Titanic

Name: Course Name: Course Instructor: Date of Submission: Movie Review: Marxism Criticism of the ‘Titanic’ The Titanic was a romantic disaster film that opened nationally in the theatres in December, 1997. Directed by James Cameron, this was the most expensive film ever made. To many of the viewers, this movie was seen as a prime example of capitalistic monetary excess. In just its initial theatre release, the film made more than 1.1 billion US dollars. It went ahead to win eleven Academic Awards. Among these included an award for the Best Picture and Best Director (Ebert, 1998). Despite all these success stories, there’s a lot of irony that surrounds the much hyped commercial success of Titanic. The film fits very perfectly into a revolutionary Marxist paradigm. This paradigm condemns the idea of capitalistic excess and instead advocates for heroism and humanism of the underclass. The Titanic was set in the year 1912 and represented the last vestiges of the Victorian class structure. This film, according to Marxism paradigm, comes out as very unambiguous with regard to its statements about class struggle as well as the film’s critique of capitalism. The ship itself was a clear icon of the class struggle. The ship has been stratifies according to social classes. Those in the lower classes have got no way of reaching the upper classes because of the fact that they have been held back with physical realities (Maslin, 1997). This is seen in the movies literary when the ship is sinking and the third-class passengers have been locked in the lower levels of the ship; meanwhile, the first-class and second-class passengers are busy filling the life boats. Just like the traditional Marxist writings, the Titanic places very little focus on the middle class. The film looks at its worldly microcosm in two classes; the first class and the third class. Marxism overlooks the middles class and similar to this, this movie rarely talks about the middle class. The entire film is about the top and bottom tiers. The film also showcases the ship itself as a symbol of capitalist and greed. The builders of Titanic wanted to make a ship that was faster, stronger and much more luxurious than any other ship ever built. This was for the simple reason of satisfying the industrial capitalist’s ambition. In his theory, Marx stated “Every person speculates on creating a new need in another so as to drive him to a fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of gratification and therefore economic ruin”(Laing, 1978). In relation to the Titanic, Marx’s words can be related to the builders of the titanic. They were after making history and it is this greed and desire that eventually cost them a lot of lives. The Titanic is a film that was based on the romance between Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose Bukater (Kate Winlset). These two characters are strongly from two very different backgrounds. Jack is a penniless bohemian while Rose on the other side is an heiress with a very wealthy fiancée. These two characters in this film can be seen to be symbolic of two sides of the prototypical Marxist class struggle; the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The fact that Rose went against the bourgeoisie and joined the proletariat in search of her mini-revolution is a clear representation of the director’s ideological stance (Maslin, 1997). This move by Rose shows is an indicative that the director is strongly on the side of Marxist’s proletariat class struggle. The director’s stance against the rich and powerful can be seen in almost every scene in the movie. One of the most obvious indicators of Cameron’s position in Marxist’s class struggle is the manner with which he presents his characters. He presents Jack as being a very likeable character despite his poor social state. The wealthy one of the two competing for Rose’s love is very wealthy. However, even though he is wealthy, Cameron presents Cal Hockley (Billy Zane) as a very dislikeable person. Jack is seen as a tough guy who gambles well, smokes and drinks in very rough bars. However, he is also a very sensitive man. This is seen in the part where after losing a poker game, the losing player almost attacks him but he does not lash back at him. He just scrunches his eye expecting the blow. Above all, he is a very joyful person who is constantly smiling and laughing. Cameron presents Jack in the essence of what Marx regarded as an independent man. When Jack stands in front of the Titanic and screams “I’m the King of the World”, his statement is ironic and shows one again Cameron’s position in Marxists’ class struggle. The fact is, jack is not even close to being king according to his social and financial status. However, when this scene is viewed in light of Marxist’s writing about the “the transcendence of private property”(Laing, 1978), this statement by Jack can be taken to mean something very different. By declaring that he is the King of the world, Jack is implying that one only needs to be satisfied and happy. Cameron uses Jack to show that it is not a necessity to have monetary wealth for one to be happy, satisfied and rule oneself. When Cal tells Rose, “We are royalty Rose”, it is ironical in that the royal are known to be very happy and satisfied. In the film, Cal and Rose’s mother are the unhappy people despite being rich and wealthy. Most important of this is the fact that their unhappiness is because of the fact that they believed wealth automatically brings happiness. These two are very good examples of what Marx described as “dependent beings” because their existence fully relies on their ability to keep up their position in the capitalist society. As Marx wrote, the two live totally “by the grace of another” (Laing, 1978). This is evident when Ruth, Rose’s mother, asks her to marry Cal because they need the money to clear their outstanding debts. Marxist’s paradigm on wealth and power is also evident in the gesture that Cal shows toward Rose by presenting her with the diamond necklace; the Heart of the Ocean. This necklace is a symbol of power and monetary wealth. Cal so recklessly wields and treasures this aspect of that necklace (Ebert, 1998). The necklace plays an even bigger role when Rose allows Jack to draw her wearing nothing but the necklace only. When Rose drops her robe wearing nothing but just the necklace and allows Jack to see her naked, it was like she was literary shedding off her class of distinction. This scene is symbolic of the fact that she is willing to move away from Marxism’s bourgeoisie and join the proletariat. She strips off the diamond of its association with the wealthy and rich and gives it a new meaning as an object of beauty only. Rose holds on to the diamond necklace for seventy five years and does not tell anyone that she possesses it. Even though a lot of people had been looking for this necklace and were obsessed by the value which it had, in the end Rose drops the necklace into the ocean purposely where it will be lost forever. This shows just how much she had transformed and did not think of the necklace in terms of its monetary value. Rose eventually joins Jack in becoming human according to Marx’s terms when she tells Jack, “When the boat stops, I am getting off with you.” She ceases to be a dependent being and becomes the queen of her own free will; happy and satisfied (Ebert, 1998). This scene showed her transformation from the wealthy class and the fact that the rich people might also get happiness from the third-class world. The director uses this scene to show that it is not always being rich that makes an individual happy. The battle between the capitalists and the proletariats in this movie has brought out Marxist’s paradigm about the class struggle in a very favourable way. The director, Cameron, has used the different means at his disposal to depict the power that the underclass also possesses. He has used his characters in a very intelligent way to showcase this ideology of the rich and the poor (Maslin, 1997). The film shows just what exactly brings happiness to people and also highlights the dangers of looking for too much wealth. The director shows how money can control individuals and make them obsessed to the extent that they believe they can get everything they wish for in the world by virtue of having money. This is however not the case as we find out later on. This film is thus very rich in Marxist’s ideology regarding the struggle between classes. Work Cited Ebert, R. "Titanic Is an Unsinkable Saga." Chicago Sun-Times March 3, 1998. Laing, D. The Marxist Theory of Art. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities, 1978. Maslin, J. "Titanic: A Spectacle as Sweeping as the Sea." Rev, of Titanic, dir. by James Cameron, New York Times Dec. 19, 1997