While I do like this movie and find it verry good for a 1958 movie (in my opinion, it's much better and much more enjoyable than the 2000 britannic movie), I find it really odd to go so far as to call it the definitive titanic movie. To me, a definitive titanic movie would be one who doesn't have innacuracies or dated elements in it (cameron titanic and a night to remember have both in my opinion) and I wonder if calling it most accurate or accurate doesn't have issues since it can help perpetrate the innacuracies within the movie or lionize certain historical figures like Lightoller. I also find it odd "A night to remember" doesn't have the same scrutiny from people when it come to innacuracies compare to james cameron titanic. While it was made in 1958, the innacuracies should still be noted so people don't get caught by them.
 
The issue with any film is that it is instantly a product of its time. ANTR was a classic 1950s film and so we really cannot call showing the ship going down intact an "inaccuracy" because the wreck had still not been discovered. I think the comment that ANTR is more "accurate" than Cameron's film is simply due to it not using the fictional lovers plot device. However, it does amplify the role of Lightoller to try and create a central character. And despite the fact that the film's producer, MacQuitty, saw Titanic being launched in Belfast I always find it frustrating that the film opens with the largest error of all - showing the hull being christened.

As for a thorough criticism I highly recommend Paul Lee's analysis of ANTR here: http://www.paullee.com/titanic/antr1958goofs.php

There is actually a film that is more accurate than the 1958 ANTR and one I recommend, although there are mostly just poor versions on YouTube: the 1956 Kraft Theatre TV live version of "A Night to Remember" - an incredible achievement with dozens of actors, multiple set changes and all performed completely live. And it sticks to the facts -as then known based on Lord's book.
 
I think the comment that ANTR is more "accurate" than Cameron's film is simply due to it not using the fictional lovers plot device.
True, but in doing so - or perhaps I should say in not doing so - ANTR managed to get its ethos in the right place despite many factual errors and artistic license. To me, that's where Cameron's movie comes out as mediocre, culminating in that ultra-ridiculous "heavenly" scene.

However, it does amplify the role of Lightoller to try and create a central character.
It does and to me that's the worst part - but then I could be biased because of my intense dislike of Kenneth More. I found his mannerisms particularly irritating in the Titanic the artificial facial tics, the wringing of hands etc. The character is shown as being everywhere, leaping from one spot to another, moving a collapsible lifeboat (#A, and in real life Lightoller had very little, if anything, to do with that lifeboat) as if it was his kid's toy and so on.
 
I don't think cameron titanic is mediocre, tho agree ANTR lionized lightoller. ANTR has the same issue as cameron titanic does, making something historical worst than it really is. In ANTR, it's the californian(I recall the movie was harsh on the californian), while for cameron, it's Ismay. I wish for a movie who present a more nuanced take on californian and a batter take on Ismay. I recall ANTR had the fictious characters too and did th 3rd class sneaking in 1st class thing a well. I do think some overrate how accurate ANTR is and I wouldn't call it more accurate than cameron titanic (as I said, both have innacuracies and dated stuff as shown by paul lee articles on both movies) or the definitive titanic movie (I've seen an article claiming that).
 
The issue with any film is that it is instantly a product of its time. ANTR was a classic 1950s film and so we really cannot call showing the ship going down intact an "inaccuracy" because the wreck had still not been discovered. I think the comment that ANTR is more "accurate" than Cameron's film is simply due to it not using the fictional lovers plot device. However, it does amplify the role of Lightoller to try and create a central character. And despite the fact that the film's producer, MacQuitty, saw Titanic being launched in Belfast I always find it frustrating that the film opens with the largest error of all - showing the hull being christened.

As for a thorough criticism I highly recommend Paul Lee's analysis of ANTR here: http://www.paullee.com/titanic/antr1958goofs.php

There is actually a film that is more accurate than the 1958 ANTR and one I recommend, although there are mostly just poor versions on YouTube: the 1956 Kraft Theatre TV live version of "A Night to Remember" - an incredible achievement with dozens of actors, multiple set changes and all performed completely live. And it sticks to the facts -as then known based on Lord's book.
My head hurt after reading his "criticism" of ANTR. Good Lord!
 
My head hurt after reading his "criticism" of ANTR. Good Lord!
The thing is, one can judge the merits (or lack of, depending on the way one looks at it) of A Night To Remember, in two ways. First, by itself and second, by comparing it with Cameron's 1997 film Titanic.

Taken by itself, as Dan pointed out, ANTR was a product of the 1950s, a time where moviegoers took artistic license for granted, even with movies depicting factual events like this one. So, the bits about the non-existent champagne Christening, Captain Lord in his pajamas (depsite being very unfair to the man) and (ugh!) Lightoller being shown like a marine version of Jack Reacher etc can be forgiven, as can the ship going down intact as this was well before the wreck was discovered and the break-up confirmed. But at the same time, for 1958 the film of that importance was made on too low a budget with not very flattering cinematography, occasionally stilted dialogue and bargain basement side-effects. But for all that, it had the right ethos and did not try to turn the while thing into some sort of romantic mush.

That is where IMO ANTR comes off a a far better film than Cameron's Titanic. We won't go into the distribution and box-office implications of either because those have been discussed to death already. Purely on a merit scale, ANTR is both a better and more mature film about a tragic event whereas Cameron's Titanic is.......well, what it is.
 
I'd disagree that ANTR is better or more mature than cameron titanic. For me, they're both as good and both share issues (accuracy wise per example, ANTR is far from being the most accurate or the definitive titanic movie[to me, a definitive titanic movie would be one who treat the historical figure well and accurately, doesn't have outdated stuff, accurate sets/ship design, and is mostly accurate, I don't think it's that hard to mess up there considering all the research done on the ship). I shared paul lee article because it shows the movie innacuracies (and why I disagree with the claim it's the most accurate/a accurate representation of the disaster).
 
I'd disagree that ANTR is better or more mature than cameron titanic
You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.

ANTR is far from being the most accurate or the definitive titanic movie[to me. I disagree with the claim it's the most accurate/a accurate representation of the disaster)
I personally never claimed that ANTR was an "accurate" depiction of the Titanic disaster; in fact, even based on what was known and researched up to the time the film was made, it comes up short on accuracy for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post of this thread. What I said was that despite its many shortcomings, ANTR had the right ethos in terms of the prevalent on-screen atmosphere, something that Cameron's film did not. The latter was centered around a Romeo & Juliet type of romance, something that had no place ion the tragedy. Yes, I know all about the commercial considerations, studio acceptance etc but we are not talking about those issues here.
 
I know you didn't and I do like ANTR too, hence why I say they're both good movies. On ANTR, I do wonder if the movie wasn't too harsh on the californian. I actually liked jack and rose and I think it can fit in a tragedy (I recall ANTR had love related stuff in it too, tho not the same focus as cameron titanic).
 
I really dislike Cameron's and much prefer ANTR mostly because I think the actors in ANTR acted and seemed much more like real Edwardians. The mostly British cast was a real help with this. The actor playing Capt. Smith was literally a dead ringer for him. I also thought More was great at Lights. And for 1958 I thought the special effects and cinematography were superb. The steward at the end on the stern comforting the little boy was much more powerful than 2 illicit lovers. There is even a scene that is sometimes deleted/censored where a swimmer brings a baby to Lights on the raft that is dead and he lowers it back into the water. Jack and Rose's silly soap opera is an insult to the entire tragedy IMO.

The sinking was only 46 years ago when the film was made, it would be like today making a film about an event from 1977. Of course, a lot more had changed between 1912 and 1958 than between 1977 and now.

Cameron's unrealistic and syrupy soap opera just totally ruined that movie for me. I am one of those people who remain
amazed the Leo DiCaprio is employed as a professional actor, he is the most talentless people in Hollywood.
 
I'm on a opposite side on jack and rose. My issues come more with how cameron choosed to treat Ismay, murdoch, the 3rd class myth and innacuracies in the movie. Anyway, I think we should go back to my thread subject.
 
Sorry abut the digression but I don't know where else to post it.

I am one of those people who remain
amazed the Leo DiCaprio is employed as a professional actor, he is the most talentless people in Hollywood.
I used to think that and still don't particularly rate him as an actor but he was very good in Blood Diamond. Also good in Inception and The Revenant.
 
Back
Top