The PC Police Come For Indiana Jones

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:


So one Angelo Delos Trinos wrote over at Screen Rant why Raiders of the Lost Ark has not aged well.  Not because of quality or directing or effects.  In a nutshell, because it wasn’t made in conformity to the superior and infallible intellectual and morally superior standards of modern politically correct sensitivities. The end.

Yep. That, to me, is a best part of the movie.  Unlike most of the cinematic bilge coming out today, which is in full service and thralldom to the political Left and the rigorous demands of political correct categories, Raiders was a film when film was still an art wrapped in an industry.  Today, it’s an industry in slavish devotion to a political movement with art barely making the list.

And it shows.  Today the heroes must conform to PC categories.  Oh they might have this or that doubt or this or that emotional struggle.  But if they’re good they’re good  because of their socially assigned categorical identity.  Likewise the bad guys will be bad in conformity to PC demands, being religious, conservative, white, masculine men, capitalists, and on and on.  No code of the 1930s was more unwavering in its demand that all film conform to its standards than the Left today.  And more to the point, most filmmakers today are happy to be slavish thralls to the demands of today’s leftist state.

Basically the point of the piece at Screen Rants is that Raiders should have been a one dimensional movie with superficial ingredients taken from the multi-cultural, politically correct cereal box.  The story should have been vapid and predictable, with lame and rehashed plot points that have been rehashed a thousand times.  The characters should have been thin and hollow caricatures based on the ingredients list from politically correct categories.  And all must have been in conformity to these things 100%, or they would be condemned outright.  See filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino today, almost bowing before the modern Left and nonetheless blasted for not keeping in line 100% when he does deviate.

That would have been the movie if Raiders was made today.  I’m thankful that Angelo Delos Trinos and the requisite demands were not around in 1981 to pollute such a wonderful movie.   Because, if you read it again, you realize that the rants are based purely on the film’s failure to conform to the left’s PC dictates.  No concern withe quality of story, or direction, or acting, or production.  In fact, quality seems to mean nothing at all.  Only conformity to the latest now.  Because, if you haven’t noticed, there is nothing as intolerant, judgmental and close-minded as the modern left.

BTW, I grow tired of the idea that anything a white European or American does is default evil.  The problem with an actor from Europe playing an Egyptian misses old 60s and 70s Japanese television where Japanese actors play Arabic characters, or Middle Eastern actors portraying Europeans in movies about the Crusades.  That’s what actors were assumed to do, before the dark days of the Politically Correct Empire.  Now, as I see black musicians refusing to play Mozart because white, and white musicians refusing to play any composer because white, and any white authors decried because of their whiteness, or any white actor or male actor or heterosexual actor told to stay in a PC mandated box and don’t dare come out, I’m reminded how books like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, despite their over the top predictions, can still end up falling far short of the eventual reality.

Go here to comment. Some comments about the original article:

Simply put, people of non-Western nationalities are shown as exotic caricatures at best and non-white bad guys at worst. The Hovitos tribe, Toht’s Nepalese gunmen, and the Egyptians only exist to hinder or help Indy, having little to no agency to speak of.

Which is also true of the Germans who are all portrayed as evil Nazis.  This is a pulp movie, not an academic treatise!

One of Indy’s best friends is Sallah, a fellow archeologist and excavator who’s known for his jovial attitude. He’s also an Egyptian who’s portrayed by the Welsh actor John Rhys-Davies in both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade.

To the filmmakers’ credit, Sallah is a fun and well-written supporting character who was expertly brought to life by Davis. Still, this doesn’t excuse the casting of a Welshman for a character clearly written as an Egyptian. The fact that Davis actually spent majority of his youth in Tanzania because his father was a colonial officer doesn’t help matters.

John Rhys Davies, a marvelous actor, has an astounding range, up to and including dwarves.  The idea that there should be some sort of race test for roles should be abhorrent to anyone who purports to be against racism.  Using the occupation of a man’s father against him is low even by Leftist standards.

When they first meet in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Marion yells at Indy for taking advantage of her when she was “a child.” She was being literal, as the novelization confirms that she was 15 when she slept with Indy – who was in his ‘20s. Legally speaking, that’s a huge no-no.

Actually it isn’t.  At that time the age of consent in Indiana was 12.  My sainted maternal grandmother was 15 when she was wed to my grandfather who was four years older.  They had their first child when my grandmother was 16.    They remained married until my grandfather’s death in his early sixties.  Indiana may have run afoul of laws against fornication but they tended to be unenforced.

Since he’s based on the likes of Doc Savage, it shouldn’t be surprising to say that Indiana Jones is an outdated archetype. This isn’t just because explorers aren’t famous, but because of his attitude and mannerisms.

Yep, that is true.  He was portrayed as a real man and not a contemporary soy boy.



Leftism destroys everything it touches.



More to explorer


  1. On the main point, this presumably Millennial author has it exactly backwards. It’s today’s movies that won’t age well.

    It seems like every generation thinks the world began when they were born. Used to be, the purpose of education was to disabuse you of that notion.

    As to whether or not the “child” Marion “knew what [she was] doing,” as Indy asserted in his own defense, I have to confess, I’ve always found their backstory a little skeevy. On the other hand, I guess most people didn’t have the luxury of an extended adolescence back in the day. Take for example one Betty Joan Perske, who was 19 going on 30 when she made her screen debut in To Have and Have Not under the stage name Lauren Bacall.

  2. The audience is prepared to watch a long drawn our conflict when in an instance it is won by the good guy. My favorite scene.
    PC cannot reign unless the consumers cooperate .

  3. ERNST, I agree about the modern movies. Regarding Jones and Marion, according to Lucas and Spielberg, that was the point. They were trying to redo the old purely heroic swashbuckling hero from the 30s and 40s movies and serials they watched. Remember, the original title was ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, not ‘Indiana Jones and…’. That’s because Jones is merely one of the Raiders. They wanted to muddy the waters, so to speak. First, Jones is basically the loser in the movie. Nothing goes his way. He ends up giving up the Ark and it’s God who has to step in and take out the baddies. That’s because, as Lucas said, Indy is always a little more full of himself than he should be. Second, the line between Jones and Belloq is almost paper thin. Think of it. Belloq works to help the Nazis get the Ark, but Jones is willing to let the Nazis have it just to see it opened. They are both treasure hunters. They are both wiling to chase girls (though Belloq is only seen going after Marion as an adult woman). Belloq knows Jones better than Jones admits. And when push comes to shove, he is better at most things than Jones. The ironic twist is that everyone – Hitler, Belloq, Sallah, Marcus – believe in the mystical side of the Ark. Only Jones is the skeptic, and yet he is the one, in the end, who knows enough to keep his eyes shut.

  4. Since everyone of the median age or lower in the United States is Millennial or post-millennial, not exactly a risky presumption….

    That said, he was born in about ’92, because one of his promos mentions that he’s reviewing Chasing Amy which came out when he was “about” 5.

    The guy’s funding stream depends on being pissed off and finding reasons that stuff “doesn’t age well” or is otherwise wrong.

    That said, the “I was 15” as an example of ‘doesn’t age well’ really makes the point about slavish devotion to the expected.
    It’s a freaking introductory plot point that Indy is sometimes an idiot, especially about women, and that young women throw themselves at him.

    This is just a new form of the “re-interpret Disney movies so the main character is really horrible and evil or somehow wrong and the villain is a good guy” game.

  5. My personal favorite Brian Blessed moment comes in the middle of the action during the battle of Agincourt in Kenneth Branaugh’s Henry V. You can watch him as he ceases to be the Duke of Exeter, becoming Prince Vultan.

    Without the wings, of course.

    (Bummer, posted this in the wrong thread.)

  6. “Since everyone of the median age or lower in the United States is Millennial or post-millennial, not exactly a risky presumption….”

    Now that was just mean, making me feel old like that.

    I’m going to go put on my Members Only jacket, listen to Simple Minds and Tears for Fears, and maybe a little INXS, and mope.

  7. Ugh. Your views are garbage. Soy boy? You watching the 90s MTV music awards?
    Stop typing. You’re just another nutjob.

  8. I’m surprised to see such a tone in this article posted for a Catholic paper. How bout a little less generalization about a monolithic left or millennials and name calling like “soy boy”. You want respect, give it.

    Plus, you take issue with the author of the article. Great. He has his opinion, you have yours. Make your argument, but don’t forget, I thought Catholicism had an aspect of forgiveness to it. You should try to incorporate that rather than bitterness into your work. It would be classier that way.

  9. “about a monolithic left”

    The contemporary Left, Domingo, for most of its adherents, plays the role of a substitute religion. Hence the ceaseless heresy hunting on social media. Most Leftists operate as if they wish the Left to be perceived as a monolith, and will tolerate no dissent. I said nothing about millennials one way or another.

    “Great. He has his opinion, you have yours.”

    No, he has his opinion and I have the facts.

    “but don’t forget, I thought Catholicism had an aspect of forgiveness to it.”

    Indeed. The author of the piece should beg forgiveness from every reader who stumbled across that steaming pile of tripe.

  10. I write for SR, and this is not an honest review. Of course not, it’s got a wretched “anti-left” bias that perceives anything that doedn’t glorify colonialism, racism or misogyny as “persecution.” I’ll be posting this to my colleagues. I expect that they’ll be visiting with their two cents shorty.

  11. that doedn’t glorify colonialism, racism or misogyny as “persecution.”

    Kristy the world will make so much more sense to you when you actually respond to what people write, rather than combating the strawmen that you construct in the recesses of your mind. Leftist drones are always welcome here. They can give good sport. Hopefully they will have something of substance to contribute unlike the mind dropping you just left.

  12. Speaking of “strawmen” are you familiar with “ad hominem”? You don’t know how old the writer is, nor do you know anything about their politics. But you spent half the article insulting them. Just another good Catholic! Who would Jesus smear?
    And take your own advice. Your screaming about a simple movie review as if it represents that downfall of civilization is an excellent example of why few people take religion seriously.
    Do you get extra money for throwing the word “left” in there? It appears so many times it loses all meaning.

  13. Speaking of “strawmen” are you familiar with “ad hominem”?

    I am, but you obviously are not.

    “But you spent half the article insulting them.”

    No, I responded to the statements he made.

    “Who would Jesus smear?”

    No one. He did use language like “brood of vipers” and “hypocrites” in making accurate statements about groups.

    “Your screaming about a simple movie review”
    No screaming was done. Fortunately the rise or fall of civilizations do not rely upon movie reviews or the Zombie Apocalypse would have long since been upon us.
    “Do you get extra money for throwing the word “left” in there?”

    I earn my daily bread in the law mines. This blog, which has been around since 2008, generates annual income of $0.00. I will use Left less when Leftists stop making asses of themselves in print. I think that will be a very long time indeed.

  14. I see some crybully got his feewings hurt.

    That’s right, his. Witness the oppression INHERENT in the grammar!

  15. Kristy, I commented on the review. My point was that with the headline, I wondered what the angle of the review would be. Would it critique the special effects (that’s been a discussion in some film buff sites)? The set designs? The film production? What? Well, it was just another example of ‘it failed to live up to our latest progressive standards, therefore it must be condemned in the name of diversity.’ Is it the end of the world? No. If it was an isolated review. But it represents a growing movement that seems hellbent on eradicating almost anything that was made in the West before Modern Family and that doesn’t make as its end goal, not good story telling, character development, or an action packed yarn, but fealty to a laundry list of ingredients as set forth by modern political correctness.

  16. “Leftism destroys everything it touches”? Bold words from someone whose organization hid child molesters and moved them around to prey on more innocents. For you to critisize others for being “politically correct” illustrates the hypocrisy your religion is famous for. Too bad god and hell don’t really exist, for he would surely send you all there.

  17. Bold words from someone whose organization hid child molesters and moved them around to prey on more innocents.

    Accurate words actually. You may have failed to notice but on The American Catholic we have been unremitting in our attacks on predator members of our clergy. That a drive by troll like yourself is a hate filled atheist is completely unsurprising.

  18. More proof that moderns are still religious–it’s just that they channel their feverish religious impulses into politics.

    And their world is strewn with heresy and demons.

  19. Maybe forgiveness was the wrong word. Charity would have been better. It seems more suitable for a columnist.

    No, sounds like a bunch of opinions to me. Your take on the left sounds like an opinion. Your take on villains always being white sounds like a poorly founded opinion. And talking about today’s pc culture, and in your opinion, poor modern cinematic offerings, and your sneering closing line about soy boy, tells me you seem to be looking down a generational divide at others you don’t like, you know, like snowflakes.

    I like the movie. I agree with some of your points, though, not your conclusions. But lastly, I fear your dark take on the left and how it is, your anxiety about whites and capitalism and villains, and your childish manner in making your argument says more about you than the reality you comment on. I assume we share a common religion, and you represent us poorly.

    Everyone is on social media, lots of stuff makes it there or on the news. But just because it’s out there doesn’t mean it controls all, represents a majority, or is accepted criteria across society or even a single industry in guiding them in their decisions. It is something most people take or leave. Same as the right calling democrats socialists. Not a given for folks of that persuasion. And certainly, not in the manner of Orwell’s and Bradbury’s classics.

    You can do better. De Los Tinos can split hairs if he likes, it is his right to voice his opinion, but you can rebut him and still not sound so rageful. Good luck in your endeavors.

  20. Maybe forgiveness was the wrong word. Charity would have been better. It seems more suitable for a columnist.
    Charity is one of the prime virtues. Correcting mistakes can be charitable.

    No, sounds like a bunch of opinions to me.
    There are two intertwined articles here. In my contribution at the end I dealt with facts.

    Your take on villains always being white sounds like a poorly founded opinion.
    That wasn’t my point, but the villains coincidentally are all white in the film. That was happenstance. Now the favorite Hollywood villains do tend to be white and usually neo-Nazi. Hollywood has usually preferred safe targets, the safe targets usually reflecting the predilections of the entertainment moguls of the day.

    and your sneering closing line about soy boy, tells me you seem to be looking down a generational divide at others you don’t like, you know, like snowflakes.

    Millennials are, like all prior generations, a mixture of good and bad, and everything in between. My soy boy comment was directed at the reviewer’s take that Indiana Jones is an outdated archetype. If that were true, and I do not accept it, the world would be a sad place indeed.

    your anxiety about whites and capitalism and villains,
    If you do not see that the contemporary Left has a hate on about whites and capitalism then you simply haven’t been paying attention.

    I assume we share a common religion, and you represent us poorly.
    Dave Griffey is Orthodox and I am Catholic. I like to think that I am the type of Catholic similar to how the Irish were once described: “These people are dangerous. They fight back.”

    Same as the right calling democrats socialists.

    Increasingly Democrats are calling Democrats socialists.

    Good luck in your endeavors.

    Same to you.

  21. DOMINGO GARCIA, the Left is different than liberalism. The modern Left today is almost the antithesis of what liberalism was when I was growing up. As for its influence, consider this. Some years ago, LGBTQ activists joined most progressive I knew who joined conservatives in condemning a couple city politicians who talked about banning Chick-fil-A from their districts over the gay marriage issue. They all admitted it was a naked assault on religious liberty and free speech. Today, the LGBTQ community is officially joining with most progressives I know to petition a growing number of cities, politicians and government institutions and universities to ban Chick-fil-A. See how that changed? The reviewer of the movie clearly is following in lockstep with these developments along with displaying the characteristic intolerance for anything not in line with these troubling mentalities we’re seeing emerge among the left. That is what we have noticed. It’s not just right to call out such developments, it’s necessary.

  22. sigh Jeeze, I get distracted for a day or two, and miss all the fun….

    Sorry, Ernst, does it help to know I’m with you on those two epic scenery-chewers? (I found out about the median age thing because I was getting very tired of being called the “youth” and noticed it kept getting extended, coincidentally hanging with roughly “just a little younger than my kids” for those relatives and media folks born right after WWII.)

    Soy boy isn’t a generational thing. I know several in their 50s and late 40s– I’m related to one of them, for heaven’s sake!
    It’s much closer to “hippy” as an identifier, and the quoted author’s entire technique is being a passive-aggressive soy boy. I guess it’s a part-time living?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: