A fictional character is going to remark upon this film...

[Notty]

Hi guys,

This is going to seem a rather odd one, but bear with me please.

So, as one of those people who hate it when historical references, settings etc are used incorrectly, it seemed a realistic expectation that Titanic subject enthusiasts would equally hate it if I made such an error in my own writing. A friend of mine pointed out this site existed and I thought it would be a courtesy to mention what one of my characters raises as issues to see if it would be the type of thing that would make a knowledgeable person, such as your good selves, roll their eyes in despair.

It's not a terribly large scene, indeed almost comes across in passing, but if you're going to do something, you may as well do it right.

The character in question is bright and smart and therefore I would ask, not whether her opinions and views are necessarily correct, but are they valid for an intelligent person to hold. I'm aware after skimming these very extensive boards that there seems little that can be pinned down as "known facts" on most major issues.

My character raises a couple of points. (Mods? Sorry, I apologise in advance for not really knowing where this should go but this seemed the place that would cause the least harm)

Firstly, I'm afraid to say, she loathes the film. With a passion. Her principle objections to the film are Jack and Rose and the whole point of having them in there but her specific objections - and what I would appreciate a sense check on - are the depictions generally of the crew. Captain Smith being ineffective during the launching of the lifeboats, the look outs not paying attention, the seemingly lackadaisical way in which the ship is depicted as being run - but her major gripe is with the treatment of First Officer Murdoch. The taking of bribes and his suicide being raising her ire especially as besmirching the reputation of a brave man for box office takings.

The second point that comes up, and even as I type I'm concerned that this perhaps slightly out of place here, is the nature of the accident itself. Again, she takes issue with the film and argues that the scene with the iceberg is incorrect. She believes that the Titanic did not hit or sideswipe the iceberg but instead ran her keel over a spur of ice (I think this is what you call the "grounding" theory?). Her arguments for this are thus:

a) The further away from the keel and bow, the less the accident was noticeable
b) The period of time required to assess the damage and that initial reports (Boxhall?) suggested the damage was slight (her reasoning being that major damage had to have been out of sight - hence the keel)
c) Mathematically she can't get an equation of some 50,000 tons of liner hitting an iceberg and no one really noticing to work. She'd expect the subsequent Newtonian physics to have the ship at least roll significantly and for people to fall like skittles.
d) That we had ice falling into the forward well and yet no iceberg damage to the bridge superstructure suggests to her the iceberg tipped as the Titanic ran over the spur, ice fell off and - as the Titanic travelled to port and moved off the spur, the iceberg then righted again.

These, to me, seem valid views for an intelligent character to have. But I look to you fine people and ask, are they?

Much obliged for any views or considerations.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

Welcome to the boards Notty. Let me start by saying this about opinions; everybody has one. So here are mine...

Starting with item D, In round numbers, the Titanic weighed about 50,000 tons.. The estimated mass of the iceberg was 1.5 million tons. That means the Titanic was 0.0333333% the weight of the iceberg. I don't see how that difference in weight could make the Titanic have any movement on the berg.

Item C, we will never know the extent of the underwater damage the iceberg caused to the Titanic. The best estimates are that the punctures covered some 12-16 square feet. That's an area that is smaller than the front door to a home. I don't know how much water the Titanic was drawing at the time of the collision. That would be a function of the amount of coal burnt in addition to how much the cargo weighed. Let's assume that the shelf of ice was 31 feet, 11 inches under the surface and the Titanic was drawing 32 feet. That means that the ship would have moved vertically 1 inch. With the average person's eye level on the bridge being 60.5 feet above the water (again depending on loading), that is 726 inches. That 1 inch of movement is .00137% of the total height. It's not going to be felt that much. Also, the engines had been stopped so the Titanic was slowing from its maximum speed on the trip of approximately 22 knots (about 25 mph).

Item B, Thomas Andrews reported at approximately 12:25 a.m. that the ship would sink. That's about 45 minutes after the collision. Andrews had to be notified, let's say that took 10 minutes, then he had to make his way from his cabin down to the lower decks, let's say another 5 minutes. Give him 15 minutes to assess the damage. That gives him 15 minutes to get back to his cabin, do some quick and dirty math with a slide rule, determine how much time was left and then report to the captain on the bridge at 12:25. I think those numbers are reasonable. I don't think an excessive amount of time was taken in assessing the damage.

Item A, I believe is accurate, in that the further away from the impact a person was, the less noticeable it would be.

Now, on to the first point...

I don't believe that there is any evidence to support Murdoch's "suicide." There are assumptions and innuendo, but no facts.

I don't believe the lookouts were not paying attention. An average person's field of vision is approximately 95° to the side, 75° down, 60° inwards, and 60° above.3 Binoculars (and telescopes) work by narrowing the field of vision, which causes a smaller area to fill the same area, thereby magnifying the image. Footnote 3 Dr. Michael Questell, healthtap.com, last accessed on September 23, 2022. They won't necessarily magnify light. In any case, given that the moon was within 3 days of being New, and it did not rise until after 4 a.m., there would not have been enough light to make seeing the iceberg any easier.

I wouldn't characterize the ship as being run in a "lackadaisical way." The crew was faced with something they never expected. In an emergency, you want to be like a duck, calm above the surface but paddling like hell underneath. The crew remained remarkably calm, which led to the passengers remaining calm, which led to an orderly evacuation.

We were not there, so it's difficult to evaluate Captain Smith's actions. I don't believe he was being "ineffective," but rather he was doing what a leader should do, delegate the authority to get the job done. The only thing I can fault him for is not making Lightoller let men fill the empty spaces in the lifeboats when there were no more women. He might have been in shock for part of the sinking, but I believe he came out of it when the realization hit that the Titanic would not survive the night.

I agree with her feelings about Jack and Rose. Of course, without them, it would have just been a remake of "A Night to Remember."

 

[Notty]

Welcome to the boards Notty. Let me start by saying this about opinions; everybody has one. So here are mine...

....

I agree with her feelings about Jack and Rose. Of course, without them, it would have just been a remake of "A Night to Remember."

Gordan,

Many, many thanks for both the welcome and such a comprehensive reply to a wild card question like my own. I'll respond back to front if I may.

Firstly, I fear my second post must, however, be an apology in that I wasn't terribly clear in drafting my question. Although, despite my poor phrasing, you still somehow managed to answer what I was after for my first point, so thank you.

My character would agree with you entirely in that the performances of the crew that night weren't ineffective or that the ship was operated in a lackadaisical way. More she feels the film shows them that way and hence her objections to it. But your answer - and again, I am grateful for you taking the time to go into such detail for a random person on the internet like me - gives me the comfort that her opinion that the film depicts this incorrectly, although not necessarily one that everyone would agree with, stands up to scrutiny as an intelligent viewpoint. I'm especially grateful for the detail you went into in respect of the lookouts. Most useful.

As to points A to D:

a) Noted. Thank you.
b) Again, thanks. 45 minutes did, I'll confess, seem a long while to me, but I'm grateful for the additional context here. Not a point I suspect I'll run with in that case.
c) Ooo! This is great stuff and with an explanation that even I could understand. XD With your permission I'd like to crib from this a little. Not word for word, but certainly in respects of the overall gist.
d) Again, thank you and my second apology this is one I'm perhaps not quite understanding (although I'd completely understand if you just rolled your eyes and didn't respond ) But although I understand the point you make - and even the maths! - if the Titanic can't move the iceberg then wouldn't the iceberg move the Titanic? By that I mean wouldn't the shock of the blow make the effect on board more noticeable than it was? Obviously it didn't so there must be an element that I'm not understanding here. I suspect my physics is far too weak to fill in the no doubt obvious gap.

Now a remake of ANTR would have been something... (saw it one rainy afternoon when I was a tiddler and it's stuck with me for years)


Notty

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

.
c) Ooo! This is great stuff and with an explanation that even I could understand. XD With your permission I'd like to crib from this a little. Not word for word, but certainly in respects of the overall gist.
d) Again, thank you and my second apology this is one I'm perhaps not quite understanding (although I'd completely understand if you just rolled your eyes and didn't respond ) But although I understand the point you make - and even the maths! - if the Titanic can't move the iceberg then wouldn't the iceberg move the Titanic? By that I mean wouldn't the shock of the blow make the effect on board more noticeable than it was? Obviously it didn't so there must be an element that I'm not understanding here. I suspect my physics is far too weak to fill in the no doubt obvious gap.

Now a remake of ANTR would have been something... (saw it one rainy afternoon when I was a tiddler and it's stuck with me for years)


Notty

Hi Notty,

Remember, this advice is free and it's worth about what you paid for it...LOL

Yes, I'm afraid that I've forgotten more about physics than I remember. There's one other thing to consider here. Which was stronger, the ice on the underwater shelf, or the steel of the Titanic's hull? There is so much to consider here that we are all bound to miss something.

BTW, my internet access is sporadic, so I'm not here every day. Don't assume that because there's no answer means that I got angry.

Best,

Gordon

 

[Thomas Krom]

Hello everyone,

I hope you all have been doing well. I am not doing very well myself, but don't pity me since it is my own fault.

Item B, Thomas Andrews reported at approximately 12:25 a.m. that the ship would sink. That's about 45 minutes after the collision. Andrews had to be notified, let's say that took 10 minutes, then he had to make his way from his cabin down to the lower decks, let's say another 5 minutes. Give him 15 minutes to assess the damage. That gives him 15 minutes to get back to his cabin, do some quick and dirty math with a slide rule, determine how much time was left and then report to the captain on the bridge at 12:25. I think those numbers are reasonable. I don't think an excessive amount of time was taken in assessing the damage.

There are a few things wrong with this statement that I want to point out.

Andrews had to be notified, let's say that took 10 minutes, then he had to make his way from his cabin down to the lower decks, let's say another 5 minutes.

Thomas Andrews Jr was at hand quite quickly and he didn't go below deck from his stateroom on as it appears that he either went to the bridge first at his own accord or was summoned on orders of captain Smith since at around 5 to 6 minutes after the collision he was seen under the bridge by Eleanor Cassebeer on A-deck, presumably to view the ice on the well deck after a brief visit on the bridge. Shortly after two of his shipboard friends Albert and Vera Dick bumped into him on his way down where he told them that he was going below to investigate. At around 11:50 Nightwatchman James Johnstone saw him coming down the forward Louis XIV staircase on D-deck where he assured passengers that everything would be alright before going into the first class dining saloon to reach the first class pantry where the stewards stairwell offered easier access on E-deck. The first watertight compartment Thomas Andrews Jr inspected was the reciprocating engine room,

Give him 15 minutes to assess the damage.

Thomas Andrews Jr went on two separate damage inspections between 11:46 to about midnight to shortly after midnight to about 12:22 (the time that he went up and down the forward Louis XIV staircase is included). If lamp trimmer Hemming his accounts at both inquiries is to believe he suspected the ship was already unable to stay afloat at the end of his first damage inspection since it appears that he told boatswain Nichols, likely in a haste, that the ship only had half a hour.

That gives him 15 minutes to get back to his cabin, do some quick and dirty math with a slide rule, determine how much time was left and then report to the captain on the bridge at 12:25.

He didn't went back to his stateroom to calculate how long the ship had, instead he estimated and calculated how long the ship had to stay afloat below decks without the help of a notepad or anything. At around 12:20 he concluded that the ship had a hour to a hour and a half to stay afloat. Three witnesses, these being Anna Warren, William Sloper and Dorothy Gibson, recalled that he rushed up the forward Louis XIV staircase with three steps at the time without saying a word (Miss Gibson even got into his way twice where he had to brush her gently aside). There is evidence to suggest that he already told captain Smith before that the ship wouldn't survive the night.

I don't think an excessive amount of time was taken in assessing the damage.

Fourth officer Boxhall inspected the damage on his own accord only minutes after the collision and with Thomas Andrews Jr his second damage inspection ending at around 12:20 it would mean that the time of inspecting the damage was over 35 minutes in total.

I don't believe that there is any evidence to support Murdoch's "suicide." There are assumptions and innuendo, but no facts.

There is evidence that an officer shot himself, but there is indeed barely evidence from primary sources that indicate that first officer Murdoch was this officer. Personally I don't believe if it took place (which is possible since where do the stories from primary witnesses such as George Rheims and Eugene Daly to give a few names come from?) it wasn't first officer Murdoch.

I hope this offers some insight.


I hope you are all doing well,


Thomas Krom

 

[Pegglesworth]

There is good evidence to support the damage to the keel theory. There is evidence that in Boiler Room 4 water came from under the floor plating. The water rose there faster than it could be pumped out and rose to the knees of the firemen drawing the fires before they left their posts. There was no visible puncturing to the hull unlike boiler room 5 where it sprayed in like a fireman's hose.

 

[brionboyles]

Firstly, I'm afraid to say, she loathes the film. With a passion. Her principle objections to the film are Jack and Rose and the whole point of having them in there but her specific objections - and what I would appreciate a sense check on - are the depictions generally of the crew. Captain Smith being ineffective during the launching of the lifeboats, the look outs not paying attention, the seemingly lackadaisical way in which the ship is depicted as being run - but her major gripe is with the treatment of First Officer Murdoch. The taking of bribes and his suicide being raising her ire especially as besmirching the reputation of a brave man for box office takings.

The second point that comes up, and even as I type I'm concerned that this perhaps slightly out of place here, is the nature of the accident itself. Again, she takes issue with the film and argues that the scene with the iceberg is incorrect. She believes that the Titanic did not hit or sideswipe the iceberg but instead ran her keel over a spur of ice (I think this is what you call the "grounding" theory?). Her arguments for this are thus:

a) The further away from the keel and bow, the less the accident was noticeable
b) The period of time required to assess the damage and that initial reports (Boxhall?) suggested the damage was slight (her reasoning being that major damage had to have been out of sight - hence the keel)
c) Mathematically she can't get an equation of some 50,000 tons of liner hitting an iceberg and no one really noticing to work. She'd expect the subsequent Newtonian physics to have the ship at least roll significantly and for people to fall like skittles.
d) That we had ice falling into the forward well and yet no iceberg damage to the bridge superstructure suggests to her the iceberg tipped as the Titanic ran over the spur, ice fell off and - as the Titanic travelled to port and moved off the spur, the iceberg then righted again.

Notty,
I will pretend your charming friend is sitting with me in the car as we head to an adult watering hole for an apres-cinema nightcap after viewing the movie, and she is bursting to review it with me...
Being she is bright and smart, I will be on my best behavior... ;-)
First, I would say I share some of her feelings about the fictional Jack and Rose.
As a life-long Titanic enthusiast (I, too, saw A Night To Remember in 1968 as an 8-year-old...and was smitten), Jack and Rose were just unnecessary fluff for me...never mind the annoying, innumerable times they called each other's names. Try counting it sometime.
However, the unimaginable expense that Cameron invested in "Titanic"... the incredible sets, the extreme fidelity to minute details, the investment in CGI...HAD to be recovered somehow.
I suspect that fully half the tickets sold were to dreamy-eyed adolescent girls in love with Jack and Rose, and their dollars paid for my ability to scrutinize the fine wood trim and dinnerware in the First Class Dining Salon.
Also, I can think of no better plot line than an illicit, rebellious affair between a pair of 1st and 3rd class teens to explain away access to so many parts of the ship in under 3 hours of story, literally from stem to stern and gymnasium to the boiler rooms and cargo hold.
I have seen "Titanic" perhaps a hundred times. While Jack and Rose are busily prattling away, I'm fully occupied studying how the flooding progresses and pausing the movie to cross-reference a stairway to original deck-plans.
Fair trade, I say.

As for depictions of Capt. Smith and Murdoch:
As much as we can wish/expect heroic actions from even the most capable leaders, I cannot fault Smith for becoming somewhat stunned or overwhelmed by the immense tragedy unfolding before him... and the hopelessness of the situation.
That said, me being retired US Navy and spending almost 20 years on the bridge of ships, I can tell you that a good captain delegates and has confidence in his officers. An ineffective captain micro-manages and is intrusive. This may seem counter-intuitive to Hollywood depictions of leadership, and even appear anti-heroic... but my mentor in the Navy once told me "a sign of a good leader is that they can be gone for two weeks before anyone notices, if you've done your job thoroughly."
I find very little to support the depiction of Murdoch, but not much to complain about. I don't see him as really accepting the bribe...merely allowing a First Class passenger to indulge their arrogance. On the other hand, I seriously doubt Murdoch had any illusions about his fate, from the moment Smith gave the order to fill the boats. Given his part in the collision and the resulting horrific, inevitable loss of life... suicide in the final moments is not (to me) unthinkable. It might, by some, even seem commendable.
I saw nothing to indicate a lackadaisical atmosphere with regard to the way the ship was run...even to the lookouts. Lookout duty is tedious and boring. Trying to remain silently, stoically fixated as a lookout for 2 hours can be mind-numbing and is foolish/impractical.

AS to her arguments about the collision itself:
The "grounding" theory loses weight in my eyes based on the accounts of the crew in Boiler Room no. 6...the crashing noises, the water cascading in from the sides and bunkers, not flowing up from the deckplates...
A "grounding" along the keel...structurally the strongest part of the ship... would have been felt far more strongly along the ships' length, alerting more crew and passengers to the occasion of a serious accident. That so many had no clue that ANYTHING had happened (including some crew on watch), as late as an hour after the collision, points to a less dramatic event.

On the other hand, Titanic's "skin" and framing was a relatively thin thing, compared to the solid mass of an iceberg.
The inertia of 45,000 tons at 22 knots in a glancing, grazing blow seems to me to be equivalent to a bad case of "road rash"... so think of a motorcyclist sliding down the road after putting his bike down. The tiniest objects on the road surface can inflict severe and even deep damage to the body as he slides along, but not send the body careening off into the air, just like you could side-swipe your car at 60 mph off the Empire State Building and hardly feel a thing... but sustain some pretty bad damage nonetheless.
Additionally, Titanic's structure was essentially a honeycomb made of spider web...
A slicing cut at the side would be reflected locally by some violence, but absorbed and muffled quickly by distance and flex of materials as you proceeded aft.
I don't believe Boxhall's initial inspection included any spaces where he could actually see much flooding. He only went as far below as F deck, didn't go any further aft than the 2nd watertight bulkhead (C), and was back on the bridge within 10 minutes of the collision... even less since his being dispatched to have a look. One could hardly go from the bridge... down three decks, forward and into the fo'c'sle and down a further three decks to F deck and back... in that time.
I seriously doubt he would have noted if there was a Roman Orgy going on the the cargo hold.
Nonetheless, the carpenter and mail clerks were already reporting flooding by 15 minutes after the collision, and Andrews himself knew the ship was badly damaged a few minutes later.

AS to the ice on deck, not on the bridge... and thus because "tipping" the berg...
No remarkably large chunks were reported on the well deck (which themselves would be cause for alarm), which indicate to me that it was merely a bit of stuff "avalanching" off the side of the berg as a result of being bumped. These smaller bits then bounced along and careened, spinning thru the air (as avalanching stuff does on it's way down and uneven slope)... and wound up on the well deck. When witnessing an avalanche, one often sees small bits bouncing and then spiraling thru the air, some distance from the actual slope of the fall...thus, ice could have traveled quite some distance laterally from its original path.

At this point, we've arrived at my favorite bar...
Time for a Guinness and Grand Marnier...
I would tell her that these were excellent questions... I adore her attention to detail and enjoyed this thoroughly...but I wish to change the subject... perhaps to a view to convinced her to some to my place and see some of my etchings...

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

Notty,

I graciously yield to Thomas Krom and his accounting for the time of Thomas Andrews' inspection. I'm working on a book looking at the overall picture of the accident and the investigations so the particular whereabouts of individuals at particular times really don't enter into the equation for my research. I just wanted to give an explanation as to how 45 minutes really isn't that much time.

I love brionboyles analogy of the accident to a bad case of road rash. I think that's one of the most succinct explanations I've heard.

Best regards,

Gordon

 

[Thomas Krom]

Notty,

I graciously yield to Thomas Krom and his accounting for the time of Thomas Andrews' inspection. I'm working on a book looking at the overall picture of the accident and the investigations so the particular whereabouts of individuals at particular times really don't enter into the equation for my research. I just wanted to give an explanation as to how 45 minutes really isn't that much time.

Let me send something to you. It will safe you a lot of time.

 

[Notty]

Crikey!

My most sincere thanks for the replies. I 'll confess I wasn't expecting such detailed (and incredibly helpful) responses. I'll take a little time to digest them and then respond properly.

Thank you all so much for the time and trouble you've gone to.

I seriously doubt he would have noted if there was a Roman Orgy going on the the cargo hold.

Superb line, made my morning over the coffee

Notty

 

[Notty]

Guys,

With apologies for taking a bit of time to respond - a lot to think about (and fighting a stinking cold) - I just want to start off with my thanks for your comments. Given the brevity of the scene and the complexities involved in any position taken I don't think I can do an argument justice. It seems having her trying to forward/support a theory is a damn sight trickier than I thought.

So, instead, for this scene I'm going to take a slightly wussy way out and will run with the following:

Objections to Jack and Rose (her personal preferences plus the lack of historical accuracy)
Objections to the lookouts not doing their job (lack of historical accuracy for story telling purposes)
Objections to Murdoch's suicide and bribe (I think there is enough evidence to throw this in doubt as having happened, including the signed statement by all the officers. The less said about the bribe the better)*

And a shockingly cowardly exit line along the lines of "and don't even get me started on how the sinking was depicted" which, whatever the knowledgeable readers views on the matter covers a lot of bases and is unlikely to cause any eyebrows to be lofted.

My thanks once again for stopping me making a bit of an arse of myself and my character.


Notty

* besides anyone who thinks he did is just wrong ofc