I seem to have inadvertently fuelled this debate, not that it matters if people are enjoying it. When making his film, James Cameron considered all the imponderables surrounding the sinking and decided on including some which added to the dramatic impact of his story - like the Murdoch shooting/suicide theory. Cameron didn't dream this up - it had been discussed for ages. He just decided to use it for dramatic reasons. I think he did a great deal of research, and was meticulous about those things he could be certain of - clothes, style, ship dimensions, some survivors' testimonies etc. I also think he drew very heavily indeed on ANTR, in fact to the point where I think he should have aknowledged it in the credits.
When I responded to Bob, saying that I wasn't sure he was right in supposing that people could separate fact from fiction, I was trying to point out that the obviously fictitious element - Jack and Rose - in an odd way endorsed the historical elements; Smith, Lowe, Murdoch, Lightoller, Molly Brown, Isamy urging Captain Smtih onwards etc.
That's because people trust film directors who dramatize historical events. Like Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, Braveheart, U-whatever the-number-was etc.
My students did exactly this, but they shouldn't have. They should have understood that films are fiction based on fact and supposition, and been prepared to try to separate the two. But they don't. I don't particularly castigate Cameron for including imponderables in his film. The only thing I really object to, as some people on this board will know, is that he passed his own dreadful drawings off as Jack's 'exquisite work' ..... but I seem fairly alone in finding this just about the limit!
