Titanic 3D: Timely or Tasteless?

            On April 15^th, 1912, the RMS Titanic and 1,517 passengers sank to the bottom of the freezing North Atlantic Ocean.  The tragedy instantly made the headlines of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic (with a few exceptions: The Christian Science Monitor’s headline that day read: Passengers Safely Moved and Steamer Titanic Taken in Tow), and has continued to be a massive source of interest to this day, eclipsing the notoriety of other disastrous voyages, like those of the Lusitania or Hindenburg.  And now, less than three weeks to the centennial of the event that has so captured the imagination of the public, I am faced with a moral quandary: Is the release of Titanic 3D an act of commemoration or exploitation?

            On the one hand, it is an area of public interest, especially as the centennial approaches.  Furthermore, the movie itself is well-regarded and made tastefully.  It doesn’t wallow in disaster footage.  At its heart, it is a love story, set aboard the Titanic.  It was released in 1997.

            I can’t believe that it’s a coincidence that the film is being re-released less than two weeks before the anniversary of the Titanic disaster, although the official website doesn’t mention it.  But even if the release date’s significance is intentional (which I assume it is), does that mean it’s exploiting the disaster, or just using the fact that it’s going to be back in the public consciousness?  If a movie is done tastefully, and represents the tragedy in a human way, is it really so bad?  And don’t you wish you could see the characters kiss… in 3D!?

            Look, I don’t hate 3D.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s just another tool that can be used to tell a story (the immersive visual world was the only thing that made Avatar watchable).  And movies that are filmed in 3D by a capable director can have a new, exciting layer added to them.  Titanic was not filmed in 3D.  The conversion process from 2D to 3D lowers the video quality, but you can charge an extra $3 or so per ticket.  This is where I draw the line on tastelessness.  The movie is set almost entirely on a boat, which makes me wonder why the 3D is even necessary (oh, right, $3 or so a ticket).  This is a case of a gimmicky use for 3D that serves no purpose to the film, and in this case it’s just shameful. 

            The sinking of the Titanic has been so romanticized in culture, that we forget that over 1,500 innocent men, women, and children DROWNED.  A way to commemorate what was, in no uncertain terms, a tragedy, is not to find the gimmickiest way to make money off of it.  If you want to see Titanic in theaters, I urge you to see the 2D version.  If for no other reason than the footage would look better.

In Defense of Adam Sandler, et al.

Like many movie-lovers, I’ve been disappointed by the string of awful movies by actors who have been historically great.  Actors like Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show), Nicolas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas), and Eddie Murphy (Trading Places).  And I’m sure anyone reading this is familiar with the immediate backlash against “Jack and Jill,” which, as of writing this, has a 3% fresh rating and 38% audience rating on rottentomatoes.com.  Like many others, my first thoughts on seeing the awful trailer were along the lines of “Why are you doing this?” and “You used to be so funny!”  After thinking for a while, I stopped blaming Adam Sandler and other actors like him for their flubs, and here’s why:

They Didn’t Make the Movie

Adam Sandler was, undoubtedly, the big draw for moviegoers to see “Jack and Jill,” and as such, he’s the name everyone associates with it.  But a quick check on imdb shows that he was, at best, minimally involved with the production outside of acting.  There were three writers, six executive producers, three producers, one co-producer,and one associate producer.  In all fairness, Sandler's name appeared twice on that list.  But the fact remains that he did not have creative control of the movie (so if you want to blame someone, blame the Director Dennis Dugan, whose imdb awards page is officially the saddest thing I’ve seen all day).  But he was still the lead actor in the movie, so that’s still his responsibility, right?  Well…

The Movie Was Awful, Regardless of Acting

Let’s look at The Wicker Man.  One of the most commented upon aspects of the gigantic flop was that of Nicolas Cage’s acting.  Honestly, it was pretty awful.  But let me ask you this: If you replaced Cage with any other actor, would it have been a good movie?   And I don’t mean “a better movie,” because a better performed version would still be shit.  Why? Because the movie as a whole is terrible. 

Should an actor try his/her best, even if the movie is terrible?  Sure.  But then again, acting is an entirely different kind of job.  As long as they get asses in seats, it doesn’t matter to their bosses whether or not they put on a great performance, because after all…

This is Their Job

We in the audience like to think of movie stars as idealistic visionaries who hold the search for truth and aesthetic beauty above such common concerns as money.  We in the audience are (for the most part) wrong.  I’m sure all actors wish that they could do nothing but prestige pieces, make only movies that they feel are cinematic achievements in excellence.  But then reality sets in because a) a majority of movies are of average or below average quality and b) the crappy movies have a better chance of success. 

Don’t believe me?  In 2009, Robin Williams had three mainstream releases.  The first was Old Dogs, in which Williams and John Travolta have take care of twins (wacky hijinks ensue, and they learn important lessons about family).  Of 106 critic reviews on rottentomatoes, only 5 were positive.  It grossed $96 million internationally.  The second film was Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian, in which he plays Teddy Roosevelt as part of an ensemble cast.  This one did better on rottentomatoes, receiving 70 positive votes to 93 negative.  It grossed $413 million internationally.  He was also in a movie called World’s Greatest Dad, an R-rated dark comedy where he plays a divorced father and failing English teacher until his son accidentally kills himself and becomes a cult icon at the school Williams teaches at.  Of the 115 critic votes on rottentomatoes, 102 were positive.  It grossed about $200,000.   The well-reviewed, risky movie earned .03% of the combined gross for the other two mainstream movies released in 2009. 

An actor’s job is to act and to get people to go to the theaters.  If they can earn more money and do both by being in a crappy movie with a larger audience, it’s not just their right, it’s the smart thing to do.  Because they can’t buy things with prestige.  So why don’t we cut the actors a break, and take a look at ourselves, because they wouldn’t keep making these shitty movies if they weren’t so damn profitable.