One of the strongest memories I have of watching movies is watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for the first time. As a kid, I was blown away by how effortlessly cool the character was. Still half Han Solo in my eyes, Harrison Ford managed to be the Man's Man even while teaching a class of college students.
A few years ago, I watched "Temple of Doom" for the first time since middle school. With my newfound education, I was able to see how the film I thought was just a fun little romp was actually pretty unrepentantly racist. Focused around Ford's passage to India, "Temple" shows a bleached-white messiah rescuing helpless natives from a Thuggee cult, a premise which is neither geographically accurate nor true to the historical Thuggees, who were actually just highwaymen trying to make their way in the world. As the British calvary rides in to the save the day at the end, I can sufficiently say I was troubled.
Recently, I heard that the powers that be are making a new addition to the series. I've already stated that I'm usually on the side of nostalgia, but I understand why critics are crying out against this idea following "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." In my opinion, the problem with "Crystal Skull" was that it attempted to reconcile 1981's ass-kicking Jones, styled by Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford at the height of their games, with the current Spielberg's more complex and mature morality. To make a really good adventure picture, you have to not care about hurting feelings or having small holes in the plot. There's a reason that "The Rocketeer" never made it to Cannes.
Now, here's where the plot thickens; what if for the next film, Spielberg wasn't there to direct his characteristic action scenes, an action hero wasn't there as the heir apparent, and the producers finally realized Ford's acting belongs in the realm of daytime television? Would people finally be able to address the fundamental flaws of the character if someone without any cultural charisma played him?
The interesting thing about Indiana Jones as a character is that simple line that defines his moral code: "It belongs in a museum!" That little distinction makes a world of difference: others want the artifacts for "their collection," but putting it into a museum where everyone can access it is a selfless act of scholarship. But then again, does the idol really belong in an English museum, or as a part of the culture it came from? Indiana Jones is a tomb raider at heart, even if he doesn't do it for personal gain.
As much as I hate to say it, I'd love to see "Indiana Jones" rebooted with someone different, with an entirely different set of ideas. The question of course is, who would be in it?
Let's start with the director. Spielberg's a master of his craft, maybe one of the best five Americans who have ever directed motion pictures. But he still is a classical action director, and he works with a very small range of subject matter; if it's not about a war ("Saving Private Ryan," "Munich," "Lincoln") or a monster ("Jaws," "Duel," "E.T."), it's "The Sugarland Express." Hell, the man made a movie aboutthe Cold War with Tom Hanks in 2015. Maybe that theme is getting a little overplayed, Grandpa Steven.
No, I'd like to see someone new who keeps mixing it up, someone for a new generation that is tired of Hollywood's mess.
I started my short list with my favorite action movies of the year: "The Hateful Eight," "Straight Outta Compton," "Dope," "Turbo Kid," and "Terminator: Genisys" (with honorable mentions thrown to "Ex Machina" and "Mustang," which I don't quite consider action, and J.J. Abrams.) Tarantino (TH8) is obviously out, because I'm trying to get away from imperialism (though I do think Uma Thurman in the role would be kind of neat.) F. Gary Gray (SOC), Rick Famuyima ("Dope"), and the makers of "Turbo Kid" are all incredibly talented, but all also haven't made another successful movie for years before this (I know that's dumb if I'm looking for a new director, but it's my article, so suck it.) And so, the Andy goes to... Alan Taylor! ("Terminator: Genisys," "Thor: The Dark World").
Now, the film has already announced that they're casting Chris Pratt as a grown-up Shia Leboeuf (God, don't you wish you lived in that world?), but I thought I'd look outside the mold for a second.
Immediately and inexplicably, my mind jumped to Lucy Liu. She kicked some serious a** in "Kill Bill" and investigates hard on "Elementary," so you think she'd be the perfect choice to bring historical artifacts back to the mainland. But I realize I have to compromise with Disney, who would want a younger actor they can wring for eight movies and a reboot after the revolution. Unless I could bring her in as the mother character à la Sean Connery in "The Last Crusade," Lucy's out.
Maybe the best option is not to rewrite Indy as another suave person, but rather as a creep. And when you need a guy you wouldn't leave alone in your house, Hollywood demands Paul Dano ("12 Years a Slave," "There Will Be Blood"). If he played the role of Indiana Jones as just another slimeball who is only interested in museums solely because of tenure, the public might realize how perverse the whole idea of his character is. Or, on that note, why not just stick with Shia?
Then again, we could just make it simple and have Michael B. Jordan be Indy, because he was incredible in "Creed" and he's fairly bankable at this point. We'd probably have to move the premise out of the 1930s and into at least the 1970s just so Disney could minimize the racism, but I think it could work.
Well, whatever happens, I'm interested. If I'm still financially and physically able by July 2019, I'll try to be there. Worst comes to worst, they fire Spielberg for Michael Bay, rehire Shia, and call the whole damn thing "Transformers of the Lost Ark." Now that would be interesting.