While in the process of doing research for my final projects, I stumbled on an article written by Susan Aronstein titled: "Not Exactly a Knight": Arthurian Narrative and Recuperative Politics in the "Indiana Jones" Trilogy. While the article didn't suit my final project, it was itself an interesting read, and one that I recommend for anyone else in the class who is still interested in the Grail and Indiana Jones. Which, I mean, who isn't?
The quote in Aronstein's title is from the film, when Indy addresses the knight guardian of the Grail, Indy explains that he himself is "not exactly" a knight. Aronstein points out that in being the one to pass all the tests and pick out the one true grail, Indy is in fact "not exactly" a knight, but in fact "the best knight in the world" (3). At this, the third in the trilogy, Indy has hit his stride as a knight of the world. If the Indiana Jones films are "tales of knighthood, modernizations of medieval chivalric romances" than in the penultimate chapter Indy has proven himself and earned the right to fulfill the quest for the Grail. The work of his Father, an academic whose first foray into a physical adventure ends in him getting kidnapped by Nazi's, was doomed from the get-go. Only Indy, who had ventured out into the Third World, that Artonstein says "becomes the forest of adventure," and by facing off against Nazis "hostile knights" can claim the grail on behalf of an America that "stands in for the Arthurian court" (2).
Aronstein views the three Indiana Jones films "as Arthurian saga" that together "comprise a typical chivalric vita" (4). The films follow Indy from his "interpellation into the Arthurian court, through his demonstration of that interpellation by such actions as rescuing maidens and annexing kingdoms, to his final turning to the spiritual values of the Grail quest" (4). Artonstein goes on to examine the ways in which viewing the Indiana Jones trilogy in such a way "clarifies the saga's political and ideological implications" (4). I won't make the effort to summarize the whole of her analysis here, I'll just again, insist that those of you with an interest in Indiana Jones to read this article. It's fascinating.
I wanted to end with a video of the Grail scene from The Last Crusade, but sadly, couldn't find it anywhere. Instead, I found this version of it, re-enacted with Legos. Which I think is actually, better.
That is a very interesting take on Indiana Jones, though I'm not entirely convinced by it. The first thing I would bring up is the plot of The Last Crusade wasn't planned until after the first two films were made, and the Grail never comes up before then, so I'm not sure if the idea that the the trilogy comprises a knightly saga about chivalry.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that it, I don't think Indy, as awesome as he is, really lives up to the ideals of either Arthurian knighthood or Grail knighthood. He is disqualified from the Grail knighthood by being a notorious ladies man. He is not up to Arthurian standards because he has absolutely no problems with an unfair fight, as long as its unfair in his favor.
I propose that Indy is the ideal of his own sort of chivalry. He has his own set of ideals that he upholds and is willing to fight for. He strongly believes in the preservation of history and is willing to protect the weak. Arthurian knights generally protect maidens, but not the oppressed classes as we see Indy to in Temple of Doom. Practicality in combat is a value to him since it allows him to continue fighting for his values for another day.