MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Discussion > Did David Lynch direct this one?

Did David Lynch direct this one?

posted 7 years ago by AngularTurnip (3334)
8 replies | jump to latest

What an utterly bizarre summer movie this turned out to be. I guess Spielberg and Lucas, having already made one of the greatest movies ever, decided with its sequel to ignore expectations and instead experiment their asses off. There are so many "firsts" and "onlys" in this movie it's unreal. From the opening dance number, to the child side kick, to Indy being turned evil and abusing Willie and Shorty, the whole movie is exhilarating in its "who gives a fuck"-ness. Did it add up to a good film? I suppose that will be debated forever. What can't be denied is its campy humor, child slavery story, groundbreaking human sacrifice scene, ending that probably gave more people diabetes than Diary Queen and other oddities render "Temple of Doom" one of the most avant-garde summer blockbusters to date.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I liked it growing up, but it wasn't until I was an adult that I realized Raiders of The Lost Ark was far, far, far better.

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

You are absolutely right there. No Indy sequel can touch "Raiders." It's the only Indy sequel with an unhappy ending (or at least it isn't the sugary nonsense all the sequels' endings chose to embrace). But when I don't necessarily want to watch a good movie -- like "Raiders" obviously is -- but instead something that makes me scratch me head and wonder aloud "What were they thinking?" I turn to "Temple of Doom" again and again. It's been thirty three years and we haven't had a summer movie like it since. And what's especially interesting is while Nolan and others have taken summer films into darker and darker realms none of them would touch something as fucked up as child slavery. Why Spielberg and Lucas did I have no idea. Spielberg has certainly gone dark post-"Temple" -- "Minority Report" anyone? -- but something like child slavery really is in a league of its own. And to put it in a summer movie that's wall-to-wall camp is even more inexplicable.

[–] spurtle467 (1520) 7 years ago

It's entertaining and I have a nostalgic fondness for it, but it has a very consistently silly tone to it running throughout. It is, as you say, bizarre how it so often descends into campy fun with the addition of Willie and Short Round, when it's juxtaposed with perhaps the darkest elements in the franchise, with the child slavery and human sacrificing going on.

Willie and her antics are straight up cringe. They practically undid the good work they did in Raiders presenting a strong and feisty heroine, and going the total opposite here with a sexist female stereotype who screams when she comes in close contact with most animals, cares more about her fingernails, and expects Indy to fall at her feet.

Nevermind the characters though, the film is filled with over the top silliness, whether it be the ridiculous action set pieces of the inflatable boat ride and the mine cart chase, or the depiction of Indians and their cuisine. That dinner scene makes me laugh now, whereas it used to horrify me as a kid. Just makes me imagine Spielberg and Lucas brainstorming, thinking "what's the most absurdly disgusting menu we can come up with?".

I take the film with a pinch of salt and enjoy it for the most part, but it certainly doesn't hold up well in the way that Raiders does.

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Sharon Stone was a contender for the female lead in this, and she might have livened things up. I'm not a big fan of Kate Capshaw. But I guess Spielberg was.....he cheated on Amy Irving with her.

[–] TandyMan (10653) 6 years ago

I just watched this movie for the first time in many years and I was blown away by what an unhinged freak show this picture is. Right from the opening dance number, which I only just realized for the first time, wait a minute, this whole dance scene is a fantasy! This isn't even f'n happening. What the hell? And it just goes nuts from there! Experimental is the word. I've read both Lucas and Speilberg were getting divorced and were angry and miserable when they made this movie, probably hating women too. And boy it shows. The movie is so tonally bizarre, such a loose connection of scenes that I can't really appreciate as a proper film. There's some great scenes but some of them are laughably absurd. What blew my mind most was the similarities between this and Crystal Skull. When Skull defenders were like there's nothing different about that movie than what we've seen before, this is the movie they were surely talking about. But most of the effects hold up pretty good, it's scary movie, it's an exciting film. I don't think it's a good film.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 6 years ago

What do you mean by; "... this whole dance scene is a fantasy" ?

[–] TandyMan (10653) 6 years ago

When they duck through the door and they're suddenly on an enormous sound stage as big an aircraft hanger and there's hundreds of dancers doing some Rockette action, and then actually defy gravity and physics with inverted splits, none of that is actually happening, as they later re-enter the club through the door and it's just a little tiny bar stage again. The whole show is just a fancy way to open the film, a throwback to classic days of cinema.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 6 years ago

aha, got it. Yes: A fancy way to open the film and to merge this fantasy vision with her actual performance on stage....

One way to perhaps easier accept this movie is to realize from where they got the idea and inspiration for the Indiana stories. To better understand the choices they made.

It is the James Bond franchise and the pulp fictions from the 30ies and 50ies... the reason that Skull was about Aliens is that the pulp fiction was mostly about aliens in the 50'is for example, and Skull took place in 1957 unlike the 3 other which happened in 1936, 1935 & 1938 - dominated by treasure hunters and nazi.

In other words, Indy's adventures correspond to what the pulp magasins were largely about at those same time periods he lived...with this in mind it is perhaps easier to understand why Doom has more comedy and far out fantasy, if compared to for example Raiders.

From this perspective, one may say that Doom takes it more serious than any of the others. Doom seem the closest to how a typical pulp fiction shortstory was in those times and also how the campyness of many of the Bonds was at the age they filmed it. After the success of Raiders they got more confident and so told Doom more close to heart or more close to their true inspiration and homage. It did not work equally well, and they changed approach a bit in Crusade... but it explains why Doom stand out, I think. And I respect that.