At Oscars, Titanic proves size does matter
by Wes Chicko

Bigger is better.

At least, that’s what anyone who watched this year’s Academy Awards would think. In what was one of the most predictable Oscar ceremonies in recent years, the big winner was the Big Boat, just as everyone predicted. And, thanks to that little bit of publicity that winning Best Picture will get for you, it continues to draw crowds and rack up box office receipts.
Want me to let you in on a little secret?

Titanic doesn’t deserve best picture.

Before I continue, let’s get one thing out of the way. I liked Titanic, and I’m not writing this out of bitterness (well, maybe a little bit). I thought that the story behind the film was humane and emotional, and the special effects were immersive and dazzling.

With that aside, however, the simple fact remains that Titanic is the biggest representative for a growing trend in Hollywood that should frighten everyone from the top studio executives right down to we, the humble audience members. With Titanic, Hollywood proved that spectacle is more important than substance.

Besides being big, there wasn’t a whole lot more Titanic had going for it. Titanic deserved to win in the major technical categories, but is technical splendor reason enough for a picture to be hailed the best of the year?

Take away all of Titanic’s technical chutzpa, and what are you left with? The story? James Cameron practically had it written for him, and the script is mediocre at best, and downright laughable in some spots. But the love story was so powerful, you might say. I’ll admit, I did cry some, but I was just as moved by another love story that was nominated for Best Picture: the straining, yet strong, bond between a struggling father and his son in The Full Monty.

Then there was the acting. Maybe if the script had been stronger, the actresses who were nominated would have had more of a chance. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were just supporting players to the real star of Titanic. I was happy, for the most part, that the efforts of the actors who won in those categories were rewarded, particularly Robin Williams and Kim Basinger, who should now get to see some more substantial roles.

James Cameron deserved Best Director, simply because he pulled it off. To orchestrate a movie of that size takes a very special kind of person, maybe a kind of dictator, but nonetheless, he did it, and that alone warrants some kind of recognition.
But I don’t think Titanic was the best movie of the year.

For that award, I would have chosen L.A. Confidential, a movie that was number one in the 1997 Critics’ Poll, the critics being people who should know what makes a movie transcend the industry standards and become a work of art. This film actually made me proud of Hollywood. It had an engaging story, superb dialogue, great cinematography, and tremendous acting, all wrapped up in a neat, tight package that cost roughly one-fifth of what Titanic did. Titanic, on the other hand, was sixth on the critics’ list, tied with a small, low-budget documentary by director Errol Morris that was about, among other things, a lion tamer and a scientist who researches naked mole rats.

What’s scariest about Titanic’s victory is that it seems to say that script, characters, and substance are no longer important to Hollywood or the audience. All that matters is who, or what, can wow us the most. Maybe that’s okay for some of you, but what about those of us who would rather see that Errol Morris film than Titanic? And what about those of you future film makers and scriptwriters out there, who may soon hear, “Sorry, we can’t afford your six million dollar romantic comedy talkfest because we have all our money locked up in Hindenburg?”

With that off my chest, I guess I can truthfully say the most exciting thing about the Oscars for me this year was Matt Damon and Ben Affleck winning Best Original Screenplay and seeing how damn good Julie Christie looks for being about 60 years old.

I gotta go work on that Hindenburg script now.