‘Titanic’s’ Cameron Wins Kudos and Epic Support

They wouldn’t have to pay me anything if I had the privilege of working with Jim Cameron again (“Epic-Size Troubles on ‘Titanic,’ ” April 19). For along with James Whale and John Ford, he was the most discerning, helpful and considerate director I’ve had in my 65 years of screen work. His “perfectionism” was not only a challenge and an adventure, it was also an inspiration. The hours were long but never tedious and always rewarding. James Cameron is a true Renaissance man: author, scientist, artist and actor.

“Titanic” will prove to be a monument to his genius.

GLORIA STUART

Cast member “Titanic”

Los Angeles

Much has been made in the press lately of some comments lifted from an interview (not yet printed) that I did with a writer for the Los Angeles Times.

At the time of the interview, I had just returned to London after months of a long, physically and emotionally demanding shoot, and I must admit that I was “blowing off steam.” What I did not consider (and what I was perhaps a bit naive about) was how my comments might be misconstrued, and how harsh they would appear in print. They appear to be an international attack by me on the film’s director, James Cameron.

“Titanic” means a great deal to me. It provided me with a wonderful and challenging role in an exciting film. Jim is a perfectionist and brings high demands of his actors. This, coupled with the fact that I had never experienced a film of this size before, was often overwhelming, but I learned a great deal from him. The experience was ultimately very worthwhile. I deeply regret that I may have given the impression that I felt otherwise.

KATE WINSLET

Los Angeles

For the past 20 years, the most serious and apparently insoluble problem facing Hollywood is the runaway inflation of the cost of making and marketing movies. Every summer, a half dozen wannabe blockbusters shoulder each other around like bull elephants at a water hole, trying to figure out who can/should/wants to open July 2 (or Aug. 1 . . . or Thanksgiving). The resulting shuffle in the release calendar leaves few satisfied and adds still more to everyone’s marketing cost.

The prime culprit this year is “Titanic,” replacing “Waterworld” and eclipsing “Heaven’s Gate” in several unwelcome categories: over schedule by several weeks and over budget by many millions, with many weeks of added post-production yet to come. Plus interest.

Still, all may yet be well. The subject suits the season, and Jim Cameron’s a major director. I can’t credit the tales of the director as a screaming tyrant. I worked for Cameron in “True Lies.” I found him focused, disciplined, civil and very gifted. I heard no screams.

As to how, let alone why, a studio could let a major film fall into this sort of swamp, I’m afraid I have no idea. Nor, I fear, does anyone else. I made two big-budget films in the ‘50s: Cecil B. DeMille’s “Ten Commandments” was budgeted at $11 million; William Wyler’s “Ben-Hur” at $14.7 million. Each was the costliest film ever made at the time. Any no-name popcorn film you like recently cost more than both those budgets put together.

Moreover, though both DeMille and Wyler had towering reputations and the absolute control of their films enjoyed today by Steven Spielberg, both films came in on schedule and on budget. Both kept to their post-production dates and opened on schedule, in some cases staying in one theater more than a year. Both were monster hits, generating grosses that (in ‘90s dollars) equal today’s mega-hits. Both still produce respectable annual income (fortunately for me).

They could do it then; why can’t they do it now? Answers, anybody?

CHARLTON HESTON

Los Angeles