This film is one of the most modern films on the list of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition).
Film 83
83. "Titanic" (AFI Rank #83 - HAHAHAHAHA for coincidence)
Let's not even pretend on this one. You've seen this movie. I'll take my odds on that and bet on it. Every film that was released prior to 2007, with the exception of "Jurassic Park," that held the box office record for U.S. domestic gross in its initial release, unadjusted dollars, is on the AFI list of the Top 100. Since 1937, we have "Snow White..." which held the record until "Gone With The Wind," which held it until "Jaws," which briefly held it until "Star Wars," which yielded to "E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial," supplanted by "Jurassic Park," then came this one. Since 2007, two other films have grossed more than this one, but that wasn't available at the time this AFI list was made. Lots and lots of people have seen these films. A great deal of the reason for that is that these films are really, really good, often great. This film...don't hate me...qualifies.
There are myriad errors made in this film, and I'll discuss a few of them later, but this film, folks, is ambitious as hell film-making, with a populist love story thrown into it, telling the tale of a real-life enigmatic tragedy. Scads and scads of books are written on the JFK assassination. You know what else has scads of books written about it? The RMS Titanic. Why? Because of the human tragedy, for sure, but a great deal of that is also because of hubris, and the notion that something so grand could go away so easily, on its initial voyage. It's a compelling tale, and it makes for a hell of a film topic. Know why the Titanic still inspires us to research? Because for decades, it was believed that the ship went down in one piece. Now we know it broke in two, but there are teams of experts that say it didn't snap at the deck first, but in the hull, and that it was a concave event rather than convex. Other teams of experts say that's bullshit. It is the idea of unanswered questions that drives this tale, and we humans are suckers for that. 
James Cameron wrote and directed this film. I mention both, because I want to discuss some of the obvious flaws in logic that happen in this film (I'll leave the big one until late in the post), and why I think they may be there. Cameron's writing never is awe-inspiring in this, but it's above average to very good. His direction, likewise, is at times great, but suffers from serious oversights/impossibilities that I think, looking at it, may be the result of a writer trying to direct a film, and a director trying to write one. Take, for example, Old Rose (Gloria Stuart) at the end of the film. OK, I said I know you saw this, so I'm not spoiling anything. We see a 101 year old woman in a starkly white nightgown, who's been confined to a wheelchair or a cane whenever we've seen her prior, walking the back deck of an insanely well-lit ship, climbing up a railing and tossing a priceless diamond necklace overboard. OK. NO WAY no one comes out and checks on her. Impossible. It's good for the story, though, so the writer won this battle over the director who should have said, "Really?" We also have a scene early in the film where Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) is teaching Rose (Kate Winslet) how to spit. "Hock it back (?!)" he implores her. "Hock (?!)" That's some mighty modern slang there, Leo. I understand this scene was ad-libbed, but what the director wanted was to establish a budding romance/commonality between these two seemingly VERY diverse characters. So, that time the director kicked the writer's ass. My point is that I recognize that there was more going on here than just some mistakes. The choices seem intentional, but they seem wrong. This isn't that unusual with HUGE films written and directed by the same guy (I'm looking at you, Lucas). It must be nigh impossible to do all that work and get it all right.
I mentioned before that this film qualifies as really good to great. It does. Visually, it's stunning at times (although the technology used in CGI has rapidly made this seem obsolete and clunky). Getting to see the Titanic, looking real, sailing on the ocean, is wonderful. I think the love story is reasonably compelling, if at times, clunky. We needed to have a reason to want to stay with this until the ending. We knew what was going to happen. The boat was going to hit an iceberg, it was going to sink, and lots of people were going to die. Yet, Cameron spends so much of this film taking us on a tour of this grand ship, that when the inevitable end comes, the violence with which it is rent asunder is brilliant. He illustrates this further by not skimping on graphic violence happening to people as Titanic falls to pieces underneath them. If I say "propeller guy," you know that there's a moment where a guy falls off the back of the ship, and he hits one of the propellers with a sickening "CLANG," then continues to his death. There are other moments where we see bodies slammed into railings, and into walls, and into whatever. This wasn't a peaceful death. This was painful, horrifying death that visited these 1500 people that wound up losing their lives in this event. Cameron really, really does a masterful job of showing that.
Equally masterful is the completely insipid way in which the boat begins to sink, when shown from the perspective of the interior of the ship. It starts slowly, as an unrelenting force that just starts creeping across the dry floor, but we fear it, because we know that eventually, that water we see is going to be omnipresent, and that Titanic won't be able to resist its destructive persistence. Watch as the sinking progresses. Water fills rooms in FAR more violent bursts later than it did when it started. We FEEL it. Captain Smith's (Bernard Hill) death is heartbreakingly violent, considering that just moments before we see the boat peacefully succumbing to the water's surface. It's visceral. It's great filmmaking. I will say that the moment when Titanic leaves the surface, and we see it, just for the briefest of moments, as the stern sinks away, with "Titanic Liverpool" painted on it is crazy moving for me. Dry land has just slipped away. We then are taken to THE shot of the film, for my money, the long-range shot of the still alive passengers flailing and screaming in the water, with no hope of rescue/survival. That moment got me in the theatre the first time I saw this, and it got me again this time.
I mentioned the love story. There is a real chemistry between Winslet and DiCaprio. You genuinely believe the two of them are falling in love. DiCaprio wasn't a star of the first magnitude when this film was made. He'd turned in a few AMAZING performances before this, but this was the film that made him a STAR. As such, you forget how good he can be. Even here. Winslet is a treasure, and her Rose hits all the right notes. Not so believable, and mostly a flaw in the writing, needing to insert more drama into scenes where it maybe wasn't required, is Billy Zane's almost comically evil Caledon Hockley. Watching this last night, I was struck by how much Cal HAS TO WIN, no matter the cost. He, on several occasions as the ship is sinking, puts himself in harm's way to try and prove some point to himself, or to Rose, or to Jack, I guess. It smacks as dishonest at times, but helps to explain the populist appeal of this film. Look at the films that make TONS of money. One thing you don't see in them is real moral questions of good/evil. Nope, the archetypes are there, and they sell a lot of tickets. Also perhaps over the top at times is Rose's mother, played with an unflinching, icebergish (heh) demeanor by Frances Fisher. Ruth does redeem herself, somewhat after the boat sinks. We see her seeking comfort in her previous nemesis Molly Brown's (Kathy Bates) arms. We see Cal share a flask with an obviously-beneath-him stranger. We see lots of moments of real change in some of the characters as they survive at the end. I also should mention that Victor Garber is really good as ship designer Thomas Andrews. 
Framing the telling of the tale of the Titanic are an opening and closing in which we meet the wacky characters aboard the research vessel Keldysh, led by Bill Paxton as Brock Lovett. Showing the actual Titanic, resting on the ocean floor, however, was a masterful idea by Cameron. I should also mention that I really, really like the performance of Lewis Abernathy as Lewis Bodine (Bearded guy). He's so obviously not an actor that his scenes just drip honesty. I like that guy. By the way, did you know it's 20 minutes until we see the Titanic in its original state? Yeah. 20 minutes. All of this modern stuff absolutely helps propel the story along, and while it, at times, feels a little awkward, it fits. It just does.Soundtrack is very good. I understand that there may have been a song that got famous as a result of this. I do, however, particularly want to mention one thing about music. It is a fairly well known fact that the string quartet did play as long as they could on the deck of the Titanic as it sank, concluding with "Nearer My God To Thee." Its use in this film, as background to the violent end happening to Titanic, is brilliant. Just brilliant.
Other details I like:
1. There was a cook rescued from the water who claimed he stayed alive because he was nipping at his flask. Yup. He's the guy next to Rose and Jack at the back of the ship.
2. I love that we can find the characters we know in several long shots of the boat sinking, specifically Cal wrestling with the lifeboat, and Jack and Rose leaping to the back deck.
3. I mentioned the violence happening to the humans and the ship. Don't want to shortchange that. It's stunning work.4. I like the fact that in the final shot, as Rose reappears on the Grand Staircase and is reunited with Jack, that Captain Smith doesn't clap until we see him. It's a nice moment.
5. I kinda like that whole last sequence on the Grand Staircase. No. I don't kinda like it. I like it.
6. Showing the baby in the water, dead in its dead mother's arms was vital.
7. OF COURSE DR. BOMBAY WAS ON THE TITANIC. (Hat tip to my sister on that one...but it also is a hat tip to the previous film about the Titanic, "A Night To Remember" in which actor Bernard Fox also appeared)
8. Cameron took the time to introduce a lot of insignificant people to us that don't make it, and we see them as their lives end. It's good stuff.
OK. I mentioned something at the top of this that I cannot forgive. At the end of the voyage to America, after her rescue, and aboard the Carpathia, Rose, when asked her name, gives it as "Dawson. Rose Dawson." Now, I'm all for paying tribute to the man who saved her then *SPOILER* died, but...Ruth, Molly Brown, Bruce Ismay, and Cal all survived the wreck, and all of them knew both Rose...and Jack DAWSON. Having a survivor's list (and they're easily accessible online now, but I guarantee they were available widely back in 1912 also) that included someone named ROSE DAWSON would mean that EVERYONE WHO KNEW HER knows she's still alive. That, THAT, is unforgivable, as the film wants us to believe that Rose slipped away into her own life and away from all those people without ever seeing any of them again. BULLSHIT. Just BULLSHIT. OK. Glad I got that off my chest.
Look, I'm not telling you about a movie you don't know. I'm telling you what I find great about it. You probably look at this film with a little disdain now, and it is perhaps fashionable to do so. Know what James Cameron loves? He loves the story of the Titanic. Know what he's spent a LOT of time doing in his life? Exploring the wreck. Know why this film is great? Because that guy cared about what he was doing. A LOT.
Watch it again. Watch it for its craft. It really is a terrific film. Just terrific.
Julie laughs at me when I talk about Ebert's reviews of films on this list, and how eerily my thoughts echo his. She especially laughs when I point out to you that I didn't read his review before writing mine. I didn't again this time. Here's his. I'll leave it alone, and not comment further.
No comments:
Post a Comment