FIRST SEEN: Landing Theatre, Leavenworth, Kansas
FAVORITE SCENE: The first 15 minutes - boulders, spiders and angry natives with spears!
FAVORITE LINE: "It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage." This line, like another favorite ("You're gonna need a bigger boat" from JAWS) was not in the script but was adlibbed by Harrison Ford).

AWARDS

1982 Academy Awards for Best Sound, Film Editing, Art Direction/Set Direction and Visual Effects. Also received a special Achievements Award for Sound Effects Editing.

1982 Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Director, Original Score and Cinematography.

1982 BAFTA Award for Best Production Design/Art Direction

1982 BAFTA Award nominations for Best Film, Supporting Actor (Denholm Elliot), Score, Cinematography and Sound.

1982 Director's Guild of America nomination for Best Director

1982 Golden Globe nomination for Best Director

1982 Grammy Award to John Williams for Best Album of Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or Television Special

1982 Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Film

1982 Writer's Guild of America nomination for Best Comedy Written Directly for the Screen.



Coming off what could only be disappointment at the under-performance of "1941" (a film that with time has become regarded as a pretty funny comedy) director Steven Spielberg and his friend George Lucas vacationed together and began discussing a project Lucas had conceived before "Star Wars." That idea evolved into "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Much has been made of the casting of the role of Indiana Jones. Spielbergs' choice was Harrison Ford, but Lucas nixed it because Ford had already worked with Lucas on both "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars." Other actors were contacted: Nick Nolte, Steve Martin (who decided to do the musical "Pennies From Heaven" instead), Chevy Chase, Tim Matheson, Crazedfanboy friend Nick Mancuso and Jack Nicholson. Finally the part was given to Tom Selleck. Unfortunately, Selleck had just signed to star on CBS as "Magnum P.I." Despite pleas to the production company, Selleck was held to his contract. Of course, the irony is that "Magnum P.I." didn't even begin filming until after the last shot of "Raiders" had been completed. Selleck later starred as an Indiana Jones type hero in "High Road to China." With less than three weeks before principal photography was set to begin, Harrison Ford was signed to play Indiana Jones.

The film tells the rousing adventures of Jones and his on-off again girlfriend, Marion Ravenwood. They band with old friend Sallah to keep the Nazi's from obtaining the home of the 10 commandents, the Lost Ark of the Covenant. Along the way they have adventures, many of them of the breathtaking variety.

Once again it is my honor to welcome fan favorite guest writer Greg Van Cott

UNRAVELING THE YARN — RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
by Greg Van Cott


I have been told that Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the last great yarns of the last 30 years and that we have not had any true yarns seen in movies since. You may ask, “What is a yarn?” The supposed definition of a yarn is probably one of the most ambiguously taught and frustratingly unclear of all modern literary terms. I will make my best attempt to explain this as Raiders requires a certain amount of analyses.

The ThinkQuest library states that it is, “A tale or story. Yarns are usually improbable and most likely exaggerated.” Now that definition can certainly apply to Raiders, but it also ludicrously applies to every other story in existence. Wikipedia states that yarns are derived from a larger comedic concept called a ‘shaggy dog story,’ which is, “an extremely long-winded tale featuring extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents, usually resulting in a pointless or absurd punchline. These stories are a special case of yarns, coming from the long tradition of campfire yarns.” This definition would imply that yarns are the earliest form of storytelling where individuals would dictate stories around any aforementioned fire. My favorite definition of a yarn is “an unraveling of events where characters tend to have unclear intentions or schemes in an adventure that, like a ball of yarn, does not show a clear path as to where it ends [till you get there].” This definition does not necessarily lend itself to proving that all mysteries are yarns however. It does seem to prove itself a countering point to Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey (although the Hero’s Journey formula can certainly be applied to a yarn, that is fundamentally Raiders and Star Wars) in terms of predictability and formula. I have always found unpredictability to be a true component to a true yarn because it, like that last definition, depends on audience participation on what these series of events mean as a whole; a fact not obvious at the beginning of the story. All of that depends on the writer(s) because the Indiana Jones sequels would probably not be considered yarns necessarily since they follow similar patterns as seen in Raiders, which arguably could have been avoided. Examples are of course the best way to illustrate a point: the best yarns of early movies could be considered The Thief of Bagdad, King Kong, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Mr. Arkadin, and The Manchurian Candidate. Besides Raiders, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, the original Star Wars trilogy, Lupin the 3rd: The Castle of Cagliostro, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, and even Halloween III: Season of the Witch come to mind as good recent examples. I should additionally mention that Michael Curtiz’s stylistic touches to Casablanca (characters’ shadows spilling onto walls, the presence of very villainous Nazis, and the use of maps with animated line segments [complete with overlays of the individuals actually on the move] to indicate travel) obviously had an effect on Raiders’ sense of adventure.

When one thinks of Raiders of the Lost Ark the first time the viewer saw the picture and without its sequels, the unpredictable quality of its storytelling is probably a lot more obvious. One can ask, why do only a few of the James Bond films and this one Indiana Jones film make the cut as a yarn? This goes back to my point that not all mysteries necessarily fall in this category of yarns. Unpredictably and mystery are not always the same thing. In certain detective stories, the main character gets his assignment (which is the centerpiece of the plot or even the McGuffin [a writing device created by Hitchcock that motivates the characters, but is not chiefly important to the plot]), follows the right people, runs into some interference, and finally stops the antagonist to complete his assignment and solve the case/conflict. Now as I mentioned earlier, this type of formula can be applied to a yarn, but it is the writer’s arranging of events, disguising of formula, differentiating of structure, and milking of dramatic tension that makes it closer to a yarn.

Upon the first viewing, we know that Indy has been given the assignment to obtain the Ark before the Nazis do, but we do not know how he is going to accomplish this considering Germany practically has its army surrounding the dig site. In certain stories, you can already tell what the hero is probably going to do from the get-go. History will obviously tell us that the Nazis will of course lose (ergo, this SHOULD be easy for the character of Indiana Jones because he is the good guy), but the conceit of this story, like every period piece, is that this COULD have happened and the hero COULD have died at the hands of the enemy of said time period. Therefore, screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan’s carefully laid out suspense between Indy and the Nazis’ front man, Belloq, makes for good conflict. Indy discovers the Ark, loses it to Belloq, obtains it again, loses it once more, and then finally obtains it by pure happenstance at the end (that is, until the U.S. government ultimately takes it away from him). This “yay-boo” series of events keeps things unpredictable for the characters. In comparison to the Bond films, Octopussy and The Living Daylights design Bond’s mission around a small piece of a much bigger pie, and it is up to Bond to determine what the whole is eventually. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service has the character of James Bond set out to find antagonist Ernst Stavro Blofeld’s whereabouts. He has not been assigned to clearly track clues to Blofeld’s plans, but is only on the search for his location. This then leads the audience to a slow reveal of the villain’s scheme. OHMSS also has the addition of the highly unpredictable character, Tracy di Vicenzo, whose suicidal tendencies and daredevilry keep Bond constantly in check; uncertain to what he can make of her. The other Bond films tend to follow Ian Fleming’s structures derived from the original novels, which most do not lend itself to yarn-like possibilities in storytelling. This is not to say that formula seen in other Bond and Indiana Jones films is necessarily a bad thing. Serials thrive on the ability to cleanly demonstrate how a heroic character works a situation to find a solution—the trick is to tell it well every time. A ballet can seem formulaic or repetitive in a bad light, but it also can be a very wonderful and fun experience when it is done well. The precision, timing, and the fun of being able to predict what can happen is another form of entertainment. These are conclusively the differences between these two forms of storytelling.

I mentioned the character of Tracy di Vicenzo in OHMSS, which leads me to the character of Marion Ravenwood. You are not quite certain what her role will be in this story, but she is no doubt along for the ride. One of the most intriguing things that happen to her is that after getting lost among many baskets (a humorous reference to a similar gag in Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest except with uniforms)—she appears to die right in front of Indy. Our hero then spends many hours drinking and hopefully rethinking his past relationship with her: the usual suspects like, ‘Did he really respect her? Did he take her for granted? Why couldn’t he save her? Why couldn’t she see she was in danger?... and so forth.’ When he finally sees her again bound and gag to a tent pole, he is absolutely relieved and appropriately emotional about the situation. However, he ironically has to leave her in order to not jeopardize his assignment in acquiring the Ark. This is a very funny, but a clever bit of writing on Lawrence Kasdan’s part. This was not the first time Mr. Kasdan has worked on a yarn. He also penned various drafts on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, which had their ‘unforeseeable futures’ as well. Kasdan’s writing style seems to lend itself a good fit for yarns even though he has only written three in his entire career. Apparently, he too prefers unpredictability and adventure in life.

These interesting complexities involving not knowing where the story is going or what the characters will do can also apply to supporting characters and not just the leading character and/or hero. Kasdan sets up an interesting planting device around Marion. Planting is a mechanism in writing where one thing is set up, usually something that requires an action, which then pays off for the characters later in the story; usually something that reveals the character to realize the worth of the action. For example, when we first meet Marion, she is having a drinking contest with a supposed Australian climber (according to the film’s credits). This event leads to an uncomfortable and belligerent meeting between Indy and herself; another good example of good conflict. Far later in the story, it turns out that her talent for holding in her liquor works in a botched attempt to escape from René Belloq. Though the attempt proves fruitless, it does prove that at least her skills in that “practice” can come in handy. The French archaeologist, Belloq, is also an interesting character to discuss. His personal mission is clear: make use of the Ark before it is carted off to Adolf Hitler, but how exactly he is going to unlock its secrets or “use it as a transmitter for speaking to God” is unclear. By the end of the film, Belloq has taken a Moses-like form (in a Mt. Sinai-esque meeting place as well) without really having an understanding of the rules of the Ark that Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. clearly does remember, but really did not have much faith or belief in. They are indeed just raiders after a prize without really having a great respect for it, which is a great example of greed over understanding. An important detail to note is that the Ark is very large and heavy compared to the other artifacts that Indiana Jones later pursues. Unlike the Shankara stones, the Holy Grail, and a crystal skull, the Ark can not be held in the palm of your hand. Although Temple of Doom’s centerpiece had the advantage of being multiple pieces to keep it interesting (unfortunately too ambiguous in its story as to what they are supposed to do, but that’s a different writing issue), the Ark was not the kind of artifact that made it easy to transport. Therefore, the Ark’s condition was always a subject of uncertainty whereas all the sequel artifacts can be easily imagined as cradled in the arms of a person running off. The Ark makes it more difficult for all the characters involved. It is commendable that previous writer Philip Kaufman suggested the Ark of the Covenant.

Yarns are not required to borrow from each other either in terms of inspiration and influence. Their open-ended capacities and flexibility should cater to any writers and storytellers to a wide range of possibilities. Of course, there are similarities in terms of main characters working very hard against insurmountable problems. The best ways to create differences is within character traits. In Raiders, for director Steven Spielberg to prove that Indiana Jones was not James Bond is to create an ‘oops’ moment very early in the story. Our hero has to unavoidably jump an enormous gap without his whip for assistance and immediately grabs a hold of an old weed to prevent from going in. If the main character were Bond, he would have probably struggled very hard to get up and would have been amused at the sloppiness or irony of having gotten caught in this situation. Indy grabs the vine-like weed, when suddenly in an exaggeratedly amusing moment, it nearly comes apart at the root. He almost goes in with an almost child-like bit of uncertainty on his face. This proves that he is not a trained agent like Bond, but merely a guy who is mostly in over his head when it comes to these situations. This helps pave this particular yarn toward more vulnerable scenarios. He is also afraid of snakes, but that is an obvious irony considering the entire opening. It is also ironic that Spielberg originally wanted to direct a Bond film, but was swayed by George Lucas’ concept of bringing the Saturday matinee adventure serial back; a similar revamp of those 1930’s serials can be seen in 1954’s Secret of the Incas featuring Charlton Heston looking a lot like a pre-Indiana Jones. It is a good question if Spielberg would have wanted his James Bond film to be more yarn-like (his hypothetical film would have most likely been 1981’s For Your Eyes Only), especially since the last yarn in the series was On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Perhaps Raiders’ success influenced Bond screenwriter Richard Maibaum’s return to yarn storylines with 1983’s Octopussy.

There is no doubt that Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best written action films in its genre next to, in the opinion of this essayist, 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and 1971’s The French Connection. I think it was a good thing that director Steven Spielberg directed his own take on the action/adventure genre instead of making a 007 film (good for editor John Glen who was promoted to helm For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and The Living Daylights as well). Otherwise, an essay on this type of adventure story would have not taken shape, nor this “attempted” analysis at what modern yarns are and what a yarn should be if any screenwriter wanted to really be serious at making a great one instead of always relying on formula. Again, not that there is anything wrong with formula… it can just get a bit old. Not a ‘good, old movie’ way, but in a ‘bad, old and new movie’ way.

As always, great job, Greg!

Next week I'll take a look at one of the best, yet underappreciated, biograpys ever made. Luis Valdez' "La Bamba"

Well, that's all for now. Have a great week. I'm heading to Chicago to visit my mom for Thanksgiving so I'll be here early. See ya!