[Please forward to Sub-Arch-L]
Copyright 1997 Louis R. Coatney
Yesterday, my (19 yr old) son (Robert) and I took in the new
movie-spectacular “Titanic,” for the Saturday matinee, here
in land-locked Macomb, Illinois — not that the two of us
didn’t nearly die in 38-degree water after a sailboat overturn
on a nearby lake, about 6 years ago, … which made the movie
*uncomfortably* personal.
Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
judgment.
The film proceeds from a modern deep-sea treasure hunter’s perspective
… to the “oral history” memories of an old woman survivor …
to the historical re-creation of the ship and society of that era
… and the sight of the woman in her young beauty … and the
filmgoer’s *feeling* of mortality and of the fleeting … *vital*
… opportunities … personal as well as material … of Life.
We are shown a computer animation of exactly how TITANIC is supposed
to have flooded, broken, and then taken her final plunge … with
2/3s of the 2,200 people aboard her … and then reminded that a
*human* remembrance is infinitely more and infinitely more
valuable.
Aesthetically, beauty is shown due reverence: A beautiful woman and
a beautiful ship … and the mystical relation of the two. TITANIC
herself is shown in proper, *dual* perspective: a huge, magnificent
creation of human engineering in port and a tiny, brightly lit jewel
on the bleak surface of the cold, dark, and (as we have already been
shown) DEEP ocean. The “photography” … on the wide screen … is
sometimes breath-taking.
The girl is portrayed by Kate Winslet, a young actress having red hair
and a full (and fully developed) figure — not necessarily pretty,
but certainly beautiful in the classical sense. And the importance of
RECORDING a(ny — nay, *every* –) woman’s natural/nude beauty is well-
“illustrated.”
(Winsley looks a *great* deal like a girl I met on Internet and once was
able to give a ride here to — to see a boyfriend 🙁 Last I heard,
she was expecting … the continuance of beauty being part of
“Titanic”‘s theme … but planning on marrying someone else she didn’t
love. Women can be as fascinating … and willful … as ships. 🙂 )
Some of the flaws include a clumsily overzealous demonization of Victorian
class society … which (especially in the context of the TITANIC
tragedy) is transparently damnable for us today enough in its own right.
After the “sitting,” the steamy “back-seat” scene … as artfully as the
beauty of a woman “afterwards” is portrayed … was superfluous, if
there wasn’t going to be any subsequent promise of biological
continuance/immortality, as there was so overtly in Michael Mann’s
“The Last of the Mohicans” masterpiece.
Besides the immediate characters … and the usual lively
anti-establishment portrayal of “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” … there
are not enough famous passengers represented. We see an ideal old
couple beatifically choosing to die together, embraced on their stateroom
bed, without learning anything about the self-sacrifice of Mr. and Mrs.
Isidor Strauss and their lifelong philanthropy. The scandal of Astor’s
very young and pregnant wife is mentioned, but not her survival … let
alone her subsequent rise to Parliament (to be the recipient of one of
Winston Churchill’s most immortal ripostes) … if that *was* the same
Lady Astor.
Also, I had thought CAPT. Smith survived the sinking, but he is shown
going down with his ship.
The silliest thing in the movie is the true-cad’s shoot-em-up
pursuit of the young-lovers-in-social-rebellion. It wasted time
and severely taxed film credibility for any sincere viewer of whatever
age. If the writer/director was responsible for this, he deserves
professional (and corporate) censure. If a producer insisted on it,
s/he should never be allowed *near* a film’s production again!
As long as the movie was, and as intent as the producers/director must
have been in making sure that their technical investment was on the
screen, too much content apparently died on the cutting room floor,
and I hope there is at least a director’s cut to recover some of
that even if only in video.
One other basic point any TITANIC movie should include … and which
this one missed … is that the tragedy epitomized the arrogance-
rooted “strategic” stupidity of Europe’s ruling classes at the
time … and how modern technology could magnify its cost … as
happened only a few years later in the First World War.
However, I believe the film is still a must-see … especially in its
wide-screen format … and will be of huge, positive benefit to
promoting interest in … and respect for … history, art, and
(marine) engineering and exploration … especially among the
young.
Considering its explicit “artistic content,” I’m not sure it is
something a teacher would want to risk recommending to under-18
students.
I might add that among other interesting TITANIC materials is the
Chatham River Press book MAKE A MODEL: TITANIC (ISBN 0-517-
68131-5) which actually contains *3 neat* models. The first is
a full-length half-model showing the ship’s exterior on
one side and a cross-section of the interior on the other.
The second model is of TITANIC stern-high, just before she took
her final plunge … and with a model of the suspect iceberg in
attendance. The final model is of the wreck on the sea floor,
with exploration vehicles about. This sequence of models in
their own way impart the historical process, of course.
Finally, I think we are at the point that computerized/composite footage
equal or even superior to archival documentary film footage may now
be possible. When I look at all the inaccuracies/absurdities in the
“Victory at Sea” series, for example, I yearn for something more balanced
and fully descriptive, graphically … although anything without
politically correct editorializing (like we see to some extent in
“Titanic”) may no longer be possible, I suppose.
Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu, ElCoat@Hotmail.com
www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (Free lunch-hour boardgame and
cardstock model ship plans to print off and assemble/play)