Hatred of Leo?
LA-Woman_
Kimberly Dickson
Rach
--
--
Man U- Premiership Champs 1999-00
If ya smell what The Rock......is cookin!
I saw that in a nickelodeon once and I always wanted to do it - Jack Dawson
http://www.madleofan.demon.co.uk
Kimberly Dickson <VaEs...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:j4YJ5.7337$UL.4...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Joe Sweeney
LA-W...@webtv.net (LA-Woman_) wrote:
> One thing I don't understand is, why do people hate Leo Dicaprio? I
> liked his character in the movie, 'Titanic'. Was it the fact that
after
> the movie made him a star, did he get a big head or something? I wish
> someone would take the time to tell me what this is all about, I am
new
> here and find these postings very interesting. I'd appreciate your
input
> 8)
I like him as an actor. i thought he was good in Romeo & Juliet and
Titanic. I think the reason many men don't like him is because he's
better looking than they are. LOL! Also, these men's wives and
girlfriends are infatuated with him. Same reason I don't like Keanu
Reeves:)
I think people's hatred of him is pretty silly. I'm a Star Wars fan too
and I really hoped he would have gotten the role of Anakin. Most other
fans were just outraged. It didn't make much sense to me.
--
Joe Sweeney
--------
Images and wise sayings of A.J.S.:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/River/3055/alex.html
Joe's pages o' Winamp Skins:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Canyon/7087/skins.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jill
actors like Mel Gibson or George Clooney (i.e. "manly men"), men can
understand and accept it. But when women go ga-ga over a young man
who's -- let's face it -- rather feminine-featured; it flies in the face
of everything they've been taught about what it means to be a man. They
don't get it, so they react with fear and loathing.
I also think that many men who considered themselves straight were more
attracted to this particular than would like to admit.....and react with
fear and loathing.
J.
LA-Woman_ wrote:
> One thing I don't understand is, why do people hate Leo Dicaprio? I
> liked his character in the movie, 'Titanic'. Was it the fact that after
> the movie made him a star, did he get a big head or something? I wish
> someone would take the time to tell me what this is all about, I am new
> here and find these postings very interesting. I'd appreciate your input
> 8)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Just...@webtv.net
I don't think it's as much of a hatred of Leo as it is a hatred of
Titanic and all the hoopla. I even find myself saying "I love Titanic
and not cause of Leo!"
Even people on this NG have confessed they intentionally stayed away
from the theatre when Titanic was playing because of all the hype. That
hype goes to Leo too cause of all the young girls going nuts over him
and repeatedly going to the theatres.
Mbraaler
>hype goes to Leo too cause of all the young girls going nuts over him
>and repeatedly going to the theatres.
>
Hmmmm. I went to see Titanic 10 times and it wasn't because of Leo. I don't
understand why some people hate him, but I do think it is possibly envy. I
didn't even think he was good looking when I first saw the movie, but I still
loved his character, and I think he did a good job with it and can appreciate
his work. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Lamar Owen
> I also think that many men who considered themselves straight were more
> attracted to this particular than would like to admit.....and react with
> fear and loathing.
Interesting theory.
Of course, most straight men won't see Leo for Kate.....
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
Sabine Pothmann
You are in A NEWSGROUP here, not in a web based forum or mailing list, La
Woman, turn off that html code in whatever you use to read this group!
Many readers cannot understand the html-code and will show nothing but
source code to their users!
In this way, the adding of a backgroundsound is also not needed.
Regards
Sabine
Corey Ann Doyle
the attention he got with this movie...many thinking, "why him..." and he was
younger than they were.
Then I think some of it has to do with the fact that Leo was EVERYWHERE there
for a wile. And there are people that revolt against the "norm" to be
"different." So the thing to revolt against was Leo and the Titanic. I know
many people who have told me, "god I hate that movie," but don't know what to
say when I asked if they saw it. They usually haven't. Ok, almost always
haven't. Then they are like, "well I wouldn't like it if I saw it." People
like that are bigots... You know? Don't smack it unless you have at least
SEEN the movie...
Corey Ann
Chewb...@aol.com
Collide With Destiny http://www.coreyann.com/titanic
Kate http://www.coreyann.com/kate
"His ideas about the male preoccupation with size might be of particular
interest to you..."~Rose
Nicholas Cascone
Consider this. In order for the theft-of-the-diamond setup to be
believable, Jack has to be played as the sort of man who would cozy up to a
woman far above his station (and sleep with her!) just to steal that jewel.
The script requires that Rose believe, at least for a moment, that Jack
could do that to her.
Unfortunately, DiCaprio played Jack as a young Jimmy Stewart. He gives no
indication that he is cruel or desperate enough to steal the diamond. It
would have been easy to do so - and it would have made the character more
interesting, not less. Think Redford or Newman in The Sting. But Leo
played Jack essentially as an innocent. When Cal sets him up, it is
unbelieveable to the audiance that Rose could be taken in by such a trick.
But Kate has no choice, since the script forces her to believe in something
that has been made unbelieveable. In acting, this is called "conspiracy
gainst the truth".
To sum up:
Kate had to be able to believe that Leo would steal the diamond, because
the script says she does. Therefore, Leo had to play a character whom the
audience, and by extension Rose, can believe would do such a thing. He did
not. So Rose looks pretty stupid when she suddenly suspects him of being
nothing but a thief. This is known as "hanging your fellow actor out to
dry".
Nick
Jill
I have read that Billy Crudup was the preferred choice for the role. After
seeing him in JESUS' SON and ALMOST FAMOUS this year, I'm very intrigued. I
think he would have made a far more interesting Jack, and edgier Jack, one more
believable as a bohemian. Of course, the teenagers wouldn't have been as
ga-ga, but I think it would have been a VERY INTERESTING bit of casting.
J.
Tom Pappas
I have to admit that upon first viewing, my response to the whole
diamond-theft setup was, "Wha?" Not only is Jack the wrong character to be
credible to Rose as a thief (as you ably pointed out), but when the necklace
was found in Jack's pocket, I fully expected Rose to say, "Oh, that was
mine. I gave it to Mr. Dawson for drawing my portrait."
But be very careful. If you don't tread the path of orthodoxy (read:
uncritical worship) around here, people will start calling you very
unflattering names.
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
ddr...@my-deja.com
Secondly, Billy Crudup was never offered the role. He himself said that
he did the audition, but didn't get the part. Here is an excerpt from
an interview which Leo and JC did in 1997 with LA Times:
Encouraged by Luhrmann, DiCaprio agreed to do a reading for "Titanic"
in Los Angeles with Kate Winslet.
"Kate wasn't cast at the time," Landau remembers. "After they tested,
she said to us, 'No matter what you do, if you do not cast me, you have
to cast Leo.' "
But DiCaprio still had doubts, partly about the character of Jack, the
impetuous artist who wins a steerage ticket on the Titanic in a card
game, and whose life force drives the romance.
"I just wasn't used to playing an openhearted, free-spirited guy," he
admits. "I've played the more tortured roles in the past. It was
difficult to be someone closer to 'me' than anyone else.
"And to tell the truth, I haven't really wanted to do love stories at
all. I've never sort of . . . liked them."
But Cameron had seen the spark he was after. DiCaprio was his choice,
over such rumored finalists as Matthew McConaughey and Chris O'Donnell.
"I jokingly say I auditioned Leo for 15 minutes and he auditioned me
for three months," Cameron recalls. "Leo is the kind of guy who goes to
the hardest thing. He wants to prove himself against a difficult test.
I think his initial view was that Jack wasn't hard enough to play.
"I had to point out to him that when you don't have a [character with]
a drug addiction, a physical or mental affliction, these overt actions--
almost props--you have to rely on something more inward and subtle.
"To be charming and charismatic every moment on the screen is a much
bigger challenge. It's the thing Jimmy Stewart did when 10,000 [others]
couldn't. When Leo realized the difficulty was a 10.0, it became more
appealing to him."
In article <3A341EA4...@idt.net>,
Corey Ann Doyle
>Kate had to be able to believe that Leo would steal the diamond, because
>the script says she does. Therefore, Leo had to play a character whom the
>audience, and by extension Rose, can believe would do such a thing. He did
>not. So Rose looks pretty stupid when she suddenly suspects him of being
>nothing but a thief. This is known as "hanging your fellow actor out to
>dry".
>
>
I have to admit, I thought it was pretty believable. I mean, she did leave him
with the diamond. What else was she supposed to think. I would have believed
it, only because it was found in his STOLEN jacket. I think Kate did a great
job in that scene. When that tidbit was revealed you see her go from
disbeliving to believing.
Pardon my spelling errors, I am postively FREEZING right now.
Nicholas Cascone
> diamond-theft setup was, "Wha?" Not only is Jack the wrong character to
be
> credible to Rose as a thief (as you ably pointed out), but when the
necklace
> was found in Jack's pocket, I fully expected Rose to say, "Oh, that was
> mine. I gave it to Mr. Dawson for drawing my portrait."
>
> But be very careful. If you don't tread the path of orthodoxy (read:
> uncritical worship) around here, people will start calling you very
> unflattering names.
Well, Tom, I get kind of a free pass (I hope) because I was in the movie.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
right?
That's me.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
Everybody has demons. Perhaps that "demon-less" concept is why Jack's
character seems to thin out on repeated viewings.
Nick
Joe Sweeney
> Well, Tom, I get kind of a free pass (I hope) because I was in the movie.
>
> Nick
So Nick, here's something I've always wondered about actors: Do you go see your own movies? I'm guessing you saw the big Hollywood premiere of Titanic, but do you ever go to the movies and actually pay to see a movie you were in like the rest of us? Does the fact that you were in it take away from your enjoyment of the story?
I've always thought that if I were an actor it would be a shame to for me to be involved in the making of a movie I otherwise might have liked seeing. Watching the movie, I would be trying to enjoy the story, but I would be thinking of all the frustrations, long hours etc. that go into trying to do a job.
Thanks
--
Joe Sweeney
Visit the alt.movies.titanic website:
http://www.geocities.com/amt102600/amt.html
Janelle Roberts
to be believable to the audience, it's only supposed to be believable to the
master at arms on the ship;which it was and is why Jack was hauled off in
handcuffs.
Also, throughout the movie, we see Rose gradually rebelling against
everything she has been brought up to believe and then being brought "back"
to her senses by her mother and Cal...so even though she knows deep down
that Jack did not steal the gem, it's Cal's and her mother's control over
her that make her doubt it for just a nanosecond. (Jack-how did you know i
didn't do it? Rose- i didn't. i just realized that i already knew...) Also,
who are they going to believe? A "woman" whose place in society in those
times was not viewed very highly, or the person with the gem that had been
placed in the jacket pocket (the pocket didn't belong to him either...).
i think both actors are brilliant... just look at their other works =)
anyway, just my small opinion =) all in great fun
--
cheers...
"Nicholas Cascone" <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01c0627c$83455640$7ccb480c@quannie...
Nicholas Cascone
>
> Nick
JS: So Nick, here's something I've always wondered about actors: Do you go
see your own movies? I'm guessing you saw the big Hollywood premiere of
Titanic, but do you ever go to the movies and actually pay to see a movie
you were in like the rest of us? Does the fact that you were in it take
away from your enjoyment of the story?
NC: Yes, I see them. It's the only way to see how my performance was.
Usually the actors in a film are invited to a special cast and crew
screening well before opening. We usually get to bring only one person to
that. I wasn't invited to the big premiere, I'm afraid. With both
Paramount and Fox execs and all their invites, a lowly non-name actor like
me didn't stand a chance.
I did go with about 10 friends to Mann's Chinese on opening night. I paid
for everybody. That's was a lot of fun; at the time, nobody knew the film
would be so successful, so the intense audience reaction was a nice
surprise. Then I went back again with some other friends that couldn't
make it the first time. So I bought a lot of tickets to that movie.
Fortunately, I more than made up for that with residual payments. In fact,
there should be a nice fat one on the way for the network premiere.
As far as enjoying the story, I've usually read the script by the time I go
to work, so I already know the story. I'm usually mostly watching to see
if the director's and editor's version matches what I saw in my head when I
read the script. It's a different way to enjoy a movie, but as a teacher
of mine once said, you give up your right to be "entertained" by a movie or
play when you choose to work in the field of performance. I can't really
watch as a pure spectator anymore.
JS: I've always thought that if I were an actor it would be a shame to for
me to be involved in the making of a movie I otherwise might have liked
seeing. Watching the movie, I would be trying to enjoy the story, but I
would be thinking of all the frustrations, long hours etc. that go into
trying to do a job.
NC: The satisfaction of working on something and knowing that millions are
seeing that work more than makes up for the plot being spoiled for me. In
a way, I got to see two Titanics: the one that was released in December of
'97, and the one that played in my head as I read the shooting script for
the first time on my sofa in the summer of '96.
Nick
Jill
I've kind of been a lone voice in the wilderness in regarding the
character of Jack as a catalyst, rather than a fully-fleshed-out
character. For all that there are a very few hints about a past for Jack,
one never really has the sense that the character, as embodied by
DiCaprio, really HAD such a past.
DiCaprio has done some truly extraordinary work. I don't think that
TITANIC was one of them, mostly because he wasn't given much character to
work with. Jack is a prop for Rose. IMHO, not much more. He's sort of
like those male pairs figure skaters whose job it is to "present" the
woman.
The problem in pointing out such weaknesses is that people misinterpret
such opinions as "You didn't like it, so why are you here?" I saw the
film five times in theatres. I started writing a fan fiction sequel
that's gone off in so many directions, with so many original characters I
created, that I'm spinning one of them off into her own novel. So no one
can question the impact this film had on me. Even if I do hate "that
d*mned song." :)
Still, a film can have power, impact, be emotionally moving, and deeply
affecting, without being "perfect."
J.
Nicholas Cascone
>
> I've kind of been a lone voice in the wilderness in regarding the
> character of Jack as a catalyst, rather than a fully-fleshed-out
> character. For all that there are a very few hints about a past for
Jack,
> one never really has the sense that the character, as embodied by
> DiCaprio, really HAD such a past.
My acting teacher taught us that when the character has been left sketchy
by the writer, it provides an opportunity to the actor. A professional
actor can never hide behind the script. There may not have been lots of
specifics provided for Jack's past and such, but it is the actor's job to
present a three-dimensional human being, no matter how much or little
information the script contains. DiCaprio was content to play the script
and leave it at that. Contrast his performance in Titanic with is
performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
> DiCaprio has done some truly extraordinary work. I don't think that
> TITANIC was one of them, mostly because he wasn't given much character to
> work with. Jack is a prop for Rose. IMHO, not much more. He's sort of
> like those male pairs figure skaters whose job it is to "present" the
> woman.
I couldn't agree with you less. Jack had to played much more forcefully
and dangerously. What we got instead was a fuzzy-cheeked boy who wowed all
the teeny-boppers. Imagine how much more powerful the movie could have
been had Jack been played by someone with real sexuality, rather than a
teen idol.
> The problem in pointing out such weaknesses is that people misinterpret
> such opinions as "You didn't like it, so why are you here?"
Like I said, I get a free pass on that score.
> Still, a film can have power, impact, be emotionally moving, and deeply
> affecting, without being "perfect."
Without a doubt. It was just disappointing to me that, while undeniable
popular, the first hour of the film kind of lays around waiting for the
iceberg.
Here's another issue with the portrayal of Jack:
His sacrifice at the end should have been a turning point for him. Jack
starts the film as a drifter, living only for himself and what he can
experience in the world. He falls in love and learns a lesson in
selflessness from Rose, who risks her life to save him. In the end, he
gives the ultimate gift of himself; it is an act which the Jack we first
see in the poker game simply could not have performed. The character is
transformed by love.
Anyone see any such transformation in DiCaprio's Jack?
Nick
ddr...@my-deja.com
Agreed. But that's the problem with the script writing and direction
instead of acting. I don't think any other actors would have done a
better job given the material. Leo repeatedly asked James Cameron to re-
write the script and give Jack more edge. Cameron refused. To me,
Jack's character was intended to be larger than life. It's a symbolic
figure rather than a real human being.
Tom Pappas
Maybe Cameron's intuition told him that the character had to be a huggable
teddy-bear in order to be appealing to the broadest audience. Remember, he
started out with a huge budget, and knew that he wasn't creating an art film
that would pay for itself if only a few hundred thousand people saw it. Many
of the script decisions must have sprung from the requirement to pay for the
production.
ddr...@my-deja.com
"Nicholas Cascone" <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Them's fighting words in some circles, my friend. :)
> >
> > I've kind of been a lone voice in the wilderness in regarding the
> > character of Jack as a catalyst, rather than a fully-fleshed-out
> > character. For all that there are a very few hints about a past for
> Jack,
> > one never really has the sense that the character, as embodied by
> > DiCaprio, really HAD such a past.
>
> My acting teacher taught us that when the character has been left
sketchy
> by the writer, it provides an opportunity to the actor. A
professional
> actor can never hide behind the script. There may not have been lots
of
> specifics provided for Jack's past and such, but it is the actor's
job to
> present a three-dimensional human being, no matter how much or little
> information the script contains. DiCaprio was content to play the
script
> and leave it at that. Contrast his performance in Titanic with is
> performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
But you seem to forget the film represents a director's vision instead
of an actor's. An actor is only an interpreter of the director's
vision. Does it incur to you that James Cameron never wanted a three-
dimensional human being?
Jill Cozzi
> My acting teacher taught us that when the character has been left sketchy
> by the writer, it provides an opportunity to the actor. A professional
> actor can never hide behind the script. There may not have been lots of
> specifics provided for Jack's past and such, but it is the actor's job to
> present a three-dimensional human being, no matter how much or little
> information the script contains. DiCaprio was content to play the script
> and leave it at that. Contrast his performance in Titanic with is
> performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
Which kind of makes you wonder: Why did he take the role?
> I couldn't agree with you less. Jack had to played much more forcefully
> and dangerously. What we got instead was a fuzzy-cheeked boy who wowed all
> the teeny-boppers. Imagine how much more powerful the movie could have
> been had Jack been played by someone with real sexuality, rather than a
> teen idol.
Agreed. Like Billy Crudup. It boggles the mind to think about it. :)
Especially after seeing ALMOST FAMOUS.
> Like I said, I get a free pass on that score.
But the rest of us don't.
> Without a doubt. It was just disappointing to me that, while undeniable
> popular, the first hour of the film kind of lays around waiting for the
> iceberg.
What's your opinion of the character of Cal? It astonishes me the number of
people who have striven mightily to redeem this guy. I thought he was kind of
broadly-drawn and "Snidely Whiplash."
> His sacrifice at the end should have been a turning point for him. Jack
> starts the film as a drifter, living only for himself and what he can
> experience in the world. He falls in love and learns a lesson in
> selflessness from Rose, who risks her life to save him. In the end, he
> gives the ultimate gift of himself; it is an act which the Jack we first
> see in the poker game simply could not have performed. The character is
> transformed by love.
>
> Anyone see any such transformation in DiCaprio's Jack?
Again, funny that you mention that, because I think I am the only person on the
face of the earth who, when Rose says, "When the boat docks, I'm getting off
with you," thinks that Jack/DiCaprio looks not exactly thrilled with the
prospects. Like "Uh...this is not what I bargained for." Of course, others
have naysaid me on this, insisting that he was just so overwhelmed with the
idea that this high-class babe had fallen for him that much. I didn't get that
at all; I had the sense that he was seeing his lifestyle being cramped by the
prospect of the future -- that he really hadn't thought this thing through;
that for him up till that point it was pretty much a shipboard romance.
He doesn't really change until things start getting really bad, IMHO.
PS -- I wonder if this character, portrayed by someone else, would have been
regarded as such a saint. Think of a "bad boy" type like a Ryan Phillippe
portraying this character, and see if "Jack as saint" still works.
Let the flames fly!
J.
Just...@webtv.net
pocket. It was afterall a "dreadful heavy thing"
Tom Pappas
been
> regarded as such a saint. Think of a "bad boy" type like a Ryan Phillippe
> portraying this character, and see if "Jack as saint" still works.
In my universe, the measure of an actor is whether or not he can become ANY
character, not someone who looks and sounds like the actor.
Examples abound of people who can do this: Robert Duvall, Dustin Hoffman,
Meryl Streep, to name three. These people possess an uncanny ability to
transform themselves into someone else - depending on what the script calls
for. We saw three different Duvalls in Tender Mercies, Apocalypse Now, and
The Apostle. Hoffman, of course, was Ratso Rizzo, Tootsie, Dega, and Raymond
Babbitt. Streep pulled the same trick with Karen Blixen, Karen Silkwood, and
Sophie Zawistowska. In every case, the characters are utterly different from
each other, and nothing like the actor.
I don't think DeCaprio is in this class. He plays himself in everything I've
seen him in. Kate has much more range, e.g. her roles in Jude and Sense &
Sensibility were very distinct personalities.
Shari McCall
sorry i'm having a blond moment.
jamiekate
Shari McCall
running me ragged today and my brain is fried.LOL....sorry.
Jamiekate
Jill Cozzi
Vincent D'Onofrio (FULL METAL JACKET, MR. WONDERFUL)
Christopher Eccleston (SHALLOW GRAVE, JUDE, ELIZABETH)
Edward Norton (PRIMAL FEAR, AMERICAN HISTORY X, ROUNDERS, FIGHT CLUB)
J.
Tina/John/Jenny Grimes
the diamond. It's very easy to doubt someone--even someone you care about a
lot--that you've only known a short period of time. There is a whole lot of
personal history that goes into what a person will feel or think in a given
situation like this. Rose's past experiences could easily have made it
possible for her to doubt her own feelings and instincts about men or people
in general. We don't know what might have led her to doubt Jack's honesty.
And I agree with Corey Ann...since Jack had that "stolen" coat on, it just
made it more easy to believe. That would have given her just enough reason
to doubt him, if only for a short time. We're also talking about a girl who
was trying to understand the difference between what she feels and wants,
and what she has been socialized (programmed) to know and understand about
how the world works. She was raised to believe that she was part of
society's elite...and that anyone beneath her could not so easily be
trusted. What else was she supposed to think? People are convicted of crimes
on circumstantial evidence everyday. Luckily, Rose saw through her own
disbelief in short order.
Take care. Tina.
"Corey Ann Doyle" <chewb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001210215259...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
KimNB
instead of acting. I don't think any other actors would have done a
better job given the material. Leo repeatedly asked James Cameron to re-
write the script and give Jack more edge. Cameron refused. To me,
Jack's character was intended to be larger than life. It's a symbolic
figure rather than a real human being.>>
It seems to me that Jack was presented as Rose remembered him. Of course we
would not see all aspects of Jack. We would only be presented with: 1) what
Rose remembered of Jack and 2) what Rose wished to divulge to her audience.
Here was a man who literaly gave his life for her. Why would she share
anything that might reflect negatively on him?
KimNB
seen him in. Kate has much more range, e.g. her roles in Jude and Sense &
Sensibility were very distinct personalities.>>
I have to agree with you on this point. I think I have seen all of Leo's
movies, and he does play a similar rebellious character in almost every one of
them. Kate's characters are much more distinct. You mentioned two of her
period films. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend you see her performance in
Holy Smoke. It's an odd film, but she is great in it, and it's a role unlike
anything I'd seen her do before.
Corey Ann Doyle
Oh he better! :)
*waving* Hey Nick how ya doing!
Corey Ann Doyle
>Paramount and Fox execs and all their invites, a lowly non-name actor like
>me didn't stand a chance.
:( That sucks (for lack of a better word).
I bet it was more fun with your friends anyways...and no stuffy suit or tie :)
Corey Ann Doyle
Corey Ann Doyle
>performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
I agree with you 100% there Nick. Jack needed more "meat" (not ONLY meaning
weight) and Leo gave him none. Kate gives off all this PASSION, Leo's more of
a dud.
Personally I would have LOVED to see Billy Zane play Jack. He managed to give
a one dimensional character "meat" and I for one didn't JUST hate him. I felt
bad for him too (god knows why).
I often wonder if Leo's reasoning on playing this role with such a lackluster
performance is due to his neglectance to accept the role.
Nick, even YOU managed to give Bobby dimension... I noticed that he had a back
problem...that wasn't in the script. ETC..
>Imagine how much more powerful the movie could have
>been had Jack been played by someone with real sexuality, rather than a
>teen idol.
Can we say Patrick Swayze! LOL Totally kidding. Leo is "cute" but he is no
sex object (IMO). He's too skinny. :D
>Anyone see any such transformation in DiCaprio's Jack?
No, NOT AT ALL.
LOL, Jack would have died regardless. Rose simply had more insulation (NOT
cracking on her weight, but come on...Leo's a twig).
Well I am off to watch snoopy! *G*
ddr...@my-deja.com
"Tom Pappas" <t...@pcslink.com> wrote:
> I don't think DeCaprio is in this class. He plays himself in
everything I've
> seen him in.
Are you saying Jim Carroll, Arnie Grape and Romeo are Leonarod? Ok,
I'll rest my case then.
ddr...@my-deja.com
chewb...@aol.com (Corey Ann Doyle) wrote:
> >Contrast his performance in Titanic with is
> >performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
>
> I agree with you 100% there Nick. Jack needed more "meat" (not ONLY
meaning
> weight) and Leo gave him none. Kate gives off all this PASSION,
Leo's more of
> a dud.
Sorry, I disagree completely. Kate is all right, but I would never have
the patience to sit through the whole movie if Leo was not in it. I
agree with what late Gene Siskal wrote in his review of Titanic:
"James Cameron's surprisingly entertaining Titanic in which the most
delightful element is watching a 5 foot 9 actor steal the $200 million
wipc from an 800-foot boat. That's the achievement of 23 year old
Leonardo DiCaprio who again delivers on the promise of his thrilling,
Oscar-nominated debut two years ago in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? As
with his Romeo and Juliet performance last year, DiCaprio is playing a
star-crossed lover, a steerage class passenger on the big boat who
falls in love for a first-class princess (Kate Winslet) who of course
is engaged to be married to a lout.
With his beautific, sweet, open face, DiCaprio gives us a rooting
interest in hoping that someone important to us survives the wreck. And
that provides strong counterpoint to our more natural disaster film
impulse to vicariously watch others suffer. DiCaprio is so good that we
tolerate Winslet, whose performace and character are boring. "
>
> Personally I would have LOVED to see Billy Zane play Jack. He
managed to give
> a one dimensional character "meat" and I for one didn't JUST hate
him. I felt
> bad for him too (god knows why).
Yeah, only if Billy Zane looked like a 20 year old boy.
Kimberly Dickson
> I have to agree with you on this point. I think I have seen all of Leo's
> movies, and he does play a similar rebellious character in almost every
one of
> them. Kate's characters are much more distinct. You mentioned two of her
> period films. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend you see her
performance in
> Holy Smoke. It's an odd film, but she is great in it, and it's a role
unlike
> anything I'd seen her do before.
Anyone see Heavenly Creatures? That is one of the weirdest movies I've ever
seen. For those who haven't seen it, Kate and this other girl are best of
friends who, later on, their friendship turns into a romantic one. Kate and
her now lover plan on killing the other girl's mom, and they go to jail.
It's based on a true story. It's really weird cuz they have the weirdest
fantasies of play-doh dolls coming to life, and dancing with them, and they
had alter egos, etc.
Kim
KimNB
seen. For those who haven't seen it, Kate and this other girl are best of
friends who, later on, their friendship turns into a romantic one. Kate and
her now lover plan on killing the other girl's mom, and they go to jail.
It's based on a true story. It's really weird cuz they have the weirdest
fantasies of play-doh dolls coming to life, and dancing with them, and they
had alter egos, etc.>>
I did see that one. It is a weird film, but it has also received quite a bit
of acclaim. It was actually Kate's first film (for those who might not have
known).
Shari McCall
jamiekate
Shari McCall
his serious roles(Gods and Monsters, Twlight of the Golds and School Ties were
good for him)
jamiekate
Nicholas Cascone
lackluster
> performance is due to his neglectance to accept the role.
I just think he was overwhelmed, to tell you the truth.
> Nick, even YOU managed to give Bobby dimension... I noticed that he had
a back
> problem...that wasn't in the script. ETC..
You're too kind. I saw Bobby as an office-type person on a very
uncomfortable field trip.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
<3A351AE1...@mindspring.com>...
> Could you please refresh my memory on your part? thanks..
> sorry i'm having a blond moment.
Brock's shorter, darker partner in the modern day scenes. MOst oft-quoted
line: "You wanna take this call."
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
> > and leave it at that. Contrast his performance in Titanic with is
> > performance in Golbert Grape, and my point becomes very clear.
>
> Which kind of makes you wonder: Why did he take the role?
$$$$?
> > Without a doubt. It was just disappointing to me that, while
undeniable
> > popular, the first hour of the film kind of lays around waiting for the
> > iceberg.
>
> What's your opinion of the character of Cal? It astonishes me the number
of
> people who have striven mightily to redeem this guy. I thought he was
kind of
> broadly-drawn and "Snidely Whiplash."
You hit the nail on the head. I waited all movie for him to twirl his
mustache and snicker. Hopeless.
Wouldn't it have been better if Cal was a genuinely nice guy? If Rose's
choice weren't quite so ridiculously easy? If Cal had never been anything
but deferential and sweet to her, THEN you'd have the makings of an
interesting romantic triangle. It wouldn't seem so bad to be stuck with a
millionaire who was kind to her, even if she didn't feel anything for him.
Then she has to choose between a dull but wealthy life, or a poor but
exciting one. It's a more difficult choice than an abused but wealthy
life, etc. Oh, well. Once they hit the iceberg, it's great.
> PS -- I wonder if this character, portrayed by someone else, would have
been
> regarded as such a saint. Think of a "bad boy" type like a Ryan
Phillippe
> portraying this character, and see if "Jack as saint" still works.
DING! "Jack as saint" is, as JoAnne Worley used to say,
booooooooorrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggg!
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
> of an actor's. An actor is only an interpreter of the director's
> vision. Does it incur to you that James Cameron never wanted a three-
> dimensional human being?
Wrong. Acting is NOT an "interpretive art". Here's why.
What's the difference between a screenplay and a novel? The novel has lots
and lots of behavior and inner thought that the screenplay lacks. But when
you film the screenplay, all that stuff has to be there, right? I mean,
you can't just show the actors standing still and saying their lines
(although much of film, nd nearly all of TV, is practically just that).
Where the novel has "She went to the window, fogging it with her breath.
She wrote his name in the pane, then, lifting her hand, wiped it away," the
screenplay usually has "Open on Jane in her room. Jack enters." Well, the
actor's job is to create the character in those in-between moments when
nothing is happening plot-wise, but the character's life is still going on.
Notice, I said CREATE. The actor must create everything the character does
and thinks beyond merely what is in the script. Think of the script as a
blueprint, and the character as the house. You can't live in a blueprint,
but there's a tremendous amount of creativity applied to the blueprint to
come up with the house. Ask any builder. No director on earth can be
expected to provide that level of detail for every actor in a film. It's
the actor's job to bring it, and if the director doesn't like it, it's the
actors job again to come up with something else.
Anyway, it's nobody's fault but the actor if a character is flat. Let's
assume, for the sake of argument, that Jim didn't want a 3-D human being
(although why he would want his own alter-ego to be played flat is beyond
me). It's then Leo's job to say, "I can't do it this way. He's flat, he's
uninteresting, it doesn't work." Ultimately, if Leo can't be satisfied
with the project, he should walk away. That's called integrity.
Besides, I'm sure Jim wanted 3 dimensions. He paid for them, after all.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
> > character seems to thin out on repeated viewings.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Jack's character was intended to be larger than life. It's a symbolic
> figure rather than a real human being.
Ick. I hate watching movies about symbolic figures, don't you?
Nick
jco...@sbsusa.com
> $$$$?
So much for "artistic integrity", then, eh?
> You hit the nail on the head. I waited all movie for him to twirl his
> mustache and snicker. Hopeless.
Agreed. No nuance whatsoever.
> Wouldn't it have been better if Cal was a genuinely nice guy? If Rose's
> choice weren't quite so ridiculously easy? If Cal had never been anything
> but deferential and sweet to her, THEN you'd have the makings of an
> interesting romantic triangle. It wouldn't seem so bad to be stuck with a
> millionaire who was kind to her, even if she didn't feel anything for him.
> Then she has to choose between a dull but wealthy life, or a poor but
> exciting one. It's a more difficult choice than an abused but wealthy
> life, etc. Oh, well. Once they hit the iceberg, it's great.
Agreed. It's too facile as written. I've seen people clutch at elements in
the "presentation of the necklace" scene and the one where he doesn't go into
the lifeboat because Rose isn't there as evidence of Cal's "humanity", but I
just don't buy it.
If Jack was the slightest bit dangerous, and Cal was kind but boring (like
Charles Bovary in EMMA BOVARY), it would be a more interesting choice.
I feel it's important not to write cartoon villains, even more so than not to
write your "good guys" as saints. I'm in the process of spinning off one of my
original characters into her own novel, and the story requires a GENUINELY
abusive man. Yet even he isn't a cartoon villain; just a sad, depleted kind of
guy who doesn't know any other way to vent his pain and rage. Cardboard
cutouts just don't make for interesting fiction. You want to see some
well-drawn characters? Go read Susan Howatch's Church of England books.
> DING! "Jack as saint" is, as JoAnne Worley used to say,
> booooooooorrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggg!
Amen. I sometimes wish someone had written a fanfic in which Rose gets sick of
sleeping under the bridge, and she and Jack start sniping at each other. You
can't imagine the heated discussions I've had about this four-day fling not
constituting true love.
Let's not even get into whether "that d*mn song" is part of the story. :)
J.
ddr...@my-deja.com
Of course. Acting is a craft. The actor is responsible for creating the
right body language, face expression, accent and many other details to
bring the character alive. But how do you know James Cameron was
unsatisfied with Leo's performance? Cameron is a perfectionist and
Titanic was his labor of love. He'd do many takes until he got what he
wanted. In the interview I posted previously, James Cameron wanted
Jack's character to "be charming and charismatic every moment on the
screen"; he wanted a "Jimmy Stewart". Leo delivered it. To me, few
actors can generate as much charisma as Leo does, certainly I can't
think of any young actor who's as charming. Late Gene Siskel said that
Leo was the best special effect in the movie. I agree with him
wholeheartedly.
>
> Anyway, it's nobody's fault but the actor if a character is flat.
Let's
> assume, for the sake of argument, that Jim didn't want a 3-D human
being
> (although why he would want his own alter-ego to be played flat is
beyond
> me). It's then Leo's job to say, "I can't do it this way. He's
flat, he's
> uninteresting, it doesn't work." Ultimately, if Leo can't be
satisfied
> with the project, he should walk away. That's called integrity.
>
> Besides, I'm sure Jim wanted 3 dimensions. He paid for them, after
all.
Are you kidding me? Ok, I'm not an actor but I know for a fact that no
actor gave an Oscar worthy performance if the script and direction are
flat. The difference between Gilbert Grape and Titanic is that Lasse
Hallstrom let Leo to do whatever he wanted while making a change out of
James Cameron was "like pulling a tooth from a mastodon." In addition,
your notion of actor should walk away from a project if he disagrees
with the director's vision is simply ridiculous in my opinion.
But in any event, you're entitled to believe Leo's performance in
Titanic is flat, but I disagree and millions of Leo fans disagree too.
So I guess to each his own.
ddr...@my-deja.com
again disagree. I'd like to post this article from Salon.com. I think
the write made some very interesting points here.
SALON | March 17, 1998
Old age and treachery defeat youth and beauty, again!
BY LIESL SCHILLINGER
"WAS LEONARDO ROBBED?" Entertainment Weekly asked last week. What a
question! Of course he was -- and for primal, competitive reasons that
lie deep within the twisted knot of American male-female relations.
DiCaprio's exclusion from the best actor list was a reactionary, if
probably subconscious, attempt by the academy to dictate what kind of
man women ought to find attractive, in the face of distressing evidence
that we really prefer Ganymede to Hercules.
The outraged-over-DiCaprio faction isn't just made up of the millions
of teenage girls who, voting with their feet, have made Titanic the
biggest-grossing movie of all time. It also includes a silent majority
of adult women who don't dare admit their taste, for fear of alienating
their male acquaintances. At cocktail parties and office coffee-break
tables around the country, you can overhear them jeering -- only when
men are present, of course -- at the "embarrassing miscasting" of
Leonardo in what should have been a "man's role." But get them alone
and you hear a different story -- something that sounds more like
Olivia's response to Cesario/Viola in "Twelfth Night." Women are
dazzled that someone so young, smooth and, yes, pretty could also be
virile, loyal and pulse-racingly articulate as well.
The notion that a lithe young man with wit and wiles is more alluring
to women than some crag-featured, graying, monosyllabic captain of
industry makes the old male goats of America bleat in outrage. No one
minds when a beardless youth plays a troubled teen, a Romeo or a young
athlete; but cast him as The Right Man, and a nation of Homer Simpsons
breaks out into a cold sweat. "We can't look like that," they fret, "no
matter how much we work out or how much gel we put in our hair! How can
we possibly hope to compete?" Join the club, a nation of women who have
tried to outfast Kate Moss laugh sarcastically.
The academy's exclusion of DiCaprio is not simply ageism: After all, it
nominated 27-year-old Matt Damon, who portrays a troubled youth who
realizes his full potential after a sympathetic middle-aged mentor
helps him out. But the Damon-Robin Williams pairing is a textbook
example of the Nestor complex, the beloved academy standard, in which
an old man guides a young one, so no one had to stretch a paradigm to
fit Damon into the honor roll. (And yes, an even younger DiCaprio did
score a nomination -- not as a romantic lead, however, but for playing
a mentally retarded kid in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?") But when a
gorgeous young male sexpot wins a gorgeous young female sexpot, there's
got to be hell to pay, because the whole male reward system is thrown
out of whack.
Deep in the heart of man, among his tenderest fantasies, rests the
unshakable belief that if he gains enough status and earns enough
money, he can court and/or bed any woman he wants, no matter how
repugnant or aged he might be. Everyone is sickened when the order is
reversed -- when Mrs. Robinson wants a summer of love with Benjamin
Braddock, or when 80-year-old Maude, with her sagging breasts and
flabby buttocks, beds boyish Harold. But when Dudley Moore gets Bo
Derek, or that rich old Texas coot marries overripe Anna Nicole Smith,
it's harmless, hilarious hi-jinks, something everyone wants to see
blown up to 40-by-50. But what about women's tenderest fantasies?
Cyrano de Bergerac, Olivia and Cesario, Romeo and Juliet, Speed Racer
and Trixie? Being practical, women have historically paired off with
prosaic types who could put a roof over their heads. But now that they
can pay their own way, is it surprising that a younger, prettier model
is earning $20 million per film?
Oscars for best actress sometimes go to very young women or even girls,
perhaps because it is understood that the actress may not have a chance
again when she gets older, after she ceases being en fleur. For young
actors, there is an impulse to hold out, not just because of the sexual-
pecking-order theory enumerated here but on the assumption that they
will have more than enough time for another swing at the statue at 40
or 60. But DiCaprio's charm, at least at the moment, appears to be of
the same hothouse variety as the starlet's. Maybe he will find a way to
age gracefully as an actor, but there is also a chance that his
"Titanic" performance was an unrepeatable, felicitous accident of youth
in which DiCaprio's youthful idealism and romance somehow became
emblematic of a rising, egalitarian America. It is a feat that a 30-
something actor endowed with a 5-o'clock shadow and a few wrinkles
would be hard pressed to pull off.
OK, so Leonardo DiCaprio is probably not a very nice guy. A few years
ago, back when he had just pulled off a performance so good it knocked
the wind out of you -- (in "Gilbert Grape," or was it "The Basketball
Diaries"?) David Letterman asked him why the part of Lassie, the canine
heroine of assorted TV series -- one of which DiCaprio had acted in --
had been played by a male dog, not a female dog. Leo answered with flip
unconcern, "Because boys are smarter than girls." As the audience
booed, he managed to look entirely bored. Then, last spring, on the
heels of his Romeo performance with Claire Danes as Juliet, there came
new proof of Leonardo's callowness. The tabloids reported
disapprovingly that at B-Bar on the Bowery, he had ditched his date,
waved some leggy Russian girl into his limo and taken her to his hotel,
where, she reported tearily the next day, he had not been "very
romantic." "Wherefore art thou, DiCaprio?" she pleaded, only to hear
the answer, "I'm outta here."
Nor are DiCaprio's charms as an actor unassailable. No matter what the
groupies may scream, his magnetism depends on the film he's acting in.
Not all of his performances are Oscar-caliber, as his new film, The Man
in the Iron Mask," proves abundantly. But that makes his exclusion this
year even more outrageous. And even if in real life Leonardo DiCaprio
really is a 23-year-old bounder of the highest order, is that any
reason to deny him an Oscar bid?
The academy's exclusion of DiCaprio is caddishness masquerading as
mature judgment, jealousy posing as high-mindedness. It's one last
dirty trick the toffs in first class have pulled on the noble young
stud down in steerage.
Jill
> Titanic is flat, but I disagree and millions of Leo fans disagree too.
> So I guess to each his own.
Exactly. If everyone thought alike, we'd all be Republicans.
J.
Shari McCall
KEVIN!! The guy that looks like my boss..thats who he played" You almost
exactly like my boss Lee, so right off i felt comfortable with the part.
Jamiekate
Shari McCall
good heart who really loved her, but that she just didnt feel the same for him.
Then you would have had the angst of the watchers over who she should have been
with.
Jamiekate
Shari McCall
do wish someone a bit more ,I don't know, real had played him..like
say...brendan fraser?? just kidding.Though i like brendan i would not have
wanted him for this part either.I always tell my family.."I like Jack.....I
dont like Leo"
Jamiekate
KimNB
a back
> problem...that wasn't in the script. ETC..
You're too kind. I saw Bobby as an office-type person on a very
uncomfortable field trip.
Nick>>
Please forgive my ignorance, but which character is Bobby Buell? I have
watched Titanic many times, but do not recall that character by name.
KimNB
line: "You wanna take this call."
Nick>>
Ohhh!!! Please ignore my other post. I remember that character quite clearly.
I loved the sunscreen on the nose. Very distinctive. :)
Just...@webtv.net
Shari McCall
Corey Ann Doyle
>seen. For those who haven't seen it, Kate and this other girl are best of
>friends who, later on, their friendship turns into a romantic one. Kate and
>her now lover plan on killing the other girl's mom, and they go to jail.
>It's based on a true story. It's really weird cuz they have the weirdest
>fantasies of play-doh dolls coming to life, and dancing with them, and they
>had alter egos, etc.
>
>
Albeit this IS an odd movie, I on the other hand think it is really good, esp.
for Kate's "debut."
They aren't lesbians... They create this "fourth" world and end up doing
anything to remain in this world they have created. When they "made love" they
did so as the saints - whom were all men.
It took me a few watches to get what the heck was really going on...
Corey Ann Doyle
>uncomfortable field trip.
ROFLMAO
Shari McCall
"this world" either.When they did make love each saw the face of her clay lover.
jamiekate
Kimberly Dickson
The whole entire time I was watching it, I had the hardest time figuring out
what was going on. I was so surprised that it's based on a true story. I
dunno if I'd ever be able to figure it out. :-)
Kim
Nicholas Cascone
> unsatisfied with Leo's performance? Cameron is a perfectionist and
> Titanic was his labor of love. He'd do many takes until he got what he
> wanted. In the interview I posted previously, James Cameron wanted
> Jack's character to "be charming and charismatic every moment on the
> screen"; he wanted a "Jimmy Stewart". Leo delivered it.
Here's the thing: Jim may well have been ecstatic with DiCaprio's
performance. That doesn't mean it was the best interpretation of the role,
or even a good interpretation. I myself re-interpreted my role in the film
from Jim's original concept. Obviously, he liked my idea, or I wouldn't
have been cast. But the casting process is different for names, and it can
lead to problems like the one DiCaprio had in Titanic. It must have been
very frustrating for him.
> To me, few
> actors can generate as much charisma as Leo does, certainly I can't
> think of any young actor who's as charming. Late Gene Siskel said that
> Leo was the best special effect in the movie. I agree with him
> wholeheartedly.
Er... Gene Siskel liked DiCaprio... hmm... I don't think I'll touch that
one. What did Rex Reed say?
> Are you kidding me? Ok, I'm not an actor but I know for a fact that no
> actor gave an Oscar worthy performance if the script and direction are
> flat.
Check out Meryl Streep in Bridges of Madison County, as an example. Rotten
script. Amazing performance.
> In addition,
> your notion of actor should walk away from a project if he disagrees
> with the director's vision is simply ridiculous in my opinion.
These days, big stars are auditioning projects, not the other way around.
It's not like DiCaprio needed the rent money or anything. Creatives walk
away from projects all the time when they feel like their input is wasted.
It takes courage, but it's not entirely unheard of.
> But in any event, you're entitled to believe Leo's performance in
> Titanic is flat, but I disagree and millions of Leo fans disagree too.
> So I guess to each his own.
That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
in
> the "presentation of the necklace" scene and the one where he doesn't go
into
> the lifeboat because Rose isn't there as evidence of Cal's "humanity",
but I
> just don't buy it.
Too little, too late.
> I feel it's important not to write cartoon villains, even more so than
not to
> write your "good guys" as saints.
You're so right. What people forget when they play villains is that the
villain always thinks he's making the best choice for himself and the
thigns he cares about. Villains, unless they're just psychotic (and,
therefore, a lot less interesting), always have self-justification. Also,
they're usually in lots and lots of pain. When the audience sees someone
acting in a totally anti-social manner but feeling absolutely justified,
you have an interesting villain. When, in addition, the audience feels the
pain inside of that person, you have a sympathetic villain, which is best
but hardest to play.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
<20001212163620...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
Thanks. They didn't have any zinc oxide sunscreen on the boat, so it's
just white makeup. I figured if Bobby had a nose as big as mine it would
be pretty painful if it got burned. Plus, he doesn't get outside much.
Hence the big sunglasses and, if you're watching carefully, the seasick
bands.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
<8394-3A...@storefull-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> That's cool, Nick. You did a great job in the movie!!!!
>
Many thanks.
Nick
Jill
board, for all that Abernathy is the one who looks like the fanboy. :)
You do have some priceless moments in the film, however. Not many lines, but
some great facial expressions. Obviously you practice your "less is more"
philosophy in addition to preaching it. :)
J.
KimNB
acting in a totally anti-social manner but feeling absolutely justified,
you have an interesting villain. When, in addition, the audience feels the
pain inside of that person, you have a sympathetic villain, which is best
but hardest to play.
Nick>>
You may disagree, but I thought Billy Zane did a pretty good job of bringing a
bit of the "sympathetic villain" to his role, even if it was written more along
the lines of the self-justified villain.
Actually, the more I read your response, it seems you liked neither the role
nor the actor who played it. What I wonder is what character and actor DID you
like in this film?
ddr...@my-deja.com
"Nicholas Cascone" <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > (snip) But how do you know James Cameron was
> > unsatisfied with Leo's performance? Cameron is a perfectionist and
> > Titanic was his labor of love. He'd do many takes until he got what
he
> > wanted. In the interview I posted previously, James Cameron wanted
> > Jack's character to "be charming and charismatic every moment on the
> > screen"; he wanted a "Jimmy Stewart". Leo delivered it.
>
> Here's the thing: Jim may well have been ecstatic with DiCaprio's
> performance. That doesn't mean it was the best interpretation of the
role,
> or even a good interpretation. I myself re-interpreted my role in
the film
> from Jim's original concept. Obviously, he liked my idea, or I
wouldn't
> have been cast. But the casting process is different for names, and
it can
> lead to problems like the one DiCaprio had in Titanic. It must have
been
> very frustrating for him.
Sorry, I know I'm beating the dead horse here. But the director (in
some cases, the studio) has the final cut. No matter what actors do,
the director decides what to put on the screen. For all I know, Leo
would have done different things, but Cameron was the one to decide
what he wanted. The final cut/editing can make a mediocre performance
look good and a good performance look bad. Is there any wonder why many
actors want to be directors? For one thing, powerful directors have
creative control over their final products while most actors don't.
>
> > To me, few
> > actors can generate as much charisma as Leo does, certainly I can't
> > think of any young actor who's as charming. Late Gene Siskel said
that
> > Leo was the best special effect in the movie. I agree with him
> > wholeheartedly.
>
> Er... Gene Siskel liked DiCaprio... hmm... I don't think I'll touch
that
> one. What did Rex Reed say?
Gene Siskel was a well respected critic. I have read rave reviews of
Leo's performance prior to the film's opening. Of course, things have
changed since then. For one thing, Leo was so hyped and popular to a
point that he's attracting detractors and backlashes.
> > Are you kidding me? Ok, I'm not an actor but I know for a fact that
no
> > actor gave an Oscar worthy performance if the script and direction
are
> > flat.
>
> Check out Meryl Streep in Bridges of Madison County, as an example.
Rotten
> script. Amazing performance.
But Clint Eastwood was not a control freak like James Cameron. Meryl
Streep said in interviews that Eastwood gave her a lot of creative
freedom. On the other hand, James Cameron's military style of directing
left actors' little room for improvisation.
> > In addition,
> > your notion of actor should walk away from a project if he disagrees
> > with the director's vision is simply ridiculous in my opinion.
>
> These days, big stars are auditioning projects, not the other way
around.
> It's not like DiCaprio needed the rent money or anything. Creatives
walk
> away from projects all the time when they feel like their input is
wasted.
> It takes courage, but it's not entirely unheard of.
Sorry, people seemed to forget that Leo was not a big star when casting
of Titanic began. Romeo and Juliet wasn't open until Leo was casted in
Titanic. What are you going to do? James Cameron, the most powerful
director in Hollywood, called you for three months and asked you to
accept the role. You accepted and thought you might be able to
change/improve the script along the way. But the reality was the
director was a tyrant, and the movie was over-budgeted. Walking away
from a project was unprofessional and irresponsible.
>
> > But in any event, you're entitled to believe Leo's performance in
> > Titanic is flat, but I disagree and millions of Leo fans disagree
too.
> > So I guess to each his own.
>
> That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
Agreed.
Just...@webtv.net
aboard the Keldysh after the drawing scene. It was hysterical!!!
Tom Pappas
bringing a
> bit of the "sympathetic villain" to his role, even if it was written more
along
> the lines of the self-justified villain.
I didn't get that. The only time I thought he was even remotely sympathetic
was when he donned the "puppy-dog" look and entreated Rose to open his heart
to her. But even that came off as Cal being deliberately manipulative - like
what he actually had in mind was seducing her.
Oh, yeah. And when he was looking for her aboard Carpathia. But since he had
arrived there by grabbing a frightened child as a prop, I really didn't have
much sympathy for the fact that he couldn't find his "possession".
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
Nicholas Cascone
I thought a lot of the first part was mush. Once the action starts, Jim's
got a great handle on it, but I didn't think any of the major characters of
the love story were particularly well-written or interestingly played. I
thought the next tier of actors, though, were quite good. Edward Smith,
Victor Gerber, Cathy Bates and all the Brits were excellent.
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
<27685-3A...@storefull-104.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> NIck, one of my favorite scenes is the open mouthed expression on all
> aboard the Keldysh after the drawing scene. It was hysterical!!!
It's a fun moment, and very human. I don't know why we don't think of the
aged as sexual beings, but they were all young once, too. My father's mom,
in particular, was a real hottie when she came over from Calabria...
Nick
Nicholas Cascone
> some cases, the studio) has the final cut. No matter what actors do,
> the director decides what to put on the screen. For all I know, Leo
> would have done different things, but Cameron was the one to decide
> what he wanted. The final cut/editing can make a mediocre performance
> look good and a good performance look bad. Is there any wonder why many
> actors want to be directors? For one thing, powerful directors have
> creative control over their final products while most actors don't.
Actually, even the most powerful directors usually don't have final cut.
That's one of the drawbacks of working in the studio system. But as I
said, if DiCaprio different so much with Jim on how the character should be
portrayed, he shouldn't have taken the job. I know it's easy to say, but
it's better to skip a project than to wind up doing something that makes
you look bad.
For example: should Leo have skipped Man in the Iron Mask?
> Gene Siskel was a well respected critic. I have read rave reviews of
> Leo's performance prior to the film's opening. Of course, things have
> changed since then. For one thing, Leo was so hyped and popular to a
> point that he's attracting detractors and backlashes.
The main performances in the film were being criticized well before the
hype over Leo. I don't think was about backlash at the time. Of course,
now that he's but together a string of stinkers, there's a bit of backlash,
which is right and good. I think Mr. DiCaprio has gotten lazy, and it's a
shame because he obviously understood character acting at some point. He's
a young man, and it's easy for a young man to be swayed into commercialism.
Contrast DiCaprio's acting record with Jennifer Jason Leigh's for example.
> > > Are you kidding me? Ok, I'm not an actor but I know for a fact that
> no
> > > actor gave an Oscar worthy performance if the script and direction
> are
> > > flat.
> >
> > Check out Meryl Streep in Bridges of Madison County, as an example.
> Rotten
> > script. Amazing performance.
>
> But Clint Eastwood was not a control freak like James Cameron. Meryl
> Streep said in interviews that Eastwood gave her a lot of creative
> freedom. On the other hand, James Cameron's military style of directing
> left actors' little room for improvisation.
But that's beside the point. You said an actor couldn't give a
high-caliber performance with second-rate material. Meryl did. Perhaps
Mr. Eastwood knew he should get out of her way. Perhaps, in a sense, he's
smarter about that than Jim.
> > > In addition,
> > > your notion of actor should walk away from a project if he disagrees
> > > with the director's vision is simply ridiculous in my opinion.
> >
> > These days, big stars are auditioning projects, not the other way
> around.
> > It's not like DiCaprio needed the rent money or anything. Creatives
> walk
> > away from projects all the time when they feel like their input is
> wasted.
> > It takes courage, but it's not entirely unheard of.
>
> Sorry, people seemed to forget that Leo was not a big star when casting
> of Titanic began. Romeo and Juliet wasn't open until Leo was casted in
> Titanic.
But he already had his paychecks and his fame.
> What are you going to do? James Cameron, the most powerful
> director in Hollywood, called you for three months and asked you to
> accept the role. You accepted and thought you might be able to
> change/improve the script along the way. But the reality was the
> director was a tyrant, and the movie was over-budgeted. Walking away
> from a project was unprofessional and irresponsible.
I think not. Part of professionalism is maintaining artistic integrity.
Directors and producers have the luxury of removing their names from a
project if it comes out badly. Actors have no such protection, and
therefore need to be careful about what they get into.
I imagine Jim and Leo met many, many times before shooting started to
discuss Jack and his arc through the action of the script. I'm sure this
didn't suddenly come up halfway through the shooting. You don't have to be
around Jim long to know what kind of guy he his. He's brilliant, but he
can be controlling and insistent on his position. But, in my experience,
he also can listen and change his mind if an idea is presented in the
proper way. Somewhere, there was a disconnect between the two of them, and
the result was a performance that was less than great.
Nick
Just...@webtv.net
Oh, yeah. And when he was looking for her aboard Carpathia. But since he
had arrived there by grabbing a frightened child as a prop, I really
didn't have much sympathy for the fact that he couldn't find his
"possession".
Or was it the diamond he was looking for????? Maybe he didn't care
about finding Rose, just the diamond.
Cougar Ric
hasn't done it. After all, the best con-artists in the world would appear as
totally genuine to their victim right up until the crime, so it is natural
that Rose did think for a second that he might have done it. After all she
had only know him for a day.
Nicholas Cascone wrote in message <01c0627c$83455640$7ccb480c@quannie>...
>I don't hate him, but I don't think he was right for the role.
>
>Consider this. In order for the theft-of-the-diamond setup to be
>believable, Jack has to be played as the sort of man who would cozy up to a
>woman far above his station (and sleep with her!) just to steal that jewel.
> The script requires that Rose believe, at least for a moment, that Jack
>could do that to her.
>
>Unfortunately, DiCaprio played Jack as a young Jimmy Stewart. He gives no
>indication that he is cruel or desperate enough to steal the diamond. It
>would have been easy to do so - and it would have made the character more
>interesting, not less. Think Redford or Newman in The Sting. But Leo
>played Jack essentially as an innocent. When Cal sets him up, it is
>unbelieveable to the audiance that Rose could be taken in by such a trick.
>But Kate has no choice, since the script forces her to believe in something
>that has been made unbelieveable. In acting, this is called "conspiracy
>gainst the truth".
>
>To sum up:
>Kate had to be able to believe that Leo would steal the diamond, because
>the script says she does. Therefore, Leo had to play a character whom the
>audience, and by extension Rose, can believe would do such a thing. He did
>not. So Rose looks pretty stupid when she suddenly suspects him of being
>nothing but a thief. This is known as "hanging your fellow actor out to
>dry".
>
>Nick
Joe Sweeney
--
Joe Sweeney
Visit the alt.movies.titanic website:
http://www.geocities.com/amt102600/amt.html
Cougar Ric <rtownen...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:oI316.51113$2L2.3...@news3.cableinet.net...
Nicholas Cascone
<3a45b...@silver.truman.edu>...
I never for a second thought Rose believed Jack stole the diamond. The look
on her face was complete confusion. She was stunned to the point of not
being able to defend him. Imagine: you know something can't possibly be
true, but you see (apparent) proof of it right before your eyes. What's
your reaction? Confusion. Also, consider Rose's words. She said something
along the lines of, "no, it can't be true", not "Jack, how could you?"
"Jack, how could you," says to me "I believe you did it, but I don't
understand how you were capable of it."
Cougar Ric <rtownen...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oI316.51113$2L2.3...@news3.cableinet.net...
> The only reason it appears to be "unbelievable" is the fact that we know
he
> hasn't done it. After all, the best con-artists in the world would appear
as
> totally genuine to their victim right up until the crime, so it is
natural
> that Rose did think for a second that he might have done it. After all
she
> had only know him for a day.
Naw. It appears unbelievable because Leo hasn't played Jack as the kind of
man who would do it.
Regardless, wouldn't it have been a stronger choice for the movie if Jack
was the kind of man about whom such an accusation would seem accurate?
Nick
Joe Sweeney
> Joe Sweeney <muad...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <3a45b...@silver.truman.edu>...
> I never for a second thought Rose believed Jack stole the diamond. The look
> on her face was complete confusion. She was stunned to the point of not
> being able to defend him. Imagine: you know something can't possibly be
> true, but you see (apparent) proof of it right before your eyes. What's
> your reaction? Confusion. Also, consider Rose's words. She said something
> along the lines of, "no, it can't be true", not "Jack, how could you?"
>
>
> "Jack, how could you," says to me "I believe you did it, but I don't
> understand how you were capable of it."
Ah, but that's my point. She DIDN'T say "Jack, how could you?" She DID say, "It can't be". I think you must have misunderstood me...unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Nicholas Cascone
> along the lines of, "no, it can't be true", not "Jack, how could you?"
>
>
> "Jack, how could you," says to me "I believe you did it, but I don't
> understand how you were capable of it."
Ah, but that's my point. She DIDN'T say "Jack, how could you?" She DID
say, "It can't be". I think you must have misunderstood me...unless I'm
misunderstanding you.
Sorry, I did misunderstand you. Still, you have to look at what the
character does, not what she says. One way or another, Jack ends up
chained to that pipe. Even if you argue that Rose didn't believe that Jack
did it (which, IMO, is unsupported by the film), she still fails to stick
up for him and lets him be taken away.
Nick
TheFrankMan
I've thought about this scene a number of times over the years, and it
seems pretty clear to me that the reason the events unfolded as they did is
best expressed by comments in an earlier post on this thread:
> The look on her face was complete confusion. She was stunned
> to the point of not being able to defend him.
But I think she was more than stunned by the unexpected suddenness of the
charges against Jack. After saying "This is absurd, I was with him the
whole time", she was trying to mentally retrace their steps, to see if there
was even one moment when Jack could have taken the diamond. Clearly, there
was, when - right after finishing the drawing - she handed him the box
containing the diamond and said, "Will you put this back in the safe for
me?" And she was also trying to recall the last time she actually saw the
diamond. She herself closed and locked the safe, which is obvious by the
fact that - when Lovejoy knocked on the door and she and Jack ran towards
the other exit - Jack turned back gesturing & exclaiming, "My drawings!",
not knowing where they were, i.e., when speaking those words, he was
gesturing in a direction opposite the safe (which is visible through a door
on the right side of the screen). Thus, it clearly was Rose who put the
leather pouch into the safe, near the diamond's box (where Cal later found
it), while Jack was out in the chill air of the private promenade deck (as
Rose was dressing). But, obviously trusting Jack, she had no reason to open
the diamond's box to confirm that the diamond was indeed still in it.
All of this, then, is what was racing through her mind when the diamond
was later "found" in Jack's pocket. She was trying to remember if there was
indeed even a moment in the evening when he could have taken it (there was),
and if she had seen the box in the safe as she locked it (she had), and if
she confirmed that the actual diamond itself was actually still in its
storage box (she had not)... all while in the spotlight of the Master at
Arms and other authority-figures claiming that Jack had stolen the coat he
was wearing (which he admitted)... all while knowing she had just made the
enormous decision to abandon her mother, her fiance, her entire social class
and all her means of economic survival, to be with a soul-mate she suddenly
realized that she barely knew... and all of this unfolding against the
backdrop of her (and everyone she knew) having all been suddenly thrust into
a life-and-death emergency of which all her significant-others were still
unaware.
So, it's indeed fair to say that "confusion" was what ruled Rose's actions
and words, or lack of them, if only for a moment or two. But those precious
few moments were all that were needed for the Master at Arms to brisky haul
Jack away, leaving Rose with no one to present Jack's side of the story and
no time to think - since she now had to deal with and survive a violently
angry fiancee whom she knew she had just betrayed, and had humiliated by
leaving a snide note in his precious safe, rubbing salt deeply into his
wounds.
In my mind, though, an equally interesting question involves Cal's rash
plan of vengeance, i.e., when he told Lovejoy "I have a better idea", Cal
had no way of knowing what had actually transpired - only the audience knew
that (not even Old Rose, who was telling the story, could have known with
100% certainty that Lovejoy placed the diamond in Jack's pocket). So, for
all Cal knew, Rose may indeed have placed the diamond in the safe herself,
locked it, and then promptly left the cabin with Jack, being fully in sight
of him 100% of the time from that moment on.
Had that been so, she would not have been confused for a second, and the
fiery spirit in her would have vehemently insisted that this alleged "theft"
was completely impossible, would have instantly seen Cal as the villain who
had orchestrated the fraud, and turned against him all the more, fiercely
and relentlessly defending Jack's innocence (all while implicating Lovejoy
as the crime's accomplice). Despite the social limitations imposed on women
of that era, even the Master at Arms couldn't dismiss her loud protestations
in defense of Jack, especially knowing how angry Cal was that his fiancee
had been posing nude for some other man (as evidenced by the drawings that
Cal had already shown the Master at Arms).
Indeed, of the various "What if?" scenarios of which many movie-fans have
speculated, I would have like to have seen that scenario: where Rose
steadfastly and fiercely insists "No, way, Jose! I locked that diamond in
the safe myself, and then Jack and I left the room! Cal is a lying pig!"
Since there then would be no way to prosecute Jack without totally
implicating Rose in the "theft", things would have gotten pretty dicey in a
hurry for the DeWitt-Bukater household, and their manservant.
Of course, having been in the midst of a jealous fury - publicly spurned
by his lady-love, and humiliated by a steerage drifter - Cal hadn't thought
his plan completely through. It was only dumb luck - not his cherished
pride in his aristocratic cunning - that saved him from far greater
embarrassment in front of Ruth, Lovejoy, and the Master at Arms... not to
mention realizing that now both he and Lovejoy could be facing charges of
filing a false report with the ship's authorities, with his cheating fiancee
as the primary credible accuser. "I hate it when that happens", I can hear
Cal muttering. :)
Anyhow, that's my two cents.
Again, a Happy New Year to you all, and may your only icebergs be in your
brandy!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Nicholas Cascone <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01c07311$45ed6d00$5f2b480c@quannie...
Tom Pappas
You have touched on, but then ignored, a glaring deficiency in the entire
"theft set-up" scenario. Let's look at the facts, as Cal knows them:
1. The necklace was in the safe.
2. Rose's taunting note was there next to it.
Therefore, it would defy logic for Cal to make the leap that the diamond was
ever out of Rose's sight, and for him to plant it on Jack would have been
extremely risky, for the reasons you outlined below.
I notice stuff like this in movies. It detracts from my experience of the
film.
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
"TheFrankMan" <thefr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:92nbgf$s7u$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
TheFrankMan
> You have touched on, but then ignored, a glaring deficiency in the entire
> "theft set-up" scenario. Let's look at the facts, as Cal knows them:
Believe it or not, as I pondered raising this issue, I was highly
conscious that you (specifically) might use it as "evidence" to illustrate
yet another purported "glaring deficiency " in Cameron's script, which
you've been doing here for years. But, as I said in the opening words of my
post, "I've thought about this scene a number of times over the years", so I
had already pondered any repercussions. :) Indeed, having raised the issue
today for the first time on the NG, and then having detailed it at great
length, I think I can safely say that I certainly didn't ignore anything.
:) I first clearly stated (quoting myself):
>> In my mind, though, an equally interesting question involves Cal's rash
>> plan of vengeance, i.e., when he told Lovejoy "I have a better idea", Cal
>> had no way of knowing what had actually transpired - only the audience
knew
... and then elaborated greatly, and finally concluded:
>> It was only dumb luck - not his cherished
>> pride in his aristocratic cunning - that saved him from far greater
>> embarrassment in front of Ruth, Lovejoy, and the Master at Arms
Now, back to quoting you.
> Let's look at the facts, as Cal knows them:
>
> 1. The necklace was in the safe.
>
> 2. Rose's taunting note was there next to it.
>
> Therefore, it would defy logic for Cal to make the leap that the diamond
was
> ever out of Rose's sight, and for him to plant it on Jack would have been
> extremely risky, for the reasons you outlined below.
Of course it would "defy logic" and be "extremely risky" (My God, Tom and
I **agree** on something?! Alert the media!!), but I must reply with a
hearty, "So what?!?!" Let's look at the other facts about Cal:
1. Cal was a very arrogant, volatile, vengeful and emotional man.
2. He had just been rejected by his fiancee - not via some caring
"Dear John" note, but in the most demeaning of terms.
3. She left explosive visual evidence (the drawing) that she had
eagerly exposed to his rival's eyes all of her arousing
physical beauty, which she had steadfastly denied him.
4. His rival was not merely some other macho or well-seasoned
aristocrat, but a frail, child-like and penniless gutter-snipe boy,
seeming to possess no greater manly bread-winning skills than
those of a starving artist who admittedly slept under bridges.
5. Cal found Rose's drawing late in the evening, well after he had
told Lovejoy (while drinking brandy with Col. Gracie et al in the
Smoking Lounge) to search the ship to find her. Thus, we know
that Cal had already been drinking (since he was clearly a man
who was eager to "fit in" with the norms of his peers), and there's
no reason to think he had stopped during the hours that followed.
Thus, we KNOW that we're dealing with a very proud and vindictive man
who's been (A) publicly betrayed and humiliated by his fiancee, and (B)
dumped quite unceremoniously and brutally in front of his aristocratic
inner-circle - in favor of (C) a seeming teenaged flat-broke
nobody/vagabond... all while he's (D) been drinking all night in the Smoking
Lounge. In the course of human affairs, these are *NOT* the circumstances
in which the "logic" you crave is very likely to be found. Arrogantly
vindictive men who have been drinking all night - and who suddenly find that
their woman has just left them for some low-life geek who represents all
they loathe - are not wont to say, "My goodness, before I make my next move,
I'd better be darn sure that my every thought & action will pass muster of
the exacting rational analysis and syllogisms and Monday-morning
quarterbacking of Tom Pappas." :)
> I notice stuff like this in movies..
And clearly, I notice it too, or I wouldn't have raised and detailed it at
such great length in my previous post.
> It detracts from my experience of the film
And *that*, Tom, leads us to where you and I part ways, and drift
light-years into different directions - which has been the basis for the
immense philosophical and cinematic gulf that has separated us. Of course,
you have every right to let anything you wish detract from your experience
of any film. And, of course, there are *many* things in *many* films that
don't "work" for me too. Indeed, there are **EXTREMELY** few films I see
which I like even a little bit, and I'm sure the same is true for many
people who visit this NG. Indeed, they and I can all forever itemize &
detail countless minor or major flaws in each film we don't like, to support
our negative feelings about any given film.
BUT WE DON'T!!!!
And THAT is where you and we differ, Tom.
When I or anyone else encounters any such film or aspect of any given
film, we simply say "Well, ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chance...", and
we promptly move on with our lives. Period. PERIOD. We don't devote the
rest of our earthly existence to specifically seeking out the people who
*did* enjoy a film that didn't "work" equally well for us, and then FOREVER
try to chip away at it - month after month, year after year - seizing every
opportunity to resurrect (for the umpteenth time) all the little petty whiny
gripes we had about the film or its script, forever itemizing all of its
"glaring deficiencies", trying everything within our power to diminish the
enjoyment of it within the hearts of its fans, or to undermine the respect
those people may have for the film, its script, its creator, or anything
else.
Instead, we just go on our merry way, like normal run-of-the-mill
grown-ups, and we wish even greater enjoyment of that movie to its innocent
fans, who've never done us any harm. We let them go about their life in
peace, carrying the much-maligned but noble banner of "Live and let live",
knowing that they too will return that same maturity and common courtesy to
us concerning any films that we like but which they happen to not enjoy as
much as we do.
When I raised the issue of the "flaw" in Cal's logic, everyone in this NG
knew - based on knowing me - that my sole purpose was to offer it as a stage
upon which to play out the "What if?" question of "What actions & dialogue
would have transpired if Rose had indeed been 100% sure of Jack's innocence,
and fiercely refused to let the Master at Arms take him away?" When you
added your thoughts to mine, everyone in this NG knew - based on knowing
you - that your sole purpose was to drag out yet another "glaring
deficiency" of Cameron's script, to build a gallows on which to again recite
your never-ending bull-horn soliloquy to an audience of one, yet again
bemoaning the alleged deficiencies in Cameron and his script & film - which
you've forever and zealously described in this NG using terms like "lousy",
"bathetic" and "dreck", amid many other equally hateful synonyms, year after
year.
Sure, Cal's actions were highly illogical and "extremely risky". But
consider the famous scene from Casablanca - when Victor Laszlo stood tall in
a bar-room full of drunken Nazis to lead the crowd in singing "Le
Marsailles" to shout down the Nazis' loud patriotic choruses of "Der
Fadderland". And the same courage was shown by Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who
gave the nod to permit the highly daring confrontation. Both men's actions
were certainly infinitely more risky & illogical than anything Cal Hockley
ever dreamt of, or would have the guts to try. But that deadly illogic
doesn't render Casablanca's script as "lousy" or "dreck". It simply
portrays the very real actions (albeit illogical and risky) that human
beings do in extreme or unusual circumstances - which is the very salt and
spice of human drama, and the life-blood of any cinema that best depicts
human foibles and their consequences. What kind of terminally-boring drivel
would the world endure in movie theaters if all screenwriters had all their
characters avoiding empassioned illogic or irrational risk?
And, please note, my above comments are not merely a reflection of two
different cinematic or aesthetic perspectives, or of two different tastes in
drama or dialogue or plot or staging or editing or directing or any other
theatric devices. Our profound difference, Tom, is that all but one person
in this NG comes here to truly and casually and sincerely discuss Titanic's
many fascinating aspects with fellow-fans whom they fully respect as peers,
friends, and equals, without question. Your mission - as clearly evidenced
by over three years of Deja's archives - is to forever try to find some new
way to re-hash your never-ending gripe that Cameron's script didn't fully
meet your own personal aesthetic tastes, and that you therefore highly
resent & blame him and it and all of Titanic's fans for your perpetually
wallowing in your personal hell of bitter and vengeful disappointment.
So you tell yourself that it's your lofty literary and academic duty to
ensure that everyone else on the planet who did enjoy his film must be
eternally punished for the unfair pain you've suffered - by having you
dredge up and play that same "Lousy Script" broken-record over and over,
wearing countless different thinly-veiled guises, year after year. You are
the only person here who raises the same issue, time after time after time,
as though nobody has ever heard it before. It's always been clear to one
and all that the driving force behind your actions is that - since you
didn't get to see a Titanic film that tripped your trigger - then nobody
else deserves to enjoy one either. It's the same charge that I and so many
others have raised time and again, and which you forever avoid answering.
If fans don't see the obvious "glaring deficiencies" that you perceive in
the script, you're convinced that they must pay dearly for their sins - with
you as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner. And that convoluted
logic makes Cal look absolutely lucid by comparison, and ranks near the top
of the various reasons why you are the only person who has so ongoingly
encountered such resistence, disdain and difficulties amid this NG's
members. :)
So, while we're still in the midst of New Years and all the "Good Will
Towards Everybody" spirit of the season, Tom, let me close by being
dead-serious and quite sincere here. You really need some professional
help, my friend. No kidding. For a man of your high intellect and vast
knowledge to be so fixated on perpetually demeaning one particular innocent
work of art - specifically while thrusting oneself into the midst of lovers
of that work of art, despite their oft-repeated insistence that those
unrelenting negative opinions were already very old and very tiring years
ago - is truly pathological.
Is this how you "make every day count", Tom? Is this truly the best use
of your mind's obvious brilliance & eloquence, and of your life's precious
moments: to try to diminish & pick away at a movie script, to try to keep
innocent people from enjoying an innocuous film in whose script you feel
there are more literary flaws and "glaring deficiencies" than they do? Year
after year? That's it? In a world where 40,000 children die each day from
starvation, where countless millions young & old languish amid endless
heart-rending tragedies each day, you can find no worthier windmill to tilt
at, no fiercer foe to confront, no grander injustice to vanquish, no nobler
cause to champion, no more sinister wrong to right, no darker dragon to
slay? This is it?! For you, this endless quest of belittling and
undermining Cameron and his script and fans is your best "Noble Obsession"
of which all the world's great philosophers teach us should drive each
human's life? And if this does not represent your personal best, then why
on earth are you wasting your precious time here if you indeed do have
better ways to make each day count?
I'm sorry that Cameron's film & script wasn't what you had hoped it would
be, Tom, that it didn't ring your chimes like it did for others, that it
didn't approach for you the "perfection" that they perceive and whose praise
you begrudge. Life's just that way some times, my friend. Caca happens.
When grown-ups see a movie they don't like, they simply forget about it and
move on to the next flick, hoping it'll work better for them. Having
successfully progressed past the foibles of their teen years, they don't
make a career of forever inviting themselves into all the discussions of
that movie's fans to remind them of all its "glaring deficiencies", of all
the ways it failed to impress one particular person, year after year, as
though that one person's opinion should carry more weight than any other
person's, or as though maybe all those fans will finally "see the light" and
convert to the true religion if only its dogma is barked into their ears
long enough.
Sure, everyone has a right to express his or her opinion. But when any
person is in the third or fourth year of expressing the SAME exact
underlying opinion, to people who long ago grew tired of hearing about those
same "glaring deficiencies", and who have all publicly said so, time after
time after time, then the moment has arrived for some real-life
heart-to-heart counselling with a competent professional or clergyman. No
lie, Tom. No sarcasm. No hard feelings. Get referrals from some local
church or college or co-workers or social-service agency. Get some serious
help. Start the new year right. Whatever it is that keeps drawing you back
here to grind that same weary axe amid these innocent movie-fan discussions
has *nothing* whatever to do with Titanic or movies or scripts, and it
certainly must be manifesting itself destructively in your life and work and
family in ways far beyond the annoyance you insist on trying to inflict in
this humble Movie-Fan NG. :)
So, as we all now truly head into a New Year and New Century and New
Millennium, I sincerely wish you all the best, Tom, and a Happy New Year,
and I hope that you'll find the professional help to set and realize
meaningful goals for your life that are equal to your very admirable
education, knowledge-base, and intellectual potential.
And, Happy New Year again also to all the rest of you too!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Tom Pappas <t...@pcslink.com> wrote in message
news:5lI36.186$9s1....@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Nicholas Cascone
You give an enormous amount of credit to the actress, if you're saying that
you think Kate Winslett actually was thinking all those things during her
shot in that scene.
I think this is a case of viewers imparting way more thought to the
characters than the actors have time to give. Think of it this way;
Winslett had maybe a few months to consider what she would do in that
scene, in addition to working out the entire rest of her part. It's very,
very unlikely that she had enough time to analyze the moment to the extent
that you have ("years") and decide what the character was thinking.
It is a tribute to her, however, that she was able to create for the camera
something that you were able to project so much onto. My only point is,
you're certainly having to work awful hard to justify her behavior. Had
Leo played Jack more like someone who actually would take the opportunity
to steal the diamond, you wouldn't be having to work so hard to explain
what Rose is forced by the script to do.
Nick
Jill
anything at all critical of the film without getting flamed and told "If you
don't like the movie, then leave." Kind of hard to say to you, eh? :)
> I think this is a case of viewers imparting way more thought to the
> characters than the actors have time to give. Think of it this way;
> Winslett had maybe a few months to consider what she would do in that
> scene, in addition to working out the entire rest of her part. It's very,
> very unlikely that she had enough time to analyze the moment to the extent
> that you have ("years") and decide what the character was thinking.
Another issue is the difference between the way we, the viewer, see the final
cut of a scene, and the God-knows-how-many takes it required to do the scene.
Now what I would love to see is a collector's DVD with funny outtakes.
> It is a tribute to her, however, that she was able to create for the camera
> something that you were able to project so much onto. My only point is,
> you're certainly having to work awful hard to justify her behavior. Had
> Leo played Jack more like someone who actually would take the opportunity
> to steal the diamond, you wouldn't be having to work so hard to explain
> what Rose is forced by the script to do.
Again, Billy Crudup. :) Nothing like lobbying for casting in retrospect, eh?
Cameron kind of backed himself into a corner in that scene by casting/painting
Jack as this saintly cipher instead of a fleshed-out character with warts like
most normal people have.
J.
Nicholas Cascone
retrospect, eh?
> Cameron kind of backed himself into a corner in that scene by
casting/painting
> Jack as this saintly cipher instead of a fleshed-out character with warts
like
> most normal people have.
Someday, technology will allow producers to remove an actor from a movie
and replace him with someone else.
Eventually, there will be karaoke-movies, where you can put yourself into
your favorite movies.
What a wonderful century it will be.
Nick
ddr...@my-deja.com
"Nicholas Cascone" <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> My only point is,
> you're certainly having to work awful hard to justify her behavior.
Had
> Leo played Jack more like someone who actually would take the
opportunity
> to steal the diamond, you wouldn't be having to work so hard to
explain
> what Rose is forced by the script to do.
>
My point is, would the general public believe that Jack's someone who'd
sacrifice his life for a girl whom he barely knew if he's also a con
artist who's capable of stealing stuff from someone whom he loved.
KrikkitSky
>sacrifice his life for a girl whom he barely knew if he's also a con
>artist who's capable of stealing stuff from someone whom he loved.
>
I don't know about "the general public"...but I certainly would. People are
complicated creatures, and those of them who do not-so-nice stuff, like
stealing, can be as capable of love as anyone else. The question (and a very
interesting one it is) is whether it's worth accepting the very real, sincere
love of someone if you'll additionally have to put up with that person's
activities which weren't so sincere. To me, the epitome of such a choice for
Rose would be, even if Jack never existed, whether to stay with Cal. Some
people have called Zane's performance flat (not that the script gives him much
help) but I think he did a nice job of portraying Cal as a man who, even though
he was seriously nasty, sincerely did love Rose.
Unfortunately, Cameron made this choice far less difficult (and thus
interesting) by writing Jack as a character who was not only sincere but also,
unlike Cal, above moral suspicion. Therefore, the choice (except for those few
unbelievable moments in the script) is not between two layered and complex
people but between one human being (saved only by Zane's performance from being
insufferably evil) and one Absolute Ideal. Well, which one would you pick?
Krikkit
"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy." - Ludwig van Beethoven
Nicholas Cascone
> > you're certainly having to work awful hard to justify her behavior.
> Had
> > Leo played Jack more like someone who actually would take the
> opportunity
> > to steal the diamond, you wouldn't be having to work so hard to
> explain
> > what Rose is forced by the script to do.
> >
> My point is, would the general public believe that Jack's someone who'd
> sacrifice his life for a girl whom he barely knew if he's also a con
> artist who's capable of stealing stuff from someone whom he loved.
Yes. Jack's arc should have been from swindler to hero, motivated by his
love for Rose. The beginning of the film have Jack as a total utilitarian,
doing what wants without hesitation, thinking of himself first and always.
His love for Rose awakens his better nature, so that by the end he has
grown so much as a human being that he sacrifices himself (which he could
never do at the start) for the woman he loves. Now THAT'S a story.
Nick
TheFrankMan
[And, very nice to finally meet you "in person", BTW, having seen you and
the cast again [for the umpteenth time] on New Years Eve. :) ]
> You give an enormous amount of credit to the actress, if you're saying
that
> you think Kate Winslett actually was thinking all those things during her
> shot in that scene.
Not at all - you and I are in complete agreement. I've never acted in a
film, and can only admire from a distance the tremendous challenge of actors
and actresses learning their character and their lines, and shooting
countless "takes". Especially knowing that films are so often shot "out of
sequence", forcing the actors and actresses to re-locate themselves into the
emotions "of the moment", based on every twist & turn of the script.
Likewise, I'm sure that much of a movie's "magic" takes place in the
cutting-room, as dozens of "takes" are reviewed and sorted to find the
perfect one that seems to best convey the desired emotion of any given
scene.
I'm indeed a mere viewer of the end-product. Thus, rather than giving any
actor or actress excessive credit, I was merely speculating amid the
theatric magic - as any fan of Shakespeare's might do - concerning the
motivations of the fictitious characters. For me, movies are an adult
spin-off of the world of make-believe that we all enjoyed as children, a way
to enter worlds and lives of kings and dragons and space-ships that we know
really don't exist, but which our minds allow us the joy of exploring. And,
it's all the more fun to do so amid kindred spirits who likewise enjoy
probing each hero's or villain's actions, motivations, thoughts and
feelings.
> It is a tribute to her, however, that she was able to create for the
camera
> something that you were able to project so much onto.
It is indeed. Let me give some background and perspective here. I've
watched thousands of movies over the years, and 99.99% of them were major
disappointments for me. I had grown very cynical about virtually all
Hollywood films, especially those which had received as much hype as did
Titanic. Despite pleas from family and friends, my cynicism caused me to
put off seeing Titanic till after it left the big-screen, and I have been
kicking myself soundly for years. For reasons I can't even begin to
explain, Cameron's story - and the way it was manifested - touched me in
dozens of ways that no previous film had ever even approached. For reasons
(many paralleling personal life experiences and emotions) that go far beyond
the love-story and human-tragedy aspects of the film that so many other fans
talk about.
As for Kate, it's not really her but "Rose" - the fictional character -
that continues to grab me, MUCH to my own amazement. Though in certain
scenes (such as the first moments with Jack in the back seat of the Renault
in the cargo hold) she looks very similar to a major "flame" of mine from
many years ago, that's really not enough to have had the effect on me that
she or this movie did. For whatever reasons - whether Kate's acting, or
Cameron's directing, or some editor's editing, or just plain undeserved
dumb-luck - the end-product brought to life Rose DeWitt Bukater, displaying
a mythic character that perhaps I somewhat fell in love with. But, not from
an erotic or schmaltzy or sappy viewpoint, but rather from the aesthetic
perspective of someone who wants to be impressed by the power of cinema but
who has all too often been severely disappointed.
Case in point: when Rose finds Jack on the bow, and he says, "Close your
eyes...give me your hand". The look on her face at that moment better
captures the magical and evanescent micro-second of a woman "falling in
love" than any scene I've ever witnessed in any film, ever. Though this
next parallel may sound bizarre, I'm reminded of the early days of research
into nuclear weapons, when a famous MIT photographic scientist named Harold
Edgerton was challenged to photograph the extraordinarily brief
first-instant of a nuclear explosion. Using extremely sophisticated &
cutting-edge photographic techniques, he indeed captured a haunting
pre-mushroom-cloud image that no human eye had ever been able to witness or
even imagine before.
And, in a similar way - whether based on Kate's skills, or unthinking
coincidence while Kate's mind was focussed on something totally unrelated to
Rose's thoughts, or just dumb-luck editing of a thousand "takes" in the
cutting-room - the expression on Rose's face captured the incredibly elusive
instant that conveyed the deep inner emotion of a woman "falling in love".
At least for me. I've watched the film dozens of times, and that (along
with many other scenes) still grabs me as solidly as the first time I saw
it. For no logical reason whatsoever.
Indeed, I'm certainly no teen-aged girl with a crush on Leo, or a fan of
romance movies or novels (never read a single one). To the contrary, I'm a
middle-aged, hard-nosed and often cynical techno-crat, who typically scoffs
at blatant and shallow tear-jerker flicks. Perhaps a most moving scene for
me was Capt. Smith slightly stumbling and unsteadily grasping at the ship's
wheel in the flooding wheel-house, knowing that his entire life's work was
about to sink into a nightmarishly painful oblivion before his eyes, and his
life with it... a feeling that I could identify with in my own life, in
domains totally removed from ships and love-stories. Likewise touching to
me was the scene of Thomas Andrews in the Smoking Lounge, knowing his
grandest creation was doomed, yet pausing to reset the time on the
mantle-clock to the more accurate time of his mariner's pocket-watch -
almost as a mother pausing to brush a stray bit of lint from the perfection
of the face of her dying child. Again, for reasons paralleling my own life
but light-years removed from ships, or engineering, or children. And
virtually every scene contains something of similar impact for me - whether
visual, audible, emotional, clinical, musical, technical, photographic,
cinematic, editing, etc., etc., etc.
And this is why you'll see me raving on at such extreme lengths in this
thread, and on this NG. Virtually all of the people on this NG, including
you, clearly come here to amicably discuss our different feelings about the
film, all of which are great. I consider it an honor to share the feelings
and thoughts of even the most humble fan of this film - and especially
anyone who was a participant in it in any way - regardless of even any
vastly differing perspectives. Indeed, I relish the differing perspectives
and thoughts because it allows me to learn more about the art of
film-making, to learn other people's views, and to express my own feelings.
So, by all means, always feel free to disagree with anything I say, because
I can already tell that you have the maturity and civility to do so in the
proper and friendly constructive spirit. My long-winded and empassioned
(and seemingly over-reacting) rants arise only when I'm confronted by the
one visitor here who's demonstrated a years-long tradition of coming here
not to discuss the film, but - despite pretenses to the contrary - to mock
and undermine and destroy the illogical but transcendant joy and magic that
movie-fans like me derive from it. :)
> My only point is,
> you're certainly having to work awful hard to justify her behavior. Had
> Leo played Jack more like someone who actually would take the opportunity
> to steal the diamond, you wouldn't be having to work so hard to explain
> what Rose is forced by the script to do.
Again, no argument in the slightest. For me - for no good reason I could
ever offer - this film simply "worked" in ways that all my past "favorite"
films never even approached. That fact itself still amazes me. Imagine
your favorite piece of music, that touches you like no other. Niether you
nor I would spend a moment wondering if it might have been better if the
composer used a few extra quarter-notes here, or eight-notes there, or a
french-horn instead of an oboe in this measure or that, or whatever. We
just lean back, close our eyes, and let outselves be carried away. We
simply "trust it" to know what it's doing. For no logical or quantizable
reason whatsoever, and with no desire to change the mind of any other person
on Earth who may feel differently - even though we can fully enjoy sharing
the opinions of people who enjoy it in different ways than we do. For me,
Titanic's characters became "real", and their story became a part of my
experience of life on Earth during my brief stay here. They acheived a
level of magic that's beyond the realm of reason or question. That's why I
come here to this NG and, again, am very pleased that you are here too. :)
Thanks for your comments, Nicholas, and Happy New Year to you and yours!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Nicholas Cascone <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01c073d7$371bb720$4fcb480c@quannie...
TheFrankMan
> I hope you stick around, Nick. You're the only one who seems to be able
to say
> anything at all critical of the film without getting flamed and told "If
you
> don't like the movie, then leave." Kind of hard to say to you, eh? :)
Hi, Jill:
I too am very pleased to see Nick visiting here. But, in defense of the
NG, I must add my two cents. I know that you have your own strong
viewpoints, though I've never seen anyone flame you or challenge your right
to express your opinions here. To the contrary, I've always enjoyed all
your insightful and knowledgeable posts and perspectives, and have never had
the slightest disagreement or friction with you. Indeed, in my brief
(5-month) tenure here, I've never seen anyone flamed and/or told to leave
merely because of a contrary opinion orworld-view (other than the occasional
brief or transient visitor who arrived with flame-thrower in-hand). What I
have seen, however, reads more like:
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: I'm sorry you felt that way.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Okay, we heard you.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: We know, you said exactly that during all of last year.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Okay, the film is finished. None of these things will ever change, so
what's your point?
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Maybe you need to see another movie, maybe one that you did fully enjoy,
and visit that NG?
Disgruntled Viewer: No! I don't like the script! This was wrong! That
was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: Uh huh. We believe you've made your point. About 14 thousand times.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: We are aware of that, you know.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Do you expect the film to somehow change?
Disgruntled Viewer: Irrelevant! I don't like the script! This was wrong!
That was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: Sigh... Do you have any new opinions?
Disgruntled Viewer: No!! I don't like the script! This was wrong! That
was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: Right. Which is precisely what you said in all of 1997 and 1998.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: Do you think we're deaf? Or stupid?
Disgruntled Viewer: Both! And I don't like the script! This was wrong!
That was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: Then why do you keep coming here?
Disgruntled Viewer: Because I don't like the script! This was wrong! That
was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: We get the idea. It's been the very same idea since 1997. It's now
2000.
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: So, maybe it's time to get into a new NG? Or to get a life?
Disgruntled Viewer: No!! I don't like the script! This was wrong! That
was wrong! This should have been different! That should have been
different!
NG: You are aware, we're now into a new millenium, and we have heard your
viewpoint before...
Disgruntled Viewer: I don't like the script! This was wrong! That was
wrong! This should have been different! That should have been different!
NG: And your point is...?
Again, Jill, if anyone has ever flamed you, or has been disrespectful to
your viewpoints, I apologize for my oversight in forgetting it, and regret
their lack of civility towards you. But I've never seen anyone treated that
way here. Even remotely. Ever. The people here are admirably tolerant,
patient, and respectful to all people who treat them with that courtesy, and
often when they're not treated themselves with that courtesy. Rather, the
above satire does truly reflect the only friction I've seen here during my 5
months, and amid my forays into Deja's NG archives.
Just my two cents... :)
And, BTW, Happy New Year to you and yours!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Tom Pappas
Cameron?"):
Don't you think you've wasted just about enough bandwidth with your puerile
diatribe? Every post of yours has concerned itself 10% with the subject at
hand, and 90% with your campaign to muzzle me. Do you think anyone really
cares? Could you possibly be so stupid that you think you can make me go
away with sheer volume of vituperation? Let's make a deal:
Why don't you shut your cake-hole until you catch me saying something
gratuitously denegrating to either the film or the denizens of this NG who
haven't said something nasty about me? I haven't found it necesary to attack
anyone for a long time - most of the posters here seem to be willing to move
on - but you don't seem to want to let go of it. Can you say "obsessive
defensive behavior?"
Now a member of the cast comes along and points out how the script could
have been improved by creating Jack as a man redeemed by love. Do you attack
him for "trying to change the eighth-notes?" No. You fall over yourself
praising his insights. The word that springs to mind is "sycophant."
Nick Cascone: Jack's arc should have been from swindler to hero, motivated
by his love for Rose. The beginning of the film have Jack as a total
utilitarian, doing what wants without hesitation, thinking of himself first
and always. His love for Rose awakens his better nature, so that by the end
he has
grown so much as a human being that he sacrifices himself (which he could
never do at the start) for the woman he loves. Now THAT'S a story.
TheFrankMan: . I consider it an honor to share the feelings and thoughts of
even the most humble fan of this film - and especially anyone who was a
participant in it in any way - regardless of even any vastly differing
perspectives. Indeed, I relish the differing perspectives and thoughts
because it allows me to learn more about the art of film-making, to learn
other people's views, and to express my own feelings.
Tom Pappas: I thought that bit of business was deliberately staged to
underscore the callous indifference with which Lovett regards the ship and
her tragedy before he hears Rose's story. This theme is underdeveloped, to
my way of thinking, and when it is reprised in the "I never let it in"
speech, the
viewer is left with a rather "so what?" attitude about the whole thing.
Cameron didn't seem intent upon focusing on Brock's transformation, and
couldn't think of a way to integrate it smoothly with the love story, so he
just hit a few obligatory notes here and there. The result is wooden.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: Well, call it "chic" if you will, but I think the criticism goes
beyond what is merely bashing. I feel the adventures of J & R below decks
during the sinking was dramatic to a fault. The first episode was too long
by about five minutes, and the second was totally redundant.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: Here is what [another poster] said in an earlier post:
"One thing I noticed, which was slightly irritating, is that when Rose and
Jack are together, whether walking or running or what.....every other word
out of Rose's mouth is "Jack", as if we all need to be constantly reminded
of what his name is."
Now, did he do "an excellent job with it", or it was "slightly irritating"
in places? An excellent script can't be irritating. Pick one.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: I don't think Fleet was over the top at all (although I do agree
with your more general conclusion). He was undoubtedly near panic in wanting
to communicate the danger to the bridge, and his outburst seemed to me as
one of the most authentic lines in the entire film. I wouldn't have been
surprised if he'd lapsed into the "focative" case, but there was that PG
rating to preserve.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: Titanic's reciprocating engines would turn in either direction,
and the wing propellors were mounted directly on their drive shafts. They
were reversed by altering the point where steam was introduced into the
cylinders. When this was done, they would be braked by steam pressure
opposing their motion.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: I have watched the "bribe" scene many times, and my
interpretation right from the first viewing has been that Murdoch is more
than a little surprised by Cal's offer. He doesn't refuse the money, to be
sure. But he doesn't exactly accept it, either. He passively allows Cal to
stuff it in his pocket, and departs the meeting as if he has better things
to do than to debate the merits of Cal's offer. His look at Cal is one of
incredulity, not aquiescence.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: My subjective observation would be that real code [in movies] is
the rule, because since I can copy it, I notice when it's bogus. When
"Phillips" started sending, I turned to my companion and remarked,
Pbbbbttt!"
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: SInce people are mostly water, which is incompressible, the
pressure at depth wouldn't bother them. But the oceans are full of very
hungry things, and they would have had a feast within the first few days
after the sinking. The bones would dissolve within some months. Did you know
that there is a technical Titanic ng? It's alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic
and there are many very knowledgeable folks over there to answer this type
of question.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: I agree that script is the film's principal shortcoming. I think
its biggest flaw lies in its diction, which was egregiously unfaithful to
1912 modes of speech. The real irony is that after spending untold effort
and money on making the ship and its denizens a faithful re-capturing of a
moment in history, Cameron ruins the effect by putting 1990s words in the
mouths of his characters, particularly those of Jack and Rose. A period
drama should envelop a viewer and transport his consciousness to another
time by having the characters speak in an authentic way, using grammar and
vocabulary consistent with the setting. The BBC productions on Masterpiece
Theater consistently succeed in this. Cameron consistently fails. In
"Titanic", we don't see Gilded Age personalities expressing themselves in
the face of a disaster with the stoic nobility of their time; we see a
couple of modern brats in funny get-ups trading made-for-tv quips. The only
utterances that ring true are those of Guggenheim and (edited out) the
Strauses. Jack's only credible lines are delivered just before he dies, far
too late to save the overall effect.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: I have always assumed that the artist added that detail when
Thayer told him the ship had broken in half. When ships break up in rough
seas, they usually "hog", that is, bend upwards in the middle, until they
break. Then the two halves begin to fill from the broken ends, with the
result depicted.
TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
Tom Pappas: This is one of Cameron's better plot devices. He had to come up
with something whose bouyancy would support the weight of one person, but
not two, so that Jack could sacrifice himself. It was shown when J&R both
tried to climb aboard that their combined weight would push it under, but it
would
hold one person out of the water. I think at that point I might have
suggested taking turns on the board.
You make me sick.
TheFrankMan
Thanks for your reply.
> FrankMan (may I call you "Jim", or do you prefer the more obeisant "Mr.
Cameron?"):
You may continue your long-standing belief that I am truly James Cameron
if you wish, since any amount of my claiming otherwise won't convince you
that I'm not. I am flattered, I must admit, to be thought of as him.
Because - despite any flaws, weaknesses, sins or failings in any person's
life, as grievous as they may be - one would hope to be judged on-balance
by the aggregate sum-total of postitive contributions vs. detrimental
short-comings. So, maybe you should take a quick straw-poll of this
audience to see what rings up on the "plus" side of Tom's Ledger-Sheet...?
:)
> Don't you think you've wasted just about enough bandwidth with your
puerile diatribe?
Thus far, in my 5-month tenure here, no one but you has every publicly or
privately voiced that opinion, in the slightest, ever, even once. Perhaps
you should publicly ask that question of the others. :)
> Every post of yours has concerned itself 10% with the subject at hand,
> and 90% with your campaign to muzzle me.
Neither I nor anyone else has ever attempted to muzzle you, or anyone
else. We have, I admit, waited patiently in vain for a new thought or
view-point from you that you hadn't already beaten into smothering dust a
hundred times before. Big difference. :)
As for your above 10% / 90% claim, other than my post of this past Sunday
(whose topic itself specifically was your attempt to again resurrect &
complain about the "glaring deficiencies" in Titanic's script), I eagerly
invite you to point any of us to ANY Titanic topic/post in which I've
committed anywhere remotely near the 10% / 90% sin you allege, re diverting
any topic to anything (negative or otherwise) involving you or anyone else.
Indeed, in my very lengthy post to Nicholas (to which you're responding
here) I spoke barely one sentence (while naming NO names) to reassure him
that I civilly welcome any contrary opinions from him (and all of this NG's
other members, as I'm sure they would all attest to). And, in my reply to
Jill, her topic itself was the NG's response in general to contrary
opinions, thus my entire reply was fully on-topic. Likewise, I invite you
to kindly show the NG any post I've EVER written to (or about) anyone else
on this NG that ever showed anything less than 100% total hospitality &
courtesy - re ALL of this NG's members, and even involving you, Tom, during
our initial July/August/Sept 2000 exchanges on this NG (and my Dec 17 post,
of course, detailed and apologized for our October friction).
> Why don't you shut your cake-hole until you catch me saying something
> gratuitously denegrating to either the film or the denizens of this NG who
> haven't said something nasty about me?
The reason I've re-opened my cake-hole, Tom, is because of the
disillusionment & disappointment I've sincerely felt in trying to deal
civilly with you. In early December, after months of total silence from me,
leaving you fully in 100% peace, you opted to loudly malign my name and
reputation - naming me by name, out of the blue - charging me with all kinds
of vicious actions and motives which everyone here knew to be utter & total
falsehoods. You did so mistaking my months of silence for absence, thinking
you were speaking behind my back, assuming I wasn't around to defend myself.
At that same time, another NG member - without naming you at all by name -
mentioned generically (to another poster) the sins of "some members" of this
NG; and you - wearing the shoe that fit - jumped up and challenged her to
"name some names and cite some examples, or stuff a sock in it".
So, I took the time on Dec 17 to do exactly that, to do what you had
specifically and publicly requested.
To wit, I cited a rap-sheet of examples of your offensive behavior, longer
than Titanic herself. Did you so much as even acknowledge them? Hardly.
Your *only* reply was one sentence that tersely and reluctantly offered to
perhaps try to overlook the sins of others. Never once did you own up to
*any* of the many, many "examples" I had meticulously listed for you, at
your request. Never once did you show the maturity to admit to any of the
many rude affronts you've inflicted on this NG's innocent members, as I had
cataloged for you, at your request. Never once did you display the academic
or scholarly honor to "defend your thesis" supporting your demeaning
cinematic and interpersonal attitudes and behaviors towards this NG's
members, that I had repeatedly and *politely* invited you to do, in Oct.,
and then again in mid-December. Never once did you display the integrity to
even admit the possibility of even 1% blame, let alone to apologize to
anyone for any of the many sins I listed, at *your* request - even though I
and others initiated the "show of good faith" to publicly apologize to *you*
first, in hopes of finally settling differences between us.
Instead, you sat back, aristocratically and smugly silent, as you always
do, as though apologizing to mere steerage scum like us was beneath your
dignity, and unnecessary for those within your obvious upper class. And,
then, as you've done so often before - without once having lowered yourself
to be seen as anywhere near an equal in this group of Movie Fan peers - you
just blithely launched back into your crusade of demeaning the film's
script, by entering my discussion Sunday with Joe and Nicholas, accusing me
of "ignoring" the "glaring deficiencies" of the script.
But, as I've said before, this has nothing to do with your cinematic
viewpoints per se. Any brief or lengthy study of Deja's archives testifies
that everyone else here is able to discuss any difering views along any
spectrum without ever encountering .0000001% of the friction and smoke and
flames that forever envelope you. You, Tom. Nobody but you. It just
utterly defies any logical sense that it's everybody else's fault, while you
remain blameless. Indeed, I again invite you to scan through all of Deja's
archives to find any other such friction between any other NG members, on
any topic. Ever. I just report the news, Tom; I don't make it up. Trying
to shoot the messenger just won't change the world that you construct around
you. :)
On Dec. 17, I publicly apologized to you. Where was your reciprocation,
Tom, your public apology to me? Niente. A couple days later, Steve
publicly apologized to you. Where was the quid pro quo, Tom, your public
apology to him? Niente. At *your* request, I cited (on Dec 17) the many
examples of your ongoing rudeness and arrogance that you haughtily dared
anyone to cite. Where was your public apology to any other NG member, Tom?
Niente. Sins of omission count as much as sins of commission, Tom, and all
of the people here have seen plenty of both from you. Arrogant silence is
as much an offense and provocation as shouting obscenities.
> Now a member of the cast comes along and points out how the script could
> have been improved by creating Jack as a man redeemed by love. Do you
attack
> him for "trying to change the eighth-notes?" No. You fall over yourself
> praising his insights. The word that springs to mind is "sycophant."
I again invite you use Deja's (http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml)
archives, and review ALL of our initial July/August/Sept exchanges, when I
first met you, Tom. Review ALL of my MANY initial posts to YOU. I
challenge you to display for this NG any time in our first 2 months when I
was ever anything less than 100% gentlemanly to you, anything less than 100%
cordial, civil, deferential, pleasant, kind, patient, genteel, forgiving,
friendly, supportive, cheerful, complimentary, even apologetic when you
publicly showed me to be in error - even one time EVER when I treated you
(or anyone else) with anything less than the exact same Common Courtesy
which you now malign with the term "sycophant". One example, Tom. One.
ONE. Ever. EVER. Under any circumstances. Regardless of any snideness or
provocation from you. Ever. Even once. Towards you or anyone else. If I
was identically a "sycophant" to *you* for over two months, why do you now
begrudge my identical Common Courtesy to Nicholas in my first and only post
to him? Does he deserve any less civility than I afforded a civilian like
you? :)
But, alas, we all know we'll never see a reply to the above polite
challenges, for the same reason you've always been totally and smugly silent
whenever confronted with anything else you didn't want to own up to. As
always, you'll (at most) just fire off a few broadsides of indignant denial,
blame me or someone else, bitterly complain of unfair treatment, use a few
foreign phrases, sulk in silence for a day or two, and then re-surface - as
though nothing ever happened - resuming your crusade to find fault with
my... er, I mean... with James Cameron's script, editing choices, personal
life, and miscellaneous short-comings. :)
> Let's make a deal:
I've got a better deal, one I'm sure even you will like. My brief
re-appearance on this NG was prompted by
(1) the time I've had in December, and over the Christmas & New Year
weekends to share a bit of holiday cheer with some old NG friends
(2) your unprovoked attacks on me and my reputation in early December, when
you thought I wasn't around to defend myself, while trying to paint yourself
as the pure & maligned martyr and me the vicious villain
(3) your entering into my thread with Joe and Nicholas on Sunday, to again
exhume the musty bones of the script's "glaring deficiencies", accusing me
of "ignoring" what should be so obvious
Please note amid all the above, Tom, that I never once went out looking
for any trouble with you. Both in early and late December, *you* vigorously
poked your finger into the face of this sleeping dog. You. Nobody else.
I'm sure you'll try to blame me for that too, but nobody here pays much mind
to your script of The Boy Who Cried "Wolf". If your cake-hole had not
hocked up and spit in my face - of *your* own doing - my months of silence
would have likewise continued.
In any case, since I'll be starting a new creative project and related
duties in a couple of days, I'll not have the time to continue posting much
here, if at all - much to your delight, I'm sure. So, if you'll omit from
your posts any delusional and dishonest references to me and my reputation,
you probably won't be seeing much of me. Thus, you can gleefully continue
to convince yourself that the regulars here really appreciate your presence
and opinions. Or, again, you can save yourself any doubt and check back
over 3+ years of Deja in search of any expressions of said appreciation,
from any person, of any gender or age or socio-economic background, on any
continent. :) Meanwhile, you can continue to field all the grumbling and
complaints from them all, and from all the new NG members who arrive and
then hastily depart, citing you by name, while you forever refuse to
consider why all such furor ALWAYS revolves SOLELY around you - and while
you forever find new & improved ways to blame the rest of humanity for
failing to recognize what a swell and likable fellow you really and truly
are. Gosh, how can so many people just always be so doggone blind? :)
> TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
> TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
> TheFrankMan: Wah, wah, wah.
My goodness! I do indeed revel in the joy of utterances from you that I
have indeed not seen before! I commend you! [Even if that same "Wah, wah,
wah" motif was itself re-used a dozen times... imagine my surprise...
) ]
> You make me sick.
Thank you, kind sir. Your public proclamation and confirmation of the
vast gulf that separates us constitutes perhaps the most profound and
touching compliment I've received in many years. Or, may I say, "I'm
blushing, Mr. Big Artiste". In fact, I'd write a sonnet to express my deep
appreciation but, alas, am unable to find any words that rhyme with
"sphincter" or any of its colloquial synonyms. :)
Again, believe it or not, I do sincerely wish you all the best, Tom. I
know you think that this is sarcasm, but it really isn't. I do indeed hope
that you may some day come to see the "you" that you present so loudly to
the rest of the world, but which - like the proverbial trees in the forest -
you are too near to see. The noble Logic that you rightfully cherish
dictates that the rest of this NG simply can't always be so mistaken and
misinformed in their evaluations of you or life's other realities. And, if
they are, you must sooner or later resolve the unaddressed issue of why you
keep returning to the midst of people who forever possess such abysmally
poor powers of perception. But, alas, like all the other legitimate
questions and challenges that I and others have politely invited you to
confront and answer, we again will sadly hear only silence from you.
Silence. Silence. Silence. Until you again return in a day or two,
blaming that silence on me or some other new villain who's trying to muzzle
you, all while you tote the same blaring boom-box whose "Lousy Script"
rap-songs nobody here ever really cared much to hear in the past, and while
you wonder why nobody is humming your tune, and loudly bemoan their
wretchedly plebian tastes in music.
But, since I'll probably not be posting here any more after this week -
and thus not be forcing you to examine or explain such distasteful
anomalies - your New Year is indeed looking bright. So congratulations. :)
Best wishes, as always, Tom. And I really do mean that. Sigh... Things
might look so different if you'd only just lower yourself down from the
lofty and lonely upper-crust clouds and join in the smelly but joyous party
down here in steerage... :)
Cheers,
Jim
Er, I mean,
The FrankMan
Tom Pappas <t...@pcslink.com> wrote in message
news:qRv46.767$ha7.1...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Nicholas Cascone
and
> the cast again [for the umpteenth time] on New Years Eve. :) ]
The pleasure is mine. Thanks for being such a fan of the film.
> Likewise, I'm sure that much of a movie's "magic" takes place in the
> cutting-room, as dozens of "takes" are reviewed and sorted to find the
> perfect one that seems to best convey the desired emotion of any given
> scene.
To tell you the truth, the biggest dose of magic takes place insid the
viewer's head. Sergei Eisenstein discovered and explored this during
fi;m's early history, and most of cinema since then has relied on the
principles he discovered. Basically, the story is told in your head, with
the audio and visual supplying cues that are unspecific enough for you to
project onto. The examples of the logic you read into Rose's head during
the theft sequence and the falling-in-love sequence you describe below show
this idea well.
The fact is, people can argue endlessly about "what is really going" in a
moment of film, because none of itis actually up there. The film takes
place not on the screen, but between your ears.
> Case in point: when Rose finds Jack on the bow, and he says, "Close
your
> eyes...give me your hand". The look on her face at that moment better
> captures the magical and evanescent micro-second of a woman "falling in
> love" than any scene I've ever witnessed in any film, ever.
I have a favorite moment like that, too. In Reds, when Diane Keaton meets
Warren Beatty at the train station. I searched for years for a woman that
would look at me like that. Thank heavens I finally found her.
> Likewise touching to
> me was the scene of Thomas Andrews in the Smoking Lounge, knowing his
> grandest creation was doomed, yet pausing to reset the time on the
> mantle-clock to the more accurate time of his mariner's pocket-watch -
> almost as a mother pausing to brush a stray bit of lint from the
perfection
> of the face of her dying child.
That's an amazing moment. For me, that shows how the best moments in any
film are almost always moments of character behavior, rather than dialgoue.
So many actors and directors think the words are the most important thing
in the script. But if you think about the scenes in film that have really
affected you, chances are it will be what the characters did rather than
what they said that was memorable.
> Imagine
> your favorite piece of music, that touches you like no other. Niether
you
> nor I would spend a moment wondering if it might have been better if the
> composer used a few extra quarter-notes here, or eight-notes there, or a
> french-horn instead of an oboe in this measure or that, or whatever. We
> just lean back, close our eyes, and let outselves be carried away.
If there were a composer in the room, though, s/he might have another way
of listening to that piece. In fact, the composer might ruin my enjoyment
if s/he were too critical. Especially in matters of art, there's no
accounting for taste.
> For me,
> Titanic's characters became "real", and their story became a part of my
> experience of life on Earth during my brief stay here. They acheived a
> level of magic that's beyond the realm of reason or question. That's why
I
> come here to this NG and, again, am very pleased that you are here too.
:)
We have differing thresholds for suspension of disbelief, then. To me, the
characters of Rose and Jack were anachronistic and uninterestingly played,
and the character of Cal struck me as cartoonish. I enjoyed just about
everyone else in the film, though, especially Victor Gerber, Kathy Bates,
and all the Brits.
> Thanks for your comments, Nicholas, and Happy New Year to you and yours!
Happy New Year, all. Just 11 years to go until the Centennial!
Nick
TheFrankMan
Thanks for your reply and comments! Quoting me, then you:
> > For me, Titanic's characters became "real", and their story became a
part
> > of my experience of life on Earth during my brief stay here. They
acheived
> > a level of magic that's beyond the realm of reason or question.
>
> We have differing thresholds for suspension of disbelief, then. To me,
the
> characters of Rose and Jack were anachronistic and uninterestingly played,
> and the character of Cal struck me as cartoonish. I enjoyed just about
> everyone else in the film, though, especially Victor Gerber, Kathy Bates,
> and all the Brits.
>
For me, I guess this wasn't an issue of "suspension of disbelief", per se.
As I mentioned yesterday, I have watched thousands of films, and in a couple
"binges" in recent years, as many as 10-15 per week, for many months at a
time. Especially in recent years, I've found soooOOOOOoooo many films whose
characters and/or love-stories were built totally on sick, twisted,
deranged, foul, and vile people and behaviors, that I pretty much really got
burnt out on the boy/girl relationships portrayed in movies. I'm no stiff
moralist or prude, by any means, but there's just only so many degenerate,
gender-confused, sado-masochistic, murderous, hateful "love-stories" that
these weary ol' eyeballs of mine can handle. :)
So, to me, Jack and Rose were the epitome of the "elegance of
simplicity" - admittedly more simplistic perhaps than they absolutely needed
to be from a literary viewpoint - but that's just EXACTLY what my tired
brain-cells needed in my life when I discovered the film. Agreed, there may
have been more meat to the story if Jack were indeed a more complex or
sinister character who was redeemed by his love for Rose, but that
plot/premise has indeed been explored in many ways in many films. And Rose
could have been engaged to a less blatantly obnoxious fiancee, thus giving
her more to struggle with as she chose between Cal and Jack. But, that kind
of inner struggle too has been often explored.
What worked for me re Jack & Rose - as hokey and corny as I admit it may
sound to many - was the *lack* of complexity, intrigue, conflict, tension,
or what you describe as the "interesting" qualities that their characters
may have othewise had. For me and my hopelessly sappy tastes and needs at
the moment in my life when I discovered Titanic - after having seen
soooOOOOoooo many "reality-based" TV shows and psycho love-stories in
Hollywood films - I just needed to see a simple, idyllic, unrealistic,
soul-mate fantasy where the characters didn't need to fight any demons
within each other, but rather bonded as one to confront the world's slings
and arrows together. I realize that this doesn't make for great literature
in general, but considering that this film was a rare exception to that
valid general rule, that simplicity just worked perfectly for me at that
moment in time. :)
And, true, Jack and Rose were anachronistic. But, for the emotional
reasons stated above, that didn't bother me any more than the characters of
Star Trek forever finding alien races who speak modern English. :) An
audience needs to identify emotionally with a film's characters, in my
opinion, more so than they need full 100% historical accuracy. If Jack and
Rose had conducted themselves precisely according to the language,
etiquette, body language, dialects and customs of their day, I doubt that
any modern viewers would have had the savvy to fully appreciate the
historical authenticity they were watching. Plus, by portraying Jack and
Rose with our modern language and attitudes, I think it helped a great many
people better relate to the characters and feel more empathy for all the
people who lived through (and died in) that historic tragedy. But, again,
that's just my off-the-wall take. As I've confessed, my perspective here is
fully emotional, and not based on the traditional and valid criteria of
formal film & literary criticism.
As for Cal, I view him not so much in the context of Cameron's story of
Rose and Jack, but as a stand-alone "time-capsule" displaying a caricature
of the kinds of attitudes and demeanor typical of his social class in that
time in history. Was even that fully accurate? Probably not. But, for me,
it was close enough to do the job without diminishing the overall historical
and literary integrity of the film. The "cartoonish" quality you mention
was certainly there, but even that I perceived as a clever reflection on the
portrayals common amid the silent-movie melodramas popular in 1912, so it
didn't bother me. And, in that context, I enjoyed Billy Zane's performance
quite a bit, because it did (for me) very nicely achieve the goal I
described,
I guess, overall, I've just taken the philosophical attitude of: if a film
"works" for me in most of its aspects, I'll just overlook those aspects that
were less than perfect. Why fight something that will never change? :) In
other words, I have favorite pieces of music - such as the Mapleleaf Rag or
piano/guitar pieces by Claude Bolling and Alexander LaGoya - in which I like
the whole piece except for one or two measures. So, rather than fight the
unwinnable war, I just suspend further critical judgement, accept what will
never change, trust that the composer did his/her best to try to create a
work of art for me to enjoy, and I'm then able to appreciate the entirety of
the artistic work each time I hear it. A strange perspective, perhaps, but
the only alternative is to suffer a reduced enjoyment of something I already
overwhelmingly enjoy, which serves nobody - especially me! :)
Gotta run - thanks again for your reply and comments, Nick!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Nicholas Cascone <nicholas...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:01c0756e$08b66f40$c629480c@quannie...
Joe Sweeney
TheFrankMan <thefr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:92um73$p3n$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> In any case, since I'll be starting a new creative project and related
> duties in a couple of days, I'll not have the time to continue posting much
> here, if at all
Sorry to hear that Frank. Be sure to check in again when the workload lightens. Until then I'll look for your work in...Time? Newsweek? The library? :) Keep in touch, you've got my address.
TheFrankMan
>> In any case, since I'll be starting a new creative project and related
>> duties in a couple of days, I'll not have the time to continue posting
much
>> here, if at all
> Sorry to hear that Frank. Be sure to check in again when the workload
lightens.
Thanks a lot. I'm still not sure of any new-job details, and am hoping
that I'll be able to stay fairly active here. It's been real nice to be
back, and revisit old friendships and make a few new ones. It's great to be
able to share thoughts with a group of kindred spirits around the world on a
topic that I really can't discuss in any depth with most anyone I know in
person, which I guess pretty much applies to all of us fanatics here on the
NG. :) So being able to do that in such wonderful and crazed detail is
really a treat. As you know, I'm certainly not someone inclined towards
"sound-bites"; I like to put a lot of time and effort into the thoughts I
share. But, even if I don't have time for that level of participation, I'll
try to keep my toe in the waters as much as possible.
> Until then I'll look for your work in...Time? Newsweek? The library? :)
Actually, I did sell a science article to a national magazine with a
readership of over 4 million (nothing at all to do with Titanic, however),
but it's for a project not scheduled to be published till at least next
fall, at earliest, and possibly well beyond that. But, the check has
already cleared the bank so, if they opt to take their time in printing it,
my heart won't be totally broken. :)
> Keep in touch, you've got my address.
Will do. But, with luck, I'll be able to stay reasonably active here, at
least for the next few days, and maybe beyond, though perhaps a bit less
long-winded. ["Praise God!!", I hear a voice shouting from the cyber
side-lines... :) ] Of course, in any case, I'll always continue to
faithfully lurk here, just to keep an eye on what's going on, and to see if
the gang is making plans to meet and sail on the maiden voyage of Titanic
II, and to lend a couple extra eager fists to any bar-room brawls to help
defend the NG's honor, should the need ever arise. :) :)
Thanks again for your kind words, and see ya soon!
Cheers,
The FrankMan
Joe Sweeney <muad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a536...@silver.truman.edu...