 Originally Posted by MinionZombie
Again, I think the tonal difference between Raiders and Doom is down to who is targeted and how they're targeted for a scare.
Raiders has creepy bug moments, such as Indy's jacket being covered in tarantuals, but he just sweeps them off. The moment is more about the other guy's fearful reaction (but he doesn't get them on him), plus it shows Indy as brave.
Meanwhile in Doom, you have Willie going through the movie constantly grossed out, wincing, being terrified, and screaming her head off. There's so many gross out gags just on her alone which make it feel much more like torturing someone for some kinda of perverse amusement, less of a thrill ride and instead something darker in tone and execution.
But Willie's reactions are comedic in general. She screeches and yelps and is covered in bugs, but it ends up being funny. It becomes almost Monty Python. On the other hand Marion in the Well of Souls is bloody terrified and so is the audience. That sequence is damn scary and it ends with this, a genuine horror moment if ever there was one.
Untitled-4.jpg
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
That's where the key difference is between those two movies and their tone. The sacrifice scene alone features the long and drawn-out rising terror of the poor innocent who has his heart ripped out of his chest - he even has his own heart brandished in front of his horrified eyes.
The tone in raiders is damn creepy though. In places much more so than in Temple. Both movies have their dark tones, but I've never understood this idea that Raiders was some sort of knockabout romp while Temple was a kind of horror movie for nippers. I get that Temple caused some over sensitive parents to piss and moan and led to a new MPAA rating. But that rating was coming for long time. Temple of Doom, Gremlins and a few other movies were just the culmination of that journey. But Temple of Doom gets an unfair rap because of it.
As for the guy on the gurney going into the fire pit, that scene goes so far into OTT territory it ceases to be frightening. He has his heart ripped out and he's still alive which just makes it absurd and ridiculous. BTW, in UK and Irish cinemas that scene was cut for years. You never see Mola Ram's hand pierce the guy's chest. So it looked like old Mola was pulling a fast one on his audience and he had a heart hidden in his pocket.  Ironically making it more of a scary scene.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
The villains getting melted/blown up/whatever at the end of Raiders are pretty quick moments and, because they're evil Nazi bastards, you want them to get their comeuppance. Willie, annoying as she is, is still one of the good guys and she's constantly screaming her head off and always in one super uncomfortable situation after another for most of the movie ... it almost feels as if Doom is picking on her, meanwhile the characters in Raiders (e.g. Marion) are much more rough and tumble already, so even though they go through some intense moments, the audience feels a bit safer with them if that makes sense?
Whether the characters are "nazis" or not isn't important. It's the visuals. Kids watching 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' had little idea what a Nazi was. But they know a melting face when they see it. And quick moments don't matter. It's long enough to make an indelible mark upon ones memory. It's frightening what happens to the people at the end of Raiders, irrespective of who they are or what their politics is, because the visuals are so horrific and they transcend any such notions. What happens to Willie, though, is Three Stooges territory, even if it is mildly unpleasant.
I think Temple of Doom has ended up with this, quite undeserved, reputation due to the circumstances that it found itself in in 1984. The year of 'Gremlins' and 'Ghostbusters', which had spooky moments and adult humour in their own right and aren't really movies for the kiddywinks at all. But all of those films are the tipping point of a situation that had existed in cinema long before they were made. There was an inevitable tumble toward a higher than PG rating for some time.
In any case, it remains a shame that Spielberg lost his nerve, toned everything down, and decided to make Last Crusade into a stupid slapstick farce, complete with visual gags that were just stupid and not funny. Spielberg is a master at understanding action, tension, sentimentality and pathos. But he completely lacks any comic timing or sensibilities. The same can be said for George Lucas.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks