Tintin Film Review

The Adventures of Tintin (2011; dir by Steven Spielberg; prod by Spielberg and Peter Jackson; starring Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, and Daniel Craig)

Ok, so I finally got around to seeing to this movie. On paper, it looked like a hit. Adapted from one of Europe's most beloved comics (maybe we'll see an Asterix and Obelix movie soon), it also boasted two of the greatest directors of our generation in Spielberg and Jackson. But what really struck me about this film was the quality of writers on the project like Steven Moffatt, who is the show runner on two of my favorite current British TV shows: Doctor Who and Sherlock and Edgar Wright, who has had experience in comic book films like the underrated Scott Pilgrim against the World. But I also had my doubts. From the trailer, I knew that Tintin would be using a “hyperreal” animation style pioneered by Robert Zemeckis in films like Polar Express and Beowulf. I thought that maybe there was a chance this animation style would be disgusting like Mars Needs Moms, but I was definitely wrong.

Visually, Tintin is a treat. The character models are vividly detailed. I could see all of Tintin's ginger hairs, and Snowy moved and acted like a real dog, not a cartoon. The same level of detail is also I found in the lush locales that Tintin goes to including my favorite location: the North African palace. I liked this location the most because of the intricate costumes and wall hangings along with the beautiful architecture of the palace building and models of boats in it. John Williams contributes a score up to par with his previous work that gives the film an even more adventurous tone.

Tintin also boasts an excellent voice cast made up of a prominent British actors. Jamie Bell played a believable teenager, but the supporting cast blew me away. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (co-stars of comedies Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead) had hilarious cameos as bumbling Interpol agents in roles that could have been throwaway plot devices. Andy Serkis again reveals his acting range as the drunk but noble Captain Haddock and makes even the lamest comebacks (“Ten thousand thundering typhoons “) memorable and plays the character's ancestor in flashbacks.

As far as plot, Tintin doesn't break any new ground, but it is still a fun globe (and time) trotting adventure. The Macguffin is a unicorn, and there is the occasional plot hole like a character remembering what his ancestor did after a day traveling in the desert. However, unlike recent “classic” style adventure films like National Treasure: Book of Secrets and Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Tintin intermixes humor with the sometimes ridiculous set pieces to keep the film fun and moving quickly. There is a good mix of dry humor and slapstick.

Finally, Tintin is a rollicking neo-Imperialist adventure film in the tradition of Raiders of the Lost Ark and more recently Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (especially the flashback sequences). It also shows that the hyperreal animation style can be used to make movies that would be too costly in live action. I give it 4/5 stars.

Justice and Revenge: A Vicious Cycle

     Justice and revenge are two of the strongest ideals that any human being could aspire to. This is why works of literature and film with these ideas in them can be compelling and speak to the human psyche. For example, in the Greek tragedy Eumenides, the Furies practice chaotic justice that demands blood for blood. This is balanced by Athena's democratic justice, which is also in the punishments in Dante's Inferno. However, in the film V for Vendetta, chaotic justice is espoused by the protagonist.

The main theme of Eumenides, the third play in Aeschylus' Oresteia trilogy, is justice. The premise of the play is that Orestes has killed his mother (who killed his father Agamemnon) and flees from the Furies to Athens where Athena's court will decide his fate. But the Furies and Athena have vastly different ideas of justice. The Furies are ancient Earth spirits, who believe in the law of equal retaliation (lex taliones) requiring death in exchange for death. This form of justice was practiced by the pre-classical Greeks and allowed each individual to take the law into his own hands and kill a murderer without a fair trial. In contrast, Athena is a younger Olympian deity who believes in the system of democratic justice, which is when a group of people administer justice as a community, not as individuals. The conflict between the two forms of justice is shown during the trial where Apollo, god of rationality, defends Orestes, and the Furies defend themselves with their principle of blood for blood. The new form justice triumphs when Athena herself breaks the tie vote of the court and acquits Orestes. Because individual revenge has no place in this new democratic society, the Furies become the Eumenides (Kindly Ones) and act as guardians of Athens' future prosperity as the principles of orderly, communal justice triumph over the older form.

The idea of orderly justice continued long after the fall of the Greek city-states through the Roman Republic and Empire and into the Middle Ages. One such work that illustrates this principle of justice is Dante's Inferno. In the poem, Dante is a struggling pilgrim who travels through the nine circles of Hell in order to get on the road to salvation. He sees souls punished in a variety of ways (E.g. Gluttons eat each other, the lustful are blown away) but with the same underlying principle: symbolic retribution. Symbolic retribution means that sinners receive a punishment that corresponds to their sin. For example, because the lustful were “blown away” and consumed by their desires in life; they are blown around by the wind in Hell. This may seem like the Furies' “blood for blood” justice, but there are two big differences: Hell is orderly and has a form of due process. Dante's Hell is organized into nine circles that descend in order from lesser greater sin beginning with the virtuous pagans in Limbo and concluding with the betrayers in Cocytus (ninth circle). Therefore, unlike the Furies' endless revenge killings, the punishments in Hell are uniform, infallible, and only apply to the actual guilty party. Finally, Hell was created by God as a prison for Satan and the fallen angels and even has a sub-judge Minos “who stands, hideous and growling/Examining the sins of each newcomer:/With coiling tail he judges and dispatches” (Dante V.3-5). In obedience to God's authority, Minos uses his tail to direct sinners to the circle of Hell that corresponds to their sin in an orderly manner. But this trend of orderly justice does not last long in the arts.

In the latter half of the 21^st century, films containing forms of individual revenge espoused by the Furies in Eumenides became popular. One such film was 2005's V for Vendetta based on the legendary graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. Beneath its lofty premise of premise of one man (V) leading a one man revolution versus the future tyrannical government of Britain, there is a basic revenge story at its core. As a youth, V had been experimented on by the government which gave him “super abilities” but destroyed his appearance and life. Therefore, he wants to take revenge on the people (government) that made him this way and eventually sacrifices his life to blow up the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben in order to motivate the people to overthrow the government. Like the Furies, who demanded a life for every life taken, V kills many leaders and foot soldiers and eventually takes his own life to satiate his need for vengeance. Instead of attempting to set up any kind of new government, V decides to take manners in his own hands by killing many government officials including Peter Creedy, the head of the Finger (secret police) and Lewis Prothero, the “Voice of London” who spreads pro-government propaganda to the people. V displays his relish for anarchy and equal retaliation when he tells his lover Evey that “there is no court in this country for men like Prothero” (V for Vendetta).

It is very interesting to find the chaotic, revenge based justice of the Furies in antiquity in the dangerous, anarchic actions of V. Why do you think that revenge stories remain popular in the past 20 years? (The Crow, Kill Bill, Taken, even Magneto in X-Men: First Class) Do you watch revenge films to live vicariously and escape our “boring” justice system, or do you think that these violent avengers might have a point? Does the idea of blood for blood vengeance attract you? Why or why not?

Rise

Stalking his prey in the shady jungle

This hunter is skilled and cunning.

As he sits alone in a cloak of shadow,

His mind burns with rage and sadness.

But he continues to fight daily,

Evil cannot hide from his dark wrath.

Once dead and broken,

Now reborn and wearing a token

Of justice grim and powerful

He rises

New Poem: Room 105

I got the inspiration for this poem by watching  Angel Season 3 Episode 6 "Billy". The first part of the poem is from Fred's perspective, the second is from Wesley's.

Room 105

Raised voices, shrieking sounds

A faint figure hits the ground.

Bloodied axe glistens grim.

She flees from the ever-present him.

Without conscience, without remorse

Racing through the hotel concourse;

Hiding, scampering, whimpering,

Poor Winifred hides.

My soul is an abode

Where hellspawn breeds.

Heart beats, but my pulse slows

As I feel my new form grow.

Alas, my icy heart shatters:

Billy ripped it to tatters.

But lo! a primal urge lingers.

As terror streaks down my fingers

Five Positions on the Integration of Theology and Science (Pgs. 7-11)

At medieval universities, theology was often called "queen of the sciences." However, in recent times, these two disciplines have rubbed shoulders together often, usually in a negative way.

In their introduction to Three Views on Creation and Evolution, J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds state that Christians should be interested in science because God created us with a mind that can be used to explore the world around it and see how and why it works. However, they have different views of how to fit science into a Christian life.

Some Christians use science to prove the theological ideas that the universe was designed and didn't evolve from chance or a process of natural selection. Others think that science and Christian theology can't mix because of the "evolution problem". A third school states that science has superseded Christianity because it relies on empirical faith whereas Christianity relies on blind faith. For example, the late American philosopher Wilfred Sellars stated, "In the dimension of describing and explaining the world, science is the measure of all things, of what is that it is, and of what is not that is not" (Science, Perception, and Reality 173). In summary, science is the only thing that can explain the existence and origin of the universe. It may even explain the meaning of life...

However, Christians must be prepared to defend their beliefs against modern science and see how their beliefs fit in with the beliefs of the zeitgeist. They can't be afraid to engage in dialogue with modern intellectuals. The purpose of Three Views is to show the beliefs of the three different schools of origins theories: Young Earth (YE), Old Earth (OE), and Theistic Evolution (TE). But before diving into this, Moreland and Reynolds briefly discuss five models for integrating theology and other academic disciplines, especially science.

The first view is Two Realms. This view states that theology is completely separate from every other discipline. For example, infant baptism doesn't matter in quantum physics.

The second is Complementarity View. Science and theology can work together, but they answer different questions. For example, science can deal with the particular (how an eye works?) whereas theology deals with the universal (who or what created an eye?). If one takes this view to its logical conclusion, it can mean that theology and science are both useful, but they must never interact. Some theistic evolutionists use this view to integrate evolution and creation

The third view is Direct Interaction. Science and theology can work together and can either support or go against the other. The theory of evolution can hurt a literal reading of Genesis 1, but the Big Bang theory can also support the Biblical view that the universe had a clear first cause. Many Old Earth and Young Earth creationists hold to this view.

The fourth is the Presuppositional View. Theology can support the presuppositions of science and vice versa. For example, some presuppositions of science (an ordered world with laws) support Christian theology, and some presuppositions of Christian theology (an imperfect world) support presuppositions of science (thermodynamic property of entropy).

The final view is Practical Application.  Theology can help an understanding of other subjects and apply principles of that subject. For example, in psychology, the principle of not provoking children to anger (Eph. 6:4) can help aid psychological principles of family structures and the root causes of anger.

Which view do you hold to or it is a mixture of a few? Next post: It gets controversial... creation vs. evolution!

"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the not-worth-knowing."- Henry L. Mencken

Introduction to New Book Blog: Three Views on Creation and Evolution

Sorry people, but I haven't done much blogging except for the mad man's rant a couple weeks ago. At my college, there has been much debate over which theory of creation is correct and what impact does that have on one's theology as a whole. My Old Testament professor, along with a majority of students at my college, hold to the young Earth view that the world was created in six literal days. I am in a minority and hold to the view that the world was created in six "epochs" (day age theory) because the word yom doesn't always mean literal day in Genesis 1-2, no young Earth creationists have been able to answer how starlight can scientifically travel to the Earth in one 24 hour period, and that there were no "markers" for days and seasons until day four. My girlfriend Kendall once held to the theistic evolution model, but she has since switched over to the young Earth camp, and there are no theistic evolutionists (that I know of) at my college.

The purpose of this blog will be my personal journey through Three Views on Creation and Evolution written by Paul Nelson (Young Earth), John Mark Reynolds (YE), Robert C. Newman (Old Earth/OE), and Howard J. Van Till (Theistic Evolution/TE) with responses from other theologians. I will flesh out the points and arguments made by each theologian and add a short response at the end.

Enjoy! Soli Deo Gloria! Comment down below with your view of the origin of the universe.

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe- the starry heavens above and the moral law within."- Immanuel Kant

Random thoughts

I couldn't get any bleeding rest on the last day of Outreach Week, so here's a blog. Sorry, for the stream of consciousness style. So, life's all about identity right? We wear tons of different caps. I'm a Christian first and foremost, saved by grace through faith. Going through trials, like losing my Grandpa, my dad's affairs, and switching schools, have really solidified this faith.

Another identity I wear is geek or nerd or otaku. OK, scratch that last one. I'm not that much into anime. (Do have a couple shows like Blood+ and Gun X on my Netflix Instant Queue though and enjoyed the Wolverine Anime and the random, yet hilarious comedic stylings of Bobboobo or however you spell his name). For example, I would rather have a 12 hour LOTR marathon in my dorm room with a small, select group of people than go out to the beach with a BUNCH of people, like two whole dorms combined. Hobbits and pizza> sand, surf, loud Jesus pop . This is why a RiffTrax Thor/ Super Smash Bros. party appeals to me more than an all night kegger. Maybe, the kegger would be cool if Felicia Day, Joss Whedon, Brian Michael Bendis, and an undead  Steve Jobs were there...

Quick follow up: You know you're a geek if you say something completely random on the spot, and people take it as canon. Take Harry Potter for example. A dude at a post-Outreach Week dinner plucked out three of my dainty ginger hairs. After doing that, I said, "If you mix those hairs with eye of newt and toad broth, you can become invisible." The norms bought it hook line and sinker even though I basically ad-libbed my quip off Macbeth. (Good old Will Shakes)

But how do I mix my faith, geekdom, love for more highbrow culture (mythology, history, literature, dabblings in philosophy), and identity as a citizen of a polis (United States) into one cohesive brew? Right now, I have no idea. Faith, geekdom, and academia are easy. As long as glorify God through my passion for comics, film, gaming, TV, fandom etc. and thirst for knowledge, everything works out in the end. (I really think there were be scholars in Heaven...) However, being a citizen is different. I like to stay reasonably politically informed through BBC, Huffington Post etc, but I think I'm falling into the same partisan trap that I point out in other people.

Despite my heart to help the poor in society through homeless ministries in my college, I feel distracted by a need for identity. I know I'm a Christian, but at the Christian college I go to, my debates aren't about the big stuff (was Jesus God?, is the Bible inerrant, does the gospel really save?), but about the small stuff (Old Earth vs. Young Earth, can a Democrat be a Christian (shoot me) ). I haven't even mentioned that I think that Hell is an emotional state after death, not a literal hot pit. How can fire and complete darkness coexist, literally and logically speaking?

But, despite my struggles, I've decided to weather the small storms and carry on. I really love the diverse ethnic environment at my college, especially coming from WASP-y Roanoke, Virginia. Hopefully, I can build some strong relationships with the professors in my department. Extremely pumped to hang out with Dr. Horner next Friday, which could have been Wednesday if it wasn't for my general ed Math mandatory money lecture.

That comes to my final rant. Money. Money really ticks me off because you can't live with it or live without it. Money can help you satisfy your basic needs (food and water) and complex wants ($40 philosophy books, weekly comic book run), but it can also lead men and women to sell their souls to profit. It would be cool if the ideal of pure socialism could actually work, and people didn't care about how much private property they had and their salary size and concentrated on being creative and improving culture and civilization, but that will never happen until Heaven or the millennial kingdom, depending on your eschatological view which I don't have currently. Sorry, back up preacher guy at PCB who tried to sell me on pre-millenialism. I must study Revelation personally and try not to hold dogmatic views on that book like a guy named Calvin who didn't write a commentary on it and didn't let his preachers preach on it. Since I moved to CA, I literally have heard three sermons on the Book of Revelation, probably more than in my entire life time.

So, really sorry about this mostly incoherent post about money, identity, faith, school, being a geek, politics etc., and I'll leave you with this quote from Plato. (whose theory of Forms does really float my boat, but the boat is beginning to sink)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."

Nota bene: Plato probably didn't say this, but he is a boss...