'' 'Titanic' rocks'', says one of my friends. 'Titanic is so well-made, it is so emotional', says another. 'It is one of my favorite romantic movies', says my sister. 'It is really beautiful', says my father. 'But', I begin in my response but I can never really finish that sentence because I can never really convince people why James Cameron's 'Titanic' is far from being the cerebral masterpiece that everyone claims that it is.
Did I say 'everyone'? Well, then let me take back my own word and let me tell you of an alternate opinion, growing stronger and stronger by the minute which would go on to protest against the pile of accolades, acclaim and awards which Cameron's film went on to bag in 1997-1998 and let me explain well enough that I don't really hate Cameron's film. Yes, it is indeed well-crafted, which is to say that it is a piece of monumental filmmaking, blending state-of-the-art special effects, models, sets and more to make a movie that was as thrillingly larger-than-life (mostly in the visual sense) as the grand yet ill-fated ship itself. And yes, it has some truly sentimental moments, moments that make us choke in our throats and push back our tears. But a masterpiece? I am not sure.
What goes wrong in Cameron's film? I have nothing against the sentimentality; what I found particularly distressing was how unoriginal Cameron's narrative was. To begin with, this is not really a movie about how the Titanic eventually sunk into the depths, taking along its extensive treasures with it. Rather, this is more of a love story in the most conventional and predictable way possible. Aristocratic pretty girl Rose falls for the reckless, almost penniless amateur painter Jack and we almost make out how their romance would progress. There is all the usual stuff about Rose desperately trying to break out of her cloistered and civilized existence and Jack seems to be the knight for this damsel in distress; he is the one who sets her free from her gilded cage and yeah, he gets her drunk as well and they eventually fall in love.
Predictable indeed, but Cameron could still have woven a truly sensational scenario around it. It never happens. Their idea of throwing a spanner into the wheel of romance is totally ridiculous. Rose' suitor Caledon, chosen predictably by her domineering mother and played by Billy Zane, turns out to be a scoundrel, a character so ruthless that he is eventually deemed as a caricature. Throw in some more nasty looking though smartly dressed rich folks who are dead against the innocent-looking Jack and you get a romance which is more fitting of a Mills and Boons paperback than to be portrayed on celluloid for nearly three hours.
Am I exaggerating something? Well, certainly not, because even without the romantic angle, the narrative of 'Titanic' is nothing beyond the ordinary. Cameron seemed to be wrapping up the disaster movie format with the parallel romantic track. But what does he end up achieving? A film of bits and pieces- a film that goes on far too long while we wait for something to happen, which is inevitable. The ship will sink and our lovers will get plenty of opportunity to express love for each other in a number of sequences of expertly executed peril. And of course, one of them must die. Sigh!
I have nothing against exploring characters in a disaster movie and in that respect, some of our vintage disaster movies like 'Airport' and 'The Towering Inferno' did a great job, giving us a cast of interesting characters all of whom play a key role in the tumultous events that follow. So, we feel all the crucial themes of villainy, heroism, romance and tragedy coming together to make a sensational experience. Clunky as their effects look today, there is no denying that such films were equipped with tight plots and fully-fleshed characters.
Cameron meanwhile is more interested in the effects rather than characters or tension. The film is shockingly bereft of any tension and while the finale- an hour-long sequence of the ship being wrecked amidst general panic and chaos- feels genuinely stunning, the buildup is totally futile. So obsessed is Cameron with the romance that he almost forgets that his characters are actually on a ship that is all set to sink. For a briefly interesting part of the movie, the film focuses on the characters of Captain Edward John Smith, along with the honest builder Thomas Andrews and the hard-nosed, aristocractic Ismay who is more concerned about his own safety rather than that of the passengers. They all make a memorable appearance but it is the fault of Cameron and Cameron alone to altogether forget them and make just slight references to them in the film's climax. Here, even the most heartfelt sequences of death and tragedy feel artificial. When the disciplined Captain Smith retires to the bridge, almost submitting to the fury of nature, or when Andrews broods alone in a sinking room about how he could have built a stronger ship, we know that their respective ends are tragic. But we never feel the pain. We never really care. Because Cameron does not care for them, either.
.jpg)
What Cameron eventually cares for, other than the ridiculously predictable romance between Rose and Jack and Caledon's simmering rage, is for the ship itself. When the Titanic sails, the film acquires an almost magical quality. To begin with, the ship looks fully wondrous and larger-than-life like the actual ship itself. It also feels like a living thing and in a number of monumental scenes, Cameron, equipped with Russel Carpenter's beautiful camerawork, zooms into the steaming engines, vigorous cogs and wheels and all the hustle-bustle in the engines. And even the opulent interiors feel authentic and luxurious, so when it all crashes in truly stunning manner, we feel that this was how it actually happened.
There is no faulting Cameron for that and on any given day, 'Titanic' feels like a film that deserves a re-release in 3D format, unlike 'Jurassic Park', which got some flak because the extra-dimension exposed its technical snags. But let's not forget that Cameron is also the man behind some superb outings- 'The Terminator', 'Aliens', 'The Abyss' and 'Terminator 2- Judgment Day'. All these films are hard-core, hi-tech actioners packed with stellar special effects and action scenes but they are also films endowed with clever characterization, taut direction and perfectly placed elements of heroics, evil, romance and emotion. 'Titanic' does not even try. It remains to be more of an experiment with visual effects and grand filmmaking rather than good storytelling. And it is best if we just think of it in the same way.
Yeah, sure it has its moments- some truly sensational- like Leonardo Di Caprio's loveable loafer Jack screaming 'I am The King Of The World!' after watching the dolphins leaping up and down. Or that moment- a passionate moment at the ship's mast against the setting sun. Or even that needlessly controversial 'sketching' sequence. All such bits are fine, but they don't add up to a great whole.
There is a joke about 'Titanic'. It goes, that sinking the ship in the film cost more than the money that was originally spent on creating the original ship. It is a similar problem with Cameron's film. For all the effort and money that goes into making it, it turns to be more costly when it sinks. And yes, it hurts a lot to see such good potential going down the ocean.
No comments:
Post a Comment