Lunch Break: Titanic’s 100th anniversary
by LauraLoo
April 12th marks the 100th anniversary of the maiden (and only) voyage of the Titanic from England to the United States. Watch rare footage of the 1912 Titanic here.
Starting this week, Titanic 3D will be playing in movie theaters.
Will you go see Titanic 3D? And did you see 1997’s Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet? I saw it multiple times. I was so mesmerized by the beauty and sophistication of the Titanic, and the romantic love that blossomed between leading characters Jack and Rose.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEb-o68nCqQ[/youtube]
Wow, those 15 years flew by!
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
Apr.02, 2012 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I will not see Titanic 3D. I did not see Titanic in the theaters either. I saw it years later and was not impressed with how they took enough liberties with the actual historical events of the Titanic.
For one…
Men did not push and shove women out of the way to save themselves. Men put their women and children on boats and waited with courage for death.
I taught middle school when this movie came out and could not believe how many 13 year old boys “loved” this movie. They went 5,7,9 times to it. Gee wonder why. Couldn’t have been the part where Di Caprio’s character drew something could it? Or a young couple steamed up some windows? Nah.
The real story of the Titanic is enough for me.
Yes! I’ve seen the 2D movie so many times. I love the soundtrack. Can’t wait to see it in 3D!
No to both. We don’t need even more Hollywood-sponsored misandry that suggests that men’s lives are any less valuable than women’s lives.
Yes I saw the original in the theater. the second movie I ever saw in the theater. I will not been going to see it in 3D
I probably will see this in 3D! I was a high school freshman when the movie came out, so needless to say I saw it several times in theaters. ;) I didn’t really care too much about the drawing or steamed-window scenes – my favorites were the scene where Rose and Jack first meet, the part where they meet at the clock, and the dancing scene; but really I guess my favorite moments were watching the scenes toggling back from present-time to past, in particular the last scene, where the camera goes through the promenade part of the sunken decaying ship and then all the sunlight comes through the windows and it transforms into that big beautiful stairway atrium, and all the people from the ship are there waiting for her. My friend always used to try to argue with me that Rose was just sleeping and dreaming but I always believed that she had died, old and at peace, and that everyone was welcoming her ‘home’ as if to say, “It’s not even close to over yet.”
My taste has gotten less cliched as I’ve grown but I’d love to see this movie on the big screen again regardless!
I never saw this movie, and never will. I, too, was disappointed by how I heard they portrayed the men (as thinking only of themselves), which really strays from what really happened (men were focused on the women and children). I also was disturbed by the way they glorified this romance – when she was engaged and went behind her fiancee’s back with another man. As a promoter of abstinence until marriage, this was just another glorification of sex before marriage. *sigh*
I was a high school jr. or sr. when this came out. Didn’t see it then, won’t see it now. I hate chick-flicks. You people can keep your sappy, soft-core porn, thanks. My life’s already been like enough of a soap opera, I don’t need to watch someone else’s.
This movie did not have explosions.
This movie did not have zombies.
This movie did not have an epic battle scene.
This movie is not for x.
P.S. I am in a bad mood today. Sorry if I offend anyone, and I can assure you I will be back to my chipper self tomorrow. :S
Xalisae wrote:
This movie did not have zombies.
:) For being in a bad mood, you certainly made me laugh like a fool, with that one! :)
Oh, and by the way: many thanks to the hard-working elves in the back-ground who fixed the comment boxes!
Yeah I never saw it either. And X, I usually hate chick flicks too. I rolled my eyes all the way through the Notebook, and my husband said I’m the only woman he knows that didn’t cry during that movie. Um, hello? She cheated on her fiance and it was soooooo over the top. No action. No compelling story lines. Blech. I have such a hard time cheering for double-crossing “lovers” and from everything I’ve heard, that’s what the Titanic was about. Plus, she let him go at the end! Sheesh. :)
So needless to say, I do not plan on seeing this in 3D. The real story is tragic enough and I get sad by merely watching documentaries about it.
My first husband and took our then 7-year-old son to see this movie when it came out in theaters. (I know, I know our son shouldn’t have gone but I didn’t stand up to his dad OR him back in the day and now I am the first to complain when parents take their little ones to age-inappropriate movies.)
I did cried during the movie (hindsight I think my tears were more about spending time with the louse I married than they were about the movie).
Anyway, when we hit the lobby, my little guy made sure everyone knew I cried saying loudly, “My mom was crying during the movie!” Gotta love him.
But it’s true, Paladin! There was not even an alien kicking over a trashcan. ;_;
Titanic, I am dissapoint.
This movie did not have explosions.
This movie did not have zombies.
This movie did not have an epic battle scene.
This movie is not for x.
:) :P
From one who’s not hesitant to scorn “chick flicks,” per se, ‘Titanic’ was actually a pretty fair movie.
But yeah – they could have done better on having more explosions. One wants to to be able to turn to their best buddy, Bubba, and say, “That blowed up *REAL GOOD*.
And don’t get me started on the lack of car chases…
I’ve got a really nice deluxe dvd set I have yet to watch, so I won’t go to see it.
3-D isn’t enough to sell me. But The Poseidon Adventure with Shelly Winters swimming underwater - now that might be interesting! :) Plus, there is an explosion and a falling chandelier.
I was a kid when it came out and I never saw it, doubt I will now either. I am not a fan of those type of movies. And for some reason Leo DiCaprio’s face annoys the heck out of me.
Doug:
But yeah – they could have done better on having more explosions. One wants to to be able to turn to their best buddy, Bubba, and say, “That blowed up *REAL GOOD*.
1.) You leave my brother out of this.
2.) The proper syntax is, “That done blowed up *REAL GOOD*!”
I enjoy movies about epic struggles between good and evil because they are reflections of real life. I understand that is difficult for a relativist to comprehend.
I enjoy zombie movies because they are an interesting commentary about modern culture, consumerism, and the inherent evil nature of mankind.
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but Pandorum is one of my favorite movies. It is a thrilling science fiction horror film about how easy it is for humans to fall into the pit of moral relativism when they feel there is no higher authority watching them, and how the condition of moral relativism can turn men into monsters.
I mean, *Ahem*, “WHOO DOGGIE!”
And for some reason Leo DiCaprio’s face annoys the heck out of me.
LMAO!!! I <3 Jack!
xalisae,
I thought the blowed up REAL good line was sans “done” too. If we’re talking SCTV.
Hate zombie movies. Too nihilistic. However, I’m a major The Walking Dead fan, so I may have to go back and look at Romero at least.
I saw Pandorum on Syfy some weeks back and liked it a lot. They rated it one *, and I didn’t completely get it.
Hans,
If you check out one zombie movie, watch the original (70’s version) Dawn of the Dead by Romero. The bank picture is the greatest. (Not only is it freaking hilarious, but) It kinda puts the whole thing into context when you factor in that “malls” as we know them were a new and somewhat frightening temple to consumerism, the likes of which hadn’t really been seen up until that point.
I had to watch Pandorum a couple times before I completely “got it”, although the second time was mostly for the nuances I missed first go-around. I want so badly here to put a spoiler here just to ask you what you would do in that situation, or what you think would happen in that situation…but…BAD X! BAD GIRL!
I’m gonna have to get the dvd and study it. It’s all a blur, except for that neat “rising of the corks” ending. And I had a bad feeling about Dennis Quaid’s character. :)
But yeah – they could have done better on having more explosions. One wants to to be able to turn to their best buddy, Bubba, and say, “That blowed up *REAL GOOD*.
A whole ship tearing in half and that awesome shot with the propellers coming out of the water don’t count!? :P I remember that movie as one of the two defining special-effects movies of my youth – the other being Jurassic Park, which I was almost too young to fully appreciate when it came out anyway. I’m not a chick-flick movie buff myself (omg The Notebook, ugh) but I did feel like Titanic had enough else going for it, I guess! I wonder how I’ll feel as an adult.
Re: the behavior of the men onboard, here’s an interesting article about the survival rates of men on the Titanic versus the Lusitania: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02ships.html It suggests that men behaved more gallantly on the Titanic where they had more time to overcome their basic survival instincts – that is, the natural human instinct is to claw your way onto that life boat, but given time, people may return to the socialized lessons they’ve learned and internalized. I would also argue that as the Titanic was doing dumb crap like sending lifeboats out not entirely full, women and children were the more cautious and thus the more likely to get on those early boats.
Anyway it’s been years since I saw the movie but I didn’t think it portrayed the men in a bad or selfish light – I’m sure some men did fight their way onto those lifeboats, especially in the moments when it became clear that the boat would actually sink and instincts took over, however briefly. In the movie I remember it being mostly the “bad” guys who cowardly snuck spots on the lifeboats.
I was a high school senior, and an avid Titanic historian ( I am now a professional historian) when the movie came out. I saw it probably 4-5 times in the theatre. I remember how angered I was at a TV movie about the Titanic that came out a few months prior in 1997, and I was worried about the Cameron film as well. My blood-boiled at those opening scenes of grave-robbing, and wondered what I had gotten myself into. However, the cinematic detail of the story, combined with the timeless love story (I’m not dismissing the moral issues with fornication) made it a great film.
I do want to comment though in reference to the way many have criticized the portrayed behavior of the men on board the boat in the film. While it was a much greater time of chivarly 100 years ago, I really a) felt that the chivalry was portrayed in the film, and b) recognized an honest approach that there probavbly were some men who were cowardly, greedy, and selfish, and would have done the things they did. I think it is dangerous to romantasize history to the point of blinders.
Saw the movie once it came out on VHS (or early DVD?- I can’t recall). I’m not into chick-flicks either and to be honest, I was actually more interested in the historical aspect of the Titanic than the actual love story. I won’t see it in 3D not only because I don’t like chick-flicks, but 3D gives me motion sickness. I’d have to take a Dramamine before the movie and that would just knock me out.
Can I be the first to say that I actually cheered Rose on for dumping that POS guy she was engaged to?
Alexandra: “Re: the behavior of the men onboard, here’s an interesting article about the survival rates of men on the Titanic versus the Lusitania: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02ships.html It suggests that men behaved more gallantly on the Titanic where they had more time to overcome their basic survival instincts – that is, the natural human instinct is to claw your way onto that life boat, but given time, people may return to the socialized lessons they’ve learned and internalized. I would also argue that as the Titanic was doing dumb crap like sending lifeboats out not entirely full, women and children were the more cautious and thus the more likely to get on those early boats.”
Any system (e.g. “chivalry”) that does not protect every single life is worthless. Many women (and I don’t necessarily mean anyone here) peed their pants with delight when that movie can out, because not only were brave men risking their lives to save women, but were also “bravely” dying rather than trying to save themselves even AFTER most women were taken care of. Meanwhile, as Josh wrote, men who had any sort of survival instinct were considered cads, cowards, heels, scoundrels. No such verbiage for the women who scurried towards the lifeboats.
It’s horrific that any ship of that size could go to sea without enough lifeboat capacity for everyone on board. If you have 5,000 people on board, you should have that much capacity on lifeboats, if not twice as much, because you never know if during an accident you’ll be able to reach all the lifeboats. So the lifeboat capacity should be well over ship capacity. “Impractical”? So is drowning.
The Costa Concordia went down about three months ago, and it was inspiring to see passengers and crew form a chain to help each other into the liferafts. That’s what should happen: take care of infants, small children, elderly, and handicapped people first, and then every able-bodied person (not just man) should be helping every other able-bodied person (not just woman). Unfortunately, a few conservative whackadoodles decried men with any sort of sense of self-preservation, remembering FONDLY when men would “finish with style” (i.e. DIE) instead of trying to save their own lives. I don’t want to go onto a boat if my life is going to be considered expendable as compared to those of other people.
Hey bmmg – I hope you know by now that I don’t support any system that considers some lives worth less than others, and I certainly don’t think it was anything other than grossly irresponsible to have too few lifeboats and virtually no safety protocols. I do think that people sacrificing themselves for others is gallant – regardless of gender, as I naturally reject the gender connotations of the word “gallant” ;) – my childhood friend worked in the WTC and, at 24, ran back repeatedly into the devastated, burning floors, ushering injured people to the relative safety of the sky lobby, from which they had an easier time getting out. He died; they found his body with a group of firemen, carrying a jaws-of-life tool back up the stairs to help more people. He shouldn’t have died and his life was uniquely valuable, but people live today specifically because he is dead. That knowledge is an amazing, unique, and beautiful kind of pain. I don’t think that this type of sacrifice should be mandatory or should depend on gender but I do think it should be honored and admired when undertaken.
Alexandra: “I hope you know by now that I don’t support any system that considers some lives worth less than others…”
I am certain that you don’t. And condolences on the loss of your friend.
I think that it is incredibly depressing that the men on the Titanic were so socially constrained that they didn’t get on the half-full lifeboats that were sent out (and wouldn’t that work even under chivalry? Weren’t men allowed to get on a lifeboat after the women were, at the very least?). I find it even more depressing that classism was so ingrained that nobody cared about the third class passengers, a lot of them stayed trapped under deck, and a good portion of them died. :(
Wow, Alexandra, your friend was amazing. My condolences for your loss as well.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s nobler for a guy to be Gallant than Goofus.
If only you’d hold women to the same standard, Hans, I could agree with you.
Hans, I haven’t heard “Gallant and Goofus” in YEARS. LL :D
My grandmother sailed over from Hungary via Italy 3 weeks after the Titanic sank. She was in steerage, but it was the adventure of her life.
Thanks, guys – I didn’t intend to turn the focus of this thread in that direction, but since I managed to anyway, here is a somewhat dramatic piece that ESPN did on my friend last September for the 10th anniversary: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6929979 I – and my hometown, and my community at large – lost of lot of people in the WTC, and none of those losses were greater or lesser than any others, but I do think that dying so that others may live is an honorable thing to do. To be honest, I don’t believe that my friend ever imagined that the building would collapse – I don’t think anyone did – I think he probably thought the risks were more common, fire and injury etc; but that’s why it’s called risking your life, I suppose – you don’t really get to call the shots anymore once you run into that burning building.
Jack, I don’t think that the initial Titanic lifeboats went out half-full because the men didn’t want to board ahead of the women – I think they didn’t believe the ship would actually sink. People were joking around about it at first, chipping off pieces of ice and putting them in drinks etc. I think it’s likely that women and children were the majority of the more cautious who boarded the first boats but I don’t think men would have been kept off those boats by duty or shame, necessarily.