“Titanic” Ethics

This is Titanic week, as all of you who don’t live in tunnels like prairie dogs must know. It has been a century since the sinking of the Great Unsinkable, with the deaths of 1500 souls including some of the great artistic, financial and industrial greats of the era. James Cameron’s 1997 film is also returning this week in 3-D, which means that the misconceptions, false accounts and outright misrepresentations the film drove into the public consciousness and popular culture will be strengthened once again. I think it would be ethical, on this centennial of the tragedy, for those in a position to do so to make a concerted effort to honor the victims and their families by honoring the truth. Thanks to Cameron, this is impossible.

I should state at the outset that I detest the movie, and its astounding arrogance. There have been few historical events with more fascinating and intrinsically dramatic facts than the ship’s sinking, and even fewer with such an abundance of remarkable individuals in the thick of them. There are so many documented episodes and events worthy of dramatic re-creation during the voyage and demise of the liner, including the thrilling and courageous rescue effort undertaken by the S.S. Carpathia, that any one film attempting to do justice to them all would be several days long. Nevertheless, this was not enough for director Cameron, who devoted the bulk of his film chronicling a fictional romance between non-existent passengers. Most absurd of all, in the chaos before the ship went down, which in real life contained astounding acts of heroism, desperation, cowardice and love, Cameron decided that things weren’t exciting enough and focused his camera on Billy Zane’s fictional and despicable First Class snob running through the flooding vessel, firing pistol shots at Leonardo DiCaprio.

“Titanic” joins “JFK” in my special Hell reserved for films that mix fact, supposition and fiction so irresponsibly that they actively confuse and misinform. Cameron is a well-publicized Titanic buff; he spared no expense making certain that every detail of the ship—its china pattern, its furnishings, its architecture—was accurate, and then recklessly altered events or chose controversial and dubious versions of them for his own purposes, and history be damned. On the way, he marred the reputations of participants who earned and deserved a better legacy. For example, Cameron shows First Officer William Murdoch taking a bribe to let Zane on a lifeboat, shooting a passenger, and committing suicide. Of the bribe, there is no evidence whatsoever. Regarding the passenger being shot, it is unclear whether this happened, and there is no credible evidence that Murdoch was the shooter if it did. As for his supposed suicide, the inquest had two witnesses on the matter, a passenger who says he saw it, and a Titanic officer, the heroic and credible Charles Lightholler, who emphatically swore he saw Murdoch at his post after the lifeboats had launched. This is a real human being and probable hero whose reputation is at stake, with the bulk of evidence supporting accounts that he performed his duties bravely and well. As an artist, Cameron can portray Murdoch as a German spy or a cross-dresser if he chooses to, but his slander here is doubly unethical: it is unfair to a dead man who cannot defend himself, and a misuse of the credibility James Cameron has with audiences due to his status as a Titanic expert.

Similarly, though less outrageously, Cameron chose to diminish the reputation of Margaret Brown, known to us today as Molly Brown, a middle-aged Denver millionairess who survived the disaster with brio. By many eye-witness accounts, she was one of the most heroic passengers, helping others to board the lifeboats, stilling the panic, and once onboard a lifeboat herself, picking up an oar and rowing. Others in her boat reported that she argued with the officer in charge to force him to return to the scene of the sinking and pick up survivors, and according to some sources, she was successful. Cameron, however, shows her making one ineffective objection and meekly submitting when rebuked by the officer. Why did Brown become a legend as a result of her conduct on board the ship and the lifeboat, if this was the extent of her boldness? Cameron had the historical memories of real people in his hands, and treated them as disposable playthings for his own amusement.

My particular annoyance, however, was with Cameron’s decision to depict the Titanic as snapping in two at a high angle. It was undoubtedly a spectacular  effect, and I’m sure it will be boffo in 3-D, but even in 1997, it should have been clear that this didn’t happen. Thanks to Cameron, however, most of the American public thinks it did.

Hundreds of people witnessed the sinking of the Titanic, and many of them delivered extensive testimony about what occurred on that tragic night at the official inquest. Some were even on board the ship when it split in half; we know it did split, the question is how, where, and when. None of them reported seeing, in 3-D,  a horrifying sight approximately as big and unforgettable as the explosion of the Hindenburg, though all reported that they heard a very loud noise as the ship went down. (Yes, that was the ship breaking apart.) But after the Titanic was discovered on the ocean floor in two pieces, some computer simulations concluded that the ship must have split as Cameron portrayed it. Anyone with respect for the sworn statements of the survivors in 1912 would have made the logical conclusion that this couldn’t be right, because nobody saw it. Instead, researchers tracked down some of the aged survivors of the disaster still living in 1991, who were grilled regarding the new version of events and conceded in their dotage that the huge ship might have broken apart at a high angle and above the surface. The youngest of these survivors was 84, and five-years old in 1912, while the oldest survivor, who was a teenager at the time of the sinking, was well into her 90s.  This was still enough for Cameron to stage his spectacle, which, if it was an accurate portrayal, would mean that all the surviving passengers who testified in 1912 were blind, stupid, or lying.

We now know, due to better simulations and closer examination of the wreckage, that the passengers were right, and the technicians who Cameron chose to believe instead were missing a few crucial pieces of evidence. In 2006, a new theory emerged that reconciled the eyewitness accounts with the wreckage, metallurgy and physics. Titanic broke apart, all right,  but at a low angle, with the split coming just below the surface. A History Channel documentary does a good job explaining the science involved; you can probably catch it this week.

I don’t blame Cameron for not basing his portrayal on evidence that only was clarified years after his film. I fault him for discounting the testimony of survivors, and misinforming the public by plastering a false version on a giant screen for millions to see, knowing that they would trust that a man who would insist that the doomed ship’s china pattern was accurate surely wouldn’t fudge the most eye-popping incident in the film. Yet that’s what James Cameron did.

Now the film is back, bigger than ever, and false representations of Officer Murdock,  “Unsinkable” Molly Brown, the sinking itself, and other aspects of the iconic event will be imbedded even deeper into our historical understanding. It didn’t have to be that way, and it is wrong that it is. History, the public, and the 1500 who died that night in 1912 deserve better.

35 thoughts on ““Titanic” Ethics

    • ARRGH! Ignorance makes misrepresentation less damaging! Actually, this should have occurred to me…why would our uneducated, non-reading, historically clueless young know the Titanic was real?

  1. I cant stand this movie either. I would much rather watch “A Night To Remember”. The insult to First Officer William Murdoch was so bad that the residencts of his home town complained to Cameron and he had to pay them off.

    If you want to see Cameron at his most arrogant watch the National Geographic special where he argues with experts on the Titanic about what happened.

  2. Were you just as upset by the mess made of history in “Braveheart” or “Elizabeth” or “Beckett” or “The Lion in Winter” — or “Elizabeth and Essex” or “The Private Life of Henry VIII” for that matter?

    A movie is only a movie.

    • A movie is a movie, unless it presents itself as a documentary, or accurate in its details, like JFK and Titanic. Nothing wrong with Inglorious Basterds, for example, because it was a fictional take on history and didn’t pretend to be true. I think I was pretty clear about what was different about Titanic, if you had bothered to read the post or did not just resort to a bumper sticker response. Fiction can be irresponsible; trashing reputations for no good reason, when relatives are alive, in the case of the Titanic crew, is unethical—there’s no reason to destroy a reputation. Cameron could have invented a fake officer—he invented lots of other characters–I counted 5.

      • Although I think of the two JFK is the bigger offender. I can not tell you how many people try to lecture me on what a difficult shot it was for Oswald to make when a drunken monkey with a wrist rocket could have made it.

        • Oh, it defintely is—I walked out on JFK in the theater. My dad was laughing at the sequnce that purported to show that Oswald didn’t have time tro fire all the shots with a bolt action rifle. At 70, my dad could do it, and proved it. And of course, Stone didn’t smear a British cruise line officer, but President Johnson. Of the two despicable directors, I also think he’s the most despicable.

          • I once asked my Dad what he thought of Platoon and he responded that if had served in Vietnam with Stone he would have kicked his ass .

      • More: I just learned that Cameron CHANGED THE STARS for the voyage in the new version, because they were inaccurate. Yet he left Murdoch as a crook, a killer and a suicide. You don’t see the proble with this? “Everything is carefully resserched, and accurate (except the important stuff, or when I feel like making stuff up)?

    • I can think of very few historical movies that didn’t get something, frequently several somethings wrong. Fair enough, and I’m happy to let the people responsible plead off on dramatic license. We don’t—or shouldn’t—go to movies to learn history. It’s when reputations are besmirched that I draw the line. Cameron’s portrayal of Murdoch is inexcusable. Murdoch was supervising the loading and launching of lifeboats on the starboard side (Lightoller had the port side), and over half of those saved were loaded on that side. He was a diligent and brave man, who gave his life in the performance of his duty. If Cameron had represented him as a hero, but altered some of the facts of his heroics, I wouldn’t see much of a problem. But potraying a hero as a moral coward is as wrong as a thing gets.

  3. Bill, I’ve deliberately refused to watch even a moment of that special. I don’t know about you, but I don’t WANT to see Cameron at his most arrogant. Cameron at his LEAST arrogant is all the torture I can handle.

  4. I have no problem with historical fiction. That is, with fictional characters being interwoven into actual historical events as a plot device. Nor do I necessarily hold it against directors and screenwriters for taking some liberties with history. “Poetic license” and all that. My objections to Cameron’s fantasy were the liberties he took with the real historical characters, demeaning their reputations in the process of exploiting a sleazy “love story” that never happened. Some of those people have descendants who actually remember them, such as Captain Edward Smith’s grandson. Using history or fiction to promote a depraved and/or politically charged plotline (with expensive special effects as the main draw) has become Cameron’s hallmark. But it works for him, so we can likely expect a lot more of the same.

    “A Night To Remember” (with Kenneth More as the acclaimed Charles Lighttoller) still stands as the best film rendition of the story. His line to RMS Carpathia’s captain after his rescue well summed up the entire tragedy. “But we were so SURE of her. I don’t think I’ll ever be sure of anything again.”

  5. How about the portrayal of the “noble” deaths of-

    1) CPT Smith
    2) chief arhitect Andrews
    3) Isidore and Ida Strauss
    4) the mother laying her children in bed and soothing them with sweet nothings

    Wait WHAT????

    Ok ok I get the top 3. Adults who can choose their own fate, the top two obviously ackowledging their own leadership role in the disaster.

    But the mother keeping her two children in bed????



    No no no no no

    That’s not noble that’s hands down terrible mothering. No, you do everything you can short of killing innocent bystanders to save your own children.

    Holy crap what an awful scene.

  6. I can’t remember the documentary that asserted that an atmospheric optical illusion may have contributed to the inability of the lookouts to spot the iceberg until very last minute. But it was a good one.

  7. How about every Titanic movie’s depiction of Charles John Joughin?

    Verdict: Unethical.

    Joughin was the lead baker on board the Titanic. Built big and stout as a bull according to most who met him.

    When he first heard the Titanic was going to go down, on his own initiative, he rallied the baking crew to gather what bread they could to distribute ample loaves to every lifeboat anticipating they may be afloat for awhile before rescue — something like 40 pounds of bread per boat. Several witnesses and his own testimony recount that he took multiple trips to help guide passengers from below decks up to the boat deck. He proceeded to a lifeboat, which he had been earlier commanded to be a crewman for (either tilling it or rowing, I’m not sure), only to discover another crewman had taken his spot. He didn’t protest, though he could have, so he helped load that boat and then went back to find more passengers below decks. After realizing there’d not be enough life boats and that many people would have to swim for it, he began to throw as many deck chairs into the water as he could as flotation devices, later he mentioned he hoped he could possibly find one of them after the ship went under. When the ship made its final plunge, he found himself standing on the back of the Titanic riding it into the icy waves. In the water, which was so cold, most people died of hypothermia within fifteen minutes…most much sooner than that, Joughin treaded water and swam for a remarkable one and a half to two hours before finding the upside-down collapsible commanded by Lightoller. Naturally, given Joughin’s luck thus far, the collapsible had no more standing room, so he had to float to the side for a bit longer before another lifeboat came by and picked him up.

    Now, how do Titanic movies commemorate Joughin’s clearly heroic conduct? Every single movie:

    He’s portrayed as a fat drunk for comic relief.

    Why? Because, during Joughin’s own testimony before the inquiries, even with other witnesses corroborating all his other conduct, he honestly admitted, that he had a shot of whiskey when he learned the Titanic was sinking, and then had another shot of whiskey after he found his place taken on the lifeboat he’d been assigned to crew.

    2 shots of whiskey do not make a big stoutly built man drunk.

    But because of that anecdote, his story is forever to be depicted as the bumbling and comical drunk, not the dedicated worker trying to save as many people as he could.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.