Cameron H.

My rental period is over so I can’t revist the scene, but I know the moment you’re referring to. I didn’t get the impression that she was “sneering” at her. I felt like there was a moment of, I don’t know, recognition? If I recall, the woman was woman about Rose’s age and status. I felt Rose was looking at her and kind of shared a “How the fuck did we end up like this?” moment. The woman then plummets to her death. I think we’re supposed to see that they’re basically the same except the woman is alone and Rose has Jack.

Great pick! I have to admit, I’m not 100% sure I’ve ever seen this. I know I’ve seen parts, but I’m not sure if I’ve seen it beginning to end. I do, however, own B.B. 2000...

Quick question: passing a note self-quoting the toast you just made - smooth, seduction technique or cringe-inducing red flag?

I think this probably the excuse now, but if that’s what we’re supposed to believe, he could have added just one scene to show that. For example: Rose: It was evening and Jack and I were on the deck - inexplicably alone as we always seemed to be on a ship with 2,000 people - when suddenly there was a great heave and the wind kicked up. Paxton: (interrupting) The second day? That must have been when the Captain increased his speed. It doesn’t have to be like this, but just something to establish they were having a dialogue. That they were participating in a give and take where Rose is telling him her story and he’s filling in gaps that might have seemed mysterious to her at the time.

No, and I’m mostly joking, but having a character recall another character’s memories or having perfect recall about situations they weren’t present for is the kind of crap we tease HDTGM movies for. If we make fun of 88 Minutes or Highlander 2 for that kind of sloppiness in storytelling, why should Titanic get off the hook? If I it’s going to included among the greatest American movies of all time, then in my opinion, it invites this kind of scrutiny. None of the other movies that we’ve covered, nor many of the movies to come, have been this careless. Cameron could have easily set it up as more of a dialogue between Rose and Paxton’s character, but every time it cuts to present, we just see everyone hanging on her every word.* I mean, maybe I’m being nitpicky, but I don’t feel like I should be expected to overlook what I feel is a flaw just because other people like the movie and have kindly asked me to ignore them. (btw - I’m not saying this is what you’re doing. I know you liked the movie less than I did ) The movie is structured as a first person account of the sinking of the Titanic. Any time the movie strays from that structure, it’s opening itself up for at least a little bit of mockery. For example, this must have happened: Paxton: Wait! What now?? Rose: You heard me. Paxton: You’re saying the lookout was so busy watching you and Jack make out that he didn’t see the iceberg in time? Rose: That’s right. We were a couple of hot tamales... Paxton: But that means... Rose: We were the reason the Titanic sank? Yes, that’s right. Anyway, Cal was a real jerk.... *Just as an aside, it’s a personal pet peeve of mine whenever a writer - James Cameron, in this case - writes a character in their work that is telling a story that is just blowing everyone else’s minds away. I can just imagine James Cameron at his desk writing, “All thoughts of priceless diamonds are driven from their minds as the crew are blanketed in the comforting warmth of Rose’s word magic,” and thinking to himself, “God, I’m good...” I mean, that’s at, like, M. Night Shyamalan’s character in Lady in the Water levels of hubris.

"And then I performed this kind of psychic mind-meld so I could eavesdrop on Ismay telling the Captain to go faster. The captain didn't want to, but..." "I KNOW THIS ALREADY! GIVE ME THE DIAMOND!"

Something that really didn’t work for me was how the movie tried to be both realistic and heightened at the same time. You have these romantic, over-the-top characters acting - from time to time - uncharacteristically “real” (e.g. characters lose their way on the ship due to panic) The problem is, for me, that by trying to do both, the movie underserves either approach. I feel like it would have been better had it been either all heightened or all realistic. The scene that sticks out for me is when Jack is handcuffed by Lovejoy (what was that guy’s deal?) and left for dead. Up to that point, Jack has been played as this kind of this seen-it-all, Hemingway-esque, artistic wanderer. So when Rose arrives to rescue him, you would expect him to say something like, “What are you doing here, Rose? Don’t worry about me! Save yourself, Rose!” Instead, his first thought is, “Rose you have to save me! You can’t find the key? Okay, here’s what you’re going to do. Even though things are getting deadlier by the second, and I’m a steerage-class male with absolutely no chance of getting a spot on a lifeboat, you’re going to go get help and come back. Got that, Rose? I’ll be waiting...” Like I’m okay with him being selfless and telling her to save herself (that’s pretty typical for this type of movie), and I’m okay with him being human and scared and desperate to live even though the situation is hopeless (I think showing your protagonist’s fear can be very affecting), but the shift from unflappable, romantic hero to squeaky-voiced kid afraid to die to quipping, smartass just gave me whiplash. For that scene to be effective, I feel like we had to have seen Jack as something more than just this near-perfect, worldly, rogue we’ve been following for an hour and a half. And, yes, perhaps this scene was meant to subvert our expectations or to remove Jack’s mask of self-confidence, but for me, it just doesn’t work. Either show me he’s a person capable of emotions beyond mooning, infatuation or keep him the stoic, romantic hero.

Honestly, I can’t believe how patient Paxton was during her whole story. He’s sunk millions of dollars in finding this necklace, it’s his white whale, and she’s sitting there telling him stories about delivering sick Sigmund Freud burns on Bruce Ismay. By the time she got to “And then I said, ‘I’m flying, Jack,’” his character should have been like “Yeah, yeah, that’s all really cute, but where’s the fucking diamond?”

Oh, 100%

The only problem I have with this is that it runs the risk of choosing movies based on genre rather than on quality. Maybe a movie like French Connection doesn’t need to be there at all. Personally, I don't really care if the top 100 films are all gritty, courtroom dramas as long as they are the best films the art form has to offer. I would be more open to choosing another film by the same director than by genre, but then again, that would still be choosing a movie based on something other than the quality of the film itself (e.g. "Blazing Saddles should be on the list because Mel Brooks deserves to be on the list.")

I think you can be critical about a work without necessarily being negative about it. Saying, “This is garbage” doesn’t really encourage conversation or debate, but saying “This movie fails as a romance because XYZ” can promote civil discourse between people with differing viewpoints. That being said, I’m totally going to rip MASH to shreds

AFI Movies Currently On-sale on iTunes (in HD)! If anyone wants to get their ape on, King Kong is currently $4.99!

Did anyone else think it was crazy how calm the Norwegians were that they were about to miss the boat? Immediately after Jack wins the tickets, he finds out the the ship is disembarking in 5 minutes! I mean, I assume the Norwegian dudes had a reason for going to America. (When you’re steerage class, you’re not just going for shits-and-giggles, you know?) You’d think they would have been like, “Seriously, guys, we still have to get deloused and settled in our stateroom. We really don’t have time for another hand.” Then again, maybe Cameron was trying to make a statement about gambling addiction. Who knows?

Exactly!

The problem isn’t having affection for a childhood movie. The problem is when you care a lot about a film, and you want to share your love of it with someone else, but because your affection and relationship with the film is coming from an external, subjective experience rather than from the film itself, the people you’re sharing it with never really seem to understand why you like it so much. It just seems, possibly due its ubiquity on cable, like this situation most often occurs with The Goonies. But honestly, “Goonies Conundrum” is just a joke descriptor.

Lol - It’s so funny how we all say the same thing but sound like we’re disagreeing in these discussions. The point you’re making was the one I was trying (poorly) to make. Sexism is definitely one reason some people hate Titanic, I was trying to say that while that’s true, it’s not the *only* reason people hate it. I guess I read the original post as extreme hate for Titanic is the result of sexism, but I found that too general and kind of dismissed valid criticism as misogynistic ravings. And,of course, this simply isn’t true. This is why I cited my wife as an example of a non-sexist woman who hates the movie. I definitely wasn’t trying to leap to “all women love Titanic.” Honestly, I was trying to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we *shouldn’t* just assume that all women love it. Again, I mistakenly read Sy’s Post as saying “most,” not “some,” of the extreme hate came from sexism against things teenage girls enjoy. My misinterpretation of his post made me think Sy was implying extreme hate for Titanic equals sexism. Which, again, is obviously not true. Anywhoo...I had a whole point about that I just can’t seem to articulate well - lol It’s, like, on the tip of my brain. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I think I was just trying to say, sexism sucks, yes, but just because sexist assholes don’t like movies made for teenage girls, doesn’t mean we should dismiss all criticism (extreme hatred included) as sexism . Which I get no one is doing, but I guess I just felt the need to say that anyway...? Who the fuck knows what I’m talking about anymore? lol

With all due respect, i may be misreading your post, but I feel like you just changed the topic of the debate just to make the same point I made. Neither Tom nor I ever suggested that the movie wasn't targeted to teenage girls. Tom's point (im pretty sure) was if there is a sexist backlash against it just because it was targeted toward teenage girls, we should logically see that same backlash against movies like Clueless and Mean Girls which were also targeting teenage girls. My point had nothing to do with it's target audience either. My point was based on Sy's post (which, admittedly, I should have quoted) that said a lot of extreme hatred was a result of sexism. I never denied this. I even said that I agreed with it - to an extent. My point is that there is also extreme hatred of the movie from people who clearly aren't sexist. I just question saying it's "because of sexism" when that's only applicable to a portion of it. Tom and I are aware that sexism exists, it's terrible, and there are certainly people who don't like Titanic because of it. I'm just not sold on that it was a significant factor in the backlash. Just because sexism exists doesn’t mean that because someone doesn’t like something it’s because of sexism.

I wasn’t actually comparing Titanic to Goonies. Titanic is clearly better made. The “Goonies Conundrum” is something we’ve come up with which posits that if you watch a movie (ANY movie) at an impressionable age and/or under specific positive circumstances, you tend to have more affection for it than it might otherwise deserve. We use Goonies as a model specifically because it’s *not* a very good movie, but a lot of people love it because of their association of watching it as a kid. Many times, if you show The Goonies to someone for the first time as an adult, because they don’t have that childhood association, they typically don’t like it. At best, they might say it’s “okay.” (I would argue much of the love Star Wars movies receive is a result of the “Goonies Conundrum” as well. We remember playing with toy lightsabers as a kid and tend to forget the cheesy dialogue, the simplistic story, or that the first 20 minutes or so of A New Hope is watching two, slow-moving droids shuffle through the desert.) My point regarding Titanic is that every time I hear someone talk about how much they love it, it is usually wrapped up in a story about their experience seeing it in the theater with friends and family. I haven’t really ever heard anyone say, “I watched it for the first time when I was 34, in a room by myself, on my iPhone...in SD. And It. Blew. My. Mind.” I just wonder (not stating as fact) if hardcore Titanic-love has more to do with that than with the movie itself.

Sorry to write three posts in a row, but I was wondering, is there anyone who absolutely LOVES this movie who didn’t see it in the theater or when they were a teenager? I’m curious if hardcore Titanic love might be another example of the “Goonies Conundrum.”

Yeah, I have to agree. Saying a lot of the hate for Titanic comes from sexism against “things that [women] enjoy” kind of presupposes that all women love Titanic and couldn’t possibly find fault with it for themselves. I know a ton of women who don’t like it. Women who downright hate it. In fact, when I asked my wife if she wanted to watch it with me for the podcast, she flat out refused and called it “fucking garbage.” Like, I’m sure there are assholes who hate it for that reason, but is there really so many that it created a backlash? Or is it maybe more possible that the movie just isn’t perfect, and regardless of gender, people who were overwhelmed with the spectacle at first blush might have had a change of heart once they got some distance from the initial experience?

I really didn’t care for this line from Rose: “It was the Ship of Dreams to everyone else.To me it was a slave ship taking me back to America in chains.” I mean, I get that Cal’s the worst, and I’m not trying to minimize Rose’s situation, but comparing marrying an (admittedly) dickish, rich man to actual human slavery was no bueno for me. Pick a better metaphor, Old Rose! It’s the 90’s for god’s sake! I also hated the exchange where Rose was flipping through Jack’s sketches, and when she accuses him of having a love affair with one of them, he assures that he just loved the woman’s hands. He goes on to explain, “She was a one-legged prostitute.” They both laugh and put it behind them. Oh! I’m sorry. She was a prostitute AND an amputee? I had no idea. That certainly answers why you couldn’t have possibly had a love affair with her. What a monster she must have been. How silly of me. Like couldn’t he have just been like, “I liked her hands” and left it at that? It kind of reminded me of this scene from Futurama:

Did anyone else think it was weird that we got so many scenes of Jack alone when Rose was narrating? “So he was down on the deck where the rich people let their dogs shit and he was looking at me. Like, *looking* at me, you know? Then some Irish guy, um, Tony? Tommy? I don’t know. Some dude. And he says to Jack, ‘She’s out of your league, bro.’”

One of the things that annoyed me about Titanic was that the so much of the dialogue seemed to be variations of "Jack" and/or "Rose," Forrest Gumpian name drops ("Picasso...something"), and clunky exposition ("Hey, we don't seem to have enough life boats..." "Funny you should bring that up, let me tell you about that...") I get that this information is important and helps the audience understand what's going on, but it just comes off so hackneyed. I think another pass at the script (or some fresh eyes) could have helped ameliorate this issue.

I’m not sold on the assertion that the Titanic backlash has anything to do with the public’s perception of James Cameron, or for that matter, the rise of the Internet. It just doesn’t track for me. It just seems weird that people would say, “James Cameron is such a douche; I guess I hate Titanic now. But let’s 100% go see Avatar.” And the fact that the New York Times was flooded with letters in support of Titanic suggests that large groups of people are capable of holding strong opinions without the collective consciousness of the Internet whipping them up into a frenzy. And while I can’t speak for everyone, before now, I have never discussed nor sought out message boards for or against Titanic. I also never heard any of those unflattering stories James Cameron stories until today. I just feel like broad generalizations come off as an effort to delegitimize valid criticism without argument. It suggests that the people who say they don’t like a movie actually do (or would) but aren’t capable of making an informed opinion and that their complaints are the result of outside influencers Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying these things had no effect or weren’t contributors, I just don’t think it had a large enough impact to attribute the majority of backlash to it. However, in this movie’s defense, people who bitch about the floating door are lame. The movie clearly shows them both try to get on it, but it flips over. I got the impression that it could have held them afloat, but it would have been underwater. So, while they might not drown, they would still would die from hypothermia. Jack just gave her a fighting chance.

Oh my God! This was so annoying! You two dorks are alone in a room together! There’s no confusion in regards to whom you are addressing! It’s weird. Only robots use proper nouns in every sentence. If you told me that this was a prequel to The Terminator franchise and it was actually a love story between two T-800s, I think I might buy it.