Mike's Musings: Revisiting "Titanic"
When "Titanic" was released on December 19, 1997, anticipation was high. Rumors of a disaster were rampant, as it was the most expensive movie ever made (at the time) and had been delayed by five months because the special effects weren't ready (it was originally set to be released on July 2 in the middle of blockbuster season). It turned out to be the exact opposite. Word of mouth and internet chatter spread quickly, and it became a smash hit. It stayed number one at the box offices for a record-setting 15 weeks and only left theaters on October 1, 1998. It was also the first film to cross the billion dollar mark at the box office and was the all time box-office champion for 12 years (it was subsequently broken by Cameron's next film, "Avatar" and "Avengers: Endgame," although Cameron insists that his "Avatar" sequels will top it.
Needless to say, "Titanic" defied all expectations. But that, as they say, was then. Does it still hold up after more than 20 years? Without a doubt.
"Titanic" works because it is about more than special effects. Don't get me wrong. The then-record breaking $200 million budget (a budget that necessitated it being co-financed by 20th Century Fox and Paramount) was well spent. But James Cameron uses them wisely. He understands that the fundamentals are the most important. Storytelling, acting and chemistry always come first for him. So while the action-packed final hour of the film takes your breath away, the film remains centered around Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater.
Rewatching the film, I was impressed at just how brilliantly the film is constructed. Not just in terms of the special effects (which, even after 20 years, put CGI extravaganzas like any given Marvel movie to shame), but in terms of how Cameron tells the story. This film has a huge scope with dozens of characters. Yet, the film is always centered on the two lovers. That's as it should be. The ship and its passengers are the color to set the stage, but Jack & Rose are the beating heart.
Also important is that Cameron has patience. He allows the film to build. Take for example the sinking. A less confident or knowledgable filmmaker would have pressed the panic button as soon as the iceberg hit. Not Jim Cameron. He allows the shock to wear off and slowly builds the horror. That allows us to emotionally switch gears and soak in the tragedy. It makes the sinking much more potent.
What also impressed me was the way Cameron managed to show us all parts of the ship (or almost all of them) without resorting to contrivance. Who could have imagined that a romance between a rich girl and poor kid on a luxurious ship could have taken them from the top deck to the coal fires in the bowels of the ship? It just goes to show you how well Cameron thought this story through.
The array of excellent performances cannot be denied. Everyone, from the two leads to the characters without a single line is specific and memorable. We remember the little boy screaming alone in the hallway as the water threatens to break open the doors and drown him. We remember the kindly ship designer Thomas Andrews and the arrogant financier Bruce Ismay. We remember the Arab family frantically trying to translate the ships directions so they can escape. We remember the young mother who desperately asks Captain Smith where she should go as the ship is sinking (and their tragic fate). Few filmmakers have the skill to create memorable characters with only a line or two of dialogue. It's a skill that Cameron puts to good use.
Not to be forgotten, of course, are the leads. In fact, all six of the main characters are well-developed and captivating. Frances Fisher is terrific as Rose's loving but brittle mother Ruth, Billy Zane is a true bastard as Cal, Jack's rival, Kathy Bates is perfect as the salt-of-the-earth Molly Brown, and Gloria Stuart is a great window in to the story as the elderly Rose. It's rare that a movie romance can find room for so many well-developed supporting characters, but Jim Cameron does.
It's a tall order to carry a epic extravaganza, but Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are more than up to the task. Before "Titanic," they had stable careers and an Oscar nomination apiece ("What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" for him and "Sense and Sensibility" for her, both in the supporting category), but neither was a big star. This movie catapulted them into the stratosphere. So much so that they backed off from their careers for a while. DiCaprio filmed a cameo in a Woody Allen movie and had the lead in "The Man in the Iron Mask," but that was in production before "Titanic" was released (it came out the next year). His first post-"Titanic" role was "The Beach," and he has been distancing himself creatively ever since. Kate Winslet turned to independent films like "Hideous Kinky" and "Holy Smoke!" While certainly not averse to big budget or attention grabbing films (she did, after all, appear in the "Divergent" sequels), she has resolutely stayed away from being a "star."
It's their chemistry as well as their talent that really makes this movie work. From the moment their eyes meet, there is an instant connection, and the audience feels it. It doesn't take long for it to catch fire. By the time Rose looks at Jack's drawings, the bond between them is palpable, even if they don't know it yet. The two actors became good friends on set and remain so to this day. Their off-screen chemistry shows up on screen.
That chemistry is the only reason why the film's most infamous moment works: the portrait scene. The connection between Jack & Rose is so strong that the scene where Jack draws her portrait generates a red hot erotic charge. In fact, it's so powerful that the fact that she is naked is almost incidental. Certainly a brief shot of her cleavage didn't persuade the notoriously prudish MPAA to slap this film with an R rating. Perhaps because the sexual tension is so strong that it seems a lot more explicit than it actually is. The scene mainly consists of an eyeline match between the two rather than a gaze of her naked body. By comparison, their actual sex scene in the car is almost an afterthought.
A movie this complex and this well-made doesn't happen by chance. James Cameron is a perfectionist (or a rightist, as he calls it: "I'm a rightist," he said. "I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing). His authoritarian manner and notorious temper have given him the reputation of being difficult to work with, although there are more than a few actors like Sigourney Weaver, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the late Bill Paxton and Jeanette Goldstein who have worked with him repeatedly. But "Titanic" is obviously made from someone who is in absolute control of the film. Each shot is carefully composed, each cut is deliberately made and each moment is patiently cultivated. We are mentally prepared for each action. He makes sure that we understand the characters through and through. We know what they're thinking and why they act the way they do. Only then does he add the special effects.
Ultimately, "Titanic" still holds up because it's good in a classical sense. It's great storytelling. It doesn't rely on any foreknowledge going in. It starts with two fascinating and immensely memorable characters and follows them through an extraordinary story. Sure, it's at times hokey and the melodrama is sometimes pushed to the limit, but that's par for the course. You don't make a movie like "Titanic" with anything resembling subtlety. This is a movie that takes us out of the theater and sweeps us into great love, great triumph and great tragedy. That's why this movie is so beloved and so iconic. Because it's just great storytelling.
Needless to say, "Titanic" defied all expectations. But that, as they say, was then. Does it still hold up after more than 20 years? Without a doubt.
"Titanic" works because it is about more than special effects. Don't get me wrong. The then-record breaking $200 million budget (a budget that necessitated it being co-financed by 20th Century Fox and Paramount) was well spent. But James Cameron uses them wisely. He understands that the fundamentals are the most important. Storytelling, acting and chemistry always come first for him. So while the action-packed final hour of the film takes your breath away, the film remains centered around Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater.
Rewatching the film, I was impressed at just how brilliantly the film is constructed. Not just in terms of the special effects (which, even after 20 years, put CGI extravaganzas like any given Marvel movie to shame), but in terms of how Cameron tells the story. This film has a huge scope with dozens of characters. Yet, the film is always centered on the two lovers. That's as it should be. The ship and its passengers are the color to set the stage, but Jack & Rose are the beating heart.
Also important is that Cameron has patience. He allows the film to build. Take for example the sinking. A less confident or knowledgable filmmaker would have pressed the panic button as soon as the iceberg hit. Not Jim Cameron. He allows the shock to wear off and slowly builds the horror. That allows us to emotionally switch gears and soak in the tragedy. It makes the sinking much more potent.
What also impressed me was the way Cameron managed to show us all parts of the ship (or almost all of them) without resorting to contrivance. Who could have imagined that a romance between a rich girl and poor kid on a luxurious ship could have taken them from the top deck to the coal fires in the bowels of the ship? It just goes to show you how well Cameron thought this story through.
The array of excellent performances cannot be denied. Everyone, from the two leads to the characters without a single line is specific and memorable. We remember the little boy screaming alone in the hallway as the water threatens to break open the doors and drown him. We remember the kindly ship designer Thomas Andrews and the arrogant financier Bruce Ismay. We remember the Arab family frantically trying to translate the ships directions so they can escape. We remember the young mother who desperately asks Captain Smith where she should go as the ship is sinking (and their tragic fate). Few filmmakers have the skill to create memorable characters with only a line or two of dialogue. It's a skill that Cameron puts to good use.
Not to be forgotten, of course, are the leads. In fact, all six of the main characters are well-developed and captivating. Frances Fisher is terrific as Rose's loving but brittle mother Ruth, Billy Zane is a true bastard as Cal, Jack's rival, Kathy Bates is perfect as the salt-of-the-earth Molly Brown, and Gloria Stuart is a great window in to the story as the elderly Rose. It's rare that a movie romance can find room for so many well-developed supporting characters, but Jim Cameron does.
It's a tall order to carry a epic extravaganza, but Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are more than up to the task. Before "Titanic," they had stable careers and an Oscar nomination apiece ("What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" for him and "Sense and Sensibility" for her, both in the supporting category), but neither was a big star. This movie catapulted them into the stratosphere. So much so that they backed off from their careers for a while. DiCaprio filmed a cameo in a Woody Allen movie and had the lead in "The Man in the Iron Mask," but that was in production before "Titanic" was released (it came out the next year). His first post-"Titanic" role was "The Beach," and he has been distancing himself creatively ever since. Kate Winslet turned to independent films like "Hideous Kinky" and "Holy Smoke!" While certainly not averse to big budget or attention grabbing films (she did, after all, appear in the "Divergent" sequels), she has resolutely stayed away from being a "star."
It's their chemistry as well as their talent that really makes this movie work. From the moment their eyes meet, there is an instant connection, and the audience feels it. It doesn't take long for it to catch fire. By the time Rose looks at Jack's drawings, the bond between them is palpable, even if they don't know it yet. The two actors became good friends on set and remain so to this day. Their off-screen chemistry shows up on screen.
That chemistry is the only reason why the film's most infamous moment works: the portrait scene. The connection between Jack & Rose is so strong that the scene where Jack draws her portrait generates a red hot erotic charge. In fact, it's so powerful that the fact that she is naked is almost incidental. Certainly a brief shot of her cleavage didn't persuade the notoriously prudish MPAA to slap this film with an R rating. Perhaps because the sexual tension is so strong that it seems a lot more explicit than it actually is. The scene mainly consists of an eyeline match between the two rather than a gaze of her naked body. By comparison, their actual sex scene in the car is almost an afterthought.
A movie this complex and this well-made doesn't happen by chance. James Cameron is a perfectionist (or a rightist, as he calls it: "I'm a rightist," he said. "I do something until it's right, and then I move on to the next thing). His authoritarian manner and notorious temper have given him the reputation of being difficult to work with, although there are more than a few actors like Sigourney Weaver, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the late Bill Paxton and Jeanette Goldstein who have worked with him repeatedly. But "Titanic" is obviously made from someone who is in absolute control of the film. Each shot is carefully composed, each cut is deliberately made and each moment is patiently cultivated. We are mentally prepared for each action. He makes sure that we understand the characters through and through. We know what they're thinking and why they act the way they do. Only then does he add the special effects.
Ultimately, "Titanic" still holds up because it's good in a classical sense. It's great storytelling. It doesn't rely on any foreknowledge going in. It starts with two fascinating and immensely memorable characters and follows them through an extraordinary story. Sure, it's at times hokey and the melodrama is sometimes pushed to the limit, but that's par for the course. You don't make a movie like "Titanic" with anything resembling subtlety. This is a movie that takes us out of the theater and sweeps us into great love, great triumph and great tragedy. That's why this movie is so beloved and so iconic. Because it's just great storytelling.
Comments
Post a Comment