posted by Henry Basenji at 11/01/2002 12:46:00 PM

 

Issue #42: Suckage

The following discussion topic may itself suck, but it is at least meant to provoke dialogue and not cause one to wonder what ever happened to Tim Kazurinsky.

I was flicking through the channels a week or so again, and for a few minutes here and there my eyes laid to rest on TCM's showing of the 1939 "classic" Gone With the Wind. Only 10-15 minutes of combined viewing led me to the following conclusion: this is one of the most aggressively bad movies ever, worse than I even remembered it being. Sure, it looks great...the production value is terrific, even today. But remove the spit and polish and what's there? I've seen better things on Lifetime. (Or to be precise, better ten minute segments of things on Lifetime.) At any rate, watching this I was reminded so much of a more recent blockbuster that is so similar in terms of suckage and spectacle, that I could not help but ask myself the following:

Which sucks less: Gone with the Wind, or Titanic?

I realize this is almost as painful as the Hitchcock question. It difficult to give either of these films any credit, even if it’s just one over the other. Here’s my breakdown.

1. Story: Obviously, the Civil War is a more interesting backdrop to a mediocre tragic love melodrama than is the sinking of a ship. Margaret Mitchell’s enourmously popular potboiler, while essentially classed-up Danielle Steele, was historically well researched and had some interesting bits about the period that were not drenched in purple prose and slave dialogue. At least that’s what I recall from my compulsory reading of the novel 16 years ago. However (as I recall someone once saying repeatedly) movie are not books, and books are not movies. I think that a less sprawling event (one ship voyage vs. ten years in Georgia) as a general rule works better on film. Also, I think Titanic benefits from not being adapted from a hugely popular book. So for this round – Advantage: Titanic

2. Performances: I’d say that for the most part, both movies cast some fairly competent actors who do their best to overcome the dreadful material. In regard to the main characters, think this question has to hinge on the truly bad performances. I think everyone can agree that Billy Zane is one of the most dreadful actors working today, and he is certainly dreadful here. However, his character is such a cartoon, it hardly seems to matter. Unfortunately, I don’t feel the same about Leslie Howard. The man was made of wood. I have not seen such a drab performance in a while (although Harrison Ford’s recent work comes close). His character also sucked, but Howard it seem like Ashley never left the Yankee POW camp. He should have been off with Gable getting drunk between takes, then his role may have had some more pizzazz. Advantage: Titanic

3. Score: Both unredeemable. I’m probably only saying this since I saw it more recently, but GWTW’s music made me want to beat on my ears until I could hear it no more. There were like 3 themes that they used. I heard the light-hearted-you-should-laugh here music enough in 10 minutes that I was deeply offended by the prompting. Granted, no Irish pipes or Celine Dion, but I honestly don’t remember being as deeply annoyed by Titantic’s music. Advantage: Titanic

4. The Spielberg Factor: I don’t know about you, but I am driven crazy by the fact that Spielberg, in all honesty, considers Schindler’s List to be a better movie than Jaws. I’d like to apply this factor to the creators of these two films. I am certain that Selznick considered GWTW to be his “masterwork”. Please keep in mind that Selznick also produced such films as Viva Villa!, Rebecca, and The Third Man. Cameron’ pretty much a kook, but I’m not convinced he thinks Titanic is his best. At least, I’ve never heard him mouth off to that effect. Advantage: Titanic

I could go on, but why bother. There you have it. Titanic sucks less.