Miscastings

Looking at the photos of Guggenheim, Ensign looked like he could have been his father.
 
>>There was a movie a few years ago in which the location for the home of one of the main characters was in one of the most poverty ridden areas and her "neighborhood church" was filmed in one of the most affluent churches in the area. (Probably no one but a native would have noted this, but the movie was filmed locally and I was familiar with both locations.)<<

My posting was not intended to be snobbish in any way, but I remember at one Sunday service at our church (the one on the film) they were asking for "extras" for "a movie to be filmed a few weeks later." However, Alas !I was not one of the extras, so don't look for me if you ever see "Midnight Clear.". When the film came out later, I was a bit surprised at the contrasts between the two locations, being familiar with both. Actually, the "church scene" only takes less than a minute, but just long enough to identify the location of the setting ; probably wouldn't even have been caught by a nitpicker without first hand knowledge. LOL.

>>Looking at the photos of Guggenheim, Ensign looked like he could have been his father<<

Guggenheim actually looks even a bit youthful in the photos...more like the playboy he probably was... and he could have been cast as Ensign's son for that matter. OK, Jeremy !..Same thing ! LOL.

>>First and most importantly, the casting of Bernard Fox as Archibald Gracie. Gracie was NOT a bumbling Anglo-Indian colonel; he was the scion of an American family, at that time based in Mobile, Alabama, although his ancestry included the namesake Archibald Gracie who built Gracie Mansion in New York.<<

I don't know about the physical resemblance but Archibald Gracie comes out as a much more sympathetic portrayal in ANTR than in "Titanic".
 
Where is Gracie portrayed in ANTR?

Sorry, but I get really confused by who is who in that movie because they don't use names very often. You have to know who they're intended to be.
 
Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Robert T. Paige
Jeremy-

Let me check back, too...I may be confused...but I think he was the man talking to Lightoller on the upturned lifeboat sequence. In a previous scene he also appears in the Strausses sequence.

>>I've always been bothered by Benjamin Guggenheim's portrayal in the 1997 film. The actor who played him seemed almost elderly to me, but I believe the real Guggenheim was 47 years old at the time.<<

Guggenheim is also portrayed as rather elderly in ANTR.
 
Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Cam Houseman
>>Indeed, Gracie is on the lifeboat. He's the one who says "You're not God, Mr.Lightoller"

Paul
-- <<

He's also in the scene with the Mr. and Mrs. Strauss : He's the one who says "Surely no one would object to an old man....".

Did any one spot him in any other scenes ?

Also a minor nit-pick in this scene: Mr. Strauss says, "Get in the boat, Rachel !" Her name was Ida.
 
>>Did any one spot him in any other scenes ?
Most probably yes.

Anyone who wants to do the same can view the 'Titanic' film script, for example here, and search for 'Gracie'.
 
>>Anyone who wants to do the same can view the 'Titanic' film script, for example here, and search for 'Gracie'.<<

The reference was to Colonel Gracie in ANTR and not in the 1997 movie.(Script cited in your post.)
 
I am sorry, this was of course one my faults.
The image of Archibald Gracie in the 1997 'Titanic' was too present in my mind, so I was somehow sure this film was meant.
With 'A Night to Remember', I do not know of such an easy way to find specific scenes like these, but this is a good reason for me to watch it again soon.
Maybe I will create a script for ANTR, I think it could be quite useful.
 
Thanks, Dieter Klimow, as usual I believe no apologies are needed on this website !

>> I am sorry, this was of course one my faults.
The image of Archibald Gracie in the 1997 'Titanic' was too present in my mind, so I was somehow sure this film was meant.
With 'A Night to Remember', I do not know of such an easy way to find specific scenes like these, but this is a good reason for me to watch it again soon.
Maybe I will create a script for ANTR, I think it could be quite useful.<<

The DVD of ANTR I have does have "a search by chapters" feature, but even with that you have to know what part of the movie the scene and the character for which you are looking is located.

The script of ANTR sounds like a good project. I'm not certain about copyright involvement or I might attempt this and do something along those lines on my own website. I've searched the Internet, but the 1997 Titanic script seems to be the only one listed.

I don't know about the physical resemblance of Colonel Gracie but the 1997 "mischaracterization" seems to be a bit closer to the real Colonel Gracie....in ANTR Colonel Gracie seems to come across as more of the meek and mild mannered type. He looks a lot like one of my late Uncles.

IMHO the "mischaracterization" of Colonel Gracie in the 1997 "Titanic" is just as bad as the "mischaracterization" of "Molly Brown."
 
Even though this is not a mis-casting,I still do think that how fictional first class woman passenger Rose behaves in many ways that the real first class women passenger would never do.Such as starting a relationship with a poor guy in steerage and pose nude for a drawing drawn by her new steerage boyfriend.And of course her fiance who she despises,Is depicted as being a mean,pompous ass as a justification of her despising him. Regards,Jerry
 
>>Such as starting a relationship with a poor guy in steerage <<

I'm afraid this is just a common plot in fiction..not just limited to the Jack Rose thing by any matter...whether it has any reality or not.
 
>> I've searched the Internet, but the 1997 Titanic
>> script seems to be the only one listed.

I've got the script for SOS Titanic. And I know that the original script for the 1996 TV mini is online.
 
I really think Cameron was truly interested in the story of the Titanic. But his interest had to be funded didn't it, what with all those high-tech dives? He made a film which he hoped would show some, if not all, of the reality involving considerable $$$$$s. So he made what he hoped would be the all-time blockbuster, to recoup the money in a reasonable cause, and he was probably right. So, he's rich.

Without buying into the Romeo and Juliet stuff, and understanding that he was melding history and fiction ... I don't blame him. I don't think any of us could have done much better. Not to denigrate previous directors - he came along with CG technology. Lucky James. But he still seems to take it seriously, which is something.
 
Well. IMHO the "Romeo and Juiet stuff" is at least more plausible in the "1953" than the "1997" version..
 
Back
Top