Wednesday, July 7, 2010

#83 - Titanic

And now for a movie that everyone (literally?) has seen. What was once both the most expensive and the highest grossing film ever made has been dethroned in both respects (by director James Cameron's follow-up which most everybody saw in the past year, "Avatar"). "Titanic" has become so ingrained in the public consciousness that it might be hard to say new things about it that we haven't heard already. But I will try.

The grand scale of the film -- truly an epic like they used to make in the old days of Hollywood -- is breathtaking. It would be impossible to do this film (and do it well) on a budget less than this film's $200 million. The cinematography, the all-star cast we recognize at every turn, and the center of it all, the ship, all make for an enamoring movie experience.

In many ways, this film is far superior to Cameron's most recent and more expensive offering (speculated at more than $500 million), "Avatar." The characters are developed about five times more than in the science-fiction world. Just think: when you left the theater, did you have a better feel for Jack Dawson as a person, or Jake Sully? The answer is too obvious to state.

I've said before that my favorite moments in disaster epics like this do not usually involve the major characters or plots (although I do love the moment when Old Rose throws the Heart of the Ocean into the ocean; gets me every time). No, it is the supporting cast and the extras and their sad situations that always hit me the hardest. The two examples everyone names are the old couple clutching each other as the water rises and the mother reading her two children to sleep. I also enjoy the quiet nobility of the string band -- their "Nearer My God to Thee" is chilling, fitting, and just downright sad.

I saw this movie in theaters as a seven-year-old boy in Panama City Beach, Florida. Needless to say, I did not really get some of the pathos at play as shipbuilder Thomas Andrews (played beautifully and stoically by Victor Garber) watched his ship go down. And I definitely did not get what the sweaty hand in the car meant, at all.

I should say that I absolutely abhor all of the modern stuff in the movie. Okay, well not all of it -- I like Old Rose, and I understand that we just can't be plopped into the story (although, why not?). But Bill Paxton as the underwater treasure hunter is just that guy that I would hate if I ever met him, and his bearded friend is that guy I'd want to kill if I ever met him. This may be a little of my mother coming out in me, but they seem to curse for no good reason. I could understand if, in the fits of rage or passion, they let out some expletives. But their dialogue is just peppered randomly with obscenities that are unnecessary and detract from the rest of the experience, which is rather wholesome overall.

Even if you think "Titanic" is too sappy, too cheesy (I laughed out loud when Bill Paxton said, "Are you ready to go to 'Titanic'?"), or too much of a chick-flick, I think this movie has something for everyone. The first sentence on the movie's Wikipedia page reads: "Titanic is a 1997 American epic romantic-disaster film." Pretty universal, no?

Overall, the movie is the epic for our times. I don't think it will soon be forgotten, both for its return to old-fashioned movie-making and, of course, for better or for worse, for this (note: as an added bonus, check out how fake the people walking on the ship look at 0:30-0:37; they look like they are in "The Polar Express." Ah, 1997).

No comments:

Post a Comment