 | | The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn ****
| Year: | 2011 | | Director: | Steve Spielberg |
|
I wasn't going to review Tintin because it seemed superfluous. Everyone I know who has seen the film has enjoyed it and approached it with optimism. Sadly, typical of the world we live in, there's a lot of baggage surrounding the film and some of it seems contrived and targeted. As such, I feel it's struggling to stand on its own two feet, so rather than a straight forward review, I thought I'd try and cut through the crap to give you the best possible idea of if you would enjoy the film. If I could do it like a flowchart, I would!
Step 1: “Do you like Indiana Jones movies?” If not, then fine, thank you very much and see you later. This is not a movie for you! The story could so easily have been
Indiana Jones and The Secret of The Unicorn. It flows in the same rip-roaring adventure fashion, at a pace so fast sometimes the plot struggles to keep up. It’s full of excitement, set-pieces on an astonishing scale and the hero has that charming everyman appeal, living a life of adventure even if he didn’t quite set out with that intention. John Williams’ score isn’t as memorable, but it’s a John Williams score and that’s half the appeal. You do like Indy? Then please continue. I’d judge Tintin to not match up to the peerless
Raiders of The Lost Ark, but much more successful than
Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, which I did enjoy anyway.
Step 2: “Do you distrust the whole idea of motion capture?” I’d understand if you answered yes, but I think if you got past step one, you should give it a chance anyway. I’m still in two minds about the method yet I came out of this film absolutely elated! I felt that the old problems of dead eyes or ‘Uncanny Valley’ were not there. It looks absolutely gorgeous and Spielberg’s designs gave me goosebumps; they are strikingly beautiful, in particular the way scenes cut together and allow the imagination to fly, yet spring back to a very human world. One of the best scenes is Haddock in a nondescript room, getting drunk enough to remember tales of ancestor fighting pirates. The contrast between Tintin trying to keep his ranting friend under control and not break anything, against the images in Haddock’s mind of ships at battle is just staggering. Spielberg at his best is when his imagination is in child-like top gear, always with feet firmly on the ground but the mind dreaming of the impossible (
E.T.’s bicycle flight or
Empire of The Sun’s “Mustang of the sky”). Spielberg at his worst is simply when the two don’t gel and you can almost feel the frustration coming through the screen with a sense that the rhythm is off (the first half of
Jurassic Park: Lost World, or those bloody monkeys in
Kingdom of The Crystal Skull). Mo-cap has given him his mo-jo back! Hopefully enough to pull a gem of a live action film out for Indy 5 or Jurassic Park 4, if they come about.
Tintin isn’t vintage Spielberg, but as a demonstration of what he can do as a film-maker regardless of the method, it’s wonderful.
The choice to use motion capture has to be carefully considered and out of all the mo-cap films thus far,
Tintin benefits from it the most because he and his world should be too recognisably human to be animated, too fantastic to be real. Spielberg’s style finds the sweet spot in-between, thanks to the method. Despite me alluding to an Indiana Jones feel, Spielberg wouldn’t have captured the characters unique, gently silly charm in live action. And
Tintin has already been animated of course, but that TV style cartoon, successful as it was, just doesn’t have the vision for the big cinematic screen and punters used to Pixar and Disney would be put off. Perhaps you feel that it doesn’t need the big screen at all! If you've never heard of Herge's Tintin before this film was released, you might as well skip to Step 4. Otherwise…
Step 3: “Have you got your knickers in a twist over Tintin being adapted at all?” I don’t know if I can help you if the answer is yes. There is no avoiding that this is a huge production and maybe some of the emotional connection with the books has been smothered, but not by much I would argue. I was never a huge fan of the books, much preferring
Asterix, but what little I have read suits the film perfectly. I find it intriguing that of some of the complaints people had about the film were that a certain mood was missing, yet I found it to be there, such as Tintin’s relationship with Snowy (who doesn’t talk, I’m glad to say) in that the faithful dog is an extension of the rather bland, ageless hero, not a mere sidekick. It is true that the pace is frantic, repetitive and turning on contrivance, but you could argue so were Herge’s books! The simplicity allows for charming enthusiasm and that’s why they have lasted so long. The film retains that, thanks to the writing of, amongst others, Stephen Moffact, better known for Doctor Who at the moment and so there is unlikely to be anyone else who understands the spirit of adventure better.
It’s ok to not like Spielberg, his style or where he comes from and that should be the basis for forming your own opinion of the film, but I’m uncomfortable with the way some reviewers seem to be creating a revisionist history of Herge’s stories to suit their reasons for dismissing the film. Herge himself was a fan of Spielberg’s work and said he was the only director capable of doing the stories justice. That and the fact that Spielberg has sat on the rights since the 1980s should be proof enough that he is doing this because he loves the stories, not because he is trying to exploit them. At least approach the watching of the film with similar optimism and then make an informed decision of whether you like it or not. I've even heard of quite a few Tintin fans enjoying it, despite some of the anti-Spielberg (otherwise known as "Anti-Fun") press doing their best to say otherwise.
Step 4: “Are you watching the film yet?” Well, if you made it this far, you probably should be, so let’s put the source material to one side, ignore the method and concentrate on the product in front of us. It is a glorious adventure. Bright, colourful and in many ways beautiful, filmed with enthusiasm and an unbound imagination that creates truly astonishing set-pieces, it is perhaps paced too quickly to appreciate the ironic twists of fate that drive the story, but repeat viewings will reveal more. The ending feels like it demands the sequel too much to stand-alone, yet surely that epitomises Spielberg’s love of the cliffhanger even more than the Indiana Jones saga. Jamie Bell struggles to give Tintin a real personality, but the film lives in Andy Serkis’s superb delivery of Captain Haddock. With Snowy the dog, they make for a fantastic trio (a standout scene is the escape from the Captain’s own ship). Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are great fun and get the biggest laughs as the rather silly, ineffectual Thompson and Thompson and Daniel Craig is a subtle threat as the villain, helping to create the sense that Tintin is a small person in a very big world and his bravery is all the more admirable for it. The dialogue is well written and notable for being typical Spielberg (note the overlapping conversations). In fact, the whole thing is typical Spielberg. Tintin was in his DNA even before he knew it. I bloody loved it and I think if you like his work and approach the film without cynicism, you should too.
