“How’s your thirst for adventure, Captain?”
What’s it all about? Based on the serialized comic strip by Belgian artist Hergé, THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN follows boy reporter Tintin and his dog Snowy as they get caught in the centre of continent-spanning mystery after Tintin purchases a model of a three-masted sailing ship, the Unicorn. Directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Peter Jackson, THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN stars Jamie Bell as Tintin, Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as Thomson and Thompson.
When I discovered that Steven Spielberg was directing a 3D motion-capture adaptation of Hergé’s beloved French comics, I responded initially with a disinterested shrug. I remember reading a handful of the twenty-three Tintin comics while learning French in grade school. I probably liked them? I can’t quite remember; I was like eight years old and have never been capable of bilingualism.
After seeing the teaser trailer for the film and its surprising animation choices, however, I was decidedly more keen on the picture. I, of course, went to IMDB and then proceeded to lose control of all bodily functions after reading who was involved in the production of THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN. Yes, Spielberg’s the director, Peter Jackson’s the producer and the cast is incredible. But what got me in the end was the writing staff for THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN; Steven Moffat (DOCTOR WHO, BBC’S SHERLOCK), Edgar Wright (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ) and Joe Cornish (ATTACK THE BLOCK).
Let’s be honest: When I read those names, I stood up and did a little dance.
And, man, was that little dance well-earned by the film. THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a seamless, breakneck-paced adventure story that pays tribute to the heart of Hergé’s original stories all while being extraordinarily, mind-boggingly ambitious in its visuals.
A problem I’m sure some will have with TINTIN is the character himself. Tintin is a wunderkind, a boy scout. Some people will balk at that much unapologetic, aggressive goodness. Outside of being a role model of moral excellence for children, there isn’t much left to the character. Tintin himself, Jamie Bell (BILLY ELLIOT), was on-hand at a recent screening of the film in Toronto to ask his own questions. “Where are his parents?” Bell asked. “How old is he? Why is his only friend a dog? Is he a boy a girl?” None of these questions are answered in TINTIN, except maybe we can just all assume that Tintin’s male.
Essentially, Tintin is a blank canvas onto whom we can project ourselves — our “own baggage”, laughed Bell. He doesn’t need an elaborate backstory, nor does the film provide him with one. Instead, Tintin is the impetus and vessel of adventure. Rightfully, screenwriters Moffat, Wright and Cornish spend little time in the film establishing their hero. We learn nothing more than 1) Tintin’s a “boy reporter”; 2) Everyone knows him; 3) He solves mysteries; 4) He has a dog companion named “Snowy”; and 5) Tintin can totally rock a yellow sweater vest.
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN isn’t a deeply emotional film, and there will be those who complain that there is a lack of tension, an absence of stakes. But to them I say: It’s an adventure — It’s just a bit of fun! The characters and structure fall in line, accordingly. From the first minute of THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, the script adheres to a strict “exposition, extended action sequence – repeat” structure that PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 4 tried and failed with so miserably. Steven Spielberg and his army of screenwriters are so adept at this format, however, it’s slightly terrifying. There are no seams in THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN. The visual and narrative transitions are expertly constructed, nothing seems overwrought or clunky. Spielberg was right in trusting screenwriters Moffat and Cornish, easily coming off of the best years of their respective careers; and Wright, who has the pleasure of just being Edgar Wright.
The visual creativity in THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is head and shoulders above the recently-lauded Martin Scorsese 3D picture HUGO. The animation is lusciously rendered and the 3D is, with a few sword-in-the-eye exceptions, not used as a gimmick but, rather, as a means to better input the audience into the movement of action. Now, I know what you’re saying: “Isn’t that what every 3D film does?” No. No, not at all. I have not seen this capable a level of 3D-filmmaking since the flight sequence in HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON. I don’t think I’ve ever outright suggested this about any movie before, but see THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN in 3D. You will not regret it.
Favourite Scene: Tintin, Snowy and Captain Haddock chase down the villains for three paper scraps of a puzzle in the most jaw-dropping sequence I have ever seen in a movie apparently for children. If you watch the trailer for the film, you can usually see a snapshot of the chase sequence at the end, where Tintin and a motorcycle are hanging from a wire. Imagine that level of animation, creativity and innovation over the span of like fifteen minutes — and at that speed. Got it? Holy crap, right?
Notes: Directed by Steven Spielberg; Produced by Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy; Written by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Hergé; Starring Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Daniel Craig; Music by John Williams; Cinematography by Janusz Kamiński; Editing by Michael Kahn.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I LOVED this and I didn’t expect to at all. My own preliminary feelings match yours: I think I read maaaybe one or two Tintin comics in French class back in middle school, if not elementary, and my hatred of mocap makes my disdain for 3D look like almost maternal love. But goddamn was this a brilliant piece of work, cinema’s biggest dreamer now fully able to break from any limitation. That chase scene in Bagghar nearly had me on my feet, not even cheering, just unable to watch it motionless. And the fluidity of the film is a marvel. Scenes can abruptly start, but Spielberg keeps folding them into the next shot, either shrinking the frame into a puddle or growing an entire desert from the back of a hand. As I said in my review, it makes the film’s complex, layered action even more dizzying, even as it cements the elegant flow of it all. As utterly stuffed as the frame was at all times and as fast as the movie progresses, I never felt it was incoherent.
I do think comparing the 3D here with that of HUGO is a bit apples-and-oranges-y, though. This film is the best use yet of the tech’s usual usage, as a texture for movement. The work is ingenious here, another facet of its sheer inertia. Scorsese may be the first to use it compositionally, though, where the 3D is all about the objects themselves as opposed to making tactile “action lines.” Either way, both are the only uses of 3D outside that flight scene of DRAGON that I wholeheartedly endorse.
Great review.