OP, you said it yourself - it is the best in terms of the acting, writing and directing, which is everything that matters most. It says all there is to say with tremendous emotional power and also with economy - whole stories are told in a scene. Take the 1st class passenger holding his boy who says, goodbye, my very dear son, before placing him in a lifeboat: in seconds we are shown, without histrionics, a whole class of people who know that death is imminent, and also know it is their duty not to show it, but to give an inspiring example for others.
I cannot agree for a second that Cameron's film is generally regarded as the best. It is a solid, workmanlike piece, and certainly not as terrible as it is painted by some, but it has no special spark. Among those familiar with both pictures, it is hard to imagine that any more than a tiny minority would prefer Cameron.
The fact Cameron won so many Oscars means very little. This reflects the politics of the film industry in a given year more than anything else; that ANTR was British means it could never compete. No criticism there, Hollywood is entitled to give its own a slap on the back, that's just the way it is.
A while back I suggested, on another Titanic board, that one reason ANTR works so well is that in real life 1956, the attitudes of 1912 still largely obtained; we had not yet been through the turmoil of the 60s. Less effort of acting and indeed imagination was required; the stratified society, in which certain things were expected of the officer class, was still natural. The surface restraint, emotionlessness, stiff upper lip if you like, has the curious effect of making the emotion of the drama more intense.
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
12 years ago
If it's Hollywood bias then explain why Titanic has ten BAFTA nominations and ANTR has zero. They're both well regarded films, but what tips the majority in Titanic's favor is that Titanic has a more mainstream accessibility while ANTR I imagine mainly appeals to history buffs. I've shown ANTR to regular people, who are by no means idiots, and they tune out.
I can't agree with ANTR having better acting. It's pretty typical of the time period... very theatrical. Take the scene with Lightoller and his wife near the beginning. Or the camp style of the actor who plays Ismay. People forget how well the actors played the real life people in Cameron's. From Hyde as Ismay to Bates as Molly Brown. The real winner is Victor Garber as Andrews, who really makes him a humble and sympathetic figure. As far as the writing goes, Cameron's script is admittedly cheese, but his direction is stellar. Watching it in theaters again, you forget how amazing it was on the big screen. It's a lot like Saving Private Ryan - blah scripts turned into great movies through direction.
And there are several moments like the one in your first paragraph in Cameron's film. Unfortunately people get blinded by Jack and Rose.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/winters-bone.html
reply
share
minifie-1
12 years ago
ANTR really puts you at the heart of things,encompassing a vast number of people - hysterical old Gladys Henson scared to get into the boat,the woman who leaves her jewels to claim her lucky pig,the elderly steward protecting the lost little boy (more poignant than anything in any of the other Titanic films that I recall),the woman saying that it is 'disgusting' that a man is smoking in the lifeboat,plus a lot of time given to the Carpathia. The Duff Gordons are not mentioned by name but there was a Mr and Mrs Clarke,a young couple who perished,and,as stated,there were survivors who advised on the film and who contributed to Walter Lord's source book. The Ballad of Jack and Rose,to its credit,has more 'real life' people in it than Fellowes' disappointing effort but they all subsidiary to Jack and Rose who are the stars. There are no stars in ANTR,not even Kenneth More,a big name at the time. It puts you right there in the disaster - Cameron's film concentrates on its star couple. Do Oscars measure a film's worth? ROCKY shows that they don't.
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
12 years ago
This isn't like Pearl Harbor where a romance is shoved in there for the sake of it and real figures are ignored. With Cameron's, the star is the ship and the sinking. Jack and Rose are window dressing. I'd wager that, once the ship hits the berg, they're MIA for at least half of the sinking. After that you have the third class passengers locked below, the father putting his kids in the boat and saying "there'll be another boat for the daddies", the people praying with Father Byles on the stern, the Strauses holding each other waiting to die, the Irish mother giving up and tucking her kids away, the mother on the stern telling her child "it'll all be over soon", and the major theme of the class system in the Edwardian era which is a big topic of Titanic discussion, particularly in Walter Lord's actual books.
No, Oscars do not measure a film's worth and I never said they did. However, they generally tell what film is the most popular. While Rocky is the least of '76 nominees, I'd wager the average person likes it better than Network and All The President's Men. Likewise, I think it's almost foolish to think that ANTR is higher regarded than an 11 Oscar winning movie that was also the highest grossing of all time for over a decade. I'm not arguing one being better than the other, I'm saying that the OP has been misled.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/winters-bone.html
reply
share
pol-edra
12 years ago
Isn't there simply a problem of semantics here? I agree with you that the Oscars measure the popularity of a movie... but even if they give an award for "best picture", I'd venture that they should precisely call it "most popular" or "most memorable this year", not "best". Titanic 1997 can very well be the most popular Titanic movie, while ANTR is the best one in terms of cinematography, writing, acting... countless other things. Best, in terms of artistic achievement, and best, in terms of enjoyment, are not necessarily the same.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
12 years ago
But if one thing is more popular than the other, it's generally because a larger amount of people consider that one better. There's semantics going on, but they're not on my end.
And from what I've seen, ANTR is considered the best in terms on accuracy. That's it. The rest is your opinion. Several visuals from Titanic are now iconic, which makes me doubt it'd lose the cinematography contest, and I think "better acting" might be fanboyism getting in the way of objective thinking, unless you prefer the theatrical 50s style.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/winters-bone.html
reply
share
LouisRenault
12 years ago
Yes, the problem is one of semantics and it arises from the OP's use of the passive. It leaves open the key question: by whom is ANTR considered best?
Brad (alone) is taking the view this means 'most people.' This has the advantage of objectivity, as he implicitly points out, but there are other angles to consider. For an obvious instance, 'most people' will include the very large numbers who have never seen or even heard of ANTR. It will also include the 'it was black and white so I switched off' types - plenty of them on IMDB.
For me the question is which is the finer work of art, which translates to which is considered best by good and qualified judges. Subjective, yes, inevitably, but it is surely the only sensible way of approaching the OP's question. If he had meant "why is ANTR the most popular" he'd have said so.
Looked at that way, ANTR is considered best for all the many reasons that have already been rehearsed here.
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
12 years ago
While we're disqualifying judges, let's also rule out the "girls like it so it might as well be Twilight" people and the "it's popular so I hate it" snobs. But since I have about as much support in this thread as an early 70s hippy girl, looks like you guys are winning.
http://www.the-editing-room.com/winters-bone.html
reply
share
LouisRenault
12 years ago
I'd be very happy to rule out the "it's popular so I hate it" snobs; I have no time for them. I have consistently taken a more positive line on Cameron's picture than a lot of others on the various Titanic threads.
For me it's the difference between a film I watched once and quite enjoyed, and a film I have watched many times and find wonderful.
reply
share
coolbananas
12 years ago
I do get what you're saying, but for me ANTR is simply more memorable. A film that stays with you is "better" in my book, or at the very least more effective.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
reply
share
minifie-1
12 years ago
ANTR also stuck to the basic facts,rather than attempting to make the film more populist by introducing non-existent characters who,in the case of Lord F's clunker,are there so you can play the Spot the Survivor and Who Will Drown 'game' which is rather distasteful.
reply
share
ewd76-944-614898
11 years ago
Despite the title, Jack and Rose were the main characters.
-----------------------------------
I could care less, but I don’t care enough to bother.
reply
share
Movie_Buff_Brad
11 years ago
And despite the reception by teenage girls, Jack and Rose were a device to make the film more mainstream so Cameron could get the $200 million to recreate the ship and show it's sinking like no film had done before. Jack and Rose are a window to the real star: Titanic. Like James McAvoy's character in Last King of Scotland, for example.
The fiction plot did show the differences between classes, the role of women in the Edwardian era, and raise ethical questions about taking things from the wreck, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cG79lGWyL4
reply
share
poupartca
10 years ago
Cameron's Titanic received awards and nomination almost exclusively in the technical categories, and its' Best Picture win doesn't hold up over time. It's a good movie, one I enjoyed (and Hell I wept in the theater) beautifully captures the scale of the disaster. But the story itself is relatively weak. There's more than enough drama in the real event without the tacked-on love story and one of Kate Winslet's worst performances.
The 1996 TV miniseries was TRULY awful though, and that one doesn't even show the sinking. (Fair dues: There's one beautiful scene with a poor Irish immigrant family making it to the deck and realizing that their hard-won effort at a better life in America is going to end in death)
reply
share