James Cameron Probably Hates You

In that case...

__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.

Fun Police!

I didnt even know you hd FB. Looks good.

Terminator 2 was 1991. That's almost 30 years ago, bud.

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

Hell, the guy achieved the Mariana Trench Dive without killing himself or his crew. Pretty huge achievement.

Or Terminator, or True Lies

__________________
Letterboxd

Serious question: did you read it?

Your meme is what I expected, so I'll save it for the future!... I think "Titanic" might be the only movie of his I saw, which started as an event to take my three little cousins to the theater... They became obsessed, and every time they came to our house, they'd want to watch it.... probably hoping Jack wouldn't die at the end..

"I'll never let you go" (while she lets him go)

or as Slavoj Zizek says, "Titanic tells another story, the story of a spoiled high-society girl in an identity-crisis: she is confused, doesn't know what to do with herself, and, much more than her love partner, di Caprio is a kind of "vanishing mediator" whose function is to restore her sense of identity and purpose in life, her self-image (quite literally, also: he draws her image); once his job is done, he can disappear."

(there's more at http://www.lacan.com/zizfamily.htm )

Curiosity question, why that title, Yods?

Well, it's amusing and provocative, for one. I won't pick a title that doesn't fit just to make it more interesting, but obviously if you can say something interesting or cheeky that still conveys the general idea, that's always better.

It also ties into the dissonance between nihilism and crowd-pleasing mentioned near the beginning (and again at the end).

Cool. Do you mind if I send it to my bro? I think he'd enjoy that as much as I did.

By all means; thank you.

I'll ask for feedback and report back.

Now I'm wondering where True Lies fits into your greater unifying theory of Cameron's misanthropy. That whole second act where Schwarzenegger uses government resources to secretly blackmail Curtis into a fake spy operation because he suspects her of cheating on him certainly seems like it takes a dim view of authority figures.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Aye. I think it fits fine for the reason you mention. But it's neither a clear exception to the rule, nor a particularly egregious example of it, so there isn't a lot to say about it.

I will say that I think True Lies is one of his more "complete" films, because the writing is a lot better than it is in the films he's better known for, and I think the fact that it has less of an agenda than the others probably has something to do with that.

I figured it wasn't as clear an example as the others so it didn't deserve any particular mentioning - since the subtext I suggested isn't addressed as obviously as it is in his other films, it's debatable as to how much of it was truly intended by Cameron himself.

Yeah, and I believe it's a sorta-kinda remake of a French film which was more overtly comedic, so this might be one of those cases--and this seems like a common thing--where a very technically talented filmmaker actually benefits from the restraints of working with or around a preexisting property.

I found True Lies to be funny and campy consistently throughout the movie. I think I can still rewatch that one precisely because it's not trying to prove a point or shove an agenda down my throat. It's just fun.

I'm not surprised it's based on another film because it doesn't have that Cameron almost cartoonishly heavy-handed moralizing in the background anywhere.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

I enjoyed this, and partially because I've been in discussions around Kendrick's latest album, and what his releases tell us about the person. I think music does an alright job of having discussions about what discographies tell us about their creators, but I don't see it about filmographies as much (might just be uniformed there though).

Especially interesting with regards to what stays consistent among different films, and how those core pieces' gravity affects the movies (as in, some directors have consistent elements among films, but those pieces don't bend the film towards that element in a way that feels unnatural, where I take it part of why Yoda chose Cameron is that he noticed that there wasn't just a common set of core ideas, but that the film also seemed to have that core as a fixture).

I am curious, which came first? Noticing there was a common theme in the movies and wanting to explore that? Hearing about his off-screen personality and wondering if it informed his movies? Something else?

A nicely-written essay. I do see your point that Cameron probably isn't a very good director as he tends to make his messages too unsubtle, and he doesn't seem like a very friendly person in real life either, but I'm not sure if it would be correct or fair to call him a misanthrope. He may think humanity is flawed, but by holding a mirror up to its face he's at least trying to make it aware of its flaws, trying to get it to change, as his Earth Day speech suggests.

But what about those other "blockbuster" directors? The ones who make "simplistic, crowd-pleasing" films, as the first line of the essay suggests? The ones whose films don't have any artistic merit, and don't even have a message either? The ones whose films glorify violence, sexism, war, and the general cultural flaws that Cameron's films criticise? The ones who keep on making the same formulaic, meaningless films and yet still expect people to come and see them? Aren't they more like misanthropes?