http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/03/case-against-character-arcs.html

Glad you found the original Mystery Man on Film character arc article, Teddy. I don't know why google didn't scare that up for me.

Interesting insights there from John - have to say I hadn't thought about Indy that way. There's something to be said for the central dramatic argument in question and it is indeed arguable that the movie raises this issue and bats it around at various points. What's interesting is that the script, this version anyway, does not. Not really. So what's worth mentioning here is the difference between what first makes it to the page and what we end up seeing on screen, and in this instance the character development is quite striking. John mentions the lecture and Indy being dismissive in his references to folklore. Well, he doesn't in this draft. 'If you believe in that sort of thing', he says as he relays the origins of the Ark. Only he doesn't say it. Again, not in this draft. 'Yes, that's what the Hebrews thought'. As does Indy perhaps, because it's him and not Marcus who gets this line in the script being discussed. 'Lightning. Fire. Power of God or something'. No such flippant remark to be found in this draft. The line about whoever carries the Ark before them is invincible? Indy's line. Marcus's little ominous warning? Doesn't happen. Talk of magic, hocus pocus, the boogie man? Yep, you know where this is going. Indy's not even there when the Ark goes batshit, never mind warning Marion not to look at it. I haven't read all of the story conference transcript but I have read a lot of it, and there's no mention of this theme being explored through the character of Indy. Also, just as a side note, no, Spielberg is not infallible and some of his ideas strike a bum note. Nevertheless, his storytelling sensibilities, in particular what can be rendered visually, are very apparent and really shine through in the transcript. The tarantulas thing was one of his suggestions, likewise the spikes with skeletal remains, the whole boulder sequence – the piece de resistance – and a bunch of other stuff that makes it into later Indy adventures. Indy using the bull whip to reel in a girl came out of this session and shows up in Temple of Doom, as does having Indy wake up on a plane with no pilot and use an inflatable boat to escape. Spielberg mentions using a Dietrich-esque German double agent in Raiders, and we get one in Last Crusade. So yes, as none of you know, Spielberg’s kinda brilliant. Back to character, and the transcript’s really illuminating in that respect. Early on, Lucas states ‘We want him to be extremely good at what he does’ as regards the protagonist, and this happens so often in movies that it’s almost a rule of screenwriting in itself. The group also talk about Indy the adventurer and Dr Jones the lecturer, and this dichotomy is one of the reasons why Indiana Jones is such a classic creation. Spielberg also asks ‘What’s he afraid of?’, and Indy’s fear of snakes is another memorable hallmark of this character. But again, this is basic stuff – protagonists always need a fatal flaw (ref. John’s discussion about religion), a weakness. The image of the character Lucas had in mind also come through very clearly - leather jacket, khakis, hat, pistol, bull whip – and becomes so iconic that Indy is one of few movie characters you can recognize by silhouette alone. Back to the whole script-to-screen transition, and it’s interesting to note how two of the defining character moments in Raiders came about after this draft was finished. Marion drinking someone under the table is such a great character intro and sets her up perfectly – so much better than what we get in this draft. And, of course, the famous scene where Indy shoots the swordsman. This was a matter of happenstance rather than specific, deliberate character development, but damn if it ain’t one of Indy’s defining character moments.

I wrote an extensive analysis of this draft of Raiders for my own screenwriting blog, which analyzes this draft and compares it with the final cut of the film. I wholly agree with the idea that Indy DOES change over the course of the screenplay--at the film's beginning, Indy is an intrepid, skeptical adventurer that's obsessed with treasure yet incapable of forming a solid relationship with someone. Through his quest for the Ark, he not only achieves a much more profound respect for the artifacts he obtains, but most importantly restores his damaged relationship with Marion--while also confronting his two biggest fears: snakes and commitment. Feel free to check it out!

John, describing MMoF as "a guy who had some interesting thoughts on movies" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think? The guy wrote some great script analyses and articles about film. "The third thing that happened was during a conversation about central dramatic arguments, which is a way of thinking about theme more organically and creative originated by Craig Mazin." Am I understanding this correctly? Are you saying that Craig Mazin first thought of central dramatic arguments?

Hi Scott, having just taken your class "Creating a worthy Nemesis" I'm finding this Protagonist/Nemesis relationship to be that of Shadow/Light. Belloq is the physicalization of Indy's shadow. This makes him a powerful Nemesis. BELLOQ How odd that is should end this way for us, after so many... stimulating encounters. I almost regret it. Where shall I find a new adversary so close to my own level? INDY Try the local sewer. BELLOQ I know you despise me. We always hate in others that which we most fear in ourselves. And you and I are very much alike. INDY Now you're getting nasty. BELLOQ We have always done the same kind of work. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am a shadowy reflection of you. But it would have taken only a nudge to make you the same as me, to push you out of the light. Indy knows he is looking at a mirror image of himself. Be it a funhouse mirror image. In the remainder of the scene, Indy struggles to stay afloat and find distance. Thankfully, he is soon reminded of an important difference. He still stands in the light and there is an innocence within that will save him. Indy takes a drink. INDY You know, if it's God you want to talk to, maybe I can arrange it. BELLOQ (smiles) You have not changed. But, please, do not reach for your weapon until you are ready to die. The front door of the bar slams open and all nine of SALLAH'S CHILDREN scamper in and over to a surprised Indy. Two of the smallest hop into his lap.

Lucas has stated in the past that Indy's arc is going from an atheist to an agnostic. While the analysis is interesting, the gentleman claiming Lucas intended no arc is incorrect. The Ark is there, it's clear. In addition to the above arc, Indy also goes into the light. He becomes something other than Belloq. If you look at Temple of Doom he's after "fortune and glory." At the end he gives the Sankara stone back to the village. At the end of Raiders he fails to destroy the Ark, his obsession. But he doesn't get pushed out of the light. Belloq has already been down that path and suffers the consequences.

Teddy, Many thanks for providing that link. I just finished the article, and learned quite a bit. A lot to think about there . . . John A

Scott, You mention the podcast with John August and Craig Mazin. Towards the end of it, they reference "Cars 2" by Pixar, and discuss profitability. Craig says: "They've sold more crapola, more Cars stuff . . ." You can't walk down ANY street in Moscow - on the complete other side of the planet - without seeing those sappy little smiley-faced cars staring back at you in a toy shop, at a kiosk, or on a vendors table. They are absolutely everywhere. Pravda. John A ps: the only other Pixar toy we see for sale here is Buzz Lightyear. He's fairly common, too, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as Cars stuff.

This is definitely an interesting argument, but I’m still not convinced. I don’t think that Indiana Jones changes in any significant, permanent way – he is momentarily enlightened but it doesn’t translate into real change. One reason why I think he doesn’t truly change is that his motivation in looking for the Ark never significantly changes. Initially, he’s agreed to look for it for money and the promise of another artifact in the museum. In this version of the script (I haven’t seen this movie since I was a kid, so I’m only working off the script), that motivation is still present at the end: the government has given Marion money (and perhaps Indy, too) and Brody is asking to keep the Ark. They still want the same things they wanted in the beginning, which makes me think that in Indy’s next (imaginary) adventure, his motivation would still remain money and a museum piece, which would mean that he hadn’t really changed. In the middle of the script, Indy’s main motivation in going after the Ark is to rescue Marion, along with perhaps a touch of patriotism and professional rivalry. I don’t see a single moment in here where Indiana Jones is motivated by the power of the Ark or God, but wouldn’t that a necessity in John Gary’s argument? At the end of the day, the Ark is still just an artifact, a thing, to him, a device through which to get something else, and I don’t think that ever changes. In the second post, John wrote, “What does Belloq do? He looks inside, watches, they all watch, he wants to know more, he wants to see the treasures he believes are there, he wants to speak to God. And what does Indy do? He says, ‘Shut your eyes, Marion.’ He knows whatever is about to happen is going to be bad. His whole existence is predicated on revealing ancient relics, and here is the most fabled of all relics and he does not want to witness the reveal. He shows supplication in the face of the power of God, and for that? For that he lives.” But in this version of the script, it seems that Indy has only momentarily been awed by the power of the Ark, and thus not permanently changed, because at the end, when they’re meeting with the government officials, Indy himself wants to research and examine the Ark. He too wants to look at God – the difference between Indy and Belloq now is just that he’s not being allowed. It still remains a treasure to be possessed, looked at and examined. of course, most of my argument is predicated on the assumption that the end of the film is the same as what's in the script version we read. :) On a different note, there are two main thrusts to this screenplay: the recovery of the Ark and the relationship with Marion. The other thing that bothers me about Indy’s character arc, or lack of, is the way things play out with Marion. He gets her back, but he doesn’t have to change in any way to do it. He never apologizes or atones for whatever happened in the past – all he does is rescue her, a physical achievement. There’s no emotional growth. Thanks for your two posts, John Gary. They've made for some good conversation and thinking.