I fail to see, sir, why James Cameron (of whom I have never been a fan)
should be compared to any of the directors you mention in order for the
film itself to be great. I invite you to read my brief first impressions
on the CNN Community Movie Review board. I plan to flesh them out, but the
basics are there. I strongly disagree with your cynical comment: "One
spends the entire time watching this film waiting to hear DiCaprio's
character (or even Bill Paxton's character, in his bookend-of-a-role) let
loose with a rousing "Game over, man!"; but no, Cameron doesn't even reward
you with the sugarpill of camp; he is determined you take his silly
dialogue seriously, and gives you no such comfortable out." to be quite
silly.

You obviously want the character to be something other than who he is. You
do not like the character, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the
charactization is weak or in need of anything you suggest. I found the
dialogue to be crisp and without any preachiness. The character of Jack
would never say what you suggest. That is because you do not understand
the character.

There are other little things you say that I could disagree with. Your
outlandish comment in summation:"Cameron's middling piece of bloated,
over-indulgent filmmaking" obviously dimonstrates that you experienced the
film on its most base level. There are three levels to the film. You
ignore the other two almost completely, so I am forced to conclude that you
think it a grand disaster movie with another of hollywood's love triangles
thrown in.

Your comments were interesting and I even learned something from them.
But, if you think that you can sink "Titanic" with your personal
comparisons of Cameron with others you are being foolish. I, too, was
surprised that Cameron pulled this off. I've never been a fan of his.
But, he did pull it off. He pulled off something we haven't seen in years;
an epic adventure love story, told with outstanding techincal skill, doing,
at once, all the things that make movies make money while at the same time
being a great piece of art.

hello,
I've seen TITANIC 3 times. I was a Titanic fan long before the film came
about, so
perhaps there lies my interest. I think overall the film is generally pretty
good, it seems
to have universal appeal for obvious reasons. However if you look at past
photos of actual
images from the real ship, and the real survivors, they bear little
resemblance to the spiffed up attractive crowd in the Cameron movie. Do you
think Rose would have really given the "finger" to someone while escaping
through a elevator? Do you think Jack would say lines like "I'll wait right
here" while Rose goes to fetch a axe? For sure, there are a lot of things
that are just too Hollywood, and just too modern day to be considered
accurate.
But the fact that this project was undertaken at all, and to such lengths, is
quite a fete.
And admittedly there are some beautiful, poignant moments in the film, which
with a little
imagination can actually bring the mind back to 1912. The music suits the
film well.
Let's give credit where it is due......maybe too much accuracy would have
worked
against the project..........
Cheers....

Let's give credit where it is due......maybe too much accuracy would have
worked
against the project..........


You make some valid points, and I agree with you: too much
emphasis on historical accuracy would more than likely have worked against
Cameron's "project" as it were...but to my mind that "project" is in itself
a pretty worthless, sentimental, cliche-filled, ham-handedly written story;
the fact of its being placed within the framework of the events of that
night in the North Atlantic in May (or was it April) of 1912 is more or less
incidental.
I mean to say, that Cameron - faced with all the various
pressures placed upon this production - indeed pulled off a feat of
herculean proportions in realizing this movie. In the end, though, the
quality of what he realized was suspect (in my opinion, be it noted...).
The last point I would make is that Cameron would most certainly
have been better served to rely more on a more esoteric sort of accuracy:
that is, fidelity to character, which (again, in my estimation) is the
fundamental rule of drama. The lack of sufficiently defined
characterizations (mostly due to the writing, but partially to the
direction, and to an extent some of the acting) in the film ultimately made
the dramatic payoff in its resolution lack the force it perhaps could have
enjoyed were Cameron a more disciplined writer and director.
But that's all subjective, and of dubious worth; it's merely
another way of saying "I did not like the film".

Besides finding your site a ego-centric monument chock full of HACK
criticism, it supplied me with a good 5 minutes of hearty laughter.
You've obviously missed the whole boat when it comes to the movie-going
experience. The great thing about Titanic, (or any other great movie) is
that it offers a look into ourselves and a tragic moment in our history.
Titanic itself (not the movie) is a perfect example of CG Jung's archetype,
an event of mythical scale - embedded into the social mind. You've drawn
comparisons between Cameron, Scorsese, Altman and Hawks - no doubtedly a
fine example of HACK criticism. Only a 14 year old girl would contest that
the acting left some realism to be desired.

What James Cameron's Titanic succeeds at best is perfectly portraying the
size, drama and tragedy of the events from April 10 - 15, 1912 through the
eyes of two marketable characters. Hollywood is a business, and Cameron
has masterfully walked the tightrope between business and art. James
Cameron has done the impossible - resuscitated a myth into a living
breathing leviathan of good art and business. I guarantee you sat through
all three hours, did you not? When you release your first epic film,
casting a 45,000 ton main character, 85 years old and on the bottom of the
sea - let me know. I'd love to see you take a stab at it - without losing
your wits and your wallet.

Besides finding your site a ego-centric monument chock full of HACK
criticism, it supplied me with a good 5 minutes of hearty laughter.

Which is my other, final argument for knowing definitively
that Cameron is a hack: it takes one, as they say, to know one...and as
you've seen, I have the necessary credentials...

You've obviously missed the whole boat when it comes to the movie-going
experience.

You make a couple of valid points, and had I heard them
from anyone (and I talked to quite a few more people than the standard,
14-year-old girl crowd) before now, I may not have even put this page up. It
is true that the actual fact of the film "Titanic", after all the storied
trouble Cameron and Co. had during production, is laudable - I will never
deny that just completing an evenly remotely coherent film and releasing it
under those heightened circumstantial pressures is an acheivement worthy of,
at the very least, respect. And to have made a profit after what it cost to
produce? That deserves no less than respect; that it may become the highest
grossing film ever, I would argue, is a little bit out of Cameron's hands at
the moment...but he has a share of that glory with his name on it, as well.
Whether any of these things makes it inherently a "good" film, however, is
quite another matter...but back to the issue of its success.
If you're saying that "Titanic"'s success is based, in
the main, on that considered reaction (I think you described it as the
appraisal of and approval for Cameron's having "masterfully walked the
tightrope between business and art"), I think you're dead wrong. Perhaps
that is why you enjoyed the film - I didn't, but I am making no claims here
to have some higher source of knowledge which makes my opinion more valuable
than yours: I can explain my reaction, try to find reasons to support it,
but ultimately, there is only the reaction - but everything I've been able
to gather (from official sites, industry publications, "Titanic" web pages,
and the various people I've questioned over their respective reactions - I
work at a video rental place, and have occasion to speak to many people in
this regard) seems to negate that claim. My considered conclusion is that
the groundswell of support this film has received is directly related to the
sloppy, Oprah Winfrey-esque, sentimentality of the sickly-sweet melodramatic
plot, and the accordingly strong feelings which it seems to have occasioned
in so many of those who have seen it.
But then, that's just a fragmentary conclusion drawn from
a pseudo-representational cross-section of regular movie goers. I'm not
claiming much more than that. Hollywood is, indeed, a business - but
business success does not directly equate with excellence in (directorial)
execution; last time I checked, Steven Segal and Jean Claude Van Damme had
each made themselves tidy little sums in a slew of films which I daresay
fall far short of excellence in either execution or conception, for that
matter.
As as for invoking Jung, allow me to finish this (silly,
rambling, but mark you, I appreciate the opportunity to have written it:
thank you for your reply) message by paraphrasing Freud's critique of
organized religion (especially the monotheistic traditions): anything which
smacks of wish-fulfillment (and I would include the melodramatic aspects of
"Titanic"'s story in this category, acheiving as they did their ends without
honest, well-drawn characters or dialogue: by cheating) is a crutch, an
impediment. And no wholly healthy individual walks with a crutch, if he can
avoid it.
Neither does he tell himself (or she, tell herself) that
she is completely healthy, while using that crutch...
Thank you for your reply, once again - it was
considerably longer than the standard, one-word flames I've been regularly
getting; can we agree that we disagree...without too much acrimony?

If you knew what you were doing, maybe you'd be a little more successful

in life.
You are just not very intelligent. I have a degree in Mathematics from
the University of Chicago and I am currently a Professor of Mathematics
at Colorado College. I have co-authored and authored many texts on and
including Modern Analysis and Topology, Differential Equations and the
critically acclaimed "Precalculus in a Nutshell" (Janson, 1981). I have

been to six of seven continents and I fish in the rocky mountain states
(out in the western part of this country) for trout. I read literature,

history, biography, autobiography, science and enough thrillers to
achieve enjoyment without guilt. These are my vast credentials. Here
are yours:

You are a child with the incorrect notion that you know and understand
everything that this earth has to offer. You've probably never been to
a museum. You've probably never been out of the country. You probably
enjoy uncouth and unsophisticated musical groups espousing all of the
idiotic convictions which you cling to like so much worn out rope- rope
hanging from the trees of ignorance, over the overwhelming cliffs of
enlightenment and littered with the knots of intolerance. You post the
alleged truth on your lackluster web page with such sweeping and idiotic

generalizations such as:

"[I, Sullivan Parker, have made narrow minded and trendy broad based
statements such as one]would be
hard pressed to argue that James Cameron has Hawks' capacity for
correlative dialogue, or Chayefsky's
facility for veracity; I applaud his effort."

"[I, Sullivan Parker, being very small and petty and insignificant, and
knowing absolutely nothing about today's movie market (or Howard Hawks,
for that matter) thinks that] Having forced myself to sit through
Cameron's magnum
hack-sterpiece, and in the face of the near unanimous, cloying (and
frankly, quite annoying) acclaim which
it has received, I feel I must draw attention to a couple of facts [all
of which, although I call them 'facts', are entirely untrue]."

"[I, Sullivan Parker, obviously being involved in many drugs myself and
knowing nothing about government, think that, so that my friends and I
won't get picked up for narcotics possession again for the umpteenth
time,] Reservoir Dogs [was an incredibly great movie, although it lacked
all the substance, plot and dialogue for which I criticize] James
Cameron's Titanic"

So, sleep well tonight knowing that you are nothing, your beliefs and
ideas are meaningless and that the rising millennium brings unspeakable
truths which contradict all of your tenets and once confronted with
them, you will, in turn, vanish into nothingness.

I have nothing else to write to you, but, in your words 'to sum up',
this is what I found superbly enjoyable about Titanic:
1- James Cameron effectively spent 200 million dollars on something
incredibly important: retelling a classic tale about the unprecedented
arrogance of mankind.
2- A script worthy of your favorites, Martin Scorcese, Quentin
Tarintino, and Howard Hawks.
3- Drama, Drama, Drama!! What a superb display of acting ability by
some promising and prominent young actors! You can't teach this in
school- not even in my alma mater.

-George F. Simmons
Professor of Mathematics
Colorado College

PS- I personally resent your claim that "[I, Sullivan Parker, being
much better than the average movie watcher, think that the audience
should wise up and start seeing much superior movies like] Gone With the
Wind. [I fail to realize that said movie was actually inferior, as
young people like myself use many drugs and promote violence in
government owned streets. I also blindly think that Kate Winslet and
Leonardo DiCaprio have] positively herculean acting chops [not actually
knowing what the words] 'herculean' [and] 'acting chops' [mean]." Good
Day, Sir.

>Mr. Parker,
>If you knew what you were doing, maybe you'd be a little more successful
>in life.

Every person is entitled to his or her own opinion
(ill-informed as it may be); with that in mind, we'll leave it and its
relationship to success or lack thereof for another debate, or at least for
the end of this one.

>You are just not very intelligent. I have a degree in Mathematics from
>the University of Chicago and I am currently a Professor of Mathematics
>at Colorado College. I have co-authored and authored many texts on and
>including Modern Analysis and Topology, Differential Equations and the
>critically acclaimed "Precalculus in a Nutshell" (Janson, 1981).

And all of this gives your opinion vis a vis dramatic
convention, film, and the late/immediate post-Victorian world more weight
than mine...*how*? I've only been to two continents, but I completed
Calculus as a sophomore in high school (at 16), for what that (or, for that
matter, your degree in, tenure teaching in, and text-writing experience with
Mathematics) is worth...which - and let's be frank - is *absolutely nothing*
as far as this discussion is involved. We (yes, I am deigning to include
myself in the same sentence with your eminence) are both expressing and
expanding upon *personal reactions* to the film. As such, there is
fundamentally no basis for either of us to argue that one or the other is
"right", as it were; evidence presented on either side (setting aside for
the moment your incredibly simplistic use of tacking onto quotes from my
page the silly device, "I, Sullivan [sic] Parker...", which is *not*
evidence of anything other than your sorely lacking writing facility;
luckily, I would imagine that a professorship in Mathematics would be one of
the best places to hide such a glaring deficiency) can all be reduced to the
initial reaction either of us had to the film. For the last six or seven
years, all I have read - and I read incessantly - have been Victorian and
immediately post-Victorian fiction (plays, etc); consequently, I was
painfully aware of the complete alienation of any of Cameron's "Titanic"
characters from the actual realities or contemporary fictions of people who
lived at that time; it was as if he took titular "early-1900's" stock
characters, invested them with (modern) contemporary mores, slang, and
motivations, and then asked the audience to believe that their (modern)
actions within the (Titanic-contemporary) context were supposed to have
meaning. I had expected to like the film, if in only a limited manner; that
it did not requite was not a shock, but was mildly disturbing. That Cameron
has been declared a master (and proclaimed himself "King of the World") on
the basis of its dubious merits I found much more disturbing, and that is
the place from which this page emerged.
Admittedly, the comments expressed on my web page are a bit
thin...but I wrote that back in January, after having just seen the film
(and having read the early reviews), and I was in a state nearly incoherent
anger. My intent was to see if anybody else reacted similarly. Had you taken
the time to look at the "See Some Messages Regarding This Page - And My
Replies" page, you would have seen that my problems were with Cameron's
universal acclaim as the great American writer-director (as a producer, yes,
he is peculiarly gifted...with the possible exception of not firing himself
as writer and director of "Titanic", or at least bringing in someone else to
help in those regards; and I would separate the two jobs as follows: true
excellence in production requires exceeding administrative faculty, the
ability to balance and schedule; true excellence in writing/direction is
comprised of a unique, compelling, and formally consistent insight into the
human condition), stating specifically what I see as his weaknesses: a) his
utter inability to write dialogue, b) his (apparently unwitting, and
repeated) violation of the cardinal rule of drama: that all action flows
from character (which he answers by declaring his story "deliberately uses
archetypes", which - given the sloppy and mis-characterized nature of these
supposed "archetypes" - is basically an admission that he is unable to write
believable characters), and c) his persistent problem with allowing the
technical aspects of his films to dominate the other, more important aspects
of same, and indeed to let those considerations dictate the plot and actions
of his characters (which is part and parcel of his violation of the
above-stated cardinal rule of drama). When considering how best to point out
(and make sense of, from my own perspective) these faults, I hit upon the
idea of comparing him to Paddy Chayefsky (to highlight the manifest
disparity in ability to write dialogue; at length, I decided it made more
formal sense to include all directors, so Hawks took Chayefsky's place);
from there it just seemed to make formal sense to compare him to other
acknowledged masters of the remaining areas to similarly highlight his
weaknesses (in the interest, remember, of pointing out that the man who was
then the odds-on favorite for Best Director has some serious problems with
that role, and these manifest themselves in his films). Admittedly, that is
no way to seriously criticize a film or its director, but as I've stated
earlier, this page was not necessarily meant to engage people whose
enjoyment of the film wasn't obscured by similar problems, or to seriously
deconstruct the film; I was simply trying to hash out my own reactions to
the film, and to simultaneously locate others who felt similarly.

>I read literature,
>history, biography, autobiography, science and enough thrillers to
>achieve enjoyment without guilt. These are my vast credentials.

I read non-fiction as well. I forgot to mention that. It
would seem that my threshold for "enjoyment-guilt" is lower than yours...

>You are a child with the incorrect notion that you know and understand
>everything that this earth has to offer.

With respect to the specific issues addressed on my
page - and in our little discussion here - I have considerable
understanding: I have read an inordinate amount of contemporary (to
"Titanic") fiction and historical material, and have accordingly acquired a
relative familiarity with the mores and general disposition of,
particularly, upper-class British and and American persons of that time;
nothing in "Titanic" jibes at all with that. As far as my being a child,
mistakenly convinced that I "know and understand everything that this earth
has to offer", I would submit two things: first, that I claim only to "know
and understand" more than you, it would seem, with regard to Victorian and
immediately post-Victorian society, and second, that - insofar as your
statement is in some wise correct - I would submit that you are a
middle-aged (50+?) man with the incorrect notion that you know and
understand everything this earth has to offer. While you may understand more
of it than me, surely you're not claiming to understand all of it, are you?
That's what you seem to be implying. I'm 24, by the way.

>You've probably never been to
>a museum.

Incorrect.

>You've probably never been out of the country.

Wrong again. Let me clarify something here: it was exactly
my familiarity with - and affinity for - the general cultural engines of the
age indexed in "Titanic" which occasioned my desire to see the film; it was
the glaring, laughable unfamiliarity with which Cameron treated everything
dramatic (save the technical aspects) of the film which brought forth my
jarring disappointment with it, and it was the groundswell movement toward
deification of Cameron which, finally, brought about my attack on his
credentials as a writer-director. Anyone who sees the general anima of the
film and its characterizations as anything other than silly and off-target,
with respect to the *actual* time period, I've come to the considered
conclusion, is just misinformed as to that actual reality of that era
(which, please note, is not a crime, but *does* preclude the right to claim
any superiority in that regard).

>You probably
>enjoy uncouth and unsophisticated musical groups espousing all of the
>idiotic convictions which you cling to like so much worn out rope- rope
>hanging from the trees of ignorance, over the overwhelming cliffs of
>enlightenment and littered with the knots of intolerance. You post the
>alleged truth on your lackluster web page with such sweeping and idiotic
>generalizations such as [etc]:


I quote this entire passage with the express aim of getting
you to read it once again (although after writing it, it occurs to me that
you probably looked it over several times, with increasing
self-satisfaction), so that you may see how *horrible* of a metaphor it is;
however, given your affinity for "Titanic", I imagine this will not have the
desired effect.
So let's clarify: you're saying that I used the "worn-out
rope" of the "idiotic convictions" espoused by my favorite "unsophisticated
musical groups" to...climb "over the overwhelming cliffs of
enlightenment"...? What in God's name does (any of) this mean? Why are you
characterizing these (suitably non-specific) "conventions" as knotted rope?
And rope, such as it is, cannot be "littered with knots"; it can be glutted,
convoluted, or riddled with them, but not "littered": that is a
distractingly imprecise modifier. The knots occasion my ability to climb
down the cliff to reach?...this is too much. This metaphor is too mottled to
make any sense. But - speaking in the same metaphorical language for a
moment - allow me to say that I think it is this very "rope" of "convention"
(read: the touchy-feely, self-profligating myth of romantic "love",
generated c. the 1100's in medieval Europe, and the abovementioned
unfamiliarity with the Victorian/immediately post-Victorian age) by which
most unquestioning fans of "Titanic" hang themselves...or should, anyway.

>"[I, Sullivan Parker, have made narrow minded and trendy broad based
>statements such as one]would be
>hard pressed to argue that James Cameron has Hawks' capacity for
>correlative dialogue, or Chayefsky's
>facility for veracity; I applaud his effort."


Two things: "narrow-minded"-ness and "trendy"-ness have
little or nothing to do with my statements; get this: James Cameron cannot
write dialogue; Paddy Chayefsky and Howard Hawks could. It is as simple as
that. If anyone else is of the same opinion, it because that truth is
*glaringly obvious* when viewing works by either of the mentioned directors.
Also, when using a person's name, it is important to spell it correctly, if
you want to be taken seriously. My name has only one "L" in it, though I
can't say I'm surprised that you misspelled it, because that is in a
nutshell what you've done with all of my comments: taken them and then
distorted them beyond recognition (or signifigance) to make your case
(which, by the way, is what? that I'm a "child"?).

>"[I, Sullivan Parker, being very small and petty and insignificant, and
>knowing absolutely nothing about today's movie market (or Howard Hawks,
>for that matter) thinks that] Having forced myself to sit through
>Cameron's magnum
>hack-sterpiece, and in the face of the near unanimous, cloying (and
>frankly, quite annoying) acclaim which
>it has received, I feel I must draw attention to a couple of facts [all
>of which, although I call them 'facts', are entirely untrue]."


Debater's Rule of Thumb #2: when using quotes in your
refutations, try to include passages with the refutations which refer to
them. In this case, you quoted the first part of my web page, which included
the statement that the rest of my page would outline "a couple of facts";
those facts, as later stated, were/are these: 1) that Cameron is not Howard
Hawks, 2) that Cameron is no Robert Altman, and 3) that Cameron is no Martin
Scorsese (none of which you included in your quote). You contend that these
statements are "entirely untrue". Now, on the most basic level - at least
last time I checked - Cameron did not direct "Bringing Up Baby",
"Nashville", or "Raging Bull". Am I wrong? Are those facts "untrue"?

>"[I, Sullivan Parker, obviously being involved in many drugs myself and
>knowing nothing about government, think that, so that my friends and I
>won't get picked up for narcotics possession again for the umpteenth
>time,] Reservoir Dogs [was an incredibly great movie, although it lacked
>all the substance, plot and dialogue for which I criticize] James
>Cameron's Titanic"


You're really losing it here, friend; let me offer you
some advice: stick to the topic. While it may be a little bit easier for you
focus upon math, I think you can find a way to do it in the uncharted
territory of abstract, reasoned debate, or at least abstain from making such
silly (and unfounded: where do these comments come from?) generaliztions in
the course of this debate: they undercut your intent, which I presume is to
make me feel like an uninformed child, while simultaneously promoting
yourself to the level of experienced, wise, and intelligent in my eyes. And
here again, I must draw your attention to the actual text in my page, which
in no wise states that I think "Reservoir Dogs" (which, as an
English-speaking adult, I must point out that you forgot to put in quotes)
to be a paradigm of excellent "substance, plot [or] dialogue"; in point of
fact, the reference to that film is expressly to point out that Cameron's
unceremonious theft of several sequences has precedent in the [internet, at
the very least] community for occasioning an outcry against such action.

>So, sleep well tonight knowing that you are nothing, your beliefs and
>ideas are meaningless and that the rising millennium brings unspeakable
>truths which contradict all of your tenets and once confronted with
>them, you will, in turn, vanish into nothingness.


I will. And thank you. But let me offer you a little
more grammatical and diction-ary advice (for future reference, you
understand: I want to help you): while beliefs and ideas can be be
considered meaningless in their failure to touch reality (i.e., your belief
in the idea that James Cameron "effectively" retold a "classic tale" about
the "arrogance of mankind", when referred to the reality that he did a very
poor job, formally speaking), it would be more precise to say that those
beliefs and ideas are either misinformed or ill-founded. And with regard to
those "unspeakable truths" which the "rising" millennium will bring, are
those unspeakable because they are secret or horrible, or simply because you
lack the grammatical facility to speak them?


>1- James Cameron effectively spent 200 million dollars on something
>incredibly important: retelling a classic tale about the unprecedented
>arrogance of mankind.

Once again, grammatical errors will undercut and work
against your intention every time; in this case, it is not germaine to speak
of a "classic tale" about "unprecedented arrogance". Try to follow me; if it
is indeed a "classic tale", then it speaks to universal (and thus supremely
"precedented") themes - hence the resonance that makes the tale "classic"
and meaningful to many people. Similarly, re-telling a tale of something
"unprecedented" is an oxymoron, since - strictly speaking - in the very fact
of its having been told, it has a precedent, and ceases to be unprecedented.
It alarms me that you are allowed to teach at the college level, albeit
math.

>2- A script worthy of your favorites, Martin Scorcese, Quentin
>Tarintino, and Howard Hawks.

Rule of debate #12: be specific! Cite and respond to
specific passages in the original text for maximum effect. Nowhere in the
text of my page does it say that those directors are my "favorites"; their
inclusion in the text was for strictly dialectical reasons, to point out
flaws in Cameron's directorial make-up. Rule #13: spelling, spelling,
spelling. The words are right there on my web-page for you to refer to; you
have no excuse for spelling them incorrectly. Scorsese, note, is spelled
with three 's'-s; Tarantino with two 'a'-s.

>3- Drama, Drama, Drama!! What a superb display of acting ability by
>some promising and prominent young actors! You can't teach this in
>school- not even in my alma mater.


This should read "Melodrama! Melodrama! Melodrama!". The
blank, unholy fact of the matter is that, indeed, most of the actors in the
film have done spectacular work...in other (much better) films. Winslet in
"Jude" and "Heavenly Creatures", DiCaprio in "This Boy's Life" and "What's
Eating Gilbert Grape", and Billy Zane in "Dead Calm". And apparently they
were unable to teach grammar/the basics of college-level composition at your
alma mater as well...


>PS- I personally resent your claim that "[I, Sullivan Parker, being
>much better than the average movie watcher, think that the audience
>should wise up and start seeing much superior movies like] Gone With the
>Wind.

Look, I personally resent your entire message, riddled as it
is, with horrific metaphors, faulty logic, and spelling and grammar errors -
not to mention vague, personal attacks. Let's put our respective personal
resentments aside for the moment. I don't think "Gone With the Wind" to be
particularly moving or great, but it does feature throughout a stylistic and
thematic coherence/consistency which (love it or leave it) pervades the
entire work. And that, despite the fact that George Cukor was taken off the
project several weeks after filming began, and Victor Fleming brought in to
replace him (and we can thank David O. Selznick for that). "Titanic", such
as it is, does not feature the same consistency or coherence, and none of
the force of its themes are brought to bear in the narrative (and it had the
advantage of one continous writer/director/producer throughout). But rather
than bore/confuse you with such an examination of the two films, I'll put
this in terms you can understand: Mathematics. When adjusted for inflation,
"Gone With the Wind" is still far and away the highest grossing movie ever.
Now, granted, "Titanic" will certainly overtake it at some point, after all
of its ancilliary markets have been exhausted, but consider: "Titanic" was
released during a period of truly unprecedented, robust economic prosperity
in the US - the GDP has grown steadily by more than the hoped-for-average of
2% for each of the last several years - and so its totals reflect the
accompanying surplus of disposable income; "GWTW" was released at the very
end of the depression (1939), and so its ticket sales represent
proportionally a greater percentage of average per capita income - and by
extension, a proportionally more dear expenditure - than those of "Titanic".

>[I fail to realize that said movie was actually inferior, as
>young people like myself use many drugs and promote violence in
>government owned streets. I also blindly think that Kate Winslet and
>Leonardo DiCaprio have] positively herculean acting chops [not actually
>knowing what the words] 'herculean' [and] 'acting chops' [mean]." Good
>Day, Sir.

Once again, you are straying from the topic. What is this
obsession with "drugs", things "owned" by the government, and "violence"
perpetrated thereupon? The more I look at your comments, the more bizarre
they look. I am familiar with Colorado College - I know people who have
attended the school - and as I understand it, its chief distinction is the
same as that of the night-school GED courses offered at any local high
school: one can get one's degree in about a third of the time it would take
at a "conventional" school. In light of the fact that you teach Mathematics
there, perhaps it is not wise for you to cite (as you did earlier) your
"vast credentials"...since you are so fond of such institutional references,
let me simply point out that Colorado College is no M.I.T.
I have some final advice for you. In recent years,
another professor of Mathematics became consumed by similar paranoiac
obsessions, and even as I type, Theodore Kaczynski is on trial for mailing
bombs to various government institutions; learn from his example, and ease
up. It will pay off in the long run.