Reader Theora notified us about something interesting recently. A transcript has been released of the original Raiders of the Lost Ark story conference among Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan. Here’s a segment, which I’ve trimmed slightly for relevance to the kind of stuff we discuss here. G = George Lucas, S = Steven Spielberg, L = Lawrence Kasdan.
For a while, they weren’t sure what kind of girl to have as a counterpart to Indy…
There was talk about a big name professor who taught Indy everything he knew. Then there was the idea about this German girl, and for the sake of expediency, Kasdan suggested that Indy instead have an affair with the mentor’s daughter, which they loved. And then Lucas and Spielberg were off and running with ideas about how’s she’s been left in Peru and has this bar and is trying to get money together to get back to the States and loves (and resents) Indy to no end. In fact, Kasdan said he wanted Indy and this girl to already have a history when they meet because, “I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don’t have to build it.” Hehehe…
Then the discussion turned to how old Marion and Indy were at the time of the affair:
G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.
L — And he was forty-two.
G — He hasn’t seen her in twelve years. Now she’s twenty-two. It’s a real strange relationship.
S — She had better be older than twenty-two.
G — He’s thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.
S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.
G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he…
S — She has pictures of him.
And now consider the dialog of that scene in the film.
INDY: I never meant to hurt you.
MARION: I was a child! I was in love.
INDY: You knew what you were doing.
MARION: It was wrong. You knew it.
INDY: Look, I did what I did. I don’t expect you to be happy about it. But maybe we can do each other some good.
MARION: Why start now?
INDY: Shut up and listen for a second. I want that piece your father had. I’ve got money.
MARION: How much?
Any thoughts on this?
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
So, is Indiana JOnes a child rapist?
Missy(Quote) (Reply)
I always knew there was somthing offensive and not right baou those movies! I think most movies from say before 1998 should be canned anyway.
Missy(Quote) (Reply)
Not to mention the fact that the guy litterally just gos into other countries with illeagle weapons and kills people like he’s justified.
Missy(Quote) (Reply)
For every boy afraid to be tender, there is a girl afraid to be strong. For every out dated, macho idea of hurtful, bias behavior, there is a person who is stepped on, a soul that is crushed. What’s sad is that so much of this is getting grandfathered in as lovelable rough spots. We need to crush it out with ZERO tolerance. There needs to be a second wave of political correctness and social standards. It’s not enought to assume people will do the right thing. We need to be more peaceful, more kind. We need to live and let live. We need to crush out the abuse and intolerance and insensitivity that we see in the world. We need to be opened to let people live withotu the tiernany of these ideas. We need to make it very clear what you can and can’t do, can and can’t say, and put our feet down on the solid ground WE have made, in a NEW WORLD ORDER of justice and standards that will tell the biggots, the sickos, those still living with thier macho 1940′s, 1950′s, 1980′s ideas exactly where they can go! We need to be heard and continue the fight! The fightfor MARION RAVENWOOD, and thousands like her.
Missy(Quote) (Reply)
Well, Missy, that’s just it – if they’d gone with Lucas’ age suggestion, yes, he would be. But apparently Lucas wouldn’t have thought so, and that’s where the cognitive disconnect is. And yes, there is a LOT that’s hardly “politically correct” about the Indiana Jones movies.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
New World Order? Are you serious? I don’t think politically correct was what they were going for with Indy. “Affair” with a twelve year old. That’s not right. But then, lets not bash the whole series, or Marion for that matter. The actual script and film had her a little older then that, and that’s the way it came to the world. Lucas, and Steven Spielburg, if this conversation was real/serious, clearly are kinda being weird… but lets not “can” Indy, or Marion… and certainly not all movies before 1998. ???
What was that about? I don’t mean to argue, but what is this about siting other decades as though the films made in that time need to all be put into a bon fire? Isn’t that a little scary? (Comments directed mainly to Missy…)
Jacky(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, I can’t say I’m that impressed with films *after* 1998. In a lot of ways, the 30s and 40s were better for representation of women in movies than any decades since.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
@Jennifer – That might make an interesting topic for a post sometime. People like to assume change is always progress…
Dom Camus(Quote) (Reply)
If you look at movies made before the 90′s… there is this entirly different way of looking at sex. This isn’t so much about Indiana Jones, but… Like, the whole “sultry” or “come one” thing… the whole idea of what it meant to be “hot”, or act hot… or whatever.
For heaven sakes, it seems like they’re over sexed, and I believe it’s largely a “male dominated” way of looking at it. Look at Grease, and “make out hill”…. and girls going nuts over guys in cars, at drive ins…. Saturday Night Fever, or Happy Days… Dukes of Hazard… Even That 70′s show.
Films of the 70′s, the 80′s, seem so steamed up and over ready… The girls are always literally excited about “making out” and “going out….” to do what, get romped by some man-boy? And the way they talk about women is by any standard absurdly limiting. There seems to be a conceptualized understanding of being a “type” or a societal standard of “hottness” that is so subjective it should makes healthy modern viewers sick….WTF? “Ooooh, did you see her man, she wanted you! Look at that figure! DUUUUUUUURH.
From the office secretary to the girl next door, even the shy types seem like they secretly desire to not only have sex, but to have it in some “hot’n'heavy” male dominated shake down.
All the corny double speaking and alluring looks…. Please. It’s sickening and ridiculous.
How sad that women growing up in that era grew up trying to fit into these currupting images and never got to know the day that standards would change to healthier, more mature and conditioned additudes towards sex.
Alice(Quote) (Reply)
There’s some discussion of it here:
http://thehathorlegacy.com/the-blockbuster-mentality-and-the-invisible-audience/
But I might write something with reference to the “Golden Age” movies one of these days. We’ve often mentioned in comments how much more substantial women’s roles were, how much more substantial actress’ bodies were allowed to be, and how the most popular actresses were encouraged to find their own unique look rather than follow the latest cosmetic surgery trends so they all meet the same narrow “beauty standard.”
Would be interesting to do a post, maybe with some pictures, even. It deserves a bit more attention than I can give it at the moment, but I’ll put it on my list.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I more or less agree with most of your post, but when I read this, I wondered what movies you had in mind. The 80s also included a few characters like Ellen Ripley, who wasn’t panting to be sexed by anybody. I, and I’m sure many other girls who grew up in that era, chose her as a role model rather than the superficial characters who obviously were written as male fantasies.
But since the 90s, “chick flicks” have gotten SO much worse, IMO. There used to be such a thing as a good romantic comedy; now it’s all “Little Miss Shoes knows just what she wants in a handbag, but she’s about to discover that she’s totally confused about men! It’s not love or respect she wants, but Domination, preferably by a rich guy!” It’s Cinderella on steroids.
And despite a few Buffys and Starbucks on TV, I don’t see that women characters in movies have gotten so wonderful in the past 20 years. I think, generally, women’s roles were most substantial in the 30s through the 50s, then there was an antifeminism backlash in the 60s and they mostly sucked, but with a few very notable exceptions, then the blockbuster revolution in the 80s made *everything* suck, then the 90s started out good, but third wave feminism came along, and so did another backlash. And I’m speaking strictly of US film trends here – not TV, and not anything coming from other nations, with which I am less familiar in general.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
At least Cinderella worked for a living. I can’t say the same about some of these heroines, with their fancy shoes and their amorphous jobs.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
Thats just what I’m saying! I don’t know who Ellen Ripley is, but I am sick of women deigned either to be 70′ 80′s male fantasies, or as materialistic cinderella types with “comically” shallow stereotypical drama and crap!
It i almost as bad as watching Sandra Dee jump around in white socks! Or small town sweater girl get horny over the new kid and pass notes they want to screw under the bleachers when they should be learning math and chemistry and becoming happy as THEMSELVES as CEO’s for Pete’s Sake! Or discovering sex with (GASP!) each other, instead of some horn dog on steroids!
What’s sad is, I think a lot of people got to thinking that girls were really like that, that they had too be cool to “get some.” At least now days, mature people can go years without sex and not worry because they aren’t having to watch this over sexed propaganda. But then, the little miss shoes is almost just as bad…..
I agree with Missy. For every girl afraid to be STRONG there is is a boy afraid to be tender.
Alice(Quote) (Reply)
t least now days, mature people can go years without sex and not worry because they aren’t having to watch this over sexed propaganda.
Bullshit. There is absolutely no shortage of media messages telling us “If you aren’t having sex, you suck.”
I agree with Missy.
I bet you do, Missy. Whoops, I mean, Alice.
Anybody else think this thread is besieged with bunker-flavored trolls?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
:raises hand:
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
The problem with reading a blog backwards is that you’re always the last to the comment party
It’s been years since I read it but I seem to recall the Raiders novelisation either stating or clearly implying that Marion was about 15 at the time of the affair. The novelisation would have been based upon the final screenplay, so it sounds like Lucas and Spielberg backed down a bit on her age. It was also made clear that she was hopelessly infatuated and Indy basically took advantage of that, although he was genuinely attracted to her as well. I don’t think Indy is meant to be a noble figure although he’s a heroic one, and that interchange with Marion is one of the clues. Another, which I think was cut out of the film altogether, is that Indy abandoned her in whatever 3rd world country that scene is set in and she had to survive by prostitution. Knowing how badly he treated Marion means I’ve never really liked Indy, although I like the film. Knowing that he is a bastard gives his interactions with the (boo hiss) French rival an extra frisson. It’s rather obvious that the viewer is supposed to deem Belloq a villain but it’s hard to see him as worse than Indy, whom so many see as a hero. Thinking about what kind of person Indy is and then reading the comments on the link about Lucas and Spielberg arguing that Indy is a role model and has to be ‘honest’ and ‘true’ is rather amusing. They’re throwing ideas around and they presumably thought they were creating a complex character, not a confused one.
I agree with Stephen’s comments above about how many artists were trying to push the boundaries of sexuality in the 70s; it was certainly the case with the science fiction written then, which Lucas and Spielberg probably would have had some familiarity with. That doesn’t excuse Lucas choosing the word ‘amusing’ to describe an affair with a 12 year old; not even Nabokov did that.
photondancer(Quote) (Reply)
Photondancer, I can confirm the novelization putting her at 15 and Indy coming off as a user. I don’t recall it being implied that he abandoned her in Nepal and she had to survive on prostitution. But if that was *implied*, I was only 7 or 8 and might not have understood at the time. (Her age and Indy’s creepiness made a big impression on me, having never come across a protagonist I couldn’t like before.)
I believe the movie implied her father took her to Nepal and then died, and that’s how she got stuck there. But yeah, you know – how DID she support herself?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
That’s what I get for writing a post at 2am :/. You’re right that her father took her to Nepal and then died, stranding her. What I was half-remembering was that Marion believed her father’s death was caused by his heartbreak at discovering Indy (whom Ravenwood loved like a son) had taken advantage of his daughter. She doesn’t actually say she turned to prostitution but she does look Indy in the eye and ask him “how do you think I survived?” or “what do you think I did to survive?” at which Indy looks away in shame. There aren’t many alternative interpretations of that. I guess the fact that I remember all this after more than 20 years means it made a big impression on me too. I suspect both Lucas and Ford were trying to reprise Han Solo and failing.
photondancer(Quote) (Reply)
“But since the 90s, “chick flicks” have gotten SO much worse, IMO…”
I felt that 2003′s Uptown Girls was a notable exception to this.
One thing I particularly enjoyed about this film is that the story kept presenting possible romantic partners for the main character, Molly, and then making them friends. On the DVD commentary they mentioned that they did that on purpose, because too often these sorts of movies become about the female lead finding a man to take care of her. And this movie was all about Molly learning to take care of herself.
Keith(Quote) (Reply)
Well since this thread is kinda current at the moment, and is George Lucas, and this comment is about role models, how do you feel about Leia? I’m sure you’ve talked about her before but I don’t recall it if you have.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer wrote about the sex slave costume here. http://thehathorlegacy.com/princess-leia-what-the-word-vulnerable-means/
Sylvia Sybil(Quote) (Reply)
I actually wrote an article about Uptown Girls ages back, but I didn’t mention the romantic angle at the time since I was concentrating on the way the movie managed to set up a bunch of other ways to annoy me personally before knocking them all down. It’s really a suprisingly good movie considering what the marketing would have led me to predict.
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
I know you did
I read it before posting here to make sure what I was writing hadn’t been said before. Why didn’t I post the comment there? Uh…
Keith(Quote) (Reply)
Because it’s weirder to perform thread necromancy on a post with few to no comments?
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
I rarely write articles about George Lucas or his stuff because I resent the movies so viscerally that I can’t trust myself to be fair. His movies were a big part of my childhood, and later a big part of why I had to start this site, so it’s a complicated dynamic for me. That said:
I have extremely mixed feelings about Leia:
–She was the best FEMALE role model I had as a kid.
–And she was just your standard “feisty chick with gun” who was just waiting to be tamed by the love of some rough dude, oh yes
–So I gave up and went with male role models. (Even as a kid, I wasn’t about to cope with that shit. I didn’t even like boys yet.)
–Then when it turned out SHE was a Skywalker and could’ve been considered just as central to the fate of the galaxy as Luke, that actually made it worse. And then, lest that appear to be a one-off mistake, she was treated like an afterthought with issues all the way through the goddamn EU.
I quite liked Mara Jade, but resented that Leia never got to be as cool as Mara – the potential was there. But then, long after I gave up on the whole mess, they killed Mara off because the SW galaxy clearly is just a man’s sandbox where women exist for even fewer reasons than they exist in Indiana Jones’ world: in SW-land, they exist only because the Skywalker men can’t reproduce asexually. I mean, seriously, that’s it. Giving birth to a Skywalker male’s offspring is the quickest way to ensure you’ll die young in that universe.
I could have forgiven Lucas’ mistakes with Leia if they hadn’t continued resolutely through the 90s, then been capped with Padme dying the minute she’d birthed some Skywalkers (presumably, even SHE recognized her life had no other purpose). This is a pretty grotesque case of gynophobia, IMO, but I admit I’m so married to that opinion (I’m usually very open-minded, and tweak my views here and there regularly) that my journalistic standards wouldn’t allow me to put it forth as an article.
But feel free to discuss and debate. There may be some nugget in all of this for an op-ed style piece that I should write someday.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah. Yeah, that’s it
>.>
<.<
Keith(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve always looked for female role models myself, but I didn’t see the Star Wars movies until I was 18. At the time I found Leia very awesome, but I remember getting this weird feeling when I realized she was Luke’s equal in the Force (or at least, someone else who could have done the job). I didn’t read much of the Expanded Universe, just the Timothy Zahn treaty, but I remember disliking how small Leia’s role was there too.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
Granted, it’s been a few years since I read the Thrawn trilogy by Timothy Zahn (and the follow up duology) but I remember being pleased with the women in it. Leia even gets a huge storyline where she’s important for being Vader’s heir – not Luke, as shown in the films, but Leia. Could you elaborate on the lack you saw in Leia’s role?
Sylvia Sybil(Quote) (Reply)
Zahn actually did comparatively well with Leia, considering the development of Mara was more central to his work. He had Leia training to be a Jedi, starting a family, moving up in the government. But after that trilogy, nothing much comes of any of it and she’s often just sidelined (meanwhile, the writers’ original female characters are often memorable, which makes me think it was Lucasfilm refusing to commit Leia to a path rather than the writers lacking interest in her). By the time I’d stopped reading, the story had moved 10-15 years past RotJ and:
–She still wasn’t a Jedi, maybe never was gonna be.
–The New Republic was still ridiculous and ineffective, so her role there was nothing to be proud of.
–It’s often suggested or stated flat out that Leia’s trying to do too many things to do any of them well.
And that seems to be the case, since she never finishes training, the government eventually falls (I think? Getting this from an online source) and one of her kids goes dark side and Mara’s the only one smart enough to figure it out (in fact, he’s the one who kills Mara – lovely).
So, between the sidelining and the implication that Leia’s the space equivalent of a selfish 80s career mother trying to “have it all” like the menz… yeah, I was not happy.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
To be honest I don’t remember it that well since it’s been years since I read it. What I do remember is being disappointed that it’d been years since Leia found out she was a Force-sensitive and she still couldn’t really do ANYTHING. I’m aware powers aren’t the be-all end-all of a character, but so much hope was invested in Luke. To present Leia as “another” and then have a story take place years later where she still wasn’t anything close to someone who could also fulfill that role was kind of a huge disappointment. Canonically she and Luke were the only Force users still around at the end of the films so it was also weird to come across a whole bunch of other Force users and still not really develop Leia in this way.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 2 trackbacks }