A Retrospective: “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”
May 16, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a place in the Indiana Jones canon that is generally considered the antithesis of that other famous genre second-act, The Empire Strikes Back. While Empire is often considered an improvement on the original Star Wars only to be followed up by a disappointing third chapter, ToD is considered the weak link of the trilogy, book-ended by superior installments. I remembered it this way, too, and in an interview, Steven Spielberg admitted that it was his least favorite of the Indiana Jones movies (the fact that he met his future wife on the set, notwithstanding).
So, is it worthy of all the hate and disappointment? I decided to revisit it the same way I revisited Raiders (though not with the time-code commentary, which was hard to do and didn’t really work very well). What I found was a flawed but interesting movie, understandably disappointing when viewed in the shadow of Raiders, but serviceable enough on its own merits.
To start with, the storyline is a departure from the Raiders template. There’s no globetrotting—the action mostly takes place in one location—and not much of a quest. Indy’s not chasing around the world in search of some artifact, rather he’s thrust into an adventure through fate, conscience, and his own scientific curiosity. The result is less of a sense of momentum than the other films. If Raiders was a steeple-chase, ToD is a barroom brawl.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, however, as it affords ToD to delve a bit deeper into the culture of the country visited than Raiders did. It also helps establish the character of Indiana Jones as more of a global citizen than merely an adventurer with some good foreign contacts. In the initial action sequence in Shanghai, he’s shown working with a member of the police and even speaks Mandarin. His scenes with the impoverished village in India show him effortlessly connecting with the locals and even taking his love-interest to task for her ungraciousness when the locals serve up what, for their barren village, constitutes a feast (“You’re insulting them and embarrassing me, now eat it.”)
The flip side of this, however, is the movie skirts dangerously close to some fairly offensive racial politics. The movie acknowledges India’s status as an imperial holding of England in a scene in which the Maharaja’s Prime Minister makes some acidic comments to the commander of the local garrison of British rifles. But by the end, the PM has been unmasked as an evil Thugee cultist and the British rifle company must charge to the rescue by, er, wiping out the Indian cultists. I suppose you have to dredge up some grudging respect for a movie that has the chutspa to present Imperialism as having its merits (I sense George Lucas’s cyborg claw in this viewpoint). Even the Thugee cultists are a bit of an offensive cliché—like Haitian voodoo priests or mystical Chinese soothsayers. And speaking of voodoo priests, since when did the worshipers of Kali Ma use voodoo dolls? There are moments in this movie when you get the feeling that Spielberg and Lucas (most likely Lucas) just threw every jungle-savage cliché in the book at this movie. It’s not quite as offensive in the scene in Octopussy where Roger Moore eludes his pursuers by throwing a wad of rupees into the street and creating an impenetrable barrier of beggars (my Indian-American ex-girlfriend called it her least favorite scene in the 007 series), but it’s uncomfortable nonetheless.
I think another reason ToD leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of American moviegoers is the extent to which it amped up the violence. Where Raiders was a straight action film, ToD is darker and its violence more horrific. It was the movie that essentially created the PG-13 rating, and it’s not hard to see why. Hearts are plucked out of chests, bad guys are skewered by flaming kebobs, the main henchman is crushed in a pulverizer, and a lot of kids are flogged and enslaved. There’s even a scene where Indy and his adolescent side-kick are both ties to posts and whipped, right before Indy is made eeeevil. It’s a gratuitous scene and the brutality of it took me by surprise when I watched it again. It really didn’t add much to the movie, aside from make the poorly-sketched bad guys more hateable (though no better sketched).
The writing falls down a lot in ToD. Like Return of the Jedi, released the previous summer, it falls prey to a phenomena that emerged in the mid ‘80s that can best be described as the “stupid-audience-syndrome.” It’s when the summer blockbusters (which started with Jaws in 1975 and were made a fixture by Star Wars in 1977) ceased to feature the craftsmanship that was a hallmark of ‘70s cinema. It was when Hollywood began to realize that if they distracted the audience with action and explosions and Roman numerals after the title, you’d still make boffo box office and you didn’t necessarily have to put effort into things like a script. ToD isn’t quite as bad as Return of the Jedi, in which the dialogue literally exists to explain what’s happening onscreen, but it still serves to louse up a couple of decent scenes. This is unsurprising when you consider it was written by George Lucas (whose screenplays typically made me want to pith myself) and Willard Huyck (who scripted some of the biggest flops of the ‘80s).
For example: when Indy comes back from the dark side and fights off the first wave of bad guys, he makes his amends to Short Round by placing the kids’ baseball cap on his head. Shorty solemnly hands Indy his fedora. It’s a nice scene, but then Lucas and Hyuck go and mess it up by having Indy say, “I’m sorry, kid.” No shit? Hey, thanks for telling me exactly what’s happening onscreen. In another scene, when Shorty is struggling to get Indy to break out of the Kali-ma voodoo evil spell, he plaintatively cries out, “I love you, Indy!” Lemme just say that’s a line that just doesn’t belong in any Indiana Jones movie. They just shouldn’t be sentimental movies.
On top of the dialogue, there are some plainly nonsensical plot elements. Indy arrives at the Maharaja’s palace in his usual Indy gear, but then attends dinner wearing a sport coat and tie. Uh, did he have a luggage Sherpa offscreen? And the backloaded action sequence simply zooms by all logic. They start at a sacrificial alter that is, apparently, deep enough to touch a lava vein, then descend even deeper into the mountain in a mine car chase, only to emerge high above a ravine. Uh, what?
And then there’s Kate Capshaw. As Indy’s love interest, a singer named Willie Scott, she brings nothing to this party. Shrill, shallow, vapid, and cowardly, she serves primarily as a potential human sacrifice and—I can only assume—comic relief. Unlike Karen Allen’s tough counterpart to Indy, Willie acts pretty much as a boat anchor. It’s disappointing to think of all the potential directions they could have taken the character. I’m not entirely sure why she needed to white in the first place. Indy spends the movie in Asia, fer chrissakes. Maybe the concept of Indy hooking up with a non-white chick was just too radical for 1984 (though James Bond had been doing it for years by then) Anyway, they cast a screamer, and Spielberg apparently liked her so much he married her. Capshaw, for her part, would play pretty much the same role—white female entertainer in Asia—in 1989’s Black Rain, only as a much more hardboiled dame. Pity she didn’t bring that to this movie.
In the end, ToD isn’t quite as bad as memory and pop-culture led me to believe. The action comes fast and furious, and the movie looks great. The darker, grittier feel of it is a welcome counterbalance to the encroaching mid ‘80s Hollywood sweetness. It doesn’t have an action sequence as rousing as Raiders truck scene or white stallion scene, but it has a few rousing moments of its own. The scene in which Indy goes back into mines to rescue the child slaves works on a base good-vs.-evil level. And it’s hard not be moved by the sight of the village’s children pouring over the now-fertile fields into the arms of their overjoyed parents. Always inspiring when white people save the Third World, you know. And the opening sequence in Shanghai has gotten better with age. You have to admire the thinking behind opening the film with a musical number of Anything Goes sung in Mandarin. Even Indy-as-007 in a dinner jacket and tie is a neat idea (if only because it gets him out of the bomber/fedora costume for a couple scenes). Spielberg and Lucas deserve some credit for trying to make something other than a remake of the first film, even if some of their subsequent decisions were very, very bad.
Interesting note: Harrison Ford jacked up his back something awful riding an elephant in this movie. He didn’t fall or get thrown from it, but just motion of the beast’s shoulder-blades messed up the curvature of his spine. Something to bear in mind in case you were thinking of using one as a source of cheap mass-transit.
Additional Links:
“A Retrospective: Raisers of the Lost Ark”
“A Retrospective: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”
“This Summer’s Movies: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”
I remember that this movie was almost unbearable because of the combined screechings of Short Round and Capshaw. I hate the gratuitous use of noisy children and prissy blondes in action movies. I do love, however, that Lucas reduces the incredibly complex Hindu pantheon down to the formula Krishna=God, Kali=Satan. Did you notice that the music in this one has a vaguely Loony Tunesy quality to it? As a matter of fact, I found most of the action sequences rather Loony Tunesy in this one.
It did the Hindu faith no favors. I actually found the action in “The Last Crusade” to be more cartoonish, as I’ll point out in the next installment.
I think the points u have mentioned are not the only offensive portions of the film. The film is totally offensive to Indians especially dinner scene and this I m saying without comparing any other Indy movie. I think Spielberg and Lucas should apologize to Indians for showing such crap
The Indian government was so offended by the script that they refused to allow Spielberg to shoot it in their country. I forget where they ended up filming.
I see you’re finally getting the readership you deserve.
I find it interesting that the Raiders and Star Wars franchises let you see the degeneration of feminism as you follow the sequels.
Movie 1
Female lead is tough, smart-mouthed, competent. Her clothing is modest. Sure, she needs saving (it’s still America and still an action blockbuster), but she does some of the work of saving herself.
Movie 2
Just a few years later, and the female lead is over-sexualized and helpless. Her primary role is to need saving and to have boobies and show her midriff a lot.
Movie 3
Female lead is written off as a love interest entirely. The Family becomes more important than individual women. In Star Wars, she’s your sister. In Raiders, she’s an evil Nazi slut who did your dad, gross, so she has to die at the end.
True enough for the Indy movies–Last Crusade was basically a boys-only/girls-icky affair. In the Star Wars trilogy, only Jedi really destroyed Leia’s character. She was, if anything, stronger in Empire. Must have been Leigh Brackett’s influence on the script.
Oh you know, you’re right. For some reason, I conflated Movie 2 and Movie 3 for Star Wars. Possibly because her role in Empire is practically nonexistent, except to tell Han Solo that she loves him.
I disagree. She has as much screen time as Ford and generally serves as the pragmatic counterpoint to his more macho grandiosity “Watch this!” [clunk] “Watch what?” Also the two of them have that ’40s screwball comedy chemistry thing that makes the relationship work “Would it help if I got out and pushed?” “It might.” Again, Leigh Brackett’s influence, and probably Lawrence Kasdan’s as well.
True, she didn’t affect the plot much, but that whole plotline was largely reactive–she and Solo and company basically get chased through the whole movie. Within it, though, she was no wilting violet. It was Carrie Fisher at her Carrie Fishiest.
temple of doom is thought of as the least of the series just because it doesnt copy raiders of the lost ark (like last crusade for instance). You’re constantly saying: while raiders is this, temple does it differently but sequels should stray more from the template. Last crusade was virtually a xerox of raiders, with added ‘funny’ dad and ‘nutty’ brody scenes.
Er, I thought Gunmonkey WAS saying that it wasn’t a bad thing that Temple tried to be a different movie than Raiders.
The bad thing, as he points out, is that, unlike Raiders, where Hollywood racism is mostly in the background and not distracting or prominent, Temple indulges in the kinds of embarrassing Hollywood stereotypes of primitive savages and evil natives that has no excuse in the 80s.
Gunmonkey may say that it isnt necessarily a bad thing but at the same time the emphasis is on comparing temple elements with raiders elements, with temple being the lesser film because of the ways it differs from raiders (‘unlike karen allen’ for example), while the film clearly wants to pursue a different path. And i wasnt necessarily talking about gunmonkey, more the general arguments in writings about temple.
and if you want to be pc about action/fantasy films, the fact that racism and stereotyping in raiders is somehow forgivable because it’s not distracting is not really an argument.
Of course he’s going to compare the two. It’s a sequel, not a completely unrelated movie. To say that Kate Capshaw is bad because, “unlike Karen Allen”, her character doesn’t complement Indy’s as a partner in adventure but is instead a dead weight–is not the same as saying Kate Capshaw is bad “because she’s not Karen Allen”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “PC”, which is a tired phrase that means nothing.
Personally, I think Gunmonkey is too lenient to TOD. I think TOD is too racist and sexist to be enjoyable. However, why you think I’m supposed to be the one to “forgive” or “excuse” any cultural product is completely beyond me.
A lot of big-budget Hollywood fare is problematic when it comes to race, culture, and sex. The blockbusters of the 80s were certainly no exception. However, anyone who watches a movie with a sense of historical perspective should be able to understand the difference between blunders that come from cultural blind spots of the day and filmmakers who create actively negative, offensively stereotyped characterizations of a culture or minority group.
The point is, the former still allows the movie to hold up as entertainment. Movies can be acknowledged as flawed yet still be entertaining and be considered good cinema. The latter, however, is offensive enough that I find it a chore to watch. Strange that I would judge the action movie that is a chore to watch as less successful than the action movie that is fun to watch, but maybe I’m just weird.
Well, as “anyone who watches a movie with a sense of historical perspective should be able to understand” these movies are based on old serials which were full of cliches and stereotypes like that. I don’t know how you can say that the stereotyping in the other films is just a blunder or cultural blind spot of the day, when it’s fully ingrained into the films and the fabric of the genre they’re trying to pay homage to. Europeans are fey and foolish or evil decadents, arabians are either peasants with baskets on their heads, slaves or menacing bandits with red hats on (and evil monkeys on their shoulder), women want to be like men or are screaming bimbos, the hero is a white american male who acts as sexually mature as a 14 year old. There is something here to offend everyone, but it’s the grammar of the genre and it shouldnt be taken too seriously.
On top of that, TOD was set up, in style, tone and content, as an even more exaggerated, hyperstylized, purposely broad and over the top movie that takes all these genre cliches and magnifies them, even more so than raiders and crusade. Nothing in this film is supposed to even come close to realism and i don’t think any sort of serious adult statement is being made or is intended in TOD. It’s put together like a crazy comic book version of a boys own story with rope bridges, bugs and icky ripped out hearts and it should be watched in that spirit. To say that the stereotyping in raiders or crusade is just a blunder where in temple it represents an actively negative intent of the filmmakers neglects both the genreconventions these movies pay homage to and the radically different stilistic tone of the films.
And unsurprisingly it looks like the new one isn’t clear of cultural sterotyping as well. I don’t know if anyone here has seen this but during the Indiana Jones press conference in Cannes, Cate Blanchett was asked by a Russian journalist if she thought that her portrayal of the Russian villain wasn’t offensive to the russian people. Blanchett proceeded to apologize to all of Russia for her potentially offensive character, though with tongue firmly in cheek.
Of course these movies are an homage to old serials. But why do you believe that homages have to parrot all of the original source materials’ flaws? Where does it say that to create a work of genre entertainment, you have to reproduce past examples slavishly? God forbid someone should criticize FILMMAKERS for not showing enough creativity to update classics with a loving AND critical eye at the same time. I mean, we’re only talking Lucas and Spielberg. Just the guys who were at the top of their industry when these films were made. So I can’t expect them to do right by their day AND the material that gave them their inspiration?
You also seem to be saying that, because back in the day, boys’ literature was full of sambos, inscrutable Chinamen, evil cannibal natives, and useless women that everything that takes inspiration from the fun and adventure that was in those stories must necessarily also contain those stereotypes.
So what, we’re not allowed to change anything? We’re not supposed to expect people who reprise things to do them better? Isn’t that the original complaint you had to begin with, that people too seldom change anything from the original when they continue a franchise?
If you want to be a TOD fanboy, go for it, but don’t try to demonstrate that my criticism of it is somehow invalid. I loved Raiders. I own the boxed set of the three movies. I can enjoy something and acknowledge its flaws too. I can admire things the filmmakers achieved and still fault them for being obtuse privileged products of their time. I fail to see why you think I shouldn’t.
You’re putting words in my mouth there but thats okay. I was initially talking about making a sequel that differs from the film that preceded it, i wasn’t talking about every movie ever made in a genre. I never said that if the inspiration has certain elements that every homage must necessarily have them as well. I’m saying that the indiana jones films obviously play by these rules and play with these elements.
If you can’t see the difference between an old cliche and a hyperbolic and exaggerated depiction of that old cliche thats fine by me. In TOD these cliches are never presented ’straight’, i see an ironic and parodic tone in these depictions that you obviously don’t. Again thats fine by me, we all have our own pov, even though you admitted yourself that this film has more than a little cartoonish aspect in it.
If you feel offended by depictions of race or sex in these films then thats your good right, as it is mine when i say that these films need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I never said that TOD is a flawless film, so there’s no need in calling me a ‘fanboy’ because i have a different opinion than you.
If you think the offensive elements in TOD are some kind of subversive critique qua humorous pastiche, then I guess our conversation is ended. To me, it sounds like making excuses for stuff instead of just acknowledging that Lucas, in particular, despite his many contributions to Hollywood cinema, is pretty blind to his stereotypes and prejudices, even to this day. But as you say, you can believe what you want to believe.
Just don’t fall back on the old, “you just don’t understand the humor” gambit. You can look at TOD as a filmmaker’s attempt at clever parody if you want. Personally, I think that, viewed through that lens, TOD’s a miserable failure and fares much worse than it does when judged as a straight movie.
Words in my mouth again, i’m not crediting lucas or spielberg with any kind of postmodern subversiveness. It’s just a cartoonish film made by a couple of movie geeks, in that sense its ironic and parodic, and i view it in that spirit.
I do wonder though why in your comments about the other films you’re playing down the level of stereotyping (and it’s definitely there) and it doesn’t ‘distract’ you and you seem to be so offended by this one. Are you asian or something? or a woman? Maybe there’s a personal thing there, but maybe i’m wrong.
Ah, yes, here comes the “you must have a chip on your shoulder” accusation.
Look, irony and parody are narrative tools predicated on some kind of critique or comment, on a subtext of “knowing better”. I’m saying that neither the critique nor the “knowing better” is there. If you see such a thing, then my opinion is that you’re manufacturing it. I see no evidence of it. So if, as you say, TOD is primarily parody and irony for fun’s sake, then it must basically be a case of the filmmakers saying, “Gee, all those offensive stereotypes were just so gosh-darn entertaining! We miss them. Let’s incorporate them into our big-budget movie.”
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to posit that this sort of pointless “fun with racism” detracts from a movie’s (and a franchise’s) entertainment value.
If I think TOD is more guilty of racism and sexism than Raiders, it’s because it is. Are you really going to tell me you don’t see how that’s the case? It doesn’t follow just because I acknowledge that Raiders isn’t completely unproblematic that Raiders is just as bad as TOD. It’s not “playing” anything “down” to say that Raiders isn’t as offensive. It isn’t.
It would be one thing if TOD were so over-the-top bad as a movie and in its stereotyping that that it became extremely funny and a massively entertaining target of ridicule. TOD, alas, isn’t such an anti-masterpiece. It’s just sucky.
Why you suggest that my criticism of TOD is a case of PC run amok is a mystery to me. I might as well turn around and ask why you want to attribute my dislike of the movie to some kind of personal chip I’m carrying. Is there some problem you have with people who notice when things are racist or sexist, point them out, and declare them to not be unadulterated fun?
My problem with TOD’s use of India is, as I pointed out in my review, that the script tacitly promotes imperialism. Nowhere in the film is there a character like Sallah, who is a well-drawn, respectfully-rendered member of the local community. You’ve got the kindly oppressed villagers who must be recued by the great white hope and you have the evil, heart-snatching savages who must be vanquished by the great white hope. Who rides to rescue? The British military (with, it should be noted, some Indian riflemen–presumably the trainable savages).
It’s not even a question anymore that Lucas traffics in cultural stereotypes (see pretty much all of Phantom Menace) whether due to his uncensored love of old serials or just cultural sensitivity, and Lucas scripted this movie so there’s kind of a cause/effect relationship right there.
And it’s hard getting around the fact that if TOD was trafficking in the images of African Americans that were bandied about in 1930s serials as opposed to Indians, it’d be a much uglier movie.
Again, I enjoyed TOD and get a subversive kick out of its offensiveness. But I’m a white male imperialist, so you have to expect that.
Ten feet of steel -
like i already said, i’m not crediting lucas or spielberg with any kind of insightful critique. It’s a cartoonish movie and i can’t take it that seriously. I never said that TOD and raiders are ‘just as bad’, you’re putting words in my mouth again. I said there is stereotyping all over the place in all indy films. TOD is a highly exaggerated version of the indy template and therefore the stereotyping is exaggerated too. So, that you think this is one of the reasons that TOD is more offensive than raiders is no surprise to me.
And to answer your question i have no problem with you getting offended by this film, and that is something i have already stated. I don’t immediately attribute your reaction to this film as a chip on your shoulder, those are your words, not mine. It just seemed to me that you were not just offended, but you were *really* offended. It’s perfectly logical that i should ask if there’s a reason for that. You still haven’t answered that by the way.
Gunmonkey –
“I enjoyed TOD and get a subversive kick out of its offensiveness.”
yep, agreed.
I’m getting tired of this routine. You consistently strongly imply things and then turn around later and say I’m putting words in your mouth when I respond to them. It’s a pattern in Internet conversation that I particularly dislike. Saying that I must be Asian and a woman or something to be so personally offended and then turning around and accusing me of putting words in your mouth when I identify that rhetorical ploy as the chip-on-the-shoulder accusation is bullshit.
Go back and read my comment. I said that Gunmonkey is too easy on the movie. The only offensive thing he identifies in it, as he states above, is the episode involving the Thugee and the Brits.
I think there’s much more. The movie relies on racist tropes to drive the plot. “Relies on,” as opposed to just “containing”. It’s not just part of the wallpaper–without these very racist tropes, there would simply be no plot in this movie.
To me, that’s a crappy movie.
However, to suggest that I seem to be “really”, personally offended by a bad movie from over 20 years ago is a stretch on your part. What actually irritates me much more than Temple of Doom ever could are your faux naif objections under the guise of mere inquiry to my statements that TOD is pretty damn racist.
The context of these reviews is a reassessment of the Indiana Jones movies. My contention is that TOD sucks and is the worst of the series, due in no small part to the fact that it’s racist out of what seems like sheer lack of imagination and utter disregard for viewers who might not be little white boys. It tries to make up for its lack of imagination with “gross out” tricks that simply rely on yet more racism.
Does that make TOD singularly objectionable as a Hollywood product? Of course not. It doesn’t even make it exceptional. Why am I not raging against all the others? Most obviously, because these posts aren’t about them–they’re about the Indiana Jones movies. But also because it’s just not that important to me. Nothing says I have to make it my job to object to every offensive moment in every movie by name in order to be able to object to the racism in this particular movie.
So whether your subversive kick comes from reveling nostalgically in the kinds of racist displays that are no longer allowed to be so blatant in Hollywood or whether it comes from gleeful mockery at how inept Lucas/Spielberg were in handling these tropes, I didn’t say you weren’t allowed to derive any entertainment from the movie. I fully understand the potential of a crappy movie to be entertaining in spite of itself. What I did say was that the movie was a bad movie. I also said it was a racist movie. And that these two things are not unrelated.
Nowhere did I claim to be deeply offended by anything, although I have become extremely annoyed by this exchange with you. Really, I’ve personally expended many more words here than were ever merited by the topic.
In my defense, the episode involving the British rifles is the example of the movie’s cultural offensiveness I come back to most often. I also mentioned its central premise of “White man saves brown people” (a favorite of Hollywood). And there are many more, I just didn’t feel like mentioning all of them, and used the British rifles as an example because it is the clearest and most obvious example of the movie’s offensiveness.
“Nowhere did I claim to be deeply offended by anything”
uh… are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. Where do I say I’m deeply offended by TOD? That I feel personally affronted by it? That it even makes me angry?
“Are you Asian or something?”
HA HA HA HA!!
Yes, I am “something.”
I think it is well-documented that TenFeet is something.
Is the logical conclusion of this, then, that if one is not “something”, one is “nothing”?
If I were white or a man or nothing, I’d be kind of offended.