Question about Indy’s gun in the Cairo bar scene

[Western New York Indy]

I was just rewatching Raiders and noticed something. In the scene where Indy is talking to Belloq in the bar in Cairo, I always thought the monkey took Indy’s gun. However, the gun the monkey hands to the Monkey Man is certainly not Indy’s…

Then Indy reaches for his gun- and I always assumed his holster was empty. However, upon closer inspection, there is certainly a gun there! Although the screenshot I took is not the greatest, I could see the handle of the gun poking out of the holster while watching the movie on my TV.

In the novelization it says the monkey took the gun, and goes into detail as to how Sallah bought Indy a new one. But in the film, it looks to me like Indy’s gun remains in his holster. So whose gun did the monkey have?? What in the world is going on here? Any thoughts or info would be appreciated, because I am absolutely stumped

[Hollowpond]

I always thought the monkey was making sure everyone else in the bar had a gun. Never thought about the monkey stealing Indy's gun.

[Western New York Indy]

I always thought the monkey was making sure everyone else in the bar had a gun. Never thought about the monkey stealing Indy's gun.

That makes sense! I guess the reason I thought the monkey took Indy's gun was mainly from the novelization where it says "Indy never felt the talented monkey remove his revolver from its holster, nor saw the animal carry the gun over to the Monkey Man, who stood with some men on the other side of the bar." I guess that just made me see the gun the monkey had as being Indy's gun and think his holster was empty.

-WNY Indy

[Indiana Jeff]

That's interesting about the novelization. I didn't know it is written that the monkey steals Indy's gun. In the movie the monkey doesn't go anywhere near Indy's holster.

I don't see the monkey having anything to do with the distribution of guns. The monkey scurries onto the Monkey Man's (is it him?) shoulder and drops out of frame for a moment, but the Luger is passed between two human hands and I don't see how the monkey is involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKPkeswips

I always saw the Luger being passed as the German agents making sure everyone in the bar was armed to defend Belloq from Indy if necessary.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Western New York Indy]

That's interesting about the novelization. I didn't know it is written that the monkey steals Indy's gun. In the movie the monkey doesn't go anywhere near Indy's holster.

I don't see the monkey having anything to do with the distribution of guns. The monkey scurries onto the Monkey Man's (is it him?) shoulder and drops out of frame for a moment, but the Luger is passed between two human hands and I don't see how the monkey is involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKPkeswips

I always saw the Luger being passed as the German agents making sure everyone in the bar was armed to defend Belloq from Indy if necessary.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Yeah, I read the novelization before seeing the movie. Blasphemous, I know, but I love reading and so as a kid that was how I was first introduced to the story after seeing the stunt show at Disney. So I always just assumed that the monkey took the gun, since that was already in my mind from the book. That's also why I assumed the guy with the monkey on his shoulder is the Monkey Man, but since we don't see his face, it might not be him.. it could be any random bar patron.

I rewatched the scene a few times and I think you're right that it is two human hands passing the gun. I had thought that the monkey handed the gun to one of the Germans, since the monkey passes by just before the gun gets passed into the frame. Since the novelization goes into detail about the monkey stealing the gun and also goes into detail later as to how Sallah acquired Indy a new gun, I assumed that was what happened in the movie as well. But I think you are right that the monkey is just crawling around and doesn't steal the gun or pass that German gun around.

Boy, the details we think about Sure is fun though!!

-WNY Indy

[Indiana Jeff]

I'm sure if you read the novelization first, it would definitely color the way you see the movie.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Western New York Indy]

I'm sure if you read the novelization first, it would definitely color the way you see the movie.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Yup, there are definitely ways that the novelization impacts how I see parts of the movie. I know that seems silly, since most people probably don't read the novelization of a movie before seeing the movie- But that's how I did it, so oh well, I guess. The novelization is pretty accurate most of the time, but there are a few minor things like this that it changes a bit.

-WNY Indy

[Rob]

Novelisations are almost always based off scripts, so I would suggest it's what was scripted, but somewhere in the filming and edit, it changed

[Hollowpond]

Gotta admit though, it would have been a humorous scene and a great way of introducing the Webley for the rest of his adventures.

I realize production folks weren't thinking there might even be sequels, I'm just saying with hindsight it would have been a neat little bit.

[Western New York Indy]

Novelisations are almost always based off scripts, so I would suggest it's what was scripted, but somewhere in the filming and edit, it changed

That's certainly possible! I'll have to look through the different versions of the script to see if the scene was written differently originally. It seems like an odd thing for the novelization writer to just add that in randomly... unless, like me, they saw the scene wrong- but if they were mainly working with the script, that wouldn't make much sense. It's totally worth checking out, so I'm gonna do some digging.

-WNY Indy

[Western New York Indy]

Gotta admit though, it would have been a humorous scene and a great way of introducing the Webley for the rest of his adventures.

I realize production folks weren't thinking there might even be sequels, I'm just saying with hindsight it would have been a neat little bit.

Yeah! I honestly think it would've been fun to have the monkey steal Indy's gun... and I think part of the reason I saw it that way for so long is because it just made sense to me that the monkey would take the gun to keep Indy from shooting Belloq. It would've been a great way to introduce the Webley if they had been thinking of sequels at the time! I do wonder what the heck happened to that gun, since it kinda disappears after the flying wing scene...

-WNY Indy

[Rob]

Novelisations are almost always based off scripts, so I would suggest it's what was scripted, but somewhere in the filming and edit, it changed

That's certainly possible! I'll have to look through the different versions of the script to see if the scene was written differently originally. It seems like an odd thing for the novelization writer to just add that in randomly... unless, like me, they saw the scene wrong- but if they were mainly working with the script, that wouldn't make much sense. It's totally worth checking out, so I'm gonna do some digging.

Definitely worth a dig. At some point they'd potentially see a rough cut of the film and could potentially edit their work, but also at some point (well in advance of the movie coming out), they'd need to hand in a final draft so it could be produced and printed in time for release - sometimes movie novelisations have even pre-dated release but not sure with regard to the Indy novels

[Canyon]

That makes sense! I guess the reason I thought the monkey took Indy's gun was mainly from the novelization where it says "Indy never felt the talented monkey remove his revolver from its holster, nor saw the animal carry the gun over to the Monkey Man, who stood with some men on the other side of the bar." I guess that just made me see the gun the monkey had as being Indy's gun and think his holster was empty.

-WNY Indy

Just as a side note, this part is not mentioned in the original novelization by Campbell Black, but is however from the rewritten novel by Ryder Windham which came out in 2008.

[Western New York Indy]

That makes sense! I guess the reason I thought the monkey took Indy's gun was mainly from the novelization where it says "Indy never felt the talented monkey remove his revolver from its holster, nor saw the animal carry the gun over to the Monkey Man, who stood with some men on the other side of the bar." I guess that just made me see the gun the monkey had as being Indy's gun and think his holster was empty.

-WNY Indy

Just as a side note, this part is not mentioned in the original novelization by Campbell Black, but is however from the rewritten novel by Ryder Windham which came out in 2008.

Yeah that's a good thing to point out- I just checked the original novelization a few minutes ago and realized that it's not in there, it's in the rewritten one. So that adds a whole 'nother layer to this thing. Thanks for pointing that out!!

(Side note, love your avatar- I use that as a GIF for texting all the time )

-WNY Indy

[Indiana Jeff]

That's really odd the novelizations are different, I assumed the 2008 was just a reprint of the original.

There was so much cut from the early scripts (and used in TOD) I'm not surprised that if the monkey stealing Indy's gun was in the script it got cut. GL and SS were trying to make a lean movie with an action climax every 10 minutes or so.

The confrontation between Indy and Belloq is a pivotal moment in the movie and having cut-aways to the monkey would have broken up the pacing of the scene. In fact, there is a video floating around analizing this scene as an example of excellent blocking.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Canyon]

Yeah that's a good thing to point out- I just checked the original novelization a few minutes ago and realized that it's not in there, it's in the rewritten one. So that adds a whole 'nother layer to this thing. Thanks for pointing that out!!

(Side note, love your avatar- I use that as a GIF for texting all the time )

-WNY Indy

You're welcome!

Glad you like the avatar. Every time I watch Raiders, my heart beats just a little faster during that scene.


The lady Canyon

[Western New York Indy]

That's really odd the novelizations are different, I assumed the 2008 was just a reprint of the original.

There was so much cut from the early scripts (and used in TOD) I'm not surprised that if the monkey stealing Indy's gun was in the script it got cut. GL and SS were trying to make a lean movie with an action climax every 10 minutes or so.

The confrontation between Indy and Belloq is a pivotal moment in the movie and having cut-aways to the monkey would have broken up the pacing of the scene. In fact, there is a video floating around analizing this scene as an example of excellent blocking.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

From what I can tell, the original novelization is based on the script rather than the finished movie, since the dialogue is quite different and there are some scenes that are not in the finished film. Or maybe some it was just the creativity of the author. The 2008 novelization is based on the finished product and is more like a transcription of the final product, with all the dialogue and scenes we are familiar with from the film.

I agree, with so much being cut, it's possible that the monkey originally was supposed to steal the gun. I'm still searching through different versions of the script to see if it appears in any of them. No luck so far. I'm not sure how many versions there are though- I've only been able to find and read through 3.

I also agree that cutting to the monkey would've significantly impacted the scene. It is truly a masterfully crafted encounter that I never get tired of watching.

-WNY Indy

[Western New York Indy]

You're welcome!

Glad you like the avatar. Every time I watch Raiders, my heart beats just a little faster during that scene.


The lady Canyon

If only all of us were blessed with Mr. Ford's effortless charm... For crying out loud, the man's 82 years old and he's still got it. Oh well, I guess I'll just be happy with collecting the gear

-WNY Indy

[Indiana Jeff]

From what I can tell, the original novelization is based on the script rather than the finished movie, since the dialogue is quite different and there are some scenes that are not in the finished film. Or maybe some it was just the creativity of the author. The 2008 novelization is based on the finished product and is more like a transcription of the final product, with all the dialogue and scenes we are familiar with from the film.

-WNY Indy

That makes sense.

I checked my bookshelf and I have collected both the 1981 and 2008 novelizations over the years, but have never actually read either.

I flipped through the 1981 copy. Pages 101-105 cover Indy and Belloq's conversation, but there no mention of the monkey stealing Indy's gun at the bar.

I have a first edition print from April 1981.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Western New York Indy]

That makes sense.

I checked my bookshelf and I have collected both the 1981 and 2008 novelizations over the years, but have never actually read either.

I flipped through the 1981 copy. Pages 101-105 cover Indy and Belloq's conversation, but there no mention of the monkey stealing Indy's gun at the bar.

I have a first edition print from April 1981.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Honestly, that's really cool that you have both! I have the 2008 version in print, but have only read the 1981 version digitally, sadly.

Yeah, that's what I noticed too after Canyon brought up the fact that the monkey stealing Indy's gun only appears in the 2008 version. It's really strange that it includes the monkey stealing the gun since the 2008 version is closer to the finished movie.

I wonder if since that part doesn't appear in the 1981 version, it implies that it isn't in any of the scripts and is just an error on the part of the 2008 novelization. Maybe this has all been a wild goose chase... But boy, I've had fun trying to figure it out

-WNY Indy

[Indiana Jeff]

OK, that's even more bizarre. I misread the thread and thought the monkey stealing the gun was in the '81 edition, not the '08 edition. For it to be in the '08 edition makes no sense at all.

Not for nothing, I have the Illustrated Script (published July 1981) so I checked and the monkey doesn't steal the gun.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Canyon]

I get the feeling that it was something that the author came up with to explain the fact that you see a gun being passed from one person to another. Just my personal opinion.

[Indiana Jeff]

I suppose, other than the gun being passed is a Luger and not Indy’s S&W. Though, only nuts like us would notice.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

[Western New York Indy]

OK, that's even more bizarre. I misread the thread and thought the monkey stealing the gun was in the '81 edition, not the '08 edition. For it to be in the '08 edition makes no sense at all.

Not for nothing, I have the Illustrated Script (published July 1981) so I checked and the monkey doesn't steal the gun.
Regards,

Indiana Jeff

It really is strange. Especially since there's this bit later on-

"Sallah had made good on his promise to replace Indy's Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector, Model 2, but Indy took little comfort in the gun that now rested in the holster at his right hip. As grateful as he was to Sallah, the revolver would be about as useful against thousands of snakes as a peashooter in a lion's den."

The author really must've liked this whole Monkey stealing the gun bit. Enough to follow it up later with another couple sentences.

Good to know that it's not in the illustrated script. I guess it might just be an invention of the author who wrote the '08 novelization.

-WNY Indy

[Western New York Indy]

I get the feeling that it was something that the author came up with to explain the fact that you see a gun being passed from one person to another. Just my personal opinion.

That's most likely the explanation for it. It seems strange that it would just be randomly added unless it was 1. in the script or 2. the author was trying to explain the gun being passed by the German agents. Since so far it's not been in any of the early script versions I've read through, or in the illustrated script, it's probably more likely the author just needed to explain the gun being passed around and landed on the monkey stealing it.

-WNY Indy

[Western New York Indy]

I suppose, other than the gun being passed is a Luger and not Indy’s S&W. Though, only nuts like us would notice.


Regards,

Indiana Jeff

That's one thing that keeps me scratching my head. The author of the book refers to Indy's gun as a S&W Hand Ejector many times, so it seems like they know their Indy guns at least a bit... But maybe they knew the name well but couldn't actually identify a S&W revolver vs. a Luger passing by so quickly in a dimly lit scene.

-WNY Indy