An Analysis – James Cameron’s Titanic Successes

April 18th, 2012 | POSTED BY Cassidy Robinson

The combination of practical special effects and newfangled computer animation would become one of the stylistic cornerstones for Cameron’s epic sequel to The Terminator. Terminator 2: Judgment Day was a significantly larger and arguably better movie than the original. The story was more involving and complex, the performances by Linda Hamilton and Schwarzenegger were more well-rounded and nuanced than before, and the set pieces are near masterpieces within themselves. This was the ideal sequel, the best since Godfather II (1974) and not even approached again until The Dark Knight (2008). This would also be the first time that one of Cameron’s movies broke box office records, specifically, for an “R” rating. In my humble opinion, this is Cameron’s most mature film, even if the most significant love story is between a boy and his robot.

Cameron released True Lies in 1994, an action rom-com starring Schwarzenegger once again and Jamie Lee Curtis as his wife. The movie did alright and is generally seen in a positive light, but after the creative peak of T2, it does seem a little slight in comparison. True Lies did set a record, though—the most money ever spent on a production up to that point, a record that Cameron would continue to set with every subsequent film he made after, simultaneously trying to break weekend box office numbers as well. This, of course, is exactly what he would do with Titanic.

So what’s the point of all that history and lead up? Hopefully you can see a trend of increasing hubris in this one-time exploitationeer. With every film he makes, his confidence grows, and seems to be confirmed by the money that the films make back. Titanic, stylistically, may have been something of a diversion for Cameron, as far as the genre goes, but it is still just as much of a special effects demonstration as any of the dude-movies he made his name with in the ’80s. The difference is, Titanic has the pretensions of being something more than that. In Cameron’s mind, he was making a David Lean-type historical epic like Lawrence of Arabia (1962), or a swelling sunset-lit romance like Gone with the Wind (1939). What he was really making was Aliens without the action or the monsters, or The Terminator on a boat, sans time travel and evil robots. Is that to say Titanic is without entertainment value? Hell, no. After the first 90 minutes of whiny Kate Winslet complaining about being rich and chasing after a stowaway urchin, the boat gets hit by an iceberg and that final hour is absolutely sensational—Cameron doing what he does best, special effects set pieces.

You can say this at least: when James Cameron spends a lot of money, you can definitely see where it goes. Unlike some of his less-than-talented copycats, he knows how to pace action and design it to be visually comprehensible. What Cameron can’t do is tell a love story, political allegory, or basically anything approaching subtlety. But, for whatever reason, Hollywood couldn’t ignore the against-all-odds triumph of Titanic, and it was awarded the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars over the more critically favored As Good as it Gets and L.A. Confidential. Now not only has Cameron’s gluttonous spending been vindicated, but his affectations as a classic prestige filmmaker have, as well.

A year or so after Titanic had its run in theaters, Michael Bay released Armageddon (1998) under basically the same formula: a young-love story framed by a special effects disaster film, concluded with a tearjerking climax where the hero sacrifices himself. I remember seeing this movie with my mother and my older sister, who both loved it despite the fact that it was full of loud explosions and based on a ridiculous set-up. In the parking lot, my sister, probably still crying, turned to my mother and said “I think it was better than Titanic, don’t you think?” Fifteen years ago, with that very line, my sister makes my point clear as a bell. We did not go into Armageddon that day with the point of comparing it to Titanic, but basically it delivered the same goods, and the comparison is valid. Is Armageddon better? Well, I don’t think it is, but really who cares? That’s like asking if Chili’s is better than Applebee’s.

I could use this last paragraph to go on and tell the story of Avatar (2009), but I won’t bother. At this point, the story is one that is permanently on loop. Rinse and repeat. The only thing about Avatar worth mentioning, in terms of the new Titanic 3D re-release, is the hypocrisy James Cameron has regarding his new favorite toy. Reportedly, the studios forced Louis Leterrier to release Clash of the Titans (2010) in a rushed retrofitted 3D format, to cash in on the recent success of Avatar. Since James Cameron had filmed Avatar with 3D cameras, he came out and spoke against the use of post-converted 3D, claiming that it was not the true way it should be done or seen. Fast forward two years later, and Cameron has re-released one of his most popular movies in retrofitted 3D to cash in on the lingering success of one of his other most popular movies. As I sat in my theater seat watching the trailer for the new release of Titanic, I felt two things: a profound sense of nostalgia for the year I heard “My Heart Will Go On” on the radio at least 50 times a day, and a sigh of disappointment for when a Canadian science fiction nerd became a cynical Hollywood bean-counter. The trailer ends with Winslet’s whimpered line “I’ll never let go, Jack. I’ll never let go,” after which I turned to my friends sitting beside me and asked, “Do you think she is speaking for James Cameron?”

Pages: 1 2

Aliens, James Cameron, re-release, Roger Corman, Science Fiction, Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss, Titanic, Titanic 3D, True Lies