Titanic forum and community
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50
Like Tree7Likes

A Night to Remember (1958)

This discussion on "A Night to Remember (1958)" is in the Titanic Movies section; There's many of you here who I hope have much to say about this, my ...

      
   
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4
    There's many of you here who I hope have much to say about this, my favourite Titanic film.
    For now, in case any of you ave missed it, the film has been restored and re-issued. It is playing at several venues
    in Britain and across the world. This link gives a guide to where it can be seen on the big screen Park Circus

    though it is on at other places too, as its part of Godalming's tribute to Jack Phillips Remembering the Titanic - events in Godalming for 2012 - RMS Titanic and Jack Phillips - Waverley Borough Council

    I'm always amused when watching Titanic (1997) at how many scenes were lifted from the Rank feature, which of course is based on the famous book of the same name.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2
    It was the film that sparked my interest in Titanic when I was around 10. Made in Black and White, with obvious use of models, no amazing love story, it got some things wrong etc it is still a very powerful film. I watched my old VHS copy this weekend as part of my own remembrance process. I had forgotten just how moving I always find this film.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Jersey Channel Islands
    Posts
    4
    I'm new to the forum although I have long had an interest in Titanic, sparked incidentally from watching 'A Night to Remember' which just happened to feature one of my favourite actors (Ronald Allen who played the young man on honeymoon to whom Thomas Andrews gave advice about saving themsleves). For me A Night to Remember is the best Titanic film and the most moving, especially the scenes of those in the lifeboats looking back on the ship as it sinks. I always find that very moving.

    I recently visited Belfast and was there for the 100th anniversary commemorations, and can truly say that it was a moving and emotional experience being in the city of Titanics birth on such an occasion.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,850
    New members may not be aware that ET has a large archive of threads about ANTR. Unfortunately these are currently closed to posting but they can be read, and hopefully will eventually be moved into this new forum and re-opened for posting. In the meantime, comments can of course be posted here.

    For fans of the best film about the Titanic, here's the index page : <b>A Night to Remember</b>

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    281
    This brings up something I've been wanting to ask ANTR-lovers for quite some time: What is it about this film that inspires such affection, when the Cameron movie is often derided and scorned? When I watch ANTR, I see a thoroughly competent job of movie-making, circa 1958, but I see little authenticity in the sets, I see some inaccuracies in the story (including one right at the beginning, where Titanic's bow is christened with Champagne), and I feel that Lightoller is somewhat unduly canonized.

    It is not my intent to deride ANTR here, nor to question anyone's judgment in liking the film, but I would like to get the thoughts of others on WHY this movie gets so much respect, when it has its own set of problems. I hope no one will feel attacked for liking ANTR - as a defender of the Cameron film (its considerable warts and all), I know all too well what that is like.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,850
    What's special about ANTR? The answer to your question, Sandy, is ... 1958. Well, maybe not so precise as that - any time in the mid to late '50s would do. This was, quite simply, the ideal time to make a film about the Titanic. The key members of your production team would all have grown up in prewar Britain, in a world which hadn't moved very far from the standards, values, behaviour and speech patterns of the Edwardian age. Some would be old enough even to have lived through that period, like producer Bill McQuitty who had been present at the launch of the Titanic, and the production designer who could make good use of memories of his own Edwardian youth. You'd have Titanic survivors on set as advisers. The legacy of the fairly recent World War would provide you with actors to play officers and seamen who had actually been officers and seamen. You could create a screenplay from the combined efforts of Walter Lord (who had traveled on the Olympic) and Eric Ambler, noted for his realistic portrayals of ordinary people in extraordinary situations in postwar classics like The Cruel Sea. These people weren't just making a film about a byegone age, they were the products of that byegone age. And that, rather than having every set, prop and costume spot on, is the source of ANTR's (apparent) authenticity. Though there are many departures from absolute historical accuracy, most things seem right. In short, for many of us the scenarios, the people and the period setting are more believable than those of any other Titanic film - though not necessarily more entertaining.

    One might argue that these advantages would have been even more apparent in a film made earlier - the 1920s or 1930s perhaps. But no, because in that period the British film industry didn't have the resources to create halfway decent sets, props and special effects. And worse than that, it was still in the grip of a Victorian tradition of melodrama, so no matter that those involved would have experienced the Edwardian age in reality - they didn't know how to portray it as reality. A viewing of the 1929 film Atlantic will make that point clear. By the 1940s there was a new trend for realism, but at that time, unlike the Nazis, we Brits couldn't afford to spend millions on making feature films. There was, however, a new style of gritty, stiff upper lip realism in the low key films made to show Britain and the World how ordinary people were coping with the war and the sacrifices it demanded. These paved the way forward, and by 1958 Pinewood was ready to compete with Hollywood by releasing the most costly production ever made in Britain - A Night to Remember.

    By the 1960's it would have been too late. A 1968 ANTR would have been a Technicolor epic made with the support of Hollywood dollars. There would have been pressure to inject more excitement, more romance, more appeal for American teen audiences. Michael Caine would have replaced Kenneth More as Lightoller. Captain Smith would have been Charlton Heston. The authentic Edwardians who made the '58 ANTR would have been in retirement, and contemporary distortions of the portrayal of Edwardian society would have shifted from the not dissimilar 1950s into the radically different 1960s.

    Now, of course, we have the resources to do things a lot better in many respects. Better sets, better props, better effects. Arguably better talent in front of and behind the cameras too (if not in the writing!) What we don't have, and never will have again, is that direct link to the past that the ANTR team had back in 1958. The 1912 of ANTR has a lot of the 1950s in it, but in so many ways that decade (along with those of us in the UK who lived in it) was not very far removed from the Edwardian age, while more recent films have been made by people who, whatever their levels of talent and sincerity, must find it a lot harder to look back that far and see things clearly.

    So there you have it, Sandy. 1958. That's the key.
    Per Osterman, VillageJen and jean9 like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    281
    Bob:

    Well said, Sir! I can see your point very clearly.

    For all that I defend Cameron's Titanic, there are things about it that bother me mightily, and many of them are precisely the textural nuances to which you allude. Few Edwardian maidens were prepared to take the risks inherent in a dalliance in the back seat of a Renault, and those very few who WERE prepared would not have been ruddy likely to have done so with a man who had confessed proximity to prostitutes in Paris. You know this. I know this. Cameron's team either did not know it, or ignored it in the effort to appeal to today's teen moviegoers, who are, sadly, where most of the money is nowadays.

    Even Edwardian patterns of movement - particularly for women - were different to today's. I wince every time I see Kate Winslet - who has since matured into a very fine actress - galumphing down the steps of the Grand Staircase towards Leonardo Di Caprio. In those days, ladies WAFTED from place to place (they still did in the '50s, as well - I was there, too), but Cameron evidently had no clue.

    And I would be the very first to agree with you that Cameron cannot write dialogue for beans. It's not merely a question of anachronisms, it's a question of lumpen, leaden sentences that would tax the abilities of Duse to deliver credibly. He also egregiously over-lights Titanic; 1912 incandescent lighting was nowhere near that bright nor anything like that white. Titanic's passengers were hardly fumbling around in the dark, but they weren't caught in a halogen glare, either.

    One of the great strengths of Cameron's movie, though, is its character performances, even when the actors giving them are sometimes forced to do things that they perhaps should not have been. David Warner, as Spicer Lovejoy, is marvelous in his first scene with Di Caprio, delivering his lines about Jack's jacket and shoes with a tight little smile on his face, managing to convey much more menace than any amount of snarling could have done. And Frances Fisher, as Rose's mother, is so emotionally closed off and chilly of mien that a viewer hearing Fleet cry "ICEBERG DEAD AHEAD!" could be forgiven for wondering if perhaps he'd spotted Ruth Bukater on the foredeck.

    Thank you for a most perceptive and enlightening response.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12
    And Frances Fisher, as Rose's mother, is so emotionally closed off and chilly of mien that a viewer hearing Fleet cry "ICEBERG DEAD AHEAD!" could be forgiven for wondering if perhaps he'd spotted Ruth Bukater on the foredeck.
    I literally just laughed out loud. That woman scared me!

    Mr. Godfrey and Mr. McLendon, your posts were a treat to read. Wonderful discussion!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,850
    Yes, I'm enjoying it too! To take it a bit further, it might be worth considering why ANTR, which drew large audiences in Britain, didn't do well in the US despite receiving a Golden Globe and good reviews from the Press - albeit not seen by many due to a newspaper strike. Well, first of all it came at a time when colour and wide-screen presentation were becoming the standard, and this film offered neither. It had no stars, or at least none that were known to American audiences. Even Kenneth More appears onscreen for only about 20 minutes, and the Producer's assertion that "the ship is the star" didn't do much to increase the film's box-office appeal. Add to this the fact that it represented a genre - the docu-drama - which rarely if ever was well-received across the Pond where more dramatic (and in every sense more colourful) Hollywood interpretations of history were the norm. The Director thought that Americans found the film too downbeat and depressing, even distressing - "they were coming out in tears" - but without the uplift of an upbeat message or sentimental angle essential to a successful 'tear-jerker'. Kenneth More believed the film had not been promoted and distributed with much enthusiasm because it wasn't made with American money.

    These failings in the American marketplace were much in the minds of the Hollywood film executives approached by James Cameron 40 years later, and were still a cause of great concern. It must be said that Cameron did succeed in addressing and (you might say) correcting what could be seen in commercial terms as errors of judgement back in 1958. He showed that, with the right formula, people would flock to see "just another film about a sinking ship". But did he create a better film? He certainly came up with a product which much better satisfied the demands of a modern audience. I see no reason to pillory him for that. I just wish he hadn't written the script!
    Per Osterman likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    281
    Bob:

    It's my belief that Cameron might have escaped the amount of criticism he got had he done just one thing: He needed to make the "doomed romance" element of his script more plausible by confining it to two members of the First Class. There was absolutely no reason this could not have been done (God knows enough young men in First Class perished), and it would have made all the difference with Titanophiles. Other errors, such as the Hollywood-obligatory locking of the Bostwick gates, would have been criticized, but not to the extent they have been, I think.

    I find your comments on ANTR's technical aspects interesting, because you're quite right - it was an era when American movie-goers were primed to expect, in Cole Porter's words, "Glorious Technicolor, breathtaking CinemaScope and stereophonic sound." Since I don't know a great deal about ANTR's production history, I am left wondering why it was not filmed in color, to improve its chances in the North American market. Certainly, the British film industry was well-acquainted with color film-making; Powell and Pressburger's "The Red Shoes" (1948) contains some of the finest Technicolor design and filming ever seen on the screen, far more advanced than American work in the process; the movie is full of things that simply were not technically possible when it was made - and yet, there they are.

    Cameron's film and ANTR share one failing: Margaret Brown is depicted as a plain woman. She was actually rather attractive, and she must have had somewhat more social finesse than she's credited with in films about her; J.J. Astor seems to have found her agreeable company.

 

 
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •