Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The Revenant and The Martian

I recently saw The Revenant. I think it's probably my favorite movie this year, or rather from last year and this year. (Followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road.)

It might be interesting to compare and contrast The Revenant with The Martian, which I also saw. Apologies in advance for the rather slipshod nature of this review.

Both movies relied on a single lead actor to carry the film, viz. Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. Both were directed by accomplished filmmakers, viz. Alejandro Inarritu and Ridley Scott. Both were well filmed, indeed very well filmed, beautifully filmed. They're both absorbing, and draw you into their own world. Both are films which give justice to the term "cinematic experience." Both are essentially survival tales. Man vs. nature. Man in unforgiving environments. Both are arguably worthy Oscar contenders for best picture, best director, and best actor.

However, The Revenant is decidedly darker and grimmer than The Martian. In fact, The Martian is downright upbeat in comparison. Sure, we see Damon's fear of death, his loneliness, and so forth, but that's largely in the background or in-between the main scenes which move the narrative forward. At best it's peripheral rather than central to the story. The entire tone of The Martian is optimistic and hopeful. No real bad guys either except maybe for NASA exec Jeff Bridges' character. But he's only a villain in terms of having to make cold calculated decisions that CEOs tend to have to make to the consternation of their employees, not as an explicit enemy to Damon's protagonist. Mars as a hostile habitat for humanity would be the main antagonist, but that's a given in such a story. There's no dramatic tension between characters, most of the movie is predictable, and the only real question the audience is left with is how Matt Damon is going to make it back home. As long as Ridley Scott delivers in this respect, it's a success, I guess. And Scott does deliver for the most part, although I felt the ending was over the top.

More importantly, I'd say The Martian is secular at its core. There's no explicit or perhaps even implicit mention of God, or at least none I can recall. Yet I find this extremely unrealistic given a man is literally stranded on Mars. Maybe I missed it, but wouldn't someone in such dire straits at least consider reaching out to God? Instead, the main message which comes through the film is, basically, as Matt Damon tells himself: "I'm going to have to science the sh** out of this." Sheer survival boils down to human reason and ingenuity, along with a bit of luck or chance. Time and time again Matt Damon beats the astronomical odds stacked against him, and lives. Yet, for all the talk of the movie's scientific and technical accuracy, the mathematical probability that Damon would survive seems quite strained, to put it mildly. How many times and in how many ways does someone have to get lucky for it not to be chance but providence?

By contrast, The Revenant shows man at his worst. It's man vs. nature, but it's also man vs. man, and in the latter man behaves like a beast. It's a brutal film - physically and morally speaking. No one comes out unscathed on either count. (Domhnall Gleeson's character fares better than most though.) Indeed, the movie well reflects the fact that we live in a fallen world, and that we ourselves are fallen creatures.

I suppose The Revenant is a film which liberal critics want to be about the noble savage or to have an environmentally friendly message. It's neither. Instead, the film is bloody and violent. It reflects a view of man and nature doubtless odious to liberal critics, pampered pajama boys, and the like. Watching it would be like throwing a freezing cold bucket of ice water into their face to wake them up to reality. A punch in the gut.

Civilization is not a utopian project for scholar-kings to tinker around with to their satisfaction. At best civilization is an oasis in the middle of the frozen wasteland that is the world. A privileged planet in a dead universe. Or as The Revenant depicts it: a sparsely populated ramshackle town with tall wooden walls on the edge of the frontier while howling winds, blistering blizzards, fierce wild animals, and death itself are always near at hand. It's a harsh truth for some people to swallow, for people who think the world is a place where we can overcome our animal natures by better understanding one another, who think weapons like guns should have no place in our sophisticated society since guns are reminiscent of a violent and primitive past, who think we all can sit down and have a friendly chat to iron out differences in worldview, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, it's reality. As Richard Feynman once said in an entirely different context but which seems apropos here: "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Perhaps all this in turn partly reflects Alejandro Inarritu's Catholicism, as well as the fact that Inarritu has had a less than indulgent life, at least in comparison to many other Hollywood celebs (e.g. having to cross the Atlantic on a cargo ship as a teenager, one of his children dying in infancy), whereas I suspect The Martian largely reflects Ridley Scott's secularism, which we likewise see in other Ridley Scott productions like Prometheus. For example, in Prometheus advanced aliens make man in their image, as humans have made androids. It's possible the self-sacrifice and death of the alien "Engineers" lead to the evolution of humans. We have the theme of patricide, which shades into killing one's creator. Much more could be said.

Anyway, I'm veering off track now. But for all the reasons Godawa gives as well as others (e.g. gorgeous cinematography) The Revenant is probably my favorite of the year. Not perfect by any means, but provocative on several levels. An immersive experience in the fullest sense of the word. Not easily forgotten, even haunting.

By the way, I should add I had hoped I'd like The Martian a lot more than I did, and certainly better than The Revenant. That's because I tend to like Matt Damon better than Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor. I love scifi themed movies in general, and Ridley Scott's scifi movies in particular (e.g. Blade Runner). And even when significantly flawed Scott's movies are at least thought-provoking (e.g. Prometheus). The Martian as a novel is from a geek who gone done good, which likewise gave me high hopes. The Martian is still an enjoyable movie. Maybe my expectations were too high.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.

Monday, January 9, 2012

30 favorite novels and movies

WORLD Magazine asks 30 evangelicals what their five favorite novels and five favorite movies of the past 20 years are - 1986-2006, give or take.

I laughed at William Dembski's response.

Friday, January 6, 2012

My favorite Tintin comic books



Here are my rankings of the Tintin books. This is nothing more than a "favorite Tintin books" list.

Just a few notes about my list:
  1. Each Tintin book is listed under a one to five star category with five stars being the best. And no in-between stars like 3.5 stars or 4.25 stars either. Just straight one, two, three, four, or five stars. No zero stars.

  2. And under each of the categories I listed the Tintin book in order of publication date. Not in order of preference. For example, all the Tintin books under three stars are roughly equivalent to one another. I don't really have a strong preference within each category, although I could list ones I personally liked for this or that reason more than others. But in the end I liked all the stories under each category of stars more or less the same, even if for different reasons.

  3. Obviously a favorites list is bound to be subjective to a large degree. One can't always objectively define why one person favors this particular story over another story any more than one can always objectively define why blue, not red, is a person's favorite color.

    It's mainly about how much I liked the story, which in turn is dependent upon a number of personal factors like how I grew up, my sense of humor, what kind of people, places, events, or other things in a story I find "fun" or "enjoyable" (which in turn again invite more subjective elements and judgments).

    True, there is a sense of objectivity in, say, what makes for a well-crafted story. But just because a story is technically well-crafted doesn't necessarily mean it's enjoyable for everyone. For example, I can respect how technically sophisticated and well-crafted a movie like Citizen Kane is, but it doesn't mean I'd like it nearly as much as something silly but fun like The Princess Bride or Star Wars or Batman. However sometimes there is the happy confluence of the objective as well as subjective such as in the movie Dark City.

    Similarly one needs to be well-versed in a particular subject in order to know how to break its rules and transcend the subject. For example, T.S. Eliot was a masterful poet. A very modern poet too. And an autobiographical poet in the sense that his art, if not imitates, mirrors his life, moving from the hopeless moral nihilism we read in The Waste Land to the God-soaked The Four Quartets when he became an Anglican churchman. Yet Eliot knew how past poets penned their poems, he knew about the different elements which have historically made for fine poetry (e.g. prosody, rhyming schemes, forms), he was learned in poetic history from the epic Homeric poems to the most recent avant-garde poems written in his day, etc., and so he knew how to break with tradition in order to create novel poetry.

    In the same way I can appreciate how learned Hergé was in European comics (very different from our American tradition of comics), how to draw comics, and so forth, and therefore I can appreciate some of his experimental attempts to do something new within the comic medium. But it doesn't mean I necessarily enjoy everything he's done. Some of it is amazing (e.g. ligne claire), while others not so much.

    Again my "favorite Tintin stories" list depends in large part on many subjective and personal elements. What's more, many of these elements are intangible. Many of these elements are, in fact, inexpressible and tacit. One can't always explain in a logical, rigorous, analytical way why one likes something and not something else. Even an astute and intelligent as well as knowledgeable person with a high verbal facility can't always communicate why he or she likes something. Let alone someone like me who is far, far less astute, intelligent, knowledgeable, fluent, and so forth. Sometimes we just like what we like and that's all we can say.

  4. I provide a very brief plot summary without spoilers after each title too. I'll probably come back to this bit whenever I can find more time. I'd like to share detailed thoughts on each story if I can.

  5. If you want more info about Tintin and his creator Hergé, check out this article from Fred Sanders and this interview with Michael Farr. Other articles which shed light on Tintin and Hergé are from The Economist as well as The Wall Street Journal.

  6. If you want other favorite Tintin lists, I noticed Thomas Wikman and Colin Ricketts have written their own.
Five Stars (★★★★★)
  • The Blue Lotus (1936). Tintin in 1930s China. Quite political, quite progressive for the period of time. Hergé was helped with the facts of the story as well as other matters such as drawing the Chinese characters by his real life Chinese friend whom Hergé wanted to give co-author credit but his friend turned it down. An early story which quite honestly I didn't think I'd enjoy since I don't personally find this period of Chinese history particularly interesting, but having read it I think it's the best Tintin story.
  • Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun (1948/1949). Tintin in South America among a sort of neo-Incan secret society. By turns amusing, thrilling, and spooky. Loads of fun. Right up there with Blue Lotus, but more of a fun and adventurous story than a political one like Blue Lotus.
Four Stars (★★★★)
  • Destination Moon/Explorers on the Moon (1953/1954). Tintin goes to the moon. The first story (Destination Moon) is very talky and not my cup of tea. Lots of dialogue. But the second story (Explorers on the Moon) really picks up. Lots of adventure. Some of Hergé's most beautiful art too, at least in my view. By the way, prior to reading this story, I thought it would be my favorite of all the Tintin stories because I love space and astronomy and the like. It's still up there, but not as high as I expected it to be.
  • Calculus Affair (1956). Tintin by way of an Alfred Hitchcock or classic spy or espionage thriller.
  • Tintin in Tibet (1960). Tintin searches for his best friend, Chang. No real enemies to combat. A simple, moving story.
  • Flight 714 (1968). Tintin meets Lost (TV) meets early Spielberg. Some people love this story, others hate it. I'm of course in the former camp. But I happen to like Lost in its first season and some of Spielberg's early work so that probably explains a lot of the reason why.
Three Stars (★★★)
  • The Broken Ear (1937). Tintin in Central America, trying to keep one banana republic in tact.
  • The Black Island (1938). Tintin in Scotland and facing a dangerous beast.
  • King Ottokar's Sceptre (1939). Tintin saves a monarch from the dictator Musstler by finding his sceptre.
  • The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941). Tintin tries to foil opium smugglers.
  • The Shooting Star (1942). Tintin on the high seas and in a race to get to a fallen star aka meteorite. The meteorite is a silly idea but I liked the race by boat to the Arctic.
  • Secret of the Unicorn/Red Rackham's Treasure (1943/1944). Tintin channeling Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne. Also the basis of the new Spielberg-Jackson Tintin movie (along with The Crab with the Golden Claws where we first meet Captain Haddock). These 1941-1944 Tintin stories are strictly Tintin adventures rather than dealing with politics given that Nazi Germany had taken over Belgium at this point and it was therefore dangerous for Hergé to write too much about politics as he did, for example, in The Blue Lotus.
  • Land of Black Gold (1950). Tintin in the Mideast over oil. Interesting how the Mideast, oil, Islam, and the like were viewed back then.
  • Red Sea Sharks (1958). Tintin spoils slave traders.
  • Castafiore Emerald (1963). Tintin channels P.G. Wodehouse. The plot is pretty thin, nothing much happens. The story takes place entirely on the grounds of Marlinspike, which is Captain Haddock's inherited mansion residence. The story contains a lot of attempted comedy and red herrings. A lot of people love this story. I thought it was a good experiment, but not Hergé's best work.
Two Stars (★★)
  • Cigars of the Pharaoh (1934). Tintin in Egypt. But reads more like a series of set-pieces where Tintin tries to escape from one small adventure to another. Some narrow escapes were more fun than others. There is an overall story but I didn't find it very interesting. The best part of this story is that it leads into The Blue Lotus.
One Star (★)
  • Tintin and the Picaros (1976). Tintin back in South America with the guerrillas as in The Broken Ear. But Hergé has lost his mojo. The magic is gone. Tintin isn't himself. He's not even wearing his trademark pants or trousers!
Unread
  • Tintin in the Land of the Soviets (1930)
  • Tintin in the Congo (1931)
  • Tintin in America (1932)
  • Tintin and Alph-Art (unfinished)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows



Just saw the latest Sherlock Holmes flick. Quite a fun movie!

Not canonical. Nor cerebral. But still clever and witty in its own way. And lots and lots of action. I enjoy Guy Ritchie's style though. Those who don't probably wouldn't appreciate the movie.

I loved how Ritchie did Reichenbach Falls. I won't say more.

(I haven't seen season 2 of the Beeb's Sherlock, but I definitely plan to do so at some point in the near future. Loved season 1.)
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The Revenant and The Martian

I recently saw The Revenant. I think it's probably my favorite movie this year, or rather from last year and this year. (Followed closely by Mad Max: Fury Road.)

It might be interesting to compare and contrast The Revenant with The Martian, which I also saw. Apologies in advance for the rather slipshod nature of this review.

Both movies relied on a single lead actor to carry the film, viz. Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. Both were directed by accomplished filmmakers, viz. Alejandro Inarritu and Ridley Scott. Both were well filmed, indeed very well filmed, beautifully filmed. They're both absorbing, and draw you into their own world. Both are films which give justice to the term "cinematic experience." Both are essentially survival tales. Man vs. nature. Man in unforgiving environments. Both are arguably worthy Oscar contenders for best picture, best director, and best actor.

However, The Revenant is decidedly darker and grimmer than The Martian. In fact, The Martian is downright upbeat in comparison. Sure, we see Damon's fear of death, his loneliness, and so forth, but that's largely in the background or in-between the main scenes which move the narrative forward. At best it's peripheral rather than central to the story. The entire tone of The Martian is optimistic and hopeful. No real bad guys either except maybe for NASA exec Jeff Bridges' character. But he's only a villain in terms of having to make cold calculated decisions that CEOs tend to have to make to the consternation of their employees, not as an explicit enemy to Damon's protagonist. Mars as a hostile habitat for humanity would be the main antagonist, but that's a given in such a story. There's no dramatic tension between characters, most of the movie is predictable, and the only real question the audience is left with is how Matt Damon is going to make it back home. As long as Ridley Scott delivers in this respect, it's a success, I guess. And Scott does deliver for the most part, although I felt the ending was over the top.

More importantly, I'd say The Martian is secular at its core. There's no explicit or perhaps even implicit mention of God, or at least none I can recall. Yet I find this extremely unrealistic given a man is literally stranded on Mars. Maybe I missed it, but wouldn't someone in such dire straits at least consider reaching out to God? Instead, the main message which comes through the film is, basically, as Matt Damon tells himself: "I'm going to have to science the sh** out of this." Sheer survival boils down to human reason and ingenuity, along with a bit of luck or chance. Time and time again Matt Damon beats the astronomical odds stacked against him, and lives. Yet, for all the talk of the movie's scientific and technical accuracy, the mathematical probability that Damon would survive seems quite strained, to put it mildly. How many times and in how many ways does someone have to get lucky for it not to be chance but providence?

By contrast, The Revenant shows man at his worst. It's man vs. nature, but it's also man vs. man, and in the latter man behaves like a beast. It's a brutal film - physically and morally speaking. No one comes out unscathed on either count. (Domhnall Gleeson's character fares better than most though.) Indeed, the movie well reflects the fact that we live in a fallen world, and that we ourselves are fallen creatures.

I suppose The Revenant is a film which liberal critics want to be about the noble savage or to have an environmentally friendly message. It's neither. Instead, the film is bloody and violent. It reflects a view of man and nature doubtless odious to liberal critics, pampered pajama boys, and the like. Watching it would be like throwing a freezing cold bucket of ice water into their face to wake them up to reality. A punch in the gut.

Civilization is not a utopian project for scholar-kings to tinker around with to their satisfaction. At best civilization is an oasis in the middle of the frozen wasteland that is the world. A privileged planet in a dead universe. Or as The Revenant depicts it: a sparsely populated ramshackle town with tall wooden walls on the edge of the frontier while howling winds, blistering blizzards, fierce wild animals, and death itself are always near at hand. It's a harsh truth for some people to swallow, for people who think the world is a place where we can overcome our animal natures by better understanding one another, who think weapons like guns should have no place in our sophisticated society since guns are reminiscent of a violent and primitive past, who think we all can sit down and have a friendly chat to iron out differences in worldview, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, it's reality. As Richard Feynman once said in an entirely different context but which seems apropos here: "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Perhaps all this in turn partly reflects Alejandro Inarritu's Catholicism, as well as the fact that Inarritu has had a less than indulgent life, at least in comparison to many other Hollywood celebs (e.g. having to cross the Atlantic on a cargo ship as a teenager, one of his children dying in infancy), whereas I suspect The Martian largely reflects Ridley Scott's secularism, which we likewise see in other Ridley Scott productions like Prometheus. For example, in Prometheus advanced aliens make man in their image, as humans have made androids. It's possible the self-sacrifice and death of the alien "Engineers" lead to the evolution of humans. We have the theme of patricide, which shades into killing one's creator. Much more could be said.

Anyway, I'm veering off track now. But for all the reasons Godawa gives as well as others (e.g. gorgeous cinematography) The Revenant is probably my favorite of the year. Not perfect by any means, but provocative on several levels. An immersive experience in the fullest sense of the word. Not easily forgotten, even haunting.

By the way, I should add I had hoped I'd like The Martian a lot more than I did, and certainly better than The Revenant. That's because I tend to like Matt Damon better than Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor. I love scifi themed movies in general, and Ridley Scott's scifi movies in particular (e.g. Blade Runner). And even when significantly flawed Scott's movies are at least thought-provoking (e.g. Prometheus). The Martian as a novel is from a geek who gone done good, which likewise gave me high hopes. The Martian is still an enjoyable movie. Maybe my expectations were too high.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Monday, January 30, 2012

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Monday, January 9, 2012

30 favorite novels and movies

WORLD Magazine asks 30 evangelicals what their five favorite novels and five favorite movies of the past 20 years are - 1986-2006, give or take.

I laughed at William Dembski's response.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Friday, January 6, 2012

My favorite Tintin comic books



Here are my rankings of the Tintin books. This is nothing more than a "favorite Tintin books" list.

Just a few notes about my list:
  1. Each Tintin book is listed under a one to five star category with five stars being the best. And no in-between stars like 3.5 stars or 4.25 stars either. Just straight one, two, three, four, or five stars. No zero stars.

  2. And under each of the categories I listed the Tintin book in order of publication date. Not in order of preference. For example, all the Tintin books under three stars are roughly equivalent to one another. I don't really have a strong preference within each category, although I could list ones I personally liked for this or that reason more than others. But in the end I liked all the stories under each category of stars more or less the same, even if for different reasons.

  3. Obviously a favorites list is bound to be subjective to a large degree. One can't always objectively define why one person favors this particular story over another story any more than one can always objectively define why blue, not red, is a person's favorite color.

    It's mainly about how much I liked the story, which in turn is dependent upon a number of personal factors like how I grew up, my sense of humor, what kind of people, places, events, or other things in a story I find "fun" or "enjoyable" (which in turn again invite more subjective elements and judgments).

    True, there is a sense of objectivity in, say, what makes for a well-crafted story. But just because a story is technically well-crafted doesn't necessarily mean it's enjoyable for everyone. For example, I can respect how technically sophisticated and well-crafted a movie like Citizen Kane is, but it doesn't mean I'd like it nearly as much as something silly but fun like The Princess Bride or Star Wars or Batman. However sometimes there is the happy confluence of the objective as well as subjective such as in the movie Dark City.

    Similarly one needs to be well-versed in a particular subject in order to know how to break its rules and transcend the subject. For example, T.S. Eliot was a masterful poet. A very modern poet too. And an autobiographical poet in the sense that his art, if not imitates, mirrors his life, moving from the hopeless moral nihilism we read in The Waste Land to the God-soaked The Four Quartets when he became an Anglican churchman. Yet Eliot knew how past poets penned their poems, he knew about the different elements which have historically made for fine poetry (e.g. prosody, rhyming schemes, forms), he was learned in poetic history from the epic Homeric poems to the most recent avant-garde poems written in his day, etc., and so he knew how to break with tradition in order to create novel poetry.

    In the same way I can appreciate how learned Hergé was in European comics (very different from our American tradition of comics), how to draw comics, and so forth, and therefore I can appreciate some of his experimental attempts to do something new within the comic medium. But it doesn't mean I necessarily enjoy everything he's done. Some of it is amazing (e.g. ligne claire), while others not so much.

    Again my "favorite Tintin stories" list depends in large part on many subjective and personal elements. What's more, many of these elements are intangible. Many of these elements are, in fact, inexpressible and tacit. One can't always explain in a logical, rigorous, analytical way why one likes something and not something else. Even an astute and intelligent as well as knowledgeable person with a high verbal facility can't always communicate why he or she likes something. Let alone someone like me who is far, far less astute, intelligent, knowledgeable, fluent, and so forth. Sometimes we just like what we like and that's all we can say.

  4. I provide a very brief plot summary without spoilers after each title too. I'll probably come back to this bit whenever I can find more time. I'd like to share detailed thoughts on each story if I can.

  5. If you want more info about Tintin and his creator Hergé, check out this article from Fred Sanders and this interview with Michael Farr. Other articles which shed light on Tintin and Hergé are from The Economist as well as The Wall Street Journal.

  6. If you want other favorite Tintin lists, I noticed Thomas Wikman and Colin Ricketts have written their own.
Five Stars (★★★★★)
  • The Blue Lotus (1936). Tintin in 1930s China. Quite political, quite progressive for the period of time. Hergé was helped with the facts of the story as well as other matters such as drawing the Chinese characters by his real life Chinese friend whom Hergé wanted to give co-author credit but his friend turned it down. An early story which quite honestly I didn't think I'd enjoy since I don't personally find this period of Chinese history particularly interesting, but having read it I think it's the best Tintin story.
  • Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun (1948/1949). Tintin in South America among a sort of neo-Incan secret society. By turns amusing, thrilling, and spooky. Loads of fun. Right up there with Blue Lotus, but more of a fun and adventurous story than a political one like Blue Lotus.
Four Stars (★★★★)
  • Destination Moon/Explorers on the Moon (1953/1954). Tintin goes to the moon. The first story (Destination Moon) is very talky and not my cup of tea. Lots of dialogue. But the second story (Explorers on the Moon) really picks up. Lots of adventure. Some of Hergé's most beautiful art too, at least in my view. By the way, prior to reading this story, I thought it would be my favorite of all the Tintin stories because I love space and astronomy and the like. It's still up there, but not as high as I expected it to be.
  • Calculus Affair (1956). Tintin by way of an Alfred Hitchcock or classic spy or espionage thriller.
  • Tintin in Tibet (1960). Tintin searches for his best friend, Chang. No real enemies to combat. A simple, moving story.
  • Flight 714 (1968). Tintin meets Lost (TV) meets early Spielberg. Some people love this story, others hate it. I'm of course in the former camp. But I happen to like Lost in its first season and some of Spielberg's early work so that probably explains a lot of the reason why.
Three Stars (★★★)
  • The Broken Ear (1937). Tintin in Central America, trying to keep one banana republic in tact.
  • The Black Island (1938). Tintin in Scotland and facing a dangerous beast.
  • King Ottokar's Sceptre (1939). Tintin saves a monarch from the dictator Musstler by finding his sceptre.
  • The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941). Tintin tries to foil opium smugglers.
  • The Shooting Star (1942). Tintin on the high seas and in a race to get to a fallen star aka meteorite. The meteorite is a silly idea but I liked the race by boat to the Arctic.
  • Secret of the Unicorn/Red Rackham's Treasure (1943/1944). Tintin channeling Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne. Also the basis of the new Spielberg-Jackson Tintin movie (along with The Crab with the Golden Claws where we first meet Captain Haddock). These 1941-1944 Tintin stories are strictly Tintin adventures rather than dealing with politics given that Nazi Germany had taken over Belgium at this point and it was therefore dangerous for Hergé to write too much about politics as he did, for example, in The Blue Lotus.
  • Land of Black Gold (1950). Tintin in the Mideast over oil. Interesting how the Mideast, oil, Islam, and the like were viewed back then.
  • Red Sea Sharks (1958). Tintin spoils slave traders.
  • Castafiore Emerald (1963). Tintin channels P.G. Wodehouse. The plot is pretty thin, nothing much happens. The story takes place entirely on the grounds of Marlinspike, which is Captain Haddock's inherited mansion residence. The story contains a lot of attempted comedy and red herrings. A lot of people love this story. I thought it was a good experiment, but not Hergé's best work.
Two Stars (★★)
  • Cigars of the Pharaoh (1934). Tintin in Egypt. But reads more like a series of set-pieces where Tintin tries to escape from one small adventure to another. Some narrow escapes were more fun than others. There is an overall story but I didn't find it very interesting. The best part of this story is that it leads into The Blue Lotus.
One Star (★)
  • Tintin and the Picaros (1976). Tintin back in South America with the guerrillas as in The Broken Ear. But Hergé has lost his mojo. The magic is gone. Tintin isn't himself. He's not even wearing his trademark pants or trousers!
Unread
  • Tintin in the Land of the Soviets (1930)
  • Tintin in the Congo (1931)
  • Tintin in America (1932)
  • Tintin and Alph-Art (unfinished)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows



Just saw the latest Sherlock Holmes flick. Quite a fun movie!

Not canonical. Nor cerebral. But still clever and witty in its own way. And lots and lots of action. I enjoy Guy Ritchie's style though. Those who don't probably wouldn't appreciate the movie.

I loved how Ritchie did Reichenbach Falls. I won't say more.

(I haven't seen season 2 of the Beeb's Sherlock, but I definitely plan to do so at some point in the near future. Loved season 1.)

Tuesday, December 27, 2011