Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Marion doesn't think Indy was a pedophile. Tell that to Short Round   (uproxx.com) divider line
    More: Silly, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones, Karen Allen, Marion Ravenwood, recent interview, Allen's introduction scene, ambiguous line  
•       •       •

1194 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 09 Jun 2021 at 10:05 AM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-06-09 8:20:19 AM  
You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???
 
2021-06-09 8:24:02 AM  
Why wont yinz leave Indy alone?

/sighs
I have no patience for this today.
 
2021-06-09 9:14:43 AM  

Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???


Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.
 
2021-06-09 9:20:27 AM  
I wasn't worried, I figured if Indy every tried anything, Short Round would hit him with the Pinchers of Peril right in the nuts.

Wait, which movie?
 
2021-06-09 10:07:05 AM  
I always thought that he was a grad student and she was his professor's/mentor's *of-age* but young daughter experiencing her first love.  Yeah, it's left up to the audience but she doesn't look to be smack in the middle of her 20s.
 
2021-06-09 10:15:46 AM  
The word "problematic" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, so I'm not going to be too concerned about this.
 
2021-06-09 10:17:57 AM  

UberDave: I always thought that he was a grad student and she was his professor's/mentor's *of-age* but young daughter experiencing her first love.  Yeah, it's left up to the audience but she doesn't look to be smack in the middle of her 20s.


If 80s casting is any indication, she was actually "3" when they were in love and she's "13" in the movie.
 
2021-06-09 10:21:40 AM  
I always read it as she had a crush on him and he didn't 'let her down easy'. He, reading the situation, squashed any possibility of that in no uncertain terms and with the kind of callous frankness that Indy sometimes exhibits. It never occurred to me that there was another way to view it, but I guess I might just be naïve.
 
2021-06-09 10:27:57 AM  
"I guess you could say [there are sinister undertones]," Allen said about the scene. "I think I say I was 16. I don't know. That's always what I imagined is she was 16, he was 26. And he was her father's student. And it's left very mysterious. We don't even know what it is. I mean, they could have kissed a few times, and she was just completely bowled over, and he could have just not wanted to get involved with someone so young. And maybe my father would have been furious at him."


That was always my interpretation.   They may not have slept with each other but there were probably promises of marriage made and then one day Indy f*cked off without saying a word because he's Indy.
 
2021-06-09 10:33:01 AM  
Looking at it literally, Karen, therefore Marion, was 29/30 during Raiders. If it had been 10 years since their last 'meeting' she would have been a safe 19/20. She may have referred to herself as 'a child' due to her naivete or inexperience with members of the opposite sex at the time. If her father was anything like Indy's, it's possible she had a sheltered childhood and Henry Jr was just a massive crush who reciprocated her advances.
 
2021-06-09 10:36:49 AM  

Combustion: Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???

Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.


My grandmother was married at 16. It's just how it was back then. She wasn't sold off and she didn't get taken against her will. She fell for my grandfather, who was about 19 or 20 when he courted her, and chose to marry him. Because in the early 1900s it was just expected that a woman find a man and start a family before she turned 20. If you made it to 30 without a husband, you were an old maid. That had a lot to do with life expectancy and mortality rates in childbirth. Older women at that time didn't have the sort of medical care they do now, and death in childbirth when you were past your prime years was not uncommon. If you didn't have your 10 kids (big families were a thing, too) by the time you were 30, your risk of injury or death got higher as you got older.

It was a different time with entirely different priorities. Applying 2020s societal ideals to a couple who were dating around the time of World War I, over 100 years ago, is ridiculous.

Indy was a college student. Marion was a high school girl and the daughter of Indy's professor and partner, Abner. They fell for each other, had some sort of relationship, and then when Indy realized he couldn't go on with it (whether because he wasn't ready to settle down, or because he had pissed off her dad, or because he decided it would be better to be with someone a little closer to his age) he left her and that broke her heart.

Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together. She no more preyed upon me than the pint of fudge brownie ice cream I consumed yesterday preyed upon my belly.

I'm just getting annoyed at Millennials and Zoomers pushing the puritan ideals regarding relationships that they picked up from over-protective Boomer / Gen Xer parents on people who lived decades or even centuries before they were born. The world changes, and what is societally acceptable and makes the world turn in 2021 isn't exactly the same as it was in 1911.

And no, that does not mean that everyone in 1911 was some sort of deviant sex pervert, either. If anything, it means that the puritans are winning again.
 
2021-06-09 10:41:34 AM  
Sounds like TFA is wondering how they eat and breathe and other science facts.
 
2021-06-09 10:49:17 AM  

Stantz: Looking at it literally, Karen, therefore Marion, was 29/30 during Raiders. If it had been 10 years since their last 'meeting' she would have been a safe 19/20. She may have referred to herself as 'a child' due to her naivete or inexperience with members of the opposite sex at the time. If her father was anything like Indy's, it's possible she had a sheltered childhood and Henry Jr was just a massive crush who reciprocated her advances.


kyuzokai: I always read it as she had a crush on him and he didn't 'let her down easy'. He, reading the situation, squashed any possibility of that in no uncertain terms and with the kind of callous frankness that Indy sometimes exhibits. It never occurred to me that there was another way to view it, but I guess I might just be naïve.


This is always how I took it.

I have a sister-in-law that's in that age range and she's naive AF.. She'd def have something like that happen to her and it entirely not be anything weird or inappropriate, but still damage her emotionally because of her inexperience and naturally trusting personality.
 
2021-06-09 11:18:34 AM  

WilderKWight: Combustion: Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???

Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.

My grandmother was married at 16. It's just how it was back then. She wasn't sold off and she didn't get taken against her will. She fell for my grandfather, who was about 19 or 20 when he courted her, and chose to marry him. Because in the early 1900s it was just expected that a woman find a man and start a family before she turned 20. If you made it to 30 without a husband, you were an old maid. That had a lot to do with life expectancy and mortality rates in childbirth. Older women at that time didn't have the sort of medical care they do now, and death in childbirth when you were past your prime years was not uncommon. If you didn't have your 10 kids (big families were a thing, too) by the time you were 30, your risk of injury or death got higher as you got older.

It was a different time with entirely different priorities. Applying 2020s societal ideals to a couple who were dating around the time of World War I, over 100 years ago, is ridiculous.

Indy was a college student. Marion was a high school girl and the daughter of Indy's professor and partner, Abner. They fell for each other, had some sort of relationship, and then when Indy realized he couldn't go on with it (whether because he wasn't ready to settle down, or because he had pissed off her dad, or because he decided it would be better to be with someone a little closer to his age) he left her and that broke her heart.

Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together. She no more preyed upon me than the pint of fudge brownie ice cream I consumed yesterday preyed upon my belly.

I'm just getting annoyed at Millennials and Zoomers pushing the puritan ideals regarding relationships that they picked up from over-protective Boomer / Gen Xer parents on people who lived decades or even centuries before they were born. The world changes, and what is societally acceptable and makes the world turn in 2021 isn't exactly the same as it was in 1911.

And no, that does not mean that everyone in 1911 was some sort of deviant sex pervert, either. If anything, it means that the puritans are winning again.


Agreed.

Indy was not a pedophile.
And "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not about date rape.
And Ralph Kramden was not a wife beater.
And Mark Twain was not a white supremacist.

In fact, in each of those cases, the exact opposite is true.

Which is disturbing as all hell.

Rewriting history CAN be beneficial; witness the fact that the Tulsa Massacre is now almost common knowledge.

But that is not what is happening with these pieces of historical pop culture. Not at all.
 
2021-06-09 11:27:12 AM  
I never parsed it too badly either, but we know for certain exactly how old Lucas thought she was, and the extent of their relationship, and where Speilberg bumped that up to. Whatever anyone else thinks was the backstory, including Allen, is kind of irrelevant. Thankfully what ended up on screen is open enough to interpretation.
 
2021-06-09 11:34:14 AM  

WilderKWight: Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together.


This. When I met my first wife I was 16 and she was 19, my best friend at the time was dating a 20 year old. Half the girls in high school were dating college students. Nobody thought anything of it back then. As you said, in previous generations women were commonly married at 16, and usually to a guy in his 20s. Parents wanted to know their daughters would be taken care of, which meant someone with a career, owned some land, and could provide for a family. They didn't want some  teenage boy with nothing going for him.
 
2021-06-09 11:55:17 AM  

ReapTheChaos: WilderKWight: Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together.

This. When I met my first wife I was 16 and she was 19, my best friend at the time was dating a 20 year old. Half the girls in high school were dating college students. Nobody thought anything of it back then. As you said, in previous generations women were commonly married at 16, and usually to a guy in his 20s. Parents wanted to know their daughters would be taken care of, which meant someone with a career, owned some land, and could provide for a family. They didn't want some  teenage boy with nothing going for him.


There was a time when you could drink a beer at 18 and even a time when you could buy a cigarette at 18! (Donald Trump signed that particular federal law into effect in 2019 if you don't recall).  Kids used to have to grow up before they were 25, or in my case anyway, 52.
 
2021-06-09 12:00:34 PM  
I grew up on Air Force bases in the 70s. ALL the hot HS girls dated military guys and no one thought anything of it.
 
2021-06-09 12:01:57 PM  

WilderKWight: Combustion: Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???

Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.

My grandmother was married at 16. It's just how it was back then. She wasn't sold off and she didn't get taken against her will. She fell for my grandfather, who was about 19 or 20 when he courted her, and chose to marry him. Because in the early 1900s it was just expected that a woman find a man and start a family before she turned 20. If you made it to 30 without a husband, you were an old maid. That had a lot to do with life expectancy and mortality rates in childbirth. Older women at that time didn't have the sort of medical care they do now, and death in childbirth when you were past your prime years was not uncommon. If you didn't have your 10 kids (big families were a thing, too) by the time you were 30, your risk of injury or death got higher as you got older.

It was a different time with entirely different priorities. Applying 2020s societal ideals to a couple who were dating around the time of World War I, over 100 years ago, is ridiculous.

Indy was a college student. Marion was a high school girl and the daughter of Indy's professor and partner, Abner. They fell for each other, had some sort of relationship, and then when Indy realized he couldn't go on with it (whether because he wasn't ready to settle down, or because he had pissed off her dad, or because he decided it would be better to be with someone a little closer to his age) he left her and that broke her heart.

Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together. She no more preyed upon me than t ...


Not to mention people just generally matured more quickly back then than they do now. If they remade My Side of the Mountain today, you'd have to make Sam Gribley 28 years old for it to be at all believable.
 
2021-06-09 12:23:04 PM  

WilderKWight: Combustion: Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???

Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.

My grandmother was married at 16. It's just how it was back then. She wasn't sold off and she didn't get taken against her will. She fell for my grandfather, who was about 19 or 20 when he courted her, and chose to marry him. Because in the early 1900s it was just expected that a woman find a man and start a family before she turned 20. If you made it to 30 without a husband, you were an old maid. That had a lot to do with life expectancy and mortality rates in childbirth. Older women at that time didn't have the sort of medical care they do now, and death in childbirth when you were past your prime years was not uncommon. If you didn't have your 10 kids (big families were a thing, too) by the time you were 30, your risk of injury or death got higher as you got older.

It was a different time with entirely different priorities. Applying 2020s societal ideals to a couple who were dating around the time of World War I, over 100 years ago, is ridiculous.

Indy was a college student. Marion was a high school girl and the daughter of Indy's professor and partner, Abner. They fell for each other, had some sort of relationship, and then when Indy realized he couldn't go on with it (whether because he wasn't ready to settle down, or because he had pissed off her dad, or because he decided it would be better to be with someone a little closer to his age) he left her and that broke her heart.

Hell, when I was in high school in the 1980s it was not uncommon for 16-year-olds to be dating 20-year-olds. I know now it's seen as some sort of horrible thing, but I certainly did not mind being 15 & 16 and dating a 19-20 year-old in the mid-80s. I wasn't victimized. She was my girlfriend. We chose each other. We went to school together. She no more preyed upon me than the pint of fudge brownie ice cream I consumed yesterday preyed upon my belly.

I'm just getting annoyed at Millennials and Zoomers pushing the puritan ideals regarding relationships that they picked up from over-protective Boomer / Gen Xer parents on people who lived decades or even centuries before they were born. The world changes, and what is societally acceptable and makes the world turn in 2021 isn't exactly the same as it was in 1911.

And no, that does not mean that everyone in 1911 was some sort of deviant sex pervert, either. If anything, it means that the puritans are winning again.


As a aging Millennial, I am also annoyed about this, though I will say it seems to be coming from the younger Millennials and Gen Z, and it's really obnoxious. The word "creepy" gets thrown around a lot, and they're treating it as an objective measure of a situation rather than a personal reaction. Ironically, judging age-divergent relationships is really just robbing the younger party of their own emotional and sexual agency (provided they're of age, of course) and asserting that you know better than them.

But I'm already irritated by this because of all of the new "think of the children!" nonsense going around about Pride right now. Dudes are gonna wear harnesses and you just have to deal, kiddos.
 
2021-06-09 12:24:34 PM  
These same people who are weirded out by her saying "I was a child" are the same people who won't bat an eye when someone turns to a 28-year-old and says, "You're just a kid."
 
2021-06-09 12:45:35 PM  
oblig

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-06-09 12:46:49 PM  

Combustion: Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???

Also: Things were...different. Way different. The further back you go, the more different it is. And usually not for the better.


yeah seriously, if they can't take this, for what it is from when it was. They really gonna lose their shiat over the real history of humanity if they ever get exposed to any of it.
 
2021-06-09 1:02:17 PM  
Technically, he was an ephebophile.
 
2021-06-09 1:56:23 PM  
Dammit fark, an article about an article. We used to be better than this.
 
2021-06-09 2:30:54 PM  
Thanks for changing to the original article. It has a link to some old screen tests.
 
2021-06-09 3:20:17 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: I wasn't worried, I figured if Indy every tried anything, Short Round would hit him with the Pinchers of Peril right in the nuts.


You call him Doctor Jones, doll!!!
 
2021-06-09 3:58:14 PM  

Biledriver: "I guess you could say [there are sinister undertones]," Allen said about the scene. "I think I say I was 16. I don't know. That's always what I imagined is she was 16, he was 26. And he was her father's student. And it's left very mysterious. We don't even know what it is. I mean, they could have kissed a few times, and she was just completely bowled over, and he could have just not wanted to get involved with someone so young. And maybe my father would have been furious at him."


That was always my interpretation.   They may not have slept with each other but there were probably promises of marriage made and then one day Indy f*cked off without saying a word because he's Indy.


Hell, since it was probably in the 1920s, 16 and unmarried is practically an old maid.
 
2021-06-09 4:18:39 PM  
Yeah, I guess you could say that. I think I say I was 16. I don't know. That's always what I imagined is she was 16, he was 26. And he was her father's student. And it's left very mysterious.

Subby has a thesaurus?
 
2021-06-09 4:50:42 PM  
MOLA RAM
MOLA RAM
MOLA RAM PEDOPHAM
 
2021-06-09 5:55:06 PM  
JFC  with this woke shiat. IT'S A LINE IN A MOVIE!   There is no history actually. They never met before because they're not real people.
 
2021-06-09 7:09:21 PM  

palelizard: Technically, Actually, he was an ephebophile.



/FTFY
 
2021-06-09 7:29:43 PM  
I always figured she was in the 16 range.

So, yeah, he's a pervert.
 
2021-06-09 7:37:10 PM  

Circusdog320: You know it wasn't a documentary...you know that...right???


Like when the A-Team was high in the TV ratings, the people that tried to contact and hire them for a mission.  You always want to doubt that there are people that would actually do that, then you remember how many people there are and how dumb they can be.
 
2021-06-09 8:15:13 PM  
Jeez Louise Subby, Temple of Doom is problematic as it is without your help.
 
2021-06-09 9:29:28 PM  

NathanAllen: I always figured she was in the 16 range.

So, yeah, he's a pervert.


Dudes really good with a whip. so yeah the signs were right in front of us the whole time
 
2021-06-09 10:06:12 PM  

clams_casino: Mark Twain was not a white supremacist


If you read the book, Huck and Jim were best friends, but the book does use the language of the times.
 
2021-06-09 10:18:10 PM  

Michael J Faux: Not to mention people just generally matured more quickly back then than they do now. If they remade My Side of the Mountain today, you'd have to make Sam Gribley 28 years old for it to be at all believable.


What I don't get is the disconnect between sexuality and everything else right now.

In our society, we allow 16-year-olds to drive a car. A multi-ton high-speed death machine. Nobody complains about this. It's expected. It's normal. They're considered mature enough to handle all the responsibilities of driving a truck, car, van, or anything else they can get a license for, despite the fact that one mistake could lead to many deaths and destroy many lives.

Honestly, I think we should be making people wait until they're 18 to drive cars, and let them have sex with whomever they wish at 16. I think we have our priorities all backwards.
 
2021-06-09 10:19:46 PM  

Trik: clams_casino: Mark Twain was not a white supremacist

If you read the book, Huck and Jim were best friends, but the book does use the language of the times.


Well, I mean, expecting people in that story to call the guy "African American Jim" is just ridiculous. Next up, they'll want a politically-correct Gone With The Wind.

Period pieces show what people were like. Repainting the past to look like the present is a good way to fall back into the mistakes of the past.
 
2021-06-09 10:38:59 PM  

WilderKWight: Michael J Faux: Not to mention people just generally matured more quickly back then than they do now. If they remade My Side of the Mountain today, you'd have to make Sam Gribley 28 years old for it to be at all believable.

What I don't get is the disconnect between sexuality and everything else right now.

In our society, we allow 16-year-olds to drive a car. A multi-ton high-speed death machine. Nobody complains about this. It's expected. It's normal. They're considered mature enough to handle all the responsibilities of driving a truck, car, van, or anything else they can get a license for, despite the fact that one mistake could lead to many deaths and destroy many lives.

Honestly, I think we should be making people wait until they're 18 to drive cars, and let them have sex with whomever they wish at 16. I think we have our priorities all backwards.


Age based stuff is silly. I want there to be some kind of  rite of passage into adulthood that a teenager may or may not be able to handle but an adult should.

Not because I actually want that, but because there's a lot of immature adults out there and I think we could really cull the number of problematic ones with the right kind of test.
 
2021-06-10 12:28:38 AM  
Indiana : I never meant to hurt you. Marion : I was a child. I was in love. It was wrong and you knew it!

Let's not forget that, originally, Marion was supposed to be 12 at the time, and George Lucas and Steven Spielberg found this hilarious
 
2021-06-10 7:38:53 AM  

kyuzokai: I always read it as she had a crush on him and he didn't 'let her down easy'. He, reading the situation, squashed any possibility of that in no uncertain terms and with the kind of callous frankness that Indy sometimes exhibits. It never occurred to me that there was another way to view it, but I guess I might just be naïve.


That's how I always took it as well.

The thing is, some of us are using Occam's razor. Some people are looking at a piece of media through a very emotionally damaged lens.

To me, it says a lot more about the viewers who took it to be incredibly inappropriate, and assumed the worst than it says about Indy.
 
2021-06-10 8:13:54 AM  

padraig: Indiana : I never meant to hurt you. Marion : I was a child. I was in love. It was wrong and you knew it!

Let's not forget that, originally, Marion was supposed to be 12 at the time, and George Lucas and Steven Spielberg found this hilarious


so Indy isnt a pervert but those two are
 
2021-06-10 9:52:41 AM  

Biledriver: "I guess you could say [there are sinister undertones]," Allen said about the scene. "I think I say I was 16. I don't know. That's always what I imagined is she was 16, he was 26. And he was her father's student. And it's left very mysterious. We don't even know what it is. I mean, they could have kissed a few times, and she was just completely bowled over, and he could have just not wanted to get involved with someone so young. And maybe my father would have been furious at him."


That was always my interpretation.   They may not have slept with each other but there were probably promises of marriage made and then one day Indy f*cked off without saying a word because he's Indy.


That's along the lines what I thought. Passion, maybe a step too far but mostly the emotion
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.