You may have noticed that a new spy has been making appearances on the site. The infamous lubricated RoboGeek. I gifted Robogeek the ability to see TITANIC early. Why? How could I turn down a chance to see it early? Because I want to see it opening night, full price to send my vote for damn good films. So I left it to Robo... here to see it in the meanwhile. In a recent Compuserve column written by Roger Ebert, when a person asked about "Mononoke Hime" he quoted and referred to Robogeek as, 'a Web-based expert on "anime".' Pretty cool, eh? Well, I haven't been running the ton of TITANIC reviews I've been getting, but since RoboGeek is working so damn hard, and geez, if he's good enough to be quoted by Roger Ebert, then damn he must be doing something right. Wouldn't it be funny if he were just some unemployed guy messing around with his computer? Naaaaah, he's too well written, undoubtedly he's president of some film production fund. Naaaaaah, no one would put a geek at that level. Though I bet anything that last night he was watching some weird HBO show about girls breaking chopsticks with their butt muscles, and the infamous "BLACKENSTIEN". Naaaaah, he's too dang civilized for that. Let's see what the man of machined metal thought of TITANIC. Being that it was a technical advance that broke down, I bet he cries....
Thursday 11 December 1997
I, RoboGeek, have at long last chosen the first film to review for "Ain't It Cool News" - and it is the breathtaking period romantic epic christened TITANIC.
I had been waiting since March 20, 1996, to see this film. On that morning, "Variety" reported that Kate Winslet (who had astonished me with her jaw-dropping debut in "Heavenly Creatures") had landed the female lead, and that shooting would commence that summer. The male lead had yet to be cast, and the article closed with a mention that executives refused to comment "on the film's estimated $100 million budget, which has been the subject of vigorous debate between Fox brass and the director."
Last night - a year and a half and another $100 million later - I boarded TITANIC. And, miraculously, the hype surrounding the film felt understated. To paraphrase the marketing campaign, nothing could have prepared me for what was ahead (short of reading the script in advance, which I steadfastly refused to do). Three hours later, I was in tears.
Given that, I waited a day to write this review, in order to gain a bit more critical distance. Also, I should point out that I approached the film already a Titanic buff (I took nautical archaeology and naval history in college), and that Kate Winslet's character happens to bear a remarkable resemblance to someone I was in a long-term relationship with several years ago. While these facts certainly colored my personal impression of the film - and made it more emotionally resonant - I don't think they have diminished my ability to objectively evaluate the film.
TITANIC, you see, is not merely a film, but a ship unto itself which transports the audience across the sea of time to experience compelling events through engaging characters. Cameron has applied his vast technological wizardy to take us not into the future - as he has done before - but into the past. Rather than create an experience, he has re-created one. The results are nothing short of astounding. Never before has Cameron been more focused. This film achieves a level of greatness his earlier works merely reached for. It's a landmark career breakthrough, as Cameron fulfills his potential and emerges a master filmmaker.
Imagine a $200 million art house film - a period costume drama / historical romantic epic composed with every conceivable resource at its command. A film that technically stands up against any effects-laden blockbuster, while at the same time possessing a compelling dramatic narrative crafted with Oscar-worthy artistry. Classic, old-fashioned romantic storytelling with every tool imaginable brought to bear on its construction.
I'd dreamed of such a film. Now I've seen it. And I can't wait to see it again.
(And, frankly, having now seen it, I'd probably be content to not see another new film until "Star Wars: Episode One" - though I'm not about to give away my passes to Monday's sneak of "Tomorrow Never Dies" just yet.)
The film opens with brief, "archival-ish" shots of Titanic at Southampton, being boarded and preparing to get underway. Then, just as we are getting caught up in the wonder that historic spectacle, we are plunged into the depths of the ocean, and confronted with the spectral visage of the wreck, lying in tragic defeat on the floor of the Atlantic.
At this point we meet Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team of treasure hunters (one of whom bears a suspicious likeness to Harry, by the way). At first Lovett appears to be a romantic adventurer. Then, we quickly see he is a crass opportunist, intent on finding a huge diamond he thinks sank with the ship. At this point, the character brilliantly serves as a mirror to much of the audience, who may have been attracted to TITANIC by its huge budget and special effects rather than its story, substance and heart.
No matter, as that all quickly begins to change as the story of TITANIC unfolds, through the telling of the elderly Rose (an absolutely wonderful Gloria Stuart). She and her granddaughter (Suzy Amis) are brought aboard Lovett's ship when he retrieves a portrait drawn of the young Rose wearing the diamond.
Rose proceeds to tell her tale for the first time. As she journeys back into memory, we are transported back in time and meet Rose (a stunning Kate Winslet) as a breathtaking young woman. In one of the film's many note-perfect shots, she is introduced in a marvellous close-up; as she emerges from a car and raises her gaze to the ship at dock, her hat tips upward to reveal her face. It's a classic screen introduction of a character, and one of countless finely crafted, beautifully composed, perfect moments in the film.
That small moment comes amid majestric strokes of cinematic grandeur. We see Titanic being boarded by hundreds board respective to their class, as soaring camera work paints the scene in broad strokes. What follows are intimate introductions to our main characters (including Jack Dawson, played with great charm by Leonardo DiCaprio) against the vast backdrop of the "ship of dreams" preparing for departure. This sequence illustrates the success of the film - a small, romantic drama told in (excuse me) titanic proportions. A perfectly balanced, intimate epic.
From that point, on, we are aboard Titanic, taking the voyage with the two main characters who soon meet, and fall in love. Rose is a young, spritited society girl en route to Philadelphia to be married to Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane), a rich, elitist snob. Rose - feeling trapped by class, circumstance and the confines of the ship - meets the devil-may-care Dawson, who soon represents her key to personal freedom. Rose's mother (Frances Fisher) soon realizes the danger of their budding relationship, and acts to put a stop to it - as she is at risk of losing her station in life if her daughter isn't married into the security of Hockley's name.
All the while, there is foreshadowing of the tragedy to come. And though we know Rose will survive, who else will? As we become closer to the character, and entranced by the evolving romance, the question grows more and more in the back of our minds. Indeed, every face we see on Titanic quietly poses the same question. This ever-present cloud of doom is delicately modulated throughout the second act, preparing us for the climax of the film. All the while, a classic romance unfolds, straight out of the golden age of cinema. Winslet and DiCaprio deliver engaging, brilliantly modulated performances that deliver the heart of the film. Beautiful scenes aboud, including the pair embracing at the bow of the ship (captured in a stunning, sweeping crane shot) and Rose posing for the portrait found at the beginning of the film.
Just over an hour-and-a-half into the film, Titanic collides with destiny in the form of an iceberg. The pace cautiously accelerates at first, building towards edge-of-your seat intensity. By the time it becomes apparent to the characters what is going to happen, all hell breaks loose in vivid, visceral detail. And, by this point, we are so fully invested in Rose and Jack that the unfolding disaster is absolutely gripping. Winslet and DiCaprio are both fully convincing as Rose and Jack desperately rise to the challenge of survival.
As Titanic makes its descent, we are also treated to action more intense than in any of Cameron's prior films - and that's saying a lot. It is executed flawlessly, with stunning wonder. It is hard to think of another film with more powerful, potent imagery than that in this sequence.
The aftermath of the sinking is powerfully chilling (no pun intended), and the conclusion of the tale is... perfect. As I've already said, I was sobbing uncontrollably by the end.
TITANIC will certainly receive more Oscar nominations than any film this year, landing in virtually every category it qualifies for. And most of them it'll win.
As much as I love "L.A. Confidential," this is simply the best film of the year, hands down. Others need not apply. And while I'm confident it will sweep the technical categories (kudos to cinematographer Russell Carpenter, visual effects supervisor Rob Legato, production designer Peter Lamont, costume designer Deborah Scott - and the fantastic editing by Cameron, Conrad Buff and Richard Harris), I'm also willing to bet it'll walk away with Best Picture. Given the last three films which have won - "The English Patient," "Braveheart" and "Schindler's List" - I think it isn't just possible, it makes perfect sense.
TITANIC should should receive Director and Original Screenplay, and I hope the Academy doesn't refuse it those, though I fear they may. Similarly, I hope the Academy embraces actors as young as Winslet and DiCaprio in the lead categories. And I would love to see Gloria Stuart win Best Supporting Actress. She deserves it.
Paramount's $60 million investment for TITANIC's domestic rights is, by my reckoning, one of the best deals ever. As for Fox and the remaining $140+ million, they should consider it money well spent, and a worthy investment.
As for Richard Corliss of TIME and others who have been critical of this film, I can say to them this - you have no soul. Get past the budget. Get past Cameron. Get past yourself. "The play is the thing." And this one is great. If you are too jaded and cynical to see that, then I feel sorry for you.
I know I've already gone WAAAAY long in this review, but I just wanted to add one more thing. We should be thankful for this film, because it will hopefully teach Hollywood an important lesson. Instead of investing insane amounts of money in hollow, insultingly bad garbage like "Speed 2" and "Batman & Robin," invest in great films with great stories. That's what we want to see! Don't shy away from something just because it's a period piece, or some other stupid and irrelevant excuse. Make movies like "The English Patient" and "Titanic." The scripts are waiting for you. "List of Seven" by Guillermo del Toro and "Mata Hari" by Kim Krizan, for instance.
And Mr. Cameron - thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for this film. (Now go make "Spider-Man!")
