Anyone else like this better than the 1997 version?
I love this one better because it's clean, Robert Wagner is just as cute as Leo and the he lives at the end.
shareI agree. The black and white cinematography gives the film an historical quality that draws you into the mis-en-scene (similar to The Magnificant Ambersons). Plus, there's none of that fictional derring-do such as the car chase on the lower decks as in the 1997 version used to exploit what was a real life tradgedy. Oops, maybe I'm thinking of the animated cartoon "Titanic Tune-up" with Daffy Duck.
shareThe 1953 film gets next to nothing in terms of technical accuracy but it is better storytelling. Cameron's movie is total junk for me in which an awful story is wrapped up in the higher pretensions of being so technically accurate about the sinking that in the process the flaws of the fictional story are further heightened. If Cameron had done a straight-ahead ANTR treatment his film would have been magnificent. Instead he made it the most disappointing experience of my life as a Titanic buff and after suffering through a second viewing in 2002 just to see if my first instincts had been too harsh (and they weren't) I'll never watch his piece of junk again, whereas the 53 film will always be worth an occasional visit.
shareEric:
I completely agree . . . I was appalled at Cameron's film when I first saw it on the big screen, I think it must've been 1997 . . . that awful screenplay (okay, I must confess, I'm so proud of the Academy Awards--they didn't give Titanic the coveted best screenplay award (they gave it to Good Will Hunting) . . . and another thing I am proud of: the Academy didn't award anyone in the cast (how could they, nobody deserved it) . . . knowing this made me feel so good . . .
A great deal of maturity and thought went into the '53 production . . . and, yes, it deserved the award for best screenplay . . .
They didn't even give Cameron a *nomination* for screenplay which should tell you something. I'll admit I wouldn't have minded if Gloria Stuart had won the Oscar since she did a good job with her scenes but the rest of the case was annoying on all levels.
shareEric:
No, she was one of the worst things in that film . . . no emotion, no life . . . I was so happy she didn't win (Kim Basinger did--rightly) . . . they basically loaded the film up with technical awards (which, yes, it did deserve in most cases) . . . yet that movie was awful . . . the teenyboppers pumped-up that box-office . . .
No, I think in general she kept her dignity in the proceedings which I couldn't say of any other actor in the film (save Victor Garber who IMO deserved a nomination as Andrews. I wish he'd played Andrews in the Broadway musical "Titanic"). Winslet, I despised as I did DeCaprio.
shareWinslet reminded me of a bug, with those bulging eyes, and icy-cold demeanor (I'm strained to figure out what the Zane character ever saw in her). . . didn't like her at all . . . true, DeCaprio did give the movie a badly needed lift . . . making it barely watchable . . . but he offered little else . . .
Bill Paxton showed more emotion than Miss Stuart . . .I'm pleased that Miss Basinger won the award . . .
To be honest and fair, yes, the costumes were great, the soundtrack suitable, the sets were fabulous (especially the main staircase & dining room, when they first showed it it was astounding, it felt you were in the dining room . . . all very well executed . . . so, yes, it deserved some of those awards . . but that's it . . .
Sad about the Broadway musical, in New York it played well, but outside that city it didn't really prosper (if I'm not mistaken in Chicago it closed after one week--it went nowhere fast). . . I don't think Garber would've helped, however . . .
The musical was a modest success overall. I think when it plays in places like Chicago, it's only meant to be a limited engagement by a national touring company and not for some long sustained run like on Broadway so a week would be normal. There wasn't anything wrong with the Broadway Andrews, its just that given how Garber has an extensive background in musical theater himself, he would have been a natural for the role.
shareIt's still sad that the play couldn't have been more memorable . . . it needed something to pump it up, especially for a touring company . . . I don't think even a major star in the play would've helped . . . though some of the music is quite good . . .
sharePart of the problem is that "major stars" as we define the term really don't do theater or musical theater on a regular basis any longer. They've now become two distinct different groups altogether so that when you have someone who was familiar in the TV world doing theater its because they've left that area altogether. David Garrison for instance, best known for "Married With Children" played Bruce Ismay in the musical and he'd basically quit the TV world altogether to go back to doing theater full-time.
shareYes, the situation is a sad one . . . no one around big enough to carry a major production . . .
share