From: Glasgow, Scotland
Not really - and as I have said I have not researched this one much, but they knew there were not enough boats aboard. And even if ferrying, when the ship sinks in an hour you really cannot 'ferry', particularly in the North Atlantic.
Sorry, I missed this point originally.
That was the mindset of the time regarding large passenger ships. Given the fact that the regular European and trans-Atlantic shipping lanes were very busy, there was a certain comfort in that help was never too far away in the event of an emergency.
The mindset of the time was that lifeboats were tied to the tonnage of the ship rather than passengers, but the Titanic was so much of an outlier that the dated laws written for the far more numerous tramp steamers and their ilk were ineffective for Titanic.
A proper apology normally consists of the word apologise, and admission that something done was wrong, and appropriate amends made.
Seems to me Cameron has done all three, or would you dispute that as well?
Yes, that artistic licence is used does indeed go without saying. As has been proven on this and other film threads over the years, not everyone has a deep prior knowledge of every film they watch. What is artistic licence and what is fact can therefore be blurred – either innocently or to satisfy a film makers own bias.
I think it is important to not confuse bias with the desire to tell a story. The portrayal of Murdoch's character must be considered in the context of his role in the film of developing the major plot conflict between DiCaprio and Zane's characters, as well as his final actions demonstrating to Zane that money doesn't get you everything you want.
Murdoch's character servers as an illustration that you can't buy yourself out of every situation to a character that buys his way through life. That the illustration comes from Murdoch, who is in a situation that he simply can't get out of by any means, makes it even more appropriate in a dramatic sense.
I prefer my characters in drama to be a little more three dimensional. Your mileage may vary.
I’m pleased something I’ve written has amused you – it seems to happen quite a lot . I’d hoped I’d made clear what I was objecting to, but it seems you believe it’s the word in itself. So clearly I’ve not done a very good job. Oh well I tried.
That said of course, yes one could say I also object to the use of the word itself. For someone who wanted to make a film sooo accurate he oversaw every star position in the night sky (or whatever) his choice of that word, used by that character, was wrong and from an historical accuracy point of view Tommy may just as well have said: “Yo dog, where you at? Why you say I can’t be takin’ this boat man?” But as said, if it was just the word then I wouldn’t even waste time commenting on it, but it wasn’t just the word as I thought I'd made clear.
The film is set in 1912. Anglo-Irish tensions are building. The issue of Irish Home Rule is still on-going and won't see any progress for another two years (and then not get implemented due to WW1), and two years after that Ireland will erupt in a war for independence.
Given that context, a degree of tension between the Irish and British characters is exactly true to history.
That the other party involved in the interaction is actually Scottish (and not British) is a nice subtle postcolonial commentary on the nature of identity politics. You'll likely disagree, but any film analysis of Titanic (or any film in general) will show you that everything is done for a reason.
Sorry but I genuinely don’t understand your point re the Italian scenario. You say that if ‘the accusations have basis in truth’ – but that is the whole point about Murdoch. His actions that night are presented as fact. He was, as Cameron now admits, not just some generic character. He was a real person who actually served. The issue is that with Murdoch and the crime of bribe-taking and the crime of murder, there is no evidence whatsoever. THAT is the whole point and why he shouldn’t have been treated like that and why there was – and remains - such upset.
My counter-point is simple; there's no evidence that he didn't take a bribe.
As for the supposed murder;
- Murdoch was armed.
- Murdoch had motive (keeping order).
- Murdoch was at the scene.
In this grey area, it's perfectly reasonable to use dramatic licence given imperfect evidence.
I would be cautious as to how you frame the upset, which was exceptionally localised (abet very vocal).
You believe – and more importantly – Cameron believed, that the removal of the Californian from the story was justified. You appear to have changed your mind on the rationale – first you said it was because he didn’t want to muddy the waters on blame (hubris over bad luck) and now you say it’s because of time. But that is not important, it could be both, it could be either, it could be whatever, the reason is not the point at all.
You say ‘such an investment would cost far more than it adds’. That is a very bold statement to make if the goal is to make an historically accurate movie. Californian was an important part of the events that night and why 1,500 people died. I mean if it’s a time issue they could remove the bit about the iceberg right?
The point of Cameron's film was not to deliver a blow-by-blow of the sinking.
It was to personalize the story with Rose's connection to the ships and events on it. The characters involved in the plot had no connection or awareness of the Californian, therefore not including it made perfect sense.
But I don’t consider Titanic a watchable film, let alone a particularly historically accurate one. The removal of Californian was, in my view, just another error by the director. If you are happy with it then I’m glad.
You must be fun to go to the cinema with.
Well I’m not going to get into a debate about that! In conversations over the years where Titanic comes up, the overwhelming view of people – 99% women – is that Titanic is a great film, and they then start gushing over Jack and Rose as it’s clear, from conversations I’ve witnessed at least, that it was the love story that provokes this reaction. But the film obviously pleased a lot of people and made Mr Cameron very rich.
Are you suggesting that women's opinions on the qualities of what makes a movie good are less valid than those of men?
At any rate, the film generated a very positive overall response from film critics.
What do I most object to about the film and where does a director take responsibility (as opposed to screen play, music etc.) I don’t know enough about the film world to know. So whether I am right in specifically blaming Cameron – as opposed to others involved – who knows. But fwiw, my personal objections (and I’m conscious it’s been 20 years) are (in no particular order):
Historically inaccurate with key events missing, the treatment of Murdoch, wholly unbelievable (and frankly excruciating) love story, even worse dialogue (did I notice no award for best screenplay?), formulaic rich guy = bad/poor guy = salt of the earth, formulaic Brit = the bad guy (didn’t David Warner’s character have a gun? (Brits do like guns in this film don’t they?) – but in time honoured fashion he refuses to shoot the hero but instead devises a dastardly plot to murder him that allows for the hero’s escape), steerage class passengers being purposely kept below decks, the lazy, unnecessary British/Irish undercurrent, Rose swanning about all over the ship for ages up to her nipples in the freezing Atlantic looking for Jack who’s also exposed to the freezing water for ages (did they hit a tropical zone right after striking the iceberg?). I’m sure there’s more – but one day I will look at the film again – if I can stomach it – just to see if there are any redeeming features (Rose’s charlies aside) that I may have missed first time round.
To address point by point:
- The film was overwhelmingly praised for its historical accuracy by a large number within the Titanic academic community (of which some of the most informed served as historical advisors).
- The love story is (by Cameron's own admission), Romeo and Juliet on a boat. If you consider that bad, you must really hate Shakespeare.
- I am not sure what issue you have with the dialogue beyond a specific scene? At any rate, it didn't seem to detract from the movie as a whole.
- As noted above, the rich/poor distinction was a modern reframing of Shakespeare.
- David Warner's character was American, an ex-Pinkerton.
- Irish/British undercurrent was filled with tension at the time (far more than the norm for the time period) and therefore historically accurate.
- I think it's reasonable to bend the effects of hypothermia for the sake of drama.