Indiana Jones and the AARP
Please forgive this — yet another nerd-a-thon blog entry on my childhood hero, Indiana Jones. But the way I figger it, if you can't get your nerd on in a blog, then you may as well grow up. And I'm not about to do that.
Herewith, my argument for why Indy should be immune to the type of "He's so old ..." jokes justifiably lobbed at Rambo, Rocky and John McCain.
The crux is this: He's an archeology professor. As such, he has always been a reluctant hero, perpetually in over his head, flying by the seat of his canvas pants and more often than not getting the living crap beat out of him. Granted, Harrison Ford will be 70 in five years. But my grandpa was a professor and didn't fully retire until he turned 76. Of course, Gramps could no more swing from a bullwhip than bend the Matrix. But he's not Harrison Ford. And I honestly believe Harrison Ford could still whoop some ass.
In the early movies, he was less believable as a college prof. He has grown into that role. It's kinda like the Batman flicks. Michael Keaton made a great Bruce Wayne, but was kinda Mr. Mom-y for the caped crusader. Val Kilmer had the opposite problem. George Clooney, well, let's just not talk about that. My point is that, as long as Steven Spielberg doesn't have him doing helicopter kicks from a one-armed handstand, Indy's age just adds more subtext to his reluctance as a hero.
Or perhaps I'm just a softy who can't stop worshiping a childhood idol. Either way, I've put myself in a vulnerable position. One of my few remaining slivers of childlike awe will be offered like a prized archeological relic come May 22. Be gentle with me, Indy.
Comments
Of course Ford is too old for an action role. But with the miracles of modern medicine and CGI, we will probably not be disappointed with "his" action performance.
This all hinges on how the movie approaches the subject of Ford's age. If we pick up about where the last movie left off then we should see some classic IJ action but if they decide to play the age card the movie is sunk.
Just like the Lethal Weapon 4 mistake and the fourth Die Hard installment's impossibly resilient John MacLaine, an Indiana Jones movie that tries to show Jones as one of those "too old but somehow he saves the day" stereotypes (saved for aging male action stars who are ready to transition into drama and straight-to-video family comedies) then Speilberg will have some 'splaining to do. You don't take the childhood action hero of every kid who lived in the 80's and turn him into something weak, unless you're in cahoots with the American Psychotherapist's Association to drive millions if people to the shrink's couch, or you feel like committing Career Suicide.
If he hands us Grampa Jones instead of Classic Indy then Speilberg should be demoted to directing shampoo commercials or Teletubbies episodes.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2008 11:09 AM
Didn't all Lethal Weapon movies suck? The movie where age really went wrong was that last Crocodile Dundee. They couldn't put enough gel on the lens to hide either actor...
Posted by: Robb Willis | May 7, 2008 11:42 AM
LW one and two were awesome but after that it got bad. Dundee was only good for the first movie and the second was a classic Bad Sequel but the third was some kind of evil, diseased abortion that screamed like a beast after it was born and refused to die of natural causes.
It's when they start to acknowledge the age of the actor in the movie that things go terribly, terribly wrong. It only worked in the one Lethal Weapon movie, where they did a great job of handling the "two days to retirement" cliche. Intentionally writing them in LW 4 not as "Getting too old for this shit" but "Far Too Old For This Shit" was a huge disaster.
The point of LW, was Glover's Aging Family Man Cop, being forced to relive the action of his glory years by Gibson's half-crazy ex-military Lone Wolf Hero Cop.
The plot in LW one was pretty mediocre-- it was the actors and their interaction that made the movie.
Some actors know when to hang it up, but the roster of those who don't is growing. The age cutoff used to be younger but it's getting older and older as studios realize that people really don't have enough taste to refrain from shelling out $12 to see a senior citizen wobbling around in front of the camera in some badly written, underfunded, over-hyped action flick.
I have known real people who are in their 80's and 90's and are in far better shape than me (a thirty-something) but seriously, these people aren't still wearing a cop's badge or hunting treasure in dangerous foreign countries.
I realize the Boomers don't want any indication that they are entering the Golden Years but hey, no one lives forever.
Hopefully Hollywood will see the error of their ways, even if they need trifocals to do it.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2008 09:05 AM
Gibson seemed to just be phoning in his performances in the LWs, but I guess his character was that way also. The Gary Busey fight was ridiculous.
I held Gibson to a higher standard back then. I still watch Year of Living Dangerously on a regular basis. Seeing Mel go the Burt Reynolds route really bugged me when he started cashing in.
Posted by: Robb Willis | May 9, 2008 01:10 PM
Test your Indy IQ: http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/story/948583.html
Posted by: Andrew Bird | May 19, 2008 01:40 PM