what is it that we expect from another Indiana Jones film, 27 years after the first one and nearly 20 since the last? what is it that we want? an effortless bridge between Old and New Hollywood, Raiders of the Lost Ark is without question one of the cinema’s grandest adventures, and the very nature of Messrs. Spielberg and Lucas’ stubbornly iconic character is one of wondrous, nonstop exploits that have spread from the big screen to books, video games and a television series, so it’s only natural that the thought of a fourth film would make our collective mouths water with the lingering taste of uncompromised escapism. deep down, though, could anyone conscious of Hollywood's current culture of branding-obsessed shamelessness have possibly expected Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to live up to the legacy? (depending on whom you ask, not even Temple of Doom and Last Crusade manage such a feat.) more pointedly, how confident were we that it wouldn’t be kind of an embarrassment? judging from the reviews, the answer is “not particularly”: both audiences and critics alike seem to be appraising the film kindly based as much on lowered expectations as its own merit.
this is a fitting reception for the film, which is indeed perfectly alright: Spielberg throws us plenty of inspired, well-constructed action setpieces to ooh and aah at, and the series gets a welcome infusion of distinctly American mythology from plot elements involving Area 51 and the Cold War. but the notion of lowered expectations persists, as an excess of focus on the filmmakers' part to give the people exactly what they want ends up depriving Crystal Skull of the subtle magic that makes the other three films so special. Spielberg has built a storied career on the line between art and pure entertainment, but here he errs on the side of caution, and ends up appeasing rather than pleasing. the most important question: is that his fault, or ours?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment