aging well

Rating: 8/10 (22 April 2008)

So much has been said about "Titanic" , pro and con, I doubt I can add much to the discussion. I am one of those that has seen it numerous times (at least a dozen) and watching it now is a lot like putting on a comfortable old shoe. The nostalgic quality of the film was always a big draw for me anyway, and now, seeing it again brings on a sort of "double nostalgia" i.e. a nostalgia both for the movie itself as well as for the time period in which it took place.
We all know who Rose was or rather who she represented. She was the "Miss Liberty" that appeared on all the coins of the era, and whom also was the inspiration or model for the Statue of Liberty. At the moment she proclaimed her freedom in the movie, in fact, she traded her tight corsets for the same free flowing gown worn by those early feminist icons. I think a lot of people missed that point and instead took to making negative comments about her weight, etc as though an actress with a super model bod would have done a better job of projecting that Miss Liberty persona. Anyway, the more I see the movie now, the more I love both the old Rose and the Kate Winslet Rose. Young Rose wasn't an overly strong person through much of the movie, but that to me was consistent with the types of relationships she was in. I can see some wanting a sexier Rose, while others, a stronger and more assertive one. But to me, the balance was just about right as it had to be for the movie to succeed.
Otherwise, there are many other things I still marvel at while replaying this movie over and over again. For example, nine times out of ten, long movies suffer from problems related to pacing and holding the audiences attention. But Titanic's "take it slow" approach was in my mind a stroke of genius, not a fault, and the pacing was magnificent in the first half (pre iceberg). Paradoxically for me, the second half of the movie actually contained some of the "slowest" scenes, with "slow" being a relative term tied to one's expectations.
And then there is DiCaprio's Jack, and my only lingering regret with regards to this movie. Maybe I was wanting Matt Damon for the role. I don't know. But Jack's mix of humble roots and Paris sophistication was just too hard for me to swallow. It reminded me of how super sophisticate Hawkeye Pierce of "M*A*S*H" was actually from.......Crabapple Cove, Maine? This is Hollywood wanting to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. Jack did have to be an artist, though, because that was central to the plot. But his humble roots was to me just a case of "balancing the ticket" politically, so to speak, and was irrelevant otherwise.
Anyway, Titanic is still a beautiful and moving film to me. Sure, I might have toned down the cheesy aspects of the romance and cast a more mature and believable Jack, but the real achievement here lies elsewhere. People use terms like "timeless" and "enduring" when describing movies such as this, and yes they are clichés. But when applied to a historically based film they have real meaning. Implicit is the requirement that such a film span generations and appeal to filmgoers from across the decades. Titanic accomplished this beautifully in a unique and powerful way. As serious historical epics go, I suppose this movie will never be a heavyweight. But yet it still has that power to endure in one's psyche - almost as much as the original disaster may have endured in the memories of those that experienced it first hand.