When Tintin meets Han Solo ...

Rating: 8/10 (18 January 2013)

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is like these showers that work on cold or hot water, where both fans and detractors can be right. Ironically, the elements that are lauded by some and that contributed to cement the film's legendary status are used by others to justify their dislike. Still, no one can deny its significance in film-making history.
The first opus of Indiana Jones' adventures was the highest-grossing film of 1981 and when adjusted to inflation, still one of the most successful ever. George Lucas was the executive producer, working with his lifelong friend Steven Spielberg, and there's no doubt that Spielberg wanted to direct his "Star Wars", a family adventure film with the kind of enthralling and innocent escapism that only the magic of cinema can convey. Indeed, "Raiders" is a kaleidoscope of all the archetypes that built the popularity of the adventure genre whether it's from movies, or comic books. And as a fan of Tintin, there's no doubt that Spielberg made the closest film ever to the Belgian reporter's adventures (although it was more obvious in "Temple of Doom" with the Chinese boy) and it's funny how most American critics failed to notice that.
South America, Africa, Nepal and Egypt, whips, guns and swords, temples and military camps, planes, trucks, horses and submarines, Spielberg gratifies us with so many spectacular sequences, whether it's on the visuals or action departments, that it would be impossible to list them all. Starting with the immortal opening in the tropical forest, where Jones steals the idol, escapes from poisoned sticks, a rolling giant boulder, a bottomless pit, surprising booby traps, we're embarked in a series of thrilling episodes, each one standing alone as a classic, driven by one of John William's most iconic score (which is saying a lot). And to its own credit, the film succeeds in creating cohesion between all these heart-pounding vignettes through an interesting plot. We're in 1936, at the rise of the Nazi party, and as a passionate of the occult, Hitler sent men to find the Ark where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Any army that would possess it would become invincible.
Beyond the inspiration for a catchy title, the Ark epitomizes the mysticism that always surrounded the archaeologist's adventures, and allow to pick the Nazis as convenient villains, since their sophisticated manners contrasting with their extreme barbarity, is the perfect counterpart for a character like Indiana Jones, a tough and rough no-nonsense guy, civilized but condemned to visit the wildest places to fulfill his dreams. Jones is the kind of unintentional hero driven by his own passion, he never seems to enjoy the action, but rather its pay-off, and maybe that's what makes him so endearing, he's like a clever mix between Tintin and Han Solo (to stay on the "Star Wars" connection). And with the archaeologist again the Nazis, science and civilization against barbarity and evilness, in between you have the obligatory helpers, traitors and sidekicks.
Counting the clichés is pointless, naturally Arabs are either jovial or cunning, the Frenchman is sneaky and charming, Nazis all deserve to die, Marion, Karen Allen as the heroine, granted, she's a tough woman, we can see coming from a mile that she'd be dressed in a very feminine way, that there's more between her and Jones. The whole film works on archetypes, the power is that it also plays with them. Whether it's Jones being afraid of snakes, it provides an interesting Achilles' heel for the hero, but it inspires the great punch line for the opening sequence when he finds one in the plane. The racism of the scene where he casually shoots the swordsman is only redeemed by its hilarious cleverness. The film has a way not to take itself seriously yet doing it at the same time, and I guess that's why it's either praised or despised. I value Spielberg's intelligence enough to have expected the criticism.
Indeed, he would easily be accused of designing a movie precisely to attract people, that all the great things of "Raiders" were 'marketed'. I'm sure it's right, but what's wrong with that? Maybe it's because Spielberg is one hell of a storyteller. I'm sure he is, although I wouldn't tag the film as a story, but I did follow it with interest. Is the film too naive, too childish? Maybe it was designed by the mind of a director young enough to remember all the representations of his childhood, I'm not surprised that a young Jewish kid would have dreamed of stories where Nazis could be demised the way they are in "Indiana Jones", before depicting them in a more adult way in "Schindler's List". The film relies on a representation of a world, from comic books to B-movies, belonging to childhood, and maybe the film worked because it awakened our inner child.
I guess the haters tend to approach the film from their perspective rather than adapting their approach to the film. I can share Pauline Kael's view when she foresees that the deliberate corniness of "Raiders" would put the deathblow on films like "Apocalypse Now" or "Raging Bull". I agree even more because even though "Jaws" is the film that paved the way for blockbusters, I've always seen it as an adult masterpiece while "Raiders" IS a popcorn film, reinventing an aesthetic of old-school fun and entertainment tailor-made for theaters. It's interesting that Ebert closed his review by advising to see the film with someone we like, to grab his or her arm (was he thinking of the terrifying howling mummies?). Indirectly, he pointed out the film's minor weakness, being designed for cinemas, with half the charm lost on TV, videos and now DVD's. Even "Star Wars" can be enjoyable for the whole Shakespearian and Family saga undertones.
Maybe "Raiders" killed the very kind of movies that could be enjoyed even outside theaters. Still, I can't imagine the world of movies without "Raiders of the Lost Ark".