Posts Tagged ‘ Harrison Ford ’

Thirty-Day Movie Challenge: Day Twenty-Seven

So much for that great dream of being finished with this series by the end of 2011.

I blame Republicans, a hard-drinking stripper from Memphis, the lure of making an easy thousand dollars in Tijuana, a gunfight at a rundown Laundromat and old reruns of The Larry Sanders Show.

None of those things actually qualify, but they at least sound better than “My glasses were obliterated and haven’t been replaced yet, I missed a get-together with some of my favorite people, my wallet went missing, my girlfriend left me, my back decided to take a vacation from being useful and my depression is more potent now than it’s been in quite some time.”

All in 2012, kids.

I don’t know about you, but I’m ready for 2013.

Let’s see if we can kill this whole challenge by the end of January. We’re nearly done. I’m also pretty damn close to being finished with that third, hopefully final draft of that second go-round at writing a novel worth selling.

My hope is that my mood will improve with these things behind me.

Some travel would also likely cheer me up. I’m just astonished that such a thing happens to cost money. I had no idea until recently.

Where do I want to go?

What have you got?

I’m eager for something big in 2012. My ability to look and fight for that is not where it should be, but I try to keep optimism close to the ability to get out of bed every morning.

Some snow would be nice. It doesn’t have to be a winter apocalypse. I would be perfectly content with an inch or two sticking to the ground, and disappearing from the otherwise-dull scene by the next morning.

I’m not fussy. I’m often willing to settle for less. That’s one of my many problems.

**********
30 Day Movie Challenge

Day Twenty-Seven: Movie With Your Favorite Hero

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Paul Freeman

In theory, this should be one of the shortest entries in the bunch. Because there is literally nothing I can say about this movie or Harrison Ford that hasn’t been said by several million other fans/nerds/etc over the past thirty years. This is one of those movies where my only real option for achieving originality would be to start making up outlandish theories. I could argue that Denholm Elliot was the true hero of the film, or that Marion was just a figment of Indy’s imagination.


Which would have been a shame, really.

This is the internet though. I’m sure someone somewhere has already put forth those theories.

However, there are actually people who have never seen this movie. I try not to be the kind of person who responds to that kind of thing with huge eyes, a backwards stagger of disbelief and a cry of “What do you mean you’ve never seen that?!” Sometimes, it’s hard. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those films I just inherently assume everyone has seen before. That’s silly, but it’s built into my mind all the same. I have a friend who counts the three Mummy films amongst her favorites, but she’s never seen any of the Indy films. I don’t think less of her for it (I’m a nerd, but I’m not a complete asshole). I can’t help but be surprised by that. Because the thing with Raiders is that even if you’ve never seen it, chances are good that you’ve probably seen a reference to it. You don’t have to see the legendary boulder scene at the beginning to know that someone else is alluding to or parodying it when they do their own bit of someone trying to outrun a giant, rolling rock.

I can personally only see so many references to something, before I feel compelled to go and figure out what in the hell people are going on about.

So, if you’ve never seen the movie, I guess I can only hope this review encourages you to do so, or reminds you of a resolve you made a while ago.

What I love is that Raiders of the Lost Ark is yet another movie that doesn’t seem like it came out when it did. For a movie that was designed as a throwback to the old serials of the 1930’s/40’s, that’s an interesting feat. It might be a throwback to those movies, I certainly think so, but it’s not stubbornly rooted in a style of film that’s no longer common knowledge. It’s a 1980 feature-length film with 1930, 40 movie serial leanings, and yet it plays the same for me now as it did when I first saw it.

I’m really at a loss to try and provide any insight that might be in any way considered original. The best I can do is to provide yet another testimonial for why this movie hasn’t gone on to pale in comparison to bigger movies with bigger budgets and better special effects. Charm and personality go a long way in a movie. Harrison Ford has been one of my favorite actors since I saw Raiders about twenty-three years ago. I watched every movie of his I could find and enjoyed just about all of them. He’s a great actor, or he’s at least great at playing the characters that he plays, but it’s that presence he casts in every scene of every movie. You can find that same presence in the Star Wars: Episode IVV. Ford defined his own particular style of hero here, but the general concept of a hero like Indiana Jones can be found across nearly the entire history of film. George Lucas and Phillip Kaufman set out to create their own imprint on that concept. What they came up with came together with Ford’s weary, stubborn portrayal, and it created what is easily my favorite cinematic hero of all time. It’s a hero character that stands to last long after he’s gone. Because like all the great movie heroes, it’s a unique presence that only he can bring to that character. It’s not just as Indiana Jones either. Ford is one of my favorite actors for the simple reason that I can see rarely someone else as the character he’s playing exactly as he’s playing it. Very few actors/actresses have that quality, and maintain it in even the least of their films. There are Harrison Ford movies I don’t care for in a general sense, but I don’t think I’ve ever thought Ford himself has given a particularly bad performance.


Weird Al had the right idea of how to go about this, even if the result was the same.

I love all the Indiana Jones movies (the fourth one was wonderful, so, keep quiet, because we’re not getting into it), but the first one is the one I’ve seen the most. The story is simply an archeologist trying to get to the legendary Ark of the Covenant, before those wacky Nazis do. It’s a simple plot, but it’s extremely well-told. Most of us should know by now that it’s possible to screw up telling even the most basic stories. Basic also doesn’t mean stupid, and enjoying something as to the point as Raiders doesn’t necessarily mean you’re simple. Movies can win points for style, but they still have to be captivating in some way. There is not a mood in my emotional playbook that can refuse Raiders of the Lost Ark. It works under any circumstances, and it’s that now-legendary hero of Ford’s that’s most responsible for making this possible.

Karen Allen remains my favorite of the girls Indy finds himself tied to, the villains, Ronald Lacey and Paul Freeman, were never better, that John Williams score is absolutely crucial and the action sequences are the best of all four movies (I love the story of how the fight between Jones and the swordsman came down to the fact that Ford had dysentery that day). It’s impossible to choose one favorite scene over another (the bar scene comes close). All of them make me smile like a complete idiot. One who has never seen a flawlessly entertaining movie before. That’s not the case, and Raiders isn’t even my favorite movie of all time, but I’ll never get tired of it.

Other cast notables include John Rhys-Davies in a role I like almost as much as Gimli in The Lord of the Rings, and Alfred Molina (you know, Dr. Octopus) in his film debut. It was a shame Sean Connery and the late, endlessly wonderful Denholm Elliot couldn’t come back for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but I kind of wish they had figured out a way to fit Rhys-Davies in the story.

I know, I know. It doesn’t even take place in the same part of the world as Raiders (or The Last Crusade for that matter). I’m just saying.

Raiders might be my favorite of the franchise, but I can still get similar pleasure from the three subsequent films. All of them make me glad that it’s possible to create a movie that’s pure entertainment, without making me feel like I just suffered a concussion from being dumbed down to death when the end credits roll.

A remake is just impossible to me. No one could play this character as well as Ford did, and still does. No one but Spielberg at that point in his career could have crafted this exact kind of adventure. This movie brought out the best in everyone involved. With other projects many of them would find other moments of brilliance, but it’s a particular kind of extraordinary fun when everyone comes together for an Indiana Jones movie. This one set a tone that’s been almost impossible (but just as much fun) to follow in the other three movies. I like each movie for different reasons, but the one steady fact in all four is Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, and Indiana Jones was never as good as he was the first time we met him.

Thirty-Day Movie Challenge: Day Twenty-Two

Think we’ll get to thirty before the end of this year?

That’s the plan, so be kind enough to forgive a little repetition. I’ll try to break things up with a poem.

2012 is breathing down my neck, and I’m not going for a mixed bag kind of year (like this one). I hope that will be most strongly be reflected in what I do creatively.

We’ll see. I’m vicious and optimistic these days, or at least I’m more of those two things than I have been for a long time.

**********
30 Day Movie Challenge

Day Twenty-Two: Film You Wish You Could Live In:

Blade Runner (1982)
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young

Blade Runner is a great movie. I want to say I first saw it on TV as a kid, but the truth is that I just can’t remember the time or place. I don’t know the time or place matter to me. I guess I just like to trace the chronology of when I first saw a movie to what I think of it now. That’s the only explanation I can think of. People love to define things, create timelines, and I like doing with even the most casual or mundane things.

I don’t remember the where and when of Blade Runner (as is the case with a good portion of the movies I’ve chosen for this list), but I remember being sucked into the world of this film about a minute in. I think the biggest reason why I’ve seen it so many times over the past twenty years is because of that strange, beautiful, terrifying and contradictory city. It’s a weird, chaotic mash-up of film noir, futurism, New York, Gotham City, Hong Kong, Hell and probably a wide array of other influences that are lost on me. I’m not shocked that the famous “Nighthawks” painting was part of that visual influence on the film. I’ve spent most of my writing career trying to recreate. I don’t think I’ve ever come close. I don’t have the budget, but it also doesn’t help very much that I also don’t have the imagination. That’s not meant to be a self-deprecating comment. It’s just a question of limitations. I can only watch a movie like Blade Runner, be completely spellbound by its universe and then carry that over into my own creativity as best I can. I don’t mind failing. Being engaged that strongly by sometimes is enough for me.

Don’t  worry. There’s still Build-a-Bear Workshops.

Blade Runner is quickly approaching its thirty-year anniversary.  It will have passed the mark by this time next year. I don’t see those thirty years as much as I possibly should. It could be a bias on my part that I’m rarely aware of what age may or may not have done to my favorite films. Is that a bad thing? Does it hurt my opinion to see a movie the same way I saw it ten, fifteen or even twenty years ago? I really can’t say. That’s likely a question I should try to answer through the essays and reviews I write about film, but I’m not sure how to go about that. All I can do is watch something again, and see what parts of my standing opinion have held up, it and what might have changed.

This one is no exception to that, and very little about it has changed for me. I don’t think it’s shown very much age at all, if any. That could be due to the noir plot, one of the more enduring story arches out there. It’s been said that Robert Mitchum was originally the guy in mind when the script was being written by co-author Hampton Fancher. I don’t have a lot of trouble believing that. Mitchum was a legend of the noir films. The fact that the script was written for that kind of actor and persona reflects not only the casting of Harrison Ford (who is phenomenal) but of the film’s grim, rainy atmosphere as well. It’s also reflected in the other characters represented throughout. The movie is, of course, tied pretty strongly to science fiction roots as well, and those two genres exist in almost every character. Science fiction has leant itself well to noir on many occasions. Strong supporting performances from Sean Young (as the noir dame in distress), Rutger Hauer (who doesn’t need to work very hard at making me believe that he is at all times moments away from a killing spree), Daryl Hannah (the hard-luck gal for this story), M. Emmett Walsh (as the sleazy cop), William Sanderson and Joe Turkel round things out. Style aside, it just wouldn’t be a great movie without their performances with the support of a great screenplay. I’d probably still watch it though. Having these other things just enables me to love it on more than one level.

It’s not a detriment that the great screenplay comes from an even greater story, by the iconic Phillip K. Dick, whose stories continue to find relevance long after his death (and Dick reportedly approved of the script before passing) constructed the blueprint for everything this film is. The heart and humanity within his story survived to make its way into the movie adaptation, and that has helped Blade Runner be more than just a dated science fiction movie.

The cast (especially Ford) and writing have large roles in Blade Runner’s endurance. I’m grateful they exist to give the movie depth and soul, but I suppose I always come back to the city. The tone and visual impact of the movie is the biggest reason why I can be pulled into this turbulent weirdness as though it’s the first time. I occasionally feel like we’re beginning to see little bits of pieces of Blade Runner in the world today. I know, I know. We still don’t have those cars, but I do feel like we’re getting closer to this kind of cold, garbled and confused reality. We’re not too far off from having cities that match Blade Runner in terms of size, scope and dangerous eccentricity. I’ve kicked around the country enough to have the suspicion fueled and inflated. Travel is one of my great passions. It’s on that small list of things I’m relatively good at. Getting lost in the shuffle of the film’s neon dementia would be a hell of a fun way to spend a few years. I might want to leave after that, but I kind of doubt it.

The fact that this is such an amazing film in every regard helps watching it for the twentieth or thirtieth time considerably, but the infinite potential for imagination that can be found in its backdrops would keep me watching even if the rest of the movie failed to compare. There isn’t another movie I can think of that has so beautifully captured the contradiction of a city that is both a technological marvel and a hopeless throwback all at the same time. Those familiar with my writing know it’s my kind of town.

Reportedly, director Ridley Scott is at work on a sequel. That’s fine. I’m sure today’s technology could take what Blade Runner showed us and multiply that dazzle by a thousand. It might be a worthy successor, or it might not be. I’m sure I’ll go see it, and I’m sure I’ll hope that it’s a successful continuation of not only Blade Runner’s great writing, directing and acting, but of this universe that is critical to my own creative leanings as ever before. I can still be amazed.