Years from now, people will look back and wonder why.

Rating: Null/10 (25 March 2000)

Why did James Cameron go to so much trouble making a film that presented the physical and visual dimensions of Titanic and take the human dimensions on a fantasy-romp of titanic-sized contrivances? There are enough historical documents and memoirs about REAL people on that ship who had REAL lives and some were actually very compelling. So why did Cameron opt to give these REAL people bit parts and invent two shallow characters?

Good acting and high production values go a long way to cover up a poor script, and Titanic is proof of that with the Oscar frenzy that surrounded it (However, it was the first film in a long time that did not earn a screenplay nomination and won best picture). Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet both did excellent jobs acting as did Gloria Stuart and Kathy Bates. They all deserved an Oscar in light of what they had to work with on the page. How conventional, shallow and contrived does this sound? Rose is in what is for all intents and purposes an arranged marriage, but she is really a free spirit ready to fly away from her upper-class roots. If it wasn't for her darn mother. Now to make this issue even more clear, her fiance is controlling and abusive. The decision is clear. She has to fall for Jack, a fellow free spirit who shows her real love. Alas, Jack must be symbolically sacrificed so she can avoid being drowned in her life and truly find freedom in the new land. Not only are the mechanics of the script clear, but the story is old and tired. Titanic works because it plays on stereotypical conventions and latent emotions; it does not earn its emotional climax on its own merit. This subject has the opportunity to be so much more genuine and powerful if only someone had taken the time to look beyond fictional romance and into true life tragedy.