Indiana Jones and the importance of human history

It’s probably about time that someone wrote something about the latest Indiana Jones film and so, having seen it last Thursday with a fiancée who would be Indiana Jones if he could, I thought I’d give it a shot. The film is getting okay reviews. Not great reviews, but okay. People love the characters. Indy, played by Harrison Ford, comes back in most of his glory- though older and with a few more joint problems than he used to. Shia LeBouf gives a decent performance, as does Karen Allen. Cate Blanchett is receiving mixed reviews for her role as a Russian psychiatrist, with a reasonably average accent but interested part. I think what more people seem to feel let down by, though, is not the tired actors but the plot. This film builds on what was an incredibly popular ‘historical’ film trilogy and takes it just a step too far. Without wanting to spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, the film takes a bigger step away from the historical and into the fantastic than it has before. The pervious trilogy had always sat on the edge of history and fantasy- drawing on the spiritual realm of ancient religions to provide the supernatural elements. A lot of its meaning and historical integrity was located in the ancient mythologies and legends that Indiana and his various sidekicks intersected with. Even if audience members were not religious or spiritual, they could appreciate that the supernatural elements were drawn from something that was a part of human history. There was actually an ark which held the Jewish law, regardless of whether it also held the power of God (Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981); the Sankara stones and the Goddess Kali were actually worshipped by followers of Hinduism (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, 1984). What is interesting about this last film is that people seem quite dissatisfied because the film relies less on human history for the fantastic elements. Perhaps that says something about what the people I have spoken to believe but I think it says a lot about why people like historical films and about pubic history in general. People find meaning in representations of past ‘realities’ that involve people and human history. Perhaps it is because they feel some sort of connection to the people involved in these representations, perhaps it’s the knowledge that what they see did have some profound effect on some people long ago. I don’t know. It’s just interesting that really popular forms of public history almost always involved a human element. When you’re not doing that, then I think it is much harder to make a history that people are willing to engage with.