Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Raiders of the Lost Ark is two hours of genuine, glorious fun at the movies. Conceived by filmmakers and friends George Lucas and Steven Spielberg as an homage to those old serial films where the heroes were in danger after about twenty minutes so that there would be a cliffhanger to bring everyone back to the theaters next week, Raiders presents almost non-stop action, putting its hero, Indiana Jones (the great Harrison Ford in a role that would come to define him) in harm’s way almost every couple of minutes. Any movie that travels from Peru to the United States to Nepal to Egypt to Greece with this much flair and style is worthy of awards recognition. It’s as globe-trotting a movie as any James Bond film.

Ford’s portrayal of the now iconic archaeologist/adventurer is in the manner of a somewhat typical American hero, a product of his time. He consistently worries, it seems, more about himself than others, and he’s accustomed to taking things from others that he wants. There’s a glint in his eye when he sees something shiny, some beautiful artifact from the past that could be “saved” from whatever allegedly primitive tribe possesses it at the time. Ford brings the right mix of charm and bravado to the role. His Indiana Jones is sexy, even stylish, a bit too hot-headed for his own good, and yet (almost) always worthy of being cheered on.

The opening sequence of the film is justifiably famous. Jones is retrieving a golden idol – aren’t all such idols golden? – from Peru, but he has to face a series of obstacles to escape from the location where it has been sequestered. By the time he’s escaped multiple boobytraps and outrun a giant boulder, you know what kind of movie you’re in for. This sequence doesn’t really have much to do with the main plot, of course, but it does establish a style for the film overall. And it sets off what turns out to be a very action-packed sequence of events. Before film’s end, we’ll have witnessed a chase involving lots of large baskets, boats trying to outpace each other, a hazardous race involving a series of Nazi vehicles, even a sequence aboard a submarine.

Set in 1936, Raiders of the Lost Ark depicts attempts by the Americans and the Nazis to locate the Ark of the Covenant, which supposedly contains the Ten Commandments. It also reportedly contains great power for whomever possesses it, but you should know a maguffin when you see one. Yes, the Ark in the movie is truly golden and beautiful, quite a spectacular piece of design work, but it’s not really the object itself that makes us watch the film. We as viewers may be momentarily intrigued by this golden box, but the thrill of watching the film is from the chase, the search, not truly the finding. That the ark itself doesn’t really turn out to be quite what the Nazis thought it would be is even more delightful although watching it work its powers on them provides some pretty grisly moments.

Ford is solid and reliable here, a perfect fit from this type of leading man role, and he’s truly the star here. The film also features some memorable supporting performances, chief among them Karen Allen as Indy’s former flame, Marion. She’s tough, feisty, a match for almost anyone. She’s the daughter of Jones’ mentor, and when Jones arrives at her bar in Tibet, her trouble begins, but she demonstrates that’s she more than up to the task of an adventure herself. John Rhys-Davies plays Sallah, a reliable friend of Indiana Jones, and his presence in the film brings some nice comic moments. (The film actually has lots of very funny moments, but they’re almost all throwaways in service of the main adventure plot.) Paul Freeman plays the oily French archaeologist who’s in league with the Nazis. Even the great Alfred Molina shows up in the opening sequence in Peru. Alas, he doesn’t make it past the prologue, but you can see why he has had such a career in films just from his few moments of screen time.

I don’t want to give the impression that the only reason to see Raiders of the Lost Ark is its action sequences, but they are such an outstanding aspect of the film. I’m sure that’s what sold so many tickets. But the film is truly top-notch in all categories: cinematography, editing, art direction, costume design, visual effects, the stunt work (especially the stunt work), and on and on. Even the romantic original music by the legendary John Williams gifts us with an instantly recognizable motif for Indiana Jones in only seven memorable notes. Notice how many nominations it received in the technical categories, and how many wins it achieved in them too. The film takes us to such beautiful and exciting locations, and we are immersed in the world of the film even though it keeps shifting locales.

That being said, naturally, it’s the sense of adventure and excitement that bears repeated viewings. I’ve already mentioned Indy running from a boulder in the opening sequence, but the film has a lot of memorable moments, such as when he shoots a guy with a large saber just to save time in his quest to find the missing Marion. We find out about his fear of snakes in quite possibly the worst imaginable way. There’s a crazy sequence involving a fistfight with a big Nazi on top of and underneath and around an airplane that’s buzzing around waiting for takeoff. Even the film’s final shot does a wonderful job of showing us the depths of American bureaucracy in an amusing way. I also like some of the small moments, such as when a young woman in Dr. Jones’ archaeology class flirts with him by writing suggestive messages on her eyelids (and then a young male student leaves him an apple – a little provocative). Great movies tend to be filled with moments like these that can be discussed and dissected and, really, just warmly remembered.

By the way, as happened with the Star Wars films, the makers (or the distributors?) of Raiders of the Lost Ark have fallen prey to renaming the film now that several successful sequels have been released. However, a fan of the movie is never going to call it Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark just because the other movies in the series use his name first (Indiana Jones and the… whatever it is). To those who saw the film in its original release, it’s still going to be Raiders of the Lost Ark, just as it should be.

Oscar Wins: Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Sound, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects, and Special Achievement Award in Sound Effects Editing

Other Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score

On Golden Pond (1981)

On Golden Pond, nominated for Best Picture of 1981, is a film that comes about as close to perfection as you could hope for. It has an exceptional script with great dialogue and rich characters. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the setting is well chosen. And then there's the acting. All of the major parts in this film are handled by performers at the top of their game: Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, Jane Fonda, Dabney Coleman, and Doug McKeon.

Henry Fonda plays Norman Thayer, a retired professor who has come to Golden Pond for the summer. Hepburn plays his patient wife, Ethel, who has been trying to reconcile Norman with his daughter Chelsea (Jane Fonda) for years. Chelsea shows up at the Thayer cabin on Norman's birthday with her fiance and his son in tow, leaving the boy to spend the summer with Norman and Ethel while she and Bill Ray (Coleman) travel in Europe. As the summer progress, Norman bonds with Billy (McKeon), taking him in as a surrogate grandson. Chelsea returns after marrying Bill and tries to become friends with Norman.

In his last feature film role, Henry Fonda is great as a man facing the prospect of his mortality. He has, apparently, long been obsessed with death, but now that he has reached an advanced age, he seems even more preoccupied with it. Hepburn is a marvel. She manages to walk a fine line between the kind of wife who always tries to put a sunny face on and one who worries about the impending loss of her husband. Her scene with Jane Fonda where she basically tells the younger woman to grow up is one of the best in the movie. Then again, she also has some of the best funny lines too, particularly those where she calls Norman an "old poop." (My family, especially my grandparents, loved that.)

It's hardly surprising that this film can also be examined as a study of the relationship between the Fondas; it was their only movie together. Jane's Chelsea struggles to live up to Norman's expectations of her, and you can just imagine Jane herself had similar difficulties living in the shadow of her famous father. The scene where she tries to talk to him after returning from Europe is heartbreaking. Jane has talked about that moment since the death of her father, saying that it was one of those times when the film and real life intersected, and you can see where even Henry is overcome by emotion and has to hide his face after she touches his arm. The reality of the sentiments there are more than about Norman and Chelsea Thayer.

I loved watching this movie again. I'd forgotten how rich this film is. It has moments of great comedy, such as when Norman and Bill Ray have the "illicit sleeping together" talk. It has moments of pure joy, such as Billy's solo ride on the boat. It's filled with moments of intense sadness, as when Ethel realizes that Norman's memory is starting to fade after he is unable to find the Old Town Road. And there are moments of great fear as well, such as when Norman thinks he may have suffered a heart attack and Ethel imagines what his funeral will be like. These are characters you begin to care about, people you even start to love.

I expect the somewhat slow pace of this film might put some people off, but this is a film about the twilight years of life. It's meant to be slow, and I think the interludes with scenes of the lake and the loons are beautiful transitional moments. Sometimes you get a chance to reconnect with a favorite film from your past, and On Golden Pond is one of those. I might not have even thought of watching it again had it not been for this project, but I'm so grateful for a chance to see all of these talented performers and this beautiful movie again.

Reds (1981)

I truly wasn't prepared for Reds, a nominee for Best Picture of 1981. I was expecting a film more focused on the rise of Socialism in the United States during the early part of the 20th Century, some sort of filmic agitprop maybe or perhaps a more documentary-like approach. Certainly, the film does include that perspective, especially with the interviews of some of the actual people who were witnesses to the events of that time. However, Reds is really a love story somewhat disguised as a political film. I don't truly believe Warren Beatty, the director-writer-lead actor-producer-whatever-else-he-is, really wants to convert any moviegoers to Socialism or Communism or Bolshevism or any other ism through his depictions of what happens with labor movements in the U.S. or the various revolutions in Russia or any of the other historical events he includes. I think he instead wants us to see the persistence of our love for each other despite all of the "great events" that happen as a backdrop to our lives, that ability we have to maintain our private relationships despite our involvement in other, more political or public actions. In that respect, Reds is very reminiscent of Doctor Zhivago or Gone With the Wind.

Beatty very generously keeps the character of Louise Bryant as his primary focus, and he coaxes a deeply felt performance from his leading lady, Diane Keaton. Keaton is simply great here, only a few years after her career-defining role as the title character in Annie Hall. She seems to get much more attention when she plays a comedic role like Annie, but as Bryant, she moves beyond being merely funny. She's touching and angry and loving and desperate and the full range of emotions. She's the heart of this film, and it succeeds in large part because of the strength of her acting. I wonder why she didn't get a chance to do more dramatic work after this film. Were moviegoers just unable to accept her in a role very different from Annie Hall?

Beatty is also strong as John Reed, whose Ten Days That Shook the World was an influential first-hand account of the Bolshevik Revolution. I don't really see the full depth of Reed's love of the ideals of Bolshevism in Beatty's performance, but I do see the passion that the man has for political activity more generally and the love he has for his wife Louise. Jack Nicholson plays Eugene O'Neill in a way that makes you forget that you're watching Jack Nicholson, and given how often he has coasted in recent years on his own oversized personality, that's saying something. Maureen Stapleton won an Oscar for her portrayal of Emma Goldman, but I have to say that her performance didn't strike me as being particularly noteworthy. Stapleton is a great actress, certainly, but what is she truly allowed to do in this film that would draw the notice of the academy? She's good, as she always is, but I think perhaps this was an attempt on the part of the academy members to find a way to acknowledge Beatty's overall accomplishment.

I do admire Beatty's various achievements here. He's a solid director and a consistent actor. His script, co-written with Trevor Griffiths, is well structured. It's tough to imagine any studio willingly supporting a film like this nowadays. Can you imagine that pitch meeting? "I want to make a movie about a couple of American Socialists who fall in love and who support the Communist Revolution in Russia." I just can't believe that such a film would ever get funding these days. Thankfully, Beatty had the clout at the time to make this interesting and sympathetic movie about subject matter that would become so taboo in the years that saw the rise of the New Conservatism during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Atlantic City (1981)

Atlantic City was nominated for Best Picture of 1981. It's the story of a long-time but low-level gangster named Lou (played by Burt Lancaster), who falls in love with a much younger oyster bar waitress named Sally (played by Susan Sarandon), who has aspirations to become a croupier. Neither of them has yet to be successful at achieving his/her dreams, as evidenced by the rather seedy apartment building in which they both live. In fact, hardly anyone in the movie has managed to live out her/his dreams: Grace, the bedridden showgirl who was married to a mobster; Dave, Sally's husband who has gotten involved with cocaine smugglers; even Sally's younger sister, whom Dave has impregnated. But all of them have aspirations, and all of them believe that they will succeed if given just one more chance.

Watching this film is like watching a master class in acting. Lancaster had been out of the spotlight for many years when he got this part. He's amazing to watch, even better (I think) than he was when he starred in films like Elmer Gantry and The Birdman of Alcatraz. You can see all of the failed attempts at getting out of the criminal life that he has taken, but you can also see the fire of passion that still burns in him as he watches Sally use lemons to wash off the smell of her job at the end of the day. He has such gravity to him, such weight, when he walks or even when he's observing other people.

This was relatively early in Sarandon's career, but you can already see just how talented she is. Despite being stuck in a low-paying job, which she took out of necessity to escape her impoverished past, Sally too has a powerful desire to better herself. The frustration she experiences as she attempts to learn how to work as a casino dealer is written clearly on Sarandon's face; at times, everything seems to be conspiring against her shot at success (or escape). Both performers convey so much even without dialogue, although the script itself is also excellent, using these people's lives to show a time of transition in the title city, as the old apartment buildings are being torn down to make way for the casinos which promised redemption for Atlantic City.

I might never have seen this film had I not started this project. Nothing about the plot summary suggested that it would be one that I enjoyed. Who could fathom a love story between someone of Lancaster's age and someone of Sarandon's age? Who would believe that these two unlikely partners would get themselves involved in dope peddling? However, this is truly a forgotten classic. People don't talk about it very much these days; maybe there are just too many other films from that era getting more attention, or perhaps not that many people have seen it. That's a shame. This film deserves a wider audience.