TITANIC - shi* floats!
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
To me, it was just another TERMINATOR movie, where Cameron gets to blow up a
ship instead of another office building.
Dialogue - not snappy, full of wasted opportunities and throwaway curse words.
Scenes/pacing - waaay tooo slooowwwww. Many scenes could have been cut
altogether. Too much energy invested in making too fine points.
Character - Leonardo, hey he's still Luke from GROWING PAINS to me. Way too
young to have spent a year drawing in Europe. Good actor, though.
Most Confusing Plot Point - Rose's leaving the lifeboat. No only does Jack
not save her, she has placed herself at greater risk by being with him. And
he does not save her - it's the convenient bit of flotsam that keeps her from
hypthermia. It's one of those TERMINATOR/ALIEN "we think we're safe but
really not" moments that has more to do with Ripley and that damned cat than
it does with history.
I would have rather seen a movie that was more process-based, covering the
small moments of a number of actual persons, based as much as possible on
actual records, than what I saw. The movie I saw gave the ship's crew rather
short shrift. And the designer, by every record I've seen, spent his last
hours working to slow the sinking and not sitting around. To me the
iceberg-as-antognist angle was totally lost. Instead we get this
insufferable prick played by Billy Zane. Ohhh, and THAT reminds me - did it
bother anyone that the "heart of the ocean" mystery was NEVER REALLY SOLVED
at the end?
Oh the clammor, the clammor, a bag FULL of hammers....
;-)
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
wcma...@compuserve.com
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> OK, screenwriters, I just saw TITANIC this weekend and was wondering - did any
> of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
Yes. The concept fits the romantic story - doomed lovers on a doomed cruise
ship. There was a really haunting moment close to the end, where LDC is in
the water, sacrificing himself for KW... around him - the floating dead.
I think you may be making what I call the "ID4" mistake: watching a popular
film that communicated its story to millions and millions of people, and only
seeing how crappy it is.
Sure, TITANIC had some of the worst dialogue in the history of cinema ("Jack,
this is where we first met" - like he wasn't THERE?) and a plot that makes
little or no sense... not to mention Billy 'dueling scar' Zane's character...
But millions of people love this film. So we should be studying it, trying
to find out why it connects with so many people. Using what we can learn
from this film.
You may not think the concept or that ending scene are as important as the
dialogue, but I think you'd be wrong. The concept (basic story) touched a
chord in the audience that few films, few scripts, can touch. I have a
theory that the first and last scenes/sequences are the most important things
in a film, and that a crappy film can be saved by a great end - like TITANIC.
That's what I learned from this movie, but I'm still thinking about it. I'm
sure there's more to learn.
- Bill (hated it)
PS: There's also a spectacle element to the film that's in almost every
scene, and explains why there's that dumb shot of breaking dishes in the
film.
--
The Secrets Of Action Screenwriting
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wcmartell
Pvhirsch
(you just now saw TITANIC?)
I'll admit, I went to it prepared to hate it, but the second it started I knew
it was going to be a great movie. And it was, but, I don't know why! It
shouldn't be such a good movie--it has so many obvious flaws---
Cameron must just be a genius at..at...something... maybe someone else can
describe it?
Steven Weller
>>That's what I learned from this movie, but I'm still thinking about it. I'm
sure there's more to learn.<<
What he said.
The most annoying thing for me (re: Titanic) was that it got an Oscar (tm)
for Production Design. Everything looked very nice, of course, but it was
all taken from the original blueprints of the ship! How tough (or creative
for that matter) is that?
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
MediaBLITZ
screenplay Oscar. But I will admit that a lot of things in the script that made
me roll my eyes in the theater I later found out actually did happen as a matter
of historical record.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> OK, screenwriters, I just saw TITANIC this weekend and was wondering - did any
> of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
>
Geealexand
Martell mentioned, among other things;
"PS: There's also a spectacle element to the film that's in almost every
scene, and explains why there's that dumb shot of breaking dishes in the
film."
To tell you the truth, I found the breaking dishes as compelling as his
floating in the water amongst the dead. All of those beautiful dishes, all of
those wonderful rooms, all of that technology, and all of that power becomes
inconsequential when nature shrugs her shoulders. Sometimes, the devil really
is in the details.
BTW, Martell, you've been absolutely on fire lately. I enjoyed your words at
the Network Meeting last Saturday and your recent, many posts. The Crash Dive
story was hysterical and informative! Keep up the good work.
G-
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
wcma...@compuserve.com wrote:
> PS: There's also a spectacle element to the film that's in almost every
> scene, and explains why there's that dumb shot of breaking dishes in the
> film.
Lot of beautiful bags, fill with lots of wondrous hammers!
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
TSheehan
>Cameron must just be a genius at..at...something...
>maybe someone else can describe it?
Cameron knows where a story will connect with an
audience, and his genius lies in his ability to poetically
emphasize the connection points in a way that will generate
an emotional response in the audience.
In Titanic, the main connection point is the idea that time is
perpetually running out; that the number of days we have to
spend with one another is finite. Every lasting relationship
ends in tragedy, with one member witnessing the death of
the other. To emphasize this aspect Cameron introduces
the fictional characters of Jack and Rose. They must be
fictional so that their story can be developed in a way that
reinforces the connection point; we need to witness the
formation of the relationship to feel the loss as strongly as
possible, and we need to witness the loss itself; we need to
see Jack vanishing into the ocean, and we need to see Rose
seeing it.
Since Jack and Rose are fictional, Cameron is able to
present their story in a way that brings out the truth of
mortality, not just as a fact we recognize intellectually, but
as a tragedy we feel. Consider the movie's signature image,
that of Rose and Jack flying on Titanic's bow. Here
Cameron pulls out all the stops; the sequence is shot at
sunset, edited to match the Rose/Jack melody, which plays
all the way through for the first time. Rose is liberated at
last, flying at Titanic's bow with Jack's assistance. Their
relationship is resolved, and they will now build a life
togethor. Cameron is doing everything possible to bring
back to life any remnant of the youthful ideal of romance
that might still exist dormant in his audience (although it's a
lost cause in many cases). Why? So that he may then
proceed to kill it all over again; the sequence ends with that
breathtaking morph transition to Titanic's rusted bow at the
bottom of the sea, with the young lovers still occupying it
like ghosts.
I think what screenwriters should learn from Titanic is that
audiences are moved by stories rather than by dialogue, and
that the connection points of a story are most effectively
emphasized by the use of poetic, encapsulating events and
images.
--Tim
TSheehan
>PS: There's also a spectacle element to the film that's in
>almost every scene, and explains why there's that dumb
>shot of breaking dishes in the film.
That shot underscores the idea of disintegration, and it refers
back to old Rose's statement that "the china had never been
used."
--Tim
BetterDuck
time, all
I can say is that if that thing sinks, anywhere! I gotta mask and a
water
housing for a m/p camera. I already got some establishing shots, and I'm
working on getting some INT. shots, but they're being babies about
letting
me on board, so who knows I/we make be making a Ghetto Titanic sometime,
You know the motto,
Better Duck
TSheehan
>All of those beautiful dishes, all of those wonderful rooms,
>all of that technology, and all of that power becomes
>inconsequential when nature shrugs her shoulders.
"I'm sorry I didn't build you a stronger ship, young Rose."
Thus spoke Titanic's designer, standing at the hearth before
the mantle clock; his face lit orange by the glow of an artificial
flame. The day before he had told her Titanic was all the lifeboat she needed;
and he had, after all, built it for her.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Yeah, too bad none of it happened. Thomas Andrews, Managing Director of
Harland & Wolff, builders of The Titanic, is the designer depicted in the
movie as "standing at the hearth before the mantle clock". He in fact is
recorded to have spent most of the time after the impact on the boat deck
helping to load and launch the lifeboats, although he was known to have been
spotted in the engine room. The last time anyone saw him alive was on the
Boat Deck throwing off folding chairs.
But Cameron had to characterized him the way he did because of the dramatic
truths you bozos keep harping about. The person of Thomas Andrews was reduced
to a stick-figure device designed to move the story forward. By the way the
record states that 59 people, not six, were rescued from the sea.
My source is an article passed around within my company, which in a previous
life was the insurer for the Titanic. The article was published in an April,
1973 client magazine we produced at that time.
You guys are sucking up to success, and that's OK. But as writers, I would
expect you to know BS when you blow BS.
Geealexand
>Yeah, too bad none of it happened. Thomas Andrews, Managing Director >of
>Harland & Wolff, builders of The Titanic, is the designer depicted in the
>movie as "standing at the hearth before the mantle clock". He in fact is
>recorded to have spent most of the time after the impact on the boat >deck
>helping to load and launch the lifeboats, although he was known to have >been
>spotted in the engine room. The last time anyone saw him alive was on >the
>Boat Deck throwing off folding chairs.
>But Cameron had to characterized him the way he did because of the >dramatic
>truths you bozos keep harping about. The person of Thomas Andrews >was
reduced
>to a stick-figure device designed to move the story forward. By the way >the
>record states that 59 people, not six, were rescued from the sea.
>My source is an article passed around within my company, which in a >previous
>life was the insurer for the Titanic. The article was published in an >April,
>1973 client magazine we produced at that time.
>You guys are sucking up to success, and that's OK. But as writers, I >would
>expect you to know BS when you blow BS.
Uhm, horsefeathers.... The above mentioned fellow was not a main character.
And, strangely enough, minor characters generally exist in service to the
primary folks in the story. The portrayal of this fellow is completely
unimportant unless you bitch and moan about treating representing each
character with absolute historical accuracy. I can't think of a better way to
make an epic film crushingly boring. BTW, I can't stand Cameron, thought the
movie was average at best, and I've never sucked up to success unless you count
me patting myself on theback for a job well done.
Nick Rheinwald
<6vtq4u$58n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>OK, screenwriters, I just saw TITANIC this weekend and was wondering - did
any
>of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
Of course not! James Cameron wrote it.
Did I find anything marvelous about the directing?
Of course! James Cameron directed it. Like T2, like True Lies, Titanic
(interesting how they all begin with T!) had incredible editing, camera
angles, and special effects; I would venture to say that visually, it's one
of the most impressive I've seen. But because of Cameron's
thank-god-they-didn't-nominate-him-for-an-oscar writing skills, Acts I and
II drag on and on with bad dialogue and silly plot twists that really don't
matter in the end.
Come on, Jim! Let William Goldman, or at least David Koepp, write your next
one.
--Nick
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Sorry, were you the one writing so poetically about the man? Yes, that's
right, we have a situation where all the historically relevant characters
have been bent and fashioned to serve the needs of two totally fictional
characters.
And, hey, I'm NOT bashing the movie. I just think that it is a very good
Terminator movie, and nothing, nothing, nothing more. It does disturb me to
think though, that people may actually leave the theatre thinking they've
learned something about the people who were there.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
THANK GOD! I'm not alone. Writers, of all people, should be able not to get
lost in their immediate emotional reactions to an event and see things
objectively. I don't have to say it's a profound movie. There are dozens of
accountants who can do that. And I can respect Cameron's ability to jerk the
masses. But, my built-in schock-proof shit detector (and my wife's) went off
CONSTANTLY for nearly FOUR HOURS. And if you don't buy the love story, the
end is really very numbing. I was more emotionally affected by that version
from, when, the 60s? The larger human tragedy just seemed to me to get
compressed out to make way for the phony-balony romance.
Nuff said.
Keith Davidson
"Nick Rheinwald" (toast...@hotmail.com) writes:
> andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>>OK, screenwriters, I just saw TITANIC this weekend and was wondering - did
> any
>>of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
>
>
> Of course not! James Cameron wrote it.
>
> Did I find anything marvelous about the directing?
>
> Of course! James Cameron directed it. Like T2, like True Lies, Titanic
> (interesting how they all begin with T!) had incredible editing, camera
> angles, and special effects; I would venture to say that visually, it's one
> of the most impressive I've seen. But because of Cameron's
> thank-god-they-didn't-nominate-him-for-an-oscar writing skills, Acts I and
> II drag on and on with bad dialogue and silly plot twists that really don't
> matter in the end.
>
> Come on, Jim! Let William Goldman, or at least David Koepp, write your next
> one.
>
> --Nick
Although... his script for ALIENS was pretty darned good.
Keith
Sakar
<media...@linkport.com> wrote:
>At least you are one guy I dont have to explain why Cameron didn't get a
>screenplay Oscar. But I will admit that a lot of things in the script that made
>me roll my eyes in the theater I later found out actually did happen as a matter
>of historical record.
Titanic, as any Cameron movie I've seen so far has a strong, very
basic concept which can appeal to anyone, across the globe. Regarding
his stories Cameron, God forgive me the sacrilege, is holding hands
with Shakespeare. His choice is perfect.
Unlike some I do not think he is anywhere near Spielberg, who happens
to be a master of emotional manipulation. He - Cameron - does not need
to manipulate, he's got stories and conflicts which are as old as
humankind. A Japanese, just as an American or a Russian or a German or
a Tuareg etc., will be able to find himself in T2 or Titanic, nothing
in either will deter anyone from any culture. And whether Japanese
"duty" or english "love" -- either culture will be able to emote with
those doomed lovers.
And the difference between Titanic and ID4 is that Cameron takes care
not to stress cultural savvy or engage in patriotism which either can
make a movie completely undigestible for foreign audiences. He doesn't
even have to take anything out or away, his choice of story ensures
that he does not run into problems with what *is* in them. Thus he's
got the major advantage of not having to adjust or seek markets, his
choices are marketable anywhere as long as he does not make really bad
mistakes--these kinds of basic premises can take a harsh beating and
come up trumps.
Sakar
When the dogs bark, you know you're travelling.
John McFetridge
wrote:
>And the difference between Titanic and ID4 is that Cameron takes care
>not to stress cultural savvy or engage in patriotism which either can
>make a movie completely undigestible for foreign audiences.
It's his Canadian heritage. He can't help it.
John McF
MediaBLITZ
> THANK GOD! I'm not alone. Writers, of all people, should be able not to get
> lost in their immediate emotional reactions to an event and see things
> objectively.
Writers, of all people, SHOULD BE ABLE to get lost in the immediate emotional
reactions to an event or scene or movie, AND THEN be able to see things
objectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but as a director this ability has been critical
for me.
MediaBLITZ
> Not if all those things ring false.
You've got a point.
> And Titanic rang false for me from
> the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
The first five minutes? Wow, you musta brought some baggage into the theater with
you. Are you sure you came in with that objectivity you were talking about? I
said earlier that I rolled my eyes several times at first sitting, but the first
five minutes?
>
>
> Gary
>
> In article <3623D5B0...@linkport.com>,
gpol...@asiaonline.net
the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
Gary
gpol...@asiaonline.net
> > And Titanic rang false for me from
> > the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
>
> The first five minutes? Wow, you musta brought some baggage into the theater
with
> you. Are you sure you came in with that objectivity you were talking about?
I
> said earlier that I rolled my eyes several times at first sitting, but the
first
> five minutes?
>
Maybe not the first five minutes, because I forgot the prologue, which didn't
set off too many alarm bells. Once it got to the past though I started out
impressed. The dock scene, the scale of the ship, the recreation. The rot
began with that awful cod Italian accent. The card game that was going to
lead to an obvious conclusion, Billy Zane's first sneer, and the poor little
rich girl. From that point I knew we were in silent movie melodrama land in
terms of character depth.
Gary
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Well, it so happens that was the first film I EVER walked out on, and for many
of the same reasons I am not crazy about TITANIC.
>
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
MediaBLITZ <media...@linkport.com> wrote:
> andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > THANK GOD! I'm not alone. Writers, of all people, should be able not to
get
> > lost in their immediate emotional reactions to an event and see things
> > objectively.
>
> Writers, of all people, SHOULD BE ABLE to get lost in the immediate emotional
> reactions to an event or scene or movie, AND THEN be able to see things
> objectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but as a director this ability has been
critical
> for me.
As a DIRECTOR, exactly....but as a WRITER?
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
gpol...@asiaonline.net wrote:
> Not if all those things ring false. And Titanic rang false for me from
> the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
>
Gary, you mean from the first round of obsenities? Or the first set of
undeveloped characters?
> In article <3623D5B0...@linkport.com>,
> MediaBLITZ <media...@linkport.com> wrote:
> > andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > THANK GOD! I'm not alone. Writers, of all people, should be able not to
> get
> > > lost in their immediate emotional reactions to an event and see things
> > > objectively.
> >
> > Writers, of all people, SHOULD BE ABLE to get lost in the immediate
emotional
> > reactions to an event or scene or movie, AND THEN be able to see things
> > objectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but as a director this ability has been
> critical
> > for me.
> >
> >
>
laur...@my-dejanews.com
> "PS: There's also a spectacle element to the film that's in almost every
> scene, and explains why there's that dumb shot of breaking dishes in the
> film."
>
> To tell you the truth, I found the breaking dishes as compelling as his
> floating in the water amongst the dead. All of those beautiful dishes, all of
> those wonderful rooms, all of that technology, and all of that power becomes
> inconsequential when nature shrugs her shoulders. Sometimes, the devil really
> is in the details.
I agree. The dishes also provide a compelling symbol of the shattered dream
of Titanic. (In fact, the dishes breaking could summarize the whole Titanic
story in a couple of seconds!)
Really, though, the reason this is in the script from an informational
perspective is to show that the ship was suddenly sinking very rapidly by the
bow. Historical accounts describe a tremendous crashing and rumbling
cacophany that occurred as the ship went perpendicular to the water. Cameron
was depicting this, and showing the dishes is more interesting that simply
showing the ship tip up. The sinking really was an incredible spectacle.
Survivor Jack Thayer watched the ship sink while floating in the freezing
water, and didn't even notice how cold the water was for a while because he
was so tranfixed by what he was witnessing!
Older Titanic movies show the list of the ship in a much less dramatic
fashion. In "A Night to Remember" an idiotic cart on wheels rolls around in
an empty dining room. All I could think was "there's that stupid cart
again". ANTR was much better as a historical documentary, but it was a
dramatic failure for me in comparison to Cameron's movie. From a dramatic
perspective, I'd characterize ANTR as "The Titanic is Sinking, and I Don't
Care".
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Gee, and that's EXACTLY the impression I got from the Cameron movie! There
wsa so much left out that I felt was important to the story - such as the
wait for rescue and the mechanics of that. There was quite a bit of heroism
involved in the rescue, and the story of how the survivors were picked up, or
even of the psychology of the wait to be rescue, seemed not to be there. In
fact, it seemed to me that the story more or less ended at Jack's death and
sinking, when that was far from the end of the ordeal. I found the floating
dead people a bit too pretty to have any emotional import, and still wonder
why the film claims that only six people were rescued when the number I have
found is closer to 56.
To be fair, I found AMADAEUS to be enjoying even though it too played with
history quite a bit.
I guess the bottom line is that I have yet to find pleasure in a Cameron
movie, and that is my problem to deal with.
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
MediaBLITZ
despite all me eye rolling, I will stand on what I have said well before "Titanic";
Cameron is one of the best directors Hollywood has. Very few directors could have
overcome that script ;) Of course the advantage is his since he made that bed to
sleep in (and, God, it must be nice).
gpol...@asiaonline.net wrote:
> > > And Titanic rang false for me from
> > > the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
> >
> > The first five minutes? Wow, you musta brought some baggage into the theater
> with
> > you. Are you sure you came in with that objectivity you were talking about?
> I
> > said earlier that I rolled my eyes several times at first sitting, but the
> first
> > five minutes?
> >
>
> Maybe not the first five minutes, because I forgot the prologue, which didn't
> set off too many alarm bells. Once it got to the past though I started out
> impressed. The dock scene, the scale of the ship, the recreation. The rot
> began with that awful cod Italian accent. The card game that was going to
> lead to an obvious conclusion, Billy Zane's first sneer, and the poor little
> rich girl. From that point I knew we were in silent movie melodrama land in
> terms of character depth.
>
> Gary
>
MediaBLITZ
to objectivity, but the same could be true of a director. If the writer can be
moved emotionally and then be able to diagnose what moved him/her, how could that
hurt their writing? It seems to me it would be of great advantage. I thought
producers were supposed to the heartless ones ;)
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Writers, of all people, SHOULD BE ABLE to get lost in the immediate emotional
> > reactions to an event or scene or movie, AND THEN be able to see things
> > objectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but as a director this ability has been
> critical
> > for me.
>
> As a DIRECTOR, exactly....but as a WRITER?
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
>
> "Slogans are Nice"
>
gpol...@asiaonline.net
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7014fl$k7e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gpol...@asiaonline.net wrote:
> > the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
> >
>
> Gary, you mean from the first round of obsenities? Or the first set of
> undeveloped characters?
I wasn't so affected by any obscenitites, although I do think Cameron often
likes to play to LA gang members by making his characters "hip" in that
characteristically Hollywood way. The fat guy, and the dialogue in the sub was
an example. (more in "Aliens" - all that pesudo macho big gins crap) Jump from
that to feisty 99 year old lady doing pottery. Give me a break. I'd like to
declare a moratorium on feisty and cute old people in movies.
But it was when they got into the past things really deterioriated. And I
have to say, for me, it was heartbreaking. This COULD have been one of the
greatest movies ever made. All the potential was there. It could have worked
on a lot of levels. In the end it barely worked on one for some people, and
not even that for me.
Anyway, at least - thanks to "Titanic" - I got the chance to see "A Night to
Remember"
Gary
gpol...@asiaonline.net
> Older Titanic movies show the list of the ship in a much less dramatic
> fashion. In "A Night to Remember" an idiotic cart on wheels rolls around in
> an empty dining room. All I could think was "there's that stupid cart
> again". ANTR was much better as a historical documentary, but it was a
> dramatic failure for me in comparison to Cameron's movie. From a dramatic
> perspective, I'd characterize ANTR as "The Titanic is Sinking, and I Don't
> Care".
>
I found "A Night to Remember" better on almost any level. Cameron obviously
didn't mind it either. He "borrowed" enough ideas and images.
"Titanic" for me was more like "The ship is sinking, but not fast enough."
laur...@my-dejanews.com
> Gee, and that's EXACTLY the impression I got from the Cameron movie! There
> wsa so much left out that I felt was important to the story - such as the
> wait for rescue and the mechanics of that. There was quite a bit of heroism
> involved in the rescue, and the story of how the survivors were picked up, or
> even of the psychology of the wait to be rescue, seemed not to be there. In
> fact, it seemed to me that the story more or less ended at Jack's death and
> sinking, when that was far from the end of the ordeal. I found the
floating dead people a bit too pretty to have any emotional import,
Yes, there was a lot of history left out, and I think Cameron regrets cutting
some of it from his original script. He sacrifices history for the love
story. I suppose it is difficult to build any sort of credible relationship
between two strangers in the time alotted, but I would have rather have seen
more history and less histrionics (Cal shooting at Jack and Rose, etc. -
yow)!
> and still wonder why the film claims that only six people were rescued when
> the number I have found is closer to 56.
Cameron was talking about the number of people actually pulled out of the
water by Fifth Officer Lowe, after the ship went down. The 56 you are
speaking of must include the ~30 men standing ontop of collapsible B and the
people in collapsible A, all (or near all) of whom swam from the water to
reach their boats. But, yes, there are numerous historical inaccuracies in
the movie. A historian, Dan Butler, has posted a historical critique of the
movie on the alt.history.ocean-liners.titanic newsgroup, though I don't agree
with all that he says, and he seems to have an agenda of his own. Andrys
Basten's rebuttal may also be of interest to you. Both seem to agree that he
got the ship itself right, for the most part.
The best online info on the real Titanic for anyone interested in checking
historical accuracy (or the lack of it) may be found at the Encyclopedia
Titanica website at:
http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/sites/phind/index.html
Laura
Dstrbd042
>perspective, I'd characterize ANTR as "The Titanic is Sinking, and I Don't
>Care".
It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel FIIIIIIINNNEEE....::from
here on, mostly unintelligible...exept for Leonard Bernstein.::
-Di§turbed
Dstr...@aol.com
"Murmur" should have been called "Mumble"
B.J. West
> Cameron is doing everything possible to bring
> back to life any remnant of the youthful ideal of romance
> that might still exist dormant in his audience (although it's a
> lost cause in many cases). Why? So that he may then
> proceed to kill it all over again; the sequence ends with that
> breathtaking morph transition to Titanic's rusted bow at the
> bottom of the sea, with the young lovers still occupying it
> like ghosts.
I wept in the theatre when I saw that shot. The hair on my arms stands on end
just remembering it now.That transition is going to be studied in film schools
from this point on, classed in the same league as the Odessa Steps sequence in
Eisenstien's Battleship Potemkin, or the long opening of Welles' Touch of Evil.
You can rip the man's dialogue apart, bitch about his screenwriting til the cows
come home, but James Cameron can *direct*.
Beej
----------
B.J. West - Art Direction, Design, Animation
http://www.strafe.com/bj
----------
Strafe's Guide to Streetspeak!
http://www.strafe.com
----------
"Writing is easy. All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet
of paper until the drops of blood form on your forehead."
- Gene Fowler
Gary Pollard
the first five minutes on, and didn't get any better.
Gary
MediaBLITZ wrote in message <3623D5B0...@linkport.com>...
>andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> THANK GOD! I'm not alone. Writers, of all people, should be able
not to get
>> lost in their immediate emotional reactions to an event and see
things
>> objectively.
nht
> A Japanese, just as an American or a Russian or a German or
> a Tuareg etc., will be able to find himself in T2 or Titanic, nothing
> in either will deter anyone from any culture. And whether Japanese
> "duty" or english "love" -- either culture will be able to emote with
> those doomed lovers.
Not in many parts around the third world where the obvious magnet is dear boy Leo.
For others it's Celine Dion. (Gawd, that song!)
Poor James Horner (James who?) is completely brushed aside.
I have been (un/) fortunate enough to sit in front of a gang of chain-smoking
teenagers whereby their most annoying exchange (in loudmouth Cantonese, no less) in
the theater is a debate if they should sneak out before or after the initial 20
minutes. This must be why the Chinese have a strange predilection to gangster and
kung-fu movies.
Sorry Sakar. I shouldn't be ranting. After all, I went to Titanic twice just for the
nice CG sequences and James Horner. Damn, I'm a sucker for mood movies.
nht
Dstrbd042
>end
>just remembering it now.That transition is going to be studied in film
>schools
>from this point on, classed in the same league as the Odessa Steps sequence
>in
>Eisenstien's Battleship Potemkin, or the long opening of Welles' Touch of
>Evil.
>You can rip the man's dialogue apart, bitch about his screenwriting til the
>cows
>come home, but James Cameron can *direct*.
>
Aww, ya big softie.
-Dić«urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Sakar
>Not in many parts around the third world where the obvious magnet is dear boy Leo.
>For others it's Celine Dion. (Gawd, that song!)
I'd believe in that if Leo-dear would automatically make for
box-office hits regardless of movie he is in. His latest efforts -
relatively - dunked hard.
>I have been (un/) fortunate enough to sit in front of a gang of chain-smoking
>teenagers whereby their most annoying exchange (in loudmouth Cantonese, no less) in
>the theater is a debate if they should sneak out before or after the initial 20
>minutes. This must be why the Chinese have a strange predilection to gangster and
>kung-fu movies.
ROFLMAO, that's not the huge chunk of audience I talked about who sat
through that movie umpteenth times.
I too saw it twice, arms firmly twisted. Duh. But still, a lesson.
cineD...@hknet.com
> >I have been (un/) fortunate enough to sit in front of a gang of chain-smoking
> >teenagers whereby their most annoying exchange (in loudmouth Cantonese, no less) in
> >the theater is a debate if they should sneak out before or after the initial 20
> >minutes. This must be why the Chinese have a strange predilection to gangster and
> >kung-fu movies.
No stranger than the US predilection for car-chase shoot-em-up shows.
What does seem to be a cultural idiosyncracy, though, is their tolerance
to extraneous noise. Here in Hong Kong people think nothing of sitting
making calls on a mobile phone during a movie until a few brave souls
hiss them quiet. A friend recently related a story of a western teacher
who asked the local class of Cantonese students to turn the watch hour
alarms off (during an exam or something I think). Later he asked students
about it and they said they didn't even hear/notice the other watches go off.
They do seem able to not hear things which annoy others of us, but I hasten
to add that annoying cinema habits are not the exclusive domain of the
Cantonese. I've had my share of theatre irritations in a number of countries.
derek
Brian Hogg
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Dialogue - not snappy, full of wasted opportunities and throwaway curse words.
I agree with you there, and on your scenes/pacing point.
>
> Scenes/pacing - waaay tooo slooowwwww. Many scenes could have been cut
> altogether. Too much energy invested in making too fine points.
>
> Most Confusing Plot Point - Rose's leaving the lifeboat. No only does Jack
> not save her, she has placed herself at greater risk by being with him. And
> he does not save her - it's the convenient bit of flotsam that keeps her from
> hypthermia. It's one of those TERMINATOR/ALIEN "we think we're safe but
> really not" moments that has more to do with Ripley and that damned cat than
> it does with history.
Actually, this is one of the few areas of the movie that I thought was
good. Rose would rather risk dying to leave with Jack than be safe and
live without him. One of those "I'd do anything for my love" things. And
as for the piece of wood she floats on, Dawson DID let her sit up on it.
>
> insufferable prick played by Billy Zane. Ohhh, and THAT reminds me - did it
> bother anyone that the "heart of the ocean" mystery was NEVER REALLY SOLVED
> at the end?
>
Well, actually, they did. The old rose tossed it over board, into the
ocean. Which pissed me off SO much! She invalidated the premise of the
movie and the flashback sequences. She went to the ship, supposedly, to
help tell what happened to the diamond. But then she was using the crew
from the start! How are we supposed to have sympathy for her when she
does something like that?
Brian
--
"To Thine Own Self Be True, And It Must Follow,
As The Night The Day, Thou Canst Not Then Be
False To Any Man."
-- Polonious
Hamlet
Randy Robinson
has written or co-written 10 films that have grossed a whopping $3.4 BILLION
dollars. Even if you take Titanic out of the mix that is a very large chunk of
change. Is there any other writer out there who is even close to that kind of box
office? Maybe we should be studying how he does it rather than playing Monday
Morning Quarterback on one of the most successful films of all time. Of course
James Cameron, the writer, has a big advantage over other writers in that he has
James Cameron, the director, filming most of his scripts.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> OK, screenwriters, I just saw TITANIC this weekend and was wondering - did any
> of you find ANYTHING marvelous about the writing?
>
> To me, it was just another TERMINATOR movie, where Cameron gets to blow up a
> ship instead of another office building.
>
> Dialogue - not snappy, full of wasted opportunities and throwaway curse words.
>
> Scenes/pacing - waaay tooo slooowwwww. Many scenes could have been cut
> altogether. Too much energy invested in making too fine points.
>
> Character - Leonardo, hey he's still Luke from GROWING PAINS to me. Way too
> young to have spent a year drawing in Europe. Good actor, though.
>
> Most Confusing Plot Point - Rose's leaving the lifeboat. No only does Jack
> not save her, she has placed herself at greater risk by being with him. And
> he does not save her - it's the convenient bit of flotsam that keeps her from
> hypthermia. It's one of those TERMINATOR/ALIEN "we think we're safe but
> really not" moments that has more to do with Ripley and that damned cat than
> it does with history.
>
> I would have rather seen a movie that was more process-based, covering the
> small moments of a number of actual persons, based as much as possible on
> actual records, than what I saw. The movie I saw gave the ship's crew rather
> short shrift. And the designer, by every record I've seen, spent his last
> hours working to slow the sinking and not sitting around. To me the
> iceberg-as-antognist angle was totally lost. Instead we get this
> insufferable prick played by Billy Zane. Ohhh, and THAT reminds me - did it
> bother anyone that the "heart of the ocean" mystery was NEVER REALLY SOLVED
> at the end?
>
> Oh the clammor, the clammor, a bag FULL of hammers....
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
>
> "Slogans are Nice"
>
Steven Weller
Ivan Reitman's total is in the multi-billion $ range, too. They just
re-ran an old episode of Later with him as the guest, back when he had
no less than three hit films in the theatres - at the same time!
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Randy Robinson
and producer but the only writing credit I saw in the IMDB is for Legal
Eagles.
sta...@alum.mit.edu
Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively consider
is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
My own gut reaction is three-fold. First, folks could really connect with
DeC.'s character. The *character* came from a shabby background, but he had
a heart of gold and was cultured. (Not only that, but he was very cultured,
deep inside -- he *knew* Monet! Yeah right! They teach art appreciation at
all of the better "street rat" schools -- oops, slipped back for a second.)
Second, it was truly romantic. Third, under "fantasy" in the dictionary, it
shows "see 'Titanic'." The movie truly followed "the heroes journey" format.
That's my SWAG at it.
OK, back to some writing that will feed the family.
Servicum tibi,
Rich
JJones2348
<<Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively consider
is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
My own gut reaction is three-fold. First, folks could really connect with
DeC.'s character. The *character* came from a shabby background, but he had a
heart of gold and was cultured. (Not only that, but he was very cultured, deep
inside -- he *knew* Monet! Yeah right! They teach art appreciation at all of
the better "street rat" schools -- oops, slipped back for a second.) Second, it
was truly romantic. Third, under "fantasy" in the dictionary, it shows "see
'Titanic'." The movie truly followed "the heroes journey" format. >>
And don't forget, they were both wonderfully adept at hawking snot
balls--further proof of culture and, as you say, "truly romantic." ;-)
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
sta...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively consider
> is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
>
> My own gut reaction is three-fold. First, folks could really connect with
> DeC.'s character. The *character* came from a shabby background, but he had
> a heart of gold and was cultured. (Not only that, but he was very cultured,
> deep inside -- he *knew* Monet! Yeah right! They teach art appreciation at
> all of the better "street rat" schools -- oops, slipped back for a second.)
> Second, it was truly romantic. Third, under "fantasy" in the
dictionary, it
> shows "see 'Titanic'." The movie truly followed "the heroes journey"
format.
>
>
> OK, back to some writing that will feed the family.
>
> Servicum tibi,
>
> Rich
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
romance, insert it in a Terminator movie and call it history. The ladies get
the romance, the men get the action and they all get a bit of
self-congratulation for having seen something purporting to be historical.
But, yeah, it's fantasy times two - a bodice-ripping action flick.
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Eric Johnson
jjone...@aol.com (JJones2348) wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> <<Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively consider
> is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
snip
Good Q. Maye it goes all the way back to Shakespeare's comprehension of
dramatic effect. He wrote about kings, not paupers, for the simple reason
that 'king' plays sold tickets. In other words, he raised the ante, the
stakes, and capitalized on people's desire to vicariously experience the
lives of the great. Perhaps it was the presence of contemporary 'kings'
(Astor, et al) that made the sinking of Titanic so riveting. This and the
presence of cattle-class passengers set up a most compelling dramatic
contrast. Now shift gears and consider the more modern tragedy of the U.S.
space shuttle that blew up with about 10 people aboard. Yes, films and
books have been made, and, yes, it remains a major disaster, but not an
immortal tragedy of 'Titanic' proportion. Could this be because a school
teacher (Christa McAuliffe?) was the most prominent person aboard? What if
a Bill Gates had been a passenger? Or is it only a matter of scale âč
1,700 dead from Titanic, 10 on Challenger (if I remember the name and
number accurately). I don't really think so. The stakes are better
expressed in prominence and wealth than in sheer body count. Otherwise the
annual floods in the third world would be the subject of huge Hollywood
productions. ---Eric in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
ejoh...@freespace.net (Eric Johnson) wrote:
> In article <19981019095749...@ng75.aol.com>,
> jjone...@aol.com (JJones2348) wrote:
>
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> > <<Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively
consider
> > is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
>
> snip
>
> Good Q. Maye it goes all the way back to Shakespeare's comprehension of
> dramatic effect. He wrote about kings, not paupers, for the simple reason
> that 'king' plays sold tickets.
Isn't this the "intentional fallacy"? It's not even completely documented
that he WROTE the plays attributed to him; assigning a REASONING behind
actions not completely proven to be his is a bit jejune (I've been wanting an
excuse to use that word since MANHATTAN!). Besides, TITANIC is not a
tragedy, at least not in formal structure. Structurally, it is melodrama and
most closely adheres to the contemporary romance novel, complete with the
"wrong side of the tracks" love affair. The same story could have been
transferred to the World Trade Center bombing without losing much of the
story's impact.
(hmm, Rose is in a top floor office suite visiting her fiancee when she meets
Jack Dawson, a talented painter working in the Art department, who saves her
from jumping off the building....)
In other words, he raised the ante, the
> stakes, and capitalized on people's desire to vicariously experience the
> lives of the great.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't all classical tragedy based on
the actions of nobility and the gods?
Perhaps it was the presence of contemporary 'kings'
> (Astor, et al) that made the sinking of Titanic so riveting. This and the
> presence of cattle-class passengers set up a most compelling dramatic
> contrast.
You may speculate. It may too be that the Titanic was supposed to be
unsinkable. The PR versus the reality made for good newspaper copy,
regardless of whom was on board.
Now shift gears and consider the more modern tragedy of the U.S.
> space shuttle that blew up with about 10 people aboard. Yes, films and
> books have been made, and, yes, it remains a major disaster, but not an
> immortal tragedy of 'Titanic' proportion.
Since lives were lost, wouldn't it be a "mortal" tragedy. It is a bit too
early to speculate how long the Titanic sinking will remain in the public
consciousness, so calling the tragedy itself "immortal" is premature.
Could this be because a school
> teacher (Christa McAuliffe?) was the most prominent person aboard?
Or could it be that the Challenger disaster is still a bit too close to
contemporary conscious to effectively exploit as an action/romance picture?
Audiences require a comfortable distance from what they see on the big
screen. Some who were children who watched the explosion in their classrooms
may not want to re-live the experience. And regardless Hollywood won't want
to take that chance. SCHINDLER'S LIST was released with nearly a half
century of buffer zone, so did SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but both films caused a
lot of people to relive a lot of bad moments.
What if
> a Bill Gates had been a passenger? Or is it only a matter of scale âč
> 1,700 dead from Titanic, 10 on Challenger (if I remember the name and
> number accurately). I don't really think so. The stakes are better
> expressed in prominence and wealth than in sheer body count. Otherwise the
> annual floods in the third world would be the subject of huge Hollywood
> productions. ---Eric in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
>
Mr. G.
> And don't forget, they were both wonderfully adept at hawking snot
> balls--further proof of culture and, as you say, "truly romantic." ;-)
____ouch Jones. I bought the tape but have not watched or seen the
movie yet. Everything still unwrapped and with your comments I'm
beginning to think my instincts to hold off may be right. Another
Romeo/Juliet with snot balls?
christ.
Are you serious?
Mr. G.
John McFetridge
wrote:
> The stakes are better
>expressed in prominence and wealth than in sheer body count. Otherwise the
>annual floods in the third world would be the subject of huge Hollywood
>productions. ---Eric in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Some interesting points, but in the case of third world floods as
fodder for Hollywood you're leaving out patriotism as a huge driving
factor. We Canadians don't make movies about third world tragedies,
either. When a Canadian company buys the rights to a book in which a
school bus crashes and a lot of kids are killed, they instantly change
the setting to Canada. I wish this nationalism wasn't so prominant,
but for now it seems pretty entrenched.
But about Titanic and the 'loss of wealth' and all that, I always
thought what the Titanic tragedy demonstrated more than anything was
the self-hating attitude of the lower classes. Lots of labour leaders
thought the first world war would be avoided because 'workers'
wouldn't kill each other for aristocrat's gain -- but they marched in
huge numbers onto the battlefields, for what? (a long rant about
nationalism, the gains of which the workers don't even get to take
part in would follow, but you know, screenwriting, movies, all that).
It seems the Titanic story continues to get press and interest way out
of proportion to the actual event, which was a blip on the historical
horizon and changed nothing in the way anyone but the people on board
and their families lived their lives -- more big boats were built,
they continue to be divided into classes, the sinking really has no
historical significance. And yet it continues to fascinate. I don't
think it has anything to do with the failure of technology or the
hubris of man (well, maybe, but not much) but the current version sure
plays into the cult of consumerism, doesn't it. If people can see
dishes breaking as a symbolic moment, well....
There's an awful lot of social struggle that people find can be
symbolized by the Titanic tragedy, but to me the biggest tragedy has
always been that people still suck up to the rich and even today, you
would have no trouble selling tickets in steerage with no lifeboats.
You just don't get that in the Challenger or Third World flooding.
John McF
Dstrbd042
>dramatic effect. He wrote about kings, not paupers, for the simple reason
>stakes, and capitalized on people's desire to vicariously experience the
>lives of the great.
This was Billy's concept?
I'm sorry...but have you read any Greek tragedies?
It's incredible how things move in cycles...
Went from traditional, lyrical Greek tragedies, to the "New Comedy"(Mercator's
deal...real people. realistic dialogue)...and by Shakespeare...back to the
lyrical.
-Di§turbed
Dstr...@aol.com
Steven Weller
>>Or could it be that the Challenger disaster is still a bit too close to
contemporary conscious to effectively exploit as an action/romance picture?<<
I think there's an even simpler distinction between this and the sinking of
the Titanic. On the Challenger, there were only 10 people, and we know who
they all were. Tough to squeez out the kind of fictional romantic melodrama
you got in Titanic when all the people on board were otherwise attached and
everybody knows it. Plus, the Challenger disaster was too quick - the thing
just blew up; end of story. you don't so much have a disater film as a sharp
ending to some other kind of story.
The problem with a Titanic-style film set in one of the nnual third-world
floods is just the opposite - these disaster are virtually never a surprise.
The world knows they're coming, people prepare for them, no one knows just
how bad each one will be, but we can see enough of the weather to know that
the monsoons are coming. The tragedy is that the people involved have no
chance of escape. They're living on a flood plane (a variation of an old
Sam Kinneson routine comes to mind, here) and are too poor to get away or
to build shelter that might withstand the coming catastrophy.
You might be able to pull a Casablanca-style love story out of the situation,
with a rescue worker trying to help evac and a local - sort of a fatalistic
thing where they hope to leave together, at the last minute, but for some
reason aren't able to get out. But watching two desperately poor people as
they wait for God to strike the dead, even though they're in love, isn't
likely to pack 'em in at the multi-plex.
TSheehan
>more than anything was the self-hating attitude of the
>lower classes.
I'd be interested to hear how a sinking ship demonstrates
that poor people hate themselves. Would just going aboard
constitute an act of self-hatred?
>Lots of labour leaders thought the first world war would
>be avoided because 'workers' wouldn't kill each other for
>aristocrat's gain...
Although it has nothing to do with downtrodden workers,
there is a connection between the first world war and Titanic,
and it's one of many reasons the story of Titanic resonates so
strongly. The first world war was primarily a _technological_
cataclysm. Aircraft, tanks, poison gas, machine guns, and so
on; all inventions of a modern, industrialized civilization.
World War I killed off the innocent ideal of technological
progress, and so the connection to Titanic, which, of course,
went down just prior to the war, is obvious.
Cameron emphasizes this technological angle throughout
Titanic, most notably in the sequence where Jack helps Rose
to "fly" at Titanic's bow; she is the figurehead of this great
ship -- this crowning industrial achievement -- and, with the
smokestack bellowing behind them, Jack sings a song in her
ear: "Come Josephine in my flying machine, and it's up she
goes, up she goes." But, of course, it's down she goes, down
she goes, and when Rose is later drifting through the abyss
on a bit of debris, contemplating the stars, with Jack's dead,
frozen hand clutching her arm, she sings the same song again;
"Come Josephine in my flying machine, and it's up she goes,
up she goes." It is the film's most ironic moment, and its most
horrific. And it's yet another example of Cameron's genius at
teasing out the core aspects of a story; in this case, by forcing
us to confront Rose's loss of innocence.
--Tim
Greta
insightful thing anyone has written. It is easy to pick apart something like
the Titanic, but apparently much more difficult to analyze what worked and
why.
TSheehan wrote in message
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
what worked - a generic romance story that could have worked in a number of
other cinimatic situations, one that is not specific (or even germaine) to the
historic event added to a lot of high-tech thrills. Something for the women,
something for the men - a great formula!
Greta
argument. But just as obviously, they were combined in a special way that
appealed to a lot of people. What is interesting is to understand how that
particular combination of otherwise mundane elements combined to make
something special.
Granted the dialog was not original, the characters were stereotypical, the
story was melodramatic, yadda, yadda, yadda. Leading me to believe that if
you are writing for popular culture, and not a college professor, criticism
along those lines is off the mark.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote
wuz...@my-dejanews.com
We have ALL had loves that we regret ending and wonder, in fact,
if we have sacrificed the "love of our lives" for the "future" we
have for ourselves now. And dream forever on of "this one
love" that MIGHT HAVE BEEN... IF ONLY...
It's ALL ABOUT LOVE folks! The people FEEL
and RELATE! Soo-ooo Simple!
Just my thoughts...
And the "dreams" continues...
wuzzy_bear
In article <70i5c5$im8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <ejohnson-201...@209.112.24.63>,
> ejoh...@freespace.net (Eric Johnson) wrote:
> > In article <19981019095749...@ng75.aol.com>,
> > jjone...@aol.com (JJones2348) wrote:
> >
> > > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > > <<Someone posted a bit ago that what the newsgroup might productively
> consider
> > > is *why* Titanic sold so well, not why it didn't make sense, etc.
> >
> > snip
> >
> > Good Q. Maye it goes all the way back to Shakespeare's comprehension of
> > dramatic effect. He wrote about kings, not paupers, for the simple reason
> > that 'king' plays sold tickets.
>
> Isn't this the "intentional fallacy"? It's not even completely documented
> that he WROTE the plays attributed to him; assigning a REASONING behind
> actions not completely proven to be his is a bit jejune (I've been wanting an
> excuse to use that word since MANHATTAN!). Besides, TITANIC is not a
> tragedy, at least not in formal structure. Structurally, it is melodrama and
> most closely adheres to the contemporary romance novel, complete with the
> "wrong side of the tracks" love affair. The same story could have been
> transferred to the World Trade Center bombing without losing much of the
> story's impact.
>
> (hmm, Rose is in a top floor office suite visiting her fiancee when she meets
> Jack Dawson, a talented painter working in the Art department, who saves her
> from jumping off the building....)
>
> In other words, he raised the ante, the
> > stakes, and capitalized on people's desire to vicariously experience the
> > lives of the great.
>
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't all classical tragedy based on
> the actions of nobility and the gods?
>
> Perhaps it was the presence of contemporary 'kings'
> > (Astor, et al) that made the sinking of Titanic so riveting. This and the
> > presence of cattle-class passengers set up a most compelling dramatic
> > contrast.
>
> You may speculate. It may too be that the Titanic was supposed to be
> unsinkable. The PR versus the reality made for good newspaper copy,
> regardless of whom was on board.
>
> Now shift gears and consider the more modern tragedy of the U.S.
> > space shuttle that blew up with about 10 people aboard. Yes, films and
> > books have been made, and, yes, it remains a major disaster, but not an
> > immortal tragedy of 'Titanic' proportion.
>
> Since lives were lost, wouldn't it be a "mortal" tragedy. It is a bit too
> early to speculate how long the Titanic sinking will remain in the public
> consciousness, so calling the tragedy itself "immortal" is premature.
>
> Could this be because a school
> > teacher (Christa McAuliffe?) was the most prominent person aboard?
>
> Or could it be that the Challenger disaster is still a bit too close to
> contemporary conscious to effectively exploit as an action/romance picture?
> Audiences require a comfortable distance from what they see on the big
> screen. Some who were children who watched the explosion in their classrooms
> may not want to re-live the experience. And regardless Hollywood won't want
> to take that chance. SCHINDLER'S LIST was released with nearly a half
> century of buffer zone, so did SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but both films caused a
> lot of people to relive a lot of bad moments.
>
> What if
> > a Bill Gates had been a passenger? Or is it only a matter of scale âč
> > 1,700 dead from Titanic, 10 on Challenger (if I remember the name and
> > number accurately). I don't really think so. The stakes are better
> > expressed in prominence and wealth than in sheer body count. Otherwise the
> > annual floods in the third world would be the subject of huge Hollywood
> > productions. ---Eric in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
> >
>
TSheehan
>It's ALL ABOUT LOVE folks!
I agree, but more specifically I think it's about the youthful
ideal of love (or at least this is an aspect that strongly
resonates). Jack is the first, innocent love, so naturally he
must die, but Rose carries the memory of him with her
throughout her life, just as she carries the Heart of the
Ocean, and it gives her the strength and optimism she needs
to press on. For me, the most moving moment of the film
comes just after Jack has vanished into the ocean, when
Rose blows the whistle repeatedly to summon back the
rescue boat; prior to this she had been "screaming on the
inside" but now with every breath she is sounding the alarm:
Outrage! Jack is dead! Outrage! Innocence is gone! The
determination in her eyes, and her newly found strength; it's
the most beautiful moment of the film.
--Tim
TSheehan
fully aware of the implications of the whistle sequence, judging
from the emphasis he places on it; all the events of 1912 close
out to the sound of that whistle. Cameron, like all geniuses, is
conscious and deliberative in his creation; he doesn't appeal to
some mystical God of creativity and hope that things turn out
right; rather, he consciously selects and choses, working things
this way and that in order to achieve a particular effect. You
can bicker with his dialogue, but there's no doubt the man is a
master storyteller, and it is, after all, the story that counts.
--Tim
TSheehan
I see this simple little scene as screenwriting 101; it contains
at least five valuable lessons.
--Tim
INT. FIRST CLASS DINING SALOON
At the divine service, Captain Smith is leading a group in the
hymn "Almighty Father Strong To Save." Rose and Ruth sing
in the middle of the group.
Lovejoy stands well back, keeping an eye on Rose. He notices
a commotion at the entry doors. Jack has been halted there by
two stewards. He is dressed in his third class clothes, and stands
there, hat in hand, looking out of place.
STEWARD: Look, you, you're not supposed to be in here.
JACK: I was just here last night... don't you remember? (seeing
Lovejoy coming toward him) He'll tell you.
LOVEJOY: Mr. Hockley and Mrs. DeWitt Bukater continue
to be most appreciative of your assistance. They asked me to
give you this in gratitude--
He holds out two twenty dollar bills, which Jack refuses to take.
JACK: I don't want money, I--
LOVEJOY: --and also to remind you that you hold a third
class ticket and your presence here is no longer appropriate.
Jack spots Rose but she doesn't see him.
JACK: I just need to talk to Rose for a--
LOVEJOY: Gentlemen, please see that Mr. Dawson gets back
where he belongs. (giving the twenties to the stewards) And
that he stays there.
STEWARD: Yes sir! (to Jack) Come along you.
END ON ROSE, not seeing Jack hustled out.
ROSE (singing): O hear us when we cry to thee for those in
peril on the sea.
CUT TO...
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
"Greta" <gee...@icnt.net> wrote:
> Obviously there were elements of melodrama, romance, and action. No
> argument. But just as obviously, they were combined in a special way that
> appealed to a lot of people. What is interesting is to understand how that
> particular combination of otherwise mundane elements combined to make
> something special.
>
> Granted the dialog was not original, the characters were stereotypical, the
> story was melodramatic, yadda, yadda, yadda. Leading me to believe that if
> you are writing for popular culture, and not a college professor, criticism
> along those lines is off the mark.
So what you are saying is that issues of quality in writing are off the mark
in developing mass entertainment? Well, I'll have to give you that. There's
not point in concerning yourself with outstanding characters or plot or
dialogure is you are essentially designing a thrill ride.
I'm glad we can see eye to eye on this one.
However, this remains an NG on screenWRITING and not filmmaking. So the
discussion in here, as I see it, should be on what is on the page, which
tends to be dialogue and direction, and not the CGI, soundtrack, or second
unit work. A project such as TITANIC doesn't originate from a spec script,
anyway, and that's the beast with which we must wrestle.
I don't know about you, but I construct scene with an eye to controlling the
cost of scenes. I'm not afraid to drop in a chase scene with a lot of
crashes, but I wouldn't have 500 Corvettes drive off a bridge at once.
*well, now that I've made it up..... no, no, I WON't give in! Wait,
wait...they're all RED corvettes, driven by redheads in pink pillbox hats.
It's Corvette Appreciation Day in Memphis and the hero, pursued by the bad
guy, rams up car through the parade as it crosses the bridge over the mighty
Mississipi, then the bad guy pops out the sun roof of his minvan with a
SCUD.... No, no...it's passing. Whew!*
;-)
>
> andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote
> >Gee, I have to not agree with you on that one. It is very easy to
> understand
> >what worked - a generic romance story that could have worked in a number of
> >other cinimatic situations, one that is not specific (or even germaine) to
> the
> >historic event added to a lot of high-tech thrills. Something for the
> women,
> >something for the men - a great formula!
>
>
Mr. G
been watching your posts and you're sort of preparing me in advance what
to key in on. I think you are doing an excellent job as a participant
in this group. I'm not ready to unwrap the movie, but I may - this
winter.
Thanks for you many, fine and professional comments Tim.
Mr. G.
Mr. G
TSheehan wrote:
______ Tim, as a professional, I sure wish more people would remember
your simply reminder, " . . . and it is, after all, the story that
counts."
I don't thing in all the millions of words posted in this group a more
profound, simple in genius remark will every replace it.
amen dude.
MR. G.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
> It's ALL ABOUT LOVE folks! The people FEEL
> and RELATE! Soo-ooo Simple!
>
As long as we agree that it's NOT about the tragic sinking of an "unsinkable"
shipand the resultant loss of lives, OK! Case closed!
gpol...@asiaonline.net
gi...@gink.com wrote:
>
>
> TSheehan wrote:
>
> > Cameron, like all geniuses, is
> > conscious and deliberative in his creation; he doesn't appeal to
> > some mystical God of creativity and hope that things turn out
> > right;
>
> your simply reminder, " . . . and it is, after all, the story that
> counts."
>
> I don't thing in all the millions of words posted in this group a more
> profound, simple in genius remark will every replace it.
>
> amen dude.
Seems to me that seeing the words Cameron and "genius" in the same sentence
should be enough to make you realise you are in the presence of a true
believer.
Boy has the concept of genius ever got demeaned.
Gary
Mike Shields
>
> Thanks for the kind words, Mr. G. Another interesting aspect
> to look for is the idea of rebirth into liberty; Titanic is a sort of
> coming-of-age movie in this regard, with innocence sacrificed
> for freedom. The plot essentially deals with Rose's liberation
> from a financially motivated marriage, and from the constraints
> placed upon women of the era. This was the most pleasing
> aspect of the story to me, that of a woman finding liberation
> (with the aid of a man, true, but when Rose tells Jack, "It's not
> up to you to save me," his reply is, "No, only you can do that.")
>
> Watch for the butterfly comb, and for Liberty's torch. And
> again, watch for the scene in which all the many strands
> converge, in which Jack helps Rose to fly at Titanic's bow.
>
> --Tim
Too bad they told this story twenty minutes in....
Mike
--
"I'm Batman." -- Mike Shields
Gary Pollard
film selling well.
Gary
TSheehan wrote in message
<19981024091933...@ng125.aol.com>...
Gary Pollard
Gary
wuz...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<70rld3$s8v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>It is soo-oooo simple why Titanic Sold so well...
>
>We have ALL had loves that we regret ending and wonder, in fact,
> if we have sacrificed the "love of our lives" for the "future" we
> have for ourselves now. And dream forever on of "this one
> love" that MIGHT HAVE BEEN... IF ONLY...
>
>It's ALL ABOUT LOVE folks! The people FEEL
>and RELATE! Soo-ooo Simple!
>
>> --
>> Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
>>
>> "Slogans are Nice"
>>
TSheehan
I would say that the sinking of Titanic is a particular,
representative instance of the more general thing the story
is about, which is the sad fact that everything good goes
away in time. Beauty, innocence, love, each of us and
everything we create, it all goes back to the ocean. Sand
castles. But the moral of Titanic, I think, is that we should
press on despite the tragedy, and that a true knowledge of
the tragedy is exactly what's needed in order to live life
fully.
The drawing Jack shows to Rose, of the woman in tattered
clothes who waits at the bar for her long lost love, serves
as a sort of negative example for her. This woman is
haunted by ghosts from the past, and unable to live because
of it. Rose demonstrates her refusal to succumb to the same
fate when she pries Jack's dead, frozen hand off her arm.
--Tim
John McFetridge
>Seems to me that seeing the words Cameron and "genius" in the same sentence
>should be enough to make you realise you are in the presence of a true
>believer.
>
>Boy has the concept of genius ever got demeaned.
Unless the phrase is "marketing genius," or even "production genius"
(you've got to admit, some of the visuals he gets on film are quite
amazing).
John McF
TSheehan
Dstrbd042
>up to you to save me," his reply is, "No, only you can do that.")
Predictable line, I thought.
> And
>again, watch for the scene in which all the many strands
>converge, in which Jack helps Rose to fly at Titanic's bow.
That came a little early in their relationship for that to be things
"converging," didn't it?
-Dić«urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
TSheehan
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Batman. Had the
flashback even started twenty minutes in? And the story of
Rose's liberation and rebirth isn't concluded until the very
end, when she states that her name is "Rose Dawson" while
looking up at the statue.
--Tim.
TSheehan
>things "converging," didn't it?
How so?
Fred Taylor
<tshe...@aol.com> writes
>>As long as we agree that it's NOT about the tragic sinking
>>of an "unsinkable" ship and the resultant loss of lives, OK!
>
>I would say that the sinking of Titanic is a particular,
>representative instance of the more general thing the story
>is about, which is the sad fact that everything good goes
>away in time. Beauty, innocence, love, each of us and
>everything we create, it all goes back to the ocean. Sand
>castles. But the moral of Titanic, I think, is that we should
>press on despite the tragedy, and that a true knowledge of
>the tragedy is exactly what's needed in order to live life
>fully.
>
>
A little hard when you're at the bottom of the ocean.
Jeez, this is like a Moonie meeting.
--
Fred Taylor
Greta
mark
>in developing mass entertainment?
Not saying that. What I am saying is that the definition of "quality" can
change depending on your perspective. Judging by the empirical evidence of a
film like Titanic, the people who actually pay to watch movies (the supposed
audience for a screenwriter's work) enjoyed the character, dialog and plot
of the film. They liked it!
I don't think it is in the best interests of people producing public
entertainments to be so dismissive of their tastes.
> A project such as TITANIC doesn't originate from a spec script,
>anyway, and that's the beast with which we must wrestle.
All the more reason to intelligently analyze a film like this. The film
Dirty Dancing was not made on a modest budget, opened quietly, became a
sleeper hit and made a bundle. Obviously, the wrong-side of the tracks love
affair is the element it shares with Titanic. Easy to sneer at this
hackneyed romantic plot. But I think if we sneer, we miss how powerfully
audiences react to it. It works whether it's in a big-budget extravaganze or
in a modest sleeper.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
gpol...@asiaonline.net wrote:
> In article <36328A9C...@gink.com>,
> gi...@gink.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > TSheehan wrote:
> >
> > > Cameron, like all geniuses, is
> > > conscious and deliberative in his creation; he doesn't appeal to
> > > some mystical God of creativity and hope that things turn out
> > > right;
> >
> > ______ Tim, as a professional, I sure wish more people would remember
> > your simply reminder, " . . . and it is, after all, the story that
> > counts."
> >
> > I don't thing in all the millions of words posted in this group a more
> > profound, simple in genius remark will every replace it.
> >
> > amen dude.
>
> should be enough to make you realise you are in the presence of a true
> believer.
>
> Boy has the concept of genius ever got demeaned.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
designing cinematic thrill rides. And as soon as he takes the "serious" route
that Spielberg is travelling, he will probably even be considered a genius at
exploring the human condition.
Just like Walt Disney was!
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
tshe...@aol.com (TSheehan) wrote:
> >As long as we agree that it's NOT about the tragic sinking
> >of an "unsinkable" ship and the resultant loss of lives, OK!
>
> I would say that the sinking of Titanic is a particular,
> representative instance of the more general thing the story
> is about, which is the sad fact that everything good goes
> away in time. Beauty, innocence, love, each of us and
> everything we create, it all goes back to the ocean. Sand
> castles. But the moral of Titanic, I think, is that we should
> press on despite the tragedy, and that a true knowledge of
> the tragedy is exactly what's needed in order to live life
> fully.
>
> clothes who waits at the bar for her long lost love, serves
> as a sort of negative example for her. This woman is
> haunted by ghosts from the past, and unable to live because
> of it. Rose demonstrates her refusal to succumb to the same
> fate when she pries Jack's dead, frozen hand off her arm.
>
> --Tim
>
As long as you understand that the story isn't necessarily dependant on the
sinking of the Titanic or the many, many other of her sister ships that met
similar fates to function. All that mingling the story into the Titanic
sinking did was to give the film a marketing handle. People went into the
movie thinking it was about the Titanic sinking and the less intelligent went
out thinking the same thing. But the story could have been transferred to
the World Trade Center on the morning of the bombing without losing most of
its punch.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
So what you're saying is that one good hit formula is: good girl meets bad
boy/girl learns about "life"/girl loses boy. Thanks, I'll try it sometime.
I will make a point to embellish it with sentimental crap and hope the prodco
can afford some cool tunes to help with the marketing.
Mike Shields
>
> > People went into the
> >movie thinking it was about the Titanic sinking and the less intelligent went
> >out thinking the same thing. But the story could have been transferred to
> >the World Trade Center on the morning of the bombing without losing most of
> >its punch.
> >
> >--
> Titanic, when he could have merely tipped over an ice cream cart...
And what's worse, we probably would've paid to see that, too.
Mike Shields
Sorry, Tim. We have some lovely parting gifts for you. It may not have been
twenty minutes, but right after Rose contacted the ship & co., one of the guys
said, "There's no record of a Rose Dawson ever having been on the ship." Or
something like that. So the ending was indeed telegraphed.
Dstrbd042
>>things "converging," didn't it?
>
>How so?
The word "converging", to me, implies a culmination.
-Dić«urbed
Dstr...@aol.com
TSheehan
The point is that you _will_ be. You and your loved
ones.
>Jeez, this is like a Moonie meeting.
Since you don't say why, you're just complaining. Give
a reason why you think so, and you'll be reasoning.
--Tim
TSheehan
>me, implies a culmination.
Ah, I see. I meant it's a scene that expresses the major
themes; technology as false savior; liberty in general, and
women's liberation in particular; disintigration and loss -- it's
the themes that are converging.
--Tim
WRabkin
TSheehan
>said, "There's no record of a Rose Dawson ever having
>been on the ship." Or something like that. So the ending
>was indeed telegraphed.
Saying that Rose's eventual liberation was "telegraphed" is
different from saying it "was told twenty minutes in,"
whatever that means. Wasn't it told throughout the movie?
And is hinting at the resolution even a fault? The practice
of allowing the audience to see the general direction in which
a story is headed while leaving open the details of how that
destination will be arrived at is a sound, well established
dramatic technique; it fosters curiousity and suspense, and it
helps to provide clarity. By your logic, a person would never
have to waste time in a theatre at all; he or she could simply
have a friend describe the ending. But, of course, we don't go
to the theatre simply to gather information about hypothetical
events -- we go there to witness the unfolding.
--Tim
Fred Taylor
<tshe...@aol.com> writes
the 'meaning' of the Master's every move and pronouncement. Extreme
sensitivity to criticism of the holy writ (i.e. Mr Cameron's script).
I mean, it's just a movie, and mainly a special effects one at that.
--
Fred Taylor
OBB
Case in point: "Sunset Blvd." starts with Joe face down dead in the swimming
pool. Was the movie over 5 seconds in? I don't think so.
O...@aol.com
Steven Weller
>Jeez, this is like a Moonie meeting.
Since you don't say why, you're just complaining. Give
a reason why you think so, and you'll be reasoning.<
I think the point being made by that statement is that some folks have
a particualr point of view and refuse to be swayed by the points anyone
else brings up.
It goes for both sides, by the way - the pro-Titanic folks will (seemingly)
hear nothing about what ight be wrong with the film/script/whatever, and
the anti-Titanic people are unwilling to see that there might be something
appealing about the fil, given the millions and millions of people who paid
to see the film over and over again.
In the interest of avoiding a situation like the Wil/D'strdbd flamewar,
where two otherwise descent people are fighting tooth and nail to see
who can make himself look like the bigger asshole by trying to make the
other guy look like an asshole.
Just for fun, howsabout you both just agree to disagree, and move on?
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Fred Taylor
<az...@lafn.org> writes
True, Steven. Actually I quite enjoyed TITANIC, in a sort of cheep,
spill-your-popcorn sort of way. I was simply commenting on the hushed
and awed tones in which its acolytes seem compelled to discuss every
detail of the film -- and got, as expected, a humourless response.
Enough, already.
--
Fred Taylor
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
> I think it contains one. Banality and obviousness is no deterrent to a
> film selling well.
>
> Gary
Gary, thanks! My eyes clouded over just reading it. *yawn*
(but I do agree that it's a scene appropriate for Screenwriting 101; one would
have preferred a scene from Screenwriting 401 - the advanced class - but I
suppose that "advanced screenwriting" = car chases/explosions/ships
sinking/CGI/etc.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Bat...@internetconnect.net wrote:
>
>
> --
> "I'm Batman." -- Mike Shields
>
You guys are too cynical. Cameron would NEVER do anything cheap - if he can
do it with state-of-the-art CGI. And of course there is the spectacle
factor. Hell, while he's at it, he could even make the WTC tower that was
bombed collapse onto the other one as the bombers planned. As long as we
getting an engaging love story and some gripping action, what does it matter!
Mike Shields
You forgot to mention the shallow cookie cutter characters.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
morality at all.
Too bad Jack had to die at the end. Just think of the potential of a sequal:
TITANIC: TEN YEARS LATER --
INT. - APARTMENT IN BROOKLYN - 1922 - DAY
A WOMAN, aged beyond her years, hangs laundry off a clothes line strung off
the patio of her apartment, which is cluttered and dirty. Four little BOYS
of varying ages run through the room screaming, knocking things about as
they.
WOMAN
BOYS! STOP IT! NOW RUN OUT AND PLAY!
She spits out the window. The boys dash out the door, and an elderly
CHAUFFEUR steps into view, looks at her blankly.
CHAUFFEUR
Excuse me madam, I am looking for Mrs. Jack Dawson.
WOMAN
I'm Mrs. Dawson. Is he alright! He's not hurt?
The Chauffer steps aside and HILDA VANDERHOVEN steps into view.
HILDA
Rose? Rose, honey, is that you?
Rose starts to cry.
ROSE
Oh, Hilda, I'd rather you not bothered.
HILDA
Nonsense! It's been too long since I've seen my favorite cousin.
ROSE
You gave me quite a fright. I thought it was something about Jack.
HILDA
Is Jack in trouble?
ROSE No. I don't know. I mean, I haven't seen him in all week. He works
at a radio factory in New Jersey.
HILDA
I thought he was an artist.
ROSE
We all did. He still does.
HILDA
I thought Uncle Evelyn arranged for him to work for that illustrated magazine.
ROSE
He got bored drawing flappers and motorcars, so he quit.
HILDA
Quit?
ROSE
They had to let him go. Caught him running a poker game at night.
HILDA
Gracious.
ROSE
Then Father got him on at the harbor customs house, working the night shift.
They found him sleeping in a car that was stored there.
HILDA
Rose, darling, I'm so sorry.
ROSE
I'd rather be alone, if you don't mind.
She shuts the door on Hilda and walks out to the patio where her laundry is.
She looks at the pole mounted on the thick stone balcony and steps onto the
ledge. Holding herself steady by the pole the looks down at the
crowded, working-class street. She closes her eyes and prepares to jump.
JACK (OS)
Now don't you go trying that trick again.
It's JACK in the door, wearing greasy tattered clothes. He's overweight with
a gut. He had a sloppy moustache and a couple of teeth missing. He is very
drunk.
ROSE
You're drunk!
JACK
I'm not drunk, I'M KING OF THE WORLD!!!
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Richard Milton
andywells2 wrote:
>out thinking the same thing. But the story could have been transferred to
>the World Trade Center on the morning of the bombing without losing most of
>its punch.
I don't want to fuel the flames of an already long and
acrimonious debate [Greek chorus offstage: "Then why
the f*ck are you posting a message?] but I would like to
add my two cent's worth about a film I enjoyed very
much.
I don't agree that the plot could have been transferred
to a modern disaster like the WTC bombing because the
dramatic core of "Titanic" is a story about class.
The Titanic was a microcosm of the class stucture of
society and the inequalities of treatment received by
its pasengers mirrored the inequality of treatment
received by people in general -- it just took a shortage
of lifeboats to give it dramatic visibility.
The tensions between Jack and Rose, Cal, Rose's mother, and
all the other first class passengers were dramatically
speaking class tensions -- not about love, or money but
social position and entitlement to privilege. Jack's
crime and the reason he earned the enmity of Cal and the
detective Lovejoy was that he "didn't know his place"
and aspired to something above him.
Only Molly Brown, herself a victim of class prejudice,
was on Jack's side once he left steerage and entered the
world above stairs. You could interpret Molly's helping
Jack by kitting him out for dinner as malicious revenge
on the first class snobs.
If I have one criticism of the screenplay it is that,
for the love match to work, Rose had to be revealed as a
crypto-working-class girl who enjoyed spitting and
drinking beer.
One other minor criticism I have of Jack's character is
that he is supposed to be a Bohemian artist with enough
initiative and drive to have taken himself to Paris and
to have lived as an artist. Yet his idea of amusement is
to spit over the side and he doesn't know which knife and
fork to use.
Richard
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
ric...@milton.win-uk.net (Richard Milton) wrote:
>
> andywells2 wrote:
>
> >out thinking the same thing. But the story could have been transferred to
> >the World Trade Center on the morning of the bombing without losing most of
> >its punch.
>
> I don't want to fuel the flames of an already long and
> acrimonious debate
I sincerely apologise if anyone has engaged their emotions over such a trivial
matter as this.
[Greek chorus offstage: "Then why
> the f*ck are you posting a message?] but I would like to
> add my two cent's worth about a film I enjoyed very
> much.
>
> I don't agree that the plot could have been transferred
> to a modern disaster like the WTC bombing because the
> dramatic core of "Titanic" is a story about class.
Well, I would like to believe that if you sliced through a major office
building you would also find class distinctions, such as the boardroom and
penthouse executive suites versus the large pits of cubicles of the clerical
staff. to that end, the World Trade Center could also be put forth as "a
microcosm of the class stucture of society and the inequalities of treatment
received by" employees. But those class distinctions, being made in the
present, are a bit more "invisible" than those made of a past era.
> The tensions between Jack and Rose, Cal, Rose's mother, and
> all the other first class passengers were dramatically
> speaking class tensions -- not about love, or money but
> social position and entitlement to privilege.
Yes, those were the cliches.
[snip]
>
> If I have one criticism of the screenplay it is that,
> for the love match to work, Rose had to be revealed as a
> crypto-working-class girl who enjoyed spitting and
> drinking beer.
>
> One other minor criticism I have of Jack's character is
> that he is supposed to be a Bohemian artist with enough
> initiative and drive to have taken himself to Paris and
> to have lived as an artist. Yet his idea of amusement is
> to spit over the side and he doesn't know which knife and
> fork to use.
>
> Richard
Richard, I would bet if you continue thinking about it your list, which went
quickly from one to two items, would soon fill a page.
Good comments, though. And remember - if you enjoyed it, that's the main
thing. I don't mean to trample on the views of the fans but to engage a
discussion with the writers, who I hope will remove their "fan" glasses to
observe the structural writing issues.
Mysti Rubert
its spectacle in the disguise of class concerns, we would expect:
- the class distinctions to drive the dramatic action. Actually, a big piece of
ice
drove the dramatic action of (roughly) the 2nd half. I couldn't even tell you
what
the dramatic through-line of the first half was.
- class distinction to figure in the resolution of the story. But gee, Jack
died because
he was a gentleman, not because he was lower class. Rose lived because she had
a gentlemen helping her and a bit of luck. And class left her completely alone
through
all of her life until the ending.
- the framing sequence to echo or at least reflect or refer to class
distinctions.
Nothing.
No, for me, the authors of the film simply waved the class flag to assuage our
guilt about enjoying watching so many people die in such spectacle. Cheap
tricks,
like making up locked gates. There were no locked gates, I believe. People knew
their place in the "good old days" and tended to respect class boundaries
without
physical barriers.
I wish I could have felt the way you did. I would have enjoyed the movie much
more.
Mysti
Richard Milton wrote:
> andywells2 wrote:
>
> >out thinking the same thing. But the story could have been transferred to
> >the World Trade Center on the morning of the bombing without losing most of
> >its punch.
>
> I don't want to fuel the flames of an already long and
> acrimonious debate [Greek chorus offstage: "Then why
> the f*ck are you posting a message?] but I would like to
> add my two cent's worth about a film I enjoyed very
> much.
>
> I don't agree that the plot could have been transferred
> to a modern disaster like the WTC bombing because the
> dramatic core of "Titanic" is a story about class.
>
> The Titanic was a microcosm of the class stucture of
> society and the inequalities of treatment received by
> its pasengers mirrored the inequality of treatment
> received by people in general -- it just took a shortage
> of lifeboats to give it dramatic visibility.
>
> The tensions between Jack and Rose, Cal, Rose's mother, and
> all the other first class passengers were dramatically
> speaking class tensions -- not about love, or money but
> social position and entitlement to privilege. Jack's
> crime and the reason he earned the enmity of Cal and the
> detective Lovejoy was that he "didn't know his place"
> and aspired to something above him.
>
> Only Molly Brown, herself a victim of class prejudice,
> was on Jack's side once he left steerage and entered the
> world above stairs. You could interpret Molly's helping
> Jack by kitting him out for dinner as malicious revenge
> on the first class snobs.
>
Steven Weller
Actually, a recent doc on the remote sub visits to the wreck of the
Titanic said they found locked gates, preventing the passengers on
the lower levels from ever getting up to the lifeboats.