MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1997) Discussion > Leo's performance is irritatingly 2 dime...

Leo's performance is irritatingly 2 dimensional

posted 7 years ago by TheGoforth
6 replies | jump to latest

I don't like his acting in this movie, he's got this whiny high pitched voice which is absolutely grating and looks like a 14 year old, which is just the tip of the iceberg as far as my criticism goes. Fundamentally, the character of Jack Dawson was poorly written because there was no neurosis or inner conflict to him: it was like a fantasy character who seamlessly moves into action hero mode in the movie's last hour whereas Kate Winslet comparatively had a very engaging and yet flawed character to bring to life. I completely understand why critics of this movie find the romance contrived, because Jack just doesn't seem like he has any character journey to go on, he's a blank that exudes this healthy joie de vivre despite living a life of poverty and rejection. I think if someone like Colin Farrell had been cast, I would find the character of Jack a bit more engaging because he would not have seemed so fresh looking and would have played it with grit, whilst also having humour.

[–] peeaecee 7 years ago

Your post seems to mainly criticize the character rather than the actor.

That said, while Kate Winslet is the solid choice for Rose, Jack actually could have been played effectively by another actor. Christian Bale and Chris O'Donnell were both considered for the role, but Bale was rejected because he was
British (they apparently didn't want two Brits playing two Americans, which is a shame, because Bale proved not long after that he can do an even better American accent than Winslet), and O'Donnell was sadly stuck in the role of Batman's Robin at the time. It's a shame overall, because either of them likely would have been as good, or even better than DiCaprio, who has since grown into a great actor, but was a little to "pretty boy/mainstream" back then and probably wasn't the prime choice for the role.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

I would not have liked either Bale or O'Donnel for this role.

[–] wylierichardson-966-922691 7 years ago

It might help to see Jack as being an 'opposite' of Cal - he is poor (unlike Cal), but has heart and soul. The movie, on the whole, went for symbolism. Note Jack's profession - an artist. That surely wasn't a random choice on James Cameron's part!

[–] lpt0127 7 years ago

better than one-dimensional I suppose.

Welcome to the El Flamingo, Jeffrey!
Don't piss in the pool, Jeffrey.

[–] infracaninophile 7 years ago

I don't like his acting in this movie, he's got this whiny high pitched voice which is absolutely grating and looks like a 14 year old, which is just the tip of the iceberg as far as my criticism goes. Fundamentally, the character of Jack Dawson was poorly written because there was no neurosis or inner conflict to him

This is a good point, and that one-sidedness of the character of Jack bothered Leo, and was the cause of disagreement between Leo and Cameron. Leo thought Jack needed to show at least some edginess or less than perfect sweetness and light; Cameron vehemently nixed this.

If you're into psychoanalyzing stuff (we've been there before on this board, all in good fun) one can certainly read into this that Cameron created Jack as one aspect of himself as he saw himself at least. There are some obvious parallels: Jack was from "Chippewa Falls," Cameron from a village called Chippawa; both were artists from an early age (and self-taught artists), both dropped out of school and had a succession of odd jobs in order to pursue other goals - Jack traveling in France and practicing his art, Cameron studying cinematography and physics on his own time and honing his artistic skills prior to getting into set design and special effects work).

The parallels don't go too much farther, since Jack was Mr Nice Guy and Cameron, not so much, though he has apparently mellowed over the years. Jack was an only child and an early orphan; Cameron the oldest of five in a relatively well-to-do family. Both seem to have a way with women, at least when they choose - Jack charmed Margaret Brown as well as Rose, Cameron has been (so far we know) serially monogamous, but has seemingly settled down for good with Suzy Amis. They have been together for 17 years. None of his earlier relationships lasted more than a few years. Of course, Jack's amatory trajectory was cut short, so we don't know how much like Cameron he would have been.

I think Leo did the best he could with what he was given. Cameron was very impressed with his screen test and said Leo was perfect for the role. So he wanted the very youthful, baby-faced innocent routine.

[–] Johanesse (431) 7 years ago

I agree that Rose was written to be a far more complex and conflicted character than Jack. Despite Jack having had his fair share of tragedy (his loss of parents), his character was supposed to be a contrast to Rose; The free, kind, careless spirit who appreciated life and made the best of a situation. I think Leo made Jack so likable that it made up for his lack of complexity.

Perhaps Jack didn't have an inner conflict as Rose, but his conflict was that he was chasing a woman who actually was engaged to someone else and was in a higher class. So Jack had a slight obstacle that he had to face by seeking Rose.