Why Does Harrison Ford Love Indy And Hate Han?
FORD'S FAVE
·Updated:
·

Ah, how time flies. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" turns 10 years old today. If it wasn't for the 1-2-punch combo of the internet's fondness for decennial "looking back" articles and the imminent release of "Solo: A Star Wars Story," the anniversary might go completely without comment. Many fans had serious issues with the film, but Harrison Ford reportedly loved working on "Crystal Skull" — at 65 he still did many of his own stunts and whip-cracking. Ford has also been public about his enthusiasm for the next "Indiana Jones" picture, slated to begin production next year.

In contrast, Ford's attitude towards other signature character, Han Solo, has been so consistently sour as to go from "huh, really?" to run-of-the-mill talk show banter. As writer Mike Ryan detailed in 2012, well before Ford's involvement in "The Force Awakens" was confirmed, Ford's turned on Solo after the release of "Return of the Jedi," two years out from the release of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

With Alden Ehrenreich about to take on the Solo mantle (with Ford's much-publicized blessing), perhaps now the Indy versus Han matter is finally settled for Ford. Question is, why did he pick a favorite in the first place? Did Ford's choice to return for his "Force Awakens" swan song reflect a change in his attitude towards Han? What can be learned from his second-go as his other sci-fi icon, Rick Deckard of 1982's "Blade Runner" and last year's sequel? Why has Ford loved Indiana Jones the most?

Idea 1: Han Has Almost Always Been The Sidekick

Han was never the central character in any of the "Star Wars" films Harrison Ford appeared in. That's both objectively true and is supported by the billing order for the original trilogy — the order goes Mark Hamill first, then Harrison Ford, then Carrie Fisher. Even in "The Force Awakens," where Ford received top bill, Solo was the old character who received the most screen time but not the main character of the film.

That's a super-obvious point, but it has deeper implications for an actor, especially one who was in the career phase Ford was at in the late '70s and early '80s. In the original "Star Wars" films, most of the drama revolved around the Force, Force users and the familial ties between them. That's all well and good, but no amount of handsome roguishness can push past the basic narrative fact that Han Solo, compared to Luke, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, Yoda and, as we later find out, Leia, does not get to play in the same dramatic possibility space as the Force-using characters. In a story revolving around the Force, Han always has less to contribute. For Ford, that meant Han wasn't a perfect leading-man showcase of his talents.

For a one-on-one comparison, look at Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan fills, of course, a classic archetypal role, but he gets to engage with the fictional inventions unique to the "Star Wars" universe. Han can namedrop cool shit and fly a spaceship around, but he's just the criminal with a heart of gold. His existence serves to tell the audience that ordinary folks exist in the "Star Wars" universe and can be talented, heroic types without space magic to assist them, but he is more plainly a character that exists to fill a role rather than one who contributes a great deal to the worldbuilding of the universe with their every action. Han's along for the ride… or, as he's initially paid to do by Luke and Obi-Wan, Han's there to give the important folks a ride. That's almost certainly how Ford saw it.

Indiana Jones, on the other hand, is a mild-mannered archaeology professor by day and an adventuring, Nazi-hating brawler by also-day (and sometimes nights). He's not just the main character of the films he's in — the nature of Indiana Jones' existence opens up the rest of what those movies are about. In what kind of world would the skills of a brilliant archaeologist come in handy on a globe-trotting adventure? Why, one where artifacts of terrible power are lurking in every other sealed-off tomb, waiting to be exploited by evil people with loads of henchmen at their disposal.

Idea 2: Ford Isn't Content With Static Characters

"Now wait," you might be saying, "just because Han's a regular guy doesn't mean he has nothing to do." That's right, but a lot of the most memorable moments and turns Han takes were strongly pushed for by Ford. In Mike Ryan's piece about Ford's disdain for Solo, Ryan references J.W. Rinzler's book "The Making of Star Wars," which spotlights plenty of instances where Ford put in extra effort to elevate Han's character from a dashing silhouette of a man to a fleshed-out person. The "I love you/I know" exchange between Leia and Han in "The Empire Strikes Back" is the most famous of Ford's contributions to the way the character was written, and the duo of Ford and Fisher play every beat in their love story with gusto, but even that arc falls into a sort of "opposites attract" stasis (granted, with the wrinkle of Han wondering if Leia would rather be with her own brother).

 

Perhaps no better example of Ford's insistence on playing characters with real emotions — who, by extension, are capable of change — can be found with Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" and Denis Villeneuve's recent sequel. Ford and Scott infamously clashed behind the scenes over whether or not Ford's replicant-hunting detective Rick Deckard should be revealed to be a replicant himself. In a feature written for Vanity Fair close to "Blade Runner 2049's" release, Ford reiterated why he thinks the movie needed a human at its center:

Strain between director and star had begun in pre-production, as Scott became entranced by the notion that Deckard, like [love interest] Rachael, was a replicant but didn't know it. Ford hated the idea. "I felt that the audience needed to have someone on-screen that they could emotionally relate to as though they were a human being," the actor says. They were stuck at an impasse.

[Vanity Fair]

Already playing an archetypical gumshoe in a movie where, more so than in "Star Wars," the worldbuilding would go on to eclipse the characters, Ford must've felt that suggesting Deckard wasn't human would undermine what little chance for change the already-surly, brutish detective had.

With all three roles — Han, Indy and Deckard — the growth promised for Ford's characters has involved the same premise: a child. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" might actually have the most hackneyed reason for introducing Ford's offspring (so that he and the mother of his kid can reconnect and settle down) while in the case of both "Blade Runner" and "Star Wars," the addition of Ford's characters' children serve to address the shortcomings of his characters in the original films.

In "The Force Awakens," Han has retreated to his old life after his and Leia's son Ben turned to the dark side of the Force. He's straining for stasis, but ultimately has to move on past the shock of losing the family life he was once building, both by accepting newcomers Rey and Finn into his life and by confronting Ben directly. Harrison finally got his wish of Han Solo dying, but he also got to play a version of Han Solo who was working through issues that paralleled those he had with the role.

As for "Blade Runner 2049," as much as making fun of Deckard's one t-shirt is, it's important to note that Ford also got his wish for complexity there. Yes, Deckard's kept a few remnants of his old life around including his iconic pistol, but he doesn't show up in the long trench coat and patterned button-up as a nostalgia play. Haunted by the loss of Rachael (not saying that's a great narrative move) and the pain of giving up their child — a "miracle" whether or not both Rachel and Deckard are replicants — Deckard's become a changed man, a recluse neither content to simply live in the past or eager to face the world that's moved on without him.

In both cases, Ford finally found the kind of growth out of Han and Deckard that he only had to wait seven years and one movie between "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Last Crusade" to get in his scenes with Sean Connery as Indy's father. Patricide and transhumanism are weightier themes to hang on those characters' arcs than Indy's father issues, but that can be all it takes to have a character go from one-note to relatable.

Idea 3: 'Indiana Jones' Is Just Way More Fun To Make

Finally, there's the idea that might be hardest for Ford's fans to square with their feelings on "Crystal Skull" and the potential of a fifth "Indiana Jones" movie. Harrison Ford probably, and for good reasons, just likes making "Indiana Jones" movies more. Indiana Jones isn't just the character that made Ford one of the last bonafide movie stars — it's also a chance to do a bunch of things no other role of Ford's could afford him.

 

Widely panned by fans at the time of its release, "Crystal Skull" stands out in retrospect less for its sins (nuking the fridge, Shia swinging on vines with monkeys, Cate Blanchett's best-worst Yakov Smirnoff impression) than for its simplicity. It's a sequel that serves mainly to get the gang in-front-of and behind the camera back together again for one more ride. For Ford that means getting to work with Steven Spielberg, who wanted to make "Crystal Skull" more-or-less the same way they'd made the Indiana Jones trilogy prior. Surely, even with J.J. Abrams' desire to realize a lot of "The Force Awakens" with sets and locations, Ford probably spent a good deal of time acting on a green screen and pew-pewing with a rubber blaster. While there were plenty of CGI-assisted shots in "Crystal Skull" (some of them dodgy), a lot was done practically — including those precise whip cracks Ford drilled with a professional tutor.

Yes, at the time there was talk of "Crystal Skull" being the first in a new "Jones" series, perhaps fronted by Shia LaBeouf as Indy's son (and we all know the path his career took), but whatever intention there was for a sequel to "Crystal Skull" in 2008 was certainly out-of-step with the never-ending reboots and cinematic universes studios have been straining to launch over the last decade. Besides, there was already an extended "Indiana Jones" universe on television. For Ford, the pitch on the fifth "Indy" picture is probably the same as it was for the fourth: a nice chunk of cash and the opportunity to reprise an iconic role under the direction of a man who seems incapable of making a movie with zero merit.1

Then again, Spielberg's "Indiana Joan" response to the call for a reboot starring a woman as Indiana suggests both that Spielberg has forgotten how surnames work and that he might not be up to making an Indiana Jones movie that feels timely and relevant. Again, so long as it's fun to make Ford might not care, and the chances of the film being so bad that it seriously hurts the character's or Ford's reputation is low. If the next one does end up bad, maybe Ford will pass the bullwhip and hat along to another Young Indiana Jones or to a Dr. Henrietta Jones — and maybe, just maybe, he won't make playing Han Solo sound like it was such a drag.

1

The same can't have been said for George Lucas when he was attached to write and direct the seventh Star Wars.

<p>Mathew Olson is an Associate Editor at Digg.</p>

Want more stories like this?

Every day we send an email with the top stories from Digg.

Subscribe