Indy still a whip-snapper in new sequel

ShareThis

Since very few people have actually seen the new Indiana Jones movie, the press coverage has relied on lots of "maybes." Maybe there's a new sci-fi angle. Maybe some of the major characters don't survive. Maybe the triumvirate (George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford) is out of gas and can't make it work.All will be answered Thursday, when "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," the fourth installment in the series, opens in wide, wide release. There will be long faces in Tinseltown if this movie doesn't make $400 million domestically. (The first three pictures together have grossed well over $1 billion.)The last time we saw Indy onscreen was in 1989, which, in movie terms, is the Jurassic Period.Because of all the time that's passed, and the secrecy and high expectations, the entertainment press has gone into overdrive, producing heat and noise and not much substance. The most popular issue seems to be: Is Harrison Ford, 65, getting too long in the tooth to play a whip-carrying action hero?The short version of Ford's own answer is: "No." As an interview subject, Ford seems to have mellowed -- his reputation for being nettlesome was not much in evidence as he spoke by phone from his home in Los Angeles.Q: In 1966, you played an uncredited role as a bellhop in a movie called "Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round," with James Coburn and Aldo Ray. A story on the Internet Movie Database says that, after the movie flopped, the producer told you, "Kid, you ain't got it."A: The real story, which I have told the same way for about 30 years (laughs), is that the vice president in charge of Columbia's new-talent program called me into his office, the day after we shot, having seen the dailies. And he told me that I didn't have the right stuff, and then in illustration told me that the first time Tony Curtis was ever in a movie, he delivered a bag of groceries. "A bag of groceries," he emphasized, "and you took one look at that guy and you knew that was a movie star." And I leaned across his desk and said, "I thought you were supposed to think that that was a grocery-delivery boy." Because he was chiding me for playing a bellhop.It was an important moment for me, because it tempered my steel a bit. And he was so obviously full of ... that it didn't make much of an impression, except to further convince me I was right about the way I was conducting myself. There's an addendum. About 15 years later, I was sitting in some executive dining room in a studio, and a waiter came over with a card on a plate. And I picked up the card, and it was the name of this person, it was his business card, and on the back he had written, "I missed my guess." And when I looked around the room, I was delighted to find I didn't know who ... he was anymore.Q: The old joke about the "Star Trek" sequel movies starring the TV cast was, "They're back -- older and slower." Your attitude about Indiana Jones getting older seems to be: Well, screw it, I am older, the character's older, what you see is what you get.A: That's about it. I would also add that we haven't attempted to rejigger the experience to make up for the fact that the character is older. He's still in over his head, and the age just makes it a little more over his head, that's all. I think it would have been very disappointing for the audience to find a deskbound Indiana Jones, since a great deal of the fun comes from the visceral experience of the film, and I was prepared to deliver that aspect.Q: You said in an interview: "We've got a great shot at breaking the movie demographic constraints."A: One of the things I was thinking about is that there aren't many family movies anymore, and this is a family movie that is rather unique. ... In the 17- or 18-year absence (since the last Indy movie), younger generations have likely seen these films at home, with their parents, on a DVD or videotape. But I think (for the new movie) we've got a very broad range of audience, generationally speaking, the fans of the old films and the kids who've only seen the films at home. Now (they all) have a chance to experience one of these films en famille, as it were, in a movie theater, with the full movie experience.Q: Can you summarize the disagreement about the script that delayed the film?A: Let's change one perception. You called it a "disagreement," and it wasn't disagreement so much as it was lack of agreement. There were different levels of enthusiasm for (the script) as it appeared in the first version, and further versions were done and enthusiasm began to build. The rest is show-business history.Q: Shia LaBeouf, who plays Indy's young sidekick, has gotten a lot of press. Did you mentor him?A: No, this kid's been acting as long as I have. He's 21 years old, but he's really been acting for a very long time. He's very, very competent, he's got a uniqueness that's based on his own personality. I wouldn't think of interfering with his process. He didn't need any help.Q: In "Vanity Fair," George Lucas said it would be impossible to please the Indy fanatics -- "they're always going to be upset." Did you guys do anything to toss a bone to the real die-hards?A: The fan-boys? No. No, we made the movie, really, if you want to be completely frank about it, to suit ourselves. Our sense of what would be the best version. ... It allows you an ambition that you might not have if you're just servicing what you think is the audience.Q: Spielberg and Lucas wanted to re-create the pace, look and tone of the first three pictures. Spielberg said that in the new movie he had to "approximate the younger director's look that I thought I had moved away from after almost two decades." It's almost as if he had to discount any artistic growth from the last two decades.A: God, I'm glad I didn't get wind of that, that would have really (ticked) me off! No, I didn't feel that way. And it feels a little (long pause) ... while Steven might have said something like that, it doesn't sound like him to me. We wanted to maintain the tone, but in 20 years I think we've all become a little better at what we do. And that includes those people like Lucas and Spielberg, who are pretty damned good at what they're doing.Q: You said Spielberg and Lucas "understand the culture so well" that they can create the film they want to make and still please the audience. In what way do they understand the culture?A: I think they understand the language of film. ... They understand visual communication to an extent that allows them to be brave. Many directors feel that they have to talk about what you're seeing, and become quite tedious, because the audience has already appropriated the information that they're going to have to re-endure, receiving it in language. And I think the best directors, like Steven, really, critically understand that.Q: Is this your last Indy film? Are you passing the torch to Shia's character?A: I think the best answer to give you is "maybe yes, maybe no." I think it might serve you best, in your role as audience, to go to the film without any preconceptions about that particular question.Q: "Blade Runner" has had an incredible second life. It's got a huge cult following, and the director, Ridley Scott, has continued to work on it -- he put out a director's cut in 1992, and a more recent "final cut."A: I always thought it was an important film in my history. It was very important to me when it came out, even though it wasn't very successful at the time. I admired a great deal of it, the storytelling was a little vague in some areas and I think in Ridley's version, the latest version, it's a bit more clear and focused. And I think it's a terrific movie. I'm just waiting for it to make money.Q: In Entertainment Weekly, you said after you reach a certain level of fame, you pass a point of no return: "It's a royal pain in the (butt)."A: Well, if I get a toothache and I want to get to the dentist pretty quick, it's not a pain in the (butt) ... it's helpful. If I reserve a table at a restaurant on a Friday night and I'm a little late getting to it, it helps. Those are the areas in which fame is useful. (Laughs.) But it is indeed a pain ... to be the object of people's attention and speculation when you're just trying to live. But it's better than a real job.(E-mail Walter Addiego at waddiego(at)sfchronicle.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)