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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.