“It belongs in a museum”: Indiana Jones thievery and cultural respect (Baudrillard, 10)
The Indiana Jones franchise is one the most beloved trilogies (the fourth was a far cry from the originals). Yet there is a startling issue: Indy’s desire to trek to jungles and ancient ruins to find relics. These relics are to be confiscated and placed in a museum. Instead of hiding away they are to be on display.
Indiana Jones is portrayed as the hero who attempts to do right by the ancients. For their heritage to not fall into the wrong hands. Even in the first film, traversing the cave for the crystal is to keep it away from greedy nazis. In the opening scene, the nazis have bought off the natives and gain an ally whether out of fear or greed. No matter the case, Indy’s goals are divergent from the native tribes. They desire a different future for their heritage. Indy opposes the sale intersecting the transaction. His solution is forceful kidnapping. Placing the sacred treasure in a museum is the safekeeping of this item. He knows best. The tribe’s vision of their own quest is of no consequence. Museum’s rule, ruins drool. The boobytrapped do not enter motto are ignored for the hunt. Goodhearted in the end but the invasive attitude is quite arrogant and self serving.
Some have critiqued Raiders as a movie with a protagonist that plays no part. Had Indy never existed, the outcome would be the same. The nazis would find the ark and then die. Defenders have pointed to examples of Indy’s aid to the nazis to find the ark and sending it off to a museum afterwards. If the former are correct then the nazis would’ve found it died and no witnesses would remain to find the arc. In the latter, Indy’s involvement directly leads to relocation of the arc. If Indy backed off the nazis would never have found the ark and died. Indy’s presence is either negligible or parcel for the wrong reasons. Either way Indy’s role is iconographic. His presence in the movies plays a double-edged sword. The protagonist is himself a grave robber on the side of justice. Faced off against the nazis, how could he ever be seen as a villain. It’s Harrison Ford’s cheeky smile and fabulous charm. To some degree he is a hero preserving items. A twisted but endearing steal to save persona. Hell, rather a professor with a death wish than a bunch of nazis.
Presenting the nazis as the main antagonist automatically makes the protagonist a hero. The protagonist could be a serial killer and he would be liked more. It all about relativistic magnitude. Weighing which side is worse. Placing nazis on one side defeats almost any adversary. It is an unfair comparison. Had they been Americans or Brits maybe there may be some sympathy with more nuance. Yet the obvious metric is the good-evil binary. Indy is good and nazis bad. What is lost is that Indy’s work is only good insofar as it is better than the nazis. Star Wars, ironically another Harrison ford twist but at the same time not all ironic. Raiders was Lucas’ brainchild, the movie was published by Lucasfilm. Famously directed by Spielberg but co-written by Lucas. The same creation is prevalent in the former series (especially before the release of the prequels which provide excessive nuance). The empire is completely evil but are the Jedi completely good. Obi Wan’s mind tricks are okay on enemy soldiers and then moments later slices a hand off. Lying to Luke something that the devil incarnate Vader doesn’t do and destroying two death stars with petty villains aboard. Yet when placed against incarnate evil, they do not seem bad, actually pretty good.
Lucas’ two world class trilogies possess the binary good-evil conundrum. While it can be argued that he deviously placed these antics under the veil for those willing to recognise nuance, viewership did not feel the same. This speculation can be found especially in Vader’s terminology of the empire’s use. For god sake the rebels are rebelling against a strong system, one that finds peace and prosperity similar to the Roman Empire. This was demonstrated more and more in the prequels uncasing the Jedi flaws and failures. This was in the late 90s while the Indy movies were straight in the 80s. Indy’s problematic traits and morally grey soviets is brought out as well in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull which came to theatres in the late 2000s. While nazis don’t really have a soft spot in anyone’s universe even if it is archeology. The simplistic absolutism creeps into the viewer’s conscious. Both Indy and nazis are looking for the same treasure for the same purpose. Both wish to utilise it but one is nazis and for weaponising the other to frame in a museum. Ambiguity is lacking for the protagonist as he against nazis or Vader. The protagonist cannot lose nor can the viewer see past the worst of the worst.
Audiences are blinded to any mishaps by Indy. It is only in the fourth movie where his elderly incompetence becomes more enshrined. He is no longer battling nazis so be nice to your kid. He turns into a dire conservative hanging onto his stubborn ways. Viewers either millennials with less hawkish intentions or mature principled distaste, misbehaviour is less tolerated. The director shapes the movie to the viewer’s cornea. Audience conclusion’s are predestined by the director. Star Wars as a clear test case paints Vader as evil and only with the prequels does his character seem a little more neutral. With the sequels and new shows such as the Mandalorian, his picture is even more grey. There is a shift from the spectacle of chaotic evil to lawful evil. The semiotic prose unveiled and the empire and or Indy’s adversary more down the middle. Yet the focus of good turns neutral stringently on the protagonist. Most of the damage is to colour the protagonist more than to standardise the enemy. The enemy is evil but the protagonist has his faults and they may be quite terrible. It is then the retroactive viewing that chronicles the hero’s journey. The hero is not only flawed but menacing. Sharper discolouration is mined and exposed.
How can nazis be overtaken? How can Indy ever be seen as problematic? The fiasco flop that was the fourth movie. As terrible as the movie was, Indy’s bad traits retroactively raised inquires into his past actions. Though it can easily be distinguished as a protagonist with growing pains in old age, there is subtle evidence to take a hard look at Indy’s past. The Indiana Jones franchise does not have the same chronology of villains as Star Wars. Nazis are always bad a Roman Empire type is fair. Yet this does not mean that his actions cannot be investigated in the same way Jedi actions were accosted. The latter were more abrasive in demeaning Jedi actions with the extended Disney enterprise. Still, it is even more necessary to scrutinise without feeding every detail. The prequels forced fans to analyse while the spin offs directly demand the analysis. Indiana Jones does not have that clout and thus the viewer must embark on such analysis. Deconstructing the classic 80s action flick style.
The second movie may even be a better version. While the gore is much darker than the other movies. Removing a man’s heart in a ritual sacrifice is darker than nazis. Yet despite the non-nazi antagonist, the villain is black and white. On the surface. He is a psychotic madmen out for world domination. Yet it may be Mola Ram who appears the most Vader like. Ram is the perfect character to mesh with Vader. Both appear super evil. Their dress and desire are supremely evil. He may not be a nazi but he is the archetype of a bad guy. Yet like Vader, what is overlooked is his words. Why is he doing this? What are his motives? Without the prequels for assistance, Vader’s words though twisted and flawed seek to bring peace and prosperity. His goal is not destruction but security. Yet his actions against the protagonist are devilish instead of a hero who lost his way. Good intentions even if wrongful execution. Ram is the same. His execution especially to the local poor citizens not so great thus Indy is the perfect Robin Hood retrieving the stones. His goal of slaughtering British evil. Yet listening to his line of reasoning is liberation. The British have invaded and continue to control. It is time they left by force. His words reduce his insanity to understandable even if extreme.
To some degree, this is a gem laid out perfectly by Lucas and Spielberg. Stop looking at the film semantically, view it semiotically. It would be heavily ironic if Lucas added these flaws against the extremist tendencies of Spielberg’s nazi bias. Even if this is incidental, it more so portrays a larger political and moral issue prevalent in society. Whether it be plot genius or archaic beliefs it is well worth a deep dive. Indy’s actions are only asymmetric because the devil is opposite him. He is fighting the arch nemesis for the glory of colonialism. His model is salvaging the product they wish to weaponise. It is better to be in a museum than in the hands of evil. If evil is already en route to obtaining it, it is worth the risk to steal it back. Western protection or nazi pockets. In Ram’s case, his devilish actions must be stopped no matter his reasoning. His intentions clear to the attuned. A clear presentation of a neutral figure caught up in a wild mess. Once nazism is stripped, a greyish colour can be revealed. Indy is the hero who even in his mildest immorality is standing up against dangerous foes. His immorality offset by the villain’s ontology. He must emerge victorious. Their appearance and actions scandalous and must be stopped. Good must trump evil.
Yet, this mindset predates nazis. His goal has little to do with nazi prevention. He doesn’t want them to obtain the piece but he also does not wish to leave the piece buried. The ark is still sent to safe keeping. He is not sending it so more nazis come looking but so it will be displayed in a museum. Museums are places of defence. They will preserve the lost art. Do not fret, this is for the best. Such motivation is a crucible for superiority. He demonstrates the same complex as the nazis albeit with less physical destructive consequences. It is better for the lost art to be in western reservations than in their safe boobytrapped sanctuary. He did not need to drink from the goblet for the grail. Once the nazi officer died from his poor choice, Indy needed to see it through. He needed to obtain the grail and bring it to a museum. It was perfectly safe where it was. A goddamn knight guarded the temple. If not for his interference in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to enter the frame in the first place. The hunt for the prize was the foremost effort while neutralising the nazis was a secondary aspect. They did not know how to get there, only Indy did. Without him, the grail is safe and sound hoarded by an elderly knight.
Beyond Indy’s bad decisions and lacklustre motivation, his entire ideology rests on the supremacy of museums. They are mere spectacles for childish mystery. At best preserving visual knowledge, at worst profiteering off native belongings. A scene in Black Panther makes this point clear when Killmonger questions the host where they received the weapon from. Chastising them for stealing native resources for personal gain. Even if it is all in good faith, it does not make it right. It only extends the colonial mantel further. No control over the current regime but control over heritage. Grabbing their entire tradition by its balls and laughing in their faces. A neo-colonialist motive. A Foucauldian power struggle. The shift is from the body to the soul. From the control of labour to the control of the treasure. Treasure fit to the cultural linguistic phantom of hermeneutical association. A record of the mythos stripped away forcefully for the sake of “care”. Child services removing a perfectly sanctioned child from their home due to parental disagreements with the state. Snatching because it is for the best.
From the western mind, sympathy rages in the mind. Look at us preserving their stuff. They hide it in a boobytrapped chamber, we will bring it to a safe location in our land. The boobytraps are ineffective. Our museum is way more powerful. Apparently, a glass case is more heavily fortified than a dark cave with poisonous darts shooting at any misstep. Even if there is a hint of empathetic affection for the natives, it considerably reduced in the face of nazis. If the natives are working with the nazis then so be it. They have aligned themselves with evil and thus savages with savages equals zero sympathy. They must be protected from themselves. Only the west can protect their heritage. They are children with little concern over heritage security. Mommy museum must preserve it thousands of miles away from its original site to ensure nobody tampers with it. Its long hidden safety is no longer true. Westerners know of its existence. The hunt is on. We must stop plunderers, our own flesh and blood. Beating them to the punch. It is better since our goal is not to keep it for personal gain but to display to the world. It is all in your best interest. We are publicising your heritage abroad. People will know of your existence and you will be remembered. Take our word for it.
Principally, is Indy’s quest honourable? Are museums the better fit? Indy reminds of democratic promises. Good intentions awful execution. It emerges from a place of power and comfort. What can I do to you. Either because I am trying to make up for past wrongdoing to you or to someone else through you. I have the vestiges to secure your most prized possession. Just trust me. I am doing you a favour. It seems like a good gesture but it also comes off pathological. It is demeaning forcing a plea of aid, instead of truly asking what they wish. Believing this unilateral thinking is the better fit. This is a classic trope by wealthy who wish to do right by the poor or politicians by their people. I live in a mansion, how about I insert myself into your life to make it better. Don’t worry, this will help you, you don’t understand. Do not decline this offer, this is of my own patronage. There is no leaving it, this is happening. I need to make this up. Take it, just take it. Do not refuse accept wholeheartedly. Do not make me regret this. Do not upset me for trying to help. This is my atonement here. Not the fondest of smiles received. Feel more controlled into sympathising with an enemy who is simply burdening with a potential aid more than actually assisting.
The question of museums is the better version of the ark locked up somewhere among other treasures. Sitting boxed up away in a large storage facility never seeing the light of day. This is endorsed as a better security option but again steals the very essence of the native’s heritage. Better security is not better for the people. Yet the museum option at least displays them for all woes. Publicising the people’s memory. While the public accepts this as normative, it does not mean that the victims are not disgraced. The educational effort seeks to undermine the harm caused. Especially since many of the items in possession were outwardly stolen in colonial might. Years later it is about preservation but prior it was a glory ride. Championing the vessels of the temple back to Rome. While most are ignorant to the treasure accumulation, the museum is itself a boasting of colonial might. It is publicising the spoils of war. This was the nazi goal of erecting a Jewish museum. To publicise the Jewish demise. Educational but also sadistic. To believe western museums are any different is to believe in the false liberty. Why haven’t these items been returned? Much of Jewish art stolen during the holocaust is in museums with no concern to return to rightful owners. Legal battles waged with the museum defending itself. It is private property not personal profiteering.
There is a certain level of good museums do but the action itself even if unintentional is malicious. It preserves other’s items against their will. Unable to be claimed, for the public. Yet for the western public. To laugh at the zoo animals. To look at the relics of a bygone people but the people are still living. The education is a lie. These natives still exist and deserve their treasures. Treasures stolen from them. The display is educational insofar as it exploits the former owners. Whether it be the most prized treasure or part of their heritage. The state’s ownership seems to be undermining that effort. It is a scorn on the natives. They cannot own their own heritage. It is not theirs anymore. Globalisation means we all share. Except if we’re in a western country than its private. Your treasure though is for all. Colonial advertisement persists. There is much to learn and museums do provide that outlet but forcefully holding these native relics is an attempt to consolidate power. A way of encoding a monopoly on artefacts. It is great to look at artefacts of old but placing them in western museums is clearly a motion of supremacy than in a native museum. Museums would be fine if they presented replicas. If the entire purpose was to present images. A visual learning exercise but they do not. They provide the real thing, a notorious measure of safeguarding and safekeeping.
If they were replicas, would people come? The spectacle is in the real thing. Marvelling at a bygone past. A conquered civilisation with only artefacts to speak for it. A heritage cut short. It is the west’s best interest to preserve this ancient knowledge. A spectacle to learn of history from western thinking. Provide an education based on a specific type of thinking. Western academic studies leading in the field of facts. Westerners with the artefacts have sole custody to test. Egyptian myths have little say in the truth because the west has a strong history with translating properly. The western professional is an outsider who has little relevance to the object or its history. It portrayed as a final product for the public to see. Look at our find and its conclusions. Thankfully monuments remain in place, too heavy to move and accepted as native land. Structures are left to the imagination. Movable items are stashed away. Isn’t it better if it is displayed in glass case for millions to see than a grave robber pawning it off for millions. More security could be placed on site but hey trust our intentions. Though replicas could also be pawned off as the real thing. For visualisation purposes in the educational forum, the imaginary is as real as it gets. It also then permits an honest telling of the story without the real thing. A forgery pawned as the real for educational purposes. Now that is good intentions with good execution. Being bad for good reasons.
A westerner’s perspective does not acknowledge the turbulent nemesis of enslaving the item. Killmonger’s assertion is met with confusion and defensiveness. There was no ill intent. Watered down colonialism is not easily recognisable. A museum is recreating the past in the present. Preserving the old in the new. It is a gracious attempt to the natives. Yet this is all and well until a native shows up asking for his stuff back. Even if no native demands his stuff back, the idea of displaying these relics exploits the treasured past. The item is far from home encased in a box for public admiration. It is the concern of the west not the natives. They did not ask to be publicised. It is selfish in the interest of the west’s monopolisation. It isn’t democracy its exploitation. Indy’s role while well-intentioned falls prey to colonial desire. Put in a museum is the opposite of where it should be. It should be in its original location. It should be protected by those who sealed it away. To be encased by foreigners is to be stolen but to be encased by natives is to be protected. Same action different objective. Even if the foreigner’s goal is to preserve it, it does not result in the same perception. Protecting someone else’s item without their permission is stealing. The rational faculty must let go of preconceived empathy for respectful distance. The best way to atone for past mistakes is to stop intervening.
Museum issues find a comparable difficulty in zoos. Just as there are bad museums, there are bad zoos. Zoos purport to protect animals. Endangered animals are defended against poachers and hunters. Koalas are salvaged despite their demise from natural selection. The wild is a scary place so zoos are the protecters. Yet at the same time they are horrible places. Used for education more than habitat. Animals outside their habitat are cruelly malnourished. Items do not have the emotional sanctum animals have. An item out of place does not harm the item insofar as it the item cannot be erased to dust by sunlight. There is dangerous exposure. Some items are stored under technological lenses to ensure its perpetuity. An item on life support presumably safe in its ancient hideout but once exposed now at risk of ceasing. Despite the promised hope, the spectacle of the animal outside its habitat overtakes the animal’s need for independence. To be free in the wild similar to an item free in its native underground tunnel. The viewers are entrenched in a trance of up close foreign entities. Objects only seen in movies are life-sized opposite the observer. A menacing spectacle but one with devious overlayed reassurance. Both are just protecters against the evil world, let the west secure for the best.
There are case of museums that are necessary. Groups that do die out are preserved in museums. Fossils are placed together to reimagine dinosaurs. There is a difference between keeping a culture on life support versus keeping a sacred item from the promised people. Dinosaur museums and holocaust museums attempt to kindle the fire that has since begun to exhume. Art and history museums are not problematic insofar as they provide educational visualisation. The problem is the prioritisation of retaining other’s works. Believing to be a superior preserver of the ancestral legacy. There is a clear difference with the goal. The spectacle will persist. Replicas seemingly undermine the overall goal for the former. It is not all bad but there is a level of recognising the origin of theft in many cases. How did the museum come to occupy a specific item. Was it excavated? Was it donated? Or was it stolen? The intent matters to reconcile the nature of the item’s necessary linkage to the culture it belongs to.
Indy’s quests are captivating. A protagonist with an outlaw attitude. A selfish selfless individual. A soloist capable of taking down nazis. A real Han Salo. Finding secret gems hidden from society does grab the reader into the journey. The hero’s journey envelops the reader in stories of unknown and yearning. Yet it is this quest itself that should be questioned. Is his motive understandable or is it simply symbolic of western well intentioned overstepping. It is important for the west and ol goody professor Jones to rethink his investment. Is his search a personal crusade that affects others negatively? Is it a passion with a negative result? It is all in good faith but that doesn’t mean that it ought to be executed. Beyond the potential good, the Indy series takes cultural items for the western canon instead of leaving it to the natives, a harsh divergence from the life support attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment