As always, dear readers, welcome.
I’ve just been to see the new Indiana Jones film for the second time in about a week.
I wanted to see it at least twice before I wrote about it as, if you regularly read this blog, you know that, when I review something, I try to begin with what I understand the creators of the film were trying to do, then, going from there, attempt to see how well they succeeded, at least in my own mind. This film was complex enough that I’m going to break my review into two parts, the first being mostly background, the second being my reaction.
I begin by saying that I have been a fan of the series since Raiders and have looked forward to this film since it was originally announced, some time ago.
Of the (now) 5 Indiana Jones films, my favorites have always been the first
and the third.
For me, the first is a combination of likeable characters and a plot which, although, in fact, carefully worked out,
seems, somehow, improvised, following Jones’ own remark, just before he mounts a white horse to chase the Nazis who have the Ark,
“I’m making this up as I go along”.
The third, for me, has the most comedy
(here’s Henry Jones, Senior, having just accidentally shot off the tail of their plane, straight-facedly saying to Henry Jones, Junior, “Son, they got us.”)
as well as the byplay between demanding father and son who feels that he can never meet his father’s standard, but eventually does.
In contrast, two, for me, has a splendid opening,
(and the quiet joke that this is the “Club Obi Wan”)
but the film itself is then compromised by a heroine who spends most of the film screaming and running—a strong contrast to the feisty Marion Ravenwood of the first film.
(This is not to attack the actress, by the way, as she was only following what the script asked of her.)
As for the fourth one, I must say that, as in number two, there was a wild opening scene,
but, also, as in the case of two, for me, it didn’t fulfill the promise of that first scene. It may be that the extraterrestrial angle simply didn’t appeal. I also wasn’t convinced by Henry Jones the third (aka “Mutt”), who was being considered, I’ve read, as the lead character in further adventures, but simply lacked the rugged charm of Harrison Ford, who is clearly a more versatile actor, being able to do both action and comedy.
This brings us to five, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
Earlier films have had their goals: one had the Ark of the Covenant,
two had a sacred stone (although it disappeared for most of the film, making it hard to remember that goal),
the third had the Holy Grail,
the fourth (I’d guess) a crystal skull, although it seemed that the skull was really only a key to a location—a giant space ship.
As these are adventure films, they don’t have to answer to hard reality, so any goals are really only there to move the plot along, and we can choose to believe that the actual objects are grounded in history or not.
That “Dial of Destiny” is based upon an actual object, however, the so-called “Antikythera mechanism”.
This gadget was found by Greek sponge divers in a shipwreck off the coast of the small Greek island of Antikythera, to the southeast of the island of Kythera, in 1901 (the film mistakenly says 1902—for more on the wreck, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_wreck ).
As you can see, it is hardly a working model, having been underwater from the last century, BC, dating coming from coins discovered at the site, and parts appear to be missing.
There is also much discussion about dating the thing itself, anything from c.200BC to not long before the shipwreck (one of the most respected theorists, Derek de Solla Price, maintains, based upon a number of factors, including inscriptions found on it, that it was built about 87BC—if you have access to JSTOR, his extremely detailed and informative article can be found there under “Gears from the Greeks”.)
Taking any suggested model, however–and some seem more fantastic than others–the craftsmanship appears almost supernatural for any mechanical device that complex from the last century—or centuries—BC. (And you know that, just as in the case of things like the pyramids, there are always those who choose to offer and believe extraterrestrial origins, rather than accept the fact that people from this planet can sometimes make or do extraordinary things. The evidence that Egyptians built the pyramids is everywhere to be found around them.)
Its actual function/s has/have been the subject of a number of reconstructions, as well as a number of theories, but, currently, the consensus seems to be that it’s a kind of orrery—and type of planetarium– which can be used to do things like predict solar eclipses (for more on this, see the very well informed article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism ) As to its maker, this is a complete question mark.
But not in this film. Here, it is the work of the 3rd-century BC mathematician/inventor, Archimedes (c.287-c.212BC). Although the historical dating for the device would probably not match the actual dates of Archimedes, the idea that such a brilliant man might come up with such a thing strikes me as not beyond the realm of belief. Jones himself mentions Archimedes in discussing the Roman siege of Syracuse in 214-212BC.
In the film, he mentions Archimedes’ invention of huge “grabbers” to snatch up Roman galleys and drop them, upturned, into the sea,
as well as huge mirrors, which would focus the rays of the sun on the Roman ships and set fire to them.
(Would such mirrors actually work? See: https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/10/28/did_archimedes_death_ray_actually_work_799152.html#! And: https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/archimedes-death-ray.htm For more on Archimedes’ efforts, see: https://math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/Livy.html which is from part of Livy’s fragmentary history of Rome; see, as well, Plutarch’s biography of the conqueror of Syracuse, the Roman general, Marcellus (268-208BC), here: https://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/marcellu.html ); the story of the mirrors appears for the first time in Dio Cassius’ histories here: https://math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/DioCassius.html although, unfortunately, in later Byzantine summaries.)
From history, however, the film then spills over into the realm of fantasy, as this mechanism, if I understand the plot correctly, can not only chart what are called “weather anomalies”, but also “time anomalies”, which means that, with the right calculations, one might discover the equivalent of cracks in time into which one might slip. And here I begin to have questions—but we’ll talk about that in Part II.
Thanks for reading, as always.
Stay well,
Always have time—for adventure,
And remember that, as always, there’s
MTCIDC
O
PS
For more on Archimedes, go to: https://math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/contents.html Archimedes was almost spookily modern and this site shows how.