The third test - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Discussion

[–] PeterSouth 11 years ago

Christian answer: God carried Indy safely to the other side.

Non-christian answer: There was a bridge, a real one made out of rock, that looked exactly like the opposing wall and created an optical illusion. If you pay close attention during that scene, you will notice the actual bridge.

reply

[–] Traianus 11 years ago

Yeah, but if the bridge was simply there all the time and was only an optical illusion, that's not really a challenge. Eventually a person could figure it out.

reply

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 11 years ago

Yeah, but if the bridge was simply there all the time and was only an optical illusion, that's not really a challenge. Eventually a person could figure it out.

Not a "challenge" but it was a test...which is what it was meant to be.
It was a test of faith.

One could have looked at the gap and seen nothing and not had "faith" in getting across then turned around and left.
Or one could have had "faith" and tried to cross regardless.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Catgurl22 11 years ago

One could simply have thrown sand out toward the bridge, see if it fell or was caught. Jones did this to mark his return, so why not do it beforehand?

Because no one (including Indy) knew beforehand that there was a bridge. People normally don't just throw sand on top of chasms and hope that a bridge appears!

Mr McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

reply

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

It's amazing that there are people out there that back the 'Christian answer'. We watched it on the last day of school years ago and half the class thought the shot showing that it was a bridge was a movie mistake.

Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Christian answer: God carried Indy safely to the other side.

And Donovan, too.

reply

[–] A_Dude_Named_Dude 10 years ago

As somebody who over analyzes every frame of every movie this one got by me. The more I think about it the more I wonder if Spieberg goofed in the way he presented the bridge. After Indy steps onto the bridge the camera moves to the right and then back again to show the "invisible" bridge is merely cleverly camouflaged. Does this mean the bridge is always there and you simply can't see it? If so, then it it doesn't require a leap of faith to cross, since anyone could toss sand across it to find the bridge. Presumably the only way it can be a leap of faith is for a miracle to happen, and the bridge suddenly appear when someone takes the plunge. But if that's the case, then Schneider and Donavan wouldn't have seen it even after Indy had thrown the sand on it. (Yes, I know, it was necessary, so that they can make it over to the Knight's inner sanctum.)

What would have made this scene more dramatic would have been for Indy to toss the loose gravel across the chasm (to see if there was a hidden bridge) only to hear the gravel to fall into the chasm, and then remembering the "leap of faith," close his eyes and step forward...

_______________________________________
Resolutely Analog In A Digital World!

reply

[–] Zero_Wolf 10 years ago

But the whole thing is like that. You don't have to kneel before god in penitence; you just have to duck under the blade at the right time. You don't have to revere the name of god; you just have to step on certain letters. You don't have to be carried over a chasm by the grace of god rewarding your faith; you just have to walk over the bridge.

Because all these things are made by man.

But the grail itself is special. And made more special by everything mundane that came before it.
______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.

reply

[–] noblejones 10 years ago

Nicely said.

reply

[–] Kruleworld 10 years ago

What would have made this scene more dramatic would have been for Indy to toss the loose gravel across the chasm (to see if there was a hidden bridge) only to hear the gravel to fall into the chasm, and then remembering the "leap of faith," close his eyes and step forward...

I'm curious how you expect this technology to be built using medieval tools and technology. how could it be done with today's technology? glass wouldn't work in this instance. The camouflaged bridge was pretty high tech for it's era (assuming it was built centuries ago, since the tests were mentioned in the other knight's diary (the stone tablet and shield)).

...
Gimli: You'll find more cheer in a graveyard.

reply

[–] A_Dude_Named_Dude 10 years ago

I'm curious how you expect this technology to be built using medieval tools and technology. -- aussiemuscle308

That is a question that gets to the heart of the matter. How could any of it it, the spinning saw blades, the magical floor tiles, the invisible stone bridge, how could any of it have been done 700 years ago (and still be in perfect working order)? Of course there's creative license and suspension of belief (why do people insist on calling it "suspension of disbelief"?) which is part and parcel of Indiana Jones.

I hadn't seen the movie in years and was relying on my memory of it until the other day when I saw it on TV. The chasm was shown from two perspectives, and there wasn't a bridge visible in either one. The drawing in the notebook showed a man walking across the chasm as if he were walking on air. When Indy reads what is written in it, he says, "Only in his leap ... will he prove his worth." Then he says to himself, "It's a leap of faith." You can ONLY make a "leap of faith" if you take a step without knowing with certainty that you'll live through it.

Suppose for a moment that Indy had accidentally tripped or slipped over the edge, would he have landed on the bridge? Given that the Indy movies deal with supernatural forces all of the time, are we supposed to suddenly assume that this one involves an actual bridge that was there all of time but was cleverly camouflaged? (Of course, then there's the problem of Indy spreading the sand onto the bridge so that Donovan and Elsa would have no trouble crossing over - but what else could Spielberg do?)

And Zero_Wolf and noblejones, stop and think for a moment. Every second of every minute of the Indiana Jones' movies deal with supernatural situations, and now - suddenly - it goes out the window? Why?

_______________________________________
Resolutely Analog In A Digital World!

reply

[–] chem420 9 years ago

Been a lifelong fan since the movie came out. It is made clear that the bridge actually exists even in the last shot when you see it from below and to the side and see it is a few feet thick and wide, not just from the camera movement when he is on it.

It was designed to be an optical illusion and its a little weak but there is low lighting in there and the doorway to the bridge is very small so you cant really get a different angle than straight on.

Indy would never have thought to throw sand before walking as that was not even a possibility in his head. Do you think of that when you stand on a cliff or the roof of a building?

And A_Dude_Named_Dude, people say suspension of disbelief, because that is what they are doing....halting their disbelief of said situation. If they were suspending their belief then they wouldn't be believing what they saw. The intent of people's comments are for you to stop not believing this is factual for the sake of the movie and just believe it for now.

reply

[–] A_Dude_Named_Dude 9 years ago

chem420, thanks for actually responding to my points. It's actually unusual on these boards for somebody to respond to another person's points instead of just going off on their own tangent.

There is a problem with the bridge, since it has to be in agreement with the purpose of the challenge. The person completing the third challenge has to take a leap of faith, which is impossible if the bridge is actually there cleverly hidden in the shadows. If in fact Indy had stumbled and fallen accidentally into the chasm that wouldn't have been a leap of faith. Would the bridge be there? If it were, then no leap of faith was truly necessary, which would have contradicted everything. Remember, it was this very point that made it especially difficult for Indy, since he's a rational scientist through and through, which puts him at odds with the idea of doing something strictly on faith.

Indy would never have thought to throw sand before walking as that was not even a possibility in his head. Do you think of that when you stand on a cliff or the roof of a building?

I don't, but that's a different situation, especially since I wouldn't expect to find a hidden bridge or for one to appear suddenly out of nothing. That's the crucial difference. The appearance of the bridge only occurs after Indy makes his leap of faith step.

As far as suspension of (dis)belief goes, this is actually something of a recent change. Up until a few years ago i don't remember anyone using "disbelief", mainly because it's wrong. If you suspend disbelief, doesn't that mean you will only accept that which is believable? Think about it - you suspend disbelief, and if you do that, how can you then accept anything unless it's believable? Isn't that the opposite of what you want to do when you watch a movie?

_______________________________________
Resolutely Analog In A Digital World!

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 9 years ago

As far as suspension of (dis)belief goes, this is actually something of a recent change. Up until a few years ago i don't remember anyone using "disbelief"

I've been reading mainly in English for the past twenty years, and I've always known the phrase to be "suspension of disbelief". That is indeed the correct phrase.

If you suspend disbelief, doesn't that mean you will only accept that which is believable? Think about it - you suspend disbelief, and if you do that, how can you then accept anything unless it's believable?

No, it means the exact opposite. When you suspend something, you halt it. If you suspend disbelief, that means you halt disbelief. If you get suspended from your job, that means you can't work for the duration of your suspension. Same thing here: if you suspend disbelief, you will not disbelieve for the duration of the suspension.

I knew a guy once who hated vampire movies because "there's no such thing as vampires". He disbelieved in vampires, and because he was unable to suspend that disbelief even for a movie, he was unable to enjoy vampire movies.

Person A: "That's totally unrealistic."
Person B: "Yeah, but it's just a movie."

Both agree that whatever they were watching was unrealistic, but only person A was bothered with it - which is why he let his disbelief speak. Person B, however, had put his disbelief on hold for the duration of the movie. He had suspended his disbelief, and so wasn't bothered by watching something he ordinarily would not accept.

reply

[–] A_Dude_Named_Dude 9 years ago

Thanks for responding. This is how I see it and if I've gotten it wrong maybe someone will clue me in.

Assume you go to the theater to see Lord of the Rings. Now clearly that story is fantastic and unreal, so in order to enjoy it and not complain about how unrealistic it is, you have to do something. You have to suspend something - but suspend what? You have to be willing to accept that which is not real, so you therefore must therefore suspend your belief in the real in order to accept the unreal. So that is suspension of belief. If you instead suspended your disbelief of the real, then you'd... be in trouble. Right?

I don't know how old you are but I've been around the block quite a few times. Back in the day everybody said "suspension of belief" and I think if anyone had said disbelief it would have seem out of place. But that's one of the problems of our 21st century culture - if somebody somewhere uses a word or term incorrectly, everybody starts doing the same thing. My biggest pet peeve is "begs the question," a term nobody knows the correct meaning of (look it up and you'll see what I mean).

_______________________________________
Resolutely Analog In A Digital World!

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Assume you go to the theater to see Lord of the Rings. Now clearly that story is fantastic and unreal, so in order to enjoy it and not complain about how unrealistic it is, you have to do something. You have to suspend something - but suspend what? You have to be willing to accept that which is not real, so you therefore must therefore suspend your belief in the real in order to accept the unreal. So that is suspension of belief. If you instead suspended your disbelief of the real, then you'd... be in trouble. Right?

You're not suspending disbelief in what's real, you are suspending disbelief of whatever it is you are watching. Back to vampire movies: in order to enjoy them, you need to suspend your disbelief of vampires. The part of you that says "there ain't no such thing as vampires" (disbelief) is suspended.

I don't know how old you are but I've been around the block quite a few times. Back in the day everybody said "suspension of belief" and I think if anyone had said disbelief it would have seem out of place. But that's one of the problems of our 21st century culture - if somebody somewhere uses a word or term incorrectly, everybody starts doing the same thing. My biggest pet peeve is "begs the question," a term nobody knows the correct meaning of (look it up and you'll see what I mean).

I'm a '78, so I've been "around the block" myself. You can do a search for it yourself, and see how many sources you find for "suspension of belief". Even when searching specifically for that, you are going to get mostly "disbelief" hits.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mbtw 10 years ago

optical illusions like that would only work at one angle. if you even tilted your head slightly you'd be able to see the bridge.

think about this. what i if i painted myself blue and stood in front of a blue wall...would i be invisible to you if you were standing 5 feet from me and staring straight at me? If the wall and i were multiple colors I would be even more visible, not to mention shadows being cast, dust and debree falling on the bridge over time, etc.

Also if your head were cut off by a CLEARLY mechanically operated blade there would be a sh~!t load of blood but then again spielberg wouldn't be able to market this movie to the kiddies.

reply

[–] samhmd-7489 9 years ago

The three tests were all normal physical things, it's just that the Crusaders who devised the place based the tests on Christian theology.

Test 1? It's a riddle that you must solve to know how to evade the blades.

Test 2? Somehow they have the tiles with the right letters be solid while the rest broke easily. So again it's a "Guess that letter!" game.

Test 3? There's a bridge, but you can't see it. You must have confidence in the clues left behind that you can get across. Even then, you might not even realize there's a bridge and merely assume it's some kind of magic holding you up but Indy was smart enough to figure the bridge was there once he got on it.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 9 years ago

It was an optical illusion, but the bridge itself was so narrow, if you weren't standing on the EXACTLY, PERFECTLY, PRECISELY correct space, you'd fall to your death. Indy copies the drawing in the diary, and slams his foot down on the precise area he needed to. If he hadn't, he would have fallen and died.
At the end of the scene, once Indy is across, he hurls some dust, sand and pebbles across the bridge, to ruin the illusion and make it clear where to stand. It makes sense, from a certain perspective, that the entire test was a trick, and the only way of making it across the gap was to do as you were told, as the drawing said, or to look at it another way, to do as the Christian God says.

reply

[–] Kranadon65 8 years ago

I think before I lept into a chasm ,besides being scared out of my wits to possibly leap to my death, I would have dropped something , even a coin to see what happened , like if it floated etc. I wouldn't have just stepped out like he did.

reply