Titanic 1997. Aibu to not realise how young Ruth was and that I don’t think Cal was that bad?

[phatt]

So it’s been a few years since I watched Titanic and always assumed that Ruth was in her 60s but she’s actually late 30s/early 40s. So she could have also got re-married (less likely but still a possibility.)

I know I’ll get flamed for this but I don’t think Cal was an outright villain. He did attempt to connect with Rose and love her but for his fiancé to be socialising with people in third class (when social standing was huge) and to blatantly cheat on him very openly then you can see why he’d be pissed off.

Also I’m judging him by Edwardian standards and not modern day. Obviously he did acts that made him a “bad” person as well.

I meant the ice warnings, rather than the passenger messages, were cut off by the operator.

There are worse fates than marrying the insanely handsome, millionaire who adores you and wants to give you everything.

Rose would have grown up knowing she would have to make a socially acceptable marriage. In her upper middle class society marriage was very much a business arrangement first, with love coming a very far second. Cal has pots of money but wants the prestige of Rose's illustrious name and lineage. It's a straightforward transaction because Rose desperately needs his money. It's a win/win.

Surely your point 2 contradicts (or proves the necessity for) point 1 though?
You need characters for your film - if you impose storylines or characteristics on real people that might not be accurate then you run the high risk of their families or descendants complaining that you were inaccurate. Which is why you make up or composite characters. Pretty much every single historical drama ever made does the same thing so I don't really understand why it would only specifically irritate you in Titanic?

and 3 - who says the voiceover is suggesting they were supposed to feel guilty about surviving? I can't see where you'd get that interpretation from. The quote is wrong, for one thing, there's nothing about dawn in it, it's "the people in the boats had nothing to do but wait: wait to die, wait to live, wait for an absolution which would never come."

So unless you are saying they were also supposed to simultaneously both die and live it doesn't make sense to say it's a list of things that the audience are supposed to agree should happen! Plus, it's accurate, some of the survivors (e.g. Ismay) did spend the rest of their lives waiting for absolution, and it didn't ever come!

I know how nice it is to feel like you're on a righteous moral crusade, but I didn't out him. It's been out in the open for years (Google it if you truly weren't aware) and his dating choices make it extremely obvious that he isn't actually into women.

Survivors guilt is a real thing of course. Tragically real.

I really hate the scene where Rose rises up onto her tiptoes. It looks so obviously fake and it's not a skill I've ever known anyone to actually be able to do (and I've been a professional dancer).

You've never known anyone who could go en pointe?

That was beyond en pointe 😂

I just watched it quickly on YouTube...is that not en pointe? The very tips of your big toes? What would be even more super impressive is doing it without toe box shoes, I guess.

I understand what you are saying re needing composite characters; they can be useful to depict a situation. The difficulty I have with this movie is that as there was a finite number of real people on the Titanic - whose names are all known - it is imo not appropriate to make up fictitious ones.

This is not the same as eg depicting a situation in WW2 in which millions of people were involved and it is impossible to know who each of them were or exactly what they went through. In that case, composite characters can indeed be useful in depicting what the rl individuals were likely to have faced.

I wouldn't agree that every historical drama does this (eg uses composites). There have been numerous cases where depictions have been criticised for inaccuracies in their representation.

I also feel it is made clear how we are meant to interpret that the survivors are 'meant' to feel guilt. Of course it is never explicitly stated, but given that they are primarily from the first class - who have been depicted as shallow and snobbish towards the less privileged passengers throughout the movie - it is heavily implied that they are getting their comeuppance.

When in reality, all the passengers were wronged even the privileged ones, by the failures to ensure their safety and the betrayal of trust. Survivors' guilt is a real thing, which makes it even more objectionable.

@Livingtothefull also, have I imagined it or didn't Marconi try to capitalise on the tragedy in the immediate aftermath?

Do you know what happened to Harold Bride? Another sad story.

This is not the same as eg depicting a situation in WW2 in which millions of people were involved and it is impossible to know who each of them were or exactly what they went through.

But this is equally true of the Titanic. Nobody knows what each of them went through.

To be honest until this week I didn’t know Titanic was a real ship.

I wouldn’t shout about your ignorance tbh …

”I also feel it is made clear how we are meant to interpret that the survivors are 'meant' to feel guilt.”

I didn’t get that at all. Only that all the survivors had gone through something dreadful (including hearing screams, but not going back) but would never really get over the fact they’d survived when so many others didn’t.

I wouldn’t shout about your lack of humour doll. But you seem more uptight than most so I guess you’ve got an excuse.

No it isn't really equal. Although of course we don't know precisely what each individual went through, we know exactly who they were and how they in likelihood met their fates.

When all the individuals on that ship are known, why introduce half a dozen fictitious characters - as if the fates of the real ones can't adequately portray the tragedy?

@PriOn1 lots of survivors never spoke about it. I'm fairly sure Harold Bride, the second wireless operator who survived, died suddenly in the late 1950s. His family only realised who he was after his death.

OP is the worst thing about this brilliant thread. Sorry OP but I think it’s true. I appreciate you starting it though. I love me a Titanic chat.

Always nice when you get what you think is a righteous, moral channel for your desire to be abusive, isn't it? You and my father would get on.

Google it. Look up Mumsnet threads too. It's not a secret and I'm not even the first person to mention it on here. And be sure to send some poison pen communications to Miriam Margolyes. It's what good people do.

Without wearing pointe shoes though and the fact that it had been years presumably since she’d done it, yes it went beyond en pointe 😂 age was practically off the floor on her toenails.

I don't think it is a rape threat. The context was that she was hung over after a wild time with another guy- I just think Cal was telling her he wouldn't tolerate her behaving like that. Which, tbf, isn't unreasonable to expect from someone you're engaged to.

I don't know... in context of him telling her she's his wife in practice, "you will honour me the way a wife is required to" really does sound to me like "you will submit sexually whether you like it or not".

He had to be a super baddie who saw Rose as a possession, not a beloved partner, so that the audience wouldn't side with him when Rose "cheats" with Jack. Zane is also a great actor and he was very good at showing that the character viewed the whole thing as more like theft than heartbreak or betrayal.

@Batfunk I didn't know that about what happened to Harold Bride. I am not sure about his ultimate fate, I think he had frostbitten feet and he was given quite a hard time at the enquiry when giving evidence.