Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, and the Adventure Story

May 24th, 2008 · 17 Comments · Harry, Hogwarts School of Literature

by Dave

Jamie and I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls Thursday night. I won’t linger over a review of the film — if you’ve read the criticism on the web, I would agree with some of the more moderate takes on the film. Not as good as either Raiders or Last Crusade, but definitely a better film than Temple of Doom.

The point in starting with Indy is that he is the definitive version of the adventure story in our era. According to the tenth adition of Harmon and Holman’s A Handbook to Literature (the standard handbook of literary terms for lit majors), the adventure story can be defined this way:

A story in which action — often exterior, usually physical, and frequently violent — is the predominant material, stressed above characterization, motivation, or theme. Suspense is engendered by the question “What will happen next?” rather than “Why?” or “To whom?” (6)

The definition gives one a distinct sense that the authors don’t find much literary merit in the genre. For starters, other terms considered distinct elements of literary fiction often get essay length entries spanning pages and pages of small, single-spaced text. (If you’re wondering, the entry for “Fantasy” is about the same size as that for “Adventure”.) “Adventure” under this treatment is genre schlock pumped out purely for entertainment value, devoid of the existential crises (ontological, teleological, cosmological, and linguistic) that are supposedly the hallmarks of literary fiction. Or, at least those crises are made secondary to the spectacle of action.

Adventure is plot driven. And many scholars of the genre (one of my colleagues is one such scholar, and managing editor of The Black Gate) add a specific plot scheme that Wikipedia summarizes this way: “a hero would undergo a first set of adventures before he met his lady. A separation would follow, with a second set of adventures leading to a final reunion” (para 1).

In thinking about adventure fiction, as always it’s best to consider these ideas loose frameworks rather than rigid patterns. For instance, the Hero’s Quest so thoroughly detailed by both John Granger and Travis often has an adventure motif overlayed into it’s narrative framework. Homer’s epics are good examples of this, particularly The Odyssey. Other authors toy with the concept not as an overlay for the Hero’s Quest, but as a sidenote alongside the Quest: Tolkien writes Frodo as a transcendent hero trying to save the world; Samwise, on the other hand, constantly refers to their quest as an “adventure” and often motivates himself by thinking about a return to Rosie.

In Harry Potter, can it be argued that both methodologies are at work? Harry’s Quest framework is very firmly established and carries with it elements of adventure. Yet, the change in Harry’s character is simultaneously transcendent and material. His character is changed at an emotional level, but the more profound change is in his spiritual makeup and how that change extends beyond himself. The spiritual transformation seems to get some primacy over the more material concerns of Harry’s psychology; or perhaps the better way to think about it is that the spiritual transformation is the major goal for the his psychological transformation — definitely the Hero’s Quest as exemplified in nearly all Quest-driven literature.

Ron’s role in the story seems much more material, and potentially much more in line with the Adventure story type. For that matter, Ron’s character seems the flattest of all the major students. I think it can be argued that Ginny is more dynamic than Ron. Ron certainly changes, at least with respect to Hermione and to some degree with respect to the socio-cultural issues Rowling raises throughout the books. And he does muster a good bit of courage by the end of the series. But, in the Epilogue to DH, he still seems primarily the same lumox he’s been for for the previous seven volumes.

Yet, here’s the rub: if Adventure is so one-dimensional, why do audiences love these characters so much? Most fans love Ron, no matter how much we want Harry to smack him around a bit. Harrison Ford is the owner of two such characters: Indiana Jones and Han Solo. None of them are certainly the deepest characters of their respective narratives. Indy does learn the difference between “fortune and glory” (Temple of Doom) and something higher than himself and the material value of the antiquities he’s “looking for” (for Raiders, “stealing” would be the more appropriate term). But these changes in characters sometimes seem unearned, especially for Indy.

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: adventure story·genre fiction·hero's quest·Indiana Jones

17 responses so far ↓

1 reyhan // May 24, 2008 at 10:48 am

Dave,

Haven’t seen the Crystal Skulls yet, but I’ve read some reviews. And it seems to me - and to some reviewers - that there is something else happening there besides a purely plot driven adventure story.

****** HERE BE SPOILERS *******

Like a lot of popular fiction, the IJ series is about family. We start out with IJ as the lone wolf hero (small “h”) in IJ1. he links up with Marion Ravenwood, but the relationship is too brittle to last. He is foot loose and fancy free in IJ2, but there are attemps to create a surrogate family with the street urchin Short Round and the club singer, Willie. We know, because IJ2 is supposed to have occurred earlier in Indy’s life, that these relationships will not last. In IJ3 we have Indy reconnecting - or rather connecting - with his family of origin, his father. Thus he has a past, an origin, a place of beginning. And in IJ4, he picks up the other loose threads from his past, Marion and Mutt. And he has a family. To add some support to this theory, we can see that his family isn’t something that just happens to him. In IJ3 his primary quest is not for the Holy Grail - he is looking for his father. And finds him both literally and emotionally. And in IJ4, he is looking for someone else’s father, but finds him much closer than he thought.

I don’t know how the terms ontological, teleological, cosmological and linguistic qualify existential crises. But I think that there is a transformation in the character and his priorities. Because he is not introspective - nor would we want him to be - there is no internal process we are aware of or can point to, which accompanies the change. But that’s not very different from real life.

We can also look beyond the developing family in the story to the lives and relationships of the men behind the story: the “family” of Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford. The events in their lives - their friendships, the breakup of their marriages, the changing direction of their interests, the ageing of their star, the disagreements over the content (aliens vs no aliens) - are all reflected in the movies. So the IJ movies are not only about family - they are a family project as well.

All this is not to argue that they are not plot driven popcorn selling machines. It’s just that with Lucas and Spielberg at the helm, there is something more.
2 Michael // May 25, 2008 at 8:11 am

I actually enjoyed it more than the other Indie movies. I’m not a huge fan of the genre but I have enjoyed each of the films to date, with the latest installment, really capturing my excitement.
3 reyhan // May 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Just came back from seeing the movie.

My overall feelings was that there was something missing. Two things actually: a sense of excitement and a sense of mystery. There were spectacular action sequences galore, not one, not two, but three death defying leaps down water falls, extended fights between assorted people riding different vehicles, atomic explosiong - you get the idea. But there was also a sense of going through the motions. And the sense of mystery - well, the central mystery of the plot was a recapitulation of a familiar modern myth, and the movie could not find a way to make it thrilling, or frightening or awe inspiring.

And although I’m tempted to say the concepts were stale, I don’t think that was really the problem. I think the problem is related to why I argued above that IJ transcends the adventure genre. IJ1,3 and 4 are really a story about family, and more specifically, sons connecting with their fathers and fathers connecting with their sons. Lucas and Spielberg wanted to show an IJ family reunion.

In order to have a reunion, you need to show the members of the family. Indy. Marion. Mutt. Mutt’s surrogate father, Ox. And Indy’s treacherous friend, Mac. That’s quite a lot of people to drag along on an adventure story. Too many, it turns out. There really isn’t enough plot or dialogue to carry that many people. It gets tedious. It doesn’t help that Labeouf doesn’t have the presence to rival Ford on the screen, that Allen has lost the spark that animated IJ1, and that Blanchett can’t bring any animation to Spalko.

For better and for worse, IJ4 is a movie about the Jones family on a working vacation in the jungle.
4 Dave the Longwinded // May 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm

!!!SEMI-SPOILER ALERT!!!

I kind of felt like the movie was mostly about introducing and setting up Shia Labouef’s character as the torchbearer for the Indy universe.
5 reyhan // May 26, 2008 at 2:31 am

At the end of the movie the wind blows Indy’s hat past Mutt, who bends down to pick it up. Before he can put it on, however, Indy takes it from him and puts it back where it belongs.

The message is clear. Indy isn’t prepared to pass the hat on to the next generation. But perhaps he could just hang up the hat.

Ford, at 65 , is already older than Connery was when he played Henry Sr. I can’t see Ford doing a 5th IJ. Not to be ageist or anything, but no amount of banter could change the fact that Indy looked … not old, but too old to be climbing crates and jumping on and off motorcycles and battling men 1/3 his age in hand-to-hand combat.

And not only is Leboeuf not the actor to carry on the tradition, the series appears to have exhausted its inherent possibilities.

And we’ve already had the adventures of Young Indy. River Phoenix wasn’t bad in the role. but Phoenix is gone too.

It’s time to hang up that hat.
6 Marian // May 26, 2008 at 9:01 am

River Phoenix only played Indy at the beginning of IJ3. A different young actor (named something like Sean Patrick Flannery — can’t exactly remember and no time to pop in a DVD to verify right now) played Indy in the TV show.
7 Kairanie // May 27, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Harmon and Holman is in it’s tenth edition? Should it be making me feel this old that I have the eighth edition? I only bought it six years ago.
I’ll go read the rest of the post now….
8 Rosie // May 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm

“Jamie and I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls Thursday night. I won’t linger over a review of the film — if you’ve read the criticism on the web, I would agree with some of the more moderate takes on the film. Not as good as either Raiders or Last Crusade, but definitely a better film than Temple of Doom.”

You consider THE LAST CRUSADE, which is basically a rehash of RAIDERS, to be better than THE TEMPLE OF DOOM?

What you’re trying to say is that the character of Indiana Jones basically has no depth or development?

God! I really wasted my time reading this article.
9 Dave the Longwinded // May 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Rosie, I suppose the article might be taken that way, but that’s not my intention. Indy isn’t Hamlet, but as an academic, I’m often taken aback by the tendancy of my peers and colleagues to dismiss something like Indiana Jones as just fluff unworthy of their time.

Of course Indy has some depth. But the development of his character is secondary to the action and spectacle — but we love him anyway. Why? What I’m getting at is a question concerning what adventure stories in general have to offer. Typically, they’re dismissed as mindless entertainment, or at best just a marker of some sort of broader cultural zeitgeist that interests cultural scholars and critics for some reason.

Thanks for the close reading and the time and attention you spent thinking about the issue…

If you want to come in and disagree, please do so — but with more articulation, please. If you accuse me of wasting your time, then give me something more to think about than your sarcasm and dismissiveness.

Reyhan and revgeorge often disagrees with me (and each other)! But I can always count on them to make me think about my ideas, and quite often fine tune, or even change, my opinions.
10 reyhan // May 28, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Marian,

Right you are. Phoenix played young Indy in IJ3. Flanery played him in the tv series. I never saw the series. Do you think Flanery would make a credible adult Indy?

Rosie,

Would love to hear your reasoning about why you disagree with Dave’s conclusions.
11 Dave the Longwinded // May 28, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Marian, I’m not as familiar with the TV series (I did see a few episodes when it was first aired). I understand that the new movie references the series several times, particularly an episode about Indy’s time with Poncho Villa.

It makes you wonder…with all his adventuring, how did Indy ever find time to study to become an archaeologist?!
12 revgeorge // May 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm

My wife’s first degree was in archaeology & she said it wasn’t like Indiana Jones at all. But maybe that’s because she got her degree in the ’80’s, rather than back in the old days, if you want to count the 20’s, 30’s, & 40’s as the old days.

Haven’t commented on this too much, since I’ve only see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just never got into the whole Indiana Jones thing. But I do agree with most of your premises, Dave.

Action/Adventure is a valid & viable genre. I think box office figures have shown that. I don’t think it’s productive to play genres off against each other. Each one has its own place & can be enjoyed in different times & places by various individuals.

I like also your contrast between adventure story/Hero’s Quest & a story of transformation, whether spiritual or emotional or both. I agree that both stories are in play in Harry Potter, & they work because both have adequate time over the course of seven books to play themselves out. There’s a good blend of adventure & character growth in HP.

I’m not sure it works so well in movies, since one has so little time to do both & do it well. A series of films, like Star Wars or Indiana Jones or HP, has a better chance of doing this because they have more time to do so & they also have an underlying theme connecting them together.

Star Wars did this very well, at least the first 3 movies, & by first 3, I mean Episodes 4-6. All three main human characters showed growth in the character & yet the story was action driven, too.

The HP movies have done this too, although I don’t think as successfully. And I have no idea how it’s played out in Indiana Jones, since I only saw the first one. Reading the comments above, I’m guessing the answer is still out on whether there’s character or story growth or just four loosely connected action shows.
13 reyhan // May 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm

I don’t mean to blather on and on, but since this thread has been woken up, here’s an observation.

We were watching ET a few days ago. Couldn’t help but compare the shape of his head with the shape of the crystal skull.

Also, the Lego version of the temple features stick-on heiroglyphs and pictographs. One set of pictographs is of a woman in a robe, kneeling, inserting something into a slot in squat, cylindrical object, while a taller, skinnier creature looks on. Don’t know if it appears in the movie - well hidden, if it was.

IJ4 is not only a Jones family re-union, it’s a reprise of the entire Lucas-Spielberg canon.
14 Dave the Longwinded // May 28, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Reyhan, yeah, they always reference each other in their films. I want to say that there’s an ET lookalike in one of the newer Star Wars films, too — but I can’t remember in which movie or which scene. I actually thought the alien from Indy 4 bore a closer resemblance to those in Close Encounters….

I’m giving some thought to aliens as postmodern supernatural beings in modern culture. I got started on this idea after realizing how many frikkin’ movies and TV shows that Spielberg has either directed or produced with aliens as a central motif. He’s one of the most prolific and important storytellers of our time — flaws, virtues, and all (he has a bad habit of copping out to the unearned happy ending; War of the Worlds is case-in-point).
15 reyhan // May 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Postmodern supernatural.

Now there’s an intriguing concept.

I was thinking along similar lines - all in the interests of disputing the proposition that IJ is a purely plot-driven exercise.

All of the IJ movies feature some kind of supernatural influence. IJ1 has the Ark. IJ2 has the heart-ripping priest of Kali, IJ3 has the Holy Grail, and IJ4 has aliens.

While there are three distinct threads of supernatural influence - Judeo-Christian teachings, Hindu mythology, and the late 20th century aliens-as-saviours belief - there is a consistent theme of significance and meaning derived from some powerful external and universal force. In other words, there is a deep thread of spirituality.

Seems to me that Spielberg needs this spirituality - or figures his audience needs it. But given the different forms it takes, I wonder if he’s settled on what form it should take, or whether to him all the sources are the same or similar. The Ark, the Grail, Kali and the enlightenment bringing aliens are all manifestations of some greater cosmic force.

A side-note on the Ark and the Grail. They are clearly Biblical artefacts, but we are not asked to ponder on their religious significance, just their supernormal power: to kill in one case, and to heal in the other.

His friend, Lucas, on the other hand, has a name for his cosmic force, called parsimoniously enough, The Force. Not sure how to describe it. Some sort of Pantheistic energy field operating according to Taoist principles of Yin and Yang?

Anyways, both of our late-20th early-21st century master story tellers are building their plot-driven tales on a deeper postmodern supernatural sub-strate.
16 Marian // May 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm

We watched the Young Indy show way back when it was originally on (early 90’s I believe), and have bought the first two DVD volumes, but haven’t gotten too far with rewatching them. I had said to the husband and kids a while back that I wanted us to have Young Indy Saturday nights, but it has not as yet worked out as I would have liked. As I have not seen any of Flannery’s acting since then, I don’t have an opinion of him doing further adult Indy roles. It wouldn’t seem very sensible to me to try to use him in movies. He played Indy as a young man, and it doesn’t seem particularly interesting to go back to pre Temple of Doom timeframe. If there is a concept of continuing with the next generation, then I think that casting a new young actor would be the right thing to do. Is Shia LeB the right guy? I don’t know. He is an aufully busy and in-demand young actor right now — he’s come a long way since Disney’s Even Stevens! But what do I know? I’m not at all in the entertainment business.

The young Indy shows were much less about the high adventure than the movies are. I would say thay they are supposed to sort of lay a foundation of his formative years that led him into archaeology. There was a lot of educational value to the shows also, as he was always conveniently meeting up with people who are famous to us (Teddy Roosevelt on safari after his presidency, Picasso and Norman Rockwell in Paris come to mind). There were lots of adventurous times during WWI in Europe, and his return to USA to start his studies after the end of the war. And there is somewhat of a back story to the contentuous relationship with his dad, showing his dad being pretty much a slave driver about his education as a youngster and being very disapproving about his time in Europe during the war.
17 Marian // May 28, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Oh, also, did not notice the references to young Indy stuff. Went right over my head!