Charles Taylor's "Pragmatic Contradiction of Liberalism"

This essay will focus on the “pragmatic contradiction of liberalism” as outlined by Charles Taylor in the excerpt from Multiculturism in our textbook, and will attempt to defend Steven Rockefeller¹ and Michael Walzer’s² proposed answer to this problem. I will therefore strive to show that the law in liberal democratic societies must not be either difference-blind or sensitive, but both in a certain precise sense that will be expounded on below. The essay proceeds in three stages. First, drawing primarily from Taylor, the problem faced by liberalism is summarised. Second, Rockefeller’s observations are presented; Walzer builds on these, and his arguments will form the final step.

            Taylor begins his discourse of the politics of equal recognition by considering two major changes that have taken place in Western society, the first of which is the move from a culture of honour to one of dignity. This brought with it the politics of universalism; Taylor refers to it as “the politics of equal dignity.” Universalism emphasises the equal dignity of citizens, and the political fulfilment of this has been in the equalisation of rights and entitlements. He notes that universalism is so appealing, that even persons who wished to deny African Americans voting rights all those years ago, did so under pretexts consistent with this philosophy.

            The second change is the development of the notion of identity, and it has given rise to what Taylor calls “the politics of difference”. Though the notion that every person has a unique identity follows from universalism, its ramifications in the political sphere are different. While the politics of equal dignity requires “an identical basket of rights and immunities” for each person, the politics of difference requires recognition of the uniqueness, the distinctness of each individual; the lumping together of this unique identity with that of the majority group is the “cardinal sin”, as it were, against the idea of authenticity.

            He notes that the politics of dignity clearly has an “entry point” into the politics of difference as on the most basic level, both are concerned with the denunciation of discrimination on any grounds—this is equality in its most fundamental form. A closer examination however, reveals that their interests do not align much further than that; as Taylor says, “The universal demand powers an acknowledgement of the specificity.” In other words, distinct minority groups do exist in our society, and hence the politics of equal dignity is fighting to protect something that really isn’t universally present in the first place. This problem is two-sided however: the politics of difference, in the name of recognising the identity of each human being, often discriminates by providing differential treatment to certain groups.

            While this disconcerting difference of interests might be explained away in the case of groups that have been subject historically to discrimination—here differential treatment is due as recompense, and to raise these groups up to the level that the rest of society enjoys—the seriousness of the divergence becomes apparent when laws that uphold or cherish distinctness on the grounds that one’s culture (for instance) is fundamentally intertwined with one’s identity are considered.

            One way to explain this difference, Taylor proposes, is to consider the underlying intuitions of each value. The politics of dignity is based on the idea that all humans are equally worthy of respect, which in turn can be based on the concept of the universal human potential. It is this potential itself, rather than what a man may choose to make of it, that is worthy of respect. The politics of difference however, has a different sort of potential at its core: here, it is the potential to form and define one’s own identity as an individual, and as a culture. But the main point of contention that the politics of difference has with the politics of identity is illustrated with the Saul Bellow quote, “When the Zulus produce a Tolstoy we will read him;” this remark seems to deny the very principle of equality among cultures. As Taylor says, “The possibility that the Zulus, while having the same potential for culture formation as anyone else, might nevertheless have come up with a culture that is less valuable than others [should be] ruled out from the start.” In other words, the politics of dignity seems to go beyond an acknowledgement of the equal potential of humans and cultures, and places value on what they have made of this potential.

We can here sum up the disagreement: the politics of dignity claims that the politics of difference violates the principle of non-discrimination, while the latter reproaches the former of negating identity and “forcing people into a homogenous mold”. But the complaint that the politics of difference has against the politics of dignity goes even further than that: the “mold” is in fact a reflection of the dominant culture at the time, and it is only “minority groups and supressed cultures that are forced to take alien form.” Therefore the so-called difference-blind society is itself highly discriminatory. Taylor recognises the seriousness of the complaints from both sides and hence does not attempt to provide simple answers where none exist. To further the discussion then, we turn to Rockefeller’s observations on Taylor’s essay.

His main aim is to deepen the politics—and ethics—of equal dignity so that it can make meaningful contact with the politics of recognition, and he undertakes this by examining the politics of dignity in light of (1) the values of liberal democracy, (2) the environmental movement and (3) the religious dimension of experience. He additionally attempts to show that though the politics of difference has a place in liberal democracies, in its extreme form it “threatens to subvert the ideals of universal freedom and inclusive community”.

Firstly from the point of view of democracy, a person’s ethnic or cultural identity is not his primary identity—this is inherent in the above discussion, but Rockefeller makes it explicit. A person claims equal recognition under the law on the basis of his universal human identity and potential. In other words, he notes that Taylor’s argument that human potential is at the center of the politics of dignity at the very least relegates a lower position to the potential to define one’s own identity, particularly culturally, which is at the center of the politics of difference. This is not a mere difference of opinion as to what is “more important” to each of these strands of politics within a liberal democracy; it is rather a question of what is more important to a liberal democracy itself: “To elevate ethnic identity, which is secondary, to a position equal in significance to, or above, a person’s universal identity is to weaken the foundations of liberalism and to open the door to intolerance.” Though this may seem like a rewording of the main contention that the politics of difference has against the politics of dignity, closer inspection reveals that it is in fact not. Here he is arguing that the objective of a liberal democratic culture is to respect ethnic identities and to encourage different cultural traditions to develop fully their potential for expression of the democratic ideals of freedom and equality, “leading in most cases to major cultural transformations [my emphasis].”

He agrees with John Dewey then, that liberalism is the expression of a distinct moral faith and way of life³. One can realise this “good life…by living with a liberal spirit, showing equal respect to all citizens, preserving an open mind, practicing intolerance, cultivating a sympathetic interest in the needs and struggles of others, imagining new possibilities, protecting basic human rights and freedoms, solving problems with the method of intelligence in a nonviolent atmosphere pervaded by a spirit of cooperation.” Liberal democracy, understood in this way, is first and foremost a way of individual life, and its moral meaning is realised when institutions become instruments of human growth and liberation.

Thus “when a liberal society faces the question of granting special privileges, immunities, and political autonomy to one cultural group…it cannot compromise on fundamental human rights.” The liberal democratic ideal is opposed to the rigid idea of cultural survival, and instead calls for the moulding of values according to the ideals of freedom and equality, among others that democracy upholds—“cross-cultural dialogue that transforms human understanding” deserves a special mention here. So if a culture is so preoccupied with its own protection and growth that it wishes the law to make exceptions in its favour at the expense of another culture’s—or individual’s—freedom, it is operating contrary to the very spirit of democracy that it wishes to be a part of.

The environmental movement is used by Rockefeller to demonstrate how a politics of equality might arise from a concern with the preservation of diversity—he attempting to go deeper than the “entry point” discussed above. Like multiculturalists, environmentalists wish to further the appreciation of the distinctness of different forms of life, and by extension, campaign for moral and legal rights of oppressed “groups”. Both philosophies attack hierarchal modes of thought; cultural on the one hand, biological on the other. It can further be argued that cultures are like life-forms; organic and evolutionary. “Each, in its own distinct fashion, reveals the way the creative energy of the universe, working through human nature in interaction with a distinct environment, has come into a larger focus,” Rockefeller says; disease and disintegration are part of evolution, and can hence be accounted for in this framework. Therefore, the multiculturalist contends, all cultures must be treated equally. Closer scrutiny however, reveals that inherent in this claim is the knowledge that cultures are in fact not equal; akin to the notion “to honour everyone is to honour no one”, if all cultures were indeed equal, equal treatment would be a non-issue. Nonetheless, the “biocentric” view—that each culture is unique and hence worthy of respect—is clearly not mutually exclusive from the observation that cultures may not be equal; each has its place in a democracy. To give a concrete example, in the issue of whether textbooks in certain American schools should be rewritten to highlight the histories of particular ethnicities, Rockefeller holds that what is needed is a “new, deeper appreciation of the ethnic histories of the American people, not a reduction of American histories to ethnic histories.” The two views presented above can in fact coexist if the deeper ideals of liberal democracy are adhered to.

The idea of the equal worth of different cultures, Rockefeller goes on, may also be grounded in religious experience; all the arguments that are presented thus far for the equal value of human identity reflect Biblical and classical Greek notions “that there is something sacred about human personality.” But religious perspectives bring heavy implications, as Rockefeller notes eloquently: “[Religion is] opposed to anthropocentrism as well as to all egoisms of class, race, or culture. It calls for an attitude of humility. It encourages a respect for, and pride in, one’s own identity only insofar as such respect and pride grow out of a recognition of the value of the uniqueness in the identity of all other peoples and life forms.”

Building on Rockefeller’s observations, Walzer begins by sharpening the distinction between the two kinds of liberalism that lay immanent in both Taylor’s and Rockefeller’s essay—he calls them Liberalism 1 and 2. Liberalism 1 is committed in the strongest possible sense to individual rights, and by extension, to neutrality. This state has no cultural or religious projects beyond ensuring safety and guaranteeing freedom for its citizens. Liberalism 2 allows for a state to pass laws that encourage the flourishing of one culture, as long as the rights and freedoms of members of society who do not belong to that culture are respected. However, Liberalism 1 can be chosen within Liberalism 2, since the latter presents several options, and one of those is Liberalism 1. This is the option that Walzer himself—quite rightly in my opinion—would choose. It is important to note that he is speaking here primarily of Western democratic societies with immigrant populations and minorities, like Canada and the United States. Walzer reasons, “[Immigrants to societies like this one] intended for, and prepared to, take certain cultural risks when they came here and left the certainties of their old way of life behind…The communities they have created here are different from those they knew before precisely in this sense, that they are adapted to, and shaped significantly by, the liberal idea of individual rights.” So in the United States—and to some extent Canada—cultural groups are left free to fend for themselves, and do not rely on the state for support or recognition of their particular projects, and this is precisely because this is the path that has been chosen through the democratic process and actual life choices of the men and women in these groups. So to frame it in the words of the question that we started with, in a Western liberal democracy committed to equality, law should be difference-blind from within the framework of being difference-sensitive.

We close with the consideration of language laws in Quebec. Do they fit the principles of liberal democracy just discussed? I agree with Taylor and Walzer, who argue that they do. This is a case where Liberalism 2 has taken precedence over Liberalism 1, and this is precisely because democracy gives Quebeckers this power. Quebec is a society with collective goals, and the government sees fit that these goals are given the force of law. Since no fundamental rights of individuals are infringed on, laws encouraging the flourishing of French Canadian culture are completely acceptable by the standards that we have discussed above—recall that Liberalism 1 is merely one option among several that Liberalism 2 presents. What about minority groups in the United States? Walzer notes, “What would the state have to do to guarantee or even to begin to guarantee the survival of all the minorities that make up American society? The various minority groups would need control over public monies, segregated or partially segregated schools, employment quotas that encouraged people to register with this or that group…” Clearly in this case, because of the sheer number of disparate voices calling out for recognition, the people have chosen Liberalism 1 from within Liberalism 2, as we noted above, and this is also in line with the principles of liberal democracy.

ENDNOTES

¹ Steven Rockefeller, “Comment” in Multiculturalism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994), 87-98.

² Ibid. 99-103

³ Rockefeller references John Dewey, “Creative Democracy—The Task Before Us,” in Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1935, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988), 14: 224-30

A Discussion of the Music in "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011)

The Adventures of Tintin (2011) is an animated adventure movie directed by Steven Spielberg, based on the immensely popular series of books (some 200 million copies in 50 languages have been sold worldwide¹) of the same name created by the Belgian artist Georges Remi (1907-1983), who wrote under the pen name of Hergé.  The Academy Award-nominated score for this film was composed and conducted by the legendary John Williams, and is his 25^th feature film collaboration with Spielberg². This essay will focus on his music for this film—particularly on his extensive use of leitmotifs—and will compare it to his scores in other Spielberg movies.

The film is based on three of the original comic books: The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941), The Secret of the Unicorn (1943), and Red Rackham's Treasure (1944)¹. It was the first-ever animated film for both Spielberg and Williams. A brief synopsis of the plot is laid out here, to give the music that is discussed below context:

Tintin, a young journalist, and his dog Snowy are browsing in an outdoor market in a European town. Tintin buys a model of a three-masted sailing ship, the Unicorn, on the cheap, but is then immediately accosted by the sinister Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine, and the mysterious figure of Barnaby, who both try to buy the model from Tintin, without success. Tintin takes the ship home, but it is broken during a fight between Snowy and a neighbour's cat. As it breaks, a parchment scroll slips out of the ship's mast. Snowy spots it but is unable to alert Tintin. Meanwhile, incompetent detectives Thomson and Thompson are on the trail of a pickpocket, Aristides Silk. Tintin then visits Sakharine in Marlinspike Hall, where he learns that there are at least two model ships. Tintin finds the scroll when he goes home, and puts it in his wallet, which is then stolen by Silk.

Later, Tintin is shot at, then abducted by accomplices of Sakharine, and imprisoned on the SS Karaboudjan. On board, Tintin escapes and meets the ship's captain, Haddock who is permanently drunk, and doesn't know what's happening on board his ship. Tintin, Haddock and Snowy eventually escape from the Karaboudjan in a lifeboat. Sakharine sends a seaplane to find them, but Tintin is able to capture the plane, and fly towards the (fictitious) Moroccan port of Bagghar. They crash in the desert.

Dehydrated in the heat, and suffering from a sudden lack of alcohol, Haddock hallucinates, and starts to remember stories about his ancestor, Sir Francis Haddock, who was captain of the Unicorn during the 17th century. Sir Francis' treasure-laden ship was attacked by a pirate ship, led by the masked Red Rackham, and after a fierce battle and eventual surrender, Sir Francis chose to sink the Unicorn, and most of the treasure, rather than allow it to fall into Rackham's hands. It transpires that there were three models of the Unicorn, each containing a scroll. Together, the scrolls will reveal the location of the sunken Unicorn, and its treasure.

In Bagghar, Tintin and the Captain find out that the third model ship is in the possession of the wealthy Omar Ben Salaad, but it is encased in a bullet-proof glass display case. Sakharine's plan is to stage a concert involving famous diva Bianca Castafiore, the "Milanese nightingale", whose penetrating singing voice will be able to shatter the glass case, allowing Sakharine's trained hawk to fly down and steal the third scroll. After a chase down to the harbour, pursued by Tintin and Haddock, Sakharine finally escapes with all three scrolls. Tintin chases him back to Europe and arranges a police reception for him on the dockside. Haddock and Sakharine, who is revealed to be the descendant of Red Rackham, replay their ancestors' swashbuckling sword fight, using dockside cranes, swords, and even bottles of whiskey. Haddock is eventually victorious and Sakharine is promptly arrested by Thomson and Thompson.

With the three scrolls in their possession, Tintin and Haddock find that the indicated location is Marlinspike Hall, and that the hall had been built originally by Sir Francis Haddock. There, in the cellar, they find some of the treasure, and a clue to the location of the sunken Unicorn. Both men agree to continue the adventure¹.

The entire movie was filmed using motion capture technology, at Peter Jackson’s (the producer’s) insistence³. When news of this reached fans initially, they were apprehensive, to say the least⁴. Upon its 3-D release however, most doubts (but not all⁵) were assuaged⁶. In the end, the motion-capture gamble paid off; the movie was a box-office success, grossing more than 370 million dollars worldwide⁷, paving the way for a possible trilogy⁸.

The score was a phenomenal hit with audience and critics alike, and was hailed as a welcome return to form for Williams following his three and a half absence from feature films⁹. “The colors [in Hergé’s books] seem to be almost Gauguin-like. Yellows and purples and green-reds," Williams said about his experience finding inspiration to compose this score, adding that the look of old cars and European architecture made instruments like the musette, a French accordion, seem apt for the movie's scenes of fast-paced street comedy¹⁰. The “Master of the Leitmotif” really went to work in this film, composing themes for characters and places, and criss-crossing them together in a complex tapestry. As one critic notes in his enthusiastic review of the soundtrack album,

I think I counted no less than 10 different themes…weaving in and out of exciting action riffs, gorgeous orchestrations that put you right into various locations around the world in seconds, mysterious legend-exploring passages, character-defining moments, and virtuoso concert arrangements that must have left every orchestra member desperate to catch their breath!  Balancing out everything you’d expect in a good globe-trotting adventure are moments of true comedy, thanks to the themes for Captain Haddock and the bumbling detectives Thomson and Thompson⁹.

Given the genre and plot of the movie, and its director-composer duo, comparisons between the scores of Tintin and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) seemed inevitable. These take on an almost poetic shade however, in light of the backstory to the making of Tintin⁸: when a review compared Raiders of the Lost Ark to Tintin (the books), Spielberg’s secretary bought him French-language editions, and he immediately fell in love with its art. Meanwhile, the comics' creator Hergé, who didn't like the previous live action film versions and the cartoon, became a fan of Spielberg; he "thought Spielberg was the only person who could ever do Tintin justice". Spielberg then scheduled to meet with Hergé in 1983, but Hergé died that week. His widow decided to give Spielberg the rights. It seems almost fitting then, that several leitmotifs in the movie—particularly the one associated with the Unicorn—call to mind similar sinister-sounding cues in the Indiana Jones movie, and lend the score its darker side.

RLA aside, we hear echoes of Williams’ other collaborations with Spielberg right from the start too; the opening sequence of Tintin is visually reminiscent of the one in Catch Me If You Can (2002)—both are retro-styled 2-D animations—and Williams reinforces this similarity aurally with piano-dominated accompanying music. The nimble-fingered piano initially does a back-and-forth with a bass clarinet and a harpsichord until other synth instruments join in, and the resultant fast-paced theme has the espionage, adventure sound that was heard in the CMYC opening credits, except that it is jauntier and as a result more suited to the lighter nature of this film’s subject. It also calls to mind the haphazard, jazzy tune that Williams composed for the “Knight Bus” theme in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2003), and some feel that this quasi-jazz sound resonates throughout the entire score¹¹. Williams additionally manages to “Mickey Mouse” some of the action taking place on the screen in these opening credits, and as we progress through the movie, we come to realise that this simple, adaptable music also serves as Tintin’s theme, reappearing in various reimaginings as the story unfolds—we hear an orchestral take on this theme during the scene where Tintin, Haddock, and Snowy escape from the Karaboudjan, for instance. It also resurfaces when Tintin pilots the plane through the storm, and during the chase scene in Bagghar, among many other moments. What is really interesting to note however, is that Tintin’s theme is highly underplayed compared to the other leitmotifs that Williams develops throughout the course of the movie; many reviewers were puzzled by this¹¹. I believe that the most likely explanation for this is that Williams was staying faithful to Hergé’s original character design, in which Tintin is purposely portrayed as having a neutral manner; besides serving the function of balancing the evil and silliness that surrounds him, this rendering gives the reader a chance to really slip into Tintin’s shoes and not merely follow the adventures of a strong protagonist¹².

The next major theme that we are introduced to is the Unicorn theme, which ends up leaving the strongest impression on the audience. Besides being reminiscent of the darker themes from Raiders of the Lost Ark, it has been compared to the Buckbeak theme in Harry Potter POA¹¹, and it is also highly suggestive of the main Harry Potter theme. It occurs repeatedly in the movie and lends an element of mystery to the score; it is eventually associated with the scrolls too. Since the leitmotif of the main protagonist is so underplayed, one could almost construe that Williams uses the Unicorn theme as the dominant theme of the movie in its place. We first hear it when Tintin spies the reflection of the model Unicorn in a mirror in the marketplace; it is played on a solo clarinet, and the sound of crashing waves and creaking wood are cleverly blended in. This theme then reappears in several scenes, solidifying its place as the main theme by the end of the movie: when Tintin researches the history of the Unicorn in the library, when he finds the second model at Marlinspike hall and then the scroll back at his own house, during his interrogation on the ship and Haddock’s hallucination in the desert—where stingers are placed at appropriate moments in the theme—and during the final revelation of the movie, to name a few obvious recurrences.

Snowy’s theme on the other hand, is a lovely, upbeat piece of music and is one of the few places in this score that Williams leans toward the music that is traditionally composed for children’s animated movies. It is infectiously playful in nature, and the quick, rising notes bring to mind the yipping of a dog⁹. Williams uses the orchestra and the woodwinds, particularly the flute, to great effect, and the masterful piano work underscores certain parts while dominating others. We are introduced to this theme when Snowy chases the cat at the beginning of the film, and it resurfaces when he saves Tintin from the dog at Marlinspike hall. Other noteworthy appearances of this theme include the scenes where Snowy chases Tintin’s abductors, the one where he rescues Tintin on the ship, and when he trips up Sakharine’s henchmen in the final crane-fight scene.

            Haddock’s theme is introduced when Tintin and Snowy barge into his quarters through the window after escaping Sakharine’s goons. It is a low-key brass and woodwind theme that one can immediately associate with naval captains, but it has a comical quality to it since Haddock provides the main laughs in this movie. Williams develops this theme extensively—more than any other protagonist’s theme—and it morphs to match Haddock’s change in character as the film progresses. While it starts off having a dubious quality, much like the drunken captain, by the end—particularly in the scene when all hope is lost, and Haddock provides Tintin the encouragement to go on—the leitmotif has sobered up, and takes on a warm, full character. His connection with Marlinspike hall is suggested by Williams’ music at the start of the movie, during the scene where Tintin breaks in for the first time, though only careful, repeated listenings reveal this intricacy in the composition—Williams brilliantly inverts the main melody of Haddock’s theme here, while employing the same deep woodwind instrument¹¹. This connection is made clear in the music of the final scene however, which takes place at the same locale, and features an orchestrated version of Haddock’s leitmotif.

            It is interesting to note that while Sakharine, the antagonist, does not get his own theme, his ancestor Red Rackham does. It appears first in the fight scene between him and Sir Francis, and is played on low, menacing strings. This music returns during the final fight, when their respective ancestors pick up where they left off, as it were; we hear the Red Rackham leitmotif clearest then, when it is bequeathed to Sakharine. The theme for Sir Francis, and it seemed like Williams intended that he have one, is too deeply entrenched in the swollen Unicorn theme that dominates most of Haddock’s flashback to identify; in any case, since Haddock’s theme was so well developed, Williams didn’t need to transfer themes from Sir Francis to him. Since the fight scenes between the two generations are brilliantly mirrored, Williams by and large repeats the music played during Haddock’s flashback during the final fight scene to lend it a sense of finality. The orchestrated score that accompanied the battle on the high seas—the melody of which is played on the violin and viola while the cello and bass hammer away in the lower register⁹—is also played when the cranes battle, and then the swordfight scene between Haddock and Sakharine has almost exactly the same music as the one that played when their ancestors did battle on the Unicorn all those years ago. Williams does however, throw in other themes here. For instance, we hear echoes of Haddock’s theme when he ironically gains the upper hand in the sword fight by throwing bottles of alcohol at Sakharine, Tintin’s theme when he swoops in to snatch the scrolls from Sakharine’s hand, and as mentioned above, Snowy’s theme when he spills the crate.

            The bumbling Interpol agents, Thomson and Thompson, also get a theme of their own, and it is exactly what one would expect: silly, lazy jazz. This leitmotif is largely unchanged throughout the course of the movie, and reappears when the agents themselves do. A critic notes that the music calls to mind William’s score in Spielberg’s The Terminal (2004) because of its “prominent accordion and clarinet usage”¹¹.

Besides all the themes already mentioned, other musical ideas that Williams adds to already-bursting palette of sounds are themes identified with the treasure, the exotic locations—most notably Bagghar—and the “Milanese Nightingale”. He additionally employs the “mirroring” technique mentioned earlier frequently; a notable example of this is when the music that played during the escape from the Karaboudjan when the lifeboat drops, repeats during the scene where Haddock and Tintin jump from the fort window.

            Clearly then, even after all these years, the Master of the Leitmotif has not lost his touch. The score to Tintin showcases his astounding ability to take a myriad of ideas, and weave them together tightly, coherently, and beautifully. The Academy Award nomination stands testament to Williams’ monumental triumph with this amazingly complex score; at 80 years old, the man is still going strong. Yet there is a feeling that this score means something to Williams as well—indeed when reading the interviews that he gave around the time of release of this movie, one cannot help but be moved at this man’s dedication to his art, and “marvel at his ability to so intelligently annihilate his competition in the industry of film music.”¹¹ As one reviewer elegantly observed,

[Tintin] is about discovering self-respect in the face of adversaries external and within oneself, and having the strength of character to settle those problems. That may be why Williams' underrated score is fashioned the way it is, pieces coming together in a way that's big and personal at the same moment, almost closer to the intimate style of Catch Me if You Can and Williams' introspective concert works. There is something not empty but questing in the way he treats Tintin, how questions are posed and answers are supplied by the drama of Haddock's journey to self-respect, that make this score shaded with psychological insight into how human beings communicate, and expressed with delicate unshowy but nimble motion and clean lines¹³.

The Maestro himself had this to say about his admirable work ethic and relationship with Spielberg over these past 4 decades,

[Spielberg is] a much younger man than I am and he will go on a lot longer than I'll be able to, but for the time being we're having a wonderful time. Time goes by so quickly…Steven and I, when we're working together we're so much in the now, in this moment. There isn't a past, there isn't a future, you're so completely absorbed and concentrated. If you do that long enough, you suddenly realize, my God, I'm 80 years old, what happened? What happened was a well-spent, focused period of time¹⁴.

The fun that these two genii have when collaborating really shone through in Tintin. We can only pray that they continue to grace us with masterworks for many more years to come.

WORKS CITED

¹ "The Adventures of Tintin." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 24 May 2007. Web. 16 June 2012.

² “AFI'S Master Class: The Art Of Collaboration.” TCM Turner Classic Movies, n.d. Web. 16 June 2012.

³ "News Etc." Empire: pp. 20–25. June 2009. Print.

⁴ Mathewes-Green, Frederica “The Wonderful Adventures of Tintin.”National Review Online, 23 December 2011. Web. 16 June 2012

⁵ Whitfield, Ed. “Film Review: The Adventures of Tintin – The Secret of the Unicorn.” The Ooh Tray—Film and Literature in Abundance, 29 October 2011. Web. 16 June 2012

⁶ Nathan, Ian. “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.” Empire Magazine, n.d. Web. 16 June 2012

⁷ “The Adventures of Tintin.” Box Office Mojo, n.d. Web. 16 June 2012.

⁸ Nepales, Ruben V. "Spielberg May Co-direct Next with Peter Jackson". Philippine Daily Inquirer, 18 May 2008. Web. 16 June 2012.

⁹ LeBlanc, Jason. “The Adventures of Tintin (2011)—Album Analysis #1.” John Williams Fan Network, 18 October 2011. Web. 16 June 2012.

¹⁰ Jurgensen, John. “The Last Movie Maestro.” The Wall Street Journal, 16 December 2011. Web. 16 June 2012.

¹¹ “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.” Filmtracks, 3 November 2011. Web. 16 June 2012.

¹² Walker, Andrew. “Faces of the Week.” BBC News| UK| Magazine, 16 December 2005. Web. 16 June 2012.

¹³ Ware, Michael. “Tintin and John Williams, an Essay on a Film about Self-Respect.” Film Score Monthly, 24 December 2011. Web. 16 June 2012.

¹⁴ Keegan, Rebecca. “A Blockbuster Collaboration.” Los Angeles Times, 8 Jan 2012. Web. 16 June 2012.