Post by missjennifer on Feb 23, 2021 23:49:50 GMT -4
Bumping since I never did contribute to this thread.
I may not be as crazy about this movie as I was in early 1998 when I saw it (I was 25), but I still like it. Although I really would have loved it if Christian Bale had been Jack. Leo's a good actor and I can objectively see where he's handsome, but his looks don't do it for me personally. I've crushed on Christian for years.
I've also recently found out that my darling Jason Isaacs was considered for Cal. As good as Billy Zane was, I'd have loved to see HIM in that role.
The movie just gives a sense of the sheer scale and grandeur of that ship in a way that A Night To Remember, as good as it is, wasn't able to do on a 1958 budget. The effects, the production design, the costumes take my breath away...and the soundtrack! I've loved James Horner (RIP) since the Star Trek movies he scored, and I even enjoy That Song despite its over-the-top-ness. (Even if you don't like the lyrics, try listening to an instrumental of it--it's a lovely melody. Or try it in Italian.)
This was around the time I was working at a Hallmark card store while going to grad school and interning at a library. Since we had a sound system at work, I brought in my Titanic soundtrack to play. A young guy who came in to buy something said, with utter resignation in his voice, "Okay...who put on the Titanic soundtrack?" (His girlfriend listened to it constantly.)
And I can get into the love story even if it is a little overblown...it's a historical epic romance, and I'm all about those. And as other posters have said, it's nice to have a non-ironic, earnest story. I am so sick of postmodern hipster irony I could just SCREAM.
But even liking it as I do, I can still enjoy snark on it, like Rifftrax's.
It bugs me a bit when commentators like that Jezebel article take the position of "wah wah wah, she's rich, poor her!" Certainly it's no picnic being poor (especially in that time period) and it's tempting to say, "wish I had THEIR problems." But being a strong-minded, intelligent woman in a society that discourages that in you, being treated like a meal ticket by your own mother, facing a marriage to a man you don't love, a man who, at best, treats you like a possession whose feelings and opinions don't matter and at worst outright abuses you...all the jewelry in the world isn't going to make up for that, and Rose had a right to be upset at being bound to a future she'd never asked for.
But there's one criticism often leveled at this movie that bugs me even more...the accusation that "they slapped a fictional story on a real life tragedy, how dare they!"
But isn't that what historical fiction has ALWAYS done--played fictional characters and their stories against the backdrop of real-life events? No one seems to say, "How dare they insert fictional characters like Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund into the Nazi occupation of Africa! Real people suffered during that occupation!" Or "What a travesty, shoehorning fictional characters like Yuri Zhivago and Lara Antipova into a real-life conflict like the Russian Civil War when the real events are interesting enough!" Hell, this isn't even the first movie or novel to do this with the Titanic tragedy--the 1953 Clifton Webb version, anyone? So why is it only wrong when Cameron's Titanic does it?
I may not be as crazy about this movie as I was in early 1998 when I saw it (I was 25), but I still like it. Although I really would have loved it if Christian Bale had been Jack. Leo's a good actor and I can objectively see where he's handsome, but his looks don't do it for me personally. I've crushed on Christian for years.
I've also recently found out that my darling Jason Isaacs was considered for Cal. As good as Billy Zane was, I'd have loved to see HIM in that role.
The movie just gives a sense of the sheer scale and grandeur of that ship in a way that A Night To Remember, as good as it is, wasn't able to do on a 1958 budget. The effects, the production design, the costumes take my breath away...and the soundtrack! I've loved James Horner (RIP) since the Star Trek movies he scored, and I even enjoy That Song despite its over-the-top-ness. (Even if you don't like the lyrics, try listening to an instrumental of it--it's a lovely melody. Or try it in Italian.)
This was around the time I was working at a Hallmark card store while going to grad school and interning at a library. Since we had a sound system at work, I brought in my Titanic soundtrack to play. A young guy who came in to buy something said, with utter resignation in his voice, "Okay...who put on the Titanic soundtrack?" (His girlfriend listened to it constantly.)
And I can get into the love story even if it is a little overblown...it's a historical epic romance, and I'm all about those. And as other posters have said, it's nice to have a non-ironic, earnest story. I am so sick of postmodern hipster irony I could just SCREAM.
But even liking it as I do, I can still enjoy snark on it, like Rifftrax's.
It bugs me a bit when commentators like that Jezebel article take the position of "wah wah wah, she's rich, poor her!" Certainly it's no picnic being poor (especially in that time period) and it's tempting to say, "wish I had THEIR problems." But being a strong-minded, intelligent woman in a society that discourages that in you, being treated like a meal ticket by your own mother, facing a marriage to a man you don't love, a man who, at best, treats you like a possession whose feelings and opinions don't matter and at worst outright abuses you...all the jewelry in the world isn't going to make up for that, and Rose had a right to be upset at being bound to a future she'd never asked for.
But there's one criticism often leveled at this movie that bugs me even more...the accusation that "they slapped a fictional story on a real life tragedy, how dare they!"
But isn't that what historical fiction has ALWAYS done--played fictional characters and their stories against the backdrop of real-life events? No one seems to say, "How dare they insert fictional characters like Rick Blaine and Ilsa Lund into the Nazi occupation of Africa! Real people suffered during that occupation!" Or "What a travesty, shoehorning fictional characters like Yuri Zhivago and Lara Antipova into a real-life conflict like the Russian Civil War when the real events are interesting enough!" Hell, this isn't even the first movie or novel to do this with the Titanic tragedy--the 1953 Clifton Webb version, anyone? So why is it only wrong when Cameron's Titanic does it?
