Love and scandal are the best sweeteners of tea. —Henry Fielding

16 January 2012

Spielbergfest

I suppose that it seems logical to speak about both of Steven Spielberg's 2011 films together, and since I saw The Adventures of Tintin recently, I think I will.

If you know me even a little bit you probably know that I find Spielberg's work... there's no perfect word for it... irritating, frustrating, maddening. Something along those lines. Enervating, perhaps.

Mostly what I resent with Spielberg is the way the films manipulate the viewer, tugging insistently at the heartstrings and moving me, inexorably toward tears. I always feel rather empty after this sort of thing, but Spielberg movies almost always do it to me. War Horse is no exception, and I resented it for its almost cynical powers of manipulation.

Actually, though, War Horse is not a very good movie. It's first twenty minutes or so are shot like comedy, with saturated colors, a silly script, broad performances (including an absurdly cartoonish turn by David Thewlis, who plays Lupin in the Harry Potter franchise), and a running joke with a duck. In a way, this first segment of War Horse is a kind of children's movie, something heartwarming but not one bit serious. But, then War Horse becomes a WWI film, and the film leaves its first few characters behind in favor of the British army, Tom Hiddleston, and Benedict Cumberbatch. The film, in fact, continues to leave behind its characters. I was delighted, for example, to see David Kross in this movie, but he is only in War Horse briefly and then he, too, is left behind by the film.

In short, I rather thought War Horse was a mess. It is insistently silly and at all times spends its time begging for a suspension of disbelief that it constantly pushes to its limits and beyond. Aside from that first segment, the actors are almost uniformly wonderful: Hiddleston, Cumberbatch and Kross, of course, but also Niels Arestrup (from Un Prophète), Jeremy Irvine, Toby Kebbell, and Matt Milne. And yet... well the film is so ridiculous that it was hard even to take these very good actors seriously.

As for The Adventures of Tintin, I really liked it. First off, the animation is absolutely superb. I have decided that I pretty much love mocap, and the movie is worth seeing for the animation alone. But more than that, Tintin knows that it is a silly movie. This is a movie that expects its storyline to be silly and just runs with it. It also expects us to think that its storyline is silly. I mean by this that I think Tintin works where War Horse doesn't because Tintin treats me as though I am reasonably intelligent whereas War Horse never does. Tintin is self aware, where War Horse has no idea how silly it is being while asking us to treat it seriously.

I do have another gripe to make about these movies – both of them this time – and that is there nonsensical treatment of violence. War Horse is a film about one of the most disastrous global conflicts of all time, and yet there is no human blood shed in this film. Cumberbatch and Hiddleston attack a bivouac of German soldiers using swords and are in turn machine-gunned down by the Germans. Yet there is no blood on camera. Now, I know the film is silly, and I have already argued precisely this, but this is actually part of the problem. From the violence in War Horse, one might think that war doesn't actually hurt people and machine-gun rounds cause nothing but vague stomach pains and fainting.

But I enjoyed The Adventures of Tintin thoroughly. I found it consistently surprising. I was ahead of it occasionally, but I loved the editing and art direction, and there was some gorgeous movie-making on display. The transitions between the past and the present, the real and the imaginary, are breathtakingly achieved. Mostly, it was just so fun. And the usual Spielberg manipulation at work seemed to fit the generic conventions of the animated children's film. I didn't resent being tugged at nearly as much as I do in his films for grownups. All in all, I had a great time.

10 comments:

  1. It's a goose, Aaron. A GOOSE.

    And I hate to defend it because it IS a bad film, but: The characters get left behind, because it's not about them. It's called War HORSE for a reason, after all. Who cares about the people when you have that amazing horse? Just as in the play, I wanted the people to shut the fuck up and for the focus to go back to Joey. And let's be real: that horse is the best actor in the film.

    That horse. That god damn horse. Ploughing, running, tangling in the barbed wire, nuzzling TopThorn. Uugghhh, horse stories. I weep every god damn time, Spielberg or no Spielberg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you are correct that the movie needs to leave behind its characters. I understand the narrative necessity of this, but I found it, nevertheless, frustrating. It is annoying to begin to develop relationships with characters only to leave them behind. And the film doesn't do enough to get us to develop a relationship with the horse; War Horse could, for example, have been told from the horse's perspective, but it isn't. Instead it focuses on that little girl and David Kross and every other damn person.

      That whole barbed wire part is great, but everything else...

      (Also: a goose is basically just a fat duck, isn't it? And how do you know it's a goose. I thought I was watching Babe III: Pig in the Trenches.)

      Delete
  2. Yes, it's frustrating. It's frustrating to have to follow two-dimensional characters when all I want to follow is the horse. You are correct in that it would be MUCH more interesting had it been told from the horse's perspective (which, I believe, is what the actual novel does?). Alas...

    goose   [goos] Show IPA noun, plural geese for 1, 2, 4, 8, 11; goos·es for 5–7; verb, goosed, goos·ing.
    noun
    1. any of numerous wild or domesticated, web-footed swimming birds of the family Anatidae, especially of the genera Anser and Branta, **most of which are larger and have a longer neck and legs than the ducks.**

    Also: the goose is in the play (and I'm assuming the book) with the same comic bits. So you can't give The Spielberg full credit/blame there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't the foggiest idea why you're defending him. The entire comic tone set by that goose (does one really refer to 5 of them as "gooses" but 8 of them as "geese"? because if so, that is absurd) sets up a certain level of expectation for the film, as though I should get ready for a children's movie à la National Velvet. And I love a good children's movie about horses as much as the next lover of equines, but don't tell me we're watching an earnest but fun-loving kids' movie about horses for the first 30 minutes and run me through No Man's Land.

      Why are you defending him? Hahahaha.

      Delete
  3. I'm not defending him! I'm just attached to the damn horse.

    I think we want to blame Spielberg for the book/script's inherent problems. And though he *certainly* doesn't do anything to fix those issues, he doesn't make them any more manipulative/messy than they already are (the play takes the same dramatic shift in tone). I actually think this is fairly restrained from what he could have done, directorally, to make it even more sentimental.

    I just defended him. Ahahahahaha. I don't know why I'm doing that. I must be delirious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ironic thing is that when you see Tintin you're not gonna like it and then I will be the one defending him.

      Delete
  4. Just so we're clear: I did *not* like War Horse. Even if I did defend him a little bit.

    And: I'm seeing Tintin tomorrow (er, today). Will let you know :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of loved Tintin, and a good deal (most) of it is because of Spielberg's direction.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree! I think I have realized that I like Spielberg's films a lot more when they really are children's films. But I enjoyed Tintin enormously.

      Delete
  5. I'm super-amazed that we agree on this ;) Yay, Tintin!

    ReplyDelete