by Derek Boles

Titanic opened on December 19, 1997 with anticipation unrivalled since Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra in 1962. What other Hollywood recreation of history has ever been subjected to such close scrutiny by so many people, except perhaps Oliver Stone's JFK? How could anyone deliver the full goods on a topic so dear to the hearts of so many people?

As a long-time Titanic historian, I struggled to keep an open mind before I saw the film. I had admired James Cameron's technical virtuosity but many of his action films revelled in casual brutality and violence. I had doubts that he could pull off a sensitive historical treatment of the Titanic disaster.

I knew that Titanic would be different while waiting in line for the 4 PM
showing on December 19 and I saw the noon audience of adolescents emerging
from the theatre in an obvious state of emotional distress.

Titanic is really two movies, as befitting its three hour and fourteen
minute length. The movie that I responded to in a positive way was the
recreation of the Titanic's maiden voyage, its collision with the iceberg
and its sinking. That movie is a masterpiece, an example of the finest
filmmaking that Hollywood is able to produce. The technical virtuosity of
this film and the level of authenticity in Cameron's recreation of the
Titanic are absolutely spellbinding. I've spent a great part of my life
trying to imagine what it must have been like for those people on the fatal
maiden voyage of the Titanic. Cameron's vision of that event dazzled me in
a way that I haven't been dazzled since, as a child, I saw Moses part the
Red Sea in The Ten Commandments. Cameron's vision of the disaster captured
the emotional equivalent of Steven Spielberg's best fantasy creation, the
arrival and departure of the Mothership in Close Encounters of the Third
Kind. Titanic is the most spellbinding technical filmmaking that I've ever
seen.

Where Cameron's movie is much better than previous Titanic films is in
imparting the sense of awesome catastrophe that the subject deserves. I'm a
great admirer of A Night to Remember and have probably shown the film to my
students over a hundred times in the last twenty years. Yet that film's
perpetuation of "stiff upper lip" British chauvinism has always put me off.
Almost everyone moves about the sinking Titanic tossing off quips like
they're in a Noel Coward play. Once A Night to Remember's Titanic disappears
beneath the waves, the rest of the film is anti-climactic. In Cameron's version,
that point is when the real tragedy begins and I give him full credit for
pulling it off. The Titanic's final break-up, sinking and aftermath is
absolutely riveting and spectacular.

Much has been said of Titanic's special effects and, in an era of so many
pointless special effects movies with no appreciable plot nor characters
with whom the audience could possibly identify with on any level, Cameron's
Titanic is a masterpiece. The special effects driven Hollywood twaddle of
Independence Day and Twister annoyed me to the point of anger. Cameron's
effects sequences have an emotional resonance for audiences. Because you
care enough about what happens to the characters, the special effects have
some meaningful context.

There's a shot in Titanic that is simply stunning. While two of the lead
characters are cavorting on the bow of the ship, the camera pulls back and
flies over the entire 900 foot Titanic. On the decks, the viewer can see
hundreds of people moving about, engaged in a variety of shipboard
activities. The camera then moves between the Titanic's funnels and out
over the stern as the ship moves off into the distance. A savvy viewer
knows that this is a special effects shot but but it's so seamless that it
truly invites a suspension of disbelief.

The second movie, and the one that older and more discriminating moviegoers
responded to with less enthusiasm, is about the budding romance between
Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater. Jack and Rose are clearly a 90's
couple in 1912 garb and I found their romance to be forced and
unbelievable. Yet, this is the aspect of the film that millions of young
moviegoers are responding to who would otherwise would never have gone to
see a movie like this. This film needed to reach the widest possible
audience and this is one of those rare films whose appeal crosses every
demographic boundary. Cameron could not have made a movie of this scope and
complexity without incorporating popular concessions to a younger audience.

James Cameron's screenwriting is frequently the weakest element of the
film. The fictional characters are poorly developed and one dimensional.
Some of the dialogue is so cliché-ridden that you want to groan out loud.
Pointedly, the screenplay was one of the few categories for which the film
was not nominated for an Oscar. My only regret about this film is how much
better it could have been if Cameron's titanic ego had permitted him to
bring on board an accomplished script doctor or screenwriter.

There were some minor historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, the most
egregious of which was the portrayal of Titanic's First Officer, W.M.
Murdoch. Cameron has Murdoch accepting a bribe, shooting passengers and
committing suicide. There's sketchy evidence to support some of this
melodrama, but Cameron should have used a fictional character rather than
besmirching Murdoch's reputation. Most of the technical anachronisms are
minor and deliberate such as the powerful Xenon flashlight used in the
sequences where Fifth Officer Lowe is looking for survivors after the
sinking. Having Jack and Rose making out in the back seat of a 1912 Renault
is a witty reworking of a teenage movie cliché. The ending of the movie was
so corny that it shouldn't have worked, but it did and I give Cameron full
marks for pulling it off.

Since early adolescence, Leonardo DiCaprio has enjoyed a reputation as an
actor with considerable range and talent. The "Leo factor" and its appeal
to adolescent audiences is clearly one of the key elements in the enormous
success of Titanic. Kate Winslet manages to be an alluring and convincing
romantic lead by fleshing out a character that young girls can relate to.
Winslet and DiCaprio have an effective on-screen chemistry and are capable
enough to pull off the contrived romance and anachronistic dialogue.
Gloria Stewart as old Rose in the framing sequences is remarkable. The
entire integrity of the film depends on the believability of her character
and she gives the best performance in the film. Billy Zane as Rose's
fiancee gives one of the worst performances I've ever seen. He's a capable
enough adonis in his usual wooden roles but he's hopelessly over his head
as the melodramatic character that Cameron envisioned. The role calls for
an accomplished scenery chewer and Zane is not up to the task. His "Oil Can
Harry" sneers seem transplanted from a silent movie. Similarly David
Warner, as a sadistic and evil sidekick, acts like a refugee from a James
Bond movie.

A convincing and touching performance is given by Toronto's own Victor
Garber as Titanic builder Thomas Andrews. Bernard Hill as Captain Smith is
a smug old sea dog who finds himself facing circumstances that he never was
prepared for. Kathy Bates plays real-life Titanic heroine Molly Brown with
her usual earthy applomb but a number of her most important scenes were
left on the cutting room floor.

I'm grateful to James Cameron for coming closer to than anyone will in my
lifetime of helping me feel like I was a passenger on the doomed liner. The
dedication and risk that Cameron displayed in the making of Titanic has not
been rivaled in Hollywood annals since David O. Selznick brought Gone With
the Wind to the screen in 1939 and the comparisons with the 1939 classic
abound. Titanic's epic romantic sweep set against a historical background
is the Gone With the Wind for young people of the 90's.