![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lobelia321David M. Lubin, Titanic. BFI Classic, 1999
This book about the film Titanic was enjoyable and interesting to read, with flaws.
What I enjoyed:
The blow by blow account of the film, which alerted me to hitherto unremarked details. E.g. when Rose and Jack kiss on deck, the sailors ogle them instead of keeping a look-out for icebergs. Until it is too late. This is a neat instance of Hollywood's need for human protagonists and antagonists. It solved (for me) the puzzle of random nature as a cause for narrative events. It centres the romantic couple and even suggests that they are the very reason for the collision with the iceberg.
What I found interesting:
This book was written only a few years after Titanic's first release and deals with the critical response to the film. In hindsight, the vitriol heaped upon this film is striking. Critics jeered and sneered at what was then the highest grossing film in movie history. Big box office means audience popularity, and the film was most popular with female audiences. And among the female audience: most popular with teenage girls, many of whom were repeat viewers. The obsessions of teen girls is not something that critics cope well with (compare Twilight). I confess that I myself sneered when first seeing the film upon its release. I poo-poohed the romantic storyline and scoffed at the gauche CGI effects. But then, I had also been a teenage girl once upon a time. And now, mellowed with years and subsequent developments in my life, I believe teen girls' energy to be a force that makes the world go round.
At any rate, it speaks of unreconstructed arrogance when film critics dismiss out of hand whole swathes of audiences. The author of this book is not a film critic but a scholar and mostly steers clear (see what I did there?) of outright dismissal but he does buckle in to the critical consensus of his time. He feels the need to defend the film's few 'brilliant moments' and seems somewhat guilty at wanting to write a whole book about this suspect piece of sentimentality.
I want to seek out subsequent scholarship in the hope that it deals in more depth with teenage fandom, the whiteness of the film, the heteronormativity, the spectacle, the trans-Atlantic echoes, the climate crisis, the 1990s.
What I didn't like = major flaws:
British Film Institute, why did you not do your job proofreading this so that I did not have to? Here are some errors that I just happened upon without seeking them out: Niebelungen; with he and she; something done with flare; concantenation; de rigeur; and most awfully, the cinema errors: Ernest Lubitsch; Battleship Potempkin. Ah, my eyes. It hurts just to type these out.
Format: a nice-sized paperback with thick paper, pleasant typeface and sharp photographs, and a perfect binding that came apart in my hands. As a result, this library book now consists of a sheaf of loose pages, shoved between two cardboard covers.
Crossposted to Goodreads.
This book about the film Titanic was enjoyable and interesting to read, with flaws.
What I enjoyed:
The blow by blow account of the film, which alerted me to hitherto unremarked details. E.g. when Rose and Jack kiss on deck, the sailors ogle them instead of keeping a look-out for icebergs. Until it is too late. This is a neat instance of Hollywood's need for human protagonists and antagonists. It solved (for me) the puzzle of random nature as a cause for narrative events. It centres the romantic couple and even suggests that they are the very reason for the collision with the iceberg.
What I found interesting:
This book was written only a few years after Titanic's first release and deals with the critical response to the film. In hindsight, the vitriol heaped upon this film is striking. Critics jeered and sneered at what was then the highest grossing film in movie history. Big box office means audience popularity, and the film was most popular with female audiences. And among the female audience: most popular with teenage girls, many of whom were repeat viewers. The obsessions of teen girls is not something that critics cope well with (compare Twilight). I confess that I myself sneered when first seeing the film upon its release. I poo-poohed the romantic storyline and scoffed at the gauche CGI effects. But then, I had also been a teenage girl once upon a time. And now, mellowed with years and subsequent developments in my life, I believe teen girls' energy to be a force that makes the world go round.
At any rate, it speaks of unreconstructed arrogance when film critics dismiss out of hand whole swathes of audiences. The author of this book is not a film critic but a scholar and mostly steers clear (see what I did there?) of outright dismissal but he does buckle in to the critical consensus of his time. He feels the need to defend the film's few 'brilliant moments' and seems somewhat guilty at wanting to write a whole book about this suspect piece of sentimentality.
I want to seek out subsequent scholarship in the hope that it deals in more depth with teenage fandom, the whiteness of the film, the heteronormativity, the spectacle, the trans-Atlantic echoes, the climate crisis, the 1990s.
What I didn't like = major flaws:
British Film Institute, why did you not do your job proofreading this so that I did not have to? Here are some errors that I just happened upon without seeking them out: Niebelungen; with he and she; something done with flare; concantenation; de rigeur; and most awfully, the cinema errors: Ernest Lubitsch; Battleship Potempkin. Ah, my eyes. It hurts just to type these out.
Format: a nice-sized paperback with thick paper, pleasant typeface and sharp photographs, and a perfect binding that came apart in my hands. As a result, this library book now consists of a sheaf of loose pages, shoved between two cardboard covers.
Crossposted to Goodreads.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-02-25 04:30 pm (UTC)ouch! It's like biting down on foil. :)
Thanks for the interesting review.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-03-05 12:26 am (UTC)