MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1953) Discussion > I was really enjoying this movie until.....

I was really enjoying this movie until.....

posted 14 years ago by Buffyfan92
14 replies | jump to latest

...the sinking scene. I'm sorry but it was absolutely horrible. Up until then the movie was going quite well, I was enjoying the story line between the fictional characters but as soon as the ship hit the iceberg it was all down hill. Now I'm not just saying this because the movie is historically in accurate, my favorite of the Titanic films in the 1997 version, but it was just so unbelievable.

The alarm sounding throughout the whole sinking scene is not only inaccurate but totally annoying and ruined the sinking scenes for me. I also didn't like how they seemed to compact the entire sinking into the last 10 minutes of the movie. The thing that really got to me though was when everyone on the ship stops and breaks out into song as the ship was sinking what was that about? It was totally unbelievable and not possible that everyone instead of fighting for their lives would just stop and sing a hymn while going down with the ship.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 14 years ago

The sinking was really horrid. But you can't expect much realism from a 1950s flag-waving morality tale.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 14 years ago

Even though the sinking was awful, the chemistry between Stanwyck and Webb is electrifying. They fight really well. But then again, lesbians and gay men have a history of not getting along. So, maybe the conflict was real.

Anyway, it's a morality tale told using the Titanic as a backdrop. This was made pre-Night to Remember. So, the research into the story wasn't really done. And filmmakers in the 50s weren't all that concerned about historical accuracy. Later in the 50s, more information had surfaced and Titanic-mania really took hold.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 14 years ago

I agree that it was terrible in its lack of accuracy.

However, one thing to keep in mind is that in 1953, much about the sinking had faded from the public's memory. Aside from a few memoirs by survivors published soon after the disaster, (Archibald Gracie's posthumously published account in 1912, and Lawrence Beesley's memoir from 1913 are the two main examples.) there had been never been a real attempt to write a definitive account and nothing had been written about it for years. Walter Lord was the first person to really sit down to write a full account of the disaster from start to finish and to actually attempt to get every possible fact accurate. But, that didn't happen until two years after this film was released.

At that time, the only place anyone could have gone to really look into the facts of the disaster was the official transcripts of the Senate Inquiry in 1912.

[–] tubularbelle2003 13 years ago

You have to realise that back when the film was made they did not know how the ship had sunk. It was only fairly recently that people knew the ship had broken in half as it sank.
Please don't condemn a great film because of people's ignorance.

The Long Walk stops every year, just once.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 13 years ago

It was only fairly recently that people knew the ship had broken in half as it sank.

That's not entirely true. It was about a 50/50 split in testimony about whether or not the ship broke up or sunk in one piece.

They most likely didn't do the research and didn't really care...playing to the legend rather than fact (as did Cameron). The title at the beginning about a lot of the dialogue being verbatim was to lend credibility that the film didn't deserve.

And if they *did* do the research, my guess is that they didn't show the break-up because of special effects limitations or budget. They'd have had to do the entire thing with models and that would have been expensive and potentially hokey. "No one knows for sure so let's take the easy route". Right? (That's my guess about A Night to Remember as well.)

It's still a fun flick though.

[–] vscalesptt 13 years ago

Watchin it now, but this is what IMBD says; •Factual errors: The passengers did not stand up on deck and sing a chorus of "Nearer My God To Thee". The band played it on their instruments but passengers were all rushing about. No one stood and sang.

When You Know Better, You'll Do Better.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 13 years ago

It is very accurate since it was based on Walter Lord's exhaustively researched book

Actually, design-wise it's not as accurate as Cameron. And there are other inaccuracies that they should have been able to correct since Boxhall and other survivors were present on the set.

The only goof in the sinking was that she is shown going down intact

That's not a goof. It's not a goof if the generally accepted fact is that the ship sank in one piece. It would be a goof if they knew then what we know now and still showed it sinking in one piece.

Seems the British did not want it known their fabulous ship not only sank but broke in half while doing so!

Why would the British care one way or the other if the ship sank in one piece, two pieces or ten pieces? If the ship broke up, it's not like people are going to think "Ah, the Titanic broke up while sinking, so we'd better avoid White Star Ships."

Ships sinking are violent events and reports of ships being torn apart when sinking weren't exactly unheard of. Who gives a rip if it broke apart sinking? They were designed to float.

There was no cover-up. There was no logical reason to cover it up. People just didn't dwell on it and likely didn't care. People weren't interested in the forensics of the sinking ship. They were interested in the drama involved and survivor experiences.

If they were going to cover anything up, they would have covered up the Captain's negligence. That reflected poorly on the White Star Line. Wouldn't you be thinking "how many other captains does this line have that speed through dangerous conditions"?

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

The so-called climax was imo the best part of the thing - kinda sappy, yes, but that´s well expected and it´s not nearly as cynically manipulative as the Cameron´s 1997 exercise in cinematic whoring. What preceded the catastrophe shoulda been much better though as the "human drama" is only a mere notch above an average soap opera. Also, for a film like this, there was very little style to the thing - at least 3/4 of the movie takes place in a closed set environment so there isn´t much to distinguish it from any given Hollywood drama of the era. And last but not least, it was something like the 7th or 8th picture with Stanwyck I´ve seen this year & this is pretty much the first instance where she isn´t particularly outstanding (then again, the role, such as written, wasn´t exactly an ideal springboard to bring out the best from performers). Strangely though the pathos of the last 20 or so minutes rang pretty much true (even the apparently incurable elitist as-hole Webb´s change of heart is believable... meanwhile, of course, the most gross offence the über-capitalist Cameron committed with his disgusting, mawkish piece of exploitation, was to take his hypocritical, cynical pretention of sympathizing with the working class so far as to neglect even mention that a lot of those "evil rich" were also the ones to willingly sacrifice their lives so the women and children could survive). Titanic ´53 gets a decent 7/10.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

The so-called climax was imo the best part of the thing - kinda sappy, yes, but that´s well expected

Yeah it did come across as too melodramatic for my liking when the remaining passageners sang. Though the climax did effectively increase the emotion with the medium shots of Julia coming to terms with the event. Made for a sombre ending.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] HijodelCid 12 years ago

For those who haven't figured it out yet, listen close:
despite its title, this sudser was never intended to be a reliable account of the events of 15 April 1912. 'tis simply a maudlin commonplace melodrama about adultery that is set in the Titanic for the cynical purpose of squeezing a few extra tears from easily manipulated movie viewers. Certainly the almost endless list of mistakes enumerated in the GOOFS section proves that neither Negulesco nor anybody else involved with this bar of Ivory soap gave a bloody damn about the real story of the RMS Titanic.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] gribfritz2 12 years ago

I like when the ship actually sank. There's a tighter shot of all the people singing on deck. Then they cut to a long shot to show the actual sinking. As the model sinks, there are obviously no people on deck now since it's a model. I know special effects of the day could only go so far, but it looked terrible especially because they made such a big deal to show all of the people standing there singing just a moment before.

[–] prolelol (1427) 6 years ago

I completely agree with you. It's visually stunning, but with a very few special effects. And much less emotional than Cameron's Titanic. The first hour was excellent.