In defense of Titanic... (1 Viewer)

[Dave Gorman]

Wow! All in all this is probably the sanest and most rational discussion of Titanic I have ever seen!
I for one find it very easy to hate films that are immensely popular, even before I've seen them. I realize I cannot with any validity hate or criticize a film I haven't seen. I guess I tend to be pre-critical of very popular films simply because there have been so many very popular films that I thought were utter and complete crap. This is the case regularly enough that I tend to draw a correllation and assume I will hate a film if it is incredibly popular. However, I am able to distinguish anticipatory hatred of a movie from actual hatred of a movie and not publically trash a movie I've not seen.
On the other hand, though, I think there are just as many people who will automatically love a movie -- seen or unseen -- if the movie is very popular. In the case of Titanic I think there are as many (or more) people who mindlessly loved the movie, just because it was the thing to do, as there people who hated the movie for no other reason than the popularity and hype.
Re Titanic specifically, I think I went into it with a fairly open mind and mixed expectations, but it was still one of the longest years of my life...
------------------
Where are we going? Why are we in this handbasket?
My miniscule DVD collection

 

[Perry Jonkheer]

Dave,
I am having a difficult time agreeing with your assesment on the fact that people see movies because it's the thing to do. Everyone else is, so I had better go and enjoy it to...
To me, this sounds like something I would have done in 4th grade. You know, how there would be one person in the class everyone liked that maybe you did not like. Since everyone else liked this person, I did to and said nothing about it. You know what I mean?
I believe people are more mature in a sense they will go out and see a movie because of the hype. That is a given. Now, whether or not they come out of the theatre with a bad taste in their mouth or not is completely up to them. They aren't going to come out mindlessly raving about how good it was no matter what the hype was. I just have a hard time with believing people in this world on a whole would agree on something because it's what seems right, but isn't right in your mind.
------------------
PJ

 

[Iain Lambert]

Once upon a time, in a thread that shall remain infamous (that Gladiator one) I remember saying something along the lines of how you can come away from a film thinking its ok, maybe not the best in the world but ok. Then you defend this in a discussion with someone who adores it. Then again. Then its all over every poster site. And in the news. And trailed in everything else you see. I suspect that a lot of people who hate it only feel so strongly because they couldn't just ignore the film, and have had to start every debate on the topic by pointing out the flaws, because others are insisting on its perfection. Since you never have to say anything good about it, you can soon find you don't have anything good to say about it. Its a bit like the way that while I can now recognise the good in The Matrix (superb effects, great pacing and even the pop philosophy 101 is more deep than your average action movie would bother with) I was very much one of those who found it overrated by the general opinion.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Chuck,
You raised an interesting point: (paraphrasing) how can people refuse to see or like a movie just because it's hyped without judging it on its own merits?
This is certainly a valid and reasonable question, and as someone who does this sometimes, I'll try me best to answer.
If you look at the track record of what has been hyped and popular, it's pretty grim. Fads and fashions, pop stars, filler, nonsense. Just looking at it mathematically, I'm pretty sure I won't like something that's extremely popular, because I haven't liked them when I have ignored the hype and looked at it objectively.
And let's look at why most popular movies are so popular:
1) Specific actors / big names
People are fans of Tom Cruise, or Julia Roberts, or whoever. Sometimes because the person is a good actor, but more so because the actor is attractive or because one big hit movie gave them a big name. I mean, let's face it, Schwarzennager movies sell because of the Terminators.
2) Special effects
People like pretty colors and things that go boom.
3) Stupid grade school humor
For comedies: fat jokes, scatalogical humor, semen hair-gel.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I simply do not care for these things. Or, more precisely, these things are not enough to make a good movie. Since my personal tastes contradict that of the "masses," then I'm usually saving myself the trouble of bothering with Titanic-type movies.
I hope that gives you some insight into the mind of the Pretentious.
Now, all this aside, I have seen Titanic, and, objectively speaking, I didn't like it. As someone mentioned earlier, the characters were just absurd. They featured cartoonish super-villainy and baby-faced hero-good-guys, the likes of which I haven't seen since the Batman TV series starring Adam West. I know, I know, it's not supposed to be intellectual, complex, or any of that. Fine, I'm not asking for it, and I don't expect it. However, I do ask for honesty. At least make the people in the story somewhat human, please. They may as well have had a big neon arrow pointing at DiCapprio with words flashing, "GOOD GUY," just in case we couldn't figure it out, as Hollywood assumes we're too stupid to do so anyway.
Much has been said about the effects, the ship sinking, etc. OK, sure it was nice, but no effects and no amount of money can replace a good story and interesting, or at least Human, characters in my book. And besides, if the effects were the greatest part of the movie, then why bother having the entire first half of the whole movie?
For the record, I do enjoy some ultra-popular films: Braveheart, Star Wars, even Caste Away wasn't as awful as I expected. But they are exceptions.
By the way, Chuck, good job on getting an interesting, mature discussion going and being a real class act in your posts.
[Edited last by Mike Broadman on October 03, 2001 at 03:27 PM]

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Mike (and of course all others),
Thanks for the response. I agree completely with the notion of the second half not working emotionally unless you connected with the first half. And I also agree Cameron was somewhat heavy-handed with his portrayals, esp. involving DiCarpio and Zane. But my response to this movie was emotional, and I have a much harder time arguing it's merits from my head. So I won't waste your time. Your point is very valid.
On to the pretentious...I hope no one misconstrues my words to say that not liking Titanic = being pretentious. That was not my intent at all. And earlier arguments about feeling attacked for not liking it were something I had missed (although their pain is most likely far greater than mine, and for that I am VERY sorry

). My impression had simply been that many "true" movie lovers would not deign to "comment on/like" this movie. It was very frustrating.
I agree with most of your thoughts on current Hollywood trends. It's amazing to me that they consider the hype machine more important than the movie one, but sadly, that is the frequently the case. IMHO, Titanic does not fall into that category, although it became a poster child of excess in 1998.
I am happy to have caused some intelligent posts on this topic. I enjoy HTF primarily for the knowledge and civility of it's members. Thanks again for reading.
Take care,
Chuck
------------------
He had a plan. Maybe you just didn't see it 'til it hit you between the eyes. But, it started to make sense... in a Tyler sort of way. No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide.

 

[Brad_W]

QUOTE:
But you're not going to see me renting Pearl Harbor anytime soon
______________________________________________
Right on! No more Michael Bay and Jerry Lameheimer!
There really should be a hate club for these two.
Sorry, I get overzealous about this.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Wow, at last a Titanic thread where both those who like it and those who don't actually discuss it, probably the best Titanic thread yet
Anyway, I didn't believe the hype, I was not impressed by Leo or Kate, and I didn't think Cameron could direct a romantic movie, so I decided not to see Titanic in the theater. (This would, in hindsight, prove to be one of my less brilliant decisions

)
When it finally arrived on VHS I decided to maybe take a look at it, and WOW, was I floored.
I saw it a couple of times and then finally got it on DVD (when it was finally released), and it is now definitely one of my top ten movies. (In fact, I also bought the soundtrack on a dts CD (my first and still only dts CD...))
Most of you have already (and better) expressed why, but although the dialogue at times is less than perfect, and maybe the whole love story is a bit cheesey, it still moves me every time I watch it, it makes med sad and happy and it never feels long.
Actually, maybe it's time to watch it again this weekend.
Thanks for starting and contributing to this thread, now bring on the SE

------------------
/Mikael
No! Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
[Edited last by Mikael Soderholm on October 03, 2001 at 05:10 PM]

 

[Dave Gorman]

I am having a difficult time agreeing with your assesment on the fact that people see movies because it's the thing to do. Everyone else is, so I had better go and enjoy it to...

Well, maybe it's just because I live in Nebraska where bandwaggoning is part of the state religion, but I observe many people that assume that a movie is a good movie because it is immensely popular, they go to the movie already knowing that they like it because it's a good movie because it's so popular, they watch the movie uncritically without even considering it might not be a good movie, because of course it's a good movie if it's so popular, and leave the movie knowing in their minds that they've seen a good movie.
It may be a 4th grade mentality, but as another poster pointed out, most popular comedies consist entirely of "stupid grade school humor". It seems to me that, generally speaking, many movies that are immensely popular are aimed at the 4th grade mentality.
------------------
Where are we going? Why are we in this handbasket?
My miniscule DVD collection

 

[andreasingo]

I'm not trying to convince anybody here. I just wanna tell you why I think Titanic is a great movie.
The biggest criticism for this movie seems to be at a character level and I agree. Cameron could have made the characters more realistic, more human. There's a huge distinction between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" and I don't beleave in that. Camerons biggest failure when it comes to characters is not Titanic though, watch Arnold fight the terrorists in "True Lies"!
The dialogue. Cameron didn't try to be smart here. He wrote simple dialogue that pushed the story forward. This is common for all Cameron films actually. He always try to show first and tell later. People that is looking for complex dialogue in a cameron film should look away because smart dialogue is not what his films are about, cameron is a very visual director.
But now to the real strenghts of Titanic. To understand the film you need to understand how Cameron works. He's not subtle. He's a adrenaline junkie, a brute force film-maker.
His productions are always a lesson in craftmanship and personal endurance. What are cameron trying to achieve?
Cameron is a maniac for the physics in his films, he wants everything to look real and every object to react realistically to one another. When something big happens in a cameron film you are at the edge of your seat because you beleave that what you see is real. Every movement just feels right and nothing feels out of place. Cameron is the master of blending Special effects with live action. There are several reasons for this. Timing, lightning and shadows, the way objects move inside the frame. You just beleave what's up on the screen is up on the screen. But the physics is not all. Cameron is a visual artist. A painter, storyboarder, designer. This is visible in all of his films. Examples: He created the Alien Queen in Aliens, Designed the Terminator, dreamt up the water tentacle in The Abyss.
What I mean by all this is I think Titanic is a visual masterpiece. From those first images of the descending ROVS to the last image inside the sunken Titanic it's a feast for the eyes. What cameron is all about is immersion. He wants you to beleave you are there seeing all those things happen all around you. That's why he's into IMAX 3D films and that's why he made Titanic the way he did. He wants you to be there. He wants to film as much real footage that is humanly possible. Why did you think he went down to the wreck of Titanic? But it's not just *what* he shoots that makes his films so beautiful, it's also because of the *way* he shoots. I think cameron is the only director nowdays that can handle the camera the way Kubrick did. He's possessed to always get the perfect shot, no matter what it costs or how hard it's on the crew. In a cameron film the camera work is so good you never notice it, it never draws attention to itself.
Titanics success has nothing to do with the actors involved. Have DiCaprio or Winslet ever scored big at the box office outside of Titanic? It's because people felt they were there on the ship the night Titanic sunk. It's because Titanic was the biggest visual achievement of the 90's. It's because everything technical in the movie was invisible.
Beyond all that I think cameron is a skilled story writer. There's never a frame wasted. Everything is foreshadowed and paid off. Every scene leads to the next creating tention. There's never a lack of momentum.
Camerons films have often been criticised for being predictible and that criticism are justified. But his films are always predictable for a reason. That's because the story would be implausible if it ended in any other way. In the case of Titanic that's not even a issue because we all know how it ended before we went into the theater. But anyone that looks for these things in a Cameron film do not know what he is about. If you wanna have complex characters and smart dialogue, watch a Martin Scorcese film. If you wanna feel you're there when it happens, watch a Cameron film. I'm glad I like both kind of movies.
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 04, 2001 at 03:48 PM]

 

[Mike Broadman]

Camerons biggest failure when it comes to characters is not Titanic though, watch Arnold fight the terrorists in "True Lies"!

Well, it's all a matter of context. True Lies was never intended to be anything more than a stupid, action-comedy popcorn movie. Titanic, on the other hand, was the Big Serious Film. I heard Cameron say that before Titanic, he made movies. Titanic is his first "film." Ugh.
So, True Lies' characters succeed becuase the ambition was low: they were there to show off their bodies, shoot people, and quip one-liners. Titanic tried to make us care about the characters, and you can't do that if they're not human.
No one's disputing the fact that Cameron is a wizard with the camera. What he does visually is astounding. Maybe he made me believe that the characters were on a sinking ship, but he never made me care, and that's what seperates a well-made movie from a great movie. Especially, in the case of Titanic, where the first half of the movie was completely focused on the characters. Obviously, they wanted us to care about them, but they failed.
I love the Terminator movies. Not because I shed a tear when the robot had Connor drown him in the lava-pool to save the future, I don't care about that crap. I want to see him fight the liquid-metal guy and twirl that shotgun around. I did, on the other hand, care about the Taxi Driver.
Very few director's are able to have an important role in the story itself as well as be great directors. Actually, Kubrick and Scorcese are the only examples I can think of. It's a rare quality, and Cameron just ain't got it.
Now, when I see chicks raving about how romantic and fantastic the characters are, it makes me want to grab them by the shoulders, shake them, and yell, "Damnit, read a book, watch A Clockwork Orange, or even talk to a real live human!" But then I'd get arrested, and you wouldn't get to read my delightful little posts. Without all this, I would've watched it and said, "Meh," and not given it a second thought.

 

[andreasingo]

quote: "Maybe he made me believe that the characters were on a sinking ship, but he never made me care, and that's what seperates a well-made movie from a great movie. "
I tend not to agree with that one. A movie can contain characters you don't care for and still be great. These movies mean something to you on a intellectual and visual level more than on a emotional level. Stanley Kubricks films works this way for me. One great example is Barry Lyndon. I hated Barry but for a reason. For me Barry Lyndon is Stanley Kubricks attempt to throw hatred at the "Noble People". The point was we didn't like him. Another example is 2001. The characters are important to make that film beleaveable but we don't need to care for them.
quote: "Especially, in the case of Titanic, where the first half of the movie was completely focused on the characters. Obviously, they wanted us to care about them, but they failed."
I agree Cameron tried to make us care for the characters so it's studid to compare Titanic to 2001. In your eyes Cameron failed and to a certain degree I agree. But I don't think he failed so much that it destroyed the film for me, the great acting (especially from Kate Winslet) and the rest of the film more than made up for it, especially since great characters is not what I look for in a Cameron film (as I said). I think Titanic is the greatest technical and visual achievement in the medium of film in the 90's and for me that's enough to say it's a great film.
Look, if Scorcese could make a film with the same "you are there" impact as Camerons films and still have the great characterisations that he is known for intact I wouldn't argue about this. But the fact is, he doesn't. There's no one else that makes films on the same technical and visual level as Cameron does right now.
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 04, 2001 at 06:12 PM]
[Edited last by andreasingo on October 04, 2001 at 06:14 PM]

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I personally don't equate smart dialogue with a complex story. I don't find "complex" movies superior to simple ones. It doesn't make you smarter to like a Miramax film over a Universal summer movie (nor does it equate to better taste). The dialogue in Titanic suits the story. It certainly isn't perfect, but it obviously connected with a lot of people to make that much money. That doesn't mean it connected with everyone. But I consider myself an intelligent filmgoer, and it worked for me. So it isn't a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of personal taste. I don't like the insinuations that if you like Titanic and it's love story, you must be a simpering teenage girl or an idiot. That's an amusing stereotype. Like thinking everyone who cares about home theater is a snob and a bore. Neither are true. As for directors, Cameron is one of the best. But for my money, the best visual director in the business is David Fincher. I like Scorcese, but I didn't connect with the characters in Goodfellas, but that doesn't mean the movie didn't work. And I don't make statements about those that like the film in a condescending way.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[andreasingo]

Too Chuck.
I agree David Fincher is one of the best visual directors out there but even if his films looks incredible you don't get that same "Cameron factor" of being there. Something is not exactly right with the physics. It's a certain physical *and* visual presence in cameron films that sucks you right in. You know what I talk about?
Examples of this: The Alien Queen fight in Aliens, Arnolds MIG outside the highrise in True Lies, The underwater chase in "The Abyss". There are dokumentary detail in those images.

 

[Brad_W]

Quote:
you don't get that same "Cameron factor" of being there.
_______________________
I agree, while Fincher is awesome, Cameron makes you feel apart of something/part of the film. The grittiness of some of his movies make me want to take a shower. Though, I did want to stop eating after watching 7.
------------------
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html

 

[Mike Broadman]

andreasingo, I think I miscommunicated what I meant about "caring about the characters," because I agree with what you said in your post, especially about Barry Lyndon, so I'll try to clarify.
Caring about the characters doesn't mean liking them, which was what I think you thought I meant. Sometimes it does, but not always. I cared about what happened to Barry Lyndon, but of course I didn't like that jerk. What's great about him is that I did like him in the beginning, when he was a doofy innocent kid, but you get to see him turn into a jerk, and you just have to know how it all ends for him.
I cared about the Taxi Driver, too, even though he was a nut-job. Like Barry Lyndon, he had a good mix of vulnerability and ambition that was realistic. Kubrick and Scorcese have the most real and interesting characters as far as I'm concerned: the Taxi Driver, Hal 9000, the main characters from A Clockwork Orange and Goodfellas, Lolita's stepfather, Jack.
So, I hold that in order to have a great film, you have to care about the characters in some fashion. Cameron of course tried to do that. Cameron's and Spielberg's method of getting the audience to care about the characters is to get us to like them. It's a safer, but perfectly valid approach. In Titanic it failed, in Terminator it worked. That sort of thing usually doesn't work for me, because I guess I'm too cynical. Kubrick, Scorcese, and Stone (who I don't like) make us care because the characters connect to our darker tendencies, allowing us to relate on a more primal level. It's just a different way of doing things, and I guess I'm glad that the variety is out there.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Titanic was a lot like Annie Hall for me. I had to overcome a lot of things in order to finally get to be able to see this movie. I couldn't help but think, "Gyahh, any movie that a bunch of horny female teeny boppers whose opinions change a mile a minute can't be good." But due to forces not of my doing, a copy of Titanic was handed to my family. I gave the movie a chance, and I was pleasantly surprised by it. It had that touch of an epic to it (must be the 3 hour running time). Besides its easily accesible love story, the movie could be better appreciated for its cinematography and technical merits. Overall, a film score of B+ (I hate the four star system). But there were some things in this thread that I'd like to address

Quote:

WELL I'LL BE DAMNED!!! Somebody was able to articulate some of my feelings about some of the greatest qualities of movies. Somewhere in the past few years, it's been lost on people that movies are supposed to tell stories to an audience. And when you're able to tell a story that reaches out to a lot of people, then you've done a spectacular job.
------------------
"I don't know, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." - Homer J. Simpson
My DVD Collection

 

[andreasingo]

Mike, I agree about everything you said in your last post.
Even if I didn't care for Barry he was so well written that I just had to know what happened to him. I also agree Scorcese and Kubrick are the masters when it comes to realistic and multi-dimensional characters.
As for Cameron, I also agree that the characters in the terminator films were better written than the characters in Titanic. As for Camerons best character work I have to say The Abyss is his best. I also happen to think that film is his best film overall but that the ending is his worst...

 

[Tim Glover]

Well, I did a Slowest Search Possible Search and couldn't find an official discussion thread or review thread for Titanic...back in '97-98 the HTF was just getting started. :b
Figured this was as good a place as any to discuss my 2006 assessment of Titanic.
It's been years since I really sat down and watched the whole movie. My daughters and I watched this on Friday night...I remember going down to Suncoast Motion Picture Company and grabbing the widescreen vhs version and watching it several times, as well as the laserdisc version a year later. Even bought the hard to find dts laserdisc edition desperately trying to re-live the 70mm DTS theatrical experience. One thing that is unmistakable and that is nothing on home video has EVER come close to capturing the image or sound compared to what I heard and saw at the Northpark Theater in Dallas, Texas.
I've got a pretty great system too. Still the new dvd looks and sounds terrific-even compared to newer mixes of today. Those guys who put together Titanic's mix knew what they were doing.
On to the film: We watched this Friday night and I remembered why I love this film. I remembered why Titanic is in my top 4 or 5 films of all time. The score is masterful and remains a masterpiece. The vfx remain effective. The performances are top notch...I think what makes Titanic work so well is the relationship between Jack and Rose. This could have easily been cheezy (Like Pearl Harbor) or just overdone. For Titanic to work, we have to believe in this relationship and that's why Titanic succeeds. I don't think Leo and Kate got or get enough credit for their performances. Perhaps the sheer spectacle of the film overshot them but they had such screen presence and were mesmerizing to watch.
The other thing to mention is how great Gloria Stuart was as the older Rose. I once said that she was the film's anchor. (pardon the pun). I still believe that today. When she spoke there was such elegance and a captivation of the audience that I don't think has been seen before. Everytime she was on screen I was more aware of how much I liked her. IMO, she should have won for supporting actress over Kim Basinger but that's not really important. Gloria Stuart was incredible in this film.
The ending of Titanic might be the best ending of all time. The sequence of her walking slowly toward the end of the ship with the music playing is one of my most cherished cinematic moments. Then as she lays there in bed "joining" Jack gives me goose bumps and tears.
Fantastic movie. I think it will stand the test of time for another generation to marvel at.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

My sister has recently introduced her 4 year old daughter to Titanic. I'm sure that will replicate itself to some extent, just as it did for boys and Star Wars.
Her thoughts on the film were rather amusing. Morbid little girl
This was the first thread I ever started, and it managed to stay civil for it's short run. Even has my first sig (how original) and red x's for my smileys.
I still love the movie as much now as I did then. As much as I did in 1997. I was thrilled with the DVD SE last year, and I eagerly await an HD/Blu-Ray copy of the film.

 

[Tim Glover]

This was really the first viewing for my daughters too. They are 14 and 12. They've seen part of it before but not like this. My oldest and my youngest too are still brooding over Jack's death. :b They both teared up over my favorite Titanic moment...when Jack, and later Cal, convince Rose to take the boat for safety. Slowly her boat decends, music playing, seeing Jack with the ship's flares going off in the background, and then her decision to not leave him is a gut wrenching and eye watering moment. When Jack started saying, "Rose, your so stupid etc.." they both had major tears flowing.
I forgot to mention that the next day, I think we heard the cd soundtrack about a zillion times. The Back to Titanic version with dialogue too. Finally, I proclaimed either change cds or I will contemplate suicide. Just kidding. :b
Another actor who deserves mentioning is Victor Garbor. He was the perfect choice for that role and I loved how Rose and he connected. Understated and yet conveyed real power.