Why was Indiana Jones upset at the end of Raiders?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
What I want to know is why Indy didn't realize that the Ark in the possession of any government, the academic community or any other entity was a dangerous thing in the first place, and should have been tossed into the sea or conveniently lost? Why didn't he realize that he should have never turned it over to anyone?
It should have been returned to Israeli authorities, such that they were at the time.
Wouldn't that the British? There was no Israel, just the Mandatory Palestine
Reminds me a bit of the discussion of how to mark hazardous nuclear waste, with the idea that no language or symbol could be guaranteed to be correctly interpreted by a future civilization that could be completely disconnected from our own, either due to some catastrophe or simply from thousands of years of cumulative cultural drift.
There's also the issue that even if the warning was understandable, would it be believed, or would it just be regarded as superstition and coincidence (for a society that was rational, but also hadn't rediscovered the concept of radiation)? "Ooh, you believe in the curse of the desert mountain, that it causes sickness and death to all who violate it? It's just a creepy coincidence that all those archeologists died young. Don't be silly."
Yep.
A plot element involving the Ark of the Covenant was cut from the film and is only hinted at during the finale when the Ark is opened. Basically, there were 2 rules about the Ark not mentioned in the final cut of the film:
The next scene involving this Ark subplot is when Sallah and Indy remove the Ark from the Well of the Souls. When Sallah first sees it he reaches out to touch it. Indy stops him before he does and reminds him of Imam's warning. Then they insert long poles through each side of the Ark to lift it out of its crypt.
Notice that nobody ever touches the Ark throughout the rest of the film until the finale.
- If you touch the Ark, you die.
- If you look at the Ark when it is opened, you die.
The next scene involving this Ark subplot is when Sallah and Indy remove the Ark from the Well of the Souls. When Sallah first sees it he reaches out to touch it. Indy stops him before he does and reminds him of Imam's warning. Then they insert long poles through each side of the Ark to lift it out of its crypt.
Notice that nobody ever touches the Ark throughout the rest of the film until the finale.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm aware but as a cultural icon it would warrant at least making them aware of it's existence.
I'd think the religious leaders then. Which at the time would have been the Chief Rabbis.
Thank you. Why did delete them? They seem quite important bits of info!
I think it kind of gives away the ending, if you already have that exposition in mind when the bad guys are quite clearly looking at the Ark when it opens. And Belloq's no fool; if it were that well-known a warning, surely he would've told his allies, or looked away himself. As it is, it feels more like Indy intuiting how the Ark's danger works and using that insight to save Marion, which makes him more effective.
No. Only direct contact with the Ark is problematic. Hence the reason for the poles.
It does react to its surroundings.
It's an immense piece of spiritual heritage to the world and also something that the US government had no title to.
They also worried the government would try to misuse it.
That bit is actually in the Bible, right?
Correct. The Israelites are forbidden to touch it. In one story, when the Ark is sent from one city to another, it is sent on a cart pulled by oxen, and they stumble, a man reaches out to keep it from falling and is struck dead.
Indiana Jones is pissed because he is not the hero of the story. His name didn't originally feature in the title of the movie. The Lost Ark is the actual subject of the film. Being imbued with what appears to be supernatural powers, one might even suppose it had the agency to ensure that it remained lost.
One might actually count Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood as being "raiders". They merely serve to ensure that the Ark ends up being metaphorically reburied by US bureaucracy rather than being able to be wielded by the Nazis.
One might actually count Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood as being "raiders". They merely serve to ensure that the Ark ends up being metaphorically reburied by US bureaucracy rather than being able to be wielded by the Nazis.
No, it's the object. Raiders of the Lost Ark. The raiders, the people hunting for the Ark and trying to take possession of it, are the subject, both grammatically and conceptually. As I believe someone mentioned above, renaming the film Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark was awkward and redundant, because Indiana Jones is one of the raiders. The title was always meant to refer to him, but since he was a new character without name recognition yet, it didn't single him out of the group.
Titles don't always define what a movie is about anyway. The Maltese Falcon isn't the subject of The Maltese Falcon, it's just the MacGuffin, the object that motivates the characters. It's what the characters do in pursuit of it that defines the story.
The Maltese Falcon might disagree, except that it was not a magical repository for transmitting the will of God. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" can be written "The Lost Ark's raiders", so it implies the raiders are effectively the possession of the Ark. The Ark is thus the subject and the will of God is directing events so that it triumphs. If the move had been titled "Raiders in Search of the Lost Ark", the raiders would indeed be the subject.
My post and the paragraph above were throwaway jests and should not be taken seriously. Sometimes the seed droppeth on stony ground.
My post and the paragraph above were throwaway jests and should not be taken seriously. Sometimes the seed droppeth on stony ground.
You should've said so in the first place instead of wasting my time.
It was pretty obvious. Not the first time we've been down this road.
Similar threads
