Tries to be all things to all people

Rating: 3/10 (16 April 2005)

It's a love story. A blockbuster. An historical account. A thriller. An action-fest. It's art-house. It's popcorn. It's.. it's... all of these and none.
Many others have gone over the historical inaccuracies in great detail so I will try and avoid mentioning them again, but as someone with a lifelong interest in the Titanic story Cameron's film is immensely frustrating. I have a lot of respect for James Cameron. He is a true master of spectacle, and although I've never met the guy I can imagine he is a grade-A control freak; whatever the criticisms of his films, you do not get to make a $200+ million dollar flick without being well and truly disciplined to your art. The detail is all there: the light fittings, crockery, engine room; the beautiful ship brought back to life in full colour, the bridge/bow/boat deck etc - a small army of crew working to build and light the set, costume designers and so on. The film should be recognized as a huge technical accomplishment for these reasons.
Yet the film fails for one very simple reason: storyline.
The appeal of the real Titanic story is multifold. It was never "just a shipwreck" - ships sink all the time, some larger than the Titanic, some with many more losses (the Lusitania is comparable, yet far less populist) - but the sinking marked the end of a period of human arrogance. No matter how technologically adept we become, fate can always intervene and scupper our best laid plans. No one thinks planes are "uncrashable" or that we can somehow buy immunity from a grisly fate. And since the real people on board the Titanic represented every walk of society, from billionaires to those starting a new life, the fact that rich and poor perished together on this brand new ship altered our thinking. When the story starts there are four classes of people: First class, second class, third class ('steerage') and crew. By the end, there are two: living and dead.
If the real story was fictional, it could not be dreamt up better. There are so many iconic moments to savour they would barely fit into a 3 hours film: Passengers requesting bits of the 'berg to put in their drinks, the Californian's wireless operator going to sleep, the growing realisation that something is seriously wrong etc -the list is endless. So if it is one of the most enduring stories of human behaviour and "nature vs man", why do we need Cameron's wafer-thin plot? As a Titanic buff I watch the special effects with delight. The ship is back from the deep, no question. But I find myself willing Jack and Rose to get out of the way. There are some many fascinating 'real' characters that we never get to more than acknowledge. What makes THEM tick? I get the feeling Cameron is fascinated too, but restrained by the demands of a teenage popcorn audience, who've failed to imagine that a poor boy falling in love with a super-rich girl and sacrificing himself in 24 hours is complete "poppycock" (1912) - or in Cameron-speak, "a bunch of horses**t" (1997).
(Incidentally, if I was a first class passenger on the Titanic, I would feel slightly aggrieved I'd paid so much, since in Cameron's version it seems all passengers are free to wander anywhere they like. Except when it starts sinking of course, then suddenly it's impossible to get above decks.)
Head for your nearest iMax cinema and watch "Ghosts of the Abyss" - Cameron's slightly cheesy but good documentary featuring much more of the underwater scenes from the film. Or for a more accurate retelling of the story try 1958's A Night To Remember. If you want a love story, go for Romeo and Juliet. For a "people out of their time" film, try Les Visiteurs or Bill and Ted.
In short, TITANIC tries to be all of these things, and excels at none of them.