MovieChat Forums > James Cameron Discussion > most insincere filmmaker ever?

most insincere filmmaker ever?


James Cameron is fascinating in how the themes and messages in his films always seem to actively contradict the guy's actual philosophy and worldviews. His movies always contain the most preachy, squeaky clean messages that are guaranteed to challenge and offend no one, but they seem fundamentally at odds with Cameron's real-life attitudes about the world.

This can be found in virtually all his films. The Terminator movies for instance, serve to tell a story about the dangers of our ever increasing reliance on technology and the possibility of us becoming obsolete in the process. Yet, as we all know, Cameron himself is clearly in love with tech, as evidenced by how much of a technical innovator and tinkerer he's always been. This contradictory relationship he has with technology is further presented in Aliens, where the movie seems to almost be making a statement at the start about how heavy firepower and state-of-the-art weapons can be stumped by well-planned guerilla warfare techniques (basically brains over tools), which goes right against Cameron's attitude of always having to be technically innovative every time he makes a film.

In True Lies, the whole arc of the movie is about Harry Tasker learning to be a better husband and father by being honest and actually being there, but Cameron himself has gone through a sum of five marriages over the course of his life, and has once even stated that he sees being a hotshot Hollywood director as a more fulfilling way of life than being a decent family man. Lastly, in both Titanic and Avatar, Cameron seems to espouse some sort of spirituality and belief in the afterlife, as evidenced by how Rose basically reunites with Jack in heaven at the end of Titanic and how the Na'vi are spiritually linked to all the plants and animals on Pandora. That all sounds well and good, until one comes to learn that James Cameron is actually a staunch atheist in real life with no seeming belief in anything remotely spiritual.

I'm not saying this immediately renders Cameron's work bad, as I still do like the vast majority of his films. But upon dissecting his work closely in comparison to his real life, it's hard to see him as anything other than a phony, insincere artist who makes movies that actively go against his actual worldviews to sell. He's like the world's greatest huckster in a certain way.

Who's with me?

reply

I agree. He comes of as an asshole prick to me. When he dumped Linda Hamilton I knew than that he was an asshole of the highest order...😂

reply

Really? He is an "asshole"? Oh.

Well, it didn't go over well at the Academy Awards when he accepted his award and then shouted "I'm King of the World!"

reply

Dunno if he's an asshole in his personal life or not. As The OP points out though, he's definitely another case study in the shallowness of celebrity thinking

reply

He dumped Linda because she beats him up. She beats up all her spouses. She took Sarah Connor literallys.

reply

No one?

reply

Except the guy who responded right before you...

reply

Yeah, fucker - why are you ignoring the guy a month ago?

reply

Interesting post, but I'm going to say that I don't consider it absolutely necessary for every work of art or entertainment to be deeply personal. Of course some great art is made that way, as is a lot of self-indulgent twaddle, but some great films are made about things which are outside the director's personal experience - they are made to entertain, or are made by someone who is able to understand more than the inside of their own head. A film like "Lawrence of Arabia" isn't personal in that sense, director David Lean had never been to war or lived in the Middle East, it was a film about a person but a person who wasn't a stand-in for the director.

So when Cameron's films are entertaining, I accept that as pure entertainment, and if films like "T2" and "Titannic" had a bit of an anti-technology message and the guy love techs, maybe he's got some internal conflicts about technology he hasn't made public in any other way, so maybe there's a touch of something personal there - but if not, okay. But yeah, even I rolled my eyes a bit at "Avatar", which had a anti-corporate message, but which was made by some huge entertainment corporation giving Cameron a couple of hundred million as a budget and expecting a profit in return.

reply

I'm not with you, because all you did was invent contradictions that were never inherent in his work in order to make a tu quoque fallacy.

The Terminator franchise was not anti-technology. It was an anti-nuclear weapons polemic. We had built so many weapons by the 1980s that it seemed as if humans were at the mercy or the military technology they had created. The "machines taking control" angle was an allegory for nuclear proliferation.

The franchise was also written to counteract the fatalism that everyone was having about nuclear war, this idea that we were fated to kill each other no matter what. That is what the time traveling theme was all about, to give people some kind of faint slimmer of hope that we could change our future regardless of how inevitable nuclear war seemed.

Jack never went to heaven in Titanic. It's clear in the last scene that what happened is that as Rose died, her last vision was of her returning to the Titanic and reuniting with Jack. If you've ever had elderly relatives on their last legs, you would've this immediately and seen how poignant it was. People in that stage of life literally start having dreams or visions of loved ones who've died decades ago. They will start seeing brothers, sisters, even parents. In some cases, they will even start imagining that they've come back to life and that they will see them any moment now. I'm not trying to be condescending, but I really feel sorry for you that this scene in Titanic is all you got out of the movie.

Regarding Aliens, again, you are inventing contradictions. Aliens was not anti-tech; it was a statement against American militarism and its obsession with souped up military gear. It was shot at the peak of Reaganism, when it seemed as if all the Pentagon was doing was creating all of these newfangled weapons (Star Wars initiative, stealth planes, etc.) to try out against "inferior" people around the world. To counteract that nonsense, the movie "reminded" everyone why reliance on such military tech was misguided by using the Vietnam War as an example.

reply

I never said the Terminator movies were literally anti-tech, but they were clearly designed to be cautionary tales against the development of technology that renders humans obsolete. If anything, you have it reversed. The machines taking control angle was what the story was really about, not the dangers of nuclear war. Skynet saw humans as threats to the stability of the world, hence why they decided to wipe us out. The nuclear bombs stuff is really just background. The real emphasis there was clearly the dangers of AI surpassing human intelligence.

In Titanic, how can you not see that the ending is meant to represent heaven? If you ask me, I'd say that scene was more likely a symbolic representation than anything, and not Rose literally ascending to the heavens to meet her long lost love (hence why there's no God in the picture). But still, the implication is obvious. The scene is clearly meant to represent heaven, as evidenced by the hazy, dreamlike, ethereal-looking glow of the ship.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth again. I never said Aliens was anti-tech but rather, the movie makes a statement that heavy firepower is no match against a group of diligent, well-organized soldiers. If anything, your interpretation that Aliens was commenting on US military endeavors in the 80's is far reaching at best, given how the movie is clearly siding with Ripley's belief of having to wipe the aliens out. What I got instead, was a brains-over-tools kind of message. A statement that big tools are useless in the hands of those with small brains.

And again, this is a message that is somewhat contradicted by Cameron's real-life attitude of always having to be a technical innovator. If he really believed that brains trumped tools, he'd be more like Steven Spielberg in the way he makes films, where he makes technical innovations only when the story calls for it, as opposed to a self-imposed mandate on each project.

Do you get it now?

reply

you can love technology and still feel like caution is in order

You can love humanity, yet still feel like it's causing too much destruction in nature

There was no particular religious vibe to any of his films, as far as I can tell.

I suspect not all people are made for long term relationships - or he could also be an asshole - lol

The real problem with what you said is this - artistry is just that - artistry - a work of art and imagination. It does not mandate you to preach your actual world views.

reply

I just think he's a narcissistic control freak who made 2 or 3 good movies in a row and since these type of azzholes get worse over time he can't make a really good movie anymore.

reply

Dude made aliens, he can kill puppies for all I care, he is a legend

reply

I don't agree.
If anything, all the contradictions make him a better, more sincere ARTIST, than somebody preaching crap he also believes in.

It shows how he is embracing the material and giving his own interpretation of it, notwithstanding the fact that his opinion is quite different. You are saying something like that Rami Malek, for instance, gives an insincere performance because he is not gay and yet he played Freddy Mercury. If anything, that makes him a better, more sincere artist, doesn't it? Putting himself in a foreign position for the sake of his artwork.
Same for Cameron.

reply

I agree. But hold on....
this is your answer:
1- he is an asshole
2- his movies are insincere
3- he uses these themes in his art to fit in his concepts, not because he believes them

Doesn't that make him a truer artist?
Isn't his insincerity actually true to his personality?
Wouldnt him be direct and sincere, instead of manipulative and an asshole, make him even less honest?

reply

I agree with you. Although I'm not sure about the Heaven interpretation of the ending of Titanic, I haven't seen it in ages. The movie does seem to propogate a sort of transcendental power of romantic love that the guy doesn't seem to believe in in real life.

reply