“Raiders of the Lost Ark” Story Conference Transcript (1978)
nloewen.com
nloewen.com
I read it a long time ago, and the most interesting thing that stuck in my mind had to do with the headpiece with a crystal in the center that Indiana Jones had to obtain.
A quote from the movie itself to refresh memories: "And what you did was you take the staff to a special room in Tanis... a map room with a miniature of the city all laid out on the floor and if you put the staff in a certain place, at a certain time of day, the sun shone through [the crystal] and made a beam that came down on the floor... and gave you the exact location of the Well of the Souls. [Which is] where the Ark of the Covenant was kept."
Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan got into a discussion about why it had to be a physical thing like a crystal. It couldn't be a map, diagram, or document that gave the exact place to dig. Because valuable information like that, even if it were engraved or printed on a gold artifact, would have been photographed and distributed to museums around the world. Then Indiana wouldn't have needed to go to Nepal to retrieve the original. Hence the headpiece with a crystal -- which isn't easily copied.
There was so much attention to the logical flow of the story.
In some ways, but the most famous observation (that I've heard) about the first Indiana film is that the outcome -- all the bad guys getting fried when they open the ark -- would have also happened had Indiana done nothing.
I have seen this kind of criticism against several other movies (e.g. also much of "The Last Jedi", although I don't like that one for different reasons) and I don't get it. In real life, the things we do aren't part of a great scheme that always leads to some grand goal, sometimes they can be just inconsequential. I don't understand what's wrong with that happening in a movie, in fact I even find it refreshing when a movie forgoes the standard clichés where everything has to "fit" perfectly and if they focused on a seemingly irrelevant object in the initial parts of the movie, you know it has to play a role in the end.
The character did live experiences and learn, and we were entertained along the way.
If a big part of the story cancels out during reintegration it doesn't feel right and the ending won't feel satisfying.
Obviously in this case the story doesn't get ruined, but in general it's a good idea to not introduce things into a story that won't be needed later on.
Big Trouble in Little China is an example where I think they did this intentionally and it worked; Kurt Russell’s character (arguably the main character) doesn’t actually do anything but witness the story, and everything would have turned out more or less the same if he hadn’t been there. In the case of Raiders, I don’t think it was intentional and it didn’t work (though like you say the rest of the movie was so strong and fun it doesn’t matter).
I do love the warehouse scene at the end, however, and think about it all the time.
Top. Men.
It would be next to impossible for Indy to not know those big names (in the same “notorious” way he knew of Belloq) so it really adds more to the government BS.
That leads to the question 'how could he have followed them?' but that's not a terribly difficult question to entertain, as there's several junctures in the story where he could have safely transitioned into an 'observe from a distance' mode.
Certainly once landing in Egypt that's the case, but even the early Nepal detour becomes optional if you assume the Nazis would have continued to excavate everywhere until they found the Well of the Souls (or lost the upcoming war before doing so).
From Egypt-arrival onwards, if he'd kept an eye on things, then followed the bad guys into the desert, kept his eyes shut (he's the only one to know that was important) he could have transported the ark away without interference once that all went down.
Whether it diminishes your entertainment, once you get to the end of the story, to realise almost everything was pointless - in the fictional universe you just partook - well that's a question for you.
For me, it does not. But I also really enjoyed Joseph Heller's second novel.
The letters of transit signed by General De Gaulle[1] in Casablanca is a case in point. As someone once wrote, that would have been the equivalent of US forces being forced to accept letters of transit signed by Osama bin Laden.
[1]Maybe Peter Lorre actually says another name which would make more sense but De Gaulle is the general assumption.
Here's a question: how do we know those were government spooks at all? Maybe they were Nazis trying to setup Indy just so that they could follow him :D
True, but I suppose if he wasn't there, the nazis might have reclaimed the ark post-death of their team, learned, and done something different?
And maybe the woman he was tied up with would be dead...
But yeah, I get it. Never heard it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_of_the_Incas
One of the most famous scenes - positioning the artifact at just the right moment to reflect the rays of sun to reveal... - straight out of the 1954 movie.
Secret of the Incas was filmed on location in Cusco, before it was a tourist destination. The city is raw, colorful, a snapshot in time. The script is full of humorous sarcasm, with an interesting (but fairly slow) story, based in fact.
As for Charlton Heston's character? The prototype for Indiana Jones: fedora hat, leather jacket, pistol, mannerisms...
The full movie is on YouTube: https://youtu.be/OYQD24HrNlU
There's a 1080p Amazon WEB-DL in existence.
Interesting it was filmed on location way back then as that must have been very expensive and difficult with the tech they had in the 50’s.
What do you know, it has a TV Tropes page[0]. Journey to the Center of the Earth does seem to be the oldest thing on there, after all - not that TV Tropes is necessarily comprehensive.
[0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SundialWaypoint
https://podbay.fm/p/the-hollywood-gauntlet/e/1369888493
Interesting to listen to like an audio book or radio play.
Dunno why whoever has the recording hasn't released it, but I'd personally guess they just haven't bothered trying to get the permission from everyone involved, which may involve studios too, or at least they think it might.
Anyone familiar with writing rooms or the like, is this asymmetrical pattern common?
Cool to see how the iconic fear of snakes starts out as a vague desire to make the character vulnerable, and grows from there.
Has anyone found anything relatively recent which generated the same feeling for you?
I vaguely remember reading a while back Spielberg wanted to go back to that theme for the 5th Indy movie (currently in production) but Ford wanted something new and Spielberg dropped out as Director.
L — I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don't have to build it.
G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.
L — And he was forty-two.
G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.
S — She had better be older than twenty-two.
G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.
G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.
S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.
G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...
I see no news articles about it, it was more than 40 years ago (the speaker has been relegated to a rightholder, no longer making film), and it was stopped in the spitballing stage of the (bad) idea. Does anyone care?
Here's why people care: It surprised a lot of people how casually these 3 famous intelligent creative people were talking about making their main character an abusive creep. Except...they didn't think it would make him an abusive creep. This tells you something about the normalization of the idea of a 25-year old man sleeping with a twelve year old girl. Either by the parties involved or their perception of the audience.
By modern sensibilities, this would be an irredeemable character trait. Does that say something about how things have changed in the last 40 years? Is that worth acknowledging? etc.
Lucas doesn't. Both Kasdan and Spielberg seem to push back (lightly, but ina collaborative creative environment, that's what you do if possible, and ultimately it didn't make it in) with Lucas’ suggested age (and Lucas keeps pushing the really young age).
Spielberg also pushes making her explicitly the instigator, perhaps also as a way of mitigating the “abusive creep” impression.
> Does that say something about how things have changed in the last 40 years?
Does it? I mean, without a broad sample of similar writers rooms forty years ago and today, I don't think we know: (1) that that kind of idea got tossed around and cut more than than today, or (2) that when it came up, the discussion was much different then than today.
Saying it says something about a change requires extrapolating a lot about 40 years ago from one data point, and then extrapolating as much about today from no equivalent data points. Most likely, its just spinning the story of this discussion into a preconceived narrative of what the difference is, rather than really reasoning from it at all.
Well, it's clear from the movie Marion was very young when they had an affair. We don't know exactly how old, but she says, "it was wrong, and you knew it" and "I was a child".
I love the movie. This was one of his big flaws. He's not supposed to be a moral paragon - he was a grave robber and antiquities trafficker, after all.
Edit: Supposedly, the actual script says she was 25 when they meet again, which would have made her 15 at the time.
Of course, it's not really remarkable in the film because, in addition to both of them being 10 years older, it's very much a norm in Hollywood to have younger (so long as not too young) women and older men.
That doesn’t have a good ring to it either as pedophiles often claim they were in fact seduced by their victims.
Guilty people often claim things that would be mitigating or exonerating if true; that doesn't make it a “bad ring” to have fiction in which the mitigating or exonerating thing is true. (And, just to be clear, what Spielberg was suggesting would, IMO, only be modestly mitigating, and only even that in combination with Spielberg’s pushback on age, and even then not really appropriate background for with the rest of the film. But it was definitely reeling things back from what Lucas was suggesting.)
Here's three men who have had an immense impact on popular culture having a casual chat about statutory rape and a lot of racist stereotypes, and no one raises an objection. They didn't record this in the 1830s or the 1930s. It was 1978.
I've always loved their work, but wow, this is disappointing to read.
Are you aware that the age of consent in Georgia used to be 12? Then they decided that 12 was a bit young, so they raised it. All the way to 14.
Nazis aim to use the Ark for power, Indy wants to put in a museum, ultimately it ends up hidden again in a warehouse. I mean seems pretty meaningful statement about how knowledge is used and controlled.