Mixed emotions, with added Tintinitis

The Season of Spielberg - NYTimes.com

Akk! My favourite director is posing with my least favourite animal in the lead photo in the above generous article on Steven Spielberg's sudden burst of activity. (He has Tintin and War Horse both out this year, and is finally shooting his long-in-development Lincoln.)

As for War Horse, which was apparently a successful play in England (featuring horses?), an Australian horse trainer featured in an episode of Australian Story recently, and talked about working with Spielberg:

Steven Spielberg was a very difficult director to work for.

Cut! Cut! Wait a minute right there. This is the first time ever that I, a person who reads everything that ever crosses his path about Spielberg, has read something like this. In all honesty, he seems to one Hollywood juggernaut who has barely had a friendship go cool, let alone make an enemy. (The New York Times article notes that he is still working with the same editor since Close Encounters; John Williams is still scoring his films at age 79, and heaps of times he has worked with producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall.) But this woman does work with horses, so I'll put it down to that. Anyway, it turns out not to be as bad as it might sound:

He has so much in his head, surely, at any one moment but he is a man of few words. One day, Steven took me aside and he briefed me, he said "You know this is a really important sequence in the movie, if this doesn’t come out just right, it’s make or break for the movie" And I was thinking "Could you put any more pressure on me?!" He said, "I want this horse excited. It’s got to be so excited!" To me an excited horse is a horse showing a lot of movement. So I bring the horse in, bring him in hard and fast and stop the horse and make him excited. Throw his head around, get him crazy. "Cut, cut, cut, cut!" OK. Let’s try that again. We must have tried it three or four times, I suppose, before Steven starts getting visually distressed. Steven yells out "Cut cut! It’s a disaster! It’s a complete disaster! " And I just sunk, died a thousand deaths and I thought 'This is the lowest point in my whole career.' Steven called me into his tent "Bring her here, bring her here". And he said "The horse must be happy, the horse must be happy". And I said "Do you mean affectionate? Do you want him to nuzzle? Do you want him to be gentle and warm?" And "Of course that’s what I want!" He said, "Yes, that’s what I want! Now go and do it!" And poor old Abraham had to go from this crazy excited behaviour that I thought Steven was asking for to this beautiful, gentle, soft, loving acting stuff - and he did really, really well and I was very proud of him. And it was a very scary day for Abraham and I....

At the end of the job and Steven threw his arms out for a big hug and he said "All of the love that you put into your animals has come out on screen, on my screen, and it will be there forever." It meant a lot to me, and to Craig too.

See: it all comes good in the end.

But still, this means I have to see a horse movie. I will if it gets good reviews.

As for Tintin, I meant to post last week about the highly amusing, if extremely strange, obsession The Guardian has had with publishing derogatory, high brow complaints about the film, which has garnered good reviews in England and America.  I thought it was probably old news by now, but instead, I find that The Guardian was at it again yesterday.

I do believe there have now been 6 (yes, count them, 6) different people dissing the film one way or another featured over the last fortnight on their website. The criticism has not just been in their Film section, but also  in Books and (I think) Culture sections, as if  the upset over what appears destined to be a big hit for a young-ish audience simply could not be contained. 

This obsession with being the one outlet determined to keep telling the public that the film is some kind of aesthetic outrage has not gone unnoticed by the site's readership, and the comments about the articles have become increasingly funny. For example, following an article yesterday which broadened the attack on Tintin to one on Spielberg generally:

A seriously bizarre vendetta against an enjoyable romp of a kid's flick.

and

Every day I think the Guardian must have got tired of attacking the Tintin film, only to find yet another article exploring just why it's so rubbish from a slightly different angle.

and

The film currently has an 85% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so it's not really true that critics are hating it.
I've got no desire to see this film myself, but I've got to add to the chorus of confused voices: What IS the Guardian's problem with this film?

But I did like this one, perhaps after Anti-Tintin (movie version) rant Number 4, or was it 5?:

This is the second Grauniad article about Tintin I've read in the space of a week that disappears entirely up its own arsehole within the first three paragraphs. Is it possible, perhaps, to get someone who's actually going to talk about the content of the film rather than making thoroughly pretentious remarks about the aesthetical qualities of Herge's art? I mean seriously. I know this is in the books section, but Jesus H. Christ.

Or, to put it more simply:

The Guardian has a very weird vendetta against this movie.

But the true explanation for this is possibly here:

Nice middle-class children were always given TinTin to read by their parents as this made them feel they were doing somthing vaguely continental and therefore "sophisticated" ( This is the Seventies we're talking about, after all).
The Guardian is largely populated by those children who now feel Nasty Commercialism is besmirching their childhood dreams.
You'd get the same reaction at the Mail if George Lucas did a Famous Five movie.