MovieChat Forums > Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Discussion > In hindsight, was the Ark a real threat?

In hindsight, was the Ark a real threat?


In the beginning of the movie, Brody says "An army which carries the Ark before it is invincible." But in the end, we see that even when allowed to have their way with it, the Nazis are killed by the Ark.

When I was younger, I assumed this was because the Ark and by extension, God, were rejecting being possessed by the Nazis, implied by the spontaneous burning of the swastika on the crate.

But having re-watched the movie recently, I'm wondering if the only reason the Nazis were killed and that Indy and Marion survived is that the Ark kills those who get too curious and look inside at its secrets.

Does this then mean that had they ignored Belloq and simply handed the Ark over to Hitler without opening it, it would truly have made the Wehrmacht invincible (in the context of the movie, of course)?

The reason I ask is while I consider this pretty much a perfect movie, one potential flaw I noticed is that the Ark might not even be a real threat after all, if my first interpretation was correct.

reply

Someone on Quora provided an excellent and detailed response that I can only summarize here.

Basically, without Indiana, the ark gets opened on that island and kills everyone. Eventually, after possibly losing an investigatory party (or two), the Nazis figure out how the ark works and use it on the battlefield, possibly removing the lid from a safe distance with a VERY long string.

After dominating a few battlefields with the ark, they'd be pretty darn close to invincible.

Last point, not from Quora but from me, is that what you've described isn't necessarily a flaw in the movie. None of the characters knew the ark's capabilities with any certainty. Even if it's not a real threat, or its possessor not invincible, doesn't affect the story itself. It just becomes a classic McGuffin in that event. The story is about the quest for the ark more than the ark itself.

reply

Interesting, hadn't considered that there might be a way to properly "use" the Ark in battle.

Yeah, true, I guess the quest for the Ark is still exciting if pretend you don't know the ending. It works like any other twist ending.

reply

Or perhaps they have a couple of guys open the Ark then quickly put on blindfolds, and duck.

reply

yeah thatd work fine , Indy and marion just had to close eyes.
a welding mask would probly do the reick : )

reply

Instead of a long string, I’m betting the Nazis would have fanatical volunteers to open the ark, somewhat like Japanese Kamikazes.

reply

Its going to depend on how you look at it. If the Ark is just a device, then you should be able to figure out how it works and it will lead your army to victory.

If, on the other hand, the Ark is a "function" or "extension" of God, it will only do what God wants it to do. Which means it would never work for the Nazis. And while I look on the Allies as good, I doubt it would work for them either. The Ark was intended for the Jewish people.

I lean to the second possibilities.

reply


If, on the other hand, the Ark is a "function" or "extension" of God, it will only do what God wants it to do. Which means it would never work for the Nazis. And while I look on the Allies as good, I doubt it would work for them either. The Ark was intended for the Jewish people.


I'd agree, EXCEPT an old buddy of mine had an alternative theory that sort of retcons Indiana's world. Otherwise, how can we accept the simultaneous existence of the Jewish Ark, the Christian grail and the Shiva's Sankara stones.?

His theory was that the objects themselves have magical power, and it was only their respective cultures that assigned religious signficance to each item.

For example, Crusaders find a cup that heals any illness and conclude that it's the cup of Christ. If Ponce de Leon had found it first, he might've thought it was the literal Fountain of Youth.

reply

Which would correlate with my first hypothesis. That is certainly a valid interpretation, though I don't accept it myself. But the beauty of the way the franchise handled these things multiple interpretations can be drawn without harming the narrative.

I might note, in defense of my preferred interpretation, that there isn't any conflict between the Ark and the Grail. The Sankara Stones don't fit in with those, but this is a fantasy, so other deities can exist.

reply

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think the Ark never existed and it's all a myth.
Just some 4,000 year old fable to scare people into following a deity.
Great movie though.

reply

but .... but ... it was in the film!

reply

The ark of the covenant almost definitely did exist.

But all the legends about its power sound like horseshit.

In the same way that crucifixes exist but vampires and their vulnerability to them is horseshit.

reply

You were actually right the first time around, that the God of the Jews killed the evil Nazis.

reply

[deleted]

You mention the burning of the swastika yourself. This happened when no one was trying to take a peek, and it was only the nazi symbol being burnt away - not the crate itself. I think this more than suggests that God - or the ark itself, if you consider it autonomous - wasn't at all pleased with the nazis. I don't think it would have worked in their favour no matter what they had done.

reply

The Ark of the Covenant "works" on the side of Israel, according to the Bible. But there's even a few cases of it not working with even them due to their unfaithfulness or sin, like in 1 Samuel chapter 4 when Israel fails in their war against the Philistines. The Philistines acquire the Ark of the Covenant after this war and it doesn't help them in their military efforts. The Ark gives them diseases and the Philistines have to give the Ark back to Israel due to this.

The Ark holds a part of God, so it has a mind of its own, so to speak.

If you believe in the oral traditions of the Lemba people, they claim to be of Jewish Levite descent and they carried the Ark away from Israel during the Babylonian exile. They claimed that the Ark helped them to lay waste to regions and enemies, as they traveled through Arabia and eventually to South Africa. But who knows if they're telling the truth or not since many people claim to know what happened to the Ark, with varying different conclusions.

reply

You are actually asking a serious question about a fictional piece of history?

reply

I am a Christian and so I believe the Ark existed. You can choose to believe the bible is fictional but I do not. Also, personally, because of being Christian, I think the Ark would not have any power at all since God had Jesus die for all sins for all people and ressurected him. Therefore there would not be any reason for God to have his power in the Ark after sending Jesus. Because Jesus is the only way to the God of Abraham, The God of Moses, and the God of the Israelites. And because of that if someone did find the Ark, God's power would not be apart of it. They'd see the Ark and look inside and see the original tablet of the Ten Commandments.

This movie is fictional and I like it but just disagree with its interpretation of the Ark. All in good fun.

reply

The bible is a book of fantasy tales which was written over hundreds of years. Nothing in it is actually real. Remember religion is regarded by the common person as true, by the wise as fake and by the rulers as helpful. So you have to ask yourself, which are you. The common type, the wise type or are you a ruler? I am in the wise type

reply

Typical hardcore arrogant athiest. I don't hate you by the way but you are utterly disrespectful to a lot of people on here who maybe religious. You basically said anyone that believes in God whether Christian or Jewish is stupid. You go out of your way to insult me and others. You consider yourself wise for not believing in God. You think of yourself as better than others. You should maybe think before making yourself an arrogant angry person.

reply

Geez if anything I was trying to help you. Sorry if you took it so offensively. You have been brainwashed by others into believing fairy tales and it usually starts at a young age. Look at it this way. If you were born in China, they would have tried to brainwash you into Buddhism and all the fairy tales associated with that. In almost all cases, people are born into the religion that they believe

reply

[deleted]

You are a bigot and I really hope you are not American! Because some bigot like you who can't stand anyone having a religion does not belong in America! You are a fascist!

reply

I am an American proud democrat. So how can I be fascist or a bigot?

reply

Because you think religion is wrong and insist that anyone who believes in it is brainwashed. That to me is unAmerican. .

reply

Don't trouble yourself with the millsey person/robot. He/she/it is a nutter.

reply

Again just trying to help you. Politicians in almost every nation insist on their citizens to believe in a religion. Its about control. You may not accept this but no need to be rude to me

reply

[deleted]

Nah, man. Believing in Jesus Christ makes you a real democrat/liberal. Jesus Christ is transracial and transgender. By incarnating at Israel, Jesus transcends nationalist and racial identity by being at the center of the world. Because Israel is at the center of Africa, Asia and Europe. God had to do this for us, in order to unite humanity. That's the only place God could show up at, IMO.

And yes, Jesus is transgender as well - both male and female. When people actually read the Gospels, you can see it. So, we have a pretty politically correct deity here, no? I think it's legitimate.

reply

I am a real democrat liberal atheist. Science and evolution proves just how silly god and all those fairy tales in the bible. Every corner of the world, rulers created some silly religion to control its own people. Thousands of years ago, science and evolution were not understood. Now they are very much so. A god in any religion is just imaginary. It can't help you no matter how much the ruling class lies to you

reply

I think we do have to reference the Gospels/Christ, in a technical standpoint. Even if it's completely fabricated. The calendar that the West uses is really due to the clash between the Jews and Rome. If you don't think that Jesus caused Year 1 of our Gregorian calendar, then you have to say that Rome/Julius Caesar gave us our current calendar. Either Jesus or Rome has given us our calendar, why not learn their frame of time and reference?

I have been studying this "reference point" of some 2021 years ago and I have found stunning similarities between our era and Roman-Occupied Judea. In some ways, things really haven't changed and we are still impacted by the politics of this era.

The conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees reminds me a lot of the conflict between Liberals and Conservatives. The Essenes are exactly like the incel millennials and the Zealots (that sparked the Roman war in 66 AD) are exactly like the Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol in January.

reply

Our planet is something like 4 and half billion years old. It took a few billion years for the dinosaurs to evolve and rule the Earth. Humans overall have only been on this Earth for a very short time. Humans in power created all different kinds of religion to keep their people in fear and control. Its sheer nonsense to think some silly god waited over 4 billion years to finally create humans. Religions are all fake

reply

If the current year really is 4 billion years, how come you don't write out that year instead of 2021? You're still letting the Elites/Government rule over you by telling you what year it is. You are still obeying them.

reply

It's convention, not the "elites" or the government. And it's convention because it's practical. What would be the point at fixing the beginning of a calendar not only to some point before recorded history, but before man even evolved? That would be utterly pointless, not to mention cumbersome.

reply

No, you are not getting it. By referencing "2021", you are referencing the authority of what gave you that year. You under the rule of Rome or Christ, then. They have given you your frame of time. They have decided what year it is for you.

Decide between these two: Rome or Jesus. The former is secular, technically. The latter is religious. Whichever entity you want to go with, that entity decided it was "Year One" for you. Under the lens of Liberal Cancel Culture, it's racist and imperialist. As an atheist, you probably need to go with your own calendar. But then, that even becomes a double edged sword. Hahaha.

reply

No, you are not getting it. By referencing "2021", you are referencing the authority of what gave you that year. You under the rule of Rome or Christ, then. They have given you your frame of time. They have decided what year it is for you.

No they didn't. You think Jesus went around using the Gregorian calendar? Yes, 1 AD was ostensibly the year Christ was born. Just like Tuesday is Tyr's day, Wednesday is Odin's day, Thursday is Thor's day and Friday is Frigg's day. You use those days, too - does that mean you are still "referencing the authority" of the old Norse religion?

Or how about the months of January, February, March, May and June? All those are based on Roman gods. You still a pagan, because you use those months?

reply

@Karl Aksel I like you and I like this conversation. You are more fun than than the other guy.

Good rebuttal. But you dismissed what I just said and went on to something else. Someone (Julius Caesar) decided it was "Year One", and you're saying it happened randomly out of convenience. As for what you just brought up, read my words carefully. I like what you have brought up, it is a good question.

After battling the Seleucid Empire, the Jews made a pact with Rome in the book of Maccabees (1 Maccabees chapter 8). This pact continued with Jesus. Jesus actually goes on to have a "spiritual" pact with Rome. Ergo, I think some Roman names are going to be used in the new covenant.

Along with practicing both Judaism and Christianity, I also practice another religion that cannot be named. This religion oddly also has ties to Rome. I think there is something special about Rome.

As for the pagan names of the week and pagan Calendar names, the Bible actually says that God can use pagan things for His own purposes. I know that does sound crazy and like a stretch, but it is both in the Torah and in the Gospels.

1) YHWH tells Moses to use a Serpent staff (which is Egyptian) to heal Israel in Numbers 21:8.
2) In John 3:14-15, Jesus references this story and says that just as Moses raised up the Serpent staff to heal Israel, people must look towards Jesus in order to be healed. Yes, it is a leap of faith because it appears pagan. But God can use and "transform" the pagan into something holy, basically.

reply

Thats a tricky question. When the earliest dinosaurs existed, days were 18 hours long. When the planet was originally formed, days were much shorter than that. Our current year of 2021 symbolizes the start of early human civilization. Please don't tell me you are this naive about the history of this planet

reply

It's a serious question about a fantasy adventure movie. Why come to a movie chat site if not to discuss movies?

reply

smart!

reply

You are actually asking a serious question about a fictional piece of history?

Raiders is also a fictional piece of history. As is Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Yet that did not stop you from asking this question:

"A few monsters were bowing before Godzilla. I know one was Rodan but who were the others? One of them looked like a giant spider. Where did he come from?"

And then, replying to an explanation, you commented that it was a plot hole. This discussion about the Ark of the Covenant is no different. Godzilla was never real either, you know.

reply

But its a proven fact that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. In fact, dinosaurs were around a lot longer than humans on this planet. So Godzilla at one time was real. Humans just had a different name for him. They called them a T Rex or something like that. The ark is like god. Its always been phony made up nonsense

reply

I hope you're being facetious.

reply

You and me both.

reply

Godzilla isn't a T-Rex. The cunt was like 20 storeys tall. I hope you ain't that dense.

reply

I said they called him a T Rex or something like that. I am no expert in dinosaur names but ones like Godzilla and Rodan existed millions of years ago

reply

Get fucked they did.

reply

Something very close to a Godzilla existed hundreds of million of years ago. Fossils prove this. I am not sure of the scientific name given to dinosaurs who were like Godzilla. I'll ask my college professor. He knows everything

reply

Dino's the size of skyscrapers? What college are you attending? I'd ask for a refund cuz.

reply

Show me a fossil in any museum, anywhere on earth, that has a Godzilla size bone.

reply

Yes, there were dinosaurs the size of skyscrapers. Those fossils are too big for a museum so they are just in the ground unearthed. The smaller fossils are put into museums. So deal with it. Godzilla like dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago

reply

The tallest dinosaur would have been at most 60 metres maybe I reckon, and it wouldn't have even been a t Rex looking one.

reply

And who called em T-Rex? Do you think humans were alive at the same time dinasours were?

reply

By the way, I never began to assume you were a paleontologist.

reply

Well, from the way things worked out, I think we know that the Ark was not a threat in the hands of the Nazis… What we appear to have witnessed, when it was opened, was the wrath of God—Old Testament style. However, the Old Testament God was an unpredictable being. Remember Job? Apparently God was taunted into, among other things, killing Jobs innocent children. And, of course there’s the flood and a whole world of innocent children. So one can imagine God allowing His Ark to be used by the Nazis to make some horrifying point about how men have turned from Him…
But even from the standpoint that the Ark was not a threat in Nazi hands, its very existence as a supernatural artifact means that it could be important in the war. If the Ark is a vessel of supernatural force, then perhaps there are other such artifacts and the Nazis holding the Ark would mean that it could not be carried against them… The whole business could devolve into Hellboy, with the Spear of Destiny and the Holy Grail (Hmm…) and Excalibur et****ingcetera.
Then there’s the fact that we could not be certain (unless we are Biblical literalists from the git-go) what the Ark might actually be. Jones believed it to be a historically important artifact and nothing more. It appears that the Nazis had a different idea. But, if you believe that the Bible is just a collection of often and perhaps badly translated pieces of history and mythology, assembled and edited by later religious leaders… Well, the Nazis, or anyone with this viewpoint AND a belief in occult or paranormal stuff, might imagine the Ark to be a channel of communication to some sort of space aliens or extradimensional beings. From this point of view the Ark might be a usable weapon because the Biblical account is only partially to be trusted. And we are back to von Daniken… or Hellboy.

reply

You remember Job wrong. Satan insisted to God that Job would turn away from him if he lost his family, animals, and health. And it was Satan that killed Job's family. Not God. The point of that story for most Christians is that Job didn't turn from God despite losing so many people and things. Satan was the bad guy in that story. Not God.

reply

You are right. That I misremembered The Book of Job... However, the gist of it is the same and I would say that God is either a bad guy or a very stupid guy in this instance.. This is the God who, after bragging about how much Job loves him, is taunted by Satan with (Non KJV version) "But, if you ***k with him, he will drop you like a bad habit."
God's response to Satan (with regard to the blameless Job) "Behold, he is in thine hand: but save his life." Or in non-KJV English; "Do anything you want to him as long as you don't actually kill him." Apparently God either didn't think of "collateral damage' or didn't care. Bad guy or stupid. Any other option requires you to fall back on some variation of: "God is by definition good and any evidence to the contrary is just our inability to comprehend his numinous majesty."

reply

You're free to your opinion. There are all sorts of messed up things in the old testament. But I take that as things just being different back then. I also just see it as a reminder that we live in a fallen word where bad things happen.

I more enjoy reading the New Testament. Also God did send Jesus to die for everyone's sins. Which I am thankful for or else I would have to kill a lamb, a full grown sheep, and some birds every Saturday to be forgiven.

reply

My interpretation of the Old/New change (And a summary of the entire Bible) is:
Back in the olden days God was a badass. He did all kinds of things that are hard to forgive (like genocide)...
But then, He met a nice Jewish girl. They had a kid and God settled down, became a good dad.
And now the kid is running the family business.

Saves a lot of begatting and loads of tiresome epistles.

reply

You remember Job wrong. Satan insisted to God that Job would turn away from him if he lost his family, animals, and health. And it was Satan that killed Job's family. Not God. The point of that story for most Christians is that Job didn't turn from God despite losing so many people and things. Satan was the bad guy in that story. Not God.

I think you are the one remembering Job wrong. The satan was given leve to do all those things by God - the satan could not have done so without God's permission. And God himself says that he, God, was the one who ruined Job for no reason. The satan was doing God's bidding, as is pretty much always the case in the Bible.

reply

I did remember that. Just that I along with a lot of Christians, believe Satan to refer the Devil. And so God had to show the Devil that Job wouldn't turn away from him if he had a terrible things happen to him. I just read it and Satan does not seem like he's friends with God or his servant cause he says to God in Job Chapter 1, "Does Job serve God for nothing?" And then he insists that Job would turn away from him if he had his blessings. That more sounds to me more like an antagonist of God more than a servant. Servants don't question or antagonize their masters.

reply

"Satan" does mean "opposer". It is kind of his job: he is playing the devil's advocate here, no pun intended.

If God and the satan are not on friendly terms, why does the satan even approach God? Why does God not smite him on sight?

The notion that Satan=the Devil is very much a Christian thing, and it is the biggest problem with Christianity. It is, essentially, dualism: by having Satan be an independent agent, you have essentially created a duotheistic religion where you have one deity who is all-good, and one who is all-evil. This was a notion that grew to prevalence in the 16th century, when the persecution of witches came to a head. Witches, so it was believed, received their powers from the Devil. When they cast their hexes, it was the Devil's power they summoned - black magic. This was really a remnant from pagan times, but it wasn't until the mid-17th century - when the great Burning had lasted a century - that Christian authorities took to their senses and decided that the Devil did not and could not possess such powers, seeing as God was supreme. They did not go to the step to decide the Devil was God's own servant, but settled for making the Devil subservient - and essentially powerless to interfere in worldly affairs.

reply

[deleted]

Well that's just your opinion. Why do you hardcore athiests have to be so intolerant of other people's religion?

reply

No, that's not just my opinion. It's a matter of historical record. And pray tell, how have I been intolerant?

reply

I was meaning it's your opinion that there should not be one Good God and one evil being. You may not have meant it but your comment seemed condescending to me. Also, about the history you mentioned, that is an example of Christian Extremists. Back then people couldn't even read and interpret the bible. Priests did that and they were corrupt back then. Hence them killing people instead of showing love or mercy like Jesus said. In today's world you don't hear about an entire congregation of a Christian Church killing someone they deemed evil do you?

reply

I was meaning it's your opinion that there should not be one Good God and one evil being.

I never said anything of the kind. I said nothing about my preferences, I merely pointed out that that's how Christians have treated it. and still do: one good god, and one evil god. The evil god they call "the Devil", because they don't want to admit that they treat him like a god. But they do. If God were the only deity, he would not allow a supreme evil entity to interfere with worldy affairs. But Christians have traditionally thought of the Devil causing evil in the world at least as much as God causing good, which means they treat the Devil as an evil version of God. They do not call the Devil a god, but that is what the Devil de facto is.

You may not have meant it but your comment seemed condescending to me.

I'm sorry about that. I often come across as condescending, so it's not you - nor the topic, for that matter. I do not mean to be, you're a good sort, but I yam what I yam.

Also, about the history you mentioned, that is an example of Christian Extremists. Back then people couldn't even read and interpret the bible. Priests did that and they were corrupt back then. Hence them killing people instead of showing love or mercy like Jesus said.

The interesting thing about the witch hunts is that the priests were actually a moderating force. Religious courts were much less inclined to prosecute witches than secular courts, and it was generally the supersitions of the common people which were running amok. A big exception here is Luther, who seemed just as fanatic as the commoners.

In today's world you don't hear about an entire congregation of a Christian Church killing someone they deemed evil do you?

Not the Western world, no - that's because the old fashioned superstitions are mostly gone. Christians are still participating in witch hunts in Africa, however.

reply

What you said though about Christians making the Devil into a God, the New Testament does talk about him. Since the bible mentions him though, it's not something Christians made up. He's mentioned in the Gospels and in the letters that make up the later Old Testament books.

reply