Great Summation of this Movie & Why it's GREAT

[Robert T. Paige]

Roy-

If you should chance to view "The Big Show" be advised of the shocking scene at the very end....HE kisses HER instead of CHAMPION !

 

[Dr. Douglas B. Willingham]

As a fan of 1953's "Titanic", winning the Oscar for "Best Screenplay", I support that film's creative subplot of an American family in crisis set against the factual tragedy. I love Cameron's film, but agree that his subplot is insipid. I believe that the "Best Screenplay" award, if not also the nomination, was denied him, keeping the film from being the all-time Oscar winner.

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>Brilliant sets, though, as you say Jim.

Yup. Praising a film exclusively for its sets is the cinematic equivalent of saying "the food in that restaurant is disgusting, but what a beautiful room!" or "That book was intolerable but look at tht dust jacket!"

>I once began a list similar to yours Jim, but whilst watching the film so 'twas all chronological

I've not seen the film since its release on video, where I realised that divorced of its bigness it lost whatever impact it once had. So, the list was off the top of my head and not as comprehensive as it might once have been. For me, the film went from drama to comedy during the card game where Leo was trying to pass himself off as...well...masculine~ or at least over 17 years old~ and I found myself thinking "he couldn't successfully hold his own in an argument with a convenience store clerk who short changed him, no less these bit players, if this was real-life" and after that things deteriorated rapidly.

 

[Jon Meadows]

> Praising a film exclusively for its sets is the
> cinematic equivalent of saying "the food in
> that restaurant is disgusting, but what a
> beautiful room!" or "That book was intolerable
> but look at tht dust jacket!"

Actually, film being a visual medium, those comparisons are irrelevant.

In a film like Titanic, where the period and the visuals used to tell the story are crucial, praising the sets, costumes and visual effects is as important as praising the screenplay.

Insipid or not, I'm happy to have a retelling of the sinking that does not begin with a fully-lighted iceberg tearing open the side of a model ship on the wrong side like a knife through butter (and you all know to which version I'm referring). Now THAT was silly.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

>>Actually, film being a visual medium, those comparisons are irrelevant<<

Agreeing, the visuals in James Cameron's Titanic is so far the best and most accurate to a large extent.

 

[Jerry Nuovo]

Robert,it is o.k. that you quoted what I wrote in my previous posts.Here is some more things I think are silly from the film Titanic '97.Such as Rose posing naked for Jack's drawing of her,Jack and Rose having sex in the back seat of the car in Titanic's cargo hold.Some Titanic experts have said that particular car was placed into a wooden crate before it was brought aboard the Titanic.Molly Brown just happened to have a tuxedo that fitted Jack.Since Molly was a real life historical character,if her son was not with her on this transatlantic trip why would she even pack her son's tuxedo into her luggage or steamer trunk? Rose's fiance Cal depicted as a rich arrogant villan.I'm surprised that Cal did not have a mustache so that he can twirl the mustache and also laugh a evil laugh and also the same thing for Cal's valet Spicer Lovejoy.Killjoy would have been a better last name for Spicer.Rose attempting suicide by jumping off the Titanic's stern,oh the poor girl living in the lap of luxury.Jack being so poor that he had to draw naked pictures of women to make a living,how did this guy even survive by only earning 10 cents a picture? Rose's mother being a arrogant snob.Cal loved Rose so much he wanted to give her a million dollar diamond necklace but Rose always being the weird one would rather pose naked for Jack's picture and she pays him 10 cents for his services.Poor First Officer Murdoch depicted as accepting a bribe from Cal and then later shooting down 2 steerage passengers and then shooting himself in the head.We do not know for sure if Officer Murdoch shot any passengers and then committed suicide or if any of Titanic's other officers did this instead of Murdoch.Captain Smith acting after the collision with the iceberg as being not sure of himself and when a woman with a baby asks him what to do now he does not answer her question and goes into the wheelhouse and closes the door.Second Officer Lightoller acting very arrogantly when he is loading the lifeboats with women and children.Old Rose dumping the million dollar diamond necklace into the Atlantic at the spot where the Titanic sank instead of giving it to her granddaughter.If my grandmother did this I would scream out at her "YOU DID WHAT THANKS A LOT GRANDMA" in a sarcasm sort of way.No wonder why this film did not get an oscar in the category of best screenplay.

 

[Robert T. Paige]

Thanks, Jerry -

Aside from all its sins of o-mission and co-mission in "that other movie" (1953)... the love story is a little less silly than "that one"
(1997). The R.J.- Audrey subplot was considerably lower key and (maybe a little ?) more believable than the Leo-Kate version.

It is also amazing that the 1953 version got an Academy Award for the best screenplay.

No "triangle" involved, either , and no "villains" like Zane and Warner unless you consider Daddy Clifton ?

 

[João Carlos Pereira Martins]

Well, I think Mr. Cameron said one thing I believe it's important: if we don't appreciate the ship and the people on it, we can't appreciate the sinking.

Ok, the 97 film is not a masterpiece of cinema but when I saw it for the first time I was hoping for something more focused in the small true stories of the voyage and in the beauty and modernism of that ship and I was expecting the tragedy portraying to be centred in the losses of all lifes, not only in a single story about a cheeky girl who wanted to belong a world that she wasn't born for and that have lost a 2-day lover. Didn't they think in the marriages of decades ripped apart that night? The children which both parents died (many of them were third class, they had no money, no clothes, no place to go!)?

The sets are good an I believe and I can see they were faithfully reproduced. But... didn't this wonderful sets deserved a better screenplay? Mr. Andrews talking more about the ship, the passengers making commentaries about the opulence and the comfort, more dialogues regarding the gossip on board, past histories of characters (real and fictional).I was just reminding the 96 miniseries. Excessive number of fictional characters and pathetic special effects,yes, it's all true, but the story was more about the ship. I'm writing a story which takes place on board the Titanic. The story has consistence but I never forget that the ship is the main thing in the book, the character number one.

Sorry to disturb the ones with better supported opinions but it was a thought.

Thanks everybody, João

 

[Vitezslav Ivicic]

No third class child did not survive the disaster, and I know only about Allisons - the both parents died and their son was saved by their maid. Do you know any others?

And by the way - most of american films are like this (Pearl Harbor for instance).

Sincerely
Vitezslav Ivicic

 

[Dave Gittins]

I'm not surprised that Titanic doesn't make it into lists of great movies compiled by film critics. They usually give top place to Citizen Kane or Casablanca.

What is interesting is that Titanic doesn't make the list of the top 250 movies voted for by users of the Internet Movie Data Base. That list is headed by The Godfather.

Titanic still holds the record for box office takings in the USA. If takings are adjusted for inflation, the winner would be Gone With the Wind, or maybe Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hello, Jim!

>>Praising a film exclusively for its sets is the cinematic equivalent of saying "the food in that restaurant is disgusting, but what a beautiful room!" or "That book was intolerable but look at tht dust jacket!"

I've done precisely that sort of thing on occasion. If I can find a single positive thing to say about what is otherwise a pile of dreck, I'll single it out if it makes my point. But Jim, I agree with your word "exclusively."

Roy

Old Woody Allen joke:

"You know, the food here is terrible."
"Yes, and such small portions."

 

[Mary Hamric]

Well, I think Titanic will get some film respect in the long arc of film history. I think many people put the Godfather and films like that on their lists partly because it's cool to like that film (and it is a great film, of course). It's not cool or hip to like this one. Even here (sometimes)

Don't worry Roy, I'm not bent out of shape that many here don't like the film much for a variety of reasons. That's fine. What's a blockbuster between Titanic nuts?

 

[João Carlos Pereira Martins]

Hello Vitezslav!

"No third class child did not survive the disaster..."

I'm afraid not. The last statistics I consulted show that more than 50 children perished in steerage.

When I said the third class orphans I was not generalizing. I know the Allisons, the Navratril boys and Arthur Olsen, a 9-year-old boy who lost his father on the disaster. But there are certainly other who both parents died and at least one of them did.

Cheers, João

 

[Jim Kalafus]

>> Praising a film exclusively for its sets is >>the cinematic equivalent of saying "the food >>in that restaurant is disgusting, but what a
>> beautiful room!" or "That book was intolerable
>> but look at tht dust jacket!"

>Actually, film being a visual medium, those comparisons are irrelevant.

No, they are completely relevant because I qualified my statement with "exclusively." If the ONLY things one finds to praise in a film are the sets, costumes and F/X, as several people have done on this thread, then the film has failed in much the same way a restaurant that gets panned for its food but praised for its architecture has.

And yes, film is a visual medium and when things go awry there the effect can be as...distancing...as the lack of a compelling plot was in Titanic. Watch the 1958 Doris Day film "Julie" to see what I mean~ it is an odd tale in which the recently widowed Julie is wooed by by Louis Jourdan who turns out to be a psycho who disables the flight crew on Julie's plane (she is a stewardess) forcing her to land it all by herself. It must hold the Hollywood record for visual gaffes in a big budget film. The gaffes serve to remind a viewer that this is, indeed a film, and so one never engages. When one finds oneself looking at the sets for long blocks so time and ignoring the onscreen dialogue, one is acknowledging the fact that the film is not engaging and the script wrtier has failed.

>And by the way - most of american films are like this (Pearl Harbor for instance).

Well...no. It is just that our more intelligent films tend not to be exported, in favor of the blockbusters. Excellent films like Lisa Picard is Famous, and Welcome to the Dollhouse would not translate well, being too...topical...whereas our dregs, which do not require context to be understood, unfortunately DO translate. Export revenues often make the difference between embarrassing failure and slender profit.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hi, João!

>>I know the Allisons, the Navratril boys and Arthur Olsen, a 9-year-old boy who lost his father on the disaster.

Well, not to downplay the sadness, but the Allisons were traveling in first class.

Re: Third Class. Let's not forget about the Rice family. Margaret (Mrs. William) Rice and her 5 young sons all perished. Her husband had been killed in a freak railyard accident in 1910, and she'd taken her family back to Ireland with hopes of relocating. Things hadn't worked out, so they were returning to their home in Spokane (Spo-CAN), Washington.

One of the cemetery workers at Mr. Rice's funeral had been John H. Chapman. He and his new wife Sarah Elizabeth were returning from their wedding in England, traveling in Titanic's second class. They both died as well.

Roy