"DON'T GET SENTIMENTAL NOW DAD!"

Indiana Jones (and the Last Crusade)

Continued from my post on James Bond (see "HE ALWAYS DID HAVE AN INFLATED OPINION OF HIMSELF...")
 

Well, I guess I owe Ian Flemming one small thing at least... As much as I don't like admitting it, without James Bond I wouldn't have one of my favorite films; Raiders of the Lost Arc... 

 

"Yeah, that should do nicely..."

The story goes that Spielberg always fancied doing a Bond film, while Spielberg's friend, Lucas, had wanted to do an old-fashioned serial-styled adventure. Between them they devised a character who would fulfill both briefs- a world-wry adventurer whose exploits could send him across the globe. So So they created Indiana Jones. 

 And we all know that Indiana Jones is a much better character than James Bond... Right?

Aside from this starting point, Indiana Jones and James Bond really aren't that similar. Their choices and the way they tackle their obstetrical is very different, as is their relationship to women. Bond is a habitual womaniser with no real connection to the majority of his conquests; over 50 women, and arguably he only 'liked' three of them. Indiana Jones, however, loved (and probably always loved) Marian. Willy was obviously a relationship going nowhere, but it was never a case of one party using or leading-on the other. Ilsa may have turned out to be a Nazi sympathiser, a typical Bond twist, however her betrayal actually really hurts Jones, while Bond was (by and large) never overly bothered by such things. To say that Bond uses women is an understatement- even when he's defending them he usually only considers them as a means to an end. Despite Ilsa's betrayal, Indiana Jones still tries to save her life during the climax of the film- would Bond have ever done such a thing? He'd have probably coolly watched her fall to her death before cracking a bad joke ("get a grip, dear"?).

Definitely making this up as he goes...

I'll concede, Indiana Jones still has something of an ego, but he's not the psychopath that James Bond is; he has feelings, and much of his posturing is bravado to hide his own short-comings. Jones is usually a few steps behind the plot, struggling to catch-up, unlike Bond- who always seems to be in-the-know. Jones has friendships, and loves, and losses, and weaknesses. All of this serves to make him more human, a person you can warm to and empathise with. Bond, not so much...
And another thing: Indiana Jones makes mistakes! Sure, he comes off suave and he's a good improvisor, but let’s not forget— he misjudges the weight of the idol (subsequently setting off all the traps inside the temple), disguises himself in a Nazi uniform two sizes too small, doesn't bother checking the logo on his getaway plane in Shanghai. The list goes on... He's human. You wouldn't catch Bond screwing up like that. Indiana Jones lived by the maxim “I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go.” Bond, on the other hand, is about wish-fulfillment, about being the best- there's no room for error or pity in those cold blue eyes.

And that, jury, is why Indiana Jones is the superior character. Thank you.

Insert applause. and remember...

"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."