Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

A lot of this shows Indiana Jones as morally challenged. A Professor "entertaining" one of his female students is unethical, morally wrong and a fireable offense.

Morally questionable to be sure, but hardly a fireable offense in 1936. I do take issue with some of Indy's womanizing, but I also view it in the context of the time in which the story was set -- which was way more sexist than now.

This was an era when most women were married by 22, and commonly started courting in their mid-teens. So while Indy seducing his mentor's underage daughter is icky no matter how you slice it, he wouldn't have been looking at the situation in the same way that we would with modern eyes.

My point is sometimes people look for stuff that isn’t there.

But sometimes it is there, and people just don't want to see it.

How did this thing about Indy and Marion start? I don't recall any of this coming up before, is this something that is in the new film?

It's all backstory that's alluded to in Raiders of the Lost Ark; Indy's relationship with Marion is the reason he had a falling out with Marion's father.

In the novelization and original screenplay, Marion was 15 when she started sleeping with Indy, who was a college undergrad at the time.

In the film as released, there are no ages specified. But it's clear that Abner Ravenwood found the relationship inappropriate enough to break ties with one of his favorite pupils, and the older Marion that Indy meets in Nepal looks back on their initial affair and feels taken advantage of.

 

[TravisR]

Morally questionable to be sure, but hardly a fireable offense in 1936. I do take issue with some of Indy's womanizing, but I also view it in the context of the time in which the story was set -- which was way more sexist than now.

This was an era when most women were married by 22, and commonly started courting in their mid-teens. So while Indy seducing his mentor's underage daughter is icky no matter how you slice it, he wouldn't have been looking at the situation in the same way that we would with modern eyes.

People can feel any way that they want but I would say that's the correct interpretation of the situation. And it's not just the 1930's because I think it's even arguable that the majority of the audience wouldn't have been as grossed out in 1981 as they would be today.

 

[Tino]

In the novelization and original screenplay, Marion was 15 when she started sleeping with Indy, who was a college undergrad at the time.

So it is explicitly stated that he was having sex with her?

Please provide a link. I’d like to read it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I can't speak for the screenplay as I've not read it. However, every time I've ever watched Raiders I understood it to mean they were sleeping together.

 

[Tino]

Here’s a screenshot from the relevant scene.

 

[Tino]

Pretty much same as the film.

 

[TonyD]

What is going on here?

 

[Tino]

From an interview with Karen Allen

Over the last few years that scene has gotten attention because when the two are discussing their past and Marion’s says, “I was a child.” And Indiana Jones says, “You knew what you were doing.” I’m curious what you think of that, because there are some sinister undertones there.

Yeah, I guess you could say that. I think I say I was 16. I don’t know. That’s always what I imagined is she was 16, he was 26. And he was her father’s student. And it’s left very mysterious.

It is.

So we don’t even know what it is. I mean, they could have kissed a few times, and she was just completely bowled over, and he could have just not wanted to get involved with someone so young. And maybe my father would have been furious at him. I mean, what’s great about it is we don’t know what the circumstances are. So she obviously cared deeply for him. He may have cared for her, too. But, in the end, decided it was a dangerous situation and he didn’t want to be involved. I mean, I guess, when something is as vague as that, you can color it any way you want to color it. I’ve tended to color it, sort of, that it was quite innocent. When she says, “It was wrong and you knew it.” I mean, I think maybe he led her on in some way. But when she says she was a child, I think she meant she was 16. Something like that.

 

[David Deeb]

I thought I'd learn something about the new film. I guess not.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I thought I'd learn something about the new film. I guess not.

We are learning things...sort of...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So we don’t even know what it is. I mean, they could have kissed a few times, and she was just completely bowled over, and he could have just not wanted to get involved with someone so young. And maybe my father would have been furious at him. I mean, what’s great about it is we don’t know what the circumstances are. So she obviously cared deeply for him. He may have cared for her, too. But, in the end, decided it was a dangerous situation and he didn’t want to be involved. I mean, I guess, when something is as vague as that, you can color it any way you want to color it. I’ve tended to color it, sort of, that it was quite innocent. When she says, “It was wrong and you knew it.” I mean, I think maybe he led her on in some way. But when she says she was a child, I think she meant she was 16. Something like that.

That's a legitimate reading, given the ambiguity of what's actually included the final movie. It's just not how I read the scene. Even in the excerpt from the screenplay that you included as a screenshot above, it's clear as day to me that Marion was underage and that they were sleeping together. But you're absolutely correct that it's not explicitly stated.

I thought I'd learn something about the new film. I guess not.

I genuinely didn't mean to derail the thread with my snark, and I regret taking the discussion so far off course.

 

[Edwin-S]

Morally questionable to be sure, but hardly a fireable offense in 1936. I do take issue with some of Indy's womanizing, but I also view it in the context of the time in which the story was set -- which was way more sexist than now.

This was an era when most women were married by 22, and commonly started courting in their mid-teens. So while Indy seducing his mentor's underage daughter is icky no matter how you slice it, he wouldn't have been looking at the situation in the same way that we would with modern eyes

Good point. I was looking at it as if he was a Professor which he wouldn't have been in 1936 when he was dating her. So, my bad.

It all depends on where their relationship took place. In Georgia the age of consent was 14 until 1995. In 21 other States the age of consent was 16 after 1920.

It is kind of moot, since there is not enough info imparted as to where any liaison took place.

All I hope is that the actual subject of this thread turns out better than the last outing which was lackluster.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

The enemy in the 1960's was the establishment, man.

Indiana Jones and the lost bong?

 

[Worth]

That's a legitimate reading, given the ambiguity of what's actually included the final movie. It's just not how I read the scene. Even in the excerpt from the screenplay that you included as a screenshot above, it's clear as day to me that Marion was underage and that they were sleeping together. But you're absolutely correct that it's not explicitly stated.

I can't imagine that a woman who has spent the last several years prostituting herself in a rough bar in Nepal (yes, that was also in the original script but left out of the final cut) would still hold a grudge against him over a kiss when she was 15-16.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I can't imagine that a woman who has spent the last several years prostituting herself in a rough bar in Nepal (yes, that was also in the original script but left out of the final cut) would still hold a grudge against him over a kiss when she was 15-16.

To say nothing of the fact she appears to be an extreme alcoholic. Oh, so difficult to enjoy these old films for some folks now.

I mean, it is a movie, not reality nor a guide on how we should conduct ourselves in life.

 

[Tino]

was also in the original script

Which version?

 

[Worth]

Which version?

From the revised third draft:

Suddenly the hardness cracks. She is on the verge of tears and does not want him to see them. She turns away and takes a whiskey bottle from the shelf, then turns back to pour herself a drink.

INDY Not a bad way to go. Doing what he loved.

MARION (vitriolic) Don’t give me that stuff! What do you know? (she takes a drink) I’m the one that was left in a bad way. He didn’t have a penny. Guess how I lived, Mister Jones. I worked here. And I wasn’t the bartender. (another swallow).

 

[Worth]

And this is from the original story conference transcript between Lucas, Speilberg and Kasdan:

http://maddogmovies.com/almost/scripts/raidersstoryconference1978.pdf

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

S — She has pictures of him.

G — There would be a picture on the mantle of her, her father, and him. She was madly in love with him at the time and he left her because obviously it wouldn't work out. Now she's twenty-five and she's been living in Nepal since she was eighteen. It's not only that they like each other, it's a very bizarre thing, it puts a whole new perspective on this whole thing. It gives you lots of stuff to play off of between them. Maybe she still likes him. It's something he'd rather forget about and not have come up again. This gives her a lot of ammunition to fight with.

S — In a way, she could say, "You've made me this hard."

G — This is a resource that you can either mine or not. It's not as blatant as we're talking about. You don't think about it that much. You don't immediately realize how old she was at the time. It would be subtle. She could talk about it. "I was jail bait the last time we were together." She can flaunt it at him, but at the same time she never says, "I was fifteen years old." Even if we don't mention it, when we go to cast the part we're going to end up with a woman who's about twenty-three and a hero who's about thirty-five.

 

[dpippel]

I can't imagine that a woman who has spent the last several years prostituting herself in a rough bar in Nepal (yes, that was also in the original script but left out of the final cut) would still hold a grudge against him over a kiss when she was 15-16.

Perhaps it was the experience with Indy when she was so young that pushed her into the life she was leading in Nepal. It's not a huge stretch at all to see that as a possibility.

 

[Greg.K]

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.