Well, yes and no....

Posted by Michaelson from em12-686.utsi.edu on September 21, 1999 at 08:36:16:

In Reply to: The point I was trying to make below about Lucas... posted by ROB T. on September 20, 1999 at 21:58:27:

: I guess I didn't make myself clear on my earlier post about Lucas and Spielberg and children in movies since now everyone thinks I have a problem with kids being in films.
: I do not think that a film that has a child actor appearing is automatically a kids film; "Sixth Sense," "Excorcist," "Omen," and a thousand other films feature kids and are certainly not childrens' films.
: My problem with "Temple of Doom" and "Phantom Menace" has to do with their use of the children in the story.
: I was trying to point out that in "Temple" Indy puts Short Round's life in danger unnecessarily throughout the movie. Can anyone really argue that Shorty isn't close to death a thousand times from the first minute he appears onscreen? He drives a car through the streets while being shot at, he's in a plane crash, he's nearly sacrificed, he's made a slave, nearly falls from a bridge, etc.
: Couldn't Indy have just left him in the village while he rescued the children alone?
: It is reckless and irresponsible of Indy to put a child in danger like that.
: In "Phantom Menace" I don't think they needed to change Anikin's age I just think Qui Gonn should have found another solution to the hyperdrive problem. It's true that Anikin had raced in the pod races before but he had no choice since Watto, his owner, made him. The fact that he enjoyed it doesn't take away from the danger he was in. No responsible adult would have urged Anikin to participate in the race just to solve his own problem. Qui Gonn never even checked around to see if there was another hyperdrive available, he just took Watto at his word. He never even attempted to trade R2-D2 for the hyperdrive. I know that's sacrilige but it's preferable to endangering a child. As far as Qui Gonn telling Ani to stay inside the ship during the final battle on Naboo, why was Ani even there? A responsible adult would have left him on Coruscant and come back for him later.
: Anyway, the point I was trying to make is not that children should be left out of these films it's that the adults in the films need to treat them like children and not as miniature adults.
: By putting Shorty and Ani in mortal danger Indy and Qui Gonn do come off as reckless and irresponsible.

: Did I change anyone's opinion??

Let's keep in mind the period of history/time we're talking about here, specifically the Great Depression period of history that Temple of Doom was set in. Most "kids" in these parts of the world, as well as the USA, were out on their own as early as the age of 8 and 10, and were expected to fend for themselves. Most of the infamous (or should that be famous) hobos that rode the rails were starting at the age of 13 years old when they left home to find work, as the family couldn't afford to feed any more mouths than they afford, and so "children" who could find work to support the family, no matter how far from home they went, were expected to hit the road and make a go of it. If you'll recall, Indy said he "collected" Short Round picking his pocket, so the "kid" was out on the streets making his own sort of living for who knows how long before he and Indy ever hooked up. It really wasn't until the late 40's and early 50's that society (in most places) decided that adults had more responsibility towards their children and changed their attitudes. Sad to say in most third world countries, and worse yet more "civilized" nations, still allow their children to fend for themselves as soon as they're old enough to walk, talk and think. Bottom line is that the period of time that T of D took place this was very common place, and we can't fault Indy in any way concerning his treatment of Short Round. As a matter of fact we should commend him for caring at all regarding his situation, as he took him under his wing to get him out of an apparently worse situation in the town he found him in. The year was supposed to be 1935. Let's not play revisionist historians. Thsi is the way it was, and a very tame version to boot. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

Revisionist historians... Goodsport 18:51:40 9/21/99 (0)
Re: Well, yes and no.... Steve 10:01:34 9/21/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : I guess I didn't make myself clear on my earlier post about Lucas and Spielberg and children in movies since now everyone thinks I have a problem with kids being in films.
: : I do not think that a film that has a child actor appearing is automatically a kids film; "Sixth Sense," "Excorcist," "Omen," and a thousand other films feature kids and are certainly not childrens' films.
: : My problem with "Temple of Doom" and "Phantom Menace" has to do with their use of the children in the story. 
: : I was trying to point out that in "Temple" Indy puts Short Round's life in danger unnecessarily throughout the movie. Can anyone really argue that Shorty isn't close to death a thousand times from the first minute he appears onscreen? He drives a car through the streets while being shot at, he's in a plane crash, he's nearly sacrificed, he's made a slave, nearly falls from a bridge, etc.
: : Couldn't Indy have just left him in the village while he rescued the children alone?
: : It is reckless and irresponsible of Indy to put a child in danger like that.
: : In "Phantom Menace" I don't think they needed to change Anikin's age I just think Qui Gonn should have found another solution to the hyperdrive problem. It's true that Anikin had raced in the pod races before but he had no choice since Watto, his owner, made him. The fact that he enjoyed it doesn't take away from the danger he was in. No responsible adult would have urged Anikin to participate in the race just to solve his own problem. Qui Gonn never even checked around to see if there was another hyperdrive available, he just took Watto at his word. He never even attempted to trade R2-D2 for the hyperdrive. I know that's sacrilige but it's preferable to endangering a child. As far as Qui Gonn telling Ani to stay inside the ship during the final battle on Naboo, why was Ani even there? A responsible adult would have left him on Coruscant and come back for him later.
: : Anyway, the point I was trying to make is not that children should be left out of these films it's that the adults in the films need to treat them like children and not as miniature adults.
: : By putting Shorty and Ani in mortal danger Indy and Qui Gonn do come off as reckless and irresponsible.

: : Did I change anyone's opinion??

: Let's keep in mind the period of history/time we're talking about here, specifically the Great Depression period of history that Temple of Doom was set in. Most "kids" in these parts of the world, as well as the USA, were out on their own as early as the age of 8 and 10, and were expected to fend for themselves. Most of the infamous (or should that be famous) hobos that rode the rails were starting at the age of 13 years old when they left home to find work, as the family couldn't afford to feed any more mouths than they afford, and so "children" who could find work to support the family, no matter how far from home they went, were expected to hit the road and make a go of it. If you'll recall, Indy said he "collected" Short Round picking his pocket, so the "kid" was out on the streets making his own sort of living for who knows how long before he and Indy ever hooked up. It really wasn't until the late 40's and early 50's that society (in most places) decided that adults had more responsibility towards their children and changed their attitudes. Sad to say in most third world countries, and worse yet more "civilized" nations, still allow their children to fend for themselves as soon as they're old enough to walk, talk and think. Bottom line is that the period of time that T of D took place this was very common place, and we can't fault Indy in any way concerning his treatment of Short Round. As a matter of fact we should commend him for caring at all regarding his situation, as he took him under his wing to get him out of an apparently worse situation in the town he found him in. The year was supposed to be 1935. Let's not play revisionist historians. Thsi is the way it was, and a very tame version to boot. Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]