By Michael Lockman
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 31, 1998

Titanic better than most films

To the Editor:

As an avid movie beholder and quoter, I feel that it is my duty to try to convince Jamie Kanter why "Titanic" represents more than mere "glitz without substance" ("Why 'Titanic' should have sunk at the Oscars," Mar. 26).

Much too often, as Kanter correctly points out, the box office is infested with "high-technology, high-budget, low-thinking films" (e.g. "Speed" and "Eraser"). While certainly high-tech and high-budget, "Titanic," I believe, steers clear of thoughtlessness.

When I walked out of James Cameron's epic, in fact, the ephemeral romance of Jack and Rose was but one of many things on my mind. I thought of the socio-economic divide of 1912, the patronizing contempt with which Rose's high-class mother and fiancé treat their destitute dinner guest, the class-designated areas of the ship and the many third-class passengers who were, like pigs in a pen, locked within the bowels of the Titanic as her distinguished members made their way to the lifeboats.

I thought of the recklessness of the Titanic's commanding officers, specifically, their decision to have their ship cruise at full speed through dark, iceberg-infested waters while they scrounged for binoculars.

I thought of the greedy aims of the wreck's explorers. Indeed, it was quite painless for them to turn the tomb of hundreds into a giant treasure chest at the drop of a hat.

And I thought of the point in everyone's life at which he or she breaks free from parental control and begins to live for his or her own dreams.

Was "Titanic" the best picture of the year? Who's to say? The answer, I believe, is for the individual and not the Academy to find. Was "Titanic" more than the mindless display of muscles, guns and buns with which we've become so familiar? I, for one, think so.

Michael Lockman
Undeclared Freshman