Titanic Review
by Ruediger Landmann (s302728 AT student DOT uq DOT edu DOT au)January 6th, 1998
It was with a certain amount of doubt that I fronted up to Titanic. It's simply not the kind of film that I usually enjoy, not being much of an admirer of American cinema, or of romances either. Combined with the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio, whom I disliked so much in Romeo and Juliet, was starring, I could barely will myself to the cinema.
Why did I go then?
I wanted to see the ship. I've had a lingering interest in the Titanic since I was entranced by Robert Ballard's photos of the wreck in _National Geographic_ years and years ago. Having heard that the film incorporated actual footage of the Titanic as she is today, I was determined to see it on the big screen. Besides, having liked some of James Cameron's work (the first Terminator film, and Aliens), I wondered if it could really be that bad.
Titanic is really three stories in one: the framing story set in the present, the story of the romance between Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Buckater, and the story of the Titanic sinking. These three tales are skilfully interwoven by Cameron, but are told with varying degrees of success.
For me, the romance was the least satisfactory. I can attribute part of this to my reaction to DiCaprio, whose style I personally find irritating, but most of the blame must be attributed to Cameron, for a very weak script. Although I didn't care for Kate Winslet's performance as Rose much either, I found myself feeling very sorry for her having to deliver such trite and cliched lines. This was really by-the-numbers stuff: rich, uppity (but inwardly dissatisfied) girl meets boy-from-the-wrong-side-of- town who teaches her that there's more to life than she's ever known. Unfortunately, Cameron was not able to disguise how tired the formula is, and the only surprise is the cliche that it manages to avoid: had it been revealed that Rose ended up carrying Jack's child, and that Jack was Lizzy Calvert's (Suzy Amis) real grandfather, the cheese would have been unbearable. Fortunately, Cameron somehow managed to restrain himself.
The supporting cast isn't treated much better by the script: Billy Zane as Rose's fiance, Cal Hockley, lacked only a black cape and a moustache to twirl to make him into the archetypal melodrama villain, and Frances Fisher as Rose's mother never quite succeeded in her valiant attempt to do something with what she had been handed by Cameron. Nowhere is this more obvious than the scene where she is lacing Rose into her corset, and sympathy for the character is asked of the audience. By then it's far too late. Where Fisher fails, David Warner as Cal's valet, Spicer Lovejoy, enjoys a marginal success, succeeding perhaps because he had the luxury of playing a character from whom no real depth is required, nor for whom sympathy is expected.
Fortunately, as the film continues, the love story is gradually eclipsed by the much larger drama unfolding around Jack and Rose as the Titanic strikes the iceberg and begins to sink. Cameron is in his element now, masterfully building tension and suspense, and providing that sick feeling in the pit of the stomach that something really, really awful is happening. It's the same feeling that he was able to use so successfully to underpin his science-fiction projects. Comparing Titanic to The Terminator and Aliens, one can find a strong parallel between small, weak, and insignficant humans pitched up against forces that are inexorable, unstoppable, and deadly. The horror of knowing that the Titanic is going to sink and that nothing can stop it (stated so quietly and effectively by Victor Garber as the Titanic's builder, Thomas Andrews) is the same horror faced by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), knowing that the Terminator will not give up until it has tracked her down and killed her, and the same horror faced by the Marines cornered behind their own barricades by the aliens which they know will inevitably swarm in and overpower them. Not a shot is wasted as Cameron tells this story that he knows and tells so well, with the tension being kept at boiling point for a solid half-hour or more. Again, as in The Terminator and Aliens, he uses the claustrophobia allowed by his setting to work to full advantage. There isn't a moment's let-up until the Titanic finally sinks completely. Best of all for me, the constant movement of this part of the film releases DiCaprio from the need to act, and Winslet from her apalling lines.
Unfortunately, what comes next - Jack and Rose afloat and awaiting rescue not only returns to the inanity of the first part of their love story, but forms an over-long and conspicuous anticlimax to the James Cameron action film woven into Titanic.
Amidst all of this, the other supporting players are given a chance for some fine work. Garber's performance has already been noted, and Bernard Hill as Captain E. J. Smith performs with a simple and understated dignity that evokes great sympathy as well as serving to underscore the unfolding tragedy.
What of the framing story? This was an excellent device for Cameron to use to anticipate the drama that was to come. His audience all know that the Titanic is going to hit an iceberg and sink. Cameron opens his film by telling them that he knows it too and is not going to insult their intelligence by asking them to forget this little fact for an hour or so. Having said that, the story itself is completely disposable, and would also be completely unremarkable except for the fine job that Gloria Stuart did as Rose at age 101, once again, in spite of a script that worked against her all the way.
In the end, the sheer power of the story of the Titanic sinking, coupled with the breath-taking special effects and the silent poignancy of the images of the wreck lying miles under the Atlantic made me forgive Cameron completely for his misguided scriptwriting. As I said, it was these elements that had convinced me to see the film on the big screen, and I didn't go away disappointed.
Titanic is not a great film, but it is a profoundly powerful and moving one. Because I feel that it has so many great things about it, and so many awful things at the same time, I don't feel comfortable or confident in giving it a score of any kind - especially because I know that my personal dislike for DiCaprio's acting has coloured my impressions of it. Instead, I'm voting with my feet - I'm going to see it again tonight.
Ruediger Landmann
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
