He did the best he could with the terrible material he was handed.
The obsessive Heath Ledger Troll continues to post up a storm.
Are you masturbating while posting these di Caprio / Ledger threads?
No. Titanic was terrible but LDC was not.
Well, considering that it became the most successful movie of all time, I would say the casting of Leonardo DiCaprio was bang on, wouldn't you?
I didn't like Heath Ledger in his role as "Joker".
I thought DiCaprio was an odd choice for the role. He looked like a 14 year old. He looked twenty pounds lighter than Kate Winslet. I thought he was very unconvincing as the lusty, forceful male who steals Rose's heart despite the fact that he's broke and makes a meager living as an "artist." His voice was really funny. When he's pleading to Rose after he's accused of stealing he wails "Rose! You know I didn't do it! ROSE!" Only the way he says it it sounds like "Wose! You know I didn't do it! WOSE!"
R10, none of that mattered though - that film made him into a huge star and guaranteed him a place in film history. He had been a star before that, but this took him to another level. And it was largely Leo who was responsible for the huge box office. As the analysts said at the time, it was the teenage girls who went to see the movie 4 or 5 times that gave it the biggest boost to the box office profits.
It also won 13 Oscars including Best Picture, of course. One can debate Leo's overall career trajectory and talents etc., but it would be very hard to argue that he was the wrong choice for the role with all of the above facts staring us in the face.
$18 for this?
Heath would have been very good. I think Jack was supposed to be like an incarnation of Buddha providing Rose with enlightenment. It's Rose's story, afterall. Because he lacked neurosis, any actor would have had trouble making him relatable. Titanic is an incredibly powerful film to me.
DiCaprio has never done well at anything, worst of all as Gatsby.
[quote]Heath would have been very good.
That is supposition. The bottom line is that it's irrelevant anyway - the film became #1 in history (until Avatar) with Leo in the lead. How would having Heath have made it any more successful?
I think Heath is more masculine, more earthy. Leonardo was at that stage where he was so pretty and impish, he would have been infatuated with his own reflection and not preoccupied with the attentions of a feminine curvaceous redhead.
They were both terrible. Kate enunciating every word so as to not give away her accent. That stupid scene where she stands on her toes. As if. The movie is horrible, I don't get why it won the oscar.
Titanic is totally underrated. I thought Winslet was absolutely astounding - she reminded me of a young Norma Jeane Baker in her teens frolicking on a beach before she became Marilyn - you know that utter femininity and naturalness that humbles you to awe. When she strips for Jack, that's not a teenage girl that is a glorious woman who honors her function and I say this as a gay male. I just adored how soft spoken she was in the film, how introspective, tender, alert, so quick. The dynamic with Mr Andrews - stunning. "I saw the iceberg, and I see it in your eyes." Rose becoming this assertive, practical individual in the face of disaster - as the ship founders, so Rose comes to life. There is so much that is NOT in the dialogue that she conveys with her performance. There is a richness to the acting. Cameron is such a technical genius, it's almost like he entrusted the actors to be nurtured by their own tradition and watching Winslet in this film, I must say - mission accomplished.
Hello, Kate. Your movie and your acting were shite.
R18 Titanic is a hugely overrated film. Great special effects, cinematography, etc at the time but a horrible script.
"A night to remember" is a much better Titanic film despite its age and lack of production values.
Both Kate Winslet and LDC have been much better in many other films including "Revolutionary road".
r19 - Helen Hunt (knowing that Oscar belongs on somebody else's shelf)
Before you judge that LDC has never done anything right - watch "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"; I am not a LDC fan at all, but he verges on brilliant in this film early in his career.
r20, it's never been overrated. The people who loved it never rated it, they merely went back again and again. The only people that ever seemed to rate it and logically dissect its appeal were the cynical critics.
ANTR is superb but it does not have a story to tell as a character film. Cameron's Titanic is not just about a ship that sinks, it is about the birth of a modernist woman, a personification of Lady Liberty as a fable not as a piece of naturalism like ANTR. Read "The Rainbow" by DH Lawrence, get in touch with his logic of the body instead of the mind then you'll realize what Winslet had tapped into with this role. It's sheer brilliance.
The real question is whether Heath would have been better on 'Growing Pains', You should start a thread about that, OP.
It's a poor script riddled with cliches.
R24 I haven't seen ANTR for a long time but from memory the experiences of a number of real life victims were depicted. The stories were simply told but had an authentic feel to them.
The storylines in Titanic did not feel authentic to me. The dialogue was stilted. No upper class young lady would have given "the finger". In fact "the finger" might not have been a gesture used by any Pom at the time. The fiancée was caricature. I enjoyed the technical aspects of the film, especially the last hour, but I struggled with the long drawn out soapier and secondary adventure yarn elements. (Why was a secondary adventure story needed for heaven's sake).
I think Kate Winslet is a terrific actress and she was fine in this too but I don't think the material served her well.
Of course I'm out of step with millions.
r26 - to you. To others, it's a rewarding and evocative film. Our response to it is so natural that we can't be made ashamed by the detached intolerance of literal thinking minds who project their own insecurities onto the film.
I read somewhere that the original casting choices were McBongo and Goop. They would likely have been better as he's more of an alpha male and she's more of a patrician than DiCaprio and Winslet.
I don't think Ledger would've been right for the part even if he was a few years older. DiCaprio had this ridiculous beauty that made you believe that Rose would fall for him at the drop of a hat. Though Ledger was somewhat attractive (he never did anything for me), I would've had to suspend disbelief that Rose would give up everything for him. Though I thought DiCaprio was very beautiful at the time, he didn't do it for me, either, but he did do it for the zillions of girls who watched the movie repeatedly and who clamored for him. I watched it with my 10-year-old niece last year when it was re-released, and she too fell head over heels with young DiCaprio. I also watched 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, but Ledger didn't even register with her. She preferred Joseph Gordon Levitt in that movie.
r27, as I said before, it's not a naturalistic film, it's more like a folk tale disguised as a retelling of a historical event. Many RMS Titanic fanatics become more emotional about the science of the ship than they do for human beings that died there - what does that tell you? There is a restriction that they place on human beings - it seems to me that they want characters in a Titanic film to not overshadow the ship itself. Cameron was the vessel for a completely different story that unfolded, the story of a young woman, and it's funny because it's a story perhaps even he didn't understand. He was driven by it and it told itself, hypnotizing millions.
R29, Cameron seriously considered Macaulay Culkin for Jack and Rob Lowe for Cal. I don't know why they didn't end up doing it, but Claire Danes has gone on record saying she turned the part down 'cause she'd just done another love story (ROMEO + JULIET) with Leo and wanted to try something else. She ended up doing LES MISÉRABLES instead. Also, Christian Bale campaigned hard for the part of Jack and was bitter when he lost out to Leo.
Bale's lisp would have been too distracting. I'm not sure I believe Claire when she says she was offered the part. She was really bad with the ticks back then. I can see her in the water, holding on to the raft, lip quivering and chin collapsing as she tells Jack not to let go.
1912 is way too late for the birth time of modern woman.
It's time we put all this "Heath Ledger is attractive" shit to sleep. He was barely passable at almost all times.
you queens are hysterical. To suggest Titanic isn't a good, if not great, film is ludicrous.
Says the world viewing audience. And the world critics.
I thought Billy Zane was so much prettier than Leo.
Titanic is memorable almost entirely as spectacle. The central story, concocted mainly to allow us to see all parts of the boat regardless of class, is beyond improbable. And there are good reasons why, despite the enormous pile-up of Oscars, none of the actors got one.
Leo di C., in particular, was really awful. Ledger would have been an improvement, but so would a host of others. Leo just didn't look remotely like an Irish immigrant.
I did like him in Gilbert Grape, though, where he played a retard.
I always thought he was too scrawny.
[quote}Many RMS Titanic fanatics become more emotional about the science of the ship than they do for human beings that died there - what does that tell you?
I might be one of the "RMS Titanic fanatics", but I'm not more emotional about the ship than I am about the people who died on it. Just the opposite. Fifteen hundred [italic]real people[/italic] perished on the Titanic in 1912. But that wasn't enough for the Hollywood movie-making machine. They had to go make up these fake characters so people would find the story "interesting". After reading about the real characters that sailed on the Titanic, I couldn't care less about Rose & Jack.
Jennifer Gray of Dirty Dancing fame has a funny story about your Billy Zane.
Apparently Zane was originally cast as the lead in Dirty Dancing, he said he could dance.
When rehearsals began, it became apparent to everyone that Zane had no dance training, had two left feet, and couldn't learn how to do a decent Fox Trot. So, Zane was let go and they hired a newbie...a handsome man with ballet training. Yup, that is how Patrick Swayze got his big break.
[quote]Leo just didn't look remotely like an Irish immigrant.
Leo wasn't playing an Irish immigrant. His character Jack Dawson was an American from somewhere in the Midwest.
R42, furthermore, all the main characters were American -- Rose, Jack, Cal, Rose's mom. Some people think that Rose is British 'cause she's played by a Brit and Winslet's accent sometimes slips when she says certain words, like "extraordinary" for example. But Rose is a Philadelphia girl, who was just vacationing in Europe and was now returning home to America. This is mentioned several times in the movie.
The ship did a better job in that festering turd of a movie than the two leads.
People who love Titanic the movie love Titanic the museum in Branson.
People who love Titanic the ship love to visit the graves in Halifax.
I spent the entire movie recasting the role of Jack and admiring the costumes.
Most over-rated movie and lead actor ever.
He is always terrible, overrated, ugly and annoying!
I'd never heard that Christian Bale was up for it. He'd probably look better age-wise alongside Winslet. Not sure if he'd be able to convey the exuberance of Jack's character. He's rather dour.
River Phoenix would have played Jack had he been alive. Leo diCaprio owes his superstardom to an eight-ball.
[quote]I watched it with my 10-year-old niece last year when it was re-released, and she too fell head over heels with young DiCaprio. I also watched 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, but Ledger didn't even register with her. She preferred Joseph Gordon Levitt in that movie.
Of course ! LDC looked abut 12 in Titanic so no wonder a 10 year girl would go for him. As for JGL, he was still going through puberty.
HL though only 18, was quite mssculine/grown up, so not one for the tweenies.
I don't see anyone diminishing the power of "Star Wars" and the story of Luke Skywalker. Or "Gone with the Wind" as the story of Scarlett O'Hara. Cameron's "Titanic" is the story of Rose Dawson- it's an operatic film - Celine's music video where she's practically channeling the Victorian hysteric gestures of Sarah Bernhardt should tell you that this is melodrama, not naturalism.
This is a film that just happens to take place on a ship where a historical tragedy occurred - but there are SEVERAL excellent films that dramatize the events without additional layers.
This one happened to make an impact because there was a different narrative unfolding entirely - a narrative about self-knowledge. Jack was waking Rose up to herself. She was remote, aloof, elegant before, she was so cold she attempted suicide. Through Jack's eyes, she saw her own blossoming womanhood for the first time. It's not a love story about romance, it's a love story about consciousness awakening. Rose finding the diamond in her coat? The diamond is her new awareness. Now she can feel love.
The only thing exceptional about this movie was the special effects. Most of the Oscars it won were for were for its technical aspects. There were NO Oscars for acting in this movie.
The dialouge was terrible. The "love story" was trite. It was a crummy movie.
DiCaprio WAS an odd choice for the role of Jack. There were many other actors who would have been better, but DiCaprio was considered box office. That's the reason he was chosen for Jack; it was figured he would bring in the teen girls and middle-aged women who would swoon over him.
Rose was one of the most unappealing romantic heroines in movie history. She's a golddigger, marrying a man solely for his money. She cheats on the poor bastard. She SPITS on him (her true love Jack taught her how to spit and flip the bird; how charming and romantic). She tells her mother to "shut up!" She's still a cunt even as an old woman ("do you want to hear this or not?). And it's left unclear what she does to survive after the Titanic. She's disowned her mother, dumped her fiance; she has no job, no money, nothing but the clothes on her back. Oh she has the huge diamond her former fiance gave her, but she hangs onto it for some reason. I recall she had a pair of earrings on as she was running around in the water on the boat; did she sell them? I wouldn't think she could have lived on what she got from the sale for very long. My guess is that Rose became a prostitute after surviving the Titanic. It would seem entirely in character for her to do that. She probably would have considered herself a "liberated woman", not a hooker.
I thought Leo was good but also thought he looked too young to be considered a world traveler with street smarts. He looked like he was 18.
r52 Rose's mother was basically prostituting her daughter to Cal because they were broke. There is even a line to say something like they can only go so long on their wealthy reputation. Rose was rebelling and meeting Jack made her realize that she was entering into a relationship of oppression from Cal and her mother.
That being said, Leo was too young looking for the role. Someone a bit more mature and masculine would have been better.
I always thought it was pretty damn implausible that the diamond stayed in her coat pocket the whole time she was underwater kicking and struggling against the suction of the ship sinking to the bottom of the ocean. I guess maybe it COULD have happened, but it seemed pretty unlikely.
"I always thought it was pretty damn implausible that the diamond stayed in her coat pocket the whole time she was underwater kicking and struggling against the suction of the ship sinking to the bottom of the ocean. I guess maybe it COULD have happened, but it seemed pretty unlikely."
It was completely implausibe that Jack and Rose were able to run around in freezing water while they're still on the ship; in real life they would have been incapacitated very quickly. Same goes for the stupid "don't ever let go" speech Jack gives Rose while he's up to his neck in freezing water. He would not have been able to talk, much less give a goodbye speech.
[quote]DiCaprio WAS an odd choice for the role of Jack. There were many other actors who would have been better, but DiCaprio was considered box office. That's the reason he was chosen for Jack; it was figured he would bring in the teen girls and middle-aged women who would swoon over him.
And they were right. They couldn't have made a better decision. I've never seen seen Titanic all the way through, but as I said above, you can't argue with DiCaprio's casting - the movie was phenomenally successful.
[quote]Rose was one of the most unappealing romantic heroines in movie history. She's a golddigger, marrying a man solely for his money.
Did you even watch the damn movie? Rose was being forced into an arranged marriage by her mother, who wanted financial security. She didn't care about her daughter. In the early 20th century, arranged marriages were common among the aristocracy and the woman rarely had a choice in the matter.
I hate it when people superimpose modern attitutes and social conventions on the past.
Rose: I'll never let go Jack.
Heath as Jack: mumble, mumble, mumble.
Rose: What's that Jack? I didn't hear you, I'll never let go!
Heath as Jack: mumble, mumble, mumble.
Rose pulling her hand away to put it up to her ear: What did you say Jack?
Heath as Jack: glub, glub, mumble, glub.
Not A Leo Fan, Hated Him Being In It.
Another point, I think there was plenty of room on Rose's raft for Jack. She might have been a cunt after all.
No, there wasn't, R61. Jack tried getting on it after he helped Rose, but it wouldn't support both of them. That's why he opted to stay in the water and meet certain death.
"Also, Christian Bale campaigned hard for the part of Jack and was bitter when he lost out to Leo."
Better Leo than Bale! Bale is always unlikable and a bit creepy, which works incredibly well when you're playing Batman, but it would have been deadly for the role of Jack Dawson.
Bale would have been better cast as Rose's nasty fiancee.
R63, I agree that's true about Bale now, but back then he didn't have that hardass reputation yet. Remember his Laurie in LITTLE WOMEN just 3 years before? He was so sweet and handsome in that, not at all creepy.
"Did you even watch the damn movie? Rose was being forced into an arranged marriage by her mother, who wanted financial security. She didn't care about her daughter. In the early 20th century, arranged marriages were common among the aristocracy and the woman rarely had a choice in the matter.
I hate it when people superimpose modern attitutes and social conventions on the past."
"Forced?" How the hell was she "forced" into an arranged marriage? Did her mother hold a gun to her head and tell her "if you don't marry this rich man I'll kill you?" No, Rose was going to marry him of her own free will. She doesn't want to, but for some reason she won't break it off; in fact, she's so fucked up she decides suicide is her only way out (wouldn't just saying "no, I won't marry you" have sufficed?)! It isn't until Jack influences her (he teaches her to spit, flip the bird, and fucks her in a car) that she finds the spine to dump her fiance and run off with a guy she barely knows. Rose was a SLUT.
Rose is supposed to be a "strong" person and yet she needs a forceful man (a man who looks like a 14 year old boy) to show her how to take control of her life and make decisions on her own. That's a very archaic notion; a woman needs a man to set her on the right track. Of course a silly little woman can't do it herself. Jack "saves" Rose. Why couldn't Rose save herself? Because she's a pathetic character in a stupid movie geared towards teenage girls and middle-aged women that's why.
"How the hell was she "forced" into an arranged marriage? Did her mother hold a gun to her head and tell her "if you don't marry this rich man I'll kill you?" "
No, the mother basically told her "if you don't marry that creep, we'll be out on the street". Look, you obviously have no idea how upper-class (and middle-class) girls lived in those days. They literally had no money of their own and no job skills, they were completely and utterly dependent on their families. And of course, anyone that dependent has to do what they're told, or they can lose everything on someone else's whim.
So in this film Rose goes from petty rebellions like smoking, to considering suicide to get out of the marriage, to accepting being out on the street as the price of independence. That's actually pretty tough.
quote]That's a very archaic notion; a woman needs a man to set her on the right track.
You do realize the film takes place in 1912?
"That's a very archaic notion; a woman needs a man to set her on the right track."
Half the romantic films made are about a fucked-up man, who's set on the right track by a woman.
Along Came Polly
It's really too bad Bette Davis wasn't still alive for Titanic because she would have been PERFECT as the elderly Rose. Kate Winslet even has a slight resemblance to her. Davis would have rocked that part.
I'm sure if Bette had still been living she would have been Cameron's first choice.
Rose was just a commodity to her mother. I thought it was awful that the story hinted that she never contacted her mother after the disaster. But as I got older, it began to make total sense to me. Mother Bukater was only interested in HER own survival, and her daughter was just the poker chip she needed. Cal only thought of her as breeding material himself.
Personally I prefer the 1953 version of the film - even more inaccurate, but a better screenplay with wittier dialogue.
"That's a very archaic notion; a woman needs a man to set her on the right track.
You do realize the film takes place in 1912?"
That doesn't make it any less offensive, especially in light of the fact that hoards of women adored this movie where a woman's life is transformed not because she decides she will assert her independence but because she falls in love (with a ne'er do well she's just met) and decides to run off with him. That's not strength of character. That's stupidity.
DiCaprio was wonderful in Titanic. I didn't like the casting choices made for his love interest.but a lot of guys have mother complexes that dictate who they are attracted to. DiCaprio can wrap me around his acting finger in any movie. I first remember him in Who's Eating Gilbert Grape. He was beyond wonderful in that film and I've never stopped liking the man.
"Rose was just a commodity to her mother."
I didn't get that impression. I didn't find Rose's mother a bad person at all. She was in a bad situation and figured that if Rose married a well-off man they would not have to auction off everything they owned just to survive. She simply thought that was the best thing to do. If Rose didn't want to go through with the marriage all she had to do was say no. But of course she didn't have the guts to do that, until the forceful, manly Jack teaches her to act like a rude bitch.
She seems genuinely stricken when Rose jumps out of the boat (what an idiot she is) and dismisses her poor mother with an expressionless goodbye. I think her mother loved Rose and was just doing what she thought was best. She didn't deserve the treatment she got from the cunty Rose.