Tuesday, April 14, 2009

History and the Movies: Titanic



On this night, April 14th, 1912, the Titanic struck an iceberg in the chilled waters of the North Atlantic and slipped under the waves in the early morning hours of the 15th shortly after. The Titanic disaster has been written about and turned into dramatic movie fare so often that its fact has blended with fiction and new writers and filmmakers are consistently looking for a new angle, a new approach. After the last big movie, Titanic (1997, d. James Cameron) no one wants to make another given the overwhelming success of that production: billions in box office worldwide - yes, billions - eleven Oscars, good critical reception (even if some critics deny it now) and even a few top ten lists. Money, Critical Reception and Awards: It's the sacred triumvirate of movie success that Hollywood producers dream of but rarely achieve. Once achieved it's hard to bounce back from. It's taken Cameron 12 years to finally direct another non-documentary movie (Avatar, December 2009).

The Titanic has also been used as a backdrop in otherwise engaged dramas such as Cavalcade (1933, d. Frank Lloyd), as a punchline in Time Bandits (1981, d. Terry Gilliam) and even as the basis for a computer adventure time-travel game, Titanic: Adventure out of Time (1995).


To some extent I've liked all of the Titanic movies I've seen because the event itself looms so large in my mind that any dramatic recreation of it will hold my attention. In the end however, looking back as objectively as I can, it is the movie-making world's distrust of history and disrespect for the intelligence of its audience that eventually takes me out of most Titanic movies, save one.

Allow me to explain by taking a short digression to an American Experience episode on Annie Oakley that I recently watched. It didn't take long to realize that Annie Oakley had a pretty damned interesting, and at times, fascinating life. And every single movie made about her had utterly destroyed the facts in favor of Hollywood make-believe. It was maddening to watch this documentary and think how pathetic in comparison were the stories of Annie Oakley (1935, d. George Stevens) or Annie Get Your Gun (1950, d. George Sidney) to Annie's real life. Why Hollywood believes their unimaginative, mediocre story inventions trump that of reality I'll never know. They claim it is for audience appeal and I'm sure to some extent they are right.   Certainly the story of Jack and Rose aboard the Titanic helped that film's fortunes greatly.


For myself though, that's precisely the problem. When it comes to the story of the Titanic, history trumps fiction every time. I know many people are fans of Cameron's Titanic, from critics I respect to bloggers I know and love, and I am not here to bash the film. In fact, I think Cameron did a superb job of directing the chaos of that tragic night and handled the epic length of the film quite admirably. It maintains a steady but quick pace throughout. But I don't care about Jack and Rose.  For that matter, I don't care about Julia and Richard Sturges in the 1953 Titanic (d. Jean Negulesco) either, or any of the other fictional character I've seen in theatrical or made for television versions. And it goes beyond that: I get a little annoyed by their very existence. I find the real story so compelling that fictional creations in lieu of the real people seems insulting to me. Why hasn't anyone ever focused on the Strausses in a movie? A couple so deeply in love they died together rather than have one die while the other lived alone. They get a shot or two in most of the movies but that's it. I guess they're not young enough to hold anyone's interest.


Of course there is one movie that does deal with history, the one so many hold up as the best of the Titanic films and for good reason: Because it is. I refer to A Night To Remember (1958, d. Roy Ward Baker), a film that eschews fictional characters in favor of the officers aboard the Titanic facing and dealing with the disaster thrust upon them on that fateful night. The main character is Second Officer Charles Herbert Lightoller played by Kenneth More. For this viewer the movie is gripping in part because the historical figures aboard the real Titanic become the characters we follow in the movie. Lightoller has not one doomed romance while aboard the ship on its maiden voyage and yet somehow is still interesting. He does not have a single custody battle with his ex-wife and yet doesn't bore the viewer to sleep. Amazing. Who would've thought soap opera storylines would be unnecessary when dealing with a story about a massive steamliner dragging over 1500 people to their deaths? I'll still watch those other Titanic movies if I happen across them, so fascinated am I by the story of that ship, but A Night To Remember is the only one I can honestly recommend and feel good about. The rest are inventions with an interesting backdrop, a historical event used to prop up make-believe drama, an event that occurred 97 years ago tonight and will reach the century mark in just three more. Will there be a new movie in 2012 to mark the occasion? Perhaps. Will it be the best yet made? It's possible. For now though, the best yet made is the one whose title also perfectly evokes the reflection upon that quiet moonless night when over 1500 people met their deaths and 706 escaped from a night that no one would soon forget, A Night to Remember.
____________________
Links and resources:
Open Directory on Titanic - Amazing and extremely thorough online compilation of multiple resources of Titanic information, for just about any topic on the Titanic one is interested in.
Library of Congress Online, where the photos for this post were retrieved. Not all photos at the site are available for reuse so check the copyright information. The ones posted here are in the public domain.

38 comments:

Peter Nellhaus said...

I like A Night to Remember best as well. There is also the Titanic movie we can only imagine.

bill r. said...

I've never seen A Night to Remember, a fact which embarrasses me, and I hate Cameron's film. I hate it. I've always hated it. It's pure Hollywood bullshit -- and I like a lot of Hollywood movies, but Cameron's film is Hollywood at its worst. The only time the film has any impact for me is when all the faceless strangers are dying, not when Jack dies, or his barely-there immigrant buddies. The montage that runs with Nearer My God to Thee playing over it works. Nothing else does, for me.

And go back and watch Aliens again some time. The action is great, but almost nothing else is. The dialogue is awful. Cameron and George Lucas are the same guy.

Greg said...

Peter, I'm sure Hitch would have had a hell of a time filming it. Reading that piece I would hope that if they had ever done it they would have kept it purely fictional as the Leviathan then Hitch could have really gone crazy with the story.

Greg said...

The only time the film has any impact for me is when all the faceless strangers are dyingThat's what I mean. It's the historical aspects that work for me. I was given a DVD of it about ten years ago and all I've ever re-watched is the sinking scenes.

Cameron and Lucas both posess great 2nd Unit Director instincts but should never be put in charge of directing characters. And by the way, I've never liked Aliens. I was always the odd man out telling my friends that it didn't hold a candle to the original but I believe time has vindicated me.

bill r. said...

I was always the odd man out telling my friends that it didn't hold a candle to the original but I believe time has vindicated me.It has as far as I'm concerned, but I know a lot of people still prefer Cameron's film, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Alien is a masterpiece of SF/horror, while Aliens has some good fights.

Greg said...

The original Alien has a feel for suspense and creeping menace that is completely lost on the second one.

What's up with Blogger running the quotes right up against the folowing comment?

Ryan Kelly said...

I, too, have held a fascination with the Titanic back since I was in first grade, several years before James Cameron's 1997-Avalanche hit. Naturally, when I heard this GINORMOUS HOLLYWOOD EPIC was coming out based on the events, a young me was thrilled. When I saw on the news Cameron's meticulous recreation of the ship, I knew I would never have to watch that crappy Clifton Webb film ever again.

I'll concur that the 1950s Titanic is more of a melodrama with the ship more tertiary than anything else, but that's the last criticism I would make of Cameron's film, honestly. I like A Night to Remember, but I find it mostly detached from the overwhelming tragedy of that night's events, opting to give us a filmed textbook of sorts. It just doesn't hit me on an emotional level. Unlike the Clifton Webb film, the star of Cameron's movie is the ship. Jack and Rose are really just representative of the tragedy of the ship as a whole, I think. I think Cameron is giving us a microcosmic portrayal of the tragedy to help illuminate the disaster as a whole. Multiply the film's narrative X 1500 and you start getting the idea. Also, the sinking of the ship never segues into "OH MY GOD LOOK AT HOW AWESOME DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IS", but rather it's scary, as it should be. It's not Michael Bay filming from the perspective of the bomb.

Ryan Kelly said...

And by the way, I've never liked Aliens. I was always the odd man out telling my friends that it didn't hold a candle to the original but I believe time has vindicated me.I agree, Cameron's earlier films are just weak on the whole. It's like he's consciously avoiding having a distinct visual/compositional style, lest it get in the way of the macho-adrenaline of the action. Either that, or he just had no clue what the fuck he was doing at first.

Greg said...

Unlike the Clifton Webb film, the star of Cameron's movie is the ship. Jack and Rose are really just representative of the tragedy of the ship as a whole, I think....
Ryan, I think that's true for all the Titanic movies and it just doesn't appeal to me. But like I said, I think Cameron does a great job dealing with the night/morning of the 14th/15th. Really I do. It doesn't relish in the destruction but shows it to be horrible and terrifying.

Ryan Kelly said...

I hear ya, but I think A Night to Remember's philosophy "just the facts, m'am" can subvert emotional understanding of the disaster. Again, I think Webb's film (and the television mini-series with George C. Scott) are just soap operas that don't put the ship as the core emotional focus. I still think Cameron's film is the only movie to successfully do that, but I'll admit it's a little clumsy, dramatically speaking. But, again, my fondness for it comes from my fondness for the subject matter and the very delicate age I was when the film was released. Other than The Lord of the Rings pictures and The Dark Knight, it's the only film of my time that really turned into a phenomenon.

hokahey said...

I really enjoyed your post! I'm a big fan of Titanic movies.

I love A Night to Remember. It is beautiful in black-and-white, and although it shows the action quite dramatically, it gets a lot of dramatic mileage out of small details: the interspersed shots of wheeled cart starting to slide down the slanted deck; the shots of the flotsam at the end - including the rocking horse which is focused on when the ship hits the berg.

I also love Cameron's Titanic. It's very well researched and I like Jack and Rose.

I'm like you. The event "looms so large in my mind" - ever since I first saw Titanic (1953) on TV when I was little and then had to reenact the sinking in the bathtub countless times.

A new Titanic movie would have to have a different focus: a mystery, for example. But I would go see it!

Greg said...

Ryan, I think Night to Remember's just the facts philosophy allows for me an emotional understanding and feeling that I don't get with fictional characters. It's a difference in how one sees the events and I understand how one way of looking at it can be valued over another way.

I remember watching the 1979 tv version as well and being thoroughly bored by all the fictional characters. You should see that one to really see how stiff someone can make such an incredible story.

Greg said...

hokahey, I would love to see a Titanic movie that does vignettes of characters that were on the ship. The real figures, not fiction characters. It could be done where the film starts with the ship hitting the iceberg and then we watch the Strauss' story until they die (say, a fifteen minute vignette). Then we see the story centered around the Rubaiyat, again about fifteen minutes. Then we focus on Harold Bride and so on until the final vignette which focuses on the Carpathia and its race to reach the ship.

hokahey said...

Greg - Yeah, that sounds like a good plot. There's so much that can be done; a number of the passengers had some very interesting backstories.

Rick Olson said...

Greg, I like your plot a lot ... but I like Cameron's film too, just not as much as "A Night to Remember."

But since you started out by talking about "audience appeal" and whether Hollywood inventions work better or straight history, what are the box-office receipts of "Night" versus, say, Negalusco's film, or Cameron's. Properly-adjusted for time and inflation and etc.? And realizing that it isn't a real test, because they aren't made by the same folks at the same time and etc.?

Was "Night" a box-office success?

Rick Olson said...

oops, that's "Negulesco"

Marilyn said...

If only A Night to Remember wasn't a title that now makes me think of An Affair to Remember.

Bill - Just remember. Whenever you think you might puke thinking about Cameron's film, "just hock it back."

Pat said...

Greg -

There's acutally a stage musical called "Titanic." I believe it had a short Broadway run just prior to the release of Cameron's film. I saw a local production a few years back - as unlkely as it sounds for a musical, it's actually a very good show with a very beautiful score. And all the characters are based on real-life passengers, no Jack and Rose-types aboard.

Ryan Kelly said...

Funny story about the Titanic musical--- when it opened here in NYC years ago, it became the local joke because, on opening night, they failed to get the ship to sink on stage properly.

Pat said...

Ryan - oh, that is too funny! A Titanic that wouldn't sink, what a tragedy!

RE this: "And all the characters are based on real-life passengers, no Jack and Rose-types aboard."

I think I have to take that statement back. On further reflection, I believe there were characters from steerage who were almost surely fictional. But all the upper-class characters - John Jacob Astor, Molly Brown, the Strausses, etc. - were real.

bill r. said...

Ryan, I don't suppose you were in the theater that night, were you? What in the world did they do??

Marilyn - "hock it back". Yeah, that's the movie, right there, in a nutshell. Honestly, I tried watching it again a while back, and I made it maybe an hour in before I realized that I had yet to see a scene that I thought was any good.

Greg said...

Rick, box office wise, I can't imagine anything about the Titanic would ever match up to Cameron's. I have an inflation calculator I've used for box office comparisons before (most recently at Flickhead's) and even if I could find box office figures for Night versus Titanic I don't think it would be much of a contest.

Greg said...

Marilyn, Bill has no problem hocking it back: He's the King of the World!

Greg said...

Pat, I'd like to see some footage of that. I bet there's some on YouTube. And the Ryan story of the boat NOT sinking. Oy.

Greg said...

Bill, just watch the end, that's what I do.

Of course, even there you run into some problems. For instance, during the course of the most dramatic sinking in seafaring history, Cameron thought he would "heighten" the drama by having Billy Zane chase DiCaprio and Winslet with a gun.

That scene Makes. Me. Angry.

bill r. said...

Oh come on! It's Billy Zane! Who doesn't want to see that!

Greg said...

If he'd been wearing his Phantom outfit, maybe.

bill r. said...

And DiCaprio could have been dressed like Dick Tracy or The Shadow! And Fu Manchu could have been on board, too!

Greg said...

Now those are fictional characters I want to see in a Titanic story! Maybe the next one.

Ryan Kelly said...

Ryan, I don't suppose you were in the theater that night, were you? What in the world did they do??In fairness, it was in Previews (shouldn't have used the term opening night), so I think those technical glitches do arise from time to time. When it finally opened it was smooth sailing, so to speak. But no, I wasn't there that fateful night. It's something I remember seeing on local news and in local papers when I was about 8.

Ryan Kelly said...

That scene Makes. Me. Angry.I hear where you're coming from, but that scene does serve a purpose in the narrative. The movie needed an excuse to get Jack & Rose back in the belly of the ship, after they'd fought their way to the deck. The only thing that would get me back into that sinking ship was if someone was chasing me with a gun.

Ryan Kelly said...

Why is it screwing up the formatting??

Greg said...

The movie needed an excuse to get Jack & Rose back in the belly of the ship, after they'd fought their way to the deck. The only thing that would get me back into that sinking ship was if someone was chasing me with a gun....

No, it didn't need an excuse. Instead of having them come up and go back down it could have simply been combined into one journey. That's the kind of stuff I don't like in the movie.

And the formatting is sucking on all Blogspot blogs right now (cue Rick to plug Wordpress). That's why I'm adding the ellipses and returning a space after mine, so it looks right.

Ryan Kelly said...

You don't like that they're our surrogates? Cameron wants to show us what's happening in all areas of the ship. He seldom cuts away from them, and I don't think it's because of any particular emotional investment in the story. It's just a kind of consistency of perspective. I'm not arguing that it's contrived, but what Hollywood blockbuster based on a historical event isn't contrived in some way? What I like about Titanic is that it wears that it's a contrived Hollywood epic romance MEGA-blockbuster on its sleeve. One thing I simply can't abide in a movie is when it pretends to be something it's not.

In other words, I seem to like it for the same reasons you don't. I'm not sure how that works, but there you have it.

Greg said...

Ryan, everyone from Roger Ebert to Larry Aydlette to Sheila O'Malley think it's a terrific film too so you're in excellent company. I don't think it's as bad as Bill does because I do like the technical elements but I do not like the characters, I really don't.

And then there's this quote from Robert Altman which I just have to copy and paste: "Titanic I thought was the most dreadful piece of work I've ever seen in my entire life. Another film that I think is equally bad was American Beauty. So badly acted and directed. But people like that."

Okay, I liked it more than Altman did.

Ryan Kelly said...

Yeah, Altman's detesting of those two films has passed into legend. Much as I like the film, one can see why an artist with sensibilities like Altman would have detested it. I like American Beauty, too, but it's so showy with emotions and so deliberately staged it's almost the anti-Altman. Gotta respect the guy for always fearlessly speaking his mind.

bill r. said...

Where do those Altman quotes come from? I always like finding out which films major directors hated.

Greg said...

Just type in "Robert Altman Titanic" on Google and they will all come up. The first one is Fox News and I think that was the original interview where it came from.