mct16:
If that was an example of the level of research that actors and screenwriters put into the subject, then it is no wonder that some critics have pointed out their failure to really grasp the essence of Hergé and his creation.
They may not have grasped the same essence as you, but that's not really a grounds for dismissing their take on the characters and books, is it?
Setting aside the fact that it's a light-hearted pop-quiz done with people who are probably on their fiftieth interview of a conveyor-belt press junket some two years after they did whatever research they did (which is actually a
big concession), there just
isn't any definitive, universally held "essence of Hergé and his creation".
If their views of what is important, or essential or enticing about Tintin and his world is different from my, or your or anyone else's, it doesn't make it wrong or invalid. It's just different...! And that diversity, that's actually a good thing.
There isn't a right way for someone to react to Tintin; there is no orthodoxy, as can be seen from the divergent opinions on here, on just about every topic (including this one...! ;-)).
It's unfortunate if it doesn't mesh with yours, or if you can't set aside your view long enough to appreciate theirs - and believe me, that's in no way intended as a slight of you - I actually share your pain.
For example, I think Daniel Craig is an
awful James Bond, is completely wrong for the part, and that the last couple of movies have been
really bad - but I can't say that that issue is anything other than
my problem, as he is bringing the James Bond that many seem to want, in movies they want to see.
I'd like to be able to set that aside, and I can't, I can't seem to see past it at all; however I wouldn't go out of my way to say that he's wrong, or that his interpretation is not well researched, or that he doesn't know the subject.
mondrian:
it seems the movie wasn't made for longtime-fans.
I think that that's a bit unfair - (putting aside my own near 50 years of fandom, and I don't feel hard done by by the film) Spielberg, as we know has been a fan for 28 years: I think that that qualifies him as a long-term fan, a dedicated fan, an informed fan, or whatever, just about as much as anyone. Likewise Jamie Bell - his enthusiasm and delight for the character and the project says to me that he is a true fan in any meaningful sense of the word.
I find it really interesting that Spielberg has reacted to the books so viscerally in a visual, filmic way. Hergé himself said that his books were like movies, and Mr. Spielberg has obviously seen that in spades - he doesn't see the images just as the flat colours and plain lines which some see as important - as if Hergé was merely perptrating an exercise in style.
Instead Spielberg seems to have wired directly into them as being kinetic, dynamic notes left by one film maker for another. To him they appear to be icons representing actions, and textures, and situations, in way I haven't really thought about. That's a really big revelation to me: it's not how I see the characters, but I'm open to his interpretation of what is essential, or important in Tintin.
The other big thing is that, no matter what he does, or how he does it, he doesn't change the source one iota...! It will be as good, as rich, as deep or shallow as it ever was... :-)
