For 97 Titanic fansAnalyzing Rose


Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew Sims

Guest
The character of Rose was so well devoloped to me, and Kate Winslett acted her out so well, i wanted to get a sense of what others thought in her portrayal.I think the most powerful scene to me, was her decision to break with what she knew. This being the scene were her mother was sitting talking about bridesmaids dresses and so on. We see her suddenly start to drift to the eyes of the child sitting there, and Ms Winslett did one of the better pure acting jobs ive ever seen without saying a word..In those few second,s the perception i got was, a girl who was reliving her childhood through that little girls eyes. And as you look at her gaze, getting lost deeper by the second as the gaze grew deeper, the memories stronger, you couldnt help but wonder what pain was going through her mind. So much of Rose, so much of what i see of her in this film, it makes me winder, just what was her childhood like? and the burning question in my mind, the unknown factor, is what role did her father play in her life? There are so many questions...We hear her talk in the start about how Titanic to her was a slave ship taking her back to America in chains. OK, did we not hear at some point her talking about attentind private schools in Europe? and she said this like these were some of thefew happy times she had. We hear her mother talking of welath being gone. Well why was it gone? At what point did the father leave, and under what circumstances? At what age did he leave them. Something, although it was never confirmed, suggests thathe left them a great deal of wealth. IF this is true, does this mean Ruth was guilty of inordinate spending and blew the entire fortune, sending Rose to private schools while she galavanted through Europe? im rambling here, but im just scratching the surface of the many many thoughts i have. Im not in favor of fan fic, for as i beleive the only ones that can make Roses fate are her creators..But..I admit in the odd sense, i would be in big time favor of a prequel, to see how Rose arrived at this juncture of her life...The ramblings of a fan i guess..Ok people, shoot me down for all your worth lol
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
35
243
South Florida
Yeah, well I think the brat was self-serving, immature, ungrateful, spoiled, arrogant, rebellious and didn't have a mind of her own (thus led easily astray by those around her she found stronger than she to rebel against society). And, if she hadn't been so stubborn and controlling, and stayed in the lifeboat as she was told, Jack Dawson would have been on that piece of paneling instead of her and would have survived. (That is, in the world of fiction.) So I hold her responsible for his death!

All the best,
Kyrila
 
J

Jan Kite

Guest
Hi Karila. Rose was just as James Cameron wanted her. and my dear girl, would you have left your beloved on board and boarded a lifeboat? I think not.Regards Jan BTS
 

Kate Bortner

Member
May 17, 2001
434
4
183
Speaking as an actor, I think both Kate & Leo could have benefited from a few more hours with their acting coach. IMHO, the sets were beautiful, the costumes were exceptional, the effects were amazing, but I didn't believe Rose or Jack as who they were for one second! (and both have turned in wonderful performances in other films. . . ) The characters were 1 dimensionally drawn and 2 dimensionally portrayed. And as far as that wonderful scene with the child, I have one thing to say: editing can make almost any scene look "powerful" and I know this from personal weak acting that ended up looking award worthy with the help of a good editor!

Now don't get me wrong, I love this movie, but I don't think the accolades belong with either the acting or the writing.

And I believe Sister Kyrila was playing devil's advocate since as we all know this was fiction, fiction, fiction. For real love stories, true devotion, and selflessness just look to the real lovers on board: the Marvins, the Strauss' and many others!

And finally, was anyone else bugged by the tattoo on Kate's arm during the jump scene?! No Anglo lady of breeding would have had a tattoo on her arm in 1912! Eeeek, where was that fantastic editor that day??!

With much good humor. . .
~Kate
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
35
243
South Florida
Personally, I would have boarded the lifeboat and trusted my beloved to his own survival instincts. My response was tongue in cheek, and I'm sorry you took it the wrong way.
I'm an actress also, twelve years on stage. Sure, Cameron was going for a certain angle. Every director has an agenda, and his was to make the rich look bad and the poor look good. Making "Rose" seem like the victimized debutante of the society elite was part of fulfilling that angle. I agree with what Kate said about the acting and the writing (especially the writing!), but don't stop with Winslet and DiCaprio. LOL!
Oh, and Kate, I thought that was a tattoo also, but upon closer inspection, it appears to be some beading that came loose from the lace.

All the best,
Kyrila
 
K

Karen Sweigart

Guest
There is one scene in particular that makes me really dislike Rose. At the end when Rose and Jack have made their to the top rail of the ship where they first met, there is a young woman who I assume was probably third class standing next them. Rose gives her such a down-her-nose, you-piece-of-dirt look that bothers me every time I watch "Titanic". Now I don't know if I read the look wrong, or if Kate got the look wrong, but I notice it every time. Anyone know the scene I mean?
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
35
243
South Florida
Oh, yes. The pretty blonde girl that we see waving to friends and family on the pier as the ship leaves Southampton. And the next we see her, Miss Rose stares at her like, "Who are you to intrude upon my time with Jack with your fear?" And there is absolutely no response from Miss Rose when the poor girl falls to her doom. She just continues her conversation with Jack as if nothing happened.

Kyrila
 

Kate Bortner

Member
May 17, 2001
434
4
183
Again I say, it was all about editing. That look may not even have been a character choice of Winslet's, but just a "clever" choice the editor (Cameron) decided upon.
 
C

Courtney Scully

Guest
I think that Rose and her mom said that the dad died...
I dunno I love the movie but when it gets down to it I would have gone with my beloved too..or dress him up as a girl and put him in a life boat.
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Jul 3, 2001
295
1
183
Hello all-

Well, I guess I'll give my little "brush off the bloom" of our Rose!

Actually, I will try to be diplomatic here, for it seems to me that the character of Rose reminds me an awful lot of Scarlet O in GWTW...but that's another conversation.

The stern scene, before the plunge, the blonde I always thought was Fabrizio's (Jack's roomie) dance partner (my arm here? OK?). Rose might have have reconised her from the "3rd class party", and given a nod of "hey! I remember you!" kind of thing.

Yes, Rose's dad died. The corset scene: "...good name and a legacy of bad debts". When: probably a little before the introduction to Cal. Rose still would have been "introduced to society"- a debutaunte (average age around 18). If we are to believe that the Bukaters are of "Old Money" ie: established wealth, then Cal, with his fortune made in industry- a "new" money concept in 1912- would have found a marriage with the "old" a perfect reason to validate his own standing, and move in circles that otherwise he would have been not just tolerated, but accepted.

As far as Rose's up-bringing, one could imagine a typical late Victorian (1894/5 birth date) early Edwardian childhood. Probably a Nanny, then possibly a Governess was a more influential effect on Rose than her Mother or mysterious Father. She would not have been that worldly- even if her parents took her (I assume she was an only child) on trips, she would have been kept in private rooms most of the time. The "seen and not heard" rule of child-rearing was still enforced then.

I mention this because my own issue with the character is this rebellious nature we are supposed to believe was simmering within Rose. Not to say she didn't have problems adjusting to the expectations thrown at her- who didn't growing up?!- it is just that children were raised to "please" their family; if Mom want's me to do (fill in the blank) then I guess I have to... As a whole, in spite of class, impulsiveness was simply not tolerated, especially of girls. A tough concept to grasp, in our post '60's generation, but that was the reality for most of our Grandparent's- Great-grandparent's time. For a small example; the paintings Rose collected. "Something" Picasso at this time was an underground renegade, showing his work in the most "a LADY dare not tread" places. How would Rose, with her entourage, been exposed to this? Picasso, Braque, Matisse etc. did show their work- a gallery opening- in the U.S. in 1913 under the most controversial circumstances. Although Rose's beautiful Degas was more well known, just not "mainstream".

I guess I couldn't help but think that Rose was a "poseur" of sorts. Not that I hate her for that, just there were too many incongruities with her shelterd life, and her knowledge of things that only a true Bohemian free spirit would have been exposed to. I mean, other than the absence of hats (which was innapropriate even by the most artsy set) even her clothes were quite conventional. Though I did like her dressing gown with the beads she twirled! No Mother Hubbard there!

Winslet is great, I admit. I first saw her in the film "Heavenly Creatures" and I believe her acting abilities were not utilised in "Titanic". But the film not about her, really...it was the ship that was the star, and that is how I'll always think of it.

Well, there's my crackpot psycho-analysis of a fictional person. I'll write out the prescription and send her on her way!
happy.gif


Yours-
Kris
 

Joshua Gulch

Member
Mar 31, 2001
604
4
183
I found it interesting that with all the drink she consumed at the party, she wasn't in the least bit woozy at any point after. I mean, it's not like she would have had a high alcohol tolerance.

Then again, as someone who's never drank before, I don't know too much about tolerance levels.

Josh.
 

Sam Brannigan

Member
Dec 20, 2000
904
15
263
Hi Josh - I am an expert in alcohol tolerance and the effects of alcohol (having done extensive field-research), and at the rate she was drinking she would not have been having a row with Cal the next morning looking all nice and fresh, but she would have woke up in Jack's bunk with a storming hangover and thinking "How the hell did I end up here?". This would also fit nicely with the depiction of Rose as someone with a 1997 mentality hopelessly adrift in 1912.
proud.gif


Just to add a little to Kris' observation of Edwardian Society's disdain for artists now accepted as groundbreaking geniuses, the premiere of Stravinsky's seminal "Rite of Spring" in 1913 was greeted with riots in the streets of Paris and no doubt much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Now it is one of the most popular pieces in the classical repertoire. Ho-hum.

Regards

Sam
 

Kate Bortner

Member
May 17, 2001
434
4
183
I concur with Sam's field-research findings. That foreign brew ain't no Miller Lite. . . one pint would have put our, presumably tea-tottling Rose, in knee-walking, commode hugging land before ever ending up in Jack's bunk (a likely endling place, however I see her more as the arm-crooked-around-Fabrizzio's-neck-saying-"you're the greatest, man!"-type just before passing out on the cool tiles of the bathroom floor)
Okay, so I've done a bit of reasearch of my own!
wink.gif

-kate.
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Jul 3, 2001
295
1
183
Shhh....not so loud everybody!

Ha-Ha! I completely forgot about Rose's edited hangover. I would imagine, if not in the bunk of Jack, Fabrizio, or the other of Sven's buddies (perhaps all four! But then the film would have taken an entirely different direction) that Rose wound up being escorted by a steward to her suite, a knock would have summoned an irritated Ruth. There, Mommy-Dearest would have to deal with a quite disheveled, flopping, beer-stained daughter babbling something about the loss of her shoes and that a "firth clath girl c-c-can da-rink!"

"Trudy! Fetch the commode! Hurry!!!"

Oh, please forgive me, I'm being awful again!
Kris
 

Joshua Gulch

Member
Mar 31, 2001
604
4
183
Unless...
Rose was actually brought up on hard liquor, and so wasn't quite so phased. I can imagine Ruth now, "Here's your morning brew, Rosie."

Josh.
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Kris- I guess i tend to disagree with a few of your points and agree with many, but it is becoming a common theme that seems to suggest Rose was a mindless woman, and that concept does bother me. Simply because, while most of the film seems to be predicated on Jacks guiding her out of her sheltered life, and trying to guide her into independant thinking, is it not Rose who seems to do the teaching to Jack in lifes ways as we near the end of the film? Like the instinctive nature she knew how to say or hold him the right way after lovemaking, or the way she guided him through the proper ways of eating as they were taught to her? Also im going to disagree with Kate on her premise that editing can make any actor look good. I will differ big time. If you do not have the talent or depth to express those facial things outwardly, no editing in the world will save the film. I will stand by my ascertation that Miss Winslet did a marverlous job potraying Rose, and i do not think the character should ever be played by anyone else. As for your issue with her character, thats a reflection on the writers, not a reflection on Ms Winslets acting. My personal take on it is, we are simply not given enough about her. There are far too many holes. Personally, i would like to see a pre-quel that would fill us in on Roses childhood and life training by Ruth..Lord knows there is plenty holes to fill a 2 hour film
 

Kate Bortner

Member
May 17, 2001
434
4
183
Matthew while I generally agree with your posts, I have to defend my assertation about the power of editors. Winslet is a fine actor. I've seen her do many good films. My suggestion is that acting took a back seat in THIS film. She did a good job with what she was given on a very basic level. I believe she is capable of a better performance. (and Leo is certainly a better actor than his performance) BUT as an actor and a director and a theatre/film lover I will agree that taste is a very individual thing and that you and I are certainly allowed our differing opinions. With regard to editing however, I stand firm in my view. An editor can make more difference than you could ever imagine. Read Orson Wells' autobiography about the changes the Studio editors made in his films AFTER he had finished his final editing. It changed characters' entire intentions. I could quote you a dozen examples where an editing choice one way, could make the audience think one way and a choice another way can make the audience feel an entirely different way. Film making is a large patchwork quilt. Actors are directed (among other things) to leave pauses between lines so that edits can be made smoothly. (granted, films are made all types of ways these days: single camera, multi camera, video tape, super 8. . . ., but this is a "basic" formula for film making) Directors and editors (and in many cases they are the same person as was the case with Cameron, I THINK?)make many decisions in the editing room that much differ from the footage they shot and even from the screenplay. Even camera angles can create a feeling or an emotion that the actor didn't intend or change one they did intend. Carrying on the patchwork quilt metaphor, the editor wants many scraps to choose from to make the best quilt she can.

As an actor, I have been encouraged to "do it differently" in later "takes", to "see what else we can get". I believe Winslet MAY have struck an expression that the editors used to insert the shot of the other woman with the child.
You say:
"This being the scene were her mother was sitting talking about bridesmaids dresses and so on. We see her suddenly start to drift to the eyes of the child sitting there, and Ms Winslett did one of the better pure acting jobs ive ever seen without saying a word..In those few second,s the perception i got was, a girl who was reliving her childhood through that little girls eyes. And as you look at her gaze, getting lost deeper by the second as the gaze grew deeper, the memories stronger, you couldnt help but wonder what pain was going through her mind."
You're right, this could have been Winslet's acting, but if you look closely, there is an edit in that seen that is designed to lead us to your conclusions. All we see in the wide shot of Rose & her mother and the other two together is Rose looking at them. Her reaction is a close up(-ish) shot, that could have been the actor's reaction to anything that happened in that scene.

At the risk of driving my point into the ground, let me tell you of my friend's experience as an actor in another film (write me personally and I'll tell you which film--no need to screw with someone's reputation in a public forum just to illustrate a point) My friend was working on a big studio film where the star was a cocaine addict. She screwed up so many takes and gave such an eradic (sp?) performance that the patchwork quilt metaphor was the editor's reality and only hope. The film was a HUGE success and that actor (who was extremely popular) went on to make more pictures (although her career came to an end because of her self-destructive behavior.)
Again, I don't want to destroy your love of this film or even challenge it. I really like it too. I think she did a credible job and I will go see her films in the future, but I do not think her performance was award nomination worthy (and others who vote agreed with me), nor do I think the merit of good editing should be dismissed when examining the quality of the acting in this film.

And again, I repeat that I enjoy your posts Matthew; I always read them with relish (and mustard!
wink.gif
)and I hope you'll accept my apologies if you feel I've been argumentative. For some reason I felt the need to defend my side a "bit". There are many actors out there who I really dislike (Meryl Streep) and I take a lot of grief for it ("how can you NOT like Meryl Streep!!!! She's an icon!!!" etc.)Kate Winslet is not one of them. I admire her abilities.

En garde, my friend . . .

-kate "may not know much about rivits, but knows a bit about acting" bortner
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Kate- I as well take nooffense at all with anything you say. But what it still comes down to for me, is if the acting was done by someone (lets throw out a name just for heresays sake...Drew Barrymore) my point is if she as opposed to Winslett had doen the scene, no editing in the world could have made the image appear as Winslett did. Another example, i LOVED the way she used her natural voice tones to make her appear turning into a meek shy child before our eyes as Jack asks her to step on to the bow and asking her not to speak..Right there i love the way she uses voice tones to appear childlike as she says "im not". It was a totally different tone in her voice that i never heard use at all at any point of the film. True maybe editing does have a bit to do with it, BUT, if you examine all the areas where she is aksed to display an emotion to portray a point, ask yourself this. How many actors could have done it with the conviction she did? I still will say she was the victim of the writers, and not her own acting abilities. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts Kate, and i hope you continue to do so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads