For all of this film's popularity, I blame the public most. Along with Avatar, Titanic shows me that audiences are less clever than they should be and fall for superficial drivel. The biggest problem about Titanic is that it isn't about Titanic at all. We could just as easily called this "sinking ship" or it could just as easily have taken place on the Lusitania, and the story would still have ignored the tragedy whether it was an iceberg or a U-Boat that sank the ship.
What is most disappointing is the film could have been a wonderful set piece and could have produced compelling drama. For instance, Molly Brown was actually a real leader on the life boats and took care of the sick and injured on the Carpathia, and mail room workers sacrificed their lives to try and save the mail for people back in the States. Granted, these are but a few instances of bravery, and a film needs central characters for a plot, but the story decided to focus on something petty and unrealistic in the face of true drama.
The problem with the romance is this: it's contrived and it moves WAY too quickly. First, there is the issue that Jack totally takes advantage of Rose. She was about to jump off the Titanic. She clearly has some depression issues, and he thinks it's a good time to woo her? And Rose herself is a contradictory character. She seems to hate the life of a rich woman without independence, but she also looks down at Jack's social status as not being sophisticated enough. Besides, if she hated Cal that much she could just leave. Perhaps you say that Jack had to be the catalyst to that decision. That's fine, but remember that giving advice is one thing, swooping in and starting a tryst is another.
And about Jack and Rose's relationship itself, just how prevalent could it have been, even in the 1990's, for a couple to engage in intercourse after knowing each other just two nights? Yes, it happens but not on average, especially between two people from totally different worlds like Jack and Rose and in the 1910's! And just where does anyone think the relationship would have gone after Titanic docked? Does Rose expect Jack, clearly a drifter, to provide for a family? For all of her desire to be independent and taken seriously, I don't think Rose wants to be destitute. I can understand the events if the two grew up together, but relationships that move this fast tend to be based on impulse, not love, and so they end up failing, yet as an audience, we are expected to believe that true love blossomed and died on screen. I felt like I was watching an episode of 90210. I'm sorry, but that is the definition of contrived. I am not saying scrap a love story period, but this "relationship" became a smokescreen for dividing classes. The movie goes out of its way to say that Jack is Jack because he is poor, and it can't work with Rose if he is rich.
I know it may not be fair to bring up Avatar, but it does expose some of Titanic's characterization flaws. Our "villains" Cal Hockley and Rose's mother, much like the military and the corporation in Avatar are totally evil and Rose and Jack and the Na'Vi are totally good. The first class passengers are totally obnoxious. The third class is totally noble and blameless. So caricatures of people or groups of them constitute good writing? Granted, the struggle for third class to get to the deck for lifeboats was actually somewhat compelling, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone is portrayed at an extreme. The fact that people heralded the film is a sign that the audience accepted those caricatures and extreme portrayals as accurate.
I will give the film some merit though. The design of Titanic has stood the test of time. After twelve years and change, it's still a beautiful set to see. Costumes, lighting and the ship itself are appealing and put the viewer directly in the setting. It's really a shame that style over substance has become Cameron's focus. His previous films actually had character studies. Aliens was a piece on Ripley's development and a Vietnam parallel. Can Titanic boast such a comparison? No. Still, it looked as good as the rest of his films.
Titanic, for all its popularity, boils down to a superficial 1990's teen drama that targeted girls aged 15-18. That it decided to manifest itself during a tragic calamity is an insult. Why so many people older than 18 couldn't see Titanic for what it really was, is the bigger insult. Perhaps it reminded many of spontaneity long gone and that they wanted it again. Good Burger reminds me that I want a juicy sandwich from "In and Out" but that doesn't mean Good Burger was a good film.
What is most disappointing is the film could have been a wonderful set piece and could have produced compelling drama. For instance, Molly Brown was actually a real leader on the life boats and took care of the sick and injured on the Carpathia, and mail room workers sacrificed their lives to try and save the mail for people back in the States. Granted, these are but a few instances of bravery, and a film needs central characters for a plot, but the story decided to focus on something petty and unrealistic in the face of true drama.
The problem with the romance is this: it's contrived and it moves WAY too quickly. First, there is the issue that Jack totally takes advantage of Rose. She was about to jump off the Titanic. She clearly has some depression issues, and he thinks it's a good time to woo her? And Rose herself is a contradictory character. She seems to hate the life of a rich woman without independence, but she also looks down at Jack's social status as not being sophisticated enough. Besides, if she hated Cal that much she could just leave. Perhaps you say that Jack had to be the catalyst to that decision. That's fine, but remember that giving advice is one thing, swooping in and starting a tryst is another.
And about Jack and Rose's relationship itself, just how prevalent could it have been, even in the 1990's, for a couple to engage in intercourse after knowing each other just two nights? Yes, it happens but not on average, especially between two people from totally different worlds like Jack and Rose and in the 1910's! And just where does anyone think the relationship would have gone after Titanic docked? Does Rose expect Jack, clearly a drifter, to provide for a family? For all of her desire to be independent and taken seriously, I don't think Rose wants to be destitute. I can understand the events if the two grew up together, but relationships that move this fast tend to be based on impulse, not love, and so they end up failing, yet as an audience, we are expected to believe that true love blossomed and died on screen. I felt like I was watching an episode of 90210. I'm sorry, but that is the definition of contrived. I am not saying scrap a love story period, but this "relationship" became a smokescreen for dividing classes. The movie goes out of its way to say that Jack is Jack because he is poor, and it can't work with Rose if he is rich.
I know it may not be fair to bring up Avatar, but it does expose some of Titanic's characterization flaws. Our "villains" Cal Hockley and Rose's mother, much like the military and the corporation in Avatar are totally evil and Rose and Jack and the Na'Vi are totally good. The first class passengers are totally obnoxious. The third class is totally noble and blameless. So caricatures of people or groups of them constitute good writing? Granted, the struggle for third class to get to the deck for lifeboats was actually somewhat compelling, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone is portrayed at an extreme. The fact that people heralded the film is a sign that the audience accepted those caricatures and extreme portrayals as accurate.
I will give the film some merit though. The design of Titanic has stood the test of time. After twelve years and change, it's still a beautiful set to see. Costumes, lighting and the ship itself are appealing and put the viewer directly in the setting. It's really a shame that style over substance has become Cameron's focus. His previous films actually had character studies. Aliens was a piece on Ripley's development and a Vietnam parallel. Can Titanic boast such a comparison? No. Still, it looked as good as the rest of his films.
Titanic, for all its popularity, boils down to a superficial 1990's teen drama that targeted girls aged 15-18. That it decided to manifest itself during a tragic calamity is an insult. Why so many people older than 18 couldn't see Titanic for what it really was, is the bigger insult. Perhaps it reminded many of spontaneity long gone and that they wanted it again. Good Burger reminds me that I want a juicy sandwich from "In and Out" but that doesn't mean Good Burger was a good film.