Titanic Review
by Alex Bryson (anb24 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk)January 30th, 1998
TITANIC (1997)
Dir: James Cameron
Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Bill Paxton, Gloria Stewart, Kathy Bates, Billy Zane
Review by Alex Bryson
RATING: **** / ****
Once in a while a movie arrives that is capable of appealing directly to the nobler emotions of the viewer, and succeeds in embedding itself in the popular consciousness. I'm pretty sure this is one of those movies. As a piece of cinema Titanic suffers from any number of highly visible flaws but for some curious reason as a whole it proves to be a triumph, offering an exhilarating and affecting three and a quarter hour experience few will forget quickly. Cameron expresses himself on the largest and most expensive canvas ever but there is still intimacy and subtlety in the film at its best.
Titanic is a cinematic brain bypass operation, but I don't mean that in a disparaging way: the best films find a way to communicate their themes: love, sacrifice, tragedy in this case without you noticing. There is an examination of class and society in the film, as well as the familiar notions of arrogance and greed so often associated with this subject, but that is secondary to the main purpose of Titanic, which is to tell the tale of a doomed romance. Categorising Titanic is difficult: it is an uneasy combination of traditional disaster movie, epic romance and James Cameron's other action flicks, almost as if it had been decided that something for everyone should be included in order that its eventual success be certain, but I think it is clear that it is the second element he hopes we will concentrate on.
Whether it captures the full horror and scale of the tragedy is debatable, but we are certainly given a privileged position to observe an awesome recreation of that night in 1912. The events of that evening are so familiar to us that making a picture with impact on the subject must be doubly difficult: the film succeeds, but whether this is due to the sheer immensity of the enterprise as it is presented to the cinemagoer is unclear. Whatever the explanation, Cameron has created a stunning movie. The budget has been the focus of much debate, but I think it would be true to say that we see where it all went. It was well spent.
The film chronicles the story of Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), an upper class Philadelphian returning to America to marry the wealthy Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). She is not wholly convinced of the merits of this arrangement, and on board she meets Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), a penniless artist, with whom she falls in love. Dawson is the catalyst for her to break free of the restrictive conventions and blinkered thinking of her 1st class companions, and she develops independence and some real spirit. The sinking as well as incidental stories like the present day search for a valuable gem in the wreck, are interwoven with the main love story. Veteran Gloria Stewart makes an appearance as Rose in the present day.
Now I mentioned there were problems. I will begin with the most serious, the script. Titanic is the product of James Cameron, and the script though hugely effective in terms of its grand thematic sweeps does not maintain the high standard at a close-up level. It seems at times that the film has been constructed from a mass cull of old Hollywood romances, and most of the film seems familiar in some way, but frankly this is not worth moaning about when the end product is this impressive.
All the themes are there: love, self-sacrifice, honour: apparently the film was pitched to the studio as 'Romeo + Juliet' aboard the doomed liner. Guess who plays the hero? This type of thing is repeated a number of times: Frances Fisher basically reprises the Charlotte Bartlett role from "A Room with a View" as a stern matriarch for instance. Some elements actually seem to have jumped straight from A Night to Remember. The characters are familiar from hundreds of other pictures, but at least Cameron has an eye for what sort of characters work. I think he misses one cheap trick in failing to emphasise the name of the elderly Rose when it occurs early on however.
Dialogue is clunky for the most part, but that is not to say Cameron does not structure the narrative well. The flashbacks are hugely effective - a scene where the ghostly wreck briefly returns to its former glory is testimony to the storytelling flair of the director. Cameron also presents us with a computer simulation of the sinking early on which means we understand fully what is going on later. The cinematography is superb, and visual effects have to be seen to be believed. I think this could justifiably be called Cameron's best work.
The performances are perhaps what keeps the film afloat: Leonardo DiCaprio is an impressive spirited Jack, and he has shown again that he has vast potential. I think I would be right in saying this is his first leading man role, and he deports himself well as the resourceful - though perhaps too boyish - hero. Winslet carries the film however, yet again stunning in a role that suits her perfectly. She is perhaps not at her best, but her transition from repressed aristocrat to liberated heroine is a joy to watch, and marks a possible Oscar contender even in this tough year. The chemistry between the two lovers is almost tangible, and may offer the key to understanding the film's effectiveness. Kathy Bates, Bill Paxton and Jonathan Hyde amongst others offer solid support
The way it has been filmed results in the last hour feeling almost like real time, but the sinking is surprisingly less successful than the romance of the first part of the film. Cameron is revealed as a closet romantic despite his fascination with cyborgs and heavy machinery, and I'm not sure his heart is in the action sequences set in flooded corridors with sparking lights and groaning metal. After this the story does revert to its original type, but curiously I found the final 1912 scenes not particularly moving: perhaps the problem was the fact that the stories are already is so well known, or that I had heard the Celine Dion song so had a fairly good idea which characters would draw the short straw. The impact is subdued - more could have been wrung from the characters at this point, but as I said before, the film has flaws.
James Horner's score is one of his more impressive: elements of his 1995 Braveheart and an Enya like sound have been fused to create a haunting and effective soundtrack: his interpretation of the action sequences are not quite as good as the rest, but then I don't suppose the action sequences themselves were. Fortunately Dion is kept for the end credits where she belongs.
There really is little reason to dislike Titanic - certainly it is at points trite, cliched and poorly developed, but at its best it has a vitality and spirit that make these faults pale into insignificance beside the awesome grasp of its ambition. I would be surprised if Titanic does not come to be considered alongside the great historical epics, though maybe it is not a Lawrence of Arabia. Admittedly the same people who are saying this now probably said it about The English Patient last year, or Dances with Wolves before that, but the effectiveness of Titanic and this same ambition will surely secure its place in that pantheon.
What critics struggle to communicate about this film is the ability it has to involve the audience in its story and the sheer power the visuals and narrative exert on the viewer - analysed separately the script would suggest a fairly disappointing film, but Titanic has a strange quality that allows it to overcome all its limitations. I can't express what makes Titanic so special either - no doubt every studio executive is asking precisely this question. In any case see it for yourself.
RATING: **** / ****
(Review by Alex Bryson <[email protected]> - this review is also available at http://www.balmyle.demon.co.uk/ReelTime/)
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.
