A Purist's Review

I liked THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, so shoot me. According to every review I've read from The New Yorker to Salon to Variety -- and not to mention the Comment sections from some websites, oy! -- everyone seems to be offended by Spielberg's adaptation of Herge's comic hero. They're offended that Spielberg added Indiana Jones-like scenarios to the three cobbled together comic books that qualify as the source material. They're offended that TinTin has no depth of character. Some people are offended by the CGI and think it's a slight to the artist who pioneered the ligne claire style of cartooning. Some reviewers have called it "exhausting." To which I say, "Really?" I thought it was kinda fun.

While I will confess to an Archie comic infatuation at the age of ten (Team Betty!), I was never a true comic reader. When graphic novels became en vogue about ten years ago, I was working at the Barnes & Noble on 17th Street in New York City. Bouncy college kids from the School of Visual Arts would bop in, secure in their super cool, arty hipness, and ask where the Graphic Novels were located. At that time, they occupied three shelves next to Manga. (During a recent visit, they had four bookcases. Manga had expanded, too. I don't know what happened to Poetry and Essays which used to reside there. Poetry, I barely knew thee...literally.) I was perplexed enough to trek up to the fourth floor myself and check out Daredevil and Watchmen. I didn't get it and never bothered again. So, it seems I missed the gem TinTin in its original form. To which I say, C'est la vie. Herge would know what I mean. Now, don't get me wrong, I like to read books before they become movies. But some books can be skipped without feeling too badly about missing the literary purity of the story. I mean, it's hard to watch a Grisham adaptation and leave the theater saying, "Wow, in the book, that chase scene wasn't just a chase scene. It was the character's existential crisis where he wasn't just running away from that crooked judge, but running away from the ghost of his father's unrealistic expectations!" because, you know, that's not really the point of a Grisham novel. But I do think that people who loved the TinTin comics were bound to be disappointed, just like anyone who has ever loved any book has been disappointed by a theatrical adaptation. Choices have to be made, and perhaps they wouldn't be your choices. Which brings me to CGI.

People do not like CGI. People who plonked down $18 for IMAX in 3D to watch blue giants on another planet, got all weirded out about TINTIN. James Cameron is a genius, but people throw around the name Bob Zemeckis like it's a curse word. One commentator I read was in high dudgeon over the fact that TINTIN is going to be considered in the Best Animation category when it's sooo not animation in the classical sense! How "classical" do you want to go, because if I remember correctly, people were all hot and bothered over computer generated animation around the time of TOY STORY's launch. Should we insist that SHREK and UP! return their Oscars? The only reason there is an animation category is because of computer generated cartooning. CGI is just the next genesis of that evolution. Before I move on, I'll give you a moment to pick your wedgie, because obviously your panties are in a bunch.

One of the reasons I think Hollywood likes comics and graphic novels is not only the "platform" - IE. established material with its own following -- but, that it's basically just storyboarding. They get storyboarding! Hollywood creative execs are usually visual people who don't want the writer to mickey around with the "story" too much. Yet those pesky writers keep trying to put non-essential "stuff" into the script. You know, like character development, motivation, and dialogue that isn't just set-up>punchline. But we have far surpassed the days of "moving pictures" and there has to be more then just a lot of music and a title card every few minutes. Audiences are much more sophisticated and when we do cheat them out of a story, they get grumbly. And I think this is what reviewers were responding too in TINTIN. There was no character exploration that was being exercised through external conflict. I guess the only criticism, when viewed in this context, could be that Spielberg was enamored by the visuals with which CGI was allowing him to experiment. But, honestly, that is what I enjoyed most about TINTIN. Spielberg was so obviously enjoying himself! It felt like a kid in the candy store. He directed the film like he would have directed, yes, Indiana Jones, but with flourish! His little call backs to his own movies -- JAWS, JURASSIC PARK, et. al -- is something Pixar does in every film. Moving the camera around a space in a way that it would be difficult or dangerous on a set provided thrilling optics. He was able to pour in a little slapstick without it feeling out of place. It was like an amusement ride, and I enjoyed it immensely. However, maybe it was these visual gymnastics that reviewers didn't like, or why some people felt tired by the end of it. There was so much to see! Which is also why, maybe, the character development of TinTin wasn't up to par. But, *shrug* I enjoyed it.

OK, so maybe it wasn't a pure Herge movie for the Herge enthusiast. But it was definitely an enthusiastic Spielberg adventure film, and pure fun for people who like quintessential Spielberg films. And I do.