Should we stand for the National anthem before a movie screening in the Jamaican cinema?

This commentary is addressing a pretty small scale issue in the Jamaican cinema landscape: the playing of the national anthem before a movie.

I recently went to watch Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol at the palace Cineplex located in the Sovereign mall in Liguanea. Again the national anthem was played and I refused to stand. Prior to the national anthem there was the voice of Brigitte Foster-Hylton, on recording, saying that she is proud of her nation and that we should all stand for the anthem as a sign of respect. Everyone rose ceremoniously not realizing that the film they were about to view was an average and forgettable one apart from the stunt work. The way the people rose in unison suggested that the national anthem would enhance their experience of the movie.  Those who rose in unison must unconsciously believe in this patriotic act for a film screening however they and the owners of the palace amusement company, who runs the cinema chain in Jamaica, do not realize that they are instead suffering from the disorder of patriotic malaise. This is a disorder where the love of nation is forced upon people to the point where it rings false. If they do not suffer from it then I certainly do for with the increasing commercialization of film standing for a national anthem before a screening appears downright absurd and pathetic and is reflective of a backward, pretentious ideal that seems yet to be discovered by the populace: what it means to be Jamaican? We seem to be still at odds with the issue and our politicians always seem to be emphasizing this issue of unity due to our fractious and at times barbaric political system. The barbaric political system is not only a result of the violence but of the demagogic and shallow base of political ideologies which are sententious. The hypocrites in politics call for unity while preaching the downfall of one sect of society because they support a particular party. This is the glory of democracy.  This incessant call for unity is a bourgeois hypocrisy and caters only to the lackeys of the ruling class who spend more of their time in the United States, Canada and Europe than in Jamaica. The playing of the national anthem is a reflection of that putrid sentiment and false sense of security: in other words an illusion; however why should it be played before a movie? The answer is: ????

There is no simple answer. The only justification is our backward approach to film. Jamaica rarely premiers its own films and probably when we were granted the honour of having our own movie houses, which shows these exquisite productions from the United States, we got so caught up in this great honour that it has become a staple of our movie going experience. I am not sure when it actually started and I am not prepared to say that it is a colonial tradition although it is in keeping with the pomp of ceremony in Jamaica, inherited by the English,  where every event is graced by the national anthem'God save our noble Queen'. Whether  or not we inherited it from the English it is clear that to watch a national anthem before a film, which you may not like, is a sign of abject patriotic malaise. Film going experiences are not like the old days when the Majestic and the Odeon cinemas and drive ins would cater to a certain lifestyle of the audiences. It is no longer an event to go to the movies. That is rare nowadays unless it is a major new creative thrust in the industry.  The film executives have realized this which is why they have introduced the 3D and IMAX formats so as to make the experience of watching a movie larger than life itself.  A national anthem before a film is a crass way of saying that we Jamaicans should be grateful for being able to host these wonderful creations of the developed world. It is innovations in technology which will enhance the film going experience not a national anthem. The only question is: Do you stand for the national anthem when you watch the same film on DVD or Blu Ray in your private home? Do you stand for the anthem when you watch it on local television? Would you still stand for the national anthem should a cinema that only premieres pornographic material be made available to the public?

You are made to feel guilty sometimes when you don’t stand especially when you go with someone else who does not share your vision. I never stand so I know the feeling. I once heard a buffoon sitting behind me say ‘people no longer respect the national anthem.’ The national anthem does not logically add to the movie experience. I either like the film or do not. I suppose that in the older days you were forced to stand by some form of persuasive coercion and in some other poor nations you probably have the military combing the aisles ensuring that you stand. Now we have the attendants that tear your ticket stubs and flash their light bulbs in the aisles trying to identify empty seats for latecomers to the show and identify those trying to use camcorders to record the film to distribute as pirate DVDs. The social pressure to stand for the anthem is overbearing for some and I remember a particular female pleading with me to stand and I suppose she felt isolated from the crowd by going to a movie with a man who will not stand for the national anthem prior to the screening of a film.  She eventually forgot the incident since she did not like the movie and was actually disappointed despite the playing of the anthem which is designed  to enhance the film going experience by instilling some sense of pride in being able to consume this noble product, this precious import. I cannot emphasize too much how this pompous ceremony is ridiculed by foreigners who snicker while it is being played. They find themselves in the uneasy position where they are not sure if they should stand or sit. It is an act of buffoonery on the part of the palace amusement co. to keep this practice going. It is similar to the archaic presentation of coming attractions, which they thankfully revamped, which was hampered by poor audio quality. They kept the poor audio for at least a year even though it screeched and scratched in your ears. Competition from another formidable entity would  ruin the palace amusement co.

The national anthem also reflects a certain high handed/patronizing attitude of the managers who seem to be caught in the scramble for social gratification by portraying themselves as highly moral beings which predicate their attitudes based on the oppressive values of the church and the notion that we were just born as a nation.  This pompous attitude can be a source of aversion for some although, as a result of the social pressure in the cinema, they will not admit it. It is a reflection of us as a people who continue to exalt this practice as if it is still a privilege to watch the movies in the cinema handed to us by those mighty movie executives from above. Most of the movies released in the US are available online before they reach Jamaica.  I know the managers are highly moral for when a film is rated pg-13 in the US it is given a pg-16 rating by the palace amusement co.

If it was an event where Jamaica was competing internationally then there would be a need to play the national anthem to keep spirits high and identify ourselves as jamaican however we only seem to be glad to premier American films and  one or two Jamaican films. Should we really stand for the national anthem prior to the screening of a movie?

As Jamaica is not a fully capitalist nation and still has its agrarian influences which are reinforced by religion I am not surprised by the practice. When Jamaica becomes fully industrialized and commercialization comes in the form of competition to the palace amusement co. then we will eventually see the removal of the national anthem.

Until then I refuse to stand.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol **½ /5: Superficial bourgeois espionage thriller with some good stunt work

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a good espionage thriller. It is still unable to escape the trappings of the genre and fails to reinvent it. It tries to gloss over this fact by including daredevil escapades which include some implausible set pieces. It is also a globetrotting adventure featuring states such as India, Dubai and Russia. The plot is stretched thin and you realize that the story could not keep pace with the globetrotting. The characters are all over the world so as to inject the story with life. It is obvious. It is not closed because had it been it would be a drag for the audience. The moments of quietude in the film fail to resonate and it is clear that the characters are caricatures much like the organization they work for: the IMF (Impossible Mission forces). This film is a justification for American intervention in other states and their security concerns. It seems America must never fear since they have the IMF to defend their borders. There are good elements in the film such as the pacing and the concept of the ghost protocol although you realize that it is nothing new. How the characters come together is also quite interesting. The technology on display is certain to excite some audience members as well as the attempts at humour which are predictable.

The film is about the IMF being implicated in an attack on the Kremlin. The President immediately shuts it down for there are fears that this will ignite a nuclear war with Russia. The plan known as Ghost protocol is put into effect which means that only a special team of four, headed by special agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), can restore the good name of the IMF by finding the true culprit who was responsible for the Kremlin bombing and who is prepared to start a global nuclear war between the US and Russia.

What’s good about this film?

The film has a lot of good things going for it despite its trappings.  I liked the pacing of the film and the action sequences particularly the fights. It is escapist fiction so one can tolerate the implausibility of some of these set pieces such as Tom Cruise hanging outside the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the tallest building in the world. It was also good to see how the characters came to form some fellowship which highlights that there might be some life in the franchise following this one. You are aware of this by the end when the individual team members go their separate ways.   The idea that wars between nations are being fought underneath instead of on the surface where every attack is played down as a malfunction etc is realistic to an extent that information is being transmitted to people. The idea of ghost protocol was pretty well developed as it is a safe measure for the IMF when things get awry. It was also a good concept since it dealt with the issue of there being no one left to make a stand apart from a few or that the life of an entity is balancing on a thin thread. These individual members are supposed to represent hope for espionage carried out by the United States. The jokes are supposed to make audiences chirpy throughout as well as the technology on display.  The film seems like a materialist/bourgeois fantasy at times or as justification for their right to rule. It seems pathetic at times especially when a Indian business mogul is featured. As pathetic as it looks sometimes this will appeal to the members of the bourgeois class, their lackeys and parasites. The film also does a good job as a travelogue by featuring two members of the BRICS: India and Russia as well as Dubai of the UAE in the Middle East.

All that was discussed previously is not unique for it has been done before in many espionage thrillers and so it is no wonder that the production team try and rely on the set pieces to be so distinctive and this would explain their use of environments of foreign countries for it seems more grandiose and less intimate than other thrillers in this genre.

There is some reference here to Dr. Strangelove Or: How I learned to stop worrying and Love the Bomb? Code name: cobalt. This reminded me of the Cobalt thorium G in Dr. Strangelove.... You can’t get more superficial than that. It seems that the character Strangelove can now walk and run.

What’s bad about this film?

This film is hardly special and will be forgotten in a couple of months. It is hardly resonant particularly in the quiet moments. The attempt to generate emotion was lost here since the production team assume that the audience cares about the characters. There will be members of the audience that will wince when some actors start to look weepy because it does not seem essential. The relationship between Hunt and his wife for instance was pretty hollow and he is supposed to be some form of a dark knight when he walks off shrouded by the mist. If you did not watch the previous mission impossible installment you will wonder what all the fuss was about especially with the character William Brandt (Jeremy Renner). Instead of having his own story he has to be tied into the story of Ethan Hunt. Why is that since what you are trying to emphasize is that the members of the team have different backgrounds?

The set pieces in the film are clearly contrived and too coincidental to seem organic. A straightforward plan is always disrupted because Tom Cruise has to show that he can do his own stunts. This occurs in the scenes at the Burj Khalifa and when he is outside a hospital window. It seems like a desperate ploy to manipulate the audience and their sensibilities. Who is going to believe the implausibility of some of the fight scenes, particularly the final one in a high tech parking lot?

The IMF seems like a dummy corporation for it to be subject to a ghost protocol. It seems as if the organization is limited to one individual: Ethan Hunt. What does this say about the institution if one mishap can send it crashing down? One individual slips up so how is it connected and how was it disabled for this particular measure to be taken. The acronym is also misleading since its mandate as an organization is not explained.

The thematic elements in the film do not stand out from most espionage thrillers. It seems to rely on the scale of the set pieces to be distinct. As a result the story will be forgotten and the audience will only come to expect good stunt work when they watch this film. All the film boils down to is tracking the main suspect; a suspect who is highly intelligent and capable of making an escape. The villain seems to work only with his crony and there is no account of him as an individual or what he thinks. He is caricaturized. In fact most of the characters are caricatures which is why humour is essential so as not to lose the interest of the audience. The audience will never care for them; that I can guarantee. A t least the Bourne series made you care about Jason Bourne however this series is all about stunts.

The technology on display seems to cater to the crass bourgeois/materialist crowd and is too flashy to seem intrinsic to the schematics of the plot. You have a nice car with touch screen here, you have some fancy computers (apple) and you have some very handy gloves. People will no doubt say wow. I am justified in my statements based on the centres where the action takes place. In Dubai it takes place in the tallest building in the world where rooms are an average $ 4000 a night. In India the action takes place at state of the art facilities and in the home of a pathetic business mogul. It seems more like a bourgeois fantasy rather than a film that has some necessary statements about espionage. The actors speak foreign languages and that seems to be enough.  The globetrotting experience also stretches the story too thin since it is never really explained why it is necessary for the characters to visit all these lovely locales. A business man in India owns this so lets go to India. An Arms dealer in Dubai has access to things lets go and check him. How is it that they are asked to invade the Kremlin? It would have been more accurate to establish something about the tension between the two nations: the US and Russia as opposed to having some mad scientist try and blow up the world for no apparent reason. What is fuelling the conflict? I suppose all espionage thrillers must have this globetrotting experience to be validated? There is no proper methodological construct here and this is why I am convinced that this film is a bourgeois fantasy. Maybe we can get Cruise to do some stunts in Jamaica.

The nature of espionage is not explored at all. It seems to be taken for granted and I was thrown off from the beginning of the film. Espionage is more intricate than how it is presented here in such a superficial manner. If you work for the IMF it seems as if you work for the Mafia. What is the mandate of the organization which would make it seem credible in tackling the notion of espionage and subversion? Why do they see espionage as a credible in world affairs at the moment? As the notion of espionage is not developed the film rings hollow.

Just give Tom Cruise the wire and let’s call it a day.

Hugo (2011) ****/5: This is one of the year's best films

Hugo is one of the best films of this year because the story is structured in a coherent fashion and it offers a fresh visual palette to the eye that is uniquely its own. There were some predictable elements but the themes of the story were clear and it was manifested accurately through each character. The story, set in Paris 1931, is about the young individual Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who resides in the clock tower of the train station where he keeps the clocks ticking, seeking to complete the reconstruction of a mysterious automaton discovered by his deceased father who worked in the museum where it was discovered before it was engulfed by flames. During his reconstruction of the automaton he encounters a mysterious toy maker, from whom he steals parts, working in the station’s toy shop named George Melies (Ben Kingsley) who we eventually learn was once a pioneer in filmmaking. Through the construction by Hugo of the automaton and his urge to discover the message which is supposedly left by his father we come to discover the original magic of the cinema. Along the way he encounters several important characters such as the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Isabelle (Chloe Moretz). The film may be seen as a call for the preservation of the older generation of films however one can still see it independently as the birth of a movement and how this movement can be preserved despite the possibility that it would fade into existence. ‘Hope lives’ seems to be the message promoted by the film. The film deals accurately with the themes of decline vs. descent for it highlights that although Melies decline as a filmmaker resulted in the end of his career the only possibility for it to be discovered was through this young boy. The line of descent becomes firmly established in this film and so from this perspective it does not necessarily have to be viewed as a children’s film. There comes a time when everyone will become old and you become concerned with the legacy you will leave behind. The film will be seen as one for children especially as the source material is based on  the popular children’s book The Invention of Hugo Cabret however the thematic elements will make it relevant to future audiences especially as it has a visual texture enhanced by 3D that seems truly original and is one associated with the passage of time. The  effective use of visual textures to convey thematic elements is better than most films released this year.  The concept of the machine is also highlighted effectively and demonstrates the extent that each piece in the puzzle is relevant to the construction of the whole. This is more of a functionalist philosophy and this is debatable especially as it used to justify emotional expressions in the film. I have witnessed firsthand how individuals can be forgotten and how their legacy hangs by a thread because of the lessons passed on to a youth or how the youth discovers something in the past that will ensure the survival of that particular idea or object. There is the notion that most of the great works in science, technology and art in the past are subject to new interpretations which will result in new formulations for the betterment of mankind. In this present day humans are unable to move beyond the abstract debates of the past with regards to human nature and notions of the universe. Most of our experiences are apocryphal and do not result in any new formulations about human nature that were not already known.  Our practical applications have only expanded in the form of technology but not in its essence i.e. what technology is used for. This can be seen with the current release The Artist (2011). This also makes a strong claim regarding the value of art.

The subjective development of film as a medium to expand the possibilities of what we can imagine is still relevant today and will be for whatever art form emerges. The concept of a legacy is more of a central theme as opposed to the preservation of film.  If one removes the personal association of director Martin Scorsese the objective elements of the film must be discussed based on the thematic elements on display. This is done when the construction of the machine and the objective framework is assessed.  This film is a good swansong for the master Martin Scorsese.

What’s good about this film?

The first good thing about this film is the coherent structure of the story. This is one of the few times I was able to just sit back and watch a film without wondering about loopholes in the story or inconsistencies in the plot. The film exposes its many layers very well with some surprising moments. This is what good films do anyway and you are supposed to sit back and relax. I also appreciated the visual textures of the film enhanced by the 3D effect. The opening shots and some during the middle emphasize this. We see the camera swooping down over Paris in 1931 and then there is a sudden explosion of light to suggest the movement of time or busy life in the city. This is well done because it is not superfluous. It seems like a image unique to the Hugo universe. Hugo is eventually located as he stares outside from the clock tower which he is responsible for since his guardian, following his father’s death, the drunken uncle, who is usually responsible for the clock, has vanished. The film has another fantastic shot of the city when Hugo takes Isabelle into his secret abode in the clock tower explains to her the way he sees the world. We see the city looking ordinary and then there is that sudden burst of energy in the form of dazzling light which shows the passage of time. This shot alone should see it nominated for best visual effects and cinematography. The 3D does help this film particularly to enhance the visual images. For instance when Hugo is building the automaton and he discovers a missing piece in the puzzle a 3D shot comes to the fore to enhance it and give it a sense of importance. This reinforces the skewed functionalist philosophy that every piece has its place in the grand design of mankind.  When they discover the locked away sketches of Melies we see them flash before the screen  after there is an accident and they are sent flying in the air, there is a sequence in the sketches involving a dragon and as it unfold during the air it comes alive based on the visual enhancement afforded by 3D. These are just examples and it should not be spoiled since people still have a chance to go and experience it for themselves.  There is one last shot I would like to discuss however and it makes a strong argument for the use of 3D in film. The train crash sequence which is supposed to re create the sensation of the Wright brothers’ famous clip where audiences, seeing a movie for the first time, thought that the oncoming train was going to hit them and so they leapt from their seats. In these days that kind of shot would not even stir a child. With the use of 3D on the other hand one can at least attempt to give the audience that sort of sensation which was one of the early wonders of the movies. Imax and 3D does this because it presents things on a larger scale. There are some people unaccustomed to 3D who will be moved in their seats with the right sort of shot and Scorsese attempts to do that here. This was one of the reasons why 3D is here to stay especially since people still want to be immersed in these fictional worlds. I saw people jump during the screening of Avatar and I never realized until watching this film that this was the same sensation of those experiencing movies for the first time in plain 2D in the late 19^th century. This was a positive for me as a young man.

The thematic elements were well developed in this film along the lines of decline vs. descent. This notion of decline vs. descent also has various subtexts such as the objective vs. the subjective and so on as well as the true value of art.  These thematic elements are discussed when we encounter the character of George Melies the pioneer in filmmaking. He remained forgotten while other shared in his creations. His most famous one seems to be the rocket which landed in the eye of the moon.  When it is discovered that the automaton belongs to him it is poignant to hear him say that he put his heart and soul into the machine. This suggests that through his subjective imagination he was able to create an objective creation which would influence future generations in the form of Hugo Cabret. When Melies says that happy endings only occur in the movies we realize that through the lines of descent associated with the objective influence of one’s creation on later generations one’s essence is likely to be preserved. This is the notion of your legacy. Even if he died and passed a forgotten man in the flesh his creation of the automaton and the pioneering films which he created would add to the objective framework of filmdom. He would live on among the host as they say. It is only sad when the person is forgotten by the crowd who relish in his discovery which is why when we first encounter a worn Melies he feels that his work, which was an extension of his mind or soul, has faded without any form of recognition. When he discovers the line of descent through Hugo Cabret we understand his jubilation. This is why although there is a decline there is still a line of descent; those that get caught up in the decline of their way of living will not be able to see the line of descent that inevitably follows. In the moments of decline you must therefore seek that line of descent to ensure that there is some form of continuation (check my Decline of the Old South series).

This film also speaks to the true value of art. When we hear Melies story you come to realize that making a film requires a significant investment of capital unlike the performing arts where you only pay for the talent of the actor and the theatre building with the stage. The transition from the stage to film is well documented here for Melies was first a magician with his wife as an assistant before he saw the Wright brothers in action. He sold everything he had to invest not only in a Glass theatre House but in Cameras and props used in the recreation of environments you will never find in the theatre. This is why the scope for the imagination is increased. The level of investment is significant when creating a film because it is an investment in technology which is a source of objective/constant capital. It is because of this investment why Melies works remains preserved. When the Great War hit and people became less interested in his films he was forced to melt down his prints which became a chemical source for the raw materials used in the creation of shoe heels. This is sad but it shows you Art is valuable when you look at it from the perspective of film. It is also valuable when it comes to the imagination for this film demonstrates particularly with the train sequence that the audience has to be continually challenged by the so called auteur that will enhance our understanding of a particular subject from an artistic point of view. There are things I can imagine now that I would not be able to in the 12^th century and this has only occurred through the expansion of the mediums used to express art which has culminated, so far, in film/the movies. This film shows you the extent to which our imaginations are determined in some cases by individuals who dared to dream. It' s the same with religion for instance when Jesus came he inculcated the glories of heaven etc to his disciples and this ensured that his legend would live on. The many interpretations of god can be seen as an essence of the imagination. This was further enhanced by science and technology which would reach deep into the frontiers of space.

There is also the notion at the end that Hugo has surmounted his obstacles associated with the machine and has fully embraced the mystery of creation or the process of something being born.

The film also has a good supporting cast which adds some added dimensions to the film. There is the station inspector on the lookout for orphans probably because he was one himself; an experience which hardened him to the world’s fortunes. Hugo’s fate is tied in with this station inspector as he might as well be considered an orphan. There is the courtship between the inspector and the flower girl, Lisette, which helps to soften him somewhat. There is the expert on books played by Christopher Lee and the lady with her dog who constantly bites any man who tries to approach her master. There is also Isabelle whose fixation on having an adventure Hugo indulges.

What’s bad about this film?

The main downside to this film was that despite the ornate imagery I was not moved as I should have been probably because the story has been told in some way like this before.  I could predict the outcome of several scenes particularly the ones designed to evoke emotion. This is due more to the screenplay.  It lacked the kinetic, fast paced impact I have come to expect from Scorsese. This was probably because Scorsese and his famous  editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, felt that the film should have been slowed down.  This is why people have been complaining that film seems like a drag. I do not share this view but this is why a more fast paced film would have connected better with some audiences. Goodfellas, for instance was  2and a ½ hours yet it flew by in a flash. This is why the other supporting actors did not resonate with me as much as they should have. Some members of the supporting cast also seem redundant as a result. They should have been better incorporated into the life of the station for instance when Hugo takes Isabelle into the clock tower he should have highlighted them for her and their stories. We are only able to take visual cues and this would make it seem forgettable. The courtship between the station inspector and the flower girl could have been more magical and it would have been in keeping with the mood of the main narrative.  In the end we see Isabelle go into some form of overhead narration; maybe this would have solved the problem had it been included from the beginning. When she speaks at the end it seems a bit unnecessary since we get the gist. Her concluding words should have been at the beginning for instance.

The functionalist view that everyone has a role to play regardless of how small is skewed. This is a fault of the source material and not necessarily the film. It does not take into account the surplus population left on the fringes of society that will never find a place due to the expansion of capital and the inevitable impoverishment of the underclass groups who are cast out into the void. It is credit to Hugo’s optimism that he can see himself that way but that is not the true reality of existence in today's world. In a capitalist society not everyone will be deemed necessary to the whole.

All in All one of the year’s best films.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011) ***/5: A superficial adventure yarn with very good animation and 3D effects on display

The Adventures of Tintin is a good yarn although a superficial one. The film appears to have all the elements of a good adventure and yet it appears empty. The adventure is a retread of familiar tales and one feels as if one is indeed watching a comic serial unfold. This is good especially if you see it within the context of B movie style fiction. If so it does a good job although at the same time you will be wondering do you need another tale such as this.  This film makes journalism seem like a fun profession although we never see Tintin actually engage with the elements associated with that profession (although we see his scoops and awards). He appears to be more of a treasure hunter in the vein of Indiana Jones. It is a well made film and has some interesting shots that does service to the world of animation with the motion capture technology utilized to capture real live movements of individuals so as to make the characters seem more believable. The animation in this film is sure to insure that it is nominated for the best animated picture award. It seemed a bit too pristine for my taste because of the style of animation used in this film. I understand that a favourable rating must be maintained however. There are good set pieces in this film that adds to the film’s ephemeral appeal. The downside is that without these set pieces the film does not have a moral or philosophical basis to make it distinctive apart from the familiar phrases associated with the never give up attitude. There does not seem to be much of a context apart from the adventure. There is no proper build up which would suggest that Tintin must go on this adventure for he seems to have no ties in the world apart from his dog. He can simply become a globetrotter, albeit unintentionally at times, with no form of care in the world. We know nothing of Tintin apart from his insatiable need for a scoop and that he is knowledgeable about treasure hunting. These two elements could have been developed so as to evoke some form of emotional attachment from the viewer. This film will not be universally praised as a result. It will be seen as superficial and it will be seen as a montage of good set pieces. It also seems incomplete simply because there is a next installment to be directed by Peter Jackson following his work on The Hobbit. It makes you wonder why not much effort was put in to making this film more appealing to the audience and so make them yearn for the next tale of adventure which is to come. This is why you should never underestimate the emotional element in this film. I suppose the drunken captain offers some sort of comic appeal as well as the two inept police officers. The film is good enough to keep you interested while you’re in the cinema.  

This film is about the adventures of Tintin and his dog as they go in search of the secrets of the doomed Unicorn ship captained by the famous Haddock. This is a classic globetrotting adventure which features locales such as Morocco, the Sahara desert and the stormy seas. There is the villainous Red Reckham who seems to have a score to settle with Haddock’s descendants the current captain Haddock who is a drunkard. He holds the key to the mystery and so Tintin must join forces to solve the mystery before Reckham does.

What’s good about this film?

The film does feature some good animation and some of the shots are seamlessly integrated which is not surprising considering that a master director is at work. The 3D motion capture technology used here makes the animation rival that of Pixar. Pixar has some decent competition at last. This is good news for animation. The film is also good enough to make a statement that should more people get vested in this new style of animation associated with this company then the animated film industry should get a further boost. When Pixar does not feature a film for a while the market looks a bit small and the efforts from the other companies do not seem to be able to generate the appeal audiences are looking for from this type of film. Pixar has been on a good run creating event after event almost year after year. It is good that Amblin entertainment is making a statement concerning the gap to be filled. The Adventures of Tintin is a good film from this perspective. Look out for scenes that have a seamless transition to the next such as puddle becoming a sea or a arm becoming a dune in the desert. These are good shots which I can’t recall seeing in animation films. I may have missed it. These shots show how the simplest thing can be fashioned into the largest sort of physical space. There is also the notion that the imagination can be manifested out of anything as you will see with the scenes featuring captain Haddock.

The source material which involves the search for the secrets of the Unicorn which lead to a hidden treasure may not be as endearing to the younger member of the audience  but the elements of the story related to the adventure seem pretty interesting for all its worth within the limited context. The elements seem to piece together conveniently in the end. It appears inscrutable because the material is not familiar and so you will have to assume that what they are saying is correct as the movie goes along.

The film does try and speak about the notion associated with family legacy through the eyes of Haddock and Reckham. This is the most philosophical element as the drunken captain haddock being the sole survivor of the family tries to live up to he tlegacy established by his forefathers. When the end comes around however one element of tension with another family could have been manifested in various ways as you will say. It could have been made clearer throughout the film how the tension between the Haddock family and the other one (no spoilers) developed over generations apart from the sole episode featured in the film which is related to the mysterious treasure. This would have added some weight to the true burdens faced by the captain. His constant drunken state could actually be justified apart from being a source of comic appeal. This was a sort of missed opportunity and it seems to be as a result of the constant set pieces in the film.

There are small moments that do develop well such as the pick pocket and the two inept police men on his trail. The element of the globetrotting should appeal to some members of the audience.

These set pieces are well choreographed and scripted. It does defy logic but it is all in the form of B movie entertainment and so you welcome the romp. The high speed chase in Morocco or the scene where they are wading through the stormy seas are pretty well animated and do add an element of danger to the mix that will keep audiences interested. These set pieces also represent a downside of the film however.

What’s bad about this film?  

The only real bad thing about this film is the superficial adventure yarn in this film that has been spun so many times before so that you would not expect, even with a new title, something differently this time around. They compensate for this with the stylistic animation and the set pieces however it does mask that there is not a really solid foundation beneath the surface. There is nothing to make this film stand out from all the other adventure yarns out there. The screenwriters never established a suitable context involving the life of Tintin and the legacy of the drunken captain Haddock. These elements would make them more identifiable with the audience as opposed to being simple caricatures. The only profound elements are when they say you must never give up. This has been heard so many times but had the context been properly established it would have resonated more.

The elements of the adventure do seem a bit hard to follow. This will more than likely wear out the younger audiences. These hard to follow moments come from the internal logic of the story. This is not necessarily bad however there are moments when the viewer, particularly in the earlier stages, will not be able to visualize what it is Tintin and the others are speaking about. They make up for this in the scenes featuring Haddock since he is supposed to be a gateway to the past. It is only then that it starts coming together. What I am saying is that initially we see Tintin making these statements regarding the ship yet there are few visual cues established independently which would allow us to visualize what he is speaking of as we get later on with Haddock. These investigative elements will be lost on some viewers as a result. It makes you wonder if Tintin would go after the ship had he not been taken captive. Why is this so important? The other quirk I found is that we understand so little about Tintin and his motivations and he does seem like a caricature or simply transplanted directly from the comic serials. We are merely to assume that this person will be driven on to adventure because he is a journalist. There is nothing wrong with this except that he seemed more like a treasure hunter rather than a journalist. This is made clear by the end for instead of giving perspective to Haddock in some report he simply sails on another adventure. What do his editors think? Does he keep them informed?  I am not familiar with Tintin so I could be wrong about him. What makes Tintin distinct from the other adventurers? Indiana Jones had his whip and hat and the inability to think that far ahead or making things up as he goes which was a source of excitement when he was clashing with the enemy. What does Tintin have? He is a journalist to be sure but it was never made clear to me. He could be any other reporter in my mind. Does anyone ever consider once the insatiable drive of a journalist in this film? No. Maybe the comics develop his background some more. Maybe it’s the hair. Maybe it’s the name. I already mentioned that the legacy of captain Haddock could have materialized more effectively in this film especially when considering the twists and turns in the story and the legacy at the heart of the film. One could explain why the other family members succumbed and why the family was on the brink of extinction.

These elements make the set pieces seem hollow despite their entertainment value and it might not resonate well with audiences when the credits roll especially as it is a incomplete story. The reason people were so upset with the end of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was the emotion they invested in it.  They expected the film to keep going. I remember how they complained saying that they didn’t like how it ended and you knew it would be a worldwide phenomenon as a result. It remains to be seen if Tintin’s adventures will appeal to audiences in such manner. Firstly, many will not be aware of the source material and it does not seem that the film caters to those ignorant of the story. While in the cinema the pleasure of each set piece will fade the instant it is over simply because you will be one of those who will not be emotionally invested in the characters.

I chose to see this film as globetrotting romp in the park.