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.

What always irritated me about the film was the number of times Rose got back onto the sodding ship having safely escaped. It's not as if it built up any tension, because we knew from the outset that she'd survived.

What I found concerning overall about the movie is that it blended fact with fiction, in a way that made the fiction look like fact. I feel that we should be respectful to the memory of the people involved in that tragedy and not over embellish or distort their stories.

In some ways the movie was a meticulous reconstruction of the ship, the voyage and the events. So I can't help but respect that; yet then mixed into it, some completely fictitious people and events and misinterpretations of the real ones. I just think the real people deserved better.

She's shellfish.

I always took the guilt/absolution reference to refer to the people who refused to go back in their lifeboats to save anyone else, or directly contributed to the accident (Ismay). Not to everyone.

Rose climbed off the lifeboat at the last minute, too late for someone else to take her place on the boat and be saved. And some question the judgment that she is an awful person?

That and betraying her fiancé. And not telling her mother she survived. And, chuckling to herself, chucking the diamond in the sea.

About the family and not about attraction, but decent families still wanted their daughters to marry men who would treat them well. 'Well' historically might include behaviours we would not consider acceptable, but still, a general concern that the prospective husband not be physically abusive or not provide for her when he could.

Marrying further relations or people one had known from childhood who were part of the same social sphere was not only about the consolidation of fortunes, but also a belief that one knew that the prospective partner was a decent person and came from a social relation in which members of the bride's family could exert pressure on him to protect her.

Even in Pride and Prejudice, a key point for Elizabeth is seeing how Darcy is to his sister and on his estate to the servants. A man whose housekeeper reports that she has never had a cross word from him can be considered less likely to be actively cruel to a future wife (though probably would have a cross word occasionally - he'd argue with a wife in a way he wasn't likely to need to with an employee). Of course, never a total guarantee, but an attempt at reducing the dangers.

That may be true @Rightnowstraightaway though I don't know whether the movie makes clear whether all or just some of the survivors are referred to.

I am not sure how many of us would act differently in that situation; on a tiny boat in the middle of the ocean, probably in deep shock, and fear that the sheer numbers of people could overwhelm them if they tried to save anyone.

@Livingtothefull it was in one of the many books I read on Titanic. I think either Unsinkable or The Other Side of the Night.

😂😂😂 excellent lowdown

WTAF?

YABU, he physically attacked Rose; have you forgotten that bit?

It was a joke 🙄

Most of us got it 😉

Thank fuck for that lol 😁

Does anyone think rationally though, when they know the one they love is stuck and facing imminent death?!
I can see that, you'd impulsively jump out of the boat as a love struck teen. Can see me doing so at that age if I thought my boyfriend (now husband) was left behind
Her mother was holding her back, forcing her into a marriage with an abusive man just because it meant it might bring some money into the family, and sneering at those she deemed beneath her.
Can see why she kind of saw the opportunity for a fresh start

She was lucky to have a plaice. The whole scene was a cod.

@Batfunk is there a particular book you would recommend?

@QueenOfThorns there's loads, as you'd expect. Not sure how familiar you are with it but A Night To Remember is the most famous - film is also very good. There's a couple by Daniel Allen Green, who's fairly pompous but the books are a decent read. They're called Unsinkable and The Other Side of the Night. There's also one called I think Voices of the Titanic which covers survivors' stories in deeper detail, although it's a fairly grim read in parts.

Thanks @Batfunk! I think I may have read A Night to Remember when I was much younger, so I’ll have a look at the other ones you mentioned

I honestly think this is a 'personal perspective' thing - I agree many of the survivors probably felt guilt. I don't agree that the film shows this or suggests that we are meant to agree they should have felt it.

there's a bit in the deleted scenes someone linked to above - its an extended version of the survivors on the carpathia that quite clearly shows a wide range of emotions. They are clearly shown as experiencing a wide range of emotions - being exhausted / distressed/ desperate/ devastated/ relieved etc. but while you could of course infer they also feel guilty (but you could also infer or impose any other feeling on them) I really can't see any evidence that the filmmakers explicitly tries to show this.

As a contrast there's a scene where Ismay is walking though the deck and they are all glaring at him which clearly DOES show that he feels guilty, the passengers blame him, and we the viewers are supposed to agree.

So if they'd wanted to portray that emotion on behalf of all the passengers they easily could have but to me they very clearly didn't make that choice. In fact it suggests the opposite - like you are saying the filmmakers are using the contrast between Ismay and the rest of the passengers to make very clear their view (and thus what we the viewers are supposed to agree with) is that fault (and thus guilt) lay solely (or at least primarily) with the owners/directors of the WSL.

As a contrast there's a scene where Ismay is walking though the deck and they are all glaring at him which clearly DOES show that he feels guilty, the passengers blame him, and we the viewers are supposed to agree.

The newspapers, spearheaded by Randolph Hearst, were gunning for Ismay before Carpathia even docked in the US. He sent a flurry of telegrams to his parent companies, begging that they hold the White Star Line ship Cedric until the Friday morning so Titanic's crew could be returned to the UK and thus talk less to the media. The bosses weren't having any of it.

Because Titanic was technically owned by J P Morgan and operated under International Mercantile Marine that placed her under US jurisdiction. The US Senator William Smith was strongly opposed to Morgan interests, and set out to to establish evidence of negligence by Titanic's owner and operators. If Ismay was concealing any such knowledge the IMM could have been sued. Smith was appointed as leader of the US-based inquiry - Ismay and the surviving officers were not allowed to leave the US until it was complete - and hoped to achieve that result, both for his American constituents and as a matter of political grievance.

So Ismay had come up against two very powerful enemies in the shape of Hearst (the film Citizen Kane detailed his life and pretty cutthroat practices) and Smith.
The inquiry ultimately exonerated him, along with Harland and Wolff, the ship's builders, but excoriated Stanley Lord who was captain of the Californian.

After Ismay returned home, he then had to face the whole process all over again in a UK inquiry, which also exonerated him. But by then Trial By Media was complete and the damage had been done. By all accounts it left him completely broken.

The media also went after the Marconi operator, Harold Bride, because he gave one interview to the papers. This was totally unfair: from what I understand, the man was a hero. Even with broken and frostbitten feet, he assisted with the wireless operations on Carpathia to send through lists of survivors, and didn't stop working until he collapsed and was admitted to hospital in New York.

Another fictional reenactment was Beryl Bainbridge's Every Man for Himself, which I think was a Whitbread Prize winner.

@QueenOfThorns no problem. There's a few more I've read as well, will try to dig out the titles if you're interested.

@SerafinasGoose that's a decent summary although a couple of bits. As incredible as it sounds, the Titanic's surviving crew stopped being paid the moment it sank, so part of his motivation in sending them back to the UK asap was so they could start working again quicker.

Also, wasn't Harold Bride used by Marconi, who were trying to use the success of the wireless to push their brand?

Thanks, I haven't heard of that so will have a look. Much appreciated!