In Defence Of - 'Titanic', 'Shakespeare in Love'

In 1997 and 1998, equal parts ire and joy were drawn from the masses at two consecutive romantic films, one an epic tragedy, one a period dramedy, won Best Picture: Titanic, and Shakespeare in Love. I'll preface this by saying that I don't think either film was the best of their respective years, or among the nominees. L.A. Confidential definitely deserved to win for 1997, no question about that, although it is one of my all-time favourite films so of course I'd say that. As for 1998, among the nominees I guess The Thin Red Line was technically snubbed, although I doubt it was ever considered a potential winner, the unnominated The Truman Show was great, and though I'm not the biggest fan of Saving Private Ryan I have to admit it's an extremely well made, if uneven, war spectacle.

Well what about the two lovey dovey films then? Well I actually watched both these films when I was rather young, yet to properly delve into the world of films. I loved them then, and I still love them now, even though they're most certainly not without faults. In fact Titanic in particular is one film which kind of gets by me even though I'm well aware of its many moot points upon every re-watch. They never really take away from the viewing experience, but they're certainly there. Titanic, by the way, is about the sinking about the Titanic, and the love story at its centre between Jack and Rose, played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. I hesistated even to go into detail in that regard because it doesn't seem necessary, with how well known the film is.

The biggest flaw of the film is perhaps some of the one-note characterizations of the 'first class' of the ship. It unfortunately amounts to much of the writing being, 'the upper class are snobbish', and that's about it, well besides Cal played by Billy Zane, who is snobbish, evil and utterly ridiculous. The original casting choice was Matthew McConaughey, and though I don't think even a talented actor like he could've entirely salvaged the thinly written role, he may well have made something more of the 'third man in love triangle' angle. I find enjoyment in his performance but not because of any positive qualities, really, more that he just sticks out as a sore slice of ridiculous ham, in a film that's not exactly going for subtlety. I can't really find any scenes of his ultimate worst scenes but the one below is a good example of how odd his work is (feel free to disagree, I think his performance works for some people).

That moves onto another potential flaw of the film, subtlety. I've mentioned the paper-thin class distinctions James Cameron and the script imposes upon the characters - on the flipside the lower decks are all smiles and free love. There's no complexity to pretty much all the stereotypes bounding about onboard, and what's more Cameron uses them to hammer home moral messages and social commentary in a rather unsubtle fashion, which would be used in an even worse way in his next film, Dances With the Wolves in Space, uh, I mean Avatar.

Having said all that, while the script is way too on-the-nose as are the characters, the point of the film is really as a melodramatic love story, and in that regard the film entirely succeeds. The framing device of explorers of the Titanic hearing a story related to them by an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) takes a while to get going, but once we get into the stories of young Rose and Jack, the film really ups the ante on an emotional level, and I must say it works for me completely. James Horner's great score, which might be my personal favourite of his works, is extremely effective in conveying firstly the joy of setting sail on the Titanic, the intensity of its collapse, and the tragic conclusion; and most importantly, the love at its centre.

Then there's DiCaprio and Winslet, neither having the most complex characters of their careers to play, but are utterly charming and convincing in their roles. DiCaprio, way before he started his furrow-browed, dramatically intense period of acting, portrays the simple idealism of Jack wonderfully from the very start. It's easy to forget how youthful and exuberant he comes across here, and it's a joy to watch him flash his superstar presence onscreen. Winslet takes a while to settle in, some of her earlier scenes are on the weaker side, but once the film starts drifting into the extreme emotional territory, Winslet shows the strongest side of her dramatic abilities, as well as being effortlessly charming all the while. I don't think either actor gets enough credit for their work there, as they manage to engage the audience with a romance that's really not that innovative.

Beyond that, I don't think I need to get too deep into the technical brilliance of its second half. The spectacle of the disaster sequences are all great, whether it's the special effects, sound editing or just the way atmosphere is created. Cameron's adept hand as a director can be most evidently seen in these sequences and he crafts some of the best action sequences of his career, though very best? I'd still give the edge to Aliens. Also, while his first half is mostly populated with dehumanized cliches, Cameron as a screenwriter or director, not sure which, does show a more sensitive side to the second half of the film. The Nearer to My God to Thee sequence is great,  and of course that ending scene always hits me with an impact, none more so than the first time round however, when I was expecting the film to simply end after Rose had thrown the Heart of the Sea into the sea.

As for Shakespeare in Love, I love Tom Stoppard, I love Shakespeare, and Renaissance/Elizabethan period pictures, spicing up the Bard's life with a bit of romance sounds perfect to me, so all in all I can see why some may not take to the film as much as I do. It's a fantastically well-made film in my opinion, with the technical aspects all pretty much flawless. The production design of the theatres and places of royalty are great, the cinematography is consistently good, with one particularly exceptional sequence being the first entrance of Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench), where the colour scheme is simply stupendous. And the theme tune is terrific to boot, and conveys such a cheeky sense of adventure and creativity that seeps through the film.

A literary buff will probably appreciate the film in a different way as there's many references to playwrights/plays in the time, interspersed in a seamless 'pop culture of the time' fashion. Again there's a romance at the centre, and again there's a third man in it, this time round Colin Firth's Wessex. Again the romantic rival is a bit of the odd man out and feels one-note, thankfully Firth is sensible enough an actor to realise this and play his role in a more understatedly bland fashion. As for Joseph Fiennes and Gwenyth Paltrow, they're a charming enough couple. Fiennes may not be anywhere near the dramatic or comedic talent onscreen his brother is, but one thing he does have in this role that works extremely well for his Bill Shakespeare is his innate charm and enthusiasm in the role. It may not be a historically accurate presentation of the character if evidence of the Bard as a more quite introverted sort is anything to go by, but for this film, Shakespeare as a romantic leading man sort of hero works well, and he delivers a good performance. As for Paltrow, she probably didn't deserve the Oscar over Cate Blanchett that year, but it's still a very good, solid charming performance. Her British accent as always is impeccable, and she plays her simple role of 'rich girl breaking free from society's conventions' well in line with the lighthearted nature of the film, delivering perfectly in the more emotional moments. Their performance of the whole Romeo and Juliet scenario is not as well done as in the 1968 version of the play, or even that one beautiful scene in The Elephant Man, but they certainly do well with the motif.

The best part of the film though, is the world created within the Globe theatre and amongst rival theatre owners like Richard Burbage (a rather funny Martin Clunes), and the money men, most enjoyable of which is Tom Wilkinson, whose character of the abrasive and menacing money lender who soon becomes very enamoured with the play and softens up, gets the most drastic arc and plays it well. As for the actors within the actors, Rupert Everett is a rather enjoyable two-scene wonder as Christopher Marlowe, there's a fun cameo by a young, devious 'John Webster', and Ben Affleck is an absolute hoot as bombastic Elizabethan actor Edward Alleyn. This really is a film that stands the test of time, not as any huge momentuous masterpiece like The Thin Red Line of course, but as a nice little enjoyable, moving film that won Best Picture for very deserved reasons.

And I've always thought that ending was quite nicely done. Not overly dramatic, or clear cut in its resolution, but with enough emotional impact, plus a little cheeky nod to Twelfth Night.