Alcoholism as humour


I'm not one to censor everything, trying to be politically incorrect all the time, but somehow I think it's wrong to turn a real problem like alcoholism into a running joke in a family film. Perhaps that is how the character was defined all those decades ago, but it's one of those things (like the racial elements in certain Tintin stories that have been criticised after their publication) that should have been left behind in this adaptation.
They wouldn't dare use the 'African' characters from the books in a contemporary movie, so why did they decide that alcoholism could and should be used as humour?
And no, I'm not trolling, so please respond with honest, intelligent opinions - whether you agree with me or not.

reply

it certainly didn't offend me in any way.
In the past people would get less butthurt for things like that, the readers didn't have to make the distinction between being alcoholic and a captain haddock, it was simply common sense. It's part of the story, that's how the character is, no need to think further than that.
I thought it was a good interpretation to the comics and I found it funny.
You're talking about african people but did you know that in belgium some guy recently (like a month or 2 ago) sued Moulinsart (the company that has all rights about Tintin) because in "Tintin au Congo" they claim that they are some racist references. Come on, this is 80 years later and now people suddenly think it's a good idea to sue these guys, probably hoping to get some money out of it.
That is really pathetic imo.
Same for the alcoholic issue, Spielberg was faithful to the original captain haddock and in no way this is about alcohol. If some people are making such a link then maybe they're the ones trying to blame their own problems to someone else.


reply

"Some guy recently sued Moulinsart (the company that has all rights about Tintin) because in "Tintin au Congo" they claim that they are some racist references. Come on, this is 80 years later and now people suddenly think it's a good idea to sue these guys..."

80 years later and yet the comic-book is still in print, its sales probably invigorated by the Spielberg movie. Therefore, the content of the comic-book is still relevant and can still potentially influence the kids reading it.

Now, I don't know what exactly are they suing them for and I'm not saying they're undoubtedly right to sue in the first place, but if the content turns out to be racist - then why shouldn't the publisher be forced to edit it?

I get that all the political correctness is sometimes hard to digest for our generation (30+) because we've grown up with and feel an attachment to many of the characters that would be considered inappropriate by today's standards. And we have a natural urge to defend them - after all we've all read and loved Tintin as kids and haven't grown up to be racist, right?

But it is not about us. Of course one comic-book will not make you racist if your social environment is imposing other values. It's about giving legitimacy to feelings some people still hold towards minorities, reinforcing their prejudices and attitudes. It's also about some people being potentially rightfully offended by it.

Also, however sick we are with excessive PC-ness, we have to keep in mind all the positive effects it has had on public discourse, especially on content for kids. For example, there never was a proper, cool, kick-ass girl hero to look up to when I was young. And a black person could never expect to be represented as anything more than a sidekick at best.

reply

If Casterman edited out the African people in Tintin in the Congo, there wouldn't be much on an album. And PETA would have a field day with the big-game hunting in the rest of the book. All that would remain would be several pages where Tintin rounds up Al Capone's men in the Congo.

reply

:)
I don't remember the specific episode all that well, but I'm sure not all of it is controversial. And as much as I might personally share PETA's sentiments on hunting, it is not something that would realistically wind up being edited out.

reply

Late to the discussion here, but...

if the content turns out to be racist - then why shouldn't the publisher be forced to edit it?


Maybe because forcing publishers to edit/retract things we find against our own philosophies is egregious censorship?

Seriously, you think that if there is racist material being printed, publishers should be legally FORCED to edit it?

reply

I just came back from a screening that was full of kids. They all laughed every time Haddok did something stupid while drunk, or drank. They were laughing at him for being such a loser because of the drink, they certainly didn't think the drinking was cool or anything.

This kids get it, however young they are.

reply

Seriously, people are thinking too much into every little thing nowadays. I was reading it 20 years ago as a kid and it was all apparent that Haddock was wrong to drink that much, yet still a lovable character. I'd even say he was the only really lovable character. I don't see how any kid can misunderstand such a clearly described character.

reply

I can't think of a second in any Tintin album where it would be hinted that drinking is cool. Alcohol always gets Haddock in trouble — but in a funny way.

Plus, you seem to forget that kids relate to Tintin, not Haddock. Haddock represents adulthood for young kids — he drinks, smokes, has a castle, an affair with an Opera singer... But Tintin is the one they take as an example, and Tintin has a certain pride in not drinking at all. I would even say that he is the best example kids could follow in any comic — he doesn't despise alcohol and alcoholism, but he just does not need to dring.

Finally, later albums clearly picture Alcohol as a problem. In Tintin and the PIcaros, a dictator controls a revolution by sending boxes of whisky to the rebels. Haddock even stops drinking in this one.

reply

As someone who has lost their Father to alcoholism I would be one of the main people to be offended, but I wasn't. Why wasn't I offended? Because it's a story, it was also good old fashion humour and wasn't meant to be shocking or to offend and to be honest it only crossed my mind because you've pointed it out. I think people these days get offended because they think they have to be and not because they actually are.

My Mother got offended at Eddie Izzards joke on the song "Jerusalem" because it was a song we sang at my Nannas funeral and in this case again I don't think she was offended because it wasn't til my (deeply religous) Auntie pointed it out. My Mother has a great sense of humour but it seemed like she was "being offended" because my Auntie was.

Finally I will leave the rest to Steve Hughes watch this, it hits the nail on the head!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg

reply

[deleted]

"I think it's wrong to turn a real problem like alcoholism into a running joke in a family film" - I'd say the opposite and argue that it's a positive thing to address it in a kid's film.

Here in the UK there's so much concentration on illegal drugs from the media you could quite happily kid yourself that alcohol is harmless, not a drug at all, and there's nothing more normal than knocking back a few pints of an evening. "It's not a drug, it's a drink" as comedian Chris Morris put it, capturing quite succinctly the pro-alcohol message that constantly emanates from our media, allowing people to actually believe that delusional thought.

So, for a kid's film to show an adult character acting foolishly or unpleasantly, even violently, due to alcohol is a whole lot more honest than we're used to seeing in most adult drama - let alone stuff aimed at kids. And showing that same adult as someone who is addicted to alcohol, constantly in search of his next dose, highlights that alcohol IS a drug to which people CAN and DO become addicted, every bit as much as they can with illegal drugs.

Tintin is the product of an earlier, more honest, less media-manipulated time, and I would applaud the producers of the film for choosing not to deliberately obscure this aspect of the Captain Haddock character. Getting a problem out in the open, even via the medium of humour, is a whole lot healthier than pretending that it doesn't exist - which is what we're more used to seeing.

There's no way that watching Captain Haddock will make anyone think that the life of an alcoholic is the life for them (!) but maybe if a few alcoholic parents get called "Captain Haddock" by their children after they've watched Tintin, it might make those parents think for a moment about what kind of person alcohol turns them into.

reply

Well over the course of the film Haddock is ridiculed and disliked for his alcoholism, and his arc is his journey to sober up and become a reliable asset to the other characters.

Sounds like a good moral story to tell kids to me.

- You must perform the ritual... in a tutu. Pillock.

reply

The fact that the 75% of the humour in the moviewas related with the alcoholism of one character uncovers a big lack of imagination. So much money spent in technical details but the script is not very good. I think you can make jokes about a drunkie funny man buut to base almost everything in alcohol... even to make work a plane! too much and a little sad.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Nah, that's not a nun, just a miserable troll who's running out of lame excuses to bash the movie...

How you doin'?
-Joey Tribbiani

reply