Earlier this week, I bought my tickets to go see Titanic 3D. And no, I’m not ashamed of this purchase one little bit.
Neither am I ashamed that I got tickets for the one screening that happens before the movie reopens on April 4 (I’ll be going two days earlier). Although, I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t realize that I’ll be on holidays on April 15, and unable to see the movie on the 100th anniversary of the sinking.
I was 15 when Titanic first came out and actually went to the movie kicking and screaming, little did I know what I was in for. My mother took my siblings and I to see it on Christmas Day in 1997, and I was mad. Originally, we were going to see As Good as It Gets, but I believe my mother determined that movie’s subject matter may not be 100 per cent appropriate for my sister and brother (11 and 9 at the time). So we saw Titanic (yes there was naked Kate Winslet, but who knew?).
That was also the first time I saw a movie in a Silver City — the biggest screen we had ever seen, and supposedly the most comfortable stadium seating EVER. Truth be told, I didn’t find the seats comfortable at all, there was a lump right under my left thigh. Three hours later when the film ended, I discovered the lump my leg was on didn’t belong to my seat, it was the green jelly beans I had stolen from my nana’s house the night before.
It would be an understatement to say I enjoyed Titanic, almost as much as one as if you were to say the Titanic was a huge ship.
I was enthralled with the movie once it really got into it. I saw a lot of myself in Rose: sure, I wasn’t engaged to be married to a man I didn’t love, nor did my father die after cleaning us out of our fortune, but I did feel trapped, and there were times I wanted to just end it all.
After seeing Titanic that first time I went back to the theatre 14 more times (I know I had something to do with its box office success). I even went on April 14, 2008 to the late show, where (if you factored in the time difference, the ship began to sink in the movie at the same time it would have sank in 1912).
The movie came out on video on my 16th birthday in 1998 — I got a total of four copies from separate people. I guess it was an easy buy for me.
It’s easy to know what attracted me to the film — it was the love story. I was the prime age for something like that to affect me so deeply, and in a way I can’t really explain. Which is why I was interested when I heard this comment from James Cameron about the re-release:
Of course, the romantic love in the film is what I — and likely teenage girls around the world — latched on to when the film was first released. There’s no doubt that I wasn’t the only girl who saw the movie more than a dozen times. Hell, compared to other girls, I likely didn’t even see the film that much.
But is Cameron right? Will the film have a different meaning to me today than it did 15 years ago?
Sure, I no longer compare with Rose so much. I like my life, and am quite happy. I’m not looking for a Jack to arrive and save me.
So will I get something deeper out of Titanic when I watch it on the big screen all over again?
I’m not sure.
I mean, the movie did win the best picture Oscar, so there must be something else there besides some epic love story. But then again, Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan, so perhaps that’s not the best barometer.
Perhaps I’ll have my answer in a few weeks. And while I’d like to say going on April 2 will be enough to quench my Titanic obsession, I’m sure that while my 15-year-old self deep inside has other ideas.
Are you going to see Titanic when its re-released in theatres in a couple weeks? Share why or why not in the comments.