TITANIC: AN OCEAN OF MEMORIES OF AN UNSINKABLE FILM

I’m afraid this review will be considered as fifteen years too late. I don’t mind, I just HAVE (get it? HAVE) to write a review for Titanic now that it’s been rereleased. I think it’s never late if you have never written a review for such an amazing film, a film you love so much. And if you have, you may just as well write one each time you see the film. The cool thing about classics is that no matter how many times you revisit them you always find something new in them.

ALL ABOARD
As soon as I learned last year that James Cameron was planning to re-release his massive hit “Titanic,” I swore I would go to the cinema and watch it no matter what. Many said that this was just a marketing strategy, and I of course agreed. But, let’s face it, does the economic interest of the company/ies behind make it worse or less enjoyable? I think it does not. Good films are good even if there’s great hype around them, and “Titanic” is the case. I feel I’m saying this in every article I write, so let’s plunge into the movie itself.
My intention on watching this film for the 1000000th time was to try and find, as I said, something new about it, something which would make me love it more and maybe find something about myself. The last time I’d seen it was quite a long time ago, so I thought this would be a good chance.

PREVIOUS VISITS
The first time I saw this film was, obviously, 1998. At the time I was a 9-year-old boy. Of course, by then, the scenes that left the deepest mark on me were the nude-portrait painting one and the love-making one. For a conservatively-raised boy, seeing nude bodies was outrageous and this film was scandalous. But scandalous, of course, rendered it unforgettable. Then of course, I was shocked to see a loving couple finding their relationship destroyed by the death of one of them. And this not to mention the amazing song Celine Dion iced (love this idiom for this movie) the cake with.

The well-known scene of the film where Jacks shows
Rose the freedom of "flying."

Later on I went on to discover some other characteristics of human nature, such as the violence of Cal and the stupidity of Mrs DeWitt Bukater, what a rich character Molly Brown is and so on.
Then I noticed how effectively the film shows the different strata in which society was divided and how differently each of them was treated, which made me really angry. There is a scene where a member of the crew goes to Cal’s room and kindly requests him to put on his life-coat, and then the scene switches to third class where the crew members throw lifecoats to the people there and yell at them to wear those.
Yet once again I watched it to find how unfair society was not only to the poor but to women as well, the story of Rose being the best example. Her trying to commit suicide, her being squeezed into a corset, her choosing to pose nude as a symbol of freedom of that (not only real but metaphorical) corset and some others were all hints that the glittering life of the upper-class was not so much so for women, or rather, for most of rich seventeen-year-old girls like Rose. And Jack meant that for her: the possibility to live a life away from that “snake-pit” which forced too heavy and unnecessary burden on her.

The visit to the film before this last one threw light on human nature at its worst (or best in some few cases.) Human beings show their real nature when a tragedy takes place and this film clearly shows that. For instance, Cal reveals himself as the evil, manipulative man he’s always been – his worst, I think, is picking up a lonely little girl so as to get safe. The captain is shown as a man of honour: he acknowledges his mistakes and does not try a coward escape. And finally, Rose and Jack show how true their love is – caring more to be with each other than to be safe and warm without each other.

WHAT I FINALLY FOUND
Now in this last time, I also found many interesting things, which fulfilled my initial expectation completely.

First of all, I’d like to talk Cameron. I’ve always considered him to be the greatest Hollywood-style director of all time. His projects are generally high-budget, massive productions which then get massive revenue too. Hollywood-style directors usually favour a boom of visual effects over the story itself. This can clearly be seen, as applied to Cameron, in “Avatar.” The story there is good, I must admit, but that’s it. What you admire most about “Avatar” is the splendid landscapes and bright colours and eye-catching effects. I’m not saying that’s bad; I did like “Avatar” up to a point. What I say is that I prefer films that tell a good story and don’t try to stuff images into cinema-goers’ eyes. With “Titanic,” Cameron managed to create a fantastic, unforgettable story. Effects and visuals are also important, but after that you remember the story better. That’s the kind of films I like the most: prevailing art, and especially prevailing stories. “Avatar” was awesome for a 3D movie, but the story is not one that would move you much and lead you to treasure it in your memory forever.



Actress Gloria Stuart, playing Rose at her old age.



Then I also discovered the (remote) potentiality that the story has never been true. I’m not talking about the love-story as having actually happened in 1912 (which of course didn’t) but about the story being true or untrue within the fictional boundaries of the film. You know that the story is told retrospectively by old Rose. The investigators trying to find “Le Cœur de la Mer” at first doubt that Rose is the real owner of the diamond, since her surname is not the expected one, she used to be an actress and so on. Now, during the film I came to think “What if all their thoughts were true? What if Rose was not really in love on the ship, or even on the ship? What if she was suffering from a condition which made her rave?” Now, this may well be true during 98% of the duration of the film. It may have been a film with an amazing narrating technique should that have been the case. But at the very end we know that that old lady is actually the Rose she claims to be when we see her carry the “Heart of the Ocean” and throw it into the sea in memory of her one true love.

IS IT WORTH WATCHING AGAIN?
Well, that’s a personal question I think. In my view, there are films one may watch once and never again (silly comedies and stupid, corny romance films for instance.) But there are others, like “Titanic,” which one may well watch time and time again and never get tired of doing so. Good stories are always worth re-visiting.
But then again, it’s personal. There are no changes in the film now (Jack dies anyway, Rose chatters the same “Come back!”) So if you don’t think it’s worth paying to see a film you’ve already seen many times and can see again on your DVD player, that’s fine too.
I did want to see it’s take on the third dimension, which is rather the only negative 

Director James Cameron

aspect I can find. It doesn’t add nothing significant to the film, and in fact there was only one moment when I, sitting in the first row, felt that water would splash me (not even drag me all the way to the back of the room.) So, I wouldn’t recommend 3D for this movie. But it is good to see it in the cinema with that magnified size.

THAT’S ALL, FOLKS! 

I will just finish by saying that if you are a film buff like me, you certainly must love “Titanic.” If you love “Titanic,” you can’t get tired of watching it. If you can’t get tired of watching it, 2+2, it’s a good (awesome, in fact) chance to meet that sundry gallery of characters and enjoy, laugh, love, suffer and (why not?) die with them. I 100% recommend it.