Indiana Jones is better than everything

[Jay 37,371]

All the new success Ke Huy Quan has gotten lately warms my heart

 

[Alex 2,835]

In the cesspit of Hollywood, he genuinely seems like a great person.

 

I’m hoping they’ve maybe a shot a small cameo for DoD.

[Jay 37,371]

How great is this new Club Obi-Wan Indy figure

 

 

https://www.target.com/p/indiana-jones-adventure-series-indiana-jones-club-obi-wan-target-exclusive/-/A-87846753

[Smeltington 1,441]

He deserved his Oscar! I hope this opens all the doors for him and we see him in a great movie soon.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

2 hours ago, Jay said:

All the new success Ke Huy Quan has gotten lately warms my heart

 

 

Why does Ke Huy Quan look like Kate Capshaw and why does Kate Kapshaw look like Ke Huy Quan?

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

In the cesspit of Hollywood, he genuinely seems like a great person.

 

I’m hoping they’ve maybe a shot a small cameo for DoD.

 

Yup I'm *really* hoping that's the "new ending" that Williams wrote new music for earlier this year. It would make sense and it would be amazing if Williams brought back Short Round's theme for him!!

 

Yavar

[Andy 4,141]

I imagine with all the Ke Huy Quan love, Mangold and the execs are kicking themselves for not bringing him back for the entire movie. 
 

Never before seen photos from Temple of Doom

 

 

10 hours ago, Alex said:

In the cesspit of Hollywood, he genuinely seems like a great person.

I met him in 2019 and he was by far one of the most down to earth celebs I’ve ever met. Very sweet guy, loves film music, especially Cinema Paradisio. I asked him what it’s like to have a theme for him written by JW and he glowed as he told me about Spielberg playing a cassette of it for him.   It was a convention and he  was so genuine and happy to spend all the time in the world just chatting with me. 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

It feels so good that all this love for Ke Huy Quan reminded people of how much they loved Temple of Doom, after years of being considered a "lesser" film. 

[Andy 4,141]

Exactly. I was wondering if maybe even Spielberg himself is re-evaluating it. He was quoted recently saying he wants to get back to scaring audiences again. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Omg Willie Scott is....Joan Rivers?

 

[Andy 4,141]

Plastic surgery is a horrible drug. 

 

I bought these at Target today. Reproductions of the vintage figures. 
 

 

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

It feels so good that all this love for Ke Huy Quan reminded people of how much they loved Temple of Doom, after years of being considered a "lesser" film. 

That’s not at all what happened for me. I still consider it a lesser film and *easily* the worst of the original trilogy. I can’t watch it without cringing most of the time. It was dated (to put it kindly) in the 80s and it’s even worse now.

 

Are there things to admire about it, though? Absolutely! Ford is great, Quan is great, and their chemistry is just wonderful, with some moments that are pure magic thanks to the third “great”: John Williams and his incredible score… probably my favorite of the whole franchise to be honest. I think over the years I’ve come to see it as the Empire to Raiders’ Star Wars, if that makes any sense. It’s so much richer and it really carries the film.

 

So yeah, Temple of Doom is still extremely problematic for me. But Quan and his relationship with Ford was always the saving grace of that film, besides the score. And I’m so happy for him that he’s had this comeback. If Short Round is squeezed into the end of Dial of Destiny, I’ll be delighted even if the rest of the film is as trash as the stupid rumor mill wants us to believe. It’ll be bringing back the best part of the worst of the original trilogy.

 

Yavar

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

9 hours ago, Andy said:

I imagine with all the Ke Huy Quan love, Mangold and the execs are kicking themselves for not bringing him back for the entire movie. 
 

Never before seen photos from Temple of Doom

 

 

I met him in 2019 and he was by far one of the most down to earth celebs I’ve ever met. Very sweet guy, loves film music, especially Cinema Paradisio. I asked him what it’s like to have a theme for him written by JW and he glowed as he told me about Spielberg playing a cassette of it for him.   It was a convention and he  was so genuine and happy to spend all the time in the world just chatting with me. 

 

That's a great story. I'm sure someone from FSM (might have been Lukas K actually) told an anecdote where they were in a queue behind Ke Huy Quan and they whistled Short Round's theme, but was disappointed not to get a response. Probably thought it was some crazy person to be fair! Then again, how many kids get to say they have their own JW theme?!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Now all we need is the great Kate Capshaw comeback, and for Spielberg to make a decent film.

[Jay 37,371]

How great is this

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

9 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

I can’t watch it without cringing most of the time. It was dated (to put it kindly) in the 80s and it’s even worse now.

 

It must be hard being a Jerry Goldsmith fan then.

 

I find it a highly enjoyable film. Yes, it's a bit slow in the middle, but I can't see the problem with deviating from the expected build-up.

[SilverTrumpet 638]

9 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

That’s not at all what happened for me. I still consider it a lesser film and *easily* the worst of the original trilogy. I can’t watch it without cringing most of the time. It was dated (to put it kindly) in the 80s and it’s even worse now.

 

Are there things to admire about it, though? Absolutely! Ford is great, Quan is great, and their chemistry is just wonderful, with some moments that are pure magic thanks to the third “great”: John Williams and his incredible score… probably my favorite of the whole franchise to be honest. I think over the years I’ve come to see it as the Empire to Raiders’ Star Wars, if that makes any sense. It’s so much richer and it really carries the film.

 

So yeah, Temple of Doom is still extremely problematic for me. But Quan and his relationship with Ford was always the saving grace of that film, besides the score. And I’m so happy for him that he’s had this comeback. If Short Round is squeezed into the end of Dial of Destiny, I’ll be delighted even if the rest of the film is as trash as the stupid rumor mill wants us to believe. It’ll be bringing back the best part of the worst of the original trilogy.

 

Yavar

 

So is your issue mostly cultural sensitivity? 

 

We just watched the movie again over the weekend and I was sitting there still in disbelief that anyone could think the movie is a bad movie whatsoever. I get it not being someone's favorite, but "easily" the weakest, or bad (as some people think)? No way!

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

Never been a fan of judging stuff from the past by modern standards. Temple Of Doom is what it is, a rip-snorting action adventure. 

[Andy 4,141]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

How great is this

 

incredibly great. So much love there. 

[Smeltington 1,441]

I love it!!!!

 

I wonder which of these three remembers Short Round's theme!

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

He's Tall Round now.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

On 16/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, Jurassic Shark said:

It must be hard being a Jerry Goldsmith fan then.

 

Why? Because he scored some bad films? Like, this is a common issue for film music fans in general which many of them (including me) get over with no problem. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

On 16/3/2023 at 7:53 AM, Jurassic Shark said:

I find it a highly enjoyable film. Yes, it's a bit slow in the middle, but I can't see the problem with deviating from the expected build-up.

 

It's pretty vague what you mean by "deviating from the expected build-up", but where did I express having a problem with something like that? I didn't have a problem with Indiana Jones being set somewhere else, and a year before the previous film, if that's what you're suggesting.

 

On 16/3/2023 at 8:03 AM, SilverTrumpet said:

So is your issue mostly cultural sensitivity? 

 

I have a lot of issues with the film to be honest (the love interest is another) but that's a pretty big one, yes. And why shouldn't it be?

 

On 16/3/2023 at 8:03 AM, SilverTrumpet said:

We just watched the movie again over the weekend and I was sitting there still in disbelief that anyone could think the movie is a bad movie whatsoever. I get it not being someone's favorite, but "easily" the weakest, or bad (as some people think)? No way!

 

I mean, I was making that comment about the original trilogy. I don't think it's easily the weakest Indiana Jones movie, thanks to Crystal Skull (which has a whole host of different issues). Thinking ToD is easily the weakest of the first three is a pretty common, widespread opinion. ToD has always been seen as the "black sheep of the family" even by Spielberg himself. So whether you can believe it or not, I'd say that's the way the majority of people opining on the matter have felt since the 80s. Which is why ToD fans have always been weirdly defensive about the movie, because they feel they have to defend it.

 

On 16/3/2023 at 8:28 AM, Sweeping Strings said:

Never been a fan of judging stuff from the past by modern standards. Temple Of Doom is what it is, a rip-snorting action adventure. 

 

Well, I originally judged Temple of Doom in the mid-90s when the film was just about a decade old. I was born in 1985 but I'm pretty sure even by 80s standards it was cringey and racist... but trying to be in a sort of charming throwback way to similar films of the Golden Age, I guess? Hollywood used to make tons of "rip-snorting action adventures" which were, to put it bluntly, racist. This on the other hand was after Gandhi won Best Picture, and it had some of the same talented Indian actors sadly playing to disgusting stereotypes, like African-American actors regularly had to do in Hollywood up through the 1950s.

 

I guess it's difficult for a lot of white people to notice and care about, because they aren't used to being "othered" in Hollywood cinema. Since I'm of middle eastern heritage and I grew up seeing people who looked like me only cast as terrorists or at best strange exotic allies (hello, The Living Daylights, even though I do enjoy it) I guess I have a perspective that you don't.

 

If you take the "Never been a fan of judging stuff from the past by modern standards" attitude to its logical end, that means that someone might say, "I LOVE BIRTH OF A NATION! SUCH A GREAT FILM! DON'T JUDGE IT BY MODERN STANDARDS!" Well, sorry, I do. I think Gone With the Wind may be impressive in terms of production but I still consider it a vile piece of trash. And while for me Temple of Doom has many more redeeming features about it than Gone With the Wind, it's still incredibly problematic, and if literally nothing in it bothers you and even makes you wince for a moment then, well, that mostly just says something about you.

 

Here's a clip from a film in 1937 which shows that even in the first decade of sound film, Hollywood knew better than to do what it was most often doing:

 

For me though, Quan's character of Short Round transcended racist stereotypes (even if they peeked through in the writing for him) and actually felt like a fully fleshed out character, and his chemistry with Ford and the relationship between their characters is a part of the film I am really able to appreciate and enjoy as long as I can divorce it from other more cringey elements in the film.

 

Yavar

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

18 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

It's pretty vague what you mean by "deviating from the expected build-up", but where did I express having a problem with something like that?

 

My post is self-contained. Deviating from the expected build-up refers to my comment about the somewhat slow middle part.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

5 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

My post is self-contained. Deviating from the expected build-up refers to my comment about the somewhat slow middle part.

 

To be clear I didn't mean to lump you in with the other people commenting I replied to, but you'd written this in response to me: "I find it a highly enjoyable film. Yes, it's a bit slow in the middle, but I can't see the problem with deviating from the expected build-up."

So I guess I assumed you were addressing me, when apparently you were addressing yourself?

Yavar

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

12 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

So I guess I assumed you were addressing me, when apparently you were addressing yourself?

 

Yes, I was addressing myself, commenting on a common criticism of the film independently of any other posts here.

 

In the IJ universe, all characters are more or less caricatures, and the villains naturally more so. That's the lens I view these movies through.

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Never been a fan of judging stuff from the past by modern standards. Temple Of Doom is what it is, a rip-snorting action adventure. 

 

A quick Google search led me to this review from 1984 when the film was released. Since you only seem to be okay with judging these matters from the time something came out, here you go (with some bolding by me):

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0531/053116.html

 

"'Temple of Doom' sinks into sexism, racism.

By David Sterritt

May 31, 1984

 

THE idea behind ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' was to revive the thrills and fun of the old Saturday-matinee serials. The same impulse runs through its boisterous sequel, ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''

 

The new picture isn't just nostalgic, though. It's downright backward. Nobody expects deep philosophies from Steven Spielberg, who directed it, or George Lucas, who dreamed up the story. But moviegoers deserve more than the racism, sexism, and all-purpose mayhem on view here - failings that offset the razor-sharp action and technical brilliance also visible.

As before, the hero (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist with a yen for adventure. His task is to restore a holy stone to an Indian village, and if he fails, a gang of brutal cultists will take over the world.

The religious twist recalls ''Raiders,'' of course, with its wacky mixture of Nazi conspiracy and Old Testament history. The similar hokum in ''Temple of Doom'' shows how drastically Hollywood has lost touch with reality. In the age of ''Star Wars,'' mere good guys vs. bad guys - or even struggles between nations - aren't enough anymore. The gimmick has to be apocalyptic, and sure enough, the ''Temple'' villains want nothing less than to overthrow ''the Hebrew God and the Christian God'' and set up their own deity instead.

There's no mention of other religions, by the way, and that's one measure of the movie's narrow attitude toward ''foreigners.'' Indiana Jones is shown as a great white hero, battling evil Chinese at first, then rescuing the hordes of India from a foe they're helpless to face by themselves. The message is plain: White people are good, yellow people are shifty, brown people are weak or sinister. Some lesson for the '80s!

Women don't fare any better. There's one in the story, played by Kate Capshaw , but when she isn't mooning over Indiana or fussing over a broken fingernail, she's whining and shrieking at hardships that real men - or even little boys, like Indiana's sidekick - take bravely in stride. Not since Fay Wray met King Kong has a heroine done so much screaming. Our hero actually complains about the noise, and pauses for a chuckle from the audience.

I don't impute bad motives to Spielberg or Lucas in these matters, or to Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who wrote the screenplay. I think they just got carried away by their enthusiasm for old Hollywood conventions.

Enthusiasm without perspective is childish, though, and ''Temple of Doom'' is a very childish movie. Just look at the yucky ''special effects'' - not only the gleeful violence, but the creepy insects and ridiculously repulsive foods, often rubbed in the heroine's face. Indeed, as if the filmmakers were pining for their own kiddie years, they give a surrogate family to Indiana - with that yelping woman as the mommy and a sidekick called Short Round as the child.

In all this, ''Temple'' recalls last year's ''Return of the Jedi,'' which also featured a few gross-outs before closing with a sweet family snapshot. So look out, folks, it's a trend. Our most popular moviemakers are shuffling back toward infancy - where's the fun in stuffy grown-up values like maturity, sensitivity, and plain common sense"

 

 

 

Here's modern nuanced view from an archaeologist on Quora which is actually much kinder to the film:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Indiana-Jones-and-The-Temple-Of-Doom-racist?share=1

Patrick Wiley

Masters in Archaeological Studies, Yale University (Graduated 2019)

 

"In impact Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was absolutely racist, in intent however I don’t think it was.

Even at its release the film was controversial and denounced for having an inaccurate and offensive portrayal of Indian culture. On its surface this seems self evident, but in light of some statements by the filmmakers and a crucial deleted scene it’s actually a bit more complex than that. In addition, the character of Short-Round comes across as a bad Asian stereotype although I don’t get the impression that this was intentional either.

First, I’ll address Shorty, since the former controversy is far more significant and will take more time. He is perhaps the most annoying character in the Indiana Jones cinematic franchise. His accent seems extremely exaggerated. I have no idea if this was Jonathan Ke Quan’s actual accent at the time, the result of his acting, or something the filmmakers pushed for. Either way he certainly falls into the “wacky, annoying foreigner” trope, even if he wasn’t meant to. Were it not for this characterization Shorty would be a largely positive figure and arguably the true hero of the film since he’s integral in freeing the enslaved children and breaking Indy out of his trance.

In charges of racism against Indians the two most oft-cited story elements are the depictions of Kali-worship, and the dinner scene in which Indy, Willie and Shorty are served a disgusting platter of completely fictional dishes. I believe these scenes absolutely were harmful but this effect was due primarily to a failure of the filmmakers to consider the ignorance of their audience at certain key decision making stages.

The main antagonist of Temple of Doom is Mola Ram, a Thugee priest. The Thugee’s were a real bandit cult which operated in India in the 19th century. They really did practice human sacrifice in the name of the Goddess Kali and were known to kidnap children. Making a revived Thugee cabal the antagonists of the film is hardly offensive in and of itself. The problem is Temple of Doom doesn’t do enough to clarify the difference between the Thugee cult and worship of Kali in main-stream Hinduism. This could give the viewer the impression that Kali is some sort of evil demon, which of course is an offensive idea to people who view her as a beloved deity. Ironically I think it would have been smart to be less historically accurate in this area. They could have just picked a demon from Hindu mythology and had that be the subject of Thugee adoration. That would have been the simplest fix as it wouldn’t require a lot of exposition.

The dinner scene is one of the most outrageous parts of the film. As it turns out this scene is not meant to be a depiction of Indian cuisine but rather a clue that the prince and his court are under the influence of the Thugees. After that feast, in a scene cut from the film, Indy remarks "even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. Makes you wonder what these people are ...". Retaining that scene might have helped a lot. Without it, people took the depiction of the feast at face value. There are reports of school-teachers claiming Indians actually eat monkey brains because of that scene. If educators could believe something so ridiculous I can only imagine how many ordinary viewers were fooled.

Some were also offended at the scene where Indy and Willie are offered cockroaches to eat by villagers. Supposedly this was meant as a subtle joke about Western ignorance. Roshan Seth, who played Chattar Lal claims "Steven intended it as a joke, the joke being that Indians were so smart that they knew all Westerners think that Indians eat cockroaches, so they served them what they expected. The joke was too subtle for that film”. That seems like a rather odd idea for a joke and I can’t help but wonder if Spielberg was just trying to humor his Indian actor. Regardless, a species of shield bug called udonga montana are actually eaten in parts of Northern India, especially in times of famine so I don’t think there’s anything to condemn about this scene. It actually presents the villagers as extremely generous and hospitable as they’re sharing what little food they have with guests in a time of famine.

With these elements changed I don’t think Temple of Doom would be nearly as controversial. In some ways it’s actually more progressive than the other Indiana Jones films. It features far more positive speaking roles with non-White cast members than Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade. It’s also the first film where Jones takes a clear stance against cultural heritage theft as he returns the last Shakra stone to a Marhan rather than bringing it home and selling it to a museum.

It even avoids the “White Savior” trope because the Thugee’s are defeated primarily by Shorty and a patrol of Indian soldiers.

As interesting as it is to speculate about what might have been, the careless treatment of the story’s subject matter was not only deeply offensive to many Indian people but fostered ignorance and misconceptions in the United States. It’s rightly considered the worst and most offensive film in the trilogy."

 

Yavar

[Holko 9,529]

4 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Which is why ToD fans have always been weirdly defensive about the movie, because they feel they have to defend it.

Says the one who has to reply to everyone to defend his own stance

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

 

5 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

 

A quick Google search led me to this review from 1984 when the film was released. Since you only seem to be okay with judging these matters from the time something came out, here you go (with some bolding by me):

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0531/053116.html

 

"'Temple of Doom' sinks into sexism, racism.

By David Sterritt

May 31, 1984

 

THE idea behind ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' was to revive the thrills and fun of the old Saturday-matinee serials. The same impulse runs through its boisterous sequel, ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''

 

The new picture isn't just nostalgic, though. It's downright backward. Nobody expects deep philosophies from Steven Spielberg, who directed it, or George Lucas, who dreamed up the story. But moviegoers deserve more than the racism, sexism, and all-purpose mayhem on view here - failings that offset the razor-sharp action and technical brilliance also visible.

As before, the hero (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist with a yen for adventure. His task is to restore a holy stone to an Indian village, and if he fails, a gang of brutal cultists will take over the world.

The religious twist recalls ''Raiders,'' of course, with its wacky mixture of Nazi conspiracy and Old Testament history. The similar hokum in ''Temple of Doom'' shows how drastically Hollywood has lost touch with reality. In the age of ''Star Wars,'' mere good guys vs. bad guys - or even struggles between nations - aren't enough anymore. The gimmick has to be apocalyptic, and sure enough, the ''Temple'' villains want nothing less than to overthrow ''the Hebrew God and the Christian God'' and set up their own deity instead.

There's no mention of other religions, by the way, and that's one measure of the movie's narrow attitude toward ''foreigners.'' Indiana Jones is shown as a great white hero, battling evil Chinese at first, then rescuing the hordes of India from a foe they're helpless to face by themselves. The message is plain: White people are good, yellow people are shifty, brown people are weak or sinister. Some lesson for the '80s!

Women don't fare any better. There's one in the story, played by Kate Capshaw , but when she isn't mooning over Indiana or fussing over a broken fingernail, she's whining and shrieking at hardships that real men - or even little boys, like Indiana's sidekick - take bravely in stride. Not since Fay Wray met King Kong has a heroine done so much screaming. Our hero actually complains about the noise, and pauses for a chuckle from the audience.

I don't impute bad motives to Spielberg or Lucas in these matters, or to Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who wrote the screenplay. I think they just got carried away by their enthusiasm for old Hollywood conventions.

Enthusiasm without perspective is childish, though, and ''Temple of Doom'' is a very childish movie. Just look at the yucky ''special effects'' - not only the gleeful violence, but the creepy insects and ridiculously repulsive foods, often rubbed in the heroine's face. Indeed, as if the filmmakers were pining for their own kiddie years, they give a surrogate family to Indiana - with that yelping woman as the mommy and a sidekick called Short Round as the child.

In all this, ''Temple'' recalls last year's ''Return of the Jedi,'' which also featured a few gross-outs before closing with a sweet family snapshot. So look out, folks, it's a trend. Our most popular moviemakers are shuffling back toward infancy - where's the fun in stuffy grown-up values like maturity, sensitivity, and plain common sense"

 

 

 

Here's modern nuanced view from an archaeologist on Quora which is actually much kinder to the film:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Indiana-Jones-and-The-Temple-Of-Doom-racist?share=1

Patrick Wiley

Masters in Archaeological Studies, Yale University (Graduated 2019)

 

"In impact Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was absolutely racist, in intent however I don’t think it was.

Even at its release the film was controversial and denounced for having an inaccurate and offensive portrayal of Indian culture. On its surface this seems self evident, but in light of some statements by the filmmakers and a crucial deleted scene it’s actually a bit more complex than that. In addition, the character of Short-Round comes across as a bad Asian stereotype although I don’t get the impression that this was intentional either.

First, I’ll address Shorty, since the former controversy is far more significant and will take more time. He is perhaps the most annoying character in the Indiana Jones cinematic franchise. His accent seems extremely exaggerated. I have no idea if this was Jonathan Ke Quan’s actual accent at the time, the result of his acting, or something the filmmakers pushed for. Either way he certainly falls into the “wacky, annoying foreigner” trope, even if he wasn’t meant to. Were it not for this characterization Shorty would be a largely positive figure and arguably the true hero of the film since he’s integral in freeing the enslaved children and breaking Indy out of his trance.

In charges of racism against Indians the two most oft-cited story elements are the depictions of Kali-worship, and the dinner scene in which Indy, Willie and Shorty are served a disgusting platter of completely fictional dishes. I believe these scenes absolutely were harmful but this effect was due primarily to a failure of the filmmakers to consider the ignorance of their audience at certain key decision making stages.

The main antagonist of Temple of Doom is Mola Ram, a Thugee priest. The Thugee’s were a real bandit cult which operated in India in the 19th century. They really did practice human sacrifice in the name of the Goddess Kali and were known to kidnap children. Making a revived Thugee cabal the antagonists of the film is hardly offensive in and of itself. The problem is Temple of Doom doesn’t do enough to clarify the difference between the Thugee cult and worship of Kali in main-stream Hinduism. This could give the viewer the impression that Kali is some sort of evil demon, which of course is an offensive idea to people who view her as a beloved deity. Ironically I think it would have been smart to be less historically accurate in this area. They could have just picked a demon from Hindu mythology and had that be the subject of Thugee adoration. That would have been the simplest fix as it wouldn’t require a lot of exposition.

The dinner scene is one of the most outrageous parts of the film. As it turns out this scene is not meant to be a depiction of Indian cuisine but rather a clue that the prince and his court are under the influence of the Thugees. After that feast, in a scene cut from the film, Indy remarks "even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. Makes you wonder what these people are ...". Retaining that scene might have helped a lot. Without it, people took the depiction of the feast at face value. There are reports of school-teachers claiming Indians actually eat monkey brains because of that scene. If educators could believe something so ridiculous I can only imagine how many ordinary viewers were fooled.

Some were also offended at the scene where Indy and Willie are offered cockroaches to eat by villagers. Supposedly this was meant as a subtle joke about Western ignorance. Roshan Seth, who played Chattar Lal claims "Steven intended it as a joke, the joke being that Indians were so smart that they knew all Westerners think that Indians eat cockroaches, so they served them what they expected. The joke was too subtle for that film”. That seems like a rather odd idea for a joke and I can’t help but wonder if Spielberg was just trying to humor his Indian actor. Regardless, a species of shield bug called udonga montana are actually eaten in parts of Northern India, especially in times of famine so I don’t think there’s anything to condemn about this scene. It actually presents the villagers as extremely generous and hospitable as they’re sharing what little food they have with guests in a time of famine.

With these elements changed I don’t think Temple of Doom would be nearly as controversial. In some ways it’s actually more progressive than the other Indiana Jones films. It features far more positive speaking roles with non-White cast members than Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade. It’s also the first film where Jones takes a clear stance against cultural heritage theft as he returns the last Shakra stone to a Marhan rather than bringing it home and selling it to a museum.

It even avoids the “White Savior” trope because the Thugee’s are defeated primarily by Shorty and a patrol of Indian soldiers.

As interesting as it is to speculate about what might have been, the careless treatment of the story’s subject matter was not only deeply offensive to many Indian people but fostered ignorance and misconceptions in the United States. It’s rightly considered the worst and most offensive film in the trilogy."

 

Yavar

 

Good grief.

[enderdrag64 624]

5 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

 

A quick Google search led me to this review from 1984 when the film was released. Since you only seem to be okay with judging these matters from the time something came out, here you go (with some bolding by me):

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0531/053116.html

 

"'Temple of Doom' sinks into sexism, racism.

By David Sterritt

May 31, 1984

 

THE idea behind ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' was to revive the thrills and fun of the old Saturday-matinee serials. The same impulse runs through its boisterous sequel, ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''

 

The new picture isn't just nostalgic, though. It's downright backward. Nobody expects deep philosophies from Steven Spielberg, who directed it, or George Lucas, who dreamed up the story. But moviegoers deserve more than the racism, sexism, and all-purpose mayhem on view here - failings that offset the razor-sharp action and technical brilliance also visible.

As before, the hero (Harrison Ford) is an archaeologist with a yen for adventure. His task is to restore a holy stone to an Indian village, and if he fails, a gang of brutal cultists will take over the world.

The religious twist recalls ''Raiders,'' of course, with its wacky mixture of Nazi conspiracy and Old Testament history. The similar hokum in ''Temple of Doom'' shows how drastically Hollywood has lost touch with reality. In the age of ''Star Wars,'' mere good guys vs. bad guys - or even struggles between nations - aren't enough anymore. The gimmick has to be apocalyptic, and sure enough, the ''Temple'' villains want nothing less than to overthrow ''the Hebrew God and the Christian God'' and set up their own deity instead.

There's no mention of other religions, by the way, and that's one measure of the movie's narrow attitude toward ''foreigners.'' Indiana Jones is shown as a great white hero, battling evil Chinese at first, then rescuing the hordes of India from a foe they're helpless to face by themselves. The message is plain: White people are good, yellow people are shifty, brown people are weak or sinister. Some lesson for the '80s!

Women don't fare any better. There's one in the story, played by Kate Capshaw , but when she isn't mooning over Indiana or fussing over a broken fingernail, she's whining and shrieking at hardships that real men - or even little boys, like Indiana's sidekick - take bravely in stride. Not since Fay Wray met King Kong has a heroine done so much screaming. Our hero actually complains about the noise, and pauses for a chuckle from the audience.

I don't impute bad motives to Spielberg or Lucas in these matters, or to Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who wrote the screenplay. I think they just got carried away by their enthusiasm for old Hollywood conventions.

Enthusiasm without perspective is childish, though, and ''Temple of Doom'' is a very childish movie. Just look at the yucky ''special effects'' - not only the gleeful violence, but the creepy insects and ridiculously repulsive foods, often rubbed in the heroine's face. Indeed, as if the filmmakers were pining for their own kiddie years, they give a surrogate family to Indiana - with that yelping woman as the mommy and a sidekick called Short Round as the child.

In all this, ''Temple'' recalls last year's ''Return of the Jedi,'' which also featured a few gross-outs before closing with a sweet family snapshot. So look out, folks, it's a trend. Our most popular moviemakers are shuffling back toward infancy - where's the fun in stuffy grown-up values like maturity, sensitivity, and plain common sense"

 

 

 

Here's modern nuanced view from an archaeologist on Quora which is actually much kinder to the film:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Indiana-Jones-and-The-Temple-Of-Doom-racist?share=1

Patrick Wiley

Masters in Archaeological Studies, Yale University (Graduated 2019)

 

"In impact Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was absolutely racist, in intent however I don’t think it was.

Even at its release the film was controversial and denounced for having an inaccurate and offensive portrayal of Indian culture. On its surface this seems self evident, but in light of some statements by the filmmakers and a crucial deleted scene it’s actually a bit more complex than that. In addition, the character of Short-Round comes across as a bad Asian stereotype although I don’t get the impression that this was intentional either.

First, I’ll address Shorty, since the former controversy is far more significant and will take more time. He is perhaps the most annoying character in the Indiana Jones cinematic franchise. His accent seems extremely exaggerated. I have no idea if this was Jonathan Ke Quan’s actual accent at the time, the result of his acting, or something the filmmakers pushed for. Either way he certainly falls into the “wacky, annoying foreigner” trope, even if he wasn’t meant to. Were it not for this characterization Shorty would be a largely positive figure and arguably the true hero of the film since he’s integral in freeing the enslaved children and breaking Indy out of his trance.

In charges of racism against Indians the two most oft-cited story elements are the depictions of Kali-worship, and the dinner scene in which Indy, Willie and Shorty are served a disgusting platter of completely fictional dishes. I believe these scenes absolutely were harmful but this effect was due primarily to a failure of the filmmakers to consider the ignorance of their audience at certain key decision making stages.

The main antagonist of Temple of Doom is Mola Ram, a Thugee priest. The Thugee’s were a real bandit cult which operated in India in the 19th century. They really did practice human sacrifice in the name of the Goddess Kali and were known to kidnap children. Making a revived Thugee cabal the antagonists of the film is hardly offensive in and of itself. The problem is Temple of Doom doesn’t do enough to clarify the difference between the Thugee cult and worship of Kali in main-stream Hinduism. This could give the viewer the impression that Kali is some sort of evil demon, which of course is an offensive idea to people who view her as a beloved deity. Ironically I think it would have been smart to be less historically accurate in this area. They could have just picked a demon from Hindu mythology and had that be the subject of Thugee adoration. That would have been the simplest fix as it wouldn’t require a lot of exposition.

The dinner scene is one of the most outrageous parts of the film. As it turns out this scene is not meant to be a depiction of Indian cuisine but rather a clue that the prince and his court are under the influence of the Thugees. After that feast, in a scene cut from the film, Indy remarks "even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. Makes you wonder what these people are ...". Retaining that scene might have helped a lot. Without it, people took the depiction of the feast at face value. There are reports of school-teachers claiming Indians actually eat monkey brains because of that scene. If educators could believe something so ridiculous I can only imagine how many ordinary viewers were fooled.

Some were also offended at the scene where Indy and Willie are offered cockroaches to eat by villagers. Supposedly this was meant as a subtle joke about Western ignorance. Roshan Seth, who played Chattar Lal claims "Steven intended it as a joke, the joke being that Indians were so smart that they knew all Westerners think that Indians eat cockroaches, so they served them what they expected. The joke was too subtle for that film”. That seems like a rather odd idea for a joke and I can’t help but wonder if Spielberg was just trying to humor his Indian actor. Regardless, a species of shield bug called udonga montana are actually eaten in parts of Northern India, especially in times of famine so I don’t think there’s anything to condemn about this scene. It actually presents the villagers as extremely generous and hospitable as they’re sharing what little food they have with guests in a time of famine.

With these elements changed I don’t think Temple of Doom would be nearly as controversial. In some ways it’s actually more progressive than the other Indiana Jones films. It features far more positive speaking roles with non-White cast members than Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade. It’s also the first film where Jones takes a clear stance against cultural heritage theft as he returns the last Shakra stone to a Marhan rather than bringing it home and selling it to a museum.

It even avoids the “White Savior” trope because the Thugee’s are defeated primarily by Shorty and a patrol of Indian soldiers.

As interesting as it is to speculate about what might have been, the careless treatment of the story’s subject matter was not only deeply offensive to many Indian people but fostered ignorance and misconceptions in the United States. It’s rightly considered the worst and most offensive film in the trilogy."

 

Yavar

I was going to say that stuff about the dinner scene but then this said it for me.

 

Even without the cut dialogue the scene wouldn't be a problem if it was common knowledge among the film's audience that Hindu people don't eat meat - unfortunately this wasn't the case and it came off more like a joke at the expense of another culture's food instead of the "something's wrong" warning it was meant to be 

[Holko 9,529]

Devil's advocate: why is Raiders not lambasted for racism when it portrays white people as nazis who actively want to look into the Ark?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

1/ The Nazi party was, inherently, racist.

 

2/ No-one is going to support an organisation which did its best to, not only annihilate an entire sector of the human race, but wanted to rule the world, not even in cinema.

[Andy 4,141]

Holy smokes! Crash landing!  Is that post why the forum is running slow?

 

I get the argument, but somebody needs to be the villains, whether they be from China, India, or as Holko pointed out, Germany.   But there were plenty of friendly “non-whites” like Wu Han.  Even without the deleted dialogue from the dinner scene, I would think the Maharaja flipping to good would have clarified that the entire palace’s guests were all compromised and that was not “normal”culture or behavior. 
 

And yes, I would’ve gladly invited everyone over to listen to my kids’ read along record to clear up the dinner scene. 
 

Maybe if Spielberg used a David Lynch Dune style voiceover. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

So it's been inferred that I'm a racist because I can enjoy Temple Of Doom for what it is. This place takes me to the fucking fair sometimes. 

[Holko 9,529]

I adore ToD btw, one of the best high action rolling adventure movies of all time, easily my favourite Indy film and score overall. If anything, it's the pro-colonization aspect that bothers me the most, with the friendly old Brit coming in with his indians to rescue the heroes from the powerhungry savages - but it's kind of a throwaway moment and the setting is 1930s India... the key word being setting, it's not about its politics but about Indy's adventure, and as that much more levelheaded review says, the conclusion is that Indy actually gives the Stone back to the people instead of keeping it.

[crumbs 14,318]

22 hours ago, Jay said:

How great is this

 

 

Suddenly this photo broke my heart for an unexpected reason

 

Notice JW's wife in the background...

 

 

[Andy 4,141]

46 minutes ago, Holko said:

I adore ToD btw, one of the best high action rolling adventure movies of all time, easily my favourite Indy film and score overall. If anything, it's the pro-colonization aspect that bothers me the most, with the friendly old Brit coming in with his indians to rescue the heroes from the powerhungry savages - but it's kind of a throwaway moment and the setting is 1930s India... the key word being setting, it's not about its politics but about Indy's adventure, and as that much more levelheaded review says, the conclusion is that Indy actually gives the Stone back to the people instead of keeping it.

 

YES.  This.  All of this.

 

I won't ever apologize for this movie being my happy place.

 

[Jay 37,371]

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Suddenly this photo broke my heart for an unexpected reason

 

Notice JW's wife in the background...

 

John didn't take Samantha to the Oscars, he took Jennifer

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

Say it loud, and say it proud:

"I love INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM".

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

I believe Young Indy rectified some of the wrongs in Temple of Doom, by having an entire episode set on India. Though that movie's mistakes are still there, there's a night and day difference in its treatment of the people, and kinda retroactively show that there's something wrong about about the temple and the ones who live there.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

5 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

So it's been inferred that I'm a racist because I can enjoy Temple Of Doom for what it is. This place takes me to the fucking fair sometimes. 

It’s not that you’re blatantly racist; it’s more like you’re someone who doesn’t care about the racism in a popular film because of your own privilege, which is still a problem and a pretty pervasive one beyond just yourself. To put it bluntly: If you find nothing problematic in the film, you are okay with racism.

 

I reiterate: I have no problem with people enjoying ToD. I enjoy parts of it myself. But it DOES bother me if someone is unable (or refuses) to acknowledge the very pervasive and harmful racist stereotypes present throughout the film, however well intentioned a throwback/homage to (racist, if fun) adventure films from the 30s-50s it may be. Anyone considering it the best of the original trilogy has to be willing to overlook/forgive that stuff… and it’s just messed up, to say the least.

 

10 hours ago, Holko said:

Devil's advocate: why is Raiders not lambasted for racism when it portrays white people as nazis who actively want to look into the Ark?

Apart from @Naïve Old Fart’s excellent reply to you, it’s also worth pointing out that the hero/protagonist of Raiders is white himself. His kick-ass love interest is white. He has multiple other white allies who help him in that film (and the other Indiana Jones films with white villains). All of the Indians in Temple of Doom are either the villains, or they are the victims who Indy is saving… the “white savior complex” racist trope. None of them are fleshed out characters/protagonists, like Short Round is (even if the way he’s written does also play into some racist stereotypes at times).

 

Nazis WERE racist, by definition, and any portrayal of Aryan Nazis as racist is not racist in itself, but accurate. Even if they were “just following orders”, or even the (not necessarily always Nazi) white Germans who were just willing/able to “look the other way” and ignore it as their Jewish friends and neighbors were taken away to camps… none of that is excusable.

 

14 minutes ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

I believe Young Indy rectified some of the wrongs in Temple of Doom, by having an entire episode set on India. Though that movie's mistakes are still there, there's a night and day difference in its treatment of the people, and kinda retroactively show that there's something wrong about about the temple and the ones who live there.

Yeah, that’s nice for the small percentage of Indiana Jones viewers who also went to the trouble of seeking out that one episode of a little watched (however well produced) educational TV series. Most people who saw (and will see) Temple of Doom will not see that episode, so any slight mitigation it might offer to the racist stereotypes widely perpetuated/spread by the film is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

 

Yavar

[Holko 9,529]

24 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Nazis WERE racist, by definition, and any portrayal of Aryan Nazis as racist is not racist in itself, but accurate.

Like the portrayal of the Thuggee as Kali-worshipping human-sacrificing child-kidnappers?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Quote

Nazis WERE racist, by definition, and any portrayal of Aryan Nazis as racist is not racist in itself, but accurate.

 

The Thuggee cult WAS evil, by definition, and any portrayal of Thuggee cult members as evil is not racist in itself, but accurate.

 

India was, in fact, at the time under British Colonial Rule. It was called the Raj.  There were, in fact, Indians in the British Army. They did, in fact, fight the Thuggee. What with all the robbery, ritual murder, human sacrifice & what not. Despite the claim that there are not "positive" portrayals of Indians in the film, at the end, the Thuggee were, in fact, repelled by British Indian soldiers.

 

Spielberg & Lucas decided that the villains in their movie would be members of the Thuggee cult. Those cult members, were, in fact, Indians. They did, in fact, worship Kali. Anyone who came out of Temple of Doom thinking it's a complete portrayal of India, Indians or Hinduism is, in point of fact, an idiot. Spielberg has no obligation to cater his films to idiots. 

 

There's nothing wrong with liking Temple of Doom. There's nothing racist about liking Temple of Doom. And there's nothing "racist" about Temple of Doom. It's all pearl-clutching from people looking to be offended. Get over it. If you (and that's a rhetorical 'you') have a problem with the film, don't watch it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

The Thuggee cult was evil, by definition, and any portrayal of Thuggee cult members as evil is not racist in itself, but accurate.

 

India was, in fact, at the time under British Colonial Rule. It was called the Raj.  There were, in fact, Indians in the British Army. They did, in fact, fight the Thuggee. Because of all the ritual murder, human sacrifice & what not. Despite the claim that there are not "positive" portrayals of Indians in the film, at the end, the Thuggee were, in fact, repelled by British Indian soldiers.

 

Spielberg & Lucas decided that the villains in their movie would be members of the Thuggee cult. Those cult members, were, in fact, Indians. They did, in fact, worship Kali. Anyone who came out of Temple of Doom thinking it's a complete portrayal of India, Indians or Hinduism is, in point of fact, an idiot. Spielberg has no obligation to cater his films to idiots. 

 

There's nothing wrong with liking Temple of Doom. There's nothing racist about liking Temple of Doom. And there's nothing "racist" about Temple of Doom. It's all pearl-clutching from people looking to be offended. Get over it. If you (and that's a rhetorical 'you') have a problem with the film, don't watch it. 

 

On 14/03/2023 at 3:48 AM, Cerebral Cortex said:

effortlessly succinct

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

On 17/03/2023 at 1:13 PM, Holko said:

Like the portrayal of the Thuggee as Kali-worshipping human-sacrificing child-kidnappers?

 

Nope, it's different. The two articles I shared above explain why it's different in nuanced detail -- particularly the one from the archaeologist. Both the archaeologist and the 1984 film reviewer even make clear that they don't think Spielberg or Lucas had racist intentions. But they still acknowledge the film is problematic and caused damage with its portrayal of Indians.

 

On 17/03/2023 at 1:17 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

India was, in fact, at the time under British Colonial Rule. It was called the Raj.  There were, in fact, Indians in the British Army. They did, in fact, fight the Thuggee. Because of all the ritual murder, human sacrifice & what not. Despite the claim that there are not "positive" portrayals of Indians in the film, at the end, the Thuggee were, in fact, repelled by British Indian soldiers.

 

Thanks for the history lesson on stuff I already knew, but you're going to have to try again if you're arguing against systemic racism being infused throughout Temple of Doom. As you point out those Indian soldiers that arrive at the end of the film are under BRITISH military command! They're the "good, civilized Indians" because they've been domesticated by the civilized British empire whose military uniforms they are wearing and whose colonial control they are supporting. DO ANY OF THEM EVEN HAVE A SINGLE LINE IN THE FILM? If they did, I can't recall it so it must not have been of any substance. They aren't protagonists or fleshed out PEOPLE in any way. They're even less fleshed out as people than the poor Indian villagers (and slaves) who get saved by Indy in the obvious Great White Savior trope (maybe read up on that some time, in the history of film and literature?) And they are WAY less graced with lines and screen time when compared with the many racist caricature Indian villains in the film.

 

Westerns have been one of my favorite film genres since childhood. And alas, there's a lot that's problematic in a systemic way through the genre. There are many western films I enjoy *in spite of* a racist (or, at the very least, okay with racism) portrayal of Native Americans. If a Hollywood western film portrays Native Americans only as uncivilized/barbaric/savage antagonists (as a lot of westerns do), that's a problem and harmful to people, and the very least one can do is acknowledge it even if one enjoys the movie overall. If a Hollywood western film portrays Native Americans as mere victims who must be protected against the BAD white people by the GOOD white people (or person), that's a problem too. I can understand why some people have a problem with Dances With Wolves for example, because that realllly flirts with that notion. But to me, several Native Americans are fleshed out enough as in that as characters, that they come across as secondary — but active and strong — protagonists, so I'm more forgiving of the "white savior" trope in the film. Broken Arrow (from 1950) is another much earlier Hollywood western which skirts that line in a way I find less cringey, despite Jimmy Stewart being the clear protagonist of that film. And many times Native Americans will be seen as uniformed scouts for the U.S. Army, sometimes given a few lines, sometimes not much. But that too is not what I'd call a victory for Native American representation in Hollywood film, or a defense against the subtle or often not-so-subtle bigotry against Native Americans pervasive throughout the majority of classic Hollywood westerns. If Steven Spielberg did a rip-snorting old-fashioned throwback/homage to classic Hollywood westerns, and engaged in any of those tropes (even in the 1980s!) I think a lot of people would call him out on it. But instead with Temple of Doom he did that with *actual* Indians, and I feel like more Americans (due to their own relative unfamiliarity with Indian culture or religion) were just okay with it. But many people, like the reviewer I shared above, DID notice and called the film out for the, shall we say, insensitive white-privilege-y way it depicted people from India.

 

On 17/03/2023 at 1:17 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

Spielberg & Lucas decided that the villains in their movie would be members of the Thuggee cult. Those cult members, were, in fact, Indians. They did, in fact, worship Kali. Anyone who came out of Temple of Doom thinking it's a complete portrayal of India, Indians or Hinduism is, in point of fact, an idiot. Spielberg has no obligation to cater his films to idiots. 

 

Huh? Spielberg was making popcorn movies absolutely to cater to the general English-speaking populace, which absolutely includes a lot of people who are not well informed about the intricacies of religion in India, and MANY of them absolutely did NOT make a distinction between the film's portrayal of Kali and Kali-worshippers, and the Kali worshipped by many Indians today. Spielberg/Lucas could have done a much better job with that, absolutely, and though I agree the filmmakers didn't have bad intentions, they absolutely did do some harm with this film.

 

On 17/03/2023 at 1:17 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

There's nothing wrong with liking Temple of Doom. There's nothing racist about liking Temple of Doom. And there's nothing "racist" about Temple of Doom. It's all pearl-clutching from people looking to be offended. Get over it. If you (and that's a rhetorical 'you') have a problem with the film, don't watch it. 

 

Nope. You're just another non-Indian who doesn't have a problem with the film and sees nothing racist about it at all, because it's not YOUR culture being so portrayed.

 

Yavar

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

When I was 12, I discovered a movie called Casablanca on late night TV and fell instantly in love with it. To this day it's my favourite film.

 

It inspired me to learn more about Casablanca and Morocco, so I went to the library and learned about Morocco and Moroccans. It's a country I've visited many times since.

 

Even at 12, I never for a moment thought that anything I saw in that film was a complete, balanced portrayal of that country or its people.  Nor do I think Michael Curtiz had an obligation to present one.

 

Nick

 

 

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

I love Casablanca but I haven't seen it in a while so you'll have to refresh my memory: did Michael Curtiz portray Moroccans as a backwards people, and only as victims or villains? If so, I do think that's a problem. But I don't remember him doing what Spielberg/Lucas did with Temple of Doom.

 

Morocco isn't really a central part of the plot of Casablanca, either. You could easily transport that story and retell it in a dozen or more alternate settings (in fact, this has been done multiple times, and though none of those was a patch on the original film I don't think the change in setting was why they disappointed). It just happened to be set in Morocco.

 

In contrast, India is CENTRAL to Temple of Doom, and how Indian culture and Indian characters are portrayed in it really matters and impacts the viewer is a big way. And a lot of people enjoying and absorbing that movie didn't necessarily feel inspired to go visit the library and learn more about India and the nuances of Kali and people who worship Kali, vs. the portrayal in the film.

 

Yavar

[Jurassic Shark 12,080]

1 minute ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Morocco isn't really a central part of the plot of Casablanca, either. You could easily transport that story and retell it in a dozen or more alternate settings. It just happened to be set in Morocco.

 

We'll always have Paris.

[Jay 37,371]

Well Yavar you've managed to completely usurp my thread that was supposed to be a celebration of the Indiana Jones franchise with lots of left-wing political posting that you know isn't allowed here.  Why did you do this?

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

Why is calling out problematic racist portrayals necessarily left-wing? I know people on the right who are able to easily recognize "dated" racist portrayals in Hollywood. (Lots of them LOVE criticizing holier-than-thou leftist Hollywood for its hypocrisy, in fact.) If I say that I have trouble appreciating Birth of a Nation for its cinematic strengths and historical importance due to its blatant racism, is that me promoting some side's political agenda, or is that just me accurately recognizing racism and saying I have a problem with it?

 

For this forum to be wholly un-political, can racism ever be discussed or acknowledged at all? Does discussing Hollywood's historic racist portrayal of Native Americans in the western genre also constitute "left-wing political posting" at this point? Or is it commonly accepted historical fact? I fail to see how discussing the problematic portrayal of Indians in Temple of Doom is any different.

 

23 minutes ago, Jay said:

Why did you do this?

 

The subject came up because someone floated the notion that all this (deserved!) widespread love for Ke Huy Quan constituted a general critical re-evaluation and validation of the "black sheep" or "red-headed stepchild" of the Indiana Jones franchise (as it has long been widely considered to be... even by the director!):

 

On 15/03/2023 at 7:41 PM, Edmilson said:

It feels so good that all this love for Ke Huy Quan reminded people of how much they loved Temple of Doom, after years of being considered a "lesser" film. 

 

And I felt the need to reply and make clear that, for ME (and I've been making plenty of posts celebrating Quan here and elsewhere), that was very much NOT the case, that my celebration of him being such a great part of that movie does NOT mean that I celebrate that movie on the whole and think that its problems have been rectified with the passage of time. That it hasn't "aged well" in retrospect; quite the opposite if anything. (Though many reviewers at the time called it out for how problematic it was, and I don't think that the Christian Science Monitor guy whose review I quoted wrote his review with an obvious political agenda.) Fair enough fodder for discussion in a forum discussing films and their music?

 

Yavar

[Andy 4,141]

I’ll try to help get us back on the minecart track. 
 

“To your very good health.”

 

What sort of beverage should be enjoyed from this fancy and charming glass?