On T List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Titanic (1997)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
1/03, 9/08, 3/22
9/08:
Titanic isn't a huge epic picture in the like of Gone with the Wind,
Lawrence of Arabia, and Ben-Hur, but it's an
epic nevertheless.
Yes, it may be the biggest moneymaker of all time, grossing over two billion dollars worldwide, after taking a deep
plunge in order to make the film. But Gone with the Wind remains the number one ever.
And yes, there are tons of people everywhere who hate Titanic. But honestly, I think it's a great film.
I enjoy the romance aspect. Even more impressive is the ship itself. James Cameron is a wunderkind because of how he's
able to blend the visual effects with cinema so effortlessly well that it all looks as one.
Sure, the acting can be spotty in places, but that's okay; there's a lot of everything else to look at. Except for
What's Eating Gilbert Grape, I remain unconvinced that Leonardo DiCaprio is at
least a decent actor. Kate Winslet gives a stronger performance, especially when she showed audacity by baring herself.
I question the need to expand screen time for some of the secondary characters as they either don't contribute much to the story
overall such as Molly Brown or drop out like Fabrizio. Billy Zane's villainous performance is enjoyable, but he's
one-dimensional and predictable.
By the way, an author named Morgan Robertson wrote a novella called Futility in 1898. The story was about a fictional
British ocean liner Titan that sank while sailing on the Atlantic Ocean during the month of April before it was hit by
iceberg on the starboard side. Moreover, it had a fraction of the necessary number of lifeboats. The dimensions and the
tonnage of both ships were similar as well that were labeled as "unsinkable." Both carried approximately 3,000 people and
traveled almost as fast, using a triple screw (read that as "three propellers"). Now, how about it for clairvoyance?
All in all, Titanic remains the movie to watch and will continue to be so.
3/22:
Which is a bigger tragedy: the sinking of RMS Titanic or the death of Leonardo DiCaprio's character?
The film scores big points in several ways: the facts about the ship and what actually happened, the visual effects,
and the romance tragedy which is nearly on par with Romeo and Juliet. It's amazing the maiden voyage began on April
10, 1912, only to end five days later. The trip covered 484 nautical miles or 557 miles from Southampton, UK, to the
iceberg, so imagine how much work went into the construction of the Titanic.
As for the survival statistics, 29 out of 30 (97%) children of first and second class survived, but 52 out of 79 from the third
class died which comes to 66%. For women, it's 93% (220 out of 237) versus 46% (76 out of 165), respectively. So, don't
believe the bullshit about "women and children first." Class does matter. It would've been more appropriate to say "first
and second class women and children first."
At least, there's a near equality in the survival rates among men: 21% versus 16%. Even in death, the first-class passengers
had the last laugh as they were mostly taken out of sea for embalming services and got buried properly in Nova Scotia and
elsewhere while a great number of third-class passengers were left behind because the ships, ordered to
retrieve bodies, had quickly run out of embalming supplies.
The Titanic had sixteen watertight compartments but could withstand only four breached compartments. On the night of
the sinking, five were overcome which sealed its fate. When the first was flooded, the water rose until it was above the
bulkhead and then spilled over to the second compartment. This went on, going from the second to the third, the third to the
fourth, etc.
The ship was supposed to carry 48 lifeboats, but only 20 were ultimately on board. Of those used that night, many were filled
half-full. Almost two hours after it completely sank, the Carpathia, whose initial location was about 60 miles away
despite the Californian staying put 10 miles nearby while doing absolutely nothing, finally showed up which means nobody
would have survived the freezing water for that long if they were still submerged (28 degrees Fahrenheit which would've
resulted in death within minutes).
The wreck wasn't discovered until 1985, which is roughly two miles below the water surface, because it was 13.2 miles away from
the inaccurate coordinates as given by the Titanic's radio operators on the night of her sinking. Interestingly, there
were three steamships of the Olympic class from the White Star Line, and two of them sank: RMS Titanic and
HMHS Britannic. The third that didn't was RMS Olympic which lasted for 24 years before retiring after 257
successful round trips across the Atlantic Ocean.
One of the main reasons why the disaster happened is that the ship was going too fast. Its hull was riveted, not
welded; hence, the bolts popped out after the hull hit the iceberg, causing the metal sheets to come loose. The other reason is
that the captain failed to pay attention to ice warnings. The region his ship was in turned out to be Iceberg Alley. The band
did play music to the end with all members dying afterwards, yet the final song wasn't "Nearer, My God, to Thee" but
was most likely "Dream of Autumn" ("Songe d'Automne").
Why didn't anyone spot the iceberg right ahead of the ship? It's because there were no binoculars to begin with. Years
later revealed they were stashed in the locker of the crow's nest, but a sailor named David Blair forgot to leave behind
the key after he was reassigned to a different ship at the last minute.
What the boiler room looked like in the film is fiction. It's actually more simple in appearance. Over 600 tons of coal a day
were required to keep the furnaces running, and 176 firemen had to be employed 24/7. At the same time, 100 tons of ash needed
to be expelled onto the ocean each day. It was dangerous work for the firemen, and their suicide rate was high.
Okay, that's enough with the facts, and let's go to the film. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for Best
Actor but wasn't. That's a surprise because he made the movie work during the first half; of course, the ship itself took
over during the second. Instead, it went to Kate Winslet, but she's mostly fine. However, it's not what I describe a
strong performance in the face of an epic; no matter what, she's well-cast. Looking too 90's for such a period, DiCaprio is the one
who can stand tall next to the ship. The second acting nomination went to the 86-year-old Gloria Stuart, who did
eventually live to 100, as the narrator, and it's much deserved. Billy Zane is good as well.
Of course, the visual effects are A+, no doubt about it. However, it does look fake at times which is okay by me. James Cameron
manages to get at least 95% of the amazing stuff through the screen, and it still holds up today. He doesn't make the same
mistake as many disaster pictures had committed: too much star power. The cast is low-key for the most part. It's a
credit to him by focusing on the story against the backdrop of the "unsinkable" ship. Everybody at the time thought
Titanic was doomed to fail given the enormous budget of $200 million which was an unheard-of sum.
Back to the original question, which is a bigger tragedy: the sinking of RMS Titanic or the death of Leonardo DiCaprio's
character? Honestly, to me, why the film worked and resonated with the audience, especially the females, is
the love story. Take it away, and Titanic would've been nothing more than a sinking of the famed ship. Everybody knows
what happened and can see it in their minds without having watched the movie. Once James Cameron got a stranglehold on
the Romeo and Juliet angle, Titanic became goldmine, no matter what.
All in all, Titanic deserves a strong rating of '9' for a lot of good reasons, but it's not s '10' due to some weak
performances.