The best thing in that pic is the stand-in.

I would definitely call this script "a good read". Now, reading the Action-Adventure genre is somewhat new for me (I lean towards Comedy scripts; my wife likes Dramas), so I was initially surprised at the amount of Scene Description present. Lots and lots of it. In the CORE IV: Style class, we learned the value of having ample White Space as a writing technique. Loads of S.D. takes away from that. But I guess what happened here is that: a) it's Action-Adventure, whose genre style probably just requires more S.D., and less dialogue; and b) it sounds like Lawrence Kasdan was invited in to write the script, and therefore didn't have to worry at all about writing a spec selling script and getting it past quirky script readers. He probably just had to make Lucas and Speilberg happy with his script. That said, there wasn't any fat in it - the S.D. put you right there, quickly. Really enjoyed the script-to-screen differences: the Shanghai scene got cut out entirely (getting Indy into the Hero's New World sooner). A good reading scene, yes, but better without it; the FINAL STRUGGLE in the script happened entirely in the secret carved-out-island inner cave area where the submarine was docked. There wasn't any march up into the hills with the Ark. Interesting choice. (Thought both were good). DECONSTRUCTION TEST: in Cairo at Sallah's home for dinner, I felt the script had Indy flipping the poisoned dates up in the air much too much. It got old. The film cut way back on that - and it improved matters. ON THE OFFENSSIVE: Thought that the horse-trucks-cars-motorcycle chase scene was very well written - it just lept off of the page for me. Loved that scene on the pages. Fun to read. All-in-all, a great read. John A

One more script-to-screen difference that I thought was significant: In the Script: @ THE LOCK: we're inside Marion's bar in Nepal. It's pretty crazy. Trouble breaks out between "the Sherpa guys" and "the climber guys". They're ready to trash the place. Marion steps in, gets tough, and bounces them both. Not really exciting. In the Film: exact same scene. But now it's a drinking contest instead, between the local guy and Marion. Empty shots glasses are flipped after each downed whiskey - lots of them. Much wagering going on. Who'll drop under the table first? Great visual. Tells us more about Marion's character, I feel. Plus - Kasdan calls it back later in the RECONSTRUCTION TEST when Marion is held prisoner in Belloq's tent, and she and Belloq have - a drinking contest. I thought that was great. Very effective. John A

Nigh-about time I read this script, thoroughly glad that I did. Very enjoyable for the most part, although the blocks of description were occasionally a shade laborious. Stylistically, things have changed a bit as regards action scripts and, like John A mentioned, we tend to see a bit more white on the page nowadays, but things haven't really changed all that much. The descriptions are still fairly lean and some of the prose-like writing is a pleasure to read. I'd like to think that if this were a spec doing the rounds, it would get plenty of attention (please God, let that be true). Some of the exposition was a little heavy-handed, yet somehow it doesn't sound that way coming out of the mouths of Harrison Ford and co. One of the things that struck me the most was how often Kasdan uses reversals, and I'm not just talking about major plot turns and swings of fortune. I'm talking about scene after scene, almost every one of them laced with fluctuating beats. Sometimes tables get turned several times over in the same scene, and this drives the story forward and maintains reader interest so well. Picking a scene at random, take the scene when Indy is getting drunk after he thinks Marion has died, and meets Belloq: a bottle gets sent over, Indy refuses it; henchmen arrive at the bar, Indy goes over of his own accord without putting up a fight; Indy threatens Belloq over Marion, Belloq turns the guilt on Indy; Indy insults Belloq, Belloq reminds him that little separates them - and Indy knows it; Indy's time seems up, the children arrive to usher him to safety. All that in three pages, plus some crackling dialogue and important exposition. Lean, mean stuff. The two major scenes that bookend the story also stand out: the first because it's one of the most iconic scenes in cinema history, and reads every bit as good as it looks - fully nine pages of it; the other is the mine car sequence, which they managed to work into the sequel - I forget why it didn't make it on the first go round. Also, speaking of all-time great scenes, Harrison Ford's fortuitous bout of dysentery provided one of the great moments that Kasdan can't take credit for. That said, a lot of this script is a pay-by-play of the end product. The Raiders Story Conference Transcript is a great read, I highly recommend a look at it.

Part of the 'lots and lots of scene description' issue, and the big blocks of text is tied to the era in which it was written. Yes, only about three decades ago, but there has been a sea change in terms of screenplay style over that time, what I call a more 'literary' approach, especially in terms of selling scripts [as opposed to shooting scripts].

Vic, that's a really interesting point about reversals, and frankly I hadn't picked it up like you did, but in thinking about it, you're right. It brings to mind two sports metaphors I've heard over the years about how to write scenes, switching the point of power, control or authority over any given moment: * Tennis rally: One character hits the 'ball' [through action or dialogue], the other responds by hitting the 'ball' back. Each shot is that character on the offense / in charge, and the responding shot shifts the power to the other character. Back and forth which could very well involve a series of reversals within a scene. * Choosing sides / baseball bat: Do you remember how you used to determine which team 'captain' would get to choose first in selecting sides in a pickup game? Toss the bat, the one captain catches, the other grabs the bat atop the other captain's hand, the first captain does the same thing atop the other captain's hand, over and over until the final hand covers the bat knob? Same dynamic as tennis rally: fist over fist signifies shift in power, reversals if you will. Easy to see why these reversals are entertaining because it keeps shifting the field of play, who's in charge, who's in power position, etc.

Well, I'll be the voice of dissent -- I found this script really hard to get through. I haven't seen this movie since I was a kid, so I'm more or less coming to the material without opinion (though I'm generally a fan of the trilogy). There's zero character development. None of the characters go through any sort of transformation -- Indy and the rest are the same at the end as when they started. There's no emotional depth to anyone, and the bad guys are so formulaic that they're often just named "bad guys" in the script. Using the Nazis as the enemy seems like pretty lazy writing. It's the same enemy in the third movie, but there at least are the father-son issues that give the film some emotional depth. What also struck me, as a result, is how easy it is to establish the hero as the hero. Because when you think about it, why IS Indy the hero? He steals artifacts for personal gain, just like the bad guys do -- and yet we want him to succeed. In the movies, I think it's due in large part to Harrison Ford's charisma. But it's also a reminder that setting a story from a character's point of view goes a long way in establishing that character as the good guy (and makes for interesting stories when this gets manipulated, as in the Tom Ripley novels or Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd).

Melinda, thanks for that post. I'll bet there are others who read the script who have a similar reaction. It will be interesting to see how you [and others of a similar mindset] respond to the two-part article I'll be posting tomorrow and Thursday by John Gary where he analyzes Raiders per character and theme.

Melinda, Living in Russia, we're always open to "the voice of dissent". You ask: "Why IS Indy the Hero?" Good point. So, let me raise the stakes: The script clearly states that Marion is 25 years old when Indy reappears in her Nepal bar room. They had a romantic relationship 10 years prior to that ("You knew it was wrong"), ("You knew what you were doing"). Simple math tells me that Indiana Jones should be answering questions from, at the very minimum, Child Protection Services; or at the maximum, the State Police. Am I wrong here? (or is this one of those things that we're "supposed to suspend" when we go to the movies?). John A

Oh my, I didn't even think of that one. There's a lot that has to be suspended for this movie to work, and yet it does. Somewhat unrelated, but I've always wondered what happened to the ladies for one movie to the next. Same thing happens in the older Bond movies.

Can you re-up the original conference transcript? The file is no longer available. I'd love to read it! Thanks!