The Temple of Doom: Orphan of the Indiana Jones Trilogy?

Ask anyone which chapter of the Indiana Jones trilogy is their favorite and they will name Raiders of the Lost Ark (mine) or The Last Crusade. I have not met a single person who told me that they felt The Temple of Doom was the best, as it is largely considered the weakest of the trilogy by both fans and critics. Why? While it may suffer from being the middle movie in the trilogy, the film stands solidly on its own as a typical Indiana Jones adventure. Part of the problem is that you can't help but compare it to the other two chapters in the Trilogy, and as a result seems terribly out of place due to its unfamiliar cultural backdrop. After watching it recently I've collected some of the reasons how this movie dissociates itself from the Indiana Jones oeuvre, and likely influences its standing in the minds of viewers.

• The story behind the adventure is not familiar. While I can't verify the accuracy of the story behind the Shankara stones, most critics seem satisfied that it adapts enough Hindu legend to be based in reality (well, as much as retrieving the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail might). Part of the Hindi pantheon (Shiva, Kali) were also represented in the film, and it may have been tough for Western audiences to associate with. Furthermore, the story itself actually takes place in 1935, a full year before the events in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In hindsight I see no real purpose behind doing this, and in that sense the entire film can be easily detached from the rest of the Indiana Jones mythos, much like the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles that nobody remembers.

• The introduction sequence ties in perfectly with the main story. Unlike Raiders which has Indy acquiring an idol that has nothing to do with the rest of the plot except to introduce Belloq, and The Last Crusade which followed a similar approach by giving us a glimpse of Indiana Jones as a teenager and how he got his whip, his hat, and the scar on his chin. The Temple of Doom starts with an exciting escape from Chinese gangsters, which leads to India where the adventure begins. Spielberg is confident that we are familiar enough with the character that we can get right into the adventure. I never had a problem with this approach, but perhaps some viewers expected a little more background. We're introduced to a lot of new characters in a very short period: Lao Che, Wu Han, Willie Scott and Short Round.

• The gross-out factor. The beginning of Raiders had a great scene between Indy and Satipo (Alfred Molina) where they are completely covered in tarantulas. Of course, there's the famous snake pit where Indy and Sallah retrieve the ark, and Indy and Marion are ultimately trapped. The Temple of Doom is famous for going completely over the top with things to make audiences squirm. There's the royal feast scene where delicacies such as "snake surprise" and "chilled monkey brain" are eaten, a room full of insects, a man removing someone's beating heart with his bare hand, and the blood drinking ritual. It certainly upped the ante, but was it necessary? If I remember correctly The Temple of Doom was part of the reason the Film Ratings Board introduced the PG-13 rating.

• The adventure itself was a selfless act of heroism. This is one of the reasons why I think The Temple of Doom is as great an adventure as the other two, because not only does Indiana save the village itself, he helps the slave children escape and return to their families. While it falls in with the typical "dashing Westerner saves poor foreign village" plot contrivance, it shows that Indiana Jones is human, and is not always obsessed with placing his archaeological finds in a museum. Whether he believed in the power of the Shankara stones or not, he saw how much it meant to the residents of the village to have their stone returned.

• The leading lady is overly feminine. Kate Capshaw's Willie Scott provides a sharp contrast to Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood, in the way she reacts to being dirty, covered in bugs, threat of death, etc. The incessant whining and screaming is annoying, but I think the intent was to provide comic relief in what would typically be a dangerous situation. I consider this to be one of the movie's weak points, as it basically undoes whatever progress was made with Marion's strong leading lady in the first film.

• The single-serving sidekick. I will always remember Jonathan Ke Quan as Data from The Goonies, but we first saw him in the role of Short Round in The Temple of Doom. It's made clear throughout this film that Indy and Short Round have a father-son type bond, but if they are so close, where is he in The Last Crusade? Better yet, where was he in Raiders? Short Round wasn't ever really in distress (Marion, though she could take care of herself, was Indiana's prime motivator for his actions in the latter half of Raiders), and he provided valuable assistance in the escape from the mines in the last part of The Temple of Doom. The producers probably liked this dynamic, because it was used again in the relationship between Henry Jones Sr. and Jr. in The Last Crusade, where Indy's father unwittingly aided their escape on many occasions and provided some comic relief throughout the film, just like Short Round. In the case of The Last Crusade, the relationship was probably easier to accept because it was actually Indy's father, instead of some kid he found on the streets of Shanghai. Besides, back then it probably seemed innocent; now I'm sure there would be some special interest group with something to say about their relationship in the film.

• There are no Nazis. One of the most despicable (and recognizable) groups in history was well-represented in the first and last films in the Trilogy. As such, it's easy to dislike them in the context of the films and the period of history that the story takes place in – there is no question they are the "bad guys". It is made obvious in The Temple of Doom that the worshippers of Kali and the Thuggee Murder Cult are evil people through example: the scene where Mola Ram removes a man's beating heart from his chest only to burn him alive is meant to be proof of that. The audience is meant to assume this is why they are so reviled in Hindu culture, but their motivations are not made entirely clear in the film itself. Instead, we are led to believe that their goal is to recollect the five Shankara stones and plunge the world into eternal darkness. It's too simple and made to play out like an isolated event where the world around them returns to normal, not being any wiser. This is further to my first point about providing a recognizable setting.

• X Doesn't Mark the Spot. Both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade follow a treasure hunt approach to finding the lost artifact at the end. The Last Crusade even moreso, because of the number of clues that have to be followed and the climactic braving of the four challenges to reach the Grail itself. In both films, the audience participates in Indiana Jones's quest, following each step that leads to the relic in question. In The Temple of Doom, it is known almost immediately who is holding the Shankara stones, and where they are being kept. However, this is just a small part of Indiana's quest. Ultimately he is doing this for the village: to return its prosperity and its children. It's a very noble - and human - objective.
  

When taken as a stand-alone film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom does its best to culture its audience. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist – he's well traveled and not exclusively interested in the relics of Western religion. Indeed, even the remains of Nurhaci that make an appearance at the beginning of the film hints at real depth behind the character's field of study. The Temple of Doom doesn't follow the winning formula of the first and third installments of the trilogy, and for that reason I'd consider it the most well-rounded. Though it is unfortunate that shock value was used to present the themes and adversaries instead of a more educated approach, you can't fault the producers for that – it was meant to be entertaining, after all.