Big Budget Buys Big Oscar

Rating: Null/10 (6 June 1999)

I've finally seen this "masterpiece". Hmm, I missed the masterpiece part. Was it the part where Jack teaches Rose to spit? Or was it when Rose gives the steward the finger? Nice touches, both.
Before I ever saw the film, I was prepared to give the script a break. I didn't really expect much. It came from James Cameron, after all, a man who writes mindless action fluff like Terminator and Aliens. Good action, that's what we expect from Cameron, not a script. So here is my break for the script -- the movie was pretty to watch. Soft lighting, soft colors, opulent sets. The ship sinking sequence was just nifty. I was entertained.
But the story! Let's see -- this street urchin sketch artist win's a ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic, and finds himself on The Love Boat. Inspired! I can't hold back.
Take away the sinking, and Cameron was left with over two hours to develop three characters. He couldn't pull it off. Start with Rose. She's pretty, she's rich, she's unhappy. Can we get a little further than that, please? I mean, where did this rich girl get working class tastes? Where did she learn to drink beer and party like she does with the steerage folks? She has been forced to agree to a marriage with Cocky Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). Who's forcing her? In one short scene, we see her mother stressing that "The money's gone". What we don't see is Rose caring much about the money, or that mom might have to take up sewing. In fact, Rose seems to disdain wealth, and her mother. Cameron has another chance to develop Rose, in the character of the present day. But all we see is a seemingly likable old woman who ultimately throws a multi-billion dollar diamond into the sea. Thanks Grandma. Sure, it means nothing to you, but several generations of your descendants could have lived quite nicely on that little bauble.
The Zane character. What makes him so bad? Or do we just accept badness as a side effect of being rich?
Cameron's best effort was with the character Jack. Unfortunately, what little Cameron made of the part, DiCaprio threw away. Not one of Leo's best efforts, in my opinion. Maybe he couldn't figure out the script.
Lack of character development wasn't the least of the childish script's problems, either. There were holes big enough to sail the Titanic through. No, not the fact that a rich girl falls for a steerage passenger; I can almost buy that. Start with the big dinner, where Jack and Rose first fall for each other. Jack borrows a tux from "The Unsinkable Molly Brown". It fits! Why is Molly Brown packing around her nephew's tuxedo? Why is Molly Brown even in this mess? Then there's the nude sketch scene. Rose is being followed by man-servant Spicer Lovejoy (who came up with that name?). Yet Jack and Rose are able to sneak away (to Rose's cabin??) long enough to finish the intimate portrait. Maybe it's time to get a new man-servant. The holes get bigger, the movie gets worse. During the sinking scene, we're asked to despise the rich men climbing on the life boats with women and children. And yet, when the third class folks make it on deck, and the men rush the lifeboats, we're asked to pity one who gets shot. I guess chivalry is just for the upper classes.
And when is James Cameron going to get past shots of darkened hallways with flashing lights? Move on Jim!
Ranting now. Who cast this thing? Is it just me, or did anyone else feel like Kate Winslet was dating a minor? And I can picture the meeting where the Cal Hockley part was cast. Suzanne Crowley: Let's see, crazy man on a boat...crazy man on a boat...get me that guy from "Dead Calm"!
Someone stop me! My comment has taken on Titanic proportions. One last gem. When Rose and Jack do the dirty, Rose comes up with this line: "Put your hands on me Jack". Wasn't that Jessica Lange's line to Jeff Bridges in "King Kong" (1976)? Enough said.