This is post #18 in my series, 100 Movies … 100 Posts. In this ongoing series, I’m watching and writing about each film on the American Film Institute’s list of 100 greatest movies from #100 to #1. I’m not just writing a review of each movie. I am going to write a piece about whatever I find most pressing, as a critique of the film, an address of the issues it brings up, or my own experiences with the film. It will serve as an examination of the list itself and of political issues in Hollywood and the film industry. 

Without further ado, #83 “Titanic”

——————————————-

The word “Titanic” alone is enough to elicit groans (or peals of joy!) from anyone old enough to remember 1997. The entire year belonged to the movie with the giant sinking boat. Seriously, this movie was the “King of the World,” so to speak, as it clogged movie theaters throughout the country, and there were reports of people going to see it 6 or 7 times. It was the first movie to still be in regular theaters when it was released on VHS home video (remember those?). Theaters needed to request new copies of the reels because theirs had worn out.

I first watched it when I was 13, and I can still remember hearing that fucking Celine Dion song everywhere I went. I didn’t even listen to popular music. My domain included Weird Al Yankovic, and that was about it. But that song still managed to invade my sonic space wherever I went.

So, when I booted up the blu-ray of this film, at the menu screen, I cringed and wailed as this song started playing. Thoughts of doubt began to enter my brain. “Maybe I won’t finish this series, if it means I have to sit through 3 1/2 hours of this shit again.”

But I sat through it again, and unlike Jack Dawson, I survived “Titanic.” Twice.

When I was still considering making the journey through these 100 movies, I saw this one on the list and thought it was good to know there was at least one film on this list I would be able to eviscerate in writing.

Then, I saw it was next on the list and thought, I need to approach this with an open mind. Maybe it wasn’t as bad as I thought.

I found that to be kind of true. Kind of.

Although almost all of the scenes in the serendipitous relationship between (then) young breakout stars Leonardo DiCaprio’s Jack Dawson and Kate Winslet’s Rose DeWitt Bukater drip melty cheesy Hollywood romance, it’s really not that bad of a movie. Maybe.

Though, headmaster James Cameron, director, writer, et al, didn’t spare us the cheesy romance moments by any stretch. In their honor I’ve compiled a list, though likely not exhaustive:

-Rose nearly slipping and falling off the ship after Jack convinces her not to jump.

-Rose’s reaction to Jack asking whether she loved her fiance. She was so indignant that he would deign to ask her such a question, yet still refused to answer it.

-Rose looking through Jack’s art portfolio. Those French girls. Just a one-legged prostitute, obviously he couldn’t be too attached to her. She hadn’t a leg to stand on in Jack’s world.

-Learning how to spit.

-Going dancing and drinking with the poor immigrants. Square dancing. Weeeee!

-“I’m flying, Jack!”

-“I want you to draw me like one of your French girls”

-Naked drawing. Caused many a film buff to start puberty.

-Getting chased by that evil British guy.

-Car sex. Hand on fogged-up window. Incredible that in 1997, some genius had the thought that these two people in 1912 must have sex in a car. On a boat. “You’re trembling.”

-Saving Jack from being handcuffed to a pole by using a fire ax. Practice swings. “That’s enough practice.” Just happens to hit the chain on the cuffs.

-Riding the broken piece of the boat into the water together.

-THE scene. Giant door. Goodbye Jack. However one feels about the movie, one of the most memorable scenes in all of film.

-Rose takes Jack’s last name to avoid Cal ever finding her again.

-Jack and Rose in heaven or whatever.

I could use some tortilla chips to scoop up all that cheese.

But, even though the film spends way too much time on the young lovers, the second half of the film (because it’s split neatly, almost right in the middle into pre- and post-iceberg) is a really good disaster movie. It’s pretty terrifying if only because it’s so accurate to the reports. Who knows how it actually went down since there weren’t many people left who were there? It was engrossing to see the real “characters” reacting as they probably did to that terrible situation. Especially, the elderly couple who decided to die together lying in bed as the waters slowly rise in their cabin. That couple was more compelling and affective in the few seconds they were onscreen than the 2 1/2 hours of Jack and Rose up to that point.

As harsh as I am on the Jack/Rose relationship, of which the quality is obviously quite subjective, given the multitude of people who adored them, I must admit that it’s a decent Romeo and Juliet type of story. DiCaprio and Winslet both deserve all the acclaim they receive, as they worked hard to make the audience fall in love with them. It was two great performances by two young actors, who would go on to do many more. Everything is wrong with Cal. Billy Zane was/is not the most accomplished actor. Cameron must have thought it would be nice to take a chance on letting this guy do a serious role. Cameron was wrong. Even so, it’s probably not all Zane’s fault, with how ridiculous the character was written. Who fires a gun at the person they love while they’re running away with another lover, while they’re on a sinking boat? There are more pressing matters at hand, one would think.

But Cal does represent the patriarchal system of the day, one that was even more oppressive than today’s. It’s cool to see a strong character like Rose get the opportunity to break out of that system. How bad was it? So bad that Rose was ready to kill herself rather than be forced to marry an obviously abusive man, whom she never loved in the first place, to help keep up the lavish lifestyle she and her mother were afraid to lose after her wealthy father died. No amount of financial “security” was worth it, under those conditions.

So, it’s logical that she would have an affection toward Jack, as he was the one who talked her out of killing herself, but also helped her decide she could have a life of her own without that bastard Cal. It smacks a bit of a white male savior problem, but Jack does tell Rose that it’s up to her to break free of the system, and she does. It’s not a perfectly feminist plot point, as she does basically become wholly dependent on Jack, but there has been much worse, both before and since this movie. But even though the young lovers didn’t have any sort of realistic plan for even how to make it off the boat before they found out it was going to sink, until then, being on the boat together made them equals in status, though only temporarily.

The film plays the rich, affluent folks as stuffy and boring and self-centered, all reasonable critiques of the elite class. But then, it treats the poorer immigrants located toward the bottom of the ship (such literal symbolism, the wealthy are literally above the working class) as if they are living in happyland down there, what with their jigs and beers. This is an excellent example of romanticization of poverty. It’s an idea summed up well in Pulp’s song, “Common People,” which is also great here as covered by William Shatner.

It’s the insulting idea that “poor is cool.” It’s mostly a thing rich people can tell themselves to help them sleep better at night and to dispel the idea that they have it better than everyone else. Though the immigrants are poor, they’re rich in spirit. Sure, the lower class may not be as “bored” as stuffy rich people, but most of them would probably make that trade immediately if they got that chance. I don’t know if Cameron was ever poor, but I doubt it, and his portrayal of disparity between classes rings hollow.

That’s a true shame, because when history teachers or professors lecture about the tragedy of the Titanic, the lesson they preach is how badly the immigrants were treated when the ship was sinking. It’s unfathomable that they wouldn’t have the foresight to enough lifeboats for even half the people on the ship. Even in arrogance that the ship’s sponsor and creator, Thomas Andrews, here played by Victor Garber, would believe that it was unsinkable, on its maiden voyage, the ship should have had a failsafe in place. Of course, the captain and crew weren’t planning on hitting icebergs, but that doesn’t mean the possibility should have been overlooked.

It was nice that Cameron tried to capture that major social injustice moment in history since that was the major impact coming out of this tragedy, but the way he went about it by exaggerating the differences between rich and poor was misguided.

And as Jack and Rose’s (and Cal’s) relationship symbolizes class disparity, that makes Rose appear rather immature (though she is still young and idealistic at only 17), possibly envisioning a relationship with a poor guy as novel. The writing and acting are almost good enough to overcome this problem, except for the fact that this entire production hinges on them.

As JackRose make out on the deck, fresh from their “auto-erotica” (in the freezing arctic air, by the way), the crow’s nest guys, who are supposed to be there to keep a lookout for things like icebergs, get distracted by the neckin’ taking place and notice that ginormous iceberg a little too late. Yes, it’s Jack and Rose who even wind up sinking the Titanic. If they weren’t out there playing tonsil hockey, the goalies might have been able to make the save on that one. As Jack says later, in the understatement of the 20th century, “this is bad.”

It feels especially wrong that the romance takes center stage when there’s already an incredible story with a colorful cast without adding the fictional main plot. A fictional romance that gets interrupted by history is an inventive idea, especially since it wouldn’t be too surprising if there were some budding romance taking place on a ship of more than 2,000 people that no one would have taken note of. But it pre-empts the history, which is what the audience should be here for. It’s a tough line to walk, and there have been movies that have gotten that balance right, but this feels a little too heavy on the fiction, which overwhelms the history.

And it is a colorful cast. Andrews, the ship’s creator is interesting in the confidence he has in his passion project, which comes crashing down when “unsinkable” ship meets iceberg. There’s Bernard Hill playing the captain of the ship, in another role as a doomed leader, a trend he would continue as Theoden, king of Rohan in “Lord of the Rings.” The captain refused to believe the ship could be sunk, and made the questionable call to try to keep the passengers calm, rather than begin emergency procedures. There’s the “Unsinkable” Molly Brown, thank God for Kathy Bates, though it’s hard to understand why she should be so sympathetic toward Jack. But she tried to stand up and push for her emergency boat to help the people drowning in the frigid water even though none of the other rich fuckers cared enough to share her concern.

The real tragedy of the Titanic was that many of the deaths could have been prevented. Like I said before, there should have been enough lifeboats onboard for everyone. There should have been better judgment from the crew to get more people on the lifeboats, and there should have been more wealthy people willing to squeeze closer together to help get more people to fit in them. The captain could have started evacuating everyone sooner, but he didn’t. All in all, the sinking of the Titanic was one more event where the poor got screwed over not because the rich didn’t have the means to help, but because they just didn’t care.

It is funny though, how Cameron goes out of his way to demonize the rich lifestyle. Cal is a caricature of a wealthy person. The way he keeps (or tries to keep) Rose under his control seems realistic of abusive men. He’s incredibly possessive of her, he hits her, he tries to undermine her personal freedom and attempts at success. But when he fires a wild shot from a pistol at Jack and Rose as they attempt to flee from him while the ship is sinking, and he chases them and slips and falls on his ass, he just looks silly. It’s obvious that Cameron is trying to make this guy a villain. But the rich are already bad enough, taking up all the lifeboats and not leaving any room for the lower class passengers. The whole thing with Cal seems like excessive melodrama for the sake of trying to get across a point that’s already apparent.

Then, the villainy continues as Cal tries to bribe a crew member to get a spot on the boat. The guy takes Cal’s money, only to throw it in his face later. Eventually, after shooting a couple guys who were trying to force their way onto a lifeboat, he shoots himself. It’s just funny that this guy we’ve known for all of 10 minutes has to get his comeuppance because he thought about doing something immoral. Three-fourths of the people on the ship are about to die, but because this one crew member took this one rich guy’s money, he’s suddenly a bad guy too, as if morality really means anything at this point. Similarly, Jack’s foreign friend steals another immigrant’s life preserver, after that immigrant had already been shot to death. Jack’s friend later meets his end as one of the giant steam stacks from the ship just happens to fall on him. Finally, the audience learns from Old Rose that Cal killed himself when the stock market crashed in 1929.

It’s feels wrong that the tragedy of the life lost in reality because the boat sank plays second fiddle to this fictional account of two lovers and all the drama that surrounds them. Since the second half of the film focuses more on the ship’s sinking, this is almost remedied. However, with Jack’s final scene, where he dies in the freezing water as Rose floats in relative safety on a giant door, though a great and memorable scene it is, it feels like the real tragedy is lost as the audience is made to focus on this fictional character. Though, look for a young Ioan Gruffudd as one of the crew members in this scene. Too bad the future Mr. Fantastic, of Fantastic Four fame, couldn’t just stretch out his body and make a giant liferaft for all the boat’s passengers.

Early in the film, one of the crew members in “present day 1997” is gleefully explaining to Old Rose how the ship broke apart and sank. It shows how ridiculous these Historic Tragedy Enthusiasts (not to mention the Titanic treasure hunters, which Cameron did intend to make reference to) are with their fascination with such morbid events. The Titanic fans aren’t quite as bad as Civil War re-enactors, but they might be second on that list. To be fair, one can’t really help the things one is fascinated by, that just sort of happens. But celebrating deadly events the way these enthusiasts do is kind of just another way of cashing in on someone else’s misfortune. In a way, it can be a tribute to the lives lost, but something just seems off about exploiting tragedy for personal gain.

On that note, the sheer spectacle of the film, “Titanic,” is kind of just another way of cashing in on tragedy. Granted, it happened 85 years before the movie was released, so it’s not like there would have been many people living who would have even remembered the tragedy, let alone lived through it. It is kind of helpful from a historic perspective to take a realistic look at what the victims went through before they died, as perhaps some emotional attachment might help us take steps to prevent such a tragedy from occurring in the future.

Still, even though this tragedy is practically ancient history, as far as the public is concerned, it’s not as if people don’t die on similar cruises anymore. The recent Carnival cruise ship disasters are one thing, though those situations border more on ridiculous. But the ferry sinking in South Korea last week is not all that dissimilar to the sinking of the Titanic. A director or studio can’t account for every tragedy ever to happen again, as not many movies would get made in that case. But with the flash and panache of a movie like “Titanic,” it seems like the production might be a bit too over-the-top for good taste. It’s not exactly on the public’s radar anymore, but something about it rubs me the wrong way.

“Titanic” wasn’t a terrible idea. Combining a “Romeo and Juliet” style romance with a historical event was intriguing. It’s not out of the question that similar sorts of romance might have been occurring on the ship. It gives a more personal gravitas to see how common people might be affected by such a tragedy as a shipwreck, which in this case happened to be THE most famous shipwreck in the last 100 years. But regardless of how one feels about the cheesy romance, at times it feels like the fun James Cameron and company had working on such a labor of love comes a bit too much at the expense of the real story, which could have been good enough to stand on its own in the right hands. And it shows a real lack of understanding of the differences between being rich and being poor. In the current climate, where the wealth gap is even higher than it was in 1912, we need all the help we can get. This movie wasn’t the most helpful.

But it’s not as bad as I remembered it when I was 14.

——————————————-

Next up, #82. “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans”