PhantomKnight Goes Spielbergian

It blows.

In actuality, though, this is actually a prequel to Raiders, which is in and of itself an interesting decision right off the bat. This idea originated with George Lucas, to avoid repeating themselves by using Nazis as the villains again. Such a decision is just one of the many things I think Temple of Doom does right to differentiate itself from its predecessor, because when it comes to film follow-ups of any kind, you want to make sure you’re not just washing, rinsing and repeating. All of the things that Temple of Doom does to make itself stand apart from Raiders succeed in the sense that they help to make this installment just as memorable, but in its own more unique way. Even right from the opening sequence, which is a lavish sort of Broadway musical number that serves as the introduction to this movie’s love interest (we’ll get to her in a minute), Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are making it clear that you’re not in for simply a recycled version of Raiders of the Lost Ark, something which they continue to follow through on from that point. Yes, it’s still very much the serial action-adventure that George Lucas conceived of from the beginning, just told through a different approach.

This also gets us into the fact that, yes, Temple of Doom is overall a much darker film than Raiders. You start to get a taste of that early on in the film’s opening action sequence in Shanghai, where Indy kills a bad guy by skewering him with a flaming shish kabob. The question then becomes: does such a darker tone pay off for the movie? To be honest, over the years, I myself have gone back and forth over this. The first time I saw Temple of Doom was when I was eleven years old in the 6th grade (we’re talking early 2002, if my memory serves me right) and back then, I personally had no problem with it. I mean, it was easy for me to recognize the fact that, yeah, this movie is a lot darker -- a guy gets his heart ripped out of his chest while he’s still alive -- but I remember thinking that was pretty cool. Especially for a PG-rated movie. Now, in the years since, my view shifted to “Was that really necessary?”, but now I’ve arrived back at the viewpoint that I really dig how dark this movie gets in its second half. To be fair, I can recognize that a lot of the scenes set inside the titular Temple can come across as unpleasant -- I mean, we’re talking about scenes that show children being tortured, rituals involving ripping beating hearts out of chests, human sacrifice and the like, and for the whole middle portion of the film, we’re right smack-dab in the middle of said unpleasantness -- but I like how the film doesn’t pull any punches here and allows us to experience just how dour the whole situation with the Thugee cult really is. If nothing else, it allows for some memorable scenes that upon this latest re-watch, I felt allowed Steven Spielberg to more effectively tap into elements of horror filmmaking than he did with Poltergeist. I mean, just look at that first ritual scene where we’re introduced to the Thugees and Mola Ram (who’s actually a pretty effective presence in the film). From that red lighting, to the cinematography and John Williams’ pulsating score within that scene, it’s creepier and more heart-race-worthy than almost anything in Poltergeist. The fact that this was the first film to help in the creation of the PG-13 rating is really no surprise.

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have since said that the film being so dark was a result of them being at low points in their lives personally at that point, so in that respect, the film is an interesting case of a filmmaker expressing personal feelings through their work.

But Temple of Doom, of course, isn’t a complete downer. The film still features the trademark Indiana Jones staples, especially the action sequences. The opening sequence in Shanghai is great fun (while featuring a very James Bond-ian introduction for Indy; interesting, since George Lucas conceived Raiders as a response to Bond), the mine car chase near the end is all kinds of awesome and of course, the rope bridge climax is iconic. And then there’s the humor.

Okay, so a lot of the movie’s humor comes from the two main supporting characters: Willie and Short Round. Let’s start with Willie. I’m of two minds about her. On the one hand, yes...she’s very annoying a lot of the time. To quote Indy himself: “The biggest problem with her is the noise.” On the other hand, however...while Willie in no way measures up against Marion in any shape or form, she is yet another way in which this movie distinguishes itself from Raiders and doesn’t repeat itself. If nothing else, Willie’s a memorable character in her own right, but she’s undeniably the weakest female companion of the franchise. However, there are three instances in this film where the humor works in relation to her: one, the scene in which she’s being scared by the variety of animals around the campsite, two, the dinner scene in the palace and then of course, the scene where she has to save Indy and Short Round from the Spiked Room. The first scene works because it’s the best use of laughing at her, which the movie does by focusing more on Indy and Short Round arguing over Short Round cheating in a card game while totally ignoring Willie’s screams. Their lack of compassion makes that scene great. The dinner scene works cause, come on, who wouldn’t have her reaction in that situation? Sidenote: that scene is also an interesting use of exposition delivery, in that relevant information concerning the Thugee cult is being delivered, yet we’re more focused on the gross-out gags in between all of the relevant dialogue. And as for the Spiked Room, there’s just so many great exchanges between Indy and Willie in that scene.

Short Round, though, is easier for me to embrace. Yes, there’s the argument to be made that his characterization is pretty racist, but the key to him is that he still manages to be such an endearing character in spite of that. But between him and Willie, a question does arise concerning the film’s tonal balance: when it needs to be funny, it leans very heavily into the humor and when it goes dark, it really goes dark. But are those two things ever at odds with each other too much? I can’t say that they are. The movie largely knows when to focus on either or, and as a result, there are never any tonal whiplashes like you might see in certain MCU movies, for instance.

Hell yes it is.

When people say Temple is equal to or worse than Kingdom I die a little inside.

I think that's a hot take...yet I agree with all of it.  Now I'm not sure, is that a hot take?  Maybe it's an idea that people haven't acknowledged yet.  Anyways, yes on all that.

You're probably right. Something like Attack of the Clones is probably worse in a lot of ways, but it's a lot more interesting. It definitely feels like the movie Lucas wanted to make and while its digital filmmaking hasn't exactly held up at least the movie's taking big swings.


This maybe more relevant for the Hot Takes thread, but my perspective on the Prequels has been shifting again. I still think they're bad, but they're so fascinating and unique that it's hard to be too down on them. If nothing else, I've probably spent more time dwelling on their pros and cons than just about any other bad movies. And given the rest of the internet's obsession with them, I don't think I'm alone on this.

Like me. Also worth noting that a lot of tertiary stuff surrounding the Prequels was kind of great. The KOTOR and Battlefront games, the original Clone Wars cartoon from the creator of Samurai Jack, and more generally, the explosion of Star Wars toys were all pretty cool.

Then why aren't you reading and commenting on all of my recent star wars posts???

Because I'm a bad friend. Also you're writing very thorough notes and I don't know what to add.



Hey now, I polled the patrons asking if they wanted another Star Wars, or James Bond video and Bond won in a landslide. My audience, apparently, does not want Star Wars.

In the documentary on the DVD (now blu-ray), Spielberg admits he never liked the screenplay and over-compensated with the wacky humor and action scenes. But in general, Spielberg was in a certain mood. Temple of Doom was sandwiched in-between Poltergeist, Twilight Zone and Gremlins. He wasn’t yet in the “Goonies-esque” era that would define 80s/90s Spielberg and that would be highly criticized by people like Dracula. This Spielberg has a bit more edge, a bit more bite to him. As I said earlier, Temple of Doom was everyone’s favorite Indiana Jones when I was a kid. It fit in with Ghostbusters and Tim Burton movies and a lot of the “whimsically dark” childrens/teens entertainment that Doomsday, thebtskink and I grew up on. Doomsday said it best. Temple of Doom and Batman Returns are the “controversial” ones. But by whom? Gen-Xers? Zoomers? Millennials loved this shit growing up.

As for George Lucas.... George Lucas says a lot of shit. I don’t think Lucas ultimately had any real say or impact on the movie. He picked the writers and approved a script, but as stated earlier, Spielberg ultimately made a lot of changes. He was coming off the monster success of ET and likely had a bit of a “fuck you, George” attitude that he was lacking on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And what was Lucas working on at the time? Two Ewoks movies, an Ewoks cartoon, an R2D2/C-3PO cartoon, Howard the Duck, Jim Henson’s Labyrinth and two attractions for Disney World: Star Tours and Michael Jackson’s Captain EO. Lucas’ divorce likely meant alimony payments and resulted in a lot of shit meant to sell toys and make money. Two Ewoks movies, an Ewoks cartoon and Howard the fucking Duck. Really, George? Really?

So no, I don’t really buy into the whole “we were getting divorced and made a dark movie” angle. And I don’t judge the movie in that mindset. Temple of Doom fits with the Spielberg vibe of the time — and Lucas likely thought, “well, Empire was the dark middle chapter, so why not?”