I just got through watching the last of Titanic; I didn't watch the entire thing because I was watching Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World which ended fifteen minutes before Titanic. It's a movie I've seen about the same number of times as I have Titanic although I could watch Master and Commander again sometime soon in the future, I've had just about all I want from Titanic, even though I could look at Kate Winslet a thousand hours and never grow tired of her face.
I've got a huge gripe with Titanic; two of them actually, but one is much larger than the other. My lessor gripe first:
How did Gloria Stuart get nominated for an Oscar for her performance in the movie? Her part was tiny, even though she did the narration during the cutaways back to the salvage ship. I don't think she did all that good of a job - I felt she said her lines rather woodenly and without much believability. Surely there was some other movie that year that had a better supporting actress nominee. Kathy Bates in her role as Molly Brown did a much better job than did Stuart in Titanic.
Which directly leads me to my main gripe: Why did Stuart's character Rose DeWitt Bukater throw the "The Heart of the Ocean" blue diamond necklace overboard? It seemed such a selfish thing to do. She could have given it to Brock Lovett, the man trying to find it (played by Bill Paxton). After all, he had invested millions in his salvage effort, spent more to bring the old
I know it's just a movie, but sometimes these things really piss me off. I had so much emotion and sympathy invested in the Rose character as an old lady only to have her do such a selfish and senseless act as throwing the priceless diamond into the sea. Even though the salvage ship was positioned directly over the Titanic, the currents probably would have carried the necklace miles away from the ship. It really is the single thing that nearly ruined the movie for me and one of the reasons I don't care to watch it again. If I had been Lovett and saw her doing it, I'd have tied a chain to her wrinkly old ass and chucked her overboard after the diamond.
3 comments:
I always thought the same thing about her throwing the diamond overboard. Sure they were fuled by their own greed. But at the end of the day all those people on the boat need to get paid.
They have bills and families like the rest of us.
But the character "Rose" is the same person who killed the love of her life...yes that's right..she killed Jack...the logic is simple.
IF she wasn't such an emotional, irrational fool she would of stayed on the life boat. Then "Jack" would of been able to stay on the floating piece of wood...and lived. That's two for two Rose.
Thanks f/ commenting, Ontario Dad.
Just the other day, I was looking at something else and wandered into a forum thread discussing Titanic and they too were annoyed at the old lady character. Someone pointed out that Rose said she'd never let go, then proceeded to do just that. I know it was just a metaphor, that she should hold on to his memory, but...
I went to the theater to see the movie as well as Starship Troopers. I can't remember which one I saw last, but that was the last time I've stepped foot in a theater. I've grown weary of over-priced, under-talented "artists" telling me how I should think, how I should live and disparaging my core beliefs and even where I live.
No, I refuse to subsidize them with the fairly large amt. of money it takes to go to the movies. If a movie is something I really want to see, such as the Harry Potter flicks, I will rent the video or buy them. At least that way I'm not giving them nearly as much money as I would buying a ticket at the picture show.
Thanks again f/ posting!
A quick update about Rose: I don't think I saved the graphic or the link, but I saw a website a month or two ago that drew an outline on the floating "chest" (whatever it was) and clearly showed there was room for Jack, too.
OTOH, I liked the Jack character, but I would probably let DiCaprio drown.
Post a Comment