Titanic


NrrdGrrl! Discussion Forum: Music, Lit, and Pop Culture: Movies-- must sees? unknown gems? big bombs?: Titanic
By
Titania on Friday, February 6, 1998 - 07:14 pm:

I hated the movie titanic...It portrayed women in the stereotypical way where we think purly with our hearts and refuse to be logical. Logic refused to allow me to like the movie. The acting was great and the effects were great...but the story line was horrendous. There are so many things in it that just did not make sense such as the woman throwing the necklace of the ship at the end. That was just stupid.


By Katherine on Friday, February 6, 1998 - 09:05 pm:

i agree, the throwing the necklace was dumb. even dumber was that little 'eep' noise that the lady made. but i don't think that her actions were stupid because they weren't logical, and i don't think that they portrayed women as sterotypical. i mean, they had to be well brought up and lady like in those days, you know? she had a mind of her own and she did what she wanted to do, weather it was logical or not, it was because she was deciding..not her fionce, not her mother. i think that made her pretty cool, actually.


By Lee on Friday, February 6, 1998 - 09:45 pm:

WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, YOU MAY WANT TO SKIP THIS MESSAGE AS I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT PLOT, ETC.

A lot of Rose's behavior was rebellion against the type of behavior expected of women at that time. If you're looking for further context of the time period, I'd recommend The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton. Although it was written several years before 1912, it's evocative of the type of claustrophobic lives some women led at the time and a harrowing story of what happens to those who challenge the social order & rules.

Spitting off a first class deck, frolicking around the ship w/a man other than one's fiance, slugging back a few beers and wielding an ax might not seem so rebellious by our standards, but for a woman in her social situation at the time, it was. And the consequences weren't merely parental pique & a possible stint on a talkshow, there were major economic ones. There wasn't much in the way of decent paying jobs for women back then.

Also, look at the pictures Rose gazes upon right before the end. She's flying a plane and doing many things women didn't ordinarily do.

As for the necklace, that makes sense as far as closure & the symbolism of the neclace. At first, it's one more thing to tie her down to a life she doesn't want, then it's part of her note to her fiance "now you can keep us both in the safe." Finally, she doesn't realize she has it until the rescue ship is landing in NY & she's asked to give her name. She reinvents herself & "dies" from her old life as she's born into a new one. I see her toss of the necklace as a way of reuniting the two lives and reuniting with Jack.


By Titania on Friday, February 6, 1998 - 10:56 pm:

The thing that really didn't make since is that they could have both gotten on to that floating thing...he did not have to dye. They only tried once to both get on. And when she jumps of the boat...if she had stayed on that boat, jack probobly would have gotten in one of the other life boats like Rose's fiance did.


By ZoOey on Sunday, February 8, 1998 - 01:12 pm:

Jack died for his love of Rose. The floating thing only could carry one person; remember Jack DID try to get on it but it flipped. The water was beyond freezing and they were overfatigued from all the excitement they've been through. Rose's finace ONLY managed to get on a life boat because he cheated by taking a waif girl and claimed to be her father so he could get on the life boat. Rose chose to jump off the boat because.. well, it illustrates her powerful love for Jack. I think Jack's death was essential because Rose promised him that she would be able to survive any hardships and obstacles. Oh, yes, the part when Rose declared that the Titanic was like a dream-- I think dreams are transient and not meant to last forever. So the dream transformed into a horrorendous nightmare.

Aside from this tragic love story, look at those countless third-class passengers who drowned. The discrimination is beyond outrageous. They did not have a chance to get on the lifeboats just because they were poor, illiterate (some of them, I assume), and non-white. There are so many deep themes bursting in this historical tragedy.


By Judi k. on Monday, February 9, 1998 - 09:42 am:

**CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD**

Oh man! I didn't think Titanic was sexist at all! Come on people, the movie was set in 1912!!! Rose was as kick-ass as was reasonable for the time. And old Rose was spunky and cool! She totally won over the hardass diving crew and had red painted toenails at age 101. I thought it was awesome that she threw away the necklace. It represented that she was finished with her business here on earth and was ready to die in peace having had her adventures and her children and she was ready to be reunited with Jack.

I think they adequately demonstrated that Jack and Rose would not both fit on the door. Should they have both drowned by overwhelming the weight it could support?

Honestly, I don't think James Cameron is capable of writing a wimpy heroine. But you can't expect Rose to be something from another time. One thing this movie did very well was portraying it's historical accuracy.


By Shannon on Wednesday, March 4, 1998 - 10:56 am:

I agree with the opinion that the movie wasn't anti-feminist.... Rose was a grrl before her time. What upset me more than the love story part, though, was all the third class passengers dying. All those innocent people and their children.... and the worst part is that it all really happened. The things that human beings do to each other break my heart.


By Yvette on Saturday, March 7, 1998 - 07:33 am:

hmmm..."its human nature" so many people ahve seen stuff like that that they actually think its what you've gotta do just to get by.even if it is killing or whatnot someone you'd otherwise louve.

Im not a big fan of love thickening sickO plots in movies it usually turns me from the movie...Titanic was not what everyone I know hyped it up to be...BUT it wasn't all that bad..it was at least watchable unlike some of the crap that i've seen come out and make a great deal of money in box offices..nameley the spice girls movie which i wasted 7.50 on to take the kids to see it..nothing worht watching unless your a great fan of jiggeling boobs and tosseled hair.

I never noticed much of a flaw to Titanic...the throwing of necklace I always figured was to make peace with herself, jack, and everyone else who had died. This great diamond and that great ship both sank taking something with them...hate love, etc. You can't live in yesterday right so why not just get rid of the junk thats chaining you on. So I actually thought that part was fitting.


By Mandy on Saturday, March 7, 1998 - 07:39 am:

when i actually saw one of the actual life jackets from one the victims pulled from the water and brought her at the time makes me sick. Especially knowing of all that had went on..well not all but what we do know.

It was like rotted wet moldy paper...It had white cloth (kinda like terry cloth) around styrofoam or sponge and small blocks of wood.. and this was to keep them afloat until they were rescued. I don't see how...so after seeing this then seeing the movie..it kinda makes ya wonder in ther way...


By Meredith on Saturday, March 7, 1998 - 08:23 pm:

ok, i'm going to killed for saying this but..."titanic" is a sterotypical "hollywood" movie. Boy meets girl, boy can't have girl, they overcome that, and they either die like a "romeo and juliet" plot or they live happily ever after. hasen't anyone got sick of this plot? i've sure have. if you want to see a movie about class struggle watch a good movie like, "dr. zchvaigo". i just read an article in the "economist" about were titanic would stand(as highest boxoffice sellers) if inflation of tickets were consitered. Well "gone with the wind" would be in first, followed by "snow white", "star wars", "e.t.","101 dalmations", "the sound of music" and "return of the jedi". so "titanic" hasn't been as big as other movies.


By Pamelala on Saturday, March 7, 1998 - 10:02 pm:

I agree....I think that Titanic is a stereotypic "Hollywood" movie, which is of absolutely no interest to me. Granted, I haven't seen it, and never plan on doing so. It was the hype that just turned me off and what absolutely drives me crazy is the typical response of others when they find out that I'm never going to see it "Why, are you crazy????? It's the best movie ever, Leonardo was sooo hot!" *gag* Anways, just because everyone and their goldfish has seen it, and is raving about it, that doesn't mean I have to.
No offence to anyone that enjoyed it. If you like it, I'm happy for you...good movies are something that can stay with you forever. I'm just angered that it's made such an enormous deal out of.


By Liza on Wednesday, March 11, 1998 - 01:08 pm:

Know what? I still haven't seen Titanic. And I don't really want to. I mean, it just seems so overblown and overseen that it no longer interests me. I'm sure there'd be movies just as good that costed a fraction of the price to make. Anyone heard of "The Sweet Hereafter"?


By Bagelmouse on Wednesday, March 11, 1998 - 09:25 pm:

yes, it's a romance. but how many romances have you seen where girl meets guy, guy dies/leaves/is gay, girl spends life moping after guy? rose accepted jack's death and created a new life for herself instead of marrying cad, I mean cal. they mention she married again but it's not a big issue. rose may have needed a man to get her started, but then she lived her own life on her own terms. isn't that one point of feminism? to be your own woman?


By Que_ on Friday, March 13, 1998 - 01:23 am:

One of my guy friends thinks that Leo is gay. I wonder about that... it does seem like he's too narcissistic to lust after anyone but himself. Anyways... I am sooo sick of all the girls going to Leonardo websites to print out pictures of him *during computer business class*. It makes me vomit. "Ohhh Leo....the man with only one facial expression....with one spoiled-looking pout...thou hast woneth my heart." WHatEveR.

I thought the tossing of the necklace at the end was symbolic of Rose being non-materialistic, and opting for the *dirty-greasy-guy* over and wordly possessions. That make sense? I dunno.
It seems like in movies all women eventually opt for or end up with the dirty-greasy-guy and not the clean-cut rich one. Maybe that's another Hollywood thingy.

Just a thought.

Que


By Jaime on Saturday, March 14, 1998 - 11:52 am:

Before today I thought I was the only person on the earth that hadn't seen Titanic. Everyone I know has been telling me how great it was and how they've seen it 10 times and how I should go see it. The thing is though, I really don't care. I'm not planning on seeing it. It looks like a dumb cheeseball flick and I don't like stuff like that. I'd rather walk out of the movie theater laughing my ass off after seeing a film that made me happy than walk out of the theater sad because I just saw a terrible tradgedy made into just another multi-million dollar money-making scheme. That's disgusting, if you think about it. it'd be like making a movie about the Jim Jones Guyana cult situation from the 70's and having Brad Pitt play the lead role just to make some money. Our culture has no conscience-- to quote that Puff Daddy song (sorry, I just had to do it), "It's all about the Benjamins, baby."

P.S. Leonardo Decaprio is an over-hyped, over-paid cheese head.


By Judi K on Wednesday, March 18, 1998 - 01:50 pm:

oh man, see I loved this movie. I thought it was good old fashioned hollywood at it's best-- characters you could care about fighting even in the face of doom. I think it's a shame that so many people have been turned off from giving this movie a fair shot just because it's been hyped.

Just because it's been hyped doesn't mean its not a good movie! I guess it's "cool" to bash this film now, but I think that's a real shame. I think James Cameron took a huge risk to bring his vision to life, and I think it's great that he did it his way and created the movie he wanted to make and is finally getting some recognition. His female leads have always been kickass-- from Linda Hamilton in the Terminator movies to Ripley in Aliens and Mary Elizabeth Mastriontonio in the Abyss to Rose in Titanic. I say, don't listen to the hype-- see the movie and judge it for yourself!


By Meredith on Wednesday, March 18, 1998 - 09:32 pm:

Ok if James Cameron is a great "visionary" i don't think enough people in this world have seen any good movies. Before anyone can say Cameron is a "visionary" and took a great risk, watch movies writen and directed by: Stanley Kurbrick, David Lynch, and Martin Sorceses. If anyone watches any movie directed by these people will realize that Cameron took the traditional "hollywood" theme and put it on a big boat. Cameron hardly took a risk, risk takers are independent flim makers who ususally don't use the mainstream mass popular themes of "holllywood" and their movies and don't get reconized for there creativity. One exception is "star wars" and yet i wouldn't say "titanic" has changed or present me with new, provacitive, and inspiring ideas, it left me with the emptyness i feel after seeing a movie that has the same theme for the thousanth time.


By Keely on Saturday, March 21, 1998 - 07:04 pm:

As much as I enjoyed all three and a half hours of Titanic and cried and laughed w/it, I didn't take anything from the movie with me. I believe a good movie means you take part of it w/you when you leave the theatre. A good movie you drag all your friends to see six times and wish the story had not ended. Titanic did not do that for me, not like other movies such as Schinler's List, Forrest Gump, To Kill a Mockingbird, even Star Wars have for me.
Maybe it's just me...but hey, everyones entitled to their own opinions about movies. i think that's what makes part of the movie watching experience fun is that someone else will always love different things about it, or will hate the love scenes or the car chase...(i'm rambling)...


By Jade on Tuesday, March 31, 1998 - 10:11 pm:

Whilst I agree that Titanic is a hollywood film, I think the point is being missed that that is exactly what it is supposed to be. You are not obliged to take any thing with you from the movie, the point of the film is to be entertained for three hours . The makers of Titanic did so in order to create a spectacle, to make money, hollywood film dont try to give the viewer a message they attempt only to entertain,and may I say that worked on me.
While it is hard not to be cynical about Leonardo Di Caprio who lets face it was simply playing himself in the film and deserved not to get an academy award nomination, In my opinion I thought Kate Winslet was brillant as rose (and may I say it was refreshing to see a heroine which was not a size 8), and I think that considering the context of the film Rose was quite revolutionary for her time.
Well thats my piece said I suppose. Riot on Grrls


By Anonymous on Wednesday, April 1, 1998 - 05:58 pm:

DONT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN TITANIC I GIVE AWAY THE ENDING!!

I LOVED the movie Titanic. I thought it was so awesome!! The best part (4 me) was when Rose went up in heaven and saw Jack (this was because it was a very happy ending in my opinion). I hated the part when the little boy (in the hallway) gets swept up and drowns. I also hated the parts where they acted like women were not tough (and like they were weak or stupid). But still I loved TITANIC and it was the best movie I have ever seen!!


By Poetikgrrl on Thursday, April 2, 1998 - 06:35 pm:

I saw Titanic and well, I didn't hate it, but it certainly was not the best movie of the year(in my opinion). Yes, the special effects were very good and it was interesting...but it was stereotypical "Hollywood." I just don't understand why people think it is so wonderful. ALmost all my friends loved the movie, I mean really, really loved it. Some have seen it 3 or 4 times. I guess it just isn't my forte.


By Keely on Thursday, April 2, 1998 - 09:28 pm:

poetikgrrl-
i totally agree


By Que_ on Friday, April 3, 1998 - 07:36 pm:

me too. I'm with ya. I didn't hate it...but it was "just another movie" you know what I mean?


By Anonymous on Saturday, April 4, 1998 - 04:45 pm:

Yup. I know exactly what you mean Que.


By Beth on Friday, April 10, 1998 - 01:20 pm:

It disgusts me that someone can spend $200 million on a movie and make way more in return. Is this the way society has turned? Instead of pouring all our dollars to watch an over-hyped movie, shouldn't we consider other things? There are so many poor and hungry in this world, and I bet that the cost of making 'Titanic' is greater than their countries' GNP.

On a second note - No, I have not seen it. For more reasons than the above. I've written about it on my website:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Coffeehouse/1759/titanic.html


By Ayelet on Thursday, April 16, 1998 - 05:47 pm:

Rose is supposed to be a feminist. Supposed. That'll keep 'em feminists silent. Rose is built according to a formula for "The female rebel"-she doesn't have any character, nothing that makes her REAL. It's really not Kate's fault. Camerone's, rather.


By Keely on Thursday, April 16, 1998 - 09:03 pm:

I agree. For months i have been debating with extreme Titanic fans that Rose's character didn't work. At first i thought it was Kate Winslet's acting.....then when taking a closer look at the clips showed during the oscars i realized that in my opinion it's cameron's fault..... the directing was at fault not the acting. Kate Winslet has proved herself to be an amazing actress in films like "Sense ans Sensibility" and "Hamlet" but "Titanic" didn't work for her. Having had experience in drama i have found that when the director does not a have a detailed clear mental picture of the character the actor is lost.


By Dana on Monday, April 27, 1998 - 05:55 pm:

If anyone wants to see Kate Winslet at her best(which was not Titanic, not even close!), go rent "Jude" which is based on the Thomas Hardy novel Jude the Obscure, or rent "Heavenly Creatures" her first movie. Both are excellent and really showcase what a good actress Winslet really is.


By Meredith on Tuesday, May 5, 1998 - 04:04 pm:

titanic = mass popular culture's sexist and boring ideals.
the billions of teens who see titanic every weekend = comformity
real feminists = ayn rand, maya angelou, ann san sui kyi, secertary albright


By NegetiveAngel on Wednesday, May 20, 1998 - 11:01 am:

I saw titanic and I would like to say that dispite the fact it was well acted and the effects were fantastic it wasn't all that. Admittidly the first time I saw it I thought it was fantastic but the second time I was sitting there thinking 'hurry up and get to the end....'

I was actually looking forward to the iceberg coming along and sinking the lot of them.....and there were so many mistakes in the plot it was unbelivable.....AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! Thank you. I'm happy I got that off my chest.

NegetiveAngel


By C.A.D on Saturday, May 23, 1998 - 07:44 am:

I loved titanic.My friend and i loved it so much we are going back to see it.If you haven't seen it go and see it.(if you don't like it blame me)


By Nick Greven on Saturday, May 23, 1998 - 11:31 am:

The Titanic was a huge magnifissant new ship. To me, the Titanic was sort of a sign, it ended the
years when men thought he could conquer the world,
even god. The Titanic is a reminder to us all that
we cannot be so arrogent. If it weren't for the Titanic disaster, another disaster, maybe not at sea, would occur with a greater loss of death,
because we would have not yet set our arrogance aside and put the needed amount of lifeboats onboard. We should thank and respect all the men and women who lost they're lives onboard the R.M.S. Titanic, for us...
Visit my webpage at www.geocities.com/hollywood/studio/6344
Nick Greven
nickgreven@lycosmail.com


By Fcukface on Saturday, May 23, 1998 - 11:34 am:

fuck you all , you dumb titanic fans you dont know shit about shit.
your such losers in the house.
fuck you fuck you fuck you fuc;.jj


By Kelly on Wednesday, June 24, 1998 - 02:11 pm:

titanic made soooooo much money when it was just a movie about a silly bitch wanting to be painted naked!! and about jack what a shit head!!!!!! i say you shoud have kept that big piece of wood for your self!!!!!


By Bubbles on Friday, July 3, 1998 - 03:16 pm:

This is for all girls only-

Nobody would have seen the film if Leonardo Di Caprio wasn't in it.-But I hate him now even though I have seen the film about 7 times!


By Ultraviolet on Friday, July 10, 1998 - 09:48 pm:

The effects and scenery were really great-- the movie sure looked like $200 million. But some parts were just really cheesy, like the action/adventure film-esque escape from the ship. And I mean, the sex in the car? That was just trashy. I think that if Cameron had gotten someone to write the screenplay for him, or at least some co-writers to help him out, it would have been a much better movie. The thing I liked about the movie was the point that one person that you hardly know and you only see once can change your whole life around.


By Catz15 on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 - 09:52 pm:

I just saw it and didn't like it at all. Number one: it was waaaaayyyy too long, I started dozing off after the first 2 hours. I knew what was going to happen: the ship sinks. Also Leonardo DeCaprio is a really bad actor (sorry) he didn't sound very convincing. Kate Winslet was okay, on a scale of 1 and 10? A 3.


By Felix on Wednesday, August 5, 1998 - 06:11 pm:

i loved titanic and i ecspecially lurved leonardo dicaprio! he looked hot!!!


By Anonymous on Sunday, August 9, 1998 - 02:02 pm:

I love Titanic and it was just overwhelmingly brillient so don't mock it cause u can't do any better.


By KIM on Sunday, August 9, 1998 - 05:25 pm:

COMON people!!!!!!! Titanic was one of the best movies of the year, it won soooooooooo many awards and deservd every single one. the special effects were great the plot was real not some stupid one some hollywood writer thought of. sure there may have been some corney scenes, but it was a great love story tied in w/ he past. they picked great actors and actresses and it was the most expensive and grossing movie to make of the year, so because of that the effects as well as the real life models were better than any other movie!!!!!!!!


By Rosalind Lord on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 - 04:34 am:

I liked the special effects in Titanic but thought the plot was hokey. The actors were good.

One thing that bothered me was the part when Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were on the raft together. She was lying on the raft and he was still in the water, leaning on the raft. He died.

If I was in Rose's place I would have insisted that he get up on the raft with me. That way he wouldn't have been as likely to die.


By Anonymous on Thursday, September 24, 1998 - 07:35 pm:

Titanic, was an alright movie. There wasn't that much special about. It was too long, and I found myself falling asleep at times. I really loved the costumes though. If you want to see a really good movie that has great acting, romance, comedy, and well everything, see As Good As It Gets. I thought it should have won more awards than Titanic!


By Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29, 1998 - 08:59 pm:

CAN WE SAY "OVERKILL"?


Add a Message


Enter Username and Password

This is a public posting area. If you have a user account or a moderator account, enter your username and password into the provided text boxes. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" blank and leave the "Password" blank empty.

    Username:
    Password:
    Post message as "Anonymous"