 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Topic: Does anyone *really* take movies seriously? posted by ClarityKid on November 27, 2003 at 13:50:35:
I mean, historical accuracy, and locations, can depend so much on how much you are able to spend at making it, as if your pockets are deep you can hire qualified historicians, and you can go wherever you want to make the film..., but consistency, making the film stand on its own feet, without any important contradictions either in how a character is developed, or in their interplay, to make the story you are telling believable to the viewer´s mind, that needs something which either the director, and the script writer, have, or they don´t. And that makes more for the film quality than anything else (unless gross errors are made in the aforementioned aspects..., like a Roman senator wearing a Rolex, or a Roman vestal showing bikini shades in her skin! ;^)) )As an example, let´s take something like Welles´s "Macbeth", which he was able to bring up with very few bucks: it is evident that costumes, and scenarios, are not to be taken as accurate, but the film in itself is, at portraying the tragedy: suspension of disbelief comes early, and what happens in the screen comes easily into the viewer´s mind. On the other side, Kurosawa´s "Ran" magistrally develops King Lear´s tragedy in a different ambient, in a most credible way, with a fastuous care for every detail, which makes even those not familiar with Japan´s historical background (that is, most of us) accept evrything as accurate, and get the feeling of it being true..., and deeply moved by the tragedy that old man lives.
One of the films is theatrically accurate; the other one is (most probably) historically accurate as well..., both are excellent, and both show a high degree of internal consistency.
And then, we all have seen quite a few films which show fastuous, pinpoint accurate care for details, and which simply don´t work into the viewer´s minds..., or haven´t we?
Thank you for bringing this matter here: it´s a most interesting one!
Regards
BF
Follow Ups:
BF,The principle of suspension of disbelief that movies depend on is based on a consistent internal logic, as you say, the details contribute towards the same atmosphere, character, and action. When this internal logic breaks down- to cover plot gaps or push action in an unexpected way, the house of cards collapses.
Though I have problems with some aspects of his films, one of the successes of James Cameron is that the internal logic almost never breaks down: everything seen, heard, or done reinforces the fantasy premise and each of these parts is consistent to the others. It works well enough that we don't question the impossible. Time travel?- sure thing, let me get my hat!
Exception to prove the rules: In the case of "Titanic" the Winslet/DeCaprio love story makes it easy to miss the central internal logic that the entire action is actually the now elderly Winslet's fantasy/reminiscence of the events 80 years before- that diamond the size of a doorknob just seemed that way to a young woman. The problem for me was that the main characters and actions were given this fantasy/memory treatment while Cameron, out of his obsession with the subject, did not also make the events of the sinking a fantasy memory- these were depicted as viscerally/realistically as possible. While this produced astounding, memorable images, the juxtaposition of the realistically depicted boat story with the love story fantasy/memory ruined the internal logic and the movie does not seem "true" either as history or as a love story.
Cheers,
Bambi B
First let me say that I enjoyed the film and saw it theatrically four times. I agree with what you wrote about Cameron in general and Titanic in particular, although I found the Billy Zane character chasing about with a gun a bit over the top, more so than the love story.I've been waiting a long time for a five hour director's cut in a better transfer (anamorphic with DTS sound). I find the current DVD amazingly mediocore given the 11 Oscars the film garnered.
rico,Yes, the finacee was the thinnest character in terms of a stereotype of an arrogant rich person contrasting with Leo as the indefatigable class-blind lover of life. I know something of the social style of early 20th Century England and America and Winslet's finace- obsessing over Leo, planting the giant diamond on Leo was just silly. A person in his position (with a promenade deck first class suite) would've waved his little finger and Leo would never have been seen above the water line again. Ships were more stratified socially than on land and under strict controls.
And Winslet, would've grown up wealthy in a protective atmosphere, while tolerant of and patient with the lower classes, would in reality just not had had conversations with Leo. Had he saved Winslet's life, a few dollars reward and a letter of reference would have changed hands. And for an engaged woman in 1912 to pose nude would've branded her a prostitute and she would be thrown from probably all the society she knew. BTW, the nude sketches shown of Winslet were personally drawn by Cameron.
The attempt of Cameron to demonstrate a kind of American social equality is a non-historical overlay, and that scenario only might have occurred among radical progressives in the 1920's but not pre-war England. Americans are eager to think of themselves as open and democratic from the beginning, but think of the treatment of blacks in 1912 America- or 1962 America for that matter, the '20's shootings of labour organizers- class strata was very strong.
Again, it all works only as a fantasy/memory- clouded by extreme age!
I can't speak to the DVD, but I'll ask if there are any other versions in the making. Cameron's interests seem to have changed since 1997.
Cheers,
Bambi B
... even though it's considered socially unacceptable these days. Yes, the script could have been better and the dialogue between Winslet and Di Caprio could have been more erudite and revealing of conditions of the era (although I suspect critics would then complain about it being overwrought), but by framing a very realistic and accurate portrayal of the historical events in the context of a fictional melodrama that was accessible to modern-day audiences, the film was very successful in conveying the tragedy of the Titanic disaster to the viewer in a way that "A Night To Remember" (the movie most "Titanic" detractors point to as a better portrayal of the event) is not able to match.A straight-forward documentary-style portrayal of the sinking not only wouldn't have had the same impact, it could never have been made with the same attention to detail and accuracy, because it would have no chance of recouping a $200 million production investment. Cameron was treading a fine line between historical documentary and melodrama for both practical purposes and artistic reasons. We can quibble with many of the choices, but you can't really argue with 11 Oscars and $1.2 billion worldwide gross, even if it was generated primarily from repeat viewings by adolescent girls (as the detractors are quick to point out). Cameron must have briefly considered freighting the story with poignant and detailed analysis of the social conditions of the times, but wisely came to the conclusion that doing so would have made the event more remote in the eye of the viewer and lessened the film's emotional impact. Actually, the one place he went to far in this direction was the corset lacing scene with Rose and her mother. It was exactly the type of ham-handed social commentary that would have sunk the movie if he had laid it on too thick. On the other side of the equation, Cameron deleted numerous historical references that were filmed at great expense and that would have painted a more accurate picture of how and why the tragedy happened, but probably would have slowed the movie, which was already long, to a crawl and bored a lot of people out of their wits. For example, nowhere in the movie are we reminded of the tragic irony that the Californian at a dead stop less than 1/2 hour away and in clear view of the passengers during the entire sinking with its radio shut down and its captain asleep. And nowhere in the film do we learn that Titanic's own radio operator admonished other ships in the area to "shut up" with the ice warnings as Titanic was entering the ice fields because they were busy relaying paid messages by passengers.
How would adding all the extraneous details of the Titanic sinking affect the pace of the movie? Perhaps an extended version, which Cameron is in the process of creating for a future DVD "special edition", will shift the viewpoint slightly away from the fictional melodrama more toward the actual history of the sinking and answer the question. My guess is that the result won't be pretty. For all its supposed flaws, I've never heard any proposed change that would improve the movie. (A subplot involving the Strausses? I don't think it would work.)
As far as the internal logic is concerned, I think Winslet's (Rose's) fiance (Cal - and yes, he was a rather gross stereotype of an arrogant rich jerk) planting the necklace on Di Caprio's character (Jack) works. In context of the melodrama, Cal didn't simply want to keep Jack away from Rose (apparently it was difficult at any rate for Cal to keep Rose from going below the water line, as you put it), he wanted to discredit Jack in Rose's mind. He came up with the plan of framing Jack upon seeing the nude drawing in the safe, knowing he had "lost" her to Jack. He was interested in winning her heart (apparent when he presented the necklace to Rose) and did care for her in his own way (he gave up an opportunity to leave on one of the last boats when he learned that Rose had not made it off the ship yet). Yes, the dialogue and interactions between the fiction characters is modernized and Americanized. You should have no problem with the "internal logic" of this by simply viewing the story as reminiscences filtered through the mind of a modern, albeit very old, woman.
I must admit I have a problem with the nude drawing scene as well. Ironically, there were two other Hollywood movies ("As Good As It Gets" and "Pleasantville") released around the same time as "Titanic" that had a similar conceit of a woman "freeing herself" by posing nude for a male artist. I have no idea where this comes from.
Is Titanic a great movie? Well, no. But it is a very good movie that is suffering from an undeserved backlash. It's certainly more memorable than "L.A. Confidential", "Good Will Hunting" or "As Good As It Gets" which are movies from the same year that most people who hate "Titanic" suggest are superior. If you go to the internet movie database and look up the movie, there are still people posting in great numbers about how much they HATE this movie, nearly 6 years after it was released. Ratings there show an inordinate number of "1" votes for the movie. I can't recall another movie that has been more fashionable to hate than "Titanic".
Dalton,You seem a defensive about liking "Titanic", but as you say, it did attract 11 Oscars and lots of money- the total worldwide is now closer to $2 Billion by the way!
There is also a lot to admire.
I'm of two or three minds about it. At first, it seemed a silly idea- how many ways can one portray this event that is known in such detail? Of course, unless there was a revelation that Captain Smith really drove into the iceberg as a protest over Serbian atrocities or something equally sensational, this had to be in the form of a story about passengers. And it is the passengers' story- Leo and Kate that bothers me, as even as a fantasy/memory it is not reflective of the era. This part is so late 20th Century American that for me there are two movies running- and I can't assemble them. I really love the incredibly made sinking boat movie but have to say I really hate the other movie for the 13 year old girls. Still, it's an amazing piece of film! The scene of the vertical hull against the star field will probably be one of the indelible 20th Century film images.
Cameron has a remarkable, energetic mind, and a quirky personality that remarkably works on the same two levels as the movie- a steely-eyed engineer/adventurer and a quiet family guy who contemplates technology turning on it's creators.
As you say, there is no movie in modern times so intensely hated, but I genuinely feel that this is a case in which some people are questioning it only because of the $2 Billion- if it had been a box office disaster there would be very little attention. If it were a box office disaster the 11 Oscars would have been probably only two also.
That's the amazing thing about the US- success is so intensely revered, but only up to a point. Correct Mr. Gates?
Cheers,
Bambi B
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]