"Titanic" could have been different, but maybe not better

Rating: Null/10 (8 February 1999)

Most of the criticism I've read of James Cameron's "Titanic," on this site and elsewhere, has been unjustified and trivial. I can easily imagine people going to a theater -- having already decided they hate the film -- and watching it for the first time looking for anything to criticize, so they can justify their prejudices.
That said, some of the criticism was right on target. The worst part of the movie had to be the contemporary scenes with Bill Paxton. Other than providing a framework for telling the story, I got the impression that one of the main reasons these characters were included in the movie was to give the audience the celluloid version of an "Applause" (or "Weep") sign. The submarine crew, particularly the anti-happy-face character and Paxton, were unbelievably callous at the beginning, but by the time Rose finished the story, they had become misty-eyed at the old woman's harrowing tale. The transformation appears quite artificial.
I'm a little surprised that no one has commented on the peculiar relationship between the contemporary and historical scenes. After all, it wasn't until elderly Rose said, essentially, "Those of us who were on the Titanic remember it differently..." At that point, we faded back to 1912 and Rose began narrating the story. But within a few moments, her narration fades out.
We are led to believe that what we see on the screen is the visual equivalent of what Rose speaks to her contemporary listeners. But within a few minutes, we start seeing scenes which Rose could not have witnessed, much less described: Jack's card game, discussions between the ships manufacturers and the captain, and so forth. Was Rose simply making these things up, or did Cameron quietly replace Rose as the narrator? I realize some may think it a trivial point, but imagine if Cameron had filmed the rest of the movie from Rose's perspective.
We would have missed out on a lot of panoramic views -- the propellers turning, the fly-over view of the ship, the pistons churning -- as well as other scenes, such as when Lovejoy put the diamond in Jack's pocket, the conversations between minor characters in which Rose was not present, the reluctance of the captain to speed up and his ultimate despair after the ship started to sink.
On the other hand, we would have gotten a much fuller picture of Rose's passion for Jack, who would probably be a somewhat more mysterious figure, since we wouldn't know if he had pocketed the diamond or not (reportedly, DiCaprio had asked Cameron to portray Jack with something of a dark side -- to make him complex in some way -- but the director had refused). In addition to being a more intimate film, if we saw the complete story through Rose's eyes, everything would be much more chaotic, since we wouldn't benefit by knowing all that the captain and crew know. While Cameron's "Titanic" gives us a bird's eye view of the disaster (and, one might add, the personalities of the characters), Rose's would convey the sheer terror and panic in a way that probably more closely resembles the experience of the unlucky 1,500.
It's easy to see how this would be a much different movie -- much more complex and terrorizing. This reminds me of the landing-at-the-beach scene in "Saving Private Ryan," where the camera gives us a view of what the soldiers actually saw -- the chaos and the horrible realism. Seeing the event entirely through the eyes of Rose would likely offer the artistic direction which so many find lacking in Cameron's film.
But, would it actually be a better movie?
I have my doubts. Cameron's "Titanic" succeeds because it actually balances quite well between the cerebral just-the-facts rendition of the ship's sinking that many of us saw in "A Night to Remember," and what could have been a gut-wrenching, though confusing, in-your-face chronicle of Rose's painful experience. Instead we have a very good blend of historical account and personal tragedy.
In addition to offering an appealing story for some movie-goers, the fictional romance between Rose and Jack serves at least four other important purposes. First, by allowing the camera to follow them around, we get to see more of the ship -- both first class and third. Second, unless the movie were to run nine hours, it would have been impossible to show in detail what happened to all of the "real" people on the ship. But by following Rose and Jack, we can gain a glimpse (regrettably brief) of some of the main "real" characters. Third, as pointed out by others (particularly those fond of 1st Officer Murdoch), we don't really know the true story in many cases, and to connect the dots in regards to real characters risks disparaging their memory. By focusing on Rose and Jack, we gain a fairly realistic view of the times, the people involved and the event. Finally, the loss of Rose's lover makes the tragedy more personal to viewers, in a way that "A Night to Remember" couldn't.
When you think of the other ways this story might have been told -- instead of just citing the movie's shortcomings -- you may gain an appreciation for Cameron's "Titanic." It may not be one of the best movies ever made, but it's definitely worth a $2.00 rental and three hours of your time.