1. No, no relative, nor does someone have to be for one to feel a sense of anger that the film makers have portrayed a real life person in such a way. Murdoch's decendents are alive and well and living in Scotland, and to have their relative treated in such a way - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF - is frankly an abomination.
2. I said IMO, you having given yours. So the special effects and a few attentions to detail were better than that PH, so what? If you want a love story set against the background of the Titanic then no probs with the film at all. If you call a film Titanic, then I assume you want to portray what happened objectively without the kind of crap that essentially sees the British as the villains (as per Hollywood standard ) and the Orish as the poor victims of British brutality .
3. There was so much heroism and uplifting stories from that night - people that did their duty - it would have been nice had the film concentrated a little on that aspect.....
Two logic puzzles to me in your comments:
I am surprised the studio lawyers would have let Cameron portray a real character with living relatives in an unfavorable way "with absolutely no proof".
Cameron is Canadian, so why would a Canadian director set out to cast the British as villains and the "Orish" as the poor victims....
In answer to your points:
This was a statement attributed to Cameron:
"I think I have come to the realisation that it was probably a mistake to portray a specific person, in this case First Officer Murdoch, as the one who fired the weapon. First Officer Murdoch has a family, and they took exception to that, and I think rightly so".
I also understand he visited the family of Murdoch in Scotland after they protested at the portrayal, although refused to take out the scenes.
There is - effectively hearsay -a suggestion a member of the crew shot themselves. The person supposed to have commited suicide has been named as at least four characters - Murdoch included. Hardly conclusive, especially considering there are supposedly witnesses to Murdoch's death that tells an entirely different story (see below).
There is no clear evidence for the shooting of any passengers by anyone.
If, in the name of making the storyline more dramatic, Cameron wanted to show passengers being murdered, why use a real life person, who it seems can be used in that way only because he is dead?
Murdoch was by all accounts a good officer, the side of the ship for which he was responsible, got away more passengers than the other. There is an account that he was trying to get one of the collapsible lifeboats launched when he was sadly washed overboard. Cameron could have shown that - but that probably would have sold less bums on seats.
As to Cameron's nationality, I neither know nor care why he did what he did and I am not suggesting it was anything more than a bid to sensationalise the film. As someone who loves history, if such an incident took place [the shooting] then fine that should be shown and not glossed over. But film makers need to show a little restraint. Many people get their "history" from TV and films. People believe stuff like that which then becomes "fact" and feeds prejudices. Anglo Irish relations need that kind of **** like a hole in the head.
your comments to the forums are nearly always very thoughtful. This one appeared to be a bit of a gut reaction so I was poking a little at it....
I don't disagree with you about the dangerous role motion pictures and television play in how 100s of millions view events. However, I still recall a debate my grandfather (professor of literature) and my father (physician) had when I was young. My father commented, "Fiction does not interest me, I prefer histories." Grandfather, "What do you think you are reading? All histories contain significant fictions just as most fictions contain much history." [accompanied by a "get over yourself look]
Since that day I have always tried to remind myself to have more intellectual humility. What we believe we know as the truth at a certain level of detail, no matter how well researched, at best falls into the category of "preponderance of the evidence". That does not excuse movies, TV shows, books, and political leaders who use this as an excuse to ignore those elements or events of history that are beyond reasonable doubt. The Holocaust and lunar landings come to mind. But at the level of what individuals did or why they did it, a reasonable degree of skepicism is warranted when seeing, reading or hearing any portrayal, regardless of the source. The most dangerous sources of are those that appear objective in style and voice, as these can most easily trap the unwary.
I apologize for feeling the need to provide a lengthy explaination of why I challenged your logic...
Mike, no need to apologise and I certainly don't disagree with the point you are making; although just one final clarification point before I sign-off on this subject:
"The truth" is misrepresented by filmakers all the time - always has been, always will and I accept that. A classic case in point is Gallipoli. A brilliant film. The anti-British nonsense grated, but didn't detract from an entertaining film, great musical score, and a heart-breaking ending. But my anger at Cameron and Titanic is different. Why? Because of the fact that he so badly treated a named individual without any proof of any wrongdoing. I have no doubt that as a senior officer aboard the ill-fated ship, he would have been aware sooner than most, that the ship was going to sink, and that with too few lifeboats to go around, he would be unlikely to see another sunrise. Despite that realisation, according to eye-witnesses, he did his duty to the end, getting lifeboats launched and trying to get the collapsible boats launched too. Which is the real Murdoch story? Cameron's version or the previously accepted truth? I know no more than anyone else - all I do know is that the decent thing would have been to give officer Murdoch the benefit of the doubt.
End of the day, Mr Cameron clearly knows what he's doing, after all he has some of the highest grossing films of all time, and I recognise I am in the minority with my view. So that's my 2 cents (and more) on the TFTSNBNcalledTitanic.
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805