As the
days count down to the premiere of Indiana
Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,
more and more buzz begins and even more debate
over whether the film will be a successful chapter
in the Indiana Jones series or a complete dud.
A valid conversation for both casual and die-hard
fans, to be sure. However, what I have not heard
bandied around in these debates is corroborated
"evidence" from other movie series to
support either judgment.
Being an amateur film critic and
historian, the "legacy" of film series
and their multiple chapters is the first place
I look for a clue of how Crystal
Skull might fare immediately after I assess
the merits of the key players and whether they're
up to the task. In the case of Indiana Jones,
those key players are Harrison Ford, George Lucas
and Steven Spielberg. I have my own opinions about
their recent works before heading into Indy
IV, but that's another debate for another
time.
Kingdom
of the
Crystal Skull (2008) |
|
Taking Crystal
Skull at face value as a fourth chapter,
all key player personalities aside, there is still
much to consider. Film series generally gravitate
towards trilogies, because they act as large three-act
narratives. Many series follow this formula and
rightly so - stories have been presented
in this structure since the beginning of time.
For Hollywood trilogies, it is often the case
that the first chapter is a groundbreaking story
with interesting exposition, the second story
is darker and more threatening and the third story
is a solid wrap-up ending with great high moments
and few questions left dangling.
There are countless examples of
this: Obviously, the Classic
Star Wars Trilogy, the Back
to the Future Trilogy, The
Lord of the Rings and the Jason Bourne
series are just a few of many. Indiana Jones is
no different, despite some observations that the
films are separate adventures and not one single
story. However, the films each have the same mood
and flow as most trilogies. Raiders
of the Lost Ark is exciting, groundbreaking
and establishes the character. Temple
of Doom is dark and more risky with the
characters suffering terribly at the hands of
great evil. Last Crusade
is the rollicking wrap-up with our characters
riding off into the sunset.
Interestingly, third chapters can
sometimes also be where a series needs to stop
because criticism is often levied on them as being
tired versions of the previous films. Return
of the Jedi, Back
to the Future III, The
Godfather: Part III, Spider-Man
III, and in some circles even Last
Crusade, are described as a
good place to stop. The series is getting tired.
In most of these above examples, it's safe to
say while they are very good films, they aren't
the awe-inspiring installments like the first
films nor necessarily as edgy as the middle chapters.
Return of the Jedi
was criticized for being too syrupy, Return
of the King had too many endings for some,
Back to the Future: Part
III lacked the excitement of the previous
movies and, well, people just complained about
Godfather: Part III
and Jurassic Park III.
I'm not saying these criticisms are valid, but
they do exist and should be considered.
The legacy of film series becomes
further muddied by the inclusion of a fourth installment.
Historically, fourth installments cannot be pinned
down. We know trilogies generally work and can
be mapped out successfully. The fourth installment
is the wild card. Some have been terrible. Some
have been stellar. So that begs the next question:
Will Indiana Jones and
the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull be a meaningful
and narratively successful fourth adventure or
will it feel more like a single guy going to a
movie with a couple, or in this case, a happily
married trilogy... Will Indy
IV be the third wheel?
Let's look back at the legacy of
fourths...
Thunderball
(1965) |
|
I'm not going to include horror
films. Those movies are generally made a dime
a dozen. That and the fact that they're too numerous
to count. As for the remaining film series to
gain fourth installments, let's start with a character
that is often compared to Indiana Jones -
James Bond.
Under Sean Connery, the series
got off to a great start and went from Dr.
No to From Russia
With Love to Goldfinger
and was riding some highly successful waves. Truly,
in the case of James Bond, the fourth film in
the series shot Bond to the moon. Thunderball
cemented the James Bond series as a lasting cinematic
staple. And more than 20 movies later, Bond is
still with us, despite his ups and downs at the
box office in the years since.
The same cannot be said of some
later film series. Warner Bros. Pictures effectively
killed off both the Superman and Batman movie
franchises in four films each. What were already
flagging film series by their third chapters were
both effectively killed off with Superman
IV: The Quest for Peace and Batman
and Robin. I find it interesting that Christopher
Nolan, director of the new Batman series, is describing
it as a "trilogy"
and no word on a possible fourth chapter. Probably
a smart move for that character.
Episode
I - The Phantom Menace (1999) |
|
Another cinematic staple and beloved
classic, Star Wars,
arguably lost a lot of its luster thanks to its
fourth film. While not a fourth chapter in the
story chronologically, the fourth movie made in
the series was Star Wars:
Episode I - The Phantom Menace, largely
considered the weakest of the entire series. Recall
this was the film that kicked off a soon-to-be
controversial second trilogy that remains a contentious
debate to this day amongst film goers as to whether
or not the "prequel trilogy" helped
or hurt the Star Wars Saga.
And who can forget Jaws? Despite
the fact that the original Jaws
is the only one remembered largely, let's not
forget there were, yes, four of them, with the
fourth, Jaws: The Revenge
being universally loathed at the box office and
all but skewered the franchise to death.
Sudden
Impact, the fourth Dirty Harry film starring
Clint Eastwood, also started a downward spiral
for a beloved franchise. I won't even touch on
the Death Wish
series, which was long dead before part four.
Rocky IV is a
polarizing fourth film with a love/hate effect
on viewers. Some love it. Some hate it. There's
no middle ground. And the bad memories of Lethal
Weapon 4 only drive the point home.
Star Trek
IV: The Voyage Home (1986) |
|
There was one notable exception
to this rule in the 1980s: Star
Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Here was a fourth
film that set box office records for a major franchise
and brought in a more casual audience to a property
that was largely avoided by the average moviegoer.
Interestingly though, Star
Trek IV is a cinematic anomaly. While it
is a IV, it is
really at its core the third part and conclusion
of a trilogy that took place within the six-movie
Star Trek film series. For those who aren't aware,
Star Trek II, III and IV are an internal trilogy
with one storyline. So can we count the film as
a successful fourth, or by definition is it a
third? I'm honestly not sure. As an aside, the
decidedly mediocre Star
Trek: Nemesis was the fourth and, interestingly,
last Next Generation
movie that did not resonate with audiences.
One series that found success as
a "trilogy" of sorts, and coincidentally
became a major role for Harrison Ford, died in
its fourth chapter. The Jack Ryan films, based
on the Tom Clancy novels, were a huge success
in the late 1980s and early 1990s with The
Hunt for Red October, Patriot
Games and Clear
and Present Danger. When they released
The Sum of All Fears,
starring Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman, the franchise
folded. Some blamed Affleck. Me? I'm thinking
the character as a film series had nowhere interesting
left to go and having Alec Baldwin, Ford or Affleck
would have made little difference as the story
wouldn't have held up.
The Harry
Potter film series found some critical
success with its fourth chapter, Goblet
of Fire, but the book upon which it was
based was too long to be compressed into a film,
and many criticisms said the movie left too much
information out. Granted, being based on a book,
the movie faced its own unique challenges.
Today, as we await Crystal
Skull, the fourth film legacy has taken
an interesting turn. Within the last 12 months
(as of April 2008), there have been two other
"fourths" to come to the big screen,
and both featured characters that are classic
film heroes, all long absent from the silver screen.
Also, both of these movies were intended to be
concluding salutes to their franchise characters,
both acknowledging rather than ignoring the ages
of the heroes. Each one was arguably successful.
Rambo
(2008) |
|
Live Free
or Die Hard brought back unlucky cop John
McClane for a final thrill ride and although,
like Rocky IV,
it seemed to polarize fans somewhat, the nostalgia
of seeing Bruce Willis in his signature role again
was enough for many despite the over-the-top action,
which was the series' trademark anyway.
Less highly anticipated, making
its success all the more surprising and satisfying,
was Rambo, the
fourth chapter in Sylvester Stallone's famous
film series about the Green Beret who can't get
a break. Stallone, who had already proven his
ability to resurrect characters with the critically
successful Rocky Balboa,
showed audiences that the same could be done for
Rambo. Despite critical harshness, always typical
of Rambo films, the movie pleased audiences and
was considered by fans to be an appropriate nod
to the character. Rambo
directly recognized the story established in First
Blood and tied the two together well.
Interesting that both Rambo
and Crystal Skull
are about veteran action-types in their 60s dealing
with their aging, and both are evidently deliberately
tied to themes and plot devices from the original
films in their respective series. If the warehouse
of crates and Marion Ravenwood's return is any
indication, Crystal Skull
is rubbing shoulders with Raiders
of the Lost Ark for Indy's final adventure.
So, after a long look at fourths
of the past, where does Indiana Jones stand? On
a solid ledge or a rickety rope bridge? Last
Crusade was the intended end of the series,
as most of the major players have stated, and
the riding-into-the-sunset ending, while a little
cliché, was beloved by audiences. However,
with the drought in movie theaters of true heroes,
the old ones are dusting themselves off for another
go around.
Live
Free or
Die Hard (2007) |
|
Maybe Hollywood's figured it out
and learned how to make a solid fourth. Wishful
thinking to a degree. The history of fourths is
much more spotty than clean and both recent ones,
Live Free or Die Hard
and Rambo, did
not walk away universally loved. Phantom
Menace, while a box-office powerhouse,
was a critical disaster and continues to be a
raging fight in the Star Wars fan base. After
a mere nine years, the film has already aged terribly.
Only Star
Trek IV passes muster historically, and
as stated before, it's a fourth in number only.
The narrative through-line is that of a third
chapter.
The danger of any fourth is that
it will hang outside a solid trilogy as a needless
exploitation and drag the memory of a good series
down with it. The fourth in a series will possibly
have less to say that's meaningful, and history
bears this out. The $42,000 question is: Will
Indiana Jones suffer the same fate?
With Spielberg's Munich,
Lucas' prequel trilogy and Ford's Firewall
and Hollywood Homicide
the only recent works to go on, there isn't a
lot of tangible or confident evidence to latch
onto as a fan and say, "Yes. They are involved
and it will definitely be great." We all
want Indiana Jones' last hurrah to be a great
one. In fact, no one wants to go into any movie
and have a bad experience. In an ideal world,
every movie would be amazing. Indiana Jones has
always been an underdog that beats the most insurmountable
odds. I hope he stays true to form and gets around
the "fourth factor."
On May 22, I guess we all just
have to take a leap of faith. |