Lee: Cameron's lack of understanding about the mores of 1912 has formed the basis of my most sustained criticism of his movie. Time and again, he makes characters' actions suit a 1997 audience's expectations, instead of permitting those actions to grow naturally out of a deeper understanding of the Edwardian era. Rose, in particular, is a 1997 woman transported back to 1912; even her pattern of movement is all wrong. While some athleticism was permitted young women of that time, it was pretty strictly circumscribed; the tennis court, the bathing beach, calisthenics and - when still adolescent - the basketball court were all permissible. But in the drawing room, at tea, when shopping, at church - all the "ladylike" activities - a woman was supposed to move with grace and poise. Cameron's Rose moves like a modern woman who has never been "tut-tutted" at for taking long strides or swinging her arms or sitting in a comfortable position as opposed to a graceful one.
Cameron's knowledge of the era's sexual mores seems to be pretty limited. The insinuation that Cal is or may be sleeping with Rose is actually correct enough; their wedding is very close, close enough that if a pregnancy resulted, it could be passed off - there were some rather large and healthy "premature" infants at that time, in fact well up into my own era! Where Cameron comes a cropper is with Rose and Jack getting horizontal. Rose would have had it drilled into her since adolescence that the worst possible thing that could befall her would be having a baby with no husband around - which it would have been. She would not only have been drummed out of her social circle, she would have had a very hard time finding work, and a harder one finding a husband. A sad but true historic fact of the Edwardian era was that the fortunes of women were, for the most part, highly dependent on men, though that would change dramatically within a few years.
Cameron compounds his mistake when he has Jack mention an acquaintance with Parisian prostitutes. Given that what were euphemistically called "social diseases" were not treatable at the time, Rose's reaction to this information should have been to cut the boy off (I am of course, overlooking the problem of Rose and Jack having any social contact at all, given the immigration regulations that segregated Third Class from the other two). The problem of men bringing such diseases home to innocent wives via contact with prostitutes was one of the era's great health concerns; there were constant exhortations to boys to keep themselves "clean" (telling phrase!) for marriage.
I also have a real problem with Cameron's use of the Margaret Brown/Ruth Bukater/
Countess of Rothes trio. Cameron makes Mrs. Brown out to be a complete clod who is only seethingly tolerated by Ruth Bukater, with the Countess complicit in Ruth's displays of snobisme. First, Mrs. Brown had some social standing of her own, although it was not of the highest. She had been taken into the circle of J.J. and Madeleine Astor, accompanying them to Egypt and France, and while Astor was in some social trouble due to his divorce and remarriage (a very big no-no at the time), the size of his fortune kept him from total social ruin. Ruth Bukater could not have afforded to give offense to Mrs. Brown; there would have been no telling when Astor and her daughter's fiance Caledon might have business dealings. Making the Countess part of all this completely ignores the actual character of the woman, who kept up a Christmastime correspondence with seaman Thomas William Jones, who had been in charge of her lifeboat, for the rest of her life. What Cameron fails to understand about the social pecking order is that those at its very top can afford to be nice to those lower down the scale; they have nothing to lose thereby. As written, Ruth Bukater should have been seen through and gently, coolly kept at arm's length by her betters, of whom she had many.
Don't get me started about Rose's excursion into steerage!
