Tower Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 1- 1917 1917- With almost every film there will be some moment where I will zone out or find it weaker, but not with 1917. In this experience of a film, I was kept enthralled through every second of it. The “one shot” might not be for every film, but it works perfectly for this here. yes, this film doesn’t have the political statement of something like All Quiet On The Western Front. But not every film needs to try and do everything, as long as a film knows what it wants to do and does those things well enough that could work just fine. This film does do so, The challenges along the way are varied and exciting, the characters are great in both acting and in creating someone to care about. Of course this is exactly the film to see on the biggest screen possible, with the outrageously good cinematography. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted January 31, 2020 Author Share Posted January 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, misafeco said: Offtopic, but I don't think Titanic is a good example of a one note portrayal of the different classes. While it is taking the side of the poor people during most of the movie, it isn't black and white in my opinion. Most of the wealthy people on the ship is not portrayed evil at all. Kathy Bates's character (although she is "new money") is one major example. There is the old couple dying in each others arms. Multiple rich men refusing to take the women and children's place in the lifeboats and facing death like champs. Cal Hockley is probably the only unredeemable character. Even Rose's mother is portrayed as someone who is just out of touch with the reality and at the same time trying to preserve the good life of the family. Selfish, but not evil. I liked that there were heros and grey characters among the 1st class & 3rd class passengers and the crew as well. I was thinking about the way in which wealthy people were described in general. In that dinner they were presented as self centred jealous and lacking the ability to have fun. Kathy Bates' character is basically there to point out all these flaws in wealthy society, and she can do this because she wasn't born into money allowing here to have a poor persons perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipickthiswhiterose Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tower said: I was thinking about the way in which wealthy people were described in general. In that dinner they were presented as self centred jealous and lacking the ability to have fun. Kathy Bates' character is basically there to point out all these flaws in wealthy society, and she can do this because she wasn't born into money allowing here to have a poor persons perspective. She's also American as opposed to British. As of course was Kate Winslet's (depsite being a British actress) character but not Billy Zanes (despite being an American actor) Titanic was right in the middle of Hollywood realising that while they couldnt use people with different skin colours as generic shorthand eeeevil characters any more they could easily get away with it with Brits. And dont get me wrong, we were just fine with it - loads of Brits in the industry took it all the way to the bank. Edited February 1, 2020 by Ipickthiswhiterose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misafeco Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Tower said: I was thinking about the way in which wealthy people were described in general. In that dinner they were presented as self centred jealous and lacking the ability to have fun. Kathy Bates' character is basically there to point out all these flaws in wealthy society, and she can do this because she wasn't born into money allowing here to have a poor persons perspective. The social commentary was obviously not the focus, but still I consider it quite nuanced for a big budget disaster movie. At the dinner with Jack most of them were curious rather than looking down on him. Except the two I already mentioned, but they also had their reasons not to trust/like him. It's the same with the wealthy family in Parasite, they are decent people but ignorant to many things not affecting them. The difference is that Titanic has way less focus on these things. Still at the end, human decency is not determined by class as it does a very good job at showing how people react to the inevitable sinking differently regardless of their social status. 13 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said: She's also American as opposed to British. As of course was Kate Winslet's (depsite being a British actress) character but not Billy Zanes (despite being an American actor) Titanic was right in the middle of Hollywood realising that while they couldnt use people with different skin colours as generic shorthand eeeevil characters any more they could easily get away with it with Brits. And dont get me wrong, we were just fine with it - loads of Brits in the industry took it all the way to the bank. Wasn't Billy Zane portraying an American though? I remember him making fun of Brits at the beginning of the movie. Rose's mother even asked him not to disrespect them. Edited February 1, 2020 by misafeco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipickthiswhiterose Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, misafeco said: Wasn't Billy Zane portraying an American though? I remember him making fun of Brits at the beginning of the movie. Rose's mother even asked him not to disrespect them. He was making fun of the Irish, pretty much all the 'good' working class characters were Irish. Very stereotypical pig-under-the-arm, fiddle-dee-dee dancing Irish characters who were ironically probably even worse charicatures than the Brits. But yes, I think he was technically from Pittsburgh rather than England- but it did seem somewhat coded as 'old money' style British aristocracy. Its been a while though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanic2187 Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 16 hours ago, Tower said: I was thinking about the way in which wealthy people were described in general. In that dinner they were presented as self centred jealous and lacking the ability to have fun. Kathy Bates' character is basically there to point out all these flaws in wealthy society, and she can do this because she wasn't born into money allowing here to have a poor persons perspective. the wealthy class in Titanic was portray as more "evil" because the plot had to be there to justify why Rose felt desperate to escape from the community she was in. Meanwhile, poor family in the family was portrayed as “parasitic" to wealthy class. While that concept worked great in the film but how much that narrative tell about our current society is still subject to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misafeco Posted February 1, 2020 Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said: He was making fun of the Irish, pretty much all the 'good' working class characters were Irish. Very stereotypical pig-under-the-arm, fiddle-dee-dee dancing Irish characters who were ironically probably even worse charicatures than the Brits. But yes, I think he was technically from Pittsburgh rather than England- but it did seem somewhat coded as 'old money' style British aristocracy. Its been a while though. No, he wasn't. He was complaining about the English doing everything by the book, after they were ordered to leave their apartman (it was not at the beginning though, I didn't remember this detail too well). He never mentioned the Irish. Edited February 1, 2020 by misafeco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...