Skip to main content

So this is the ship they say is unsinkable.


Titanic
(1997)

Can there be a clearer example than James Cameron of a film director diminishing creatively as their artistic freedom expands? Technically, his work is as accomplished as ever, and he continues to innovate in the effects field. But his output has become cruder and cruder. The worst thing that could have happened to his ego was topping the most successful film ever (needless to say, not accounting for inflation) with wall-to-wall Oscar glory. Because Titanic is an infantile, vulgar affair, so clumsy in its attempts at depicting heartfelt romance and capturing tragic resonance that you’d be forgiven for thinking it was intended as a parody.


In retrospect, the writing was on the wall when Cameron went back to the well and made Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It’s an effective, propulsive thriller, but also a bloated, glossy repeat of the precise, economical original. Prior to this, Cameron made what ought to have been his best film (and is still very good, in extended form, at least). An expensive, watery love story called The Abyss, it was a commercial disappointment for Fox. Cameron’s weakness for bombastic dialogue and heavy-handed emotional beats were filtered by the extraordinary efforts of a cast led by Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio; they make you believe in the scenario, and the rekindling of affection between an estranged couple. It’s this, rather than Titanic that should have been feted. T2 saw Cameron claw back his commercial clout; it was an understandably cynical exercise, but the challenge of employing cutting-edge special effects got Cameron’s creative juices flowing. His follow-up, True Lies, an ill-advised flirtation with action comedy, exposed the director’s weaknesses at their most unflattering yet. Known for being a humourless tyrant on set, perhaps he felt the need to show people he had a funny bone. In which case, he failed. The comedy is either limp or unsettling, with a plot revolving around Arnold Schwarzenegger’s spy who, suspecting his wife of having an affair, employs his craft to keep tabs on, and then scare the shit out of, her. And then he made another expensive, watery love story.


Tellingly, it wasn’t the chance to flex his romantic muscles that attracted Cameron to Titanic. Rather, it was his fascination with shipwrecks. Don’t get me wrong, the guy is good with story structure; he should be, as he ardently follows the template for the hero’s journey. It’s why his tales invariably connect with audiences. But the manner in which he fleshes out those bare bones highlights his limitations. His characters usually amount to little more than crude stereotypes and, unless he’s dealing with hardboiled military personnel (an endless source of fascination for him), their dialogue is similarly impoverished. Even then, look at the laughably demonic Colonel Quaritch. Titanic and Avatar employ a string of clichés in place of well-rounded characterisations. The director himself accused critics of Titanic of mistaking archetypes for clichés, but the former becomes the latter when rendered without flair or imagination.


I’m not going to malign the tastes of those who connect with Titanic; I just genuinely don’t derive the pleasure from it they do. And not out of some fashionable backlash. I found the romance clumsy and the characters shallow when I first saw it in 1998. And the telegraphing of important plot points is so lazy, you’d think this was a first draft script.  But I do have to credit Cameron with understanding his audience; you must be doing something right to mount a hit of this scale. Obviously, “Leo-mania” was a key factor in the film’s success, with women making up the largest section of the audience. But the same audience didn’t flock to see The Beach or The Man in the Iron Mask. It was the specific combination of his boyish good looks and Jack’s noble self-sacrifice in the name of love that ensured all those repeat visits to the cinema.


Left to his own devices, Cameron might have been expected to fashion a plot more akin to The Hindenburg; someone puts a bomb on the Titanic and the plot involves a race against time to defuse it. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’d considered something along those lines and warned himself off, after noting the money that film didn’t make. Lest we forget, Titanic was widely predicted to turn into a prize turkey. Even its director foresaw significant losses before the test screening raves began flooding in. History repeated itself with Avatar, so I doubt anyone will be second-guessing Cameron for a while now.


He took the plot of Lady and the Tramp, set it aboard a doomed ship, and added a tragic twist (what if Tramp had snuffed it at the end?) DiCaprio’s poor, itinerant artist Jack (he was sketching prostitutes in Paris, don’t you know!) meets up with Kate Winslet’s spoiled posh totty Rose (but she’s cutting-edge cultured; she buys Picassos and reads Freud – what a gal!) and love blossoms across the class divide. Alas, quite aside from the soon-to-be-sinking ship, there are numerous obstacles in the way of their happiness.


Jack is Cameron’s idealised version of his younger self, full of life and adventure and pulling the ladies by virtue of the enormity of his creative chops (Jimbo himself drew the sketch of Rose in the film). Rose is the director’s perfect woman (in real life he married Suzy Amis, who plays Rose’s granddaughter); intelligent and outspoken, an action chick who nevertheless needs rescuing (and teaching to spit) by a strong man. Cameron likes his strong women, and particularly likes having them pick up arms (be they guns or axes) in the course of their duties. Mirthsome closing photos show Rose as a qualified pilot and an equestrian who eschews sidesaddle. Rose is a proto-feminist, of course, but what Cameron is really looking for is a man with tits. The love story is the sort of thing the Zucker brothers and Abrahams would have mercilessly ripped the piss out of, if they'd had an Airplane! or Naked Gun in the offing.


The framing section is an unnecessary device borne of Cameron’s desire to show the actual wreck (which he actually went out and shot, making a big thing of this being important to Fox). Bill Paxton is uncharacteristically at-sea with his treasure hunter, while his boorish technical expert, who shows overwhelming insensitivity towards the centenarian Rose, sets the scene for what will follow with his witless cartoonishness. This is a writer-director so crass that he calls Rose’s jewel “Heart of the Ocean”. Next thing you know he’ll be inventing a rare mineral called, oh I don’t know, “unobtainium”.


Some of the most cringeworthy moments are those where Jimbo imbues his characters with remarkable prescience. Not only does Rose recognise the genius of Picasso but she is so schooled in the theories of Dr. Freud that she can make jokes about massive boats being penis substitutes. Good gags never get old, eh? Especially when they're ahead of their time. She is also so observant that she spots the shortage of lifeboats well in advance of needing one. Cameron is just as blundering in his pointed references to the ship’s unsinkability and the dangers of going at full speed (at one point, there’s a vague possibility that Jack and Rose canoodling might distract the lookouts from spotting the iceberg.; alas, it’s not to be).


DiCaprio and Winslet are fine, but their characters are paper-thin. As such, they’re quite atypical roles for such “serious” thesps (DiCaprio took some persuading to take a part he had no interest in, but Winslet really chased after Rose). You might charitably think Cameron was paying homage to cheap romance novels, except that this kind of one-dimensionality is increasingly evident in his screenplays (as if he is slowly regressing). The clichéd motivations and dialogue are stacked up, to the point where each new declaration elicits exasperated laughter. He utterly fails to convey the depths of feeling they have for each other.  The great “moments” fall flat, be it Jack’s “I’m king of the world!” or his repeat run with Rose at the prow of the ship. No level of tackiness is beyond the director, such that he even resorts to an outstretched hand on misted-up glass when Jack and Rose have sex. The occasional moment undercuts expectations, such that the rescue of a small child is prevented when the father arrives. He heads off in the wrong direction with her and they are engulfed by water. If we didn’t know Cameron has no funny bone, one might think a sick sense of humour was coming to the fore.


The cast is replete with fine actors (and Billy Zane, but he's a cool dude) used abysmally. Billy Zane at least seems to be enjoying himself as the most hissable cad imaginable; an “unimaginable bastard”, even (you have to love him for the moment where he seizes a child as tender in obtaining a seat on a lifeboat). Just as well, since he hasn't had a role of this profile since. Kathy Bates plays the real life Molly Brown; she married money, and because she’s not posh, she’s a thoroughly good salt-of-the-earth type. She even lends Jack a tux. Bates could sleepwalk through this sort of part, so credit to her for bringing a necessary gusto and trying to make Brown more multi-faceted than she is. David Warner is Billy Zane’s valet, Frances Fisher is Rose’s mum; one’s a one-note villain, the other a one-note snob (who is saddled with a hackneyed speech justifying trying to marry off Rose, because of the terribly unfair second class status of women in society; Jimbo wants you to know he knows his history of injustice!) Bernard Hill has one decent moment, even if it’s as predictable as they come; his captain goes down with his vessel, dazed and disbelieving.


Cameron ensures there are no shades of grey to be found on his ship. Anyone poor is noble. Or rather, anyone poor, working class and American/Irish/Italian (as James Horner’s cloying score emphasises, the Irish are a lyrical, dreamy, romantic bunch). Rose is okay because she rejects her privilege for love (so she’s noble too). But if you’re rich (working class Molly Brown excepted) or English, you’re a dreadful person. And likely as not the sort who will shoot down third-class passengers with impunity (a scene reported by some eye-witness accounts, but nevertheless delivered by Cameron with gleeful relish).


Ironically, given the references to penis subsititutes, what actually gets Cameron going is the hardware. He may have Jack attentively drawing Rose, but one only has to see his loving depiction of the engine room to understand where he’s really smitten. It’s strange to note that, for all the impressiveness of his undertaking and the seamlessness of the majority of the special effects, Cameron’s skies never look less than artificial.


When the action begins, there is consistently strong staging, in particular the depiction of the gradually flooding ship, but the director has to overdo everything. Rose rescues Jack from his imprisonment, only for them to pursued back into the bowels of the ship by gun-wielding Billy Zane. It’s not just the cynical maneouvring to show off more destruction, complete with for-the-sake-of-it slow motion (which feels out of place, but it’s one of Cameron’s action tools); it’s also tiresomely coarse in design. The relaxed quality of the passengers in the early stages is a nice touch, but repeatedly cutting back to the musicians becomes an ironic cue beaten to death. It’s the technical virtuosity alone that prevents me from completely writing off the film; the characters may be silly and/or irritating, but the spectacle in the latter half is at times undeniably compelling (the closing stages of the submerging especially so, as the ship breaks in half, then rises 90 degrees before resuming its descent).


Is there any need for Titanic to last three hours? Bloat has been a problem for the Cameron ever since Aliens, but he has usually managed to justify it by manufacturing relentless thrill rides. Here, he spends an inordinate amount of time trying the viewer’s patience. Of course, he frontloads the tedium such that, even though the film moves at a crawl, there’s inevitable momentum once the iceberg has been struck.


Cameron’s talk of honouring the dead is ultimately undermined by his manipulative thrill-seeking. And further so by his Oscar acceptance speech. Without a trace of irony, he proclaimed himself king of the world, led the attendees in a minute of silent remembrance and then invited everyone to party all night. What a chump. Still, it makes an appropriately fatuous send-off to an elaborately fatuous film.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli