Raiders of the Lost Ark Story Conference (1978)
nloewen.com
nloewen.com
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” Story Conference Transcript (1978) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28134871 - Aug 2021 (55 comments)
(Via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151796, Last time we changed the URL and I think we can do so again. Submitted url was https://indiefilmhustle.com/tag/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-stor...)
Worth a listen if you are interested in movie making or this movie.
I honestly don't know how common it is to record it, rather than just having minutes of it written down by some assistant.
I would never trust a normal assistant to "keep notes" that are usable for something like this. A recording would seem to be mandatory in order to revisit ideas.
Little did they know...
The writer's strike meant that could have done both but apparently he had no regrets.
A great adventure for a teenager at the time.
A great adventure for a teenager at the time. ;-)
All I knew was that "matrix.avi" was the largest file I had ever seen, over 700 MB!!! I watched the first minute and figured out it was a movie, and promptly stopped it and called everyone I knew over to my dorm and had them bring popcorn.
We went into it 100% blind, and I still remember the seconds of silence after the movie ended. We were that blown away.
whatisthematrix
I had a few "oh that was really nice" moments through the years, but I think the best surprise was Clerks: went in expecting a slow, realistic indie movie, and left the cinema in tears of laughter.
Ha that would have been pretty funny.
To be sure, I loved the film when it came out. I enjoyed it for what it was — a fun action romp.
But now some 40 or so years later I recognize it as perhaps the beginning of this downward slide that popular films have been on: films that are no more than a stitching together of action sequences — storyboard movies.
Characters are 2 dimensional, don't change or grow across the film arc, morality is black and white....
I saw one of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films and was confused several times as to if the film was about to end. An epic battle/action sequence would build and conclude and I would assume we were at the denouement. Alas, no, we had merely wrapped up action-sequence #13 and there were still epic battles to come. (I suppose I should have had a clue since we were only at the 2 hour mark.)
</rant>
Is it in Raiders, though? Indy had a fling with Marion when she "was a child". He isn't exactly a white knight on their quest. He's irreverent, unchivalrous, and they feud from the onset. As Belloq points out, "I am a shadowy reflection of you... it would take only a nudge to push you out of the line." Belloq, at times, is courteous of Marion in ways Indiana is not. He covers her with his coat when they take her back into custody. Indy lets her shiver in captivity while he hunts for the Ark. He is a mercenary with a few more ideals than Belloq, and a sentimental attachment to his mentor's legacy.
That's the great twist of the movie though. Indiana is presented as an American Nazi-hating playboy thrill-seeking heroic professor...who is also into history or something. Belloq is presented as a French backstabbing Nazi-sympathizing schemer multilinguist...who is also into history or something. You're given all of this information upfront by the end of the first sequence.
But then, it turns out you had it backwards. These characters were actually men who are obsessed with history that are also some other stuff I guess. Indy basically gives the ark's power over to the Nazis just to see the truth of its history inside (but gets lucky lol). Belloq is shown not to care about the Nazis or getting rich. He really only wanted the knowledge inside[1].
Indy spends the film falling in love with Marian, fighting off reprehensible Nazis, and enjoying at least some of the immense glory coming his way. You expect him to grow as a character by the end and bazooka (or not bazooka) the ark for one of those reasons. Instead, he's swayed by Belloq's appeal of history and it turns out you never really knew who Indy was despite being given all of the information upfront.
[1]The original script provides more of the context for Belloq's character at the end
That's not exactly a proven track to having a solid story :)
Indiana Jones was specifically inspired by the 1930s serials that Lucas grew up with, such as Buck Rogers and Zorro, which were always about set pieces strung together with minimal depth of character development.
If there's a trend, it's that there is a distinct drop in "adult" films — meaning smart dramas for adults, not necessarily arthouse films — that started around the 2000s. Maybe the Indy movies were portends of this (some might say Jaws and Star Wars), but it's been a slow trajectory, and one that seems to have even accelerated by the pandemic and the emergence of streaming.
While certainly possible, it merits more discussion about why you loved it in the first place. What was new? Why did it earn such a solid place among classics? Why do so many other stories derive from 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…
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/indiana-jones-was-almost-a-...
Very much the reason why This Is Serious Mum's filmclip for If You're Not Famous at Fourteen, You're Finished from their 2001 De RigueurMortis was described as the Battleship Potemkin of rock video clips.
There's a lot of cringing and disillusionment in that conversation in general. It's not hard to see where "nuking the fridge" and other just plain stupid crap came from.
Then there's the recurring incestuous theme "Let's make this look like (some ride) at Disney World." Meanwhile it's safe to say people at Disney were sitting around saying, "Let's make this look like (some Spielberg or Lucas movie)."
"In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895).[11] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" articles, female reformers in the U.S. initiated their own campaign,[12] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least sixteen, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to sixteen to eighteen years by 1920.[6][13]"
"Raiders ..." take place in 1936. Was Marion older or younger than 11 by 1920? I don't know but I don't think it is outragous that a producer discusses such a story line at draft stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_Sta...
I don't know how unusual it is now, but in most of the world now it would be legal. Since laws against things widely seen as immoral tend to be easy to pass I'd guess that means that in most of the world a majority wouldn't have much of a problem with it (unless it was their daughter).
Here's a look at age of consent around the world. This is age of consent where the older person is not in a position of authority over the younger person, such as a teacher.
In most of Europe the age of consent is in the 14-16 range. Only Cypress (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18), and Vatican City (18) are higher. It's 16 in 20 countries there, 15 in 12 countries, and 14 in 14 countries.
In South America age of consent is 13-16, with 14 being the most common.
In Asia its mostly 16.
In Africa its mostly 16 or 18 or "must be married".
15-18 in Oceania. 16 in most of Australia (17 in South Australia and Tasmania). 16 in New Zealand.
North America is mostly 12-18. 16 in Canada, 16-18 in the US (18 in 11 states, 17 in 6 states, 16 in 33 states and DC).
Mexico is ridiculously complicated and inconsistent...about all you can say with certainty is that if the other person has not yet hit puberty it definitely is not legal. Past that you are into a mess of "it depends".
Most of the rest of North America is either 16 or 18.
Imagine accusing the author of Silence of the Lambs of “secretly being a cannibal”. It’s truly idiotic.
> 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.
It would certainly be... interesting... in the sense that it would be very unusual and offensive. Maybe he was intentionally going for that?
One also has to understand when Indy was born. 15 and 25 may not have been too far apart, for someone born in the late 1800s. And the woman's father was around, I believe, at the time.
I strongly dislike judging people's actions by modern ideals. What I mean is, did historical figures try to show understanding, compassion, and not intentional cruelty, whilst wrapped in the morals of the day?
Gauging history by today's morals, would be as gauging cleanliness standard. Or the average person from 1000 years ago, for thinking the world was flat, or the solar system revolved around the Earth.
And I certainly know that our descendants will look back at us, and think our actions morally reprehensible in some way, just as some do the same to our ancestors, currently.
And by the way, I don't mean something we think is wrong now. While our descendants may look at global warming, or some such and judge us, I mean over issues that almost no one today views as wrong.
So if you think "Oh of course, our descendants will view this $x thing as wrong!", you're wrong.
It'll be something you 100% think is sensible today.
Judging the past is so... beneath us. Or perhaps not judging, but blaming.
Participating in evil perpetrated by everyone at the time just makes you... average. The baseline is intrinsically linked to the time.
I think the "interesting" reference is the standards of the character's day (~1900-1940s) clashing with viewing audience standards (~1980).
Personally, by modern standards, I think it absolutely still fits with the Marion Ravenwood character. She's idealistic and driven. It wouldn't matter who the object of her affection was, even an older Indiana. She wanted him, and she made that happen, her age be damned.
Which also aptly sets up their movie-time interactions, where she still flummoxes him. (In contrast to most others, who are generally respectful or deferential)
sure, but the writers weren't writing at that time and they weren't arguing well, the proper historical age division would be X and Y but rather hmm, let's make it a bit salacious here, Indy is naughty!
We invent taboos very quickly and lose them slowly. What mundane thing we do today will be taboo in 50 years, and be used to tarnish our reputation?
Priscilla started her relationship with Elvis when she was 14. Resumed at 17 and married at 22.
Dunno quite what to think about it. I have a lingering thought that people mature later mentally / emotionally these days. But physically earlier.
Another important factor is that women have may more options these days so the pressure or inclination to marry is much less strong.
For real stuff we can read about Carrie Fischer and Harrison Ford relationship [1] she was not underage but very young.
BTW, I was almost ten when I watched the Return of the Jedi and Carrie Fischer enlightened me.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/20/carrie-fishe...