The epic Oscar-winning blockbuster that captured the hearts of teenage girls for months upon its initial release, making Leonardo DiCaprio a modern-day matinee idol. James Cameron's passion project paid off to the tune of $1.2 billion at the worldwide box office. No film since has come close to its success. Mixing a love story with a disaster tale attracted both women and men. It's beautiful young stars brought in the young viewers, while the historic true-life disaster tale brought in older movie watchers. It was a spectacle that truly had something for everyone.
Against an epic backdrop, the story is simple. Rose Bukater (Kate Winslet, LITTLE CHILDREN) is a 17-year-old girl engaged to the wealthy heir Cal Hockley (Billy Zane, SILVER CITY). She doesn't love him, feeling trapped in a life that was not of her choosing. Her mother Ruth (Frances Fisher, L.A. STORY) needs her to marry rich so that their future is secure, since her husband left them with nothing but debt upon his death. In total desperation, she decides to jump off the back of the ship. But third-class passenger Jack Dawson (DiCaprio, THE DEPARTED) convinces her to rethink her decision. This begins a whirlwind romance much like Romeo and Juliet, however the sinking ship will put their happily ever after in jeopardy.
The core story on the Titanic in 1912 is bookended by a modern day treasure hunt led by Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton, TWISTER). He's looking for a giant diamond necklace that Cal brought on board for Rose. Turns out, Rose is still alive. Played by Gloria Stuart (THE OLD DARK HOUSE), she is over 100 and recounts her experience to the men looking for the necklace.
As a spectacle, TITANIC works. The attention to details is breathtaking. It's magnificent to watch. However, there is a reason why out of its 14 Oscar nominations and 11 wins, there was no nod for Cameron's screenplay, it's the weakest part of the film. The story is by the numbers all the way. The characters are one dimensional and the plot is typical with many contrived moments. From time to time its dialogue is awkwardly handled or filled with tacked on exposition. Facts about the ship are forced into scenes and characters are often asked to act against reasonable behavior just to make future "big" moments work.
The actors craft their characters the best they can. Winslet given the most depth makes Rose the most interesting character, and Stuart's performance as the aged woman is graceful and charming. It has been rumored that DiCaprio and Cameron did not see eye to eye on how to play Jack. While DiCaprio wanted to craft a dark soul, Cameron wanted the perfect romantic lead. I guess it's up to the viewer to decide who was right and what would have been more interesting. Kathy Bates (MISERY) also pops up and adds some sass to the proceedings as the "Unsinkable" Molly Brown. Zane does what was asked of him — create a villain the audience will love to hate. The flat bad guy only needed a mustache to twist and we would have believed he was actually a villain from a 1912 film.
Because these characters are so beloved I will set out a few examples to prove where I'm coming from. Look at the scene where Rose first comes to thank Jack and she gets upset with him asking whether she loves Cal. She blows up at him and wants to leave, but then awkwardly asks to see his drawings. The transition doesn't play out naturally. It feels like two scenes where forged together from previous drafts. If Jack is supposed to be a loner, why give him the friend Fabrizio (Danny Nucci, WORLD TRADE CENTER), especially when the screenplay abandons him once Rose shows up? He's not the only character to be introduced like they are important to be completely forgotten, making their fates uneventful and sometimes unintentionally humorous. Rose getting on the life boat in the first place, Cal not ripping up the picture, the real fate of the necklace etc., etc.. These are just a few moments where characters act against their nature so that plot points can hit like they should. And why is a gunfight needed to add tension when the characters are on a sinking ship?
When I think of the TITANIC I always think of Roy Ward Bard’s A NIGHT TO REMEMBER, a 1958 film about the tragic ship that peeks into the lives of various groups of characters and makes us care about each of them. That film truly captures the vastness of the tragedy, because it gives weight to more than just two star crossed lovers. It also makes us contemplate just why the sinking of the Titanic was such a landmark event. TITANIC only hints at the arrogant belief of industrial age's invincibility, attributing it to caricatured rich men.
So it sounds like I don't like TITANIC, but I gave it a recommendation. Why? First, because of its place in film history; over 10 years since its release that cannot be denied. But I also recommend it for all the things that it gets right. It's entertaining in a popcorn movie way. The production value is first rate and Cameron presents his pieces well, carrying us along even past all the bumps in the road. For a film over three hours, it doesn't feel like one. That's an accomplishment; there are better epics that still can make you look at your watch. There are also some flares of deeper writing. The scene where Rose's mother explains to her why she must marry Cal says a lot about the status of women in 1912. But TITANIC is worth seeing mostly because of the classic iconic romantic imagery. While they might not all be laced together naturally, there is no denying that when Rose and Jack stand on the rail at the bow of the ship that hearts can swoon for the idea of perfect love. In some ways innocence was broken the day the Titanic sank and that's what happens to the film's central lovers as well.
Rick DeMott
Animation World Network
Creator of Rick's Flicks Picks
