you view from certain scenes the second time around, because there are moments that really are just allowed to breathe without needing dialogue, when you think about it (this may come from the fact that the movie was extensively storyboarded, because he felt he needed every storyboard to stay on schedule). You enjoy the people that enter the sphere around Jones in what they bring to the table in their own pockets of time, whether that involves a trained monkey spy or the worthy menace brought by people such as Lacey. It's a wonderful movie to look at, right down to what is right there on screen and what actually is say, a matte painting. It all rests on Ford being something beyond the matinee hero: an academic and an adventurer (okay that was paraphrasing what he once said about the character, but still). He balances the tightrope of strength and wit that can be just as vulnerable as he can be funny in an adventure that basically is a ride of humility (contrary to Han Solo, the character of Jones doesn't start out as, well a conman).

It's not all about rescuing and getting the girl on the way to glory, it is a movie where you really do have to close your eyes to see beyond what you think you know about the world. Allen is just simply charming in that sort of independence that we gravitate to even in without as much backstory to really sink into (which is where imagination comes to play when thinking about looking at the interactions between her and Ford as compared to the ones between her and Freeman). Freeman is a capable shadow of Ford, a disturbing presence in how sly one can be when collaborating with the worst of humanity because he believes in himself so highly as a fallen angel of archaeology. A fly could buzz around his mouth and all he cares about is where he looms on the chessboard. You get the delightful elegance, charm or otherwise, with Rhys-Davies (cast as a mix between his role in Shōgun and John Falstaff*) and Elliott (the always beloved British actor), did I forget that? Wrapped within its 115-minute runtime is a movie that breezes along in finding the pieces of the puzzle in its adventure ride that respects its audience in allowing it to breathe and experience the action sequences or its effects spectacle (spooky ghosts always gets a vote) that I probably appreciate even more than when I first saw it as a teenager. It's hard to really say just what is the best sequence of the whole film between, say, the opening sequence or the Map Room - you just have to see it (and I mean see it) to really believe it, where a B-movie feel leads to going along with its rhythm quickly. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel young again, and it is the kind of movie that scratches the itch every now and then to crave adventure and maybe get something from the pursuit of history. The second one plays to the lizard brain interests for intensity and comedy, the third and fourth ones pursued a family tale with leaps of faith and the fifth, well, plays to having at least one more good time in old age, so there's that as well. It is sincerity without becoming devout in the best ways imaginable. 45 years later, it is the movie with the best type of qualities: the milage of craftsmen at work all coming together for a true return to the great adventure.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

theme of the day

*Because of his work in the script, Kasdan was approached by Lucas to work on The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

*Nobody really dwells on a Welsh actor playing Sallah and neither do you.

*Of all the times to give an Academy Award to the British, good lord. I do wonder if Reds holds up enough that Warren Beatty deserved a Best Director award. 

*Incidentally, Steven Soderbergh did a cut of the film in 2014 that aimed to show how the film really shined in the staging, which he did by taking out the audio and converted it to black-and-white

*And, well, vintage footage

Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service, #994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 

"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.