I thought 'bad for the children' fell under the 'socially irresponsible' idea and was therefore relevant - I don't think discussions can flourish if you demand absolute specificity. Consider the passing explanation Haddock gives to Tintin about why he drinks - because he knows he can never contend with his ancestor, and so drinking is his method of giving up (proving the film doesn't treat it entirely as a farce). In real life, alcoholism will vary in different cases. While in all cases, the effects on the body are destructive, it can be treated humorously, seriously, sadly, and so on. Also, a film isn't a statement, saying 'alcoholism is funny', and audiences are probably aware that this animated sea-captain is intended to be an entertaining character, and not an accurate depiction of a man with a drinking problem, nor a cruel attack on those who suffer from it.
Could I also inquire after your conclusions? Why today should we not ever laugh about addictions? Why is it socially irresponsible?
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
cheshirecat-8
12 years ago
I think the Captain is pretty pathetic (not to say recklessly dangerous and a mean drunk) in his debut album (The Crab with the Golden Claws), and that shines through pretty well in the film. I actually found his alcoholism more tragic than comedic, even in the film.
reply
share
tintinrulz
12 years ago
The Captain is definitely a tragic figure in The Crab with the Golden Claws, his behaviour even frightening. His alcoholism is not taken lightly. I imagine they changed the bit where he knocks Tintin unconscious while the young reporter is flying the plane. They changed that part in the animated series and it always disappointed me. Sure it doesn't help us sympathize with the Captain, but it's much more interesting and disturbing and shows the dangers that can come with irresponsible drinking.
reply
share
Passta
12 years ago
Just try this:
imagine if Haddock was a junkie instead of an alcoholic, imagine that every time he reaches for a bottle in the movie, he reaches for a line of coke, or a syringe with dope, and that all that was portrayed in the same comedic way... would you still think it's ok?
Now, I'm not saying cocaine and alcohol are the same thing, but addictions more or less are. Addiction is a disease and what I get the OP was trying to say is that it's not socially responsible to laugh at a diseased person or make light of their situation.
Of course artists should be free to express themselves, but, on the other hand, there should be a certain level of responsibility when making a family movie - and Spielberg knows this more than anyone. Most of his family movies are politically correct to the point of ridiculousness, he makes well sure not to offend anyone, and so it is not unexpected that someone would question his decisions about the Haddock character.
reply
share
tintinrulz
12 years ago
I understand your reasoning and yet I don't agree. Drug use and alcohol are both dangerous but alcohol can be used moderately and be safe, while drugs most definitely can not. I think I've said all that I need to in my posts above.
reply
share
Passta
12 years ago
"Drug use and alcohol are both dangerous but alcohol can be used moderately and be safe, while drugs most definitely cannot".
Believe it or not, cannabis can be used moderately and be safe. While people die daily from the consequences of alcohol (ab)use, have you ever heard that somebody died as a consequence of smoking pot? :)
But that's beside the point. The point of my post was that Haddock is an addict, a sick man - a person obviously not using alcohol in a moderate and safe way. And yet in the movie his addiction is made light of and portrayed in a humorous, lighthearted way.
reply
share
MartinP666
12 years ago
Of course most drugs can be used moderately and safely. The problem is usually that they can't be used legally, at least the types of drugs you are probably thinking of.
reply
share
xavierdragonlamas-178-423469
12 years ago
Likewise is it not unexpected that people should disagree with them. I think the common belief that children are influenced by everything they see on screen is not accurate; all I think it does is raise the discussion. You could argue that a child would be more likely to turn to alcohol in excess when they're older if they hadn't experienced or known about it at all up until that point and therefore it came with a greater sense of wonder and discovery when they did. Gentle exposure to serious issues, like the pitiful and comical Haddock, might well be beneficial - essentially it falls to the responsibility of the parents to set the example, I believe. I was watching Die Hard and Leon when I was ten/eleven, say, and have been reading Tintin since even before that, yet have no problems with or particular interest in guns, drugs or alcohol. Maybe it even helped that they became part of my knowledge at an early age.
reply
share
Passta
12 years ago
"Gentle exposure to serious issues...might well be beneficial"
I couldn't agree more. However, it is debatable whether the treatment of Haddock in Tintin can be described as "gentle exposure".
Please remember: the OP has no problem with an alcoholic figuring a as a character in a family movie, rather with the facts that his illness is, in his opinion, made light of.
Also, the viewer experience is different when kids watch what they know to be "grownup" movies. They know that "grownup" content is not intended for them and does not necessarily represent a set of values grownups would like to have them exposed to. They are fully aware that "grownup" movies feature behaviour that is regarded as tatally unacceptable for them.
However, when they watch family movies, which they know they are the primary audience for, they see it as parent or authority figure approved content that represents a socially acceptable point of view. That is why creators of family movies need to be more responsible and diligent.
reply
share
xavierdragonlamas-178-423469
12 years ago
Yeah, you're probably exactly right there. After consideration, it is irresponsible to have an alcoholic character like Haddock in a comic series and film intended to be read by kids. But I still wouldn't leave him out, just because he's such a fantastic character.
reply
share
Mihos
12 years ago
However, when they watch family movies, which they know they are the primary audience for, they see it as parent or authority figure approved content that represents a socially acceptable point of view.
I strongly disagree with that. I've raised two kids and neither they nor any of their friends thought that what they saw in a movie overruled what their parents taught them. They're far more intelligent than you give them credit for.
reply
share
enbilal
12 years ago
"Most of his family movies are politically correct to the point of ridiculousness, he makes well sure not to offend anyone"
Myths about Spelberg living on. Can you tell us which of his films are PC to the point of ridiculousness? Jaws in which a little boy gets eaten by a shark? Close Encounters in which a family man cheats on his wife and abandons his family, which is portrayed as an innocent thing? E.T. with all the cursing and guns? Indiana Jones films which are racist towards Arabs and Indians? Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? A.I.? Catch Me If You Can which is pretty much anti-women?
E.
reply
share
Passta
12 years ago
Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? A.I.? Catch Me If You Can?
-those are not family movies
How about Hook, Amistad, Jurassic Park... and, yes, ET as well.
reply
share