Joan sets out to get herself defriended
Aug. 17th, 2003 08:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Okay, no, not really. But what I'm about to admit might send some of you off shaking your heads in disgust, and I wouldn't blame you a bit. I'd say nothing at all if I had any shame, but as I've said before, shame is for other people.
I like Titanic.
No, really, I do. Not because I think it's a "Grand Romantic Tragedy" or whyever the thirteen-year-olds love it. It's schlock, of course it's schlock; it practically dances a merry Irish jig while wearing a lifejacket emblazoned "I Am Schlock!" And yet it occupies the same comfortable berth in my mental cinematic roster as arguably more "acceptable" films like Waterloo Bridge and Dark Victory: "movies in which to wallow, curled up on the couch with a cat or two and a box of Junior Mints, when I need a good cry."
Lemme 'splain. It has a lot of good points, and even some of the bad points are good if you look at them crooked. The supporting cast is filled with wonderful actors paying the mortgage, folks like Bernard Hill, Victor Garber, Kathy Bates and Frances Fisher. Yeah, the lines they're stuck with are unworthy of their gifts, but that lack is compensated (for me) by the little moments, like Mr. Andrews (Garber) gently setting the clock as his beautiful ship goes down (my favorite moment, actually), or Ruth's (Fisher) brittle reserve completely shattering when Rose casts her off and goes to die with her fella, or Captain Smith (Hill) wandering dazed through the chaos he has inadvertently caused. And in the main cast, Kate Winslet blazes, despite her cardboard-cutout character. She looks gorgeous and, despite the utter stupidity of some of the lines she's saddled with, acts with a conviction and a passion that cuts right through the leaden direction and "Screenwriting for Dummies". Kate has nothing to be ashamed of in her performance, despite the mega-cheese that surrounds her.
And speaking of cheese, my favorite part of the movie is actually one of the "bad" things. I mean, of course, Billy Zane's performance. Dude. He's fabulous. Watch as he insults Picasso and Monet so we all know he's rich but without class or taste! Hiss as he showers violence and disdain on women, children and the elderly! Cheer as he attempts to kill Leonardo, and despair as he fails! Marvel at his fifty pounds of eyeliner! All he lacks is a big black moustache and a train track on which to tie Rose. Not even Titanic is big enough to contain Zane's performance; half the films released in 1997 are probably missing bits of scenery that got sucked out of their own frames and into his gaping maw. In the Annals of Overacting, Billy Zane as Cal Hockley ranks up with Joan Crawford in Johnny Guitar, Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate, and the collected works of Charles Laughton. Truly an amazing performance.
But there are many other things to love about this movie. There's fair Ioan and his Cheekbones of Doom, looking as pale and lovely as ever. There's cute Greg Ellis, currently to be seen as the "Fan of Jack Sparrow" Lieutenant in PotC (he has two lines at the end, asking Rose for her new, "poor now" name). There's the genuinely touching moment when the violinist tells his fellow musicians that it's been an honor to play with them. There are gorgeous costumes and impressive art direction. There's Bill Paxton as the voice-over guy from the Discovery Channel. There's the corniest moment in a love scene pretty much ever (Rose's hand on the glass. Good lord). There are the blatant "aaaaand, cry... now!" moments like "There will be another boat for the daddies" or the old couple curled together on their bed. There's Suzy Amis as James Cameron's girlfriend (c'mon, why else was she there?). There's Celine... well okay, even I can't justify Celine Dion. I'm broad-minded, not tone-deaf.
The writing is tragic, and not in the way Cameron was shooting for. The plotting is paint-by-numbers and every emotional response is coaxed forth with the subtlety of a bludgeon. Leonardo's moon-faced appeal escapes me. It's perhaps the least worthy film to win Best Picture in the history of the Academy Awards, and I'm including both The Greatest Show on Earth* and Going My Way** in that accounting.
And yet, and yet. There's just something about its unsubtle, calculated, sumptuous, "action movie for preteen girls" emotional naïveté that works for me. It's a two-hanky weeper striving to be a timeless epic. No, it doesn't get there. But damn if it isn't fun to watch it try.
*Beat out Singin' in the Rain, High Noon, and Orson Welles' Othello to win.
** Beat out Laura, Double Indemnity, To Have and Have Not, Gaslight, Olivier's Henry V, and Meet Me in St. Louis to win.
I like Titanic.
No, really, I do. Not because I think it's a "Grand Romantic Tragedy" or whyever the thirteen-year-olds love it. It's schlock, of course it's schlock; it practically dances a merry Irish jig while wearing a lifejacket emblazoned "I Am Schlock!" And yet it occupies the same comfortable berth in my mental cinematic roster as arguably more "acceptable" films like Waterloo Bridge and Dark Victory: "movies in which to wallow, curled up on the couch with a cat or two and a box of Junior Mints, when I need a good cry."
Lemme 'splain. It has a lot of good points, and even some of the bad points are good if you look at them crooked. The supporting cast is filled with wonderful actors paying the mortgage, folks like Bernard Hill, Victor Garber, Kathy Bates and Frances Fisher. Yeah, the lines they're stuck with are unworthy of their gifts, but that lack is compensated (for me) by the little moments, like Mr. Andrews (Garber) gently setting the clock as his beautiful ship goes down (my favorite moment, actually), or Ruth's (Fisher) brittle reserve completely shattering when Rose casts her off and goes to die with her fella, or Captain Smith (Hill) wandering dazed through the chaos he has inadvertently caused. And in the main cast, Kate Winslet blazes, despite her cardboard-cutout character. She looks gorgeous and, despite the utter stupidity of some of the lines she's saddled with, acts with a conviction and a passion that cuts right through the leaden direction and "Screenwriting for Dummies". Kate has nothing to be ashamed of in her performance, despite the mega-cheese that surrounds her.
And speaking of cheese, my favorite part of the movie is actually one of the "bad" things. I mean, of course, Billy Zane's performance. Dude. He's fabulous. Watch as he insults Picasso and Monet so we all know he's rich but without class or taste! Hiss as he showers violence and disdain on women, children and the elderly! Cheer as he attempts to kill Leonardo, and despair as he fails! Marvel at his fifty pounds of eyeliner! All he lacks is a big black moustache and a train track on which to tie Rose. Not even Titanic is big enough to contain Zane's performance; half the films released in 1997 are probably missing bits of scenery that got sucked out of their own frames and into his gaping maw. In the Annals of Overacting, Billy Zane as Cal Hockley ranks up with Joan Crawford in Johnny Guitar, Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate, and the collected works of Charles Laughton. Truly an amazing performance.
But there are many other things to love about this movie. There's fair Ioan and his Cheekbones of Doom, looking as pale and lovely as ever. There's cute Greg Ellis, currently to be seen as the "Fan of Jack Sparrow" Lieutenant in PotC (he has two lines at the end, asking Rose for her new, "poor now" name). There's the genuinely touching moment when the violinist tells his fellow musicians that it's been an honor to play with them. There are gorgeous costumes and impressive art direction. There's Bill Paxton as the voice-over guy from the Discovery Channel. There's the corniest moment in a love scene pretty much ever (Rose's hand on the glass. Good lord). There are the blatant "aaaaand, cry... now!" moments like "There will be another boat for the daddies" or the old couple curled together on their bed. There's Suzy Amis as James Cameron's girlfriend (c'mon, why else was she there?). There's Celine... well okay, even I can't justify Celine Dion. I'm broad-minded, not tone-deaf.
The writing is tragic, and not in the way Cameron was shooting for. The plotting is paint-by-numbers and every emotional response is coaxed forth with the subtlety of a bludgeon. Leonardo's moon-faced appeal escapes me. It's perhaps the least worthy film to win Best Picture in the history of the Academy Awards, and I'm including both The Greatest Show on Earth* and Going My Way** in that accounting.
And yet, and yet. There's just something about its unsubtle, calculated, sumptuous, "action movie for preteen girls" emotional naïveté that works for me. It's a two-hanky weeper striving to be a timeless epic. No, it doesn't get there. But damn if it isn't fun to watch it try.
*Beat out Singin' in the Rain, High Noon, and Orson Welles' Othello to win.
** Beat out Laura, Double Indemnity, To Have and Have Not, Gaslight, Olivier's Henry V, and Meet Me in St. Louis to win.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 03:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:07 am (UTC)Chicago is really, really good. We just thought Gangs of New York was better. (We = my mom and I.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 05:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 01:46 pm (UTC)OH! No. I was wrong. We wanted Adaptation to win, but I don't think it was nominated. We were just happy Chris Cooper won.
We saw that and Gangs on the same day. Was interesting ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 06:37 pm (UTC)(Guess what. Haven't seen Adaptation either. Give me back my brain, Peter Jackson! *g*)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 02:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 05:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 05:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 06:52 am (UTC)Heh, you too? Every time I saw it, it was me and the teenyboppers, weeping madly. They were probably crying over Leo turning blue ("diCappuccino" hee!) and I really wasn't, but even so it was a great cathartic experience.
In fact, it's the secondary characters and bit roles that truly make the movie for me.
Definitely. Of course, it probably helps that they don't get saddled with quite as much of the lousy script. But still, there are some great moments among them. They're what keep me watching. Especially Victor Garber- he's just wonderful. His apology to Rose for not building her a stronger boat is consistently where I first start to lose it. He looks so... broken, and I just sob.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 06:58 am (UTC)And thank you! I have a terrible affection for bad movies, and I can't help but share. Pity the friends I actually make watch the things. Titanic is practically art compared to the majority.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 06:13 pm (UTC)That one, and this, are courtesy of
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 06:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:16 am (UTC)Ahem. Ok, well, maybe not :)
It's schlock, of course it's schlock; it practically dances a merry Irish jig while wearing a lifejacket emblazoned "I Am Schlock!"
Hee! This line cracked me up like a very funny thing.
As much as I don't like this movie in a lot of ways, I agree with you on all the other points that made *you* like it. Hurrah for secondary and tertiary characters (especially those little glimpses of Ioan and Greg), those little moments that are touching without bashing over the head with the drama, scenery chewing ala Zane, and I do like watching the boat sink, for some reason.
Ditto on the Celine Dion hate, though. When it first came out, I liked that song, but they played it so damn much that I can't hear it now without twitching. Geez, she's such an overrated singer.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 07:18 am (UTC)There's a good bit of stuff I don't like about it (like all of Leonardo's stuff. Irritating yappy dog), but there are enough good details and minor characters to balance it out for me. And my fatal weakness for bad movies makes even the lame stuff fun, so it all works out. Besides, bloody gigantic (very pretty) boat and shiny costumes. That's almost enough to make me happy right there.
Geez, she's such an overrated singer.
Oh yeah, big time. It's fun to watch her flail around while she's singing, though. She's like some hyper-emoting marionette. It's pretty darn amusing (with the volume off).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 03:58 am (UTC)So you like to watch bad movies? Pray tell, what sorts of bad movies? :)
She's like some hyper-emoting marionette.
Heheheh. This amuses me. Oddly enough, I rather like most of her french music. My student teacher for my third year of French used to play it during our sessions.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 06:51 pm (UTC)So you like to watch bad movies? Pray tell, what sorts of bad movies?
My tastes are varied and democratic. *g* As long as it isn't boring, I'll watch almost any sort of bad movie- cheesy horror where everyone gets chopped into little pieces or turned into zombies, badly dubbed Japanese monster movies, pretty much anything with mad scientists or ray guns, bad scifi (classic or modern), B&W "women's pictures" where the heroine falls for a man who's too young or too poor or has an invalid wife or a Terrible Secret from The War, corny westerns, teen crime flicks from the 50's... pretty much anything except movies with lots of bodily humor. Not my thing.
I've never really heard much of Celine's French music, despite the fact that she's constantly being played on the Quebecois radio stations I listen to- they announce her and I run. Should give her a try, I guess.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-20 04:24 am (UTC)Yay for varied and eclectic tastes! I definitely agree with the sci-fi B-movies and the cheesy westerns. Guilty pleasures.
Quebecois radio? Coolness! I'm envious here. We get crappy radio stations here, so I rarely listen to anything but NPR.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 05:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 07:25 am (UTC)I had Ghost Ship in my hand at the video store the other day (Karl! yay!), but it got traded in for Chocolat. Soon, though- there haven't been enough bad movies in my diet recently. *g*
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 02:03 pm (UTC)Scenery-sucking
Date: 2003-08-18 09:00 pm (UTC)I didn't see it in the theater, but on DVD -- letterboxed, of course. It's lush and gorgeous, and the costumes alone are worth the four hours. (I have a thing for hats.)
However it made me realize that I have a strong core of pragmatism and practicality that sometimes outweighs the romance in my soul. I never did figure out how she could start over, in that time period, without hocking or selling the necklace. :-) Romance is for the heart and soul, but jewelry is for the bills. My bad, I know.
Still like the movie, though. :-)
Re: Scenery-sucking
Date: 2003-08-19 07:33 pm (UTC)I love the costumes. They did a beautiful job of using Kate Winslet's coloring effectively- she looks gorgeous. And that first outfit, the suit and gigantic picture hat, is stunning. Such a great looking movie, even if the writing isn't very good.
never did figure out how she could start over, in that time period, without hocking or selling the necklace. :-) Romance is for the heart and soul, but jewelry is for the bills.
Hee! I wondered that too, actually. Did Cal leave an overstuffed wallet in the other pocket or something? Because it's not like she would have had a lot of options to get started living on her own, and she certainly wasn't trained for the few available. I don't think we're supposed to ask that question. *g*
Re: Scenery-sucking
Date: 2003-08-20 10:02 pm (UTC)Oh, thank you!! The few that I mentioned that to after seeing the movie looked at me like I hadn't a romantic bone in my body. Like of course she would hang onto it. But a woman, in that era, with no family? Reality check, please?
I want some of her costumes, especially the hats. :-) That white outfit when she first boards is totally drool-worthy. But I also liked the green velvet she wore to the Oscars the next year.