"Maclunkey"
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
The Disney Plus streaming service has launched in the US, Canada and the Netherlands. It’s basically their version of Netflix with content from their back catalogue. Disney Plus broadcasts in 4K which means that Star Wars fans get to see the original trilogy and the various prequels and sequels in UHD format. Now despite the departure of George Lucas after the sale of the IP to Disney, it would appear that the current owners have taken a leaf out of the formers book and are still “tinkering” with (or fucking about with, depending upon your perspective) the original movies. It would appear that yet another change has been made to the iconic Han Solo shooting Greedo scene. Have they removed the awful change where Greedo draws his weapon, shoots first and misses? No. They’ve augmented the entire clusterfuck even further. According to Star Wars Visual Comparisons “Han and Greedo also now shoot each other at the same time”. And in this new version Greedo apparently says “Maclunkey” just before getting shot. Furthermore, according an article by Vanity Fair the "Maclunkey" change is the work of George Lucas, made before Lucasfilm was sold to Disney in 2012. The plot thickens.
Courtesy of Star Wars Visual Comparisons
For me Star Wars will always been an integral part of my youth. It was a cultural phenomenon and heralded a major shift in film making. However, despite its many merits, I do not put Star Wars on a pedestal. Like so many other movies that have connected with the wider public and become a part of the popular culture, there are many factors that have determined this. Time being one of them. The original movies maintained their mystique for so long because up until 1999, there were only three. Then the tinkering began. And the prequels and then the sequels. The reasons that diamonds are so sought after and desirable is because they are a rare commodity. If you flood the market with more diamonds then they become worthless. If you keep messing with a classic movie you eventually ruin it. Or become Ridley Scott. Disney is killing Star Wars, along with the fundamentalist fans. This entire “Maclunkey” debacle (because that’s what it’s becoming) will simply lead to more fundamentalist fanboy anger. It further tarnishes the franchise. And itt can potentially kill some fans interest in something they use to like. It’s a shame that George Lucas sold the franchise to Disney. Or perhaps we now see why he did. May be the Goose that lays golden eggs is in fact an Albatross.
The Lucas Legacy
I was perusing the net recently and came across a story about how a Star Wars fan film that had built up a head of steam online, has been slapped with a copyright strike from Disney. Nothing unusual there as the company is virtually legendary with respect to its litigious proclivities. However, someone over a Lucasfilm interceded and got the strike lifted, because the fan film creator had allegedly sought prior permission and supposedly received it. George Lucas has always maintained an equitable attitude towards fan usage of the Star Wars IP, something he tried to impress upon Disney when he sold the rights to them back in 2012. But it is very difficult to have a balanced discussion about George Lucas as the man is such a paradox. On one hand he is possibly one of the greatest contributors to twentieth century pop culture and has influenced a generation of film makers, writers and fans. On the other he is the man who single headedly has managed to queer his own pitch, with the way he has continuously tinkered with his body of work and appended it with supplemental material that many deemed substandard or to the detriment of the original. He is also still vilified in some quarters for his business arrangement with Disney.
I was perusing the net recently and came across a story about how a Star Wars fan film that had built up a head of steam online, has been slapped with a copyright strike from Disney. Nothing unusual there as the company is virtually legendary with respect to its litigious proclivities. However, someone over a Lucasfilm interceded and got the strike lifted, because the fan film creator had allegedly sought prior permission and supposedly received it. George Lucas has always maintained an equitable attitude towards fan usage of the Star Wars IP, something he tried to impress upon Disney when he sold the rights to them back in 2012. But it is very difficult to have a balanced discussion about George Lucas as the man is such a paradox. On one hand he is possibly one of the greatest contributors to twentieth century pop culture and has influenced a generation of film makers, writers and fans. On the other he is the man who single headedly has managed to queer his own pitch, with the way he has continuously tinkered with his body of work and appended it with supplemental material that many deemed substandard or to the detriment of the original. He is also still vilified in some quarters for his business arrangement with Disney.
Lucas announced back in October 2012 an interview with the New York Times, that he was "retiring" from the sort of film making he had become closely associated with over the last three decades. He was however still going to pursue creating more "personal" films. He also made some fairly broad statements about getting mainstream Hollywood to buy into his last project Red Tails and the movie industries overall inadequacies in dealing with issues of race and African-American history in films per se. He took time to pointedly described how he had to finance Red Tails himself. Sadly, the movie was met with relative indifference at the box office and garnered the usual criticism associated with his work. IE too much emphasis on spectacle and not enough attention of characters and script. Since then Lucas has not produced any major cinematic works and has continued to pursue his philanthropic and charitable endeavours.
There are some who feel that Mr. Lucas is a misunderstood film maker who has suffered at the hands of a rabid and unreasonable fan base and a system that hates him for bypassing their rules. Then there are those who simply see him as a gifted technician, well versed in the mechanics of film making but lacking in the narrative skills shown by the true “greats”. As per usual, the truth more than likely lies somewhere in between these two positions and is far more nuanced. As for his last movie Red Tails (which he produced and then took over the reshoots from incumbent director Anthony Hemmingway), it’s a distinctly average film. It is visually impressive as you would expect, but the story is incredibly formulaic, and the characters are weak. The issue of racism is not given the depth or intelligence required to explore it effectively and the dialogue is unconvincing. Whether the films reception was a key factor in Lucas choosing to semi-retire from the wider industry, is up for debate. For decades he has been a prisoner of his own success and at times it does seems like he still struggles to come to terms with it all. “On the Internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie … I’m saying: ‘Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it. Why would I make any more when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”
Although I fully understand and even agree in principle with his sentiments, such a position is purely an ideological one and is not very practical in reality. Star Wars has become an integral part of popular culture and although there is no legal precedence, the public feel that they have some collective emotional ownership of it and are therefore not going to take an even-handed view to alterations and new material (as the Disney movies have shown). Lucas should have learnt from others who have participated in films and TV that has grown bigger than themselves. You come to terms with it and try to work within the confines that it sets, or you simply withdraw. Lucas may think that the restraints of the Star Wars phenomenon has limited his options and thus he has not had the critical success he looked for. I think more blame can be attributed to his skills set. The original trilogy although overall his own work, had the creative input of additional screenwriters and directors to smooth the rough edges and curb his excesses. The prequels did not and therefore their ideas and visual style were marred by poor dialogue and turgid stories. In fact, I would draw a parallel between George Lucas's career and that of M. Night Shyamalan. Both are talents that possibly require the counterbalance of a third party to reach their full potential.
Of course, George Lucas has not fully retired and has provided himself with a get out of jail card, with the ongoing development of a fifth Indiana Jones film. However, it should be noted that he is only involved as an executive producer and is not contributing to the story. Yet regardless of any future film output, his long-term legacy is clearly established and of considerable magnitude. He created a mythology for a generation that had none and has been instrumental in pushing back the technical boundaries of the film industry. He has demonstrated that the mainstream studios do not need to have it their own way all the time and he has influenced an inordinate amount of people globally to pursue their creative dreams. However, it can be argued that he has also set a precedent of style over substance and spectacle over narrative. Yet, whatever your opinion on the man and his work, we have not heard the last of him. Lucas is by nature a “fixer” and I suspect he has something he still wants to put right or follow up upon before he’s “done”.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
For many fans and enthusiasts, there are the original trilogy of Indiana Jones movies, all made in the eighties when director Steven Spielberg was reaching the height of his film making creativity. And then you have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; the poorly regarded, Johnny-come-lately fourth instalment made nearly twenty years later, that jumped the shark, or in this instance “nuked the fridge” and for some viewers, pretty much pissed on the memory of its three predecessors. Make no mistake, over a decade on from the films theatrical release there is still a lot of ill will held towards the fourth Indiana Jones adventure. Let us not forget that South Park based an entire episode around the contempt they have for the movie. Yet despite all this hostility, it should be noted that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the most commercially successful entry in the franchise, grossing $786,636,033 worldwide. It was the second most successful movie in 2008 (the first being Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight) and although not universally well received by fans, it did broadly garner critical success. However, within that spectrum of reviews there were some strong negative opinions. All things considered Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is somewhat of an enigma, in so far as being financially successful but a movie that most people don’t admit to liking.
For many fans and enthusiasts, there are the original trilogy of Indiana Jones movies, all made in the eighties when director Steven Spielberg was reaching the height of his film making creativity. And then you have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; the poorly regarded, Johnny-come-lately fourth instalment made nearly twenty years later, that jumped the shark, or in this instance “nuked the fridge” and for some viewers, pretty much pissed on the memory of its three predecessors. Make no mistake, over a decade on from the films theatrical release there is still a lot of ill will held towards the fourth Indiana Jones adventure. Let us not forget that South Park based an entire episode around the contempt they have for the movie. Yet despite all this hostility, it should be noted that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the most commercially successful entry in the franchise, grossing $786,636,033 worldwide. It was the second most successful movie in 2008 (the first being Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight) and although not universally well received by fans, it did broadly garner critical success. However, within that spectrum of reviews there were some strong negative opinions. All things considered Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is somewhat of an enigma, in so far as being financially successful but a movie that most people don’t admit to liking.
So, what exactly is the proverbial beef with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Let’s take a few moments to go over possible areas of contention. Plot wise the story is nothing special but then again, it’s hardly anything controversial. Indie seeks Akator, the mythical kingdom in the Amazon that may hold both great power and wealth. It’s the same basic sort of MacGuffin used in the previous instalments. The story actually does a good job updating the format from the thirties to the fifties. The nuggets of information we get about what Indy's been up to in the last 20 years are rather intriguing. Working for O.S.S. and becoming a decorated war hero for example, are touched upon but never over egged. We also learn the fate of both Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) and Henry Jones Senior (Sean Connery), both of whom have died. This is both credible and to a degree necessary because having too many cameos from prior characters can sometimes be as both a boon and a bane. The Soviet Union and Communists replacing Nazis is also a sound move and the way Indy falls foul of McCarthyism and loses his position at the university is a novel idea. It all adds to keeping the same vibe going yet playing it against a subtly different back drop. I even like the anecdote about Roswell, as it raised a wry smile. Overall, despite a superficial change from the supernatural to science fiction, Indy 4 is pretty much a case of same meat, different gravy, when it comes to the narrative.
As for casting, action scenes, pacing and general continuity, as well as visual aesthetics, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does remarkably well. Harrison Ford and Karen Allen genuinely recreate the chemistry that was present in the original movie. The fist fights and associated stunt work are still very good, leaning towards the gritty. This has always been a violent franchise, despite being sold a family entertainment. Editing is also invaluable cinematic tool for creating a sense of style and maintaining a sense of continuous ambience. Veteran editor Michael Kahn, who has worked on all Spielberg’s movies since 1979, does much to make the movie feel just like the others. Also, although Douglas Slocombe, the cinematographer of the original trilogy had long retired by 2008, Janusz Kamiński, who has shot all of the director's films since Schindler's List, made a conscious effort to recreate the previous visual style. Plus let us not overlook the immense contribution that composer John Williams has made to world of Indiana Jones. His score for the fourth movie is every bit the equal of the first three.
So, if it’s not an overt and specific facet of the production that is the problem, is it a case of something subtler being to blame? I believe the answer is yes. Hollywood is an industry that regularly resurrects franchises. If in doubt, revisit a tried and tested formula. Public good will and nostalgia will often guarantee decent box office returns. Sometimes this works as with Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. Others fails. Take I Spy, Starsky & Hutch, The Dukes of Hazard, and some may argue the latter three Star Wars prequels. It often comes down to a trade-off between pleasing existing fans and trying to capture a new market who may not be familiar with the original material. It sounds perfectly reasonable to make such a choice but endeavouring to reconcile these two aspirations is far harder to achieve than you think. Both markets have very different needs at times and certainly there are distinct variations in taste across generations.
Despite the familiar faces, music, production team and many other common elements to previous entries, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull suffers from a weak screenplay. Although the story is straight forward, the various scenes don’t quite hang well together. New characters are introduced but none have enough back story. The fact that these roles are carried by quality actors helps, but they are not used to the best of their potential. You don’t have to write large swathes of dialogue to flesh out a fictional character. You just needs to write something intriguing, that makes you think. A detail that makes that individual seem less contrived and more like a real person. It can be an affectation, quirk or foible. Or they can reference a tragedy that shaped their character or show an interest in something you wouldn’t immediately assume. It’s a difficult thing to quantify, but you know it when you see it. Hans Gruber from Die Hard is a great bad guy for example. Because the screenplay in Indy 4 is inconsistent, the movie suffers from a tonal shift on several occasions. I actually liked the way Spielberg handles the relationship between Shia LaBeouf and Harrison Ford. The banter between the two, focusing very much on the age gap feels right. By contrast the female characters do not fare so well. Karen Allen is not given enough to do, which is an utter shame as her character has so much potential. Kate Blanchett is also rather imposing as the Russian villain. Equipped with borderline psychic powers and a penchant for fencing, you'd think she'd be a standout feature of the film. Alas, again there is not enough material to flesh out the role.
But perhaps the biggest Achilles heel of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the action set pieces. This is ironic as next to the Bond franchise, Indiana Jones did much to refine and advance this aspect of film making. Yet it is this element of the movie that inadvertently hobbles it instead of embellishing it. Take a moment to reflect upon Raiders of the Lost Ark. The iconic scene at the beginning where Indy flees the collapsing temple pursued by the giant stone ball booby trap. The truck chase in which stuntman Terry Leonard created a modern variation of Yakima Canutt’s iconic set piece form Stagecoach. And of course, the fistfight with Pat Roach under the German flying wing. What made these scenes so great is that they were all done physically with very little or no post production effects. What optical effects there were, remained measured in scope. In many ways the technical limitations forced a degree of credibility on the proceedings. Of course, all movies require audiences to suspend their sense of disbelief, and more so with genre movies. Yet being grounded in these ways mean that the first film stays the right side of the “relative credibility line” and keeps the audience on board. Sadly, in each subsequent movie, the franchise subsequently broke this rule by greater degrees. Bailing out of a plane using an inflatable raft as parachute was a big ask in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. A rear facing turret on a plane that does not have interrupter gear, thus enabling the machine gun to shoot its own rudder in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, again is a step too far. These examples are the tipping point where high adventure becomes a caricature of itself.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull made nearly two decades later from the original trilogy had all the “benefits” of computer-generated imagery and contemporary FX technology. Such limitless possibilities thus removed any remaining vestiges of credibility and the action scenes failed to wow because they were simply impossible and obviously “not real”. I have no problem with the nuclear test scene, but I dislike its resolution. It is just far too silly and instantly breaks a degree of immersion for the enthusiastic viewer. The much-protracted chase through the jungle between jeeps, trucks and amphibious vehicles is ruined by the digital sequences that depict acts so ludicrously implausible they’d be better off in a cartoon. If this scene had been scaled back, lost the Tarzan wine swinging references and had just confined itself to what could be done in camera, then it would have been vastly improved. And as for the alien revelation at the denouement, again it focuses too much on digital spectacle. Even the traditional fist fight with the signature heavy (Igor Jijikine) is spoilt by an excessively FX driven pay off.
Sadly, the aliens plot element and its impersonal CGI actions scenes all bear the clumsy handiwork of George Lucas. It was he who allegedly vetoed scripts from several respected writers, including Frank Darabont and was insistent on pursuing his penchant for spectacle over narrative. At its root the fundamental problem with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is that Messrs Spielberg and Lucas were trying to recreate a franchise movie that hailed from an era when not only techniques and film making philosophy were fundamentally different, but so were both men. Trying to revisit your own past is inherently difficult so perhaps this instalment may have faired better if both individuals had deferred to other film makers to helm the project. Modern action blockbusters are a very different beast to those from the eighties and I can’t help feeling the modern corporate film making is too formulaic for the likes of franchise born of a more experimental and flexible era in movie making. Does Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull deserve the animosity it still receives from the viewing public. Perhaps not. There are many good aspects to the film. But it is definitely a compromise and like most compromises it doesn’t meet all parties’ expectations. Furthermore, in the last ten years or so the general public seems to be far less disposed toward anything other than getting exclusively what they want. If we do get a further Indiana Jones film in 2020, it will be interesting to see if there is a revision of opinion on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That may depend on how bad the new one is because although Indy may well be able to get the better of both Nazis and aliens, he doesn’t seem to have survived modern studio film making too well.
