Jun 12, 2004
2,131
11
161
One thing that I am looking forward to discussing here is the subject of inconsistency to fact as presented in the various movies, especially James Cameron's version. Don't get me wrong: there's a lot I like about it--especially the digitals and Special Effects--but I am irked by some of the disregards he made regarding fact (such as Cal in Ismay's suite, the 3rd class/1st class romance, the paintings, and the multitude of 1st class women and one 1st class child seen at the end who had apparently died in the disaster--among other things). These disregards were not up for speculation, and it was not mandatory for him to disregard the facts behind these issues. This, also, after he had claimed that his was going to be as authentic as possible. I am a creative writer, so I can understand and appreciate artistic liberty, but when it comes to the Titanic, unless it deals with an issue that remains speculative, my attitude is to stick to fact. After all, it was fact that inspired even the fiction, so the drama there is the purest. For those who know the Titanic, movies lose credibility when they stray from fact by throwing someone else in Ismay's suite or having the Strausses in their cabin during sinking (Mr. Strauss' body was recovered [#96], which means that he could not have been in his cabin, otherwise he would have gone down inside the ship. Since the two were inseparable, it is likely, and proven by the discovery of his body, that the Strausses did not return to their cabin to die there)... Sorry for my rambling, hehe, but you can see how passionate I feel about it.

Anyway, what do others think on these issues?

--Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Hi Mark, Regarding the Strausses, While not historically accurate in how you mentioned, it does represent the fact that some couples (of all classes) no doubt decided to stay together, some in their staterooms. Despite being three hours long, we must still realize this is a condensed version of the event. The movie could have been twice as long if every scenario was reinacted.

David Smith
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
11
161
Thanks for the feedback, Dave. I do realize that it is only a movie and that some events or issues, while maybe left to interpretation, are not going to be complete or addressed in a fashion to be consistent with reality. As for the re-inactment of every single scenario, that would require much more than double-time. In a movie of limited time and scope, some events and elements need more attention than others for the purpose of organization and focus. Still, I just cannot help noticing certain things. I guess it's the Titanic enthusiast in me, hehe.

Take care
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Paul, Now see I agree with Cameron on that depiction. Smith, Andrews and Ismay all new the horrible truth of the nights outcome. I think we all would have been in a daze if just given a death sentence with 2 hours or less to live.

Smith knew he had to go down with the ship if half his passengers would. The same with Andrews. Ismay, well, as much as he thought he should have been saved due to his position as a First class passenger, he no doubt regretted it at least at some point.

One can only imagine what was going thru Smiths mind after the accident. Shock? Regret? Remorse? We will never know.

David Smith
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Mark,

Cameron did mention in an interview that he did have to take a few liberties to keep the continuity of the film. But keep in mind that there were two of the leading Titanic Historians on the set as Technical advisors. Ken Marschall and Don Lynch. They pretty much kept Jim Cameron in check with everything "known" to be 100% true. The only things speculated were the gray areas where Don and Ken couldn't 100% deny it didn't happen that way.

David Smith
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
11
161
So, you're saying that it's not proven 100% that Ismay was in B 52, 54, 56? As matter of fact, there are testimonies and documentation to prove this 100%. Marschall and Lynch, I'm sure, know this. This discrepancy, in my opinion, was not necessary for maintaining the continuity of the film, neither is the Straus issue, which I've proven, or which has been proven by the discovery of Isador's body. As for the 1st class women/children, it has also been proven, despite the inconsistency of the passenger list (which has been accounted for by scholars for years), that the tally was 5 (1 child). There is evidence on the last one right here on this forum/site. Look for Lester's document on the subject, please.

There are points to which I give leeway, as they are speculative; I am not saying that all the considered discrepancies were proven, but those mentioned above have. I've even heard Marschall and Lynch confirm these verbally. Perhaps Cameron had a reason for changing them for the plot, but that doesn't mean that the two advisors believed differently than I claimed above.

In any case, we do know that there were discrepancies, despite the technical advisors. Hell, there were discrepancies in ANTR, and Joseph Boxhall himself was the technical advisor there. The only reason for ANTR being the closest to reality was the fact that several survivors helped and Boxhall was there (this aside from McQuitty's leaning toward the novel). I agree that the technical advisors are important in making a movie, although there will still be holes.
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Hi Mark,

Very true! ANTR is definately more historically accurate. Nobody denies that. Cameron never intended his film to be a documentary. He knew to get repeat viewers he needed a hook to get the teens in to see it. That is how Cal, Rose and Jack were brought in. Fictional drama between known historical would have been far worse. Kind of like the love story with Beesley in the 1979 film.

Cameron obviously wanted to feature the Parlour suites in the film. The only way to get them into the story would be to put a featured person in one. The Cardezas (sp?) had the starboard one so that was out of the question. Ismay it was thought would certainly have given up the port side one if a paying passenger had stepped up. So this was the ideal place to put his fictional party.

I don't have an answer why the Strausses were used for that scene. In fact, they were never identified as the Strausses. Perhaps the fact we didn't see the Strausses on deck for that famous scene like in ANTR, that we assume it is them. Perhaps he didn't want to copy ANTR to much. He did after all give us many things that ANTR didn't give us. The recreation of the "top spinning scene" on the aft end of the boat deck. Not only does it recreate the scene from the photo, but there is a coat draped over a deck chair in the background. The coat that Jack ends up "borrowing" in the film. Now that is excellent!

David Smith
 

Wesley Burton

Member
Apr 22, 2004
178
1
111
Yeah but that scene took place several days earlier and the coat on the chair was in a different position. Sorry, I couldnt help but point that out.

I found quite a few historical innacuracies. But its a movie. I think to expect a perfectly historically accurate film is asking too much. I have never seen a movie about any historical event that was completely accurate. I wish some were though!
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
14
163
How do we know the elderly couple were in the parlour suite in the movie?

And Smith wasn't that dazed. I recall Bride's story about the "Send SOS. Its the new signal and it may be your last chance to send it." story, in which Smith, I think, joined in the chuckling.

Cheers

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jun 18, 2007
393
6
113
47
"I don't have an answer why the Strausses were used for that scene. In fact, they were never identified as the Strausses"

Simple, dramatic impact for those familiar with the Titanic story. It creates some kind of emotional resonance for the audience if they see Isidor and Ida depicted as being together in such a way.

Of course, it might also come across as tacky for some, but Cameron seems to have his own ideas of what counts for emotional resonance.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
11
161
Paul,

While the ship was sinking, and the band was singing "NMGTT," several people on board were shown in clips to give the audience the idea what was going on all over the ship at that time. In one clip, Mr. and Mrs. Straus are shown cuddling on their bed as water floods their bedroom. It was brief, but a lot of people caught it, and it said a lot.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
14
163
Hi Mark,
I know - I watched it again last night. But there was nothing in the finished film, apart from the credits maybe, that identified the two as being the Strauss' (alright, they are ID-ed as such in the outtakes)...also, theres nothing to suggest that they were cuddling in the Parlour suite!

Cheers mate!

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Paul writes:
quote:

also, theres nothing to suggest that they were cuddling in the Parlour suite!
Paul, I don't think anybody did suggest that the Strausses were in a B-Deck Parlour suite. I believe they were booked down on C-Deck actually.

David Smith​
 

Wesley Burton

Member
Apr 22, 2004
178
1
111
Do you know what part of C-deck they were on David?

Seeing as water was on the boat deck, a good portion of the deck was completely under, not just starting to flood.
 
Mar 20, 1997
115
0
171
While it is unlikely to be true, I do recall reading in either ANTR the book and/or the Lynch/Marschall book that there was at least one account where a witness claimed to see the Strauss' leave the deck and go back inside later in the sinking, presumably to return to their cabin. Cameron may have read this and either thought it was fact, or even knowing it wasn't verified as true thought it would make a good dramatic device.

BTW, on sites for the movie, the couple in the suite are identified conclusively as the Strauss'.
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
3
171
Hi Wesley,

According to the biography here on ET, the Strausses were in C-55, which was on the starboard side just aft of the main staircase. They probably had a great view of the iceberg going by if they were looking out their portholes at the moment.

David Smith
 

Wesley Burton

Member
Apr 22, 2004
178
1
111
Well at this point in the movie water is up to the A-deck staircase. So their cabin should have been well under water.

I dont know why, but this talk about the Strause's in their cabin as water comes in is sadening. I never thought much of it before.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
8
221
Being that Isidor Strauss' body was recovered a few weeks later, I suspect that he and his wife did *not* go back inside the ship just before the end.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,239
14
163
I know that the Strauss were not, in reality in one of the parlour suites; but I could have sworn that one of the authors in this or the other similar thread did.

Cheers

Paul
--
http://www.paullee.com
 

Similar threads

Similar threads