Titanic: Picasso Painting
Dave Platt
On 20 Dec 1997, OhhRob wrote:
#
#
# I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat.
#or the
# record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles
#'Avignon was
# painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
# paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
#0th-century
# outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the
#istory of
# moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
I thought the Picasso/Freud references were quite gratuitous. I do have
one question, though: if Rose had these paintings, why didn't they go
down with the ship? I understand dramatic license - obviously the real
owner of these paintings wasn't Rose - but how does Cameron explain the
fact that these paintings are not lying somewhere in the Atlantic?
OhhRob
I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat. For the
record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles D'Avignon was
painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a 20th-century
outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the history of
moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
ohh...@aol.com
R. Gorelick, Baltimore
It's really nice to meet you. Really. Nice. Nice. Really
--- Mary Richards
Caius Marcius
In <19971220031...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ohh...@aol.com
(OhhRob) writes:
>
>
>
>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat.
For the
>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles
D'Avignon was
>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess
the
>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
20th-century
>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the
history of
>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have
done.
They should have given her a Leichtenstein.
- CMC
Sam Worf
Very minor spoilers for Titanic dead ahead...
In <19971220031...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ohh...@aol.com
(OhhRob) writes:
>
>
>
>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat.
>For the
>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles
>D'Avignon was
>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice.
An early draft I suppose. He worked on it for a long time.
> I guess
>the
>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
>20th-century
>outlook,
I think it was used also to show us she had an interest in art, so her
attraction to Jack would be more plausible.
> but the choice of the most important single painting in the
>history of
>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have
>done.
Maybe, but the general public needs to be hit over the head with
something this "esoteric." Hell, I wouldn't have recognized it as a
Picasso before I took Modern Art History.
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) wrote:
>
>They should have given her a Leichtenstein.
Eh? Lichtenstein wasn't even born until 11 years *after* the
sinking...
--
// / Sam Worf
GCV 3.12 \X/ / samworf<AT>wenet.net
GFA d- s-: a-- C+(+++)>$ W+(-) N+ K w+(--) !O M PS++ PE-
Y+ t+(---) 5+++(-) X R tv b++ DI++ D++>+++ G e>++ h! !y+
/ Academy of Art College S.F.
--------------------------------------------------------
----->Remove "spamblock" to reply<-----
OhhRob
Dave Platt writes:
>I thought the Picasso/Freud references were quite gratuitous. I do have
>one question, though: if Rose had these paintings, why didn't they go
>down with the ship? I understand dramatic license - obviously the real
>owner of these paintings wasn't Rose - but how does Cameron explain the
>fact that these paintings are not lying somewhere in the Atlantic?
Well, that's what bothered me, too. I was with two very savvy friends who
didn't seem to recognize the paintings. Was it a sly joke? Who would get it? I
only brought it up because it was one of about a dozen things in the early
going of Titanic that derailed me (to import a railroad metaphor)
Was Cameroin trying to say that Picasso et. al. had to repaint their paintings
afther they perished on the Titanic? I don't have the provenance of Demoiselle
D'Avignon right here with me, but I suspect it's traceable
Just a small point in a movie whose makers have trumpeted it's impeccable
research.
pj...@ibm.net
On 20 Dec 1997 07:22:02 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
>
>Well, that's what bothered me, too. I was with two very savvy friends who
>didn't seem to recognize the paintings. Was it a sly joke? Who would get it? I
>only brought it up because it was one of about a dozen things in the early
>going of Titanic that derailed me (to import a railroad metaphor)
>
>Was Cameroin trying to say that Picasso et. al. had to repaint their paintings
>afther they perished on the Titanic? I don't have the provenance of Demoiselle
>D'Avignon right here with me, but I suspect it's traceable
>
Here's a few lines from the actual script:
46 INT. SUITE B-52-56 - DAY
By contrast, the so-called "Millionaire Suite" is in the Empire style,
and comprises two bedrooms, a bath, WC, wardrobe room, and a large
sitting room. In addition
there is a private 50 foot promenade deck outside.
A room service waiter pours champagne into a tulip glass of orange
juice and hands the Bucks Fizz to Rose. She is looking through her new
paintings. There is a Monet of water lilies, a Degas of dancers, and a
few abstract works. They are all unknown paintings... lost works.
Cal is out on the covered deck, which has potted trees and vines on
trellises, talking through the doorway to Rose in the sitting room.
CAL
Those mud puddles were certainly a waste of money.
ROSE
(looking at a cubist portrait)
You're wrong. They're fascinating. Like in a dream... there's truth
without logic. What's his name again... ?
(reading off the canvas)
Picasso.
CAL
(coming into the sitting room)
He'll never amount to a thing, trust me. At least they were cheap.
So the intent was to have "recognizable" 'lost' works by famous
artists, I assume to show how shallow Cal is and how Rose recognizes
good art.....
Phil Jern
Boyd Campbell
pj...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>
> He'll never amount to a thing, trust me. At least they were cheap.
>
> So the intent was to have "recognizable" 'lost' works by famous
> artists, I assume to show how shallow Cal is and how Rose recognizes
> good art.....
in art and in life.
--
/----------- Email:Cam...@netdoor.com ----------\
| |
| King Kong |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong.html |
| Willis O'Brien |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/Obie.html |
| |
\------------------------------------------------/
Gary Pollard
If Rose's family had no money, what did she buy the pictures with?
Gary
Caius Marcius wrote in message <67fffg$s...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <19971220031...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ohh...@aol.com
>(OhhRob) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat.
>For the
>>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles
>D'Avignon was
>>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess
>the
>>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
>20th-century
>>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the
>history of
>>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have
>done.
>
>They should have given her a Leichtenstein.
>
> - CMC
Q
Gary Pollard wrote:
>
> If Rose's family had no money, what did she buy the pictures with?
>
> Gary
Cal's money. What else?
Quang
Dennis Ferguson
Boyd Campbell wrote in message <349CBC...@mail.netdoor.com>...
>pj...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> He'll never amount to a thing, trust me. At least they were cheap.
>>
>> So the intent was to have "recognizable" 'lost' works by famous
>> artists, I assume to show how shallow Cal is and how Rose recognizes
>> good art.....
>
> More than that, it shows that Rose is willing to accept new ideas
> in art and in life.
Bingo. This is the core of Rose's depression... she is surrounded by people
rooted in outdated ideas, familiar routine, and old money. Look at the
people she relates best with: Jack, Mr. Andrews. and Mrs. Brown. Jack
recognizes Monet's work; the latter two were the ones familiar with Freud.
She loves Jack because he's a fresh, new experience; he reminds her to live
life. Ironically, they're on the 'Titanic', so...
Okay, so it's not an original idea for a romance, but it's executed very
well.
At times, the sinking itself seems to be destroying that old way of life.
The way that several characters face their fate is reminiscent of a time
when the word 'gentleman' resonated with concepts of dignity and courage.
In the present day, it's hard to imagine something like the musicians
continuing to play music until the end, yet in 1912 it happened.
Dennis
----
df...@erols.com (Erol's Internet)
dfe...@gl.umbc.edu (UMBC)
Gary Pollard
Even though he was only her fiancé, a bullying bastard, and disapproved of
them?
Gary
Q wrote in message <349CA571...@ihug.co.nzNOSPAM>...
David O. Corsi
they had to give her a painting most non-artist types would recognize. that
is why it is over the "top." take a typical cubist painting and most people
would have sided with Cal. :-)
David
OhhRob wrote in message <19971220031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>
>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat. For
the
>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles D'Avignon
was
>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
20th-century
>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the
history of
>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
>
>
>
>
Boyd Campbell
I think Cameron pretty clearly meant the sinking as a metaphor
for the huge change in paradigm that was the 20'th century.
It's his selling of the cherry orchard and I think it raises
the film to a level and a form near classic tragedy. (although
I think, in the end, it's just very good melodrama.)
David O. Corsi
Gary Pollard <2001...@email.msn.com> wrote in message ...
>If Rose's family had no money, what did she buy the pictures with?
>
Cal said he paid for them but thought it was a waste of money even though
they were "cheap."
Kerry Thornbury
Would it have been seen as the most important single painting in the
history of modern art in 1912? It is usually hindsight that makes art
works famous and invaluable
It was a long shot though I agree.
On 20 Dec 1997 03:19:20 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
>
>
>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat. For the
>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles D'Avignon was
>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a 20th-century
>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the history of
>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
>
>
>
>
>ohh...@aol.com
>R. Gorelick, Baltimore
>
>It's really nice to meet you. Really. Nice. Nice. Really
>
> --- Mary Richards
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the Net
and he won't bother you for weeks.
ker...@ihug.co.nz
kerry....@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Pollard
Obviously if most non-artist types would recognise it, they'd recognise that
it wasn't on the Titanic.
It was a dumb move.
Gary
David O. Corsi wrote in message <67iirp$t8c$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
>they had to give her a painting most non-artist types would recognize. that
>is why it is over the "top." take a typical cubist painting and most people
>would have sided with Cal. :-)
>
>David
>
>OhhRob wrote in message <19971220031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>
>>
Gary Pollard
One of the great mysteries is how someone who supposedly can appreciate
Picasso can also like the relatively mediocre drawings that are presented as
Jack's.
Gary
Kerry Thornbury wrote in message <349cd758...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>Would it have been seen as the most important single painting in the
>history of modern art in 1912? It is usually hindsight that makes art
>works famous and invaluable
>
>It was a long shot though I agree.
>
>
>On 20 Dec 1997 03:19:20 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat. For
the
>>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles D'Avignon
was
>>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
>>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a
20th-century
>>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the
history of
>>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>ohh...@aol.com
>>R. Gorelick, Baltimore
>>
>>It's really nice to meet you. Really. Nice. Nice. Really
>>
>> --- Mary Richards
>>
>>
>>
>
Boyd Campbell
Gary Pollard wrote:
>
> One of the great mysteries is how someone who supposedly can appreciate
> Picasso can also like the relatively mediocre drawings that are presented as
> Jack's.
It's a lot easier to appreciate someone's drawings when
you're romantically drawn to them.
Gary Pollard
Well, yes, I thought of that. But that isn't supposed to be the case when
she first reacts.
Gary
Boyd Campbell wrote in message <349D11...@mail.netdoor.com>...
Bob Morris
Boyd Campbell <cam...@mail.netdoor.com> writes:
>Gary Pollard wrote:
>>
>> One of the great mysteries is how someone who supposedly can appreciate
>> Picasso can also like the relatively mediocre drawings that are presented as
>> Jack's.
> It's a lot easier to appreciate someone's drawings when
> you're romantically drawn to them.
Well, since it was James Cameron who drew all of Jack's sketches (the truth)
it was either appreciate them or be fired from the film! :-)
LRM
Paul Kintzele
Dave Platt (lit...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
: I do have
: one question, though: if Rose had these paintings, why didn't they go
: down with the ship? I understand dramatic license - obviously the real
: owner of these paintings wasn't Rose - but how does Cameron explain the
: fact that these paintings are not lying somewhere in the Atlantic?
For what it's worth: "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" (at the Museum of Modern
Art in NYC) is much *bigger* than the painting Rose has (I think the color
schemas might be different as well--Rose's painting had more blues and was
generally darker, but my memory could be faulty here). In any event, what
I assumed is that a Picasso did go down on the actual Titanic (did one?),
and that Cameron had a variation on "Les Demoiselles" produced as an
easily recognizable version of what that lost painting might have looked
like.
Also for what it's worth: despite some stiffness in the script, I
thought the movie was wonderful.
Paul K.
Dan Day
On 22 Dec 1997 02:32:14 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
>Other things which distracted me in Titanic were the giving of the finger
Lots of people have mentioned this, but I fail to understand what
the problem was with it. As a character reaction, it seemed quite
appropriate, and even if someone wants to object that people in
1912 didn't flip the bird (so what *did* they do?), showing the
modern gesture instead of the 1912 equivalent is no more out of
line than showing Czechs all speaking English in "The Unbearable
Lightness of Being". It beats the hell out of a 1912 gesture
with a subtitle that says, "she's flipping him off".
David Homerick
In article <34a6e34c....@news.primenet.com>, d...@firstnethou.com
(Dan Day) wrote:
> On 22 Dec 1997 02:32:14 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
> >Other things which distracted me in Titanic were the giving of the finger
>
> Lots of people have mentioned this, but I fail to understand what
> the problem was with it. As a character reaction, it seemed quite
> appropriate, and even if someone wants to object that people in
> 1912 didn't flip the bird (so what *did* they do?),
I dug this quote out of the December '96 issue of Discover magazine. This
is Judith Stone, writing in the "Light Elements" column:
"...[anthropologist Desmond] Morris barely touches on the finger jerk --
rarely used in Europe but so common on the motorways of the U.S.A. -- even
though it's the oldest recorded obscene gesture. The Romans even had a
name for it, the *digitus impudicus*, or "impudent finger." Zoologists
report that apes may have obscene gestures, although no one has seen a
chinp flip the bird."
-- David.
Q
> >Gary Pollard wrote:
> >>
> >> If Rose's family had no money, what did she buy the pictures with?
> >>
> >
> >Cal's money. What else?
> >
> >Quang
>
>
> Gary
women were to wealthy men in the Edwardian era (and earlier). If it
meant keeping her placated and reasonably *happy* and amused before the
wedding, why not? Is it unfathomable that a rich man would buy
something for his penniless fiancee? Is it also out of character for a
man such as Cal to buy them, and then take the opportunity they provide
to further bully Rose, insulting her taste, and so on? None of this was
beyond the man.
But then again, all of this is conjecture. Does it really matter in the
end?
Quang
Gary Pollard
If it did not matter I submit that people would not have been put off by the
inclusion of the paintings. They clearly jarred.
Gary
Q wrote in message <349D05E2...@ihug.co.nzNOSPAM>...
Gary Pollard
<g>
Just goes to show that what's good enough for a film storyboard is NOT good
enough for an art-lover who's supposed to like Picasso.
Gary
Bob Morris wrote in message ...
OhhRob
>If it did not matter I submit that people would not have been put off by the
>inclusion of the paintings. They clearly jarred.
I though the idea that Rose appreciated and bought (with whoever's money)
modern paintings was a nice, small touch--it did help to define her (up until
that point, we had only learned she was kind of spoiled). My problem again was
with the choice of paintings, which I did find jarring, so jarring that it
derailed (to mix in a train metaphor) my attention and made me somewhat
mistrust the film for a while. It took me a bit to recover and trust the film
again.
Obviously Cameron took great care in getting the ship's details right. This is
one detail he got wrong, and I don't mean to assail him for it. I just mean to
maybe shift the discussion to the issue of details and how some are forgiveable
and some are costly.
I mean it bothers some people if cars are pictured traveling the wrong way on a
street with which they're familiar. To me this is lunatic.
Other things which distracted me in Titanic were the giving of the finger and
DiCaprio's visit to the ship's bow (impossible) with his contemporary (to us)
whoo-whooing (seemed anachronistic)
Gary Pollard
I agree with you on all of those things.
But I think Cameron was clumsy with the art. Had he been a bit less vain he
could have had better pastiche Picassos done, and he could have used better
drawings than his own. Had he even had Jack draw in the style of Utrillo or
Modigliani, I could have understood why she liked it.
Gary
Dave Platt
On 21 Dec 1997, Dan Day wrote:
# On 22 Dec 1997 02:32:14 GMT, ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
# >Other things which distracted me in Titanic were the giving of the finger
#
# Lots of people have mentioned this, but I fail to understand what
# the problem was with it. As a character reaction, it seemed quite
# appropriate, and even if someone wants to object that people in
# 1912 didn't flip the bird (so what *did* they do?), showing the
# modern gesture instead of the 1912 equivalent is no more out of
# line than showing Czechs all speaking English in "The Unbearable
# Lightness of Being". It beats the hell out of a 1912 gesture
# with a subtitle that says, "she's flipping him off".
Well, biting your thumb at someone has been around since Romeo & Juliet,
and I believe it's still being used. WHy not that one? Or how about have
her spit at the guy, since they made such a big deal of that?
For some reason, that scene just seemed out of place. For one thing, how
did this refined girl learn such a foul gesture? If she learned it from
Jack, they should've shown that.
Scott Amspoker
"Gary Pollard" <2001...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>If Rose's family had no money, what did she buy the pictures with?
You must have missed Cal's comment that I found amusing. The idea was that
Rose saw the greatness of Picasso's work before it was considered great.
Cal dismissed the Picasso paintings as unworthy and commented, "At least
she got them cheap."
Scott Amspoker |
sc...@basis.com | Expressed opinions are mine
http://www.rt66.com/sda | and not those of my employer.
Paul Hager
ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) writes:
>I kind of thought the business about Rose's art purchases fell flat. For the
>record, the Picasso painting in Titanic, clearly Les Demoiselles D'Avignon was
>painted in 1907---I doubt even Picasso painted that one twice. I guess the
>paintings were meant to show that Rose was a modern woman, with a 20th-century
>outlook, but the choice of the most important single painting in the history of
>moden art was, for me, over the top. Any cubist painting would have done.
I'm glad someone commented on this. I couldn't figure out what Cameron
was up to on this. I was familiar with the Picasso (though I don't
particularly like him) as well as the Degas. Clearly those paintings
didn't go down on the RMS Titanic so I found it jarring. The fact that
a cubist painting in the style of Picasso would have worked just fine
makes me wonder why Cameron would do something that would take people
out of the movie. Look how much money was spent on the sets and
interiors to make everything authentic. Spending a couple of thousand
bucks for someone to paint a Picasso, a Degas, and a Monet would have
been a drop in the bucket.
Of course, it is possible that I misremember the actual paintings and
Rose's are slightly different, representing related subjects/ideas.
But there was a shock of recognition when I saw them so I kind of trust
my memory on this.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON
Paul Hager
"Gary Pollard" <2001...@email.msn.com> writes:
>One of the great mysteries is how someone who supposedly can appreciate
>Picasso can also like the relatively mediocre drawings that are presented as
>Jack's.
Could it be because the artist was James Cameron? I heard that Cameron
did the actual drawing of Kate Winslet. Wouldn't be surprised if he
did the others. Cameron's primary medium, as we know, is film. Worked
for me...
Future
Actually, the original question is a stupid one. How can someone who
appreciates the taste of caviar also like an occasional piece of
pizza? Easy. Stupid question, IMO.
On 23 Dec 1997 11:08:52 -0500, hag...@cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
wrote:
>"Gary Pollard" <2001...@email.msn.com> writes:
>
>>One of the great mysteries is how someone who supposedly can appreciate
>>Picasso can also like the relatively mediocre drawings that are presented as
>>Jack's.
>
>Could it be because the artist was James Cameron? I heard that Cameron
>did the actual drawing of Kate Winslet. Wouldn't be surprised if he
>did the others. Cameron's primary medium, as we know, is film. Worked
>for me...
--
I use a fake Email address on Usenet to help defeat spammers. You can Email me at
"future at oz dot net". Laugh a little today at http://www.oz.net/~future/humor.html
Building model rockets=Model rocketry. Intel testing new CPU sockets-Model socketry?
Gary Pollard
Paul Hager
"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> writes:
>Reaching. Really reaching.
>Gary Pollard
I actually like the drawing of Winslet that Cameron did. There's
that "de gustibus" thing again. Of course, the apotheosis of
painting was Johnannes Vermeer so, necessarily, all future work
will be mediocre by comparision. But Picasso is beyond the pale.
Early Picasso showed promise but his later stuff was junk. Cameron
is greatly superior to that cubist garbage. I really don't
understand why Picasso is so popular -- herd snobbery, probably.
In point of fact, everything that Picasso could hope to do in
the way of technique had already been done by Vermeer. And beyond
that, there is Vermeer's subject matter and what he was actually
saying. Picasso was basically a hack who disguised his lack of
ability by flipping the bird at artistic convention -- and this played
well with parvenus and others of common taste who mistook rebellion
for talent.
As you see, this game you're playing with Titanic is a very easy
one to play. Now, if you said something more substantive that
would be one thing, but your main criticism seems to be that the
movie is popular and elicits powerful emotions, therefore it is
crass and plebian.
Now, where I will agree with you is that mere popularity or
eliciting emotions is not an indication of artistic value.
For example, the paintings of the children with oversized
eyes and heads by -- was it Keene -- back in the early 70s.
They were very popular for a time, in large part because they
elicited emotions in the viewer. One can, in fact, explain the
popularity in terms of our hard-wiring to view infants, whose
heads and eyes are naturally larger, proportionately, than those
of an adult, as "adorable." This may or may not have been
deliberate minipulation on the part of Keene but it does explain
the popularity. The fact that the "message" was ultimately very
shallow explains the evanescence of the popularity.
Does Titanic manipulate? I think that any art must, in some
sense, so I don't see that as a mark against the movie. Nor
is it a mark against the work itself that some people say,
"I cried, therefore this is the best movie ever."
There are objective ways of looking at the movie. My personal
rating, which I give as a 7.5 (0.0 to 10.0) is based upon
various defects which subtract from the overall score. Yet,
this movie hits me on many different levels, and it is the
complexity of the movie that elevates it for me. I found
Mark Leeper's review of the movie (he gave it a 6 on his
own 0 - 10 scale) to be generally fair and he liked the
movie and recommended it. I give the movie a little more
credit but, then again, that is because Cameron packaged
a lot of important themes in his movie and still managed
to make it popular at the same time.
Dan Day
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:30:23 +0800, "Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net>
wrote:
>You have just admitted that you prefer James Cameron's drawings to
>Picasso's. The question is not that. The question is whether Kate should.
Oh, come on. Rose didn't say she liked Jack's drawings better
than Picasso's, she just said that she thought they were very good,
and Jack showed promise. That's like me appreciating Mozart, while
still being able to appreciate the talent of the garage band
down the street. Saying, "hey, you guys are good" doesn't mean
I think they're as brilliant as Mozart, it just means I like them
for what they are.
Gary Pollard
You have just admitted that you prefer James Cameron's drawings to
thousand artists in Hollywood can draw this well or better. They will never
be Picasso. If Kate knew anything, she should know that. Nothing "de
gustibus" about that. You don't set up expectations for a character and then
ignore them.
>As you see, this game you're playing with Titanic is a very easy
>one to play. Now, if you said something more substantive that
>would be one thing, but your main criticism seems to be that the
>movie is popular and elicits powerful emotions, therefore it is
>crass and plebian.
>
Nope . My main criticism is that Cameron's handling of the characters is
lousy. I believe that a "crass and plebeian audience" (your words) can
accept more mature handling of characters. As they did when watching the
films of Cameron's idol David Lean.
>Does Titanic manipulate? I think that any art must, in some
>sense, so I don't see that as a mark against the movie. Nor
>is it a mark against the work itself that some people say,
>"I cried, therefore this is the best movie ever."
>
Nope. Just a mark against those people. If a news report makes you cry is it
the best news report ever? Of course art manipulates. But how much., and
with what degree of integrity, are questions we ask when assigning it value
as art.
But is this art? Some are complaining that those of us who wish it to be
better are judging as if it is art, when it's supposed to be entertainment.
Maybe it's just a roller coaster ride. Sad thing is, I thought it could have
been art.
>There are objective ways of looking at the movie. My personal
>rating, which I give as a 7.5 (0.0 to 10.0) is based upon
>various defects which subtract from the overall score. Yet,
>this movie hits me on many different levels, and it is the
>complexity of the movie that elevates it for me. I found
>Mark Leeper's review of the movie (he gave it a 6 on his
>own 0 - 10 scale) to be generally fair and he liked the
>movie and recommended it. I give the movie a little more
>credit but, then again, that is because Cameron packaged
>a lot of important themes in his movie and still managed
>to make it popular at the same time.
I'd probably give the movie at least a 7.5 too. Had those flaws not been
there, I'd have given it a ten, although as a reviewer I hate marking movies
in this way.
Gary
Future
You just aren't able to suspend disbelief at a movie, are you Pollard.
Why bother going to movies? Stick to documentaries.
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:46:37 +0800, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>And what they are is on a par with drawings the sixth formers at my school
>could do. Jack is supposed to be better than that. To have "an eye"
>
>Gary
Future
Gary Pollard
It's the director's job not to make it too hard for people not to suspend
disbelief.
I am happy to do so, when the mistakes don't glare so horribly.
In your view everyone who has problems with the love story, the painting,
the hypothermia, whatever about this story has this same problem about being
unable to suspend disbelief. And you accuse the critics of being insulting
Set up a movie in a fantasy world and you create your own rules. Set it in
the world of reality, claim to be reconstructing a historical event, and
people will judge you differently. I think James Cameron is a mature enough
film-maker to realise that. Even if his fans are not. At least, I hope so
Gary
Grey W
>Well, biting your thumb at someone has been around since Romeo & Juliet,
>and I believe it's still being used. WHy not that one? Or how about have
>her spit at the guy, since they made such a big deal of that?
>For some reason, that scene just seemed out of place. For one thing, how
>did this refined girl learn such a foul gesture? If she learned it from
>Jack, they should've shown that.
Just because she's refined doesn't mean that's she's innocent and
naive. Presumably she knows swear words too, though I can't recall
actually hearing her curse. Remember her comments to the White Star
exec (can't think of his name, sorry) about Freud and his opinion on
the male obsession with size. (One of the best lines in the whole
movie, IMHO).
>But I think Cameron was clumsy with the art. Had he been a bit less vain he
>could have had better pastiche Picassos done, and he could have used better
>drawings than his own. Had he even had Jack draw in the style of Utrillo or
>Modigliani, I could have understood why she liked it.
Why? I thought the drawings were quite good. The whole point is that
she enjoys art of many types, not just necessarily of a few kinds.
And besides, the movie cost enough as it was, why make things even
more expensive by hiring an artist when he can do them quite well
himself. Especially if it's something he enjoys (and with the skill
he shows at it, it probably is).
>I dug this quote out of the December '96 issue of Discover magazine. This
>is Judith Stone, writing in the "Light Elements" column:
>
>"...[anthropologist Desmond] Morris barely touches on the finger jerk --
>rarely used in Europe but so common on the motorways of the U.S.A. -- even
>though it's the oldest recorded obscene gesture. The Romans even had a
>name for it, the *digitus impudicus*, or "impudent finger." Zoologists
>report that apes may have obscene gestures, although no one has seen a
>chinp flip the bird."
I too have read something along those lines and the fact that it
(along with most of our modern cuss words) have been around for
hundreds of years.
---
To email a reply, remove the nospam. from my email address.
---
___ __
/ \ | | | / \
/ _ __ | | __ | |__
| ___ |/ \ /__\ \ / | | / \ | |
\ / | | \ / | | | | | | |
\__/ | \__/ \/ |___|___| \__/ | |
/
/
nospam....@telesouth1.com
http://www.telesouth1.com/~avatar
Jeff A. Harrell
Grey W wrote:
> Just because she's refined doesn't mean that's she's innocent and
> naive. Presumably she knows swear words too, though I can't recall
> actually hearing her curse.
Without thinking she grabs him and shoves him back
into the lift.
ROSE
I'm through with being polite, goddamnit!! I may never be
polite the rest of my life! Now take me down!!
The operator fumbles to close the gate and start the lift.
I think that qualifies. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff A. Harrell "Once we had printing presses,
RIVA Technologies, Inc. we were pretty much doomed."
je...@rivatech.com -- Scott Adams
Gary Pollard
So, in a life or death situation, the worse Rose will say is "Goddamnit"
Gary
Jeff A. Harrell wrote in message <34A5403F...@riva.com>...
Carlo
Right-o. Many artists will paint several versions of a work (how many
damned waterlilies did Monet paint, for crying out loud? Or Van Gogh's
sunflowers?). Some get hung in museums-- others are probably lost,
their existence never known. So we're just supposed to believe it is
"a" Picasso (not "the" Picasso that now hangs in a museum), that it is
an early work before Picasso has made a name for himself, and that it's
purpose in the plot is to demonstrate Rose's modern sensibilities.
Ty Klein
In article <689dsb$j1...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
> Except that Picasso had made a name for himself before this painting. And it
> is a very recognisable painting
Maybe that was the point. Picasso's style is easily recognizable as a
radically new and different type of painting,even to those who know
little of art history. Few people in the theatre would know the name of
that painting,yet most would recognize it as one of Picasso's.
>
> Gary
--
Ty Klein
Gary Pollard
Except that Picasso had made a name for himself before this painting. And it
is a very recognisable painting
Gary
Carlo wrote in message <688mkd$m...@newsops.execpc.com>...
cen0...@centuryinter.net
kint...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Paul Kintzele) wrote:
>Dave Platt (lit...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
>: I do have
>: one question, though: if Rose had these paintings, why didn't they go
>: down with the ship? I understand dramatic license - obviously the real
>: owner of these paintings wasn't Rose - but how does Cameron explain the
>: fact that these paintings are not lying somewhere in the Atlantic?
>For what it's worth: "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" (at the Museum of Modern
>Art in NYC) is much *bigger* than the painting Rose has (I think the color
>schemas might be different as well--Rose's painting had more blues and was
>generally darker, but my memory could be faulty here). In any event, what
>I assumed is that a Picasso did go down on the actual Titanic (did one?),
>and that Cameron had a variation on "Les Demoiselles" produced as an
>easily recognizable version of what that lost painting might have looked
>like.
>Also for what it's worth: despite some stiffness in the script, I
>thought the movie was wonderful.
>Paul K.
I've seen the original at MOMA. I think Paul's idea is
plausible. Clearly, Cameron knew the Picasso painting
on the Titanic wouldn't be backed up by history. He
planted it on purpose, just to get the feedback when it
inevitably was discovered. Also, those morons in the
press fall for this kind of shit all the time. They will chat
this one up endlessly. Reporters are essentially shovelers
of consumer goods these days. The time of reporting
essential facts to Americans so that they can carry on with
their lives, passed during the early part of the Reagam era.
Mike Rice
cen0...@centuryinter.net
ohh...@aol.com (OhhRob) wrote:
>ohh...@aol.com
>R. Gorelick, Baltimore
The Picasso is a deliberate red herring! Get it. Cameron
planted it to stir up talk, which never hurts a film, no matter
how dumb it is.
Mike Rice
cen0...@centuryinter.net
Carlo <ack...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Right-o. Many artists will paint several versions of a work (how many
>damned waterlilies did Monet paint, for crying out loud? Or Van Gogh's
>sunflowers?). Some get hung in museums-- others are probably lost,
>their existence never known. So we're just supposed to believe it is
>"a" Picasso (not "the" Picasso that now hangs in a museum), that it is
>an early work before Picasso has made a name for himself, and that it's
>purpose in the plot is to demonstrate Rose's modern sensibilities.
>Paul Kintzele wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth: "Les Demoiselles D'Avignon" (at the Museum of Modern
>> Art in NYC) is much *bigger* than the painting Rose has (I think the color
>> schemas might be different as well--Rose's painting had more blues and was
>> generally darker, but my memory could be faulty here). In any event, what
>> I assumed is that a Picasso did go down on the actual Titanic (did one?),
>> and that Cameron had a variation on "Les Demoiselles" produced as an
>> easily recognizable version of what that lost painting might have looked
>> like.
I Its purpose is to throw flowers at the would-be aesthetes in the
audience. Picasso did sketches but none as full-scale as the
painting depicted in the film. Cameron was just trying to fuck with
us.
Mike Rice