celluloidnotes

This whole Indiana Jones fervor is confusing for me. I went to see the film, and I don’t regret it. That has nothing to do with my confusion; it was fine, nothing special, but not repulsive either. My confusion stems from the fact that I was originally going to write a review of it the night after the midnight screening. But then I realized I have no interest in doing that, and not because I have nothing to say about the film. It’s an interesting film. It’s culturally loaded. Yet, for some reason it seems as though if you have talked about film in the last year, on any level, you are now required to talk about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And I’m tired of it. (Though what am I doing right now?) I’ve nothing profound to say on the subject, or about the decay of the modern cinema, I don’t think this is an indicator of such an occurrence. Though, it is disheartening that the widely varying sources of cinematic information in print, TV, radio, and online have all joined forces to create an incredible media machine that has assisted the film in making 165+ million already. (Again, this is fine, it’s a big event, I guess.) The issue is that no one is really saying anything. 

Its inclusion in Cannes was an odd bit of early press. Which was sly on their part, because even though everyone is was well aware before the screening that it would win no awards, playing in Cannes somehow implies that someone, with good taste, thought it was worth screening. That was of the start – aside from the heaps of buzz cluttering the internet.

So, it began with the standing ovation at Cannes, that even CNN covered, as though it was real news, then it was all over NPR’s coverage of Cannes, and NPR critics are doing reviews of it, and Midday did a special piece on the facts behind the myths of the film. Even the New Yorker devoted this week’s Current Cinema to Indiana Jones. And this is all fine, there is nothing wrong with the film getting press, and there is nothing wrong with credible sources talking about a film like Indiana Jones. I can’t argue with that. But I’m tired of seeing bland criticism everywhere. It didn’t live up to it’s hype and shouldn’t critics want to write and talk about films that are interesting to them? I haven’t read an interesting review of the film yet. Most of the criticism I’ve read is written by critics who don’t really seem to interested in the film. I couldn’t even argue that they were really paying attention to the film based on their criticism.

I think there is a lot to say about the film and an interesting piece could be written, but all of the pieces have been fondly reminiscent of the older films and luke warm on the new one. Saying very little about it’s odd politics and the trajectory this film places the series as a whole into. But no one wants to talk about the history of the series’ politics, which are at once simplistic and out of date, but very current and on the pulse of America. Indiana Jones exemplified the eighties political mindset arguably better than any other film to come out in the eighties. Yet no one is talking about how Spielberg and Lucas bring this film into 2008 with a renewed sense of political vigor – or lack thereof. 

That’s all I’ve got on the subject. I’m not trying to analyze the industry, because I have no problem with a summer blockbuster sucking up all the media attention. If people are going to see the film and enjoying it that’s fine, it’s doing it’s job. But I think that the critics and the media have been sucked into the fantasy excitement and hype of the movie and have been reluctant to actually talk about what is going on outside of how it lines up against the old series.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS