> There was so much attention to the logical flow of the story.
In some ways, but the most famous observation (that I've heard) about the first Indiana film is that the outcome -- all the bad guys getting fried when they open the ark -- would have also happened had Indiana done nothing.
I have seen this kind of criticism against several other movies (e.g. also much of "The Last Jedi", although I don't like that one for different reasons) and I don't get it. In real life, the things we do aren't part of a great scheme that always leads to some grand goal, sometimes they can be just inconsequential. I don't understand what's wrong with that happening in a movie, in fact I even find it refreshing when a movie forgoes the standard clichés where everything has to "fit" perfectly and if they focused on a seemingly irrelevant object in the initial parts of the movie, you know it has to play a role in the end.
The character did live experiences and learn, and we were entertained along the way.
It's bad storytelling. In stories you break up routines by introducing characters and problems which then eventually get reintegrated.
If a big part of the story cancels out during reintegration it doesn't feel right and the ending won't feel satisfying.
Obviously in this case the story doesn't get ruined, but in general it's a good idea to not introduce things into a story that won't be needed later on.
Big Trouble in Little China is an example where I think they did this intentionally and it worked; Kurt Russell’s character (arguably the main character) doesn’t actually do anything but witness the story, and everything would have turned out more or less the same if he hadn’t been there. In the case of Raiders, I don’t think it was intentional and it didn’t work (though like you say the rest of the movie was so strong and fun it doesn’t matter).
I do love the warehouse scene at the end, however, and think about it all the time.
I think the great Top Men comments is another excellent detail. When I was a kid I thought there might be some secret team that could work for the government and Indy would have to believe. But now that I’ve worked in research, it’s clear that whatever research field you work in, you absolutely know who the best is. We talked about the best Synthetic chemists all the time.
It would be next to impossible for Indy to not know those big names (in the same “notorious” way he knew of Belloq) so it really adds more to the government BS.
"Fast reflexes" wrapped up perfectly the movie, though. You see it at the start, you forget it because Burton is mostly useless, then bam, Chekhov's gun ending.
You're right - I should have said 'done nothing until that point'.
That leads to the question 'how could he have followed them?' but that's not a terribly difficult question to entertain, as there's several junctures in the story where he could have safely transitioned into an 'observe from a distance' mode.
Certainly once landing in Egypt that's the case, but even the early Nepal detour becomes optional if you assume the Nazis would have continued to excavate everywhere until they found the Well of the Souls (or lost the upcoming war before doing so).
From Egypt-arrival onwards, if he'd kept an eye on things, then followed the bad guys into the desert, kept his eyes shut (he's the only one to know that was important) he could have transported the ark away without interference once that all went down.
So now goint meta: is this actually a fault? I mean this flaw is only in hindsight, from the perspective of the character everything was done right (at the moment to moment decisions without the gift of clearvoyance). Maybe the criticism shd be more that opening the ark is actually a deus ex machina (literally and figuratively), since nothing else could have saved indy in that situation).
Yup, and as Al-Khwarizmi says in a sibling comment, we are entertained through the journey.
Whether it diminishes your entertainment, once you get to the end of the story, to realise almost everything was pointless
- in the fictional universe you just partook - well that's a question for you.
For me, it does not. But I also really enjoyed Joseph Heller's second novel.
A well-made film can also get away with one or two plot points that it doesn't bear to think too deeply about so long as the film as a whole is good.
The letters of transit signed by General De Gaulle[1] in Casablanca is a case in point. As someone once wrote, that would have been the equivalent of US forces being forced to accept letters of transit signed by Osama bin Laden.
[1]Maybe Peter Lorre actually says another name which would make more sense but De Gaulle is the general assumption.
The Nazis may never have found the headpiece if they hadn't followed Indy. That's his primary contribution. He clearly knew exactly where Marion was, even though he bullshitted the spooks about it. So he was careful with that information, and it's not likely anyone else would know.
Here's a question: how do we know those were government spooks at all? Maybe they were Nazis trying to setup Indy just so that they could follow him :D
In some ways, but the most famous observation (that I've heard) about the first Indiana film is that the outcome -- all the bad guys getting fried when they open the ark -- would have also happened had Indiana done nothing.