Character assasinations-misleading portrayals in J Cameron film

Let me begin this post by telling a little story, folks.
In 1976, a TV series entitled "Baa, Baa Black Sheep" (later retitled "The Black Sheep Squadron")
flew onto the airwaves and made quite a splash in it's two-year run.
Loosely based on Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington's best-selling autobiography of the same title, the series depicted Boyington as a leader of drunken, Beetle Bailey-esque misfits and cut-ups whom he'd sprung from the brig and put into the cockpits of some Marine F4U Corsairs he'd liberated. Thus forming his squadron.
His boys sure had fun in the series, guzzling copious ammounts of alcohol (in one episode, Boyington, during a briefing out on the airfield before a mission, sharply asks one of his men, who's soused to the gills, if he'd understood what the mission was about and where they were going), catting around with, first, some cute Women's Air Service Pilots, then a gaggle of giddy Navy nurses (whose only nursing duties, it seemed, was providing Pappy's men female companionship between missions), and blasting many Imperial Japanese Navy and Army Air planes out of the sky as well as going on all kinds of adventures (in one episode, Boyington is challenged to a duel with a rival Japanse ace over the Slot, in another, Boyington and two other guys are shot down over an island while flying a swiped transport and save a nun, a priest, and thier orphan flock before an invasion hits).
The them song for the show-to do a take off from a song from a Tintin book-could've gone like this:
"We are Pappy Pappy Pappy's/Jolly Jolly Jolly/
Black Sheep Squadron/Hey there mac/Hey there babe/Hey there mac/Hey there babe."
Now, it just so happened that many of Boyington's real-life squadron members were still very much alive when the series aried, enjoying the pinnacle of their post-war careers...and many were disgusted and angered by how Hollywood-ized their story had become.
"It ammounted to mass character assasination." said one of the series, and it was.
Sadly, many, many viewers believed the Black Sheep really WERE like they were depicted in the series...but such imperfectly informed folk had no idea that, had Pappy's men REALLY acted like that, their Japanese opponents would have scarcely paused for breath before knocking the whole lot of them out of the sky and into the drink.
In reality, Pappy's men were nowhere near like their TV counterparts, but great damage was done by the misleading portrayal's of these men.
One of the Black Sheep, now a successful airline captain, was accosted by yahoos who believed he and his buddies really had acted like the cut-ups played by John Larroquette and James Whitmore Jr.
did in the series. Similar things happened to other of Pappy's men.
Finally, enough was enough, and one of the Black Sheep swooped down and strafed the misconceptions and character assasinations so bedelviling the squadron's memory with some cold hard truth about these valiant men in their Corsair machines.
That man was Frank Walton, the Black Sheep's former intelligence officer, and he poured it on first in a TV Guide article, and then put the indian sign on the misconceptions and assasinations with his marvelous book "Once They Were Eagles: The Men Of The Black Sheep Squadron."
Time would show, though, that the men of the Black Sheep, in the end, had gotten off cheap. A decade after Walton annihilated the ick encrusting the memory of his squadron, one man all but damaged for good the memory of another event from the pages of history: the Royal Mail Steamship Titanic, her story, and her people.
That man was James Cameron, and he did it by creating a travesty so horrible and crass it made "The Black Sheep Squadron" look like "Band Of Brothers" by comparison.
Cameron, in his ruthless quest to exploit the memory of the Titanic for all it was worth as well as churn out the umpteenth "Romeo and Juliet" clone at the same time, assainated the character of practically everyone who had been a part of the real Titanic story, especially the real-life heores and heroines, so that NOTHING would detract from the love story involving his outrageously contrived lovers that were the sole focus of the so-called "drama" he wrote and filmed.
He claimed once that he and historian's Don Lynch and Ken Marshcall went over his script line by line. I hate to say it, but if that is so, then Mr. Lynch and Mr. Marschall are just as respoinsible as he for the birthing of a travesty that gave a bad name to all of the Titanic's real people.
The film twisted them, outrageously cairctured them, and downplaned to the hilt all the heorisim showed by many the night the Titanic went down.
If one were to take Cameron's travesty at face value, nobody but Jack and Rose were brave and fearless that night and the other people were all eithier too panicked, too weak as a person, or whose actions did little to help the situation at all.
BALDERDASH!!!! The heroisim displayed by the likes of Charles Lightoller, Harold Bride, Jack Phillips, and countless others makes all the baloney involving Jack and Rose look like some horribly contrived Disney adventure by comparison, and the attribution of ALL the valor aboard the Titanic that night to J&R in the film was simply disgusting.
Pappy Boyington's men had been given a ticker-tape parade by Hollywood in comparison.
What is more, all of the Titanic's people as a whole are depicted as either jolly immigrants or fluffy high society. All goo-goo eyed Edwardian cardboard cut out carictures. BALONEY!!!! The people of the Titanic, in reality, were a vast, fascinating, diverse group of people who saw many heros emerge in their midst when disaster loomed.
The saddest thing of all? While the cloying misconceptions that coated the memory and legacy of Pappy Boyington and his men have long since been blown off the face of the earth, it still clings to the memory and legacy of the Titanic. Proof of the vast damage done thanks to one mans greedy exploitation of one of history's most beautiful stories of the sea and of history.
 
Richard, that is quite a rant. yet you yourself have blown things as completely out of proportion as your charge that Cameron did. not that some of your comments don't have validity, as they do. were people and events charicatured? of course they were. this was a movie. it was never meant to be a documentary. but Cameron also spent a gazillion dollars (or there abouts) trying to get the sets just right, even down to hiring some of the original companies that had produced the original equipment for the real ship way back in 1912.

as far as the charge of Cameron's "greedy exploitation", well that just does not hold up either. if you read the history of the making of the film you will find out that he went to incredible lengths to justify the cost of making the movie as he envisioned it, even to giving up all of his royalty rights to any profit. if the movie had been a bust or a modest success, he very likely would never have made a dime off of the entire project. sure he eventually got a very fat paycheck for his efforts, but only after the film had made billions for the movie studio.

like you, I do not agree with a lot of his decisions. I thought he got most of the ship's officers wrong for example. and I was annoyed at the Happy People in third class contrasted with the stuffed up shirts in first. but these are minor quibbles. Cameron did something no one in the history of film has ever done, he brought Titanic back to living breathing life, at least on the big screen.

just another opinion, for what it is worth.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 
I would have to agree with Michael - Camerons Titanic was a movie - not a documentary. Lots of people may not have liked it but there were millions that did!! In my opinion it brought the story of Titanic to lots of people who weren't even aware of it! - Beth
 
>>While the cloying misconceptions that coated the memory and legacy of Pappy Boyington and his men have long since been blown off the face of the earth, it still clings to the memory and legacy of the Titanic. <<

Uhhhhh....psssst....(whispering)....in case it's escaped your notice, a lot of cloying misconceptions existed befor the movie was made and are alive and well to this day. How often is that silly ship switch conspiracy theory trotted out along with the tall tale of that ever restless mummy? How many distortions of reality have made it into print and film starting in 1912 and going on ever since? Quite a few if I read the tea leaves right, and Cameron had nothing to do with them.

>>Proof of the vast damage done thanks to one mans greedy exploitation of one of history's most beautiful stories of the sea and of history.<<

As Cameron's paycheck was conditional upon the movies success, and given that Paramount and Fox nearly scrapped the project, I'd hardly say greed applies here. They took a whopping risk on a film that cost more to make then it did to build the ship, and which could have flopped in grand style had the timing of the release been even a little bit off, and I don't begrudge them a penny earned.

TMiB and Beth are right you know. What was produced by Cameron was a movie. For all the extrodinary and oft unappriciated attention to detail he lavished on the project, at substantial risk of taking a massive loss...it was a work of fiction in an historical setting. It never pretended to be anything else.

And one of the most beautiful stories? Isn't that part of the mythos too? In this old sailors eyes, the reality was one of blissful ignorance shattered by stark terror and death on a very large scale. For all the tales of heels and heros, a few of them even true, Titanic's story is that of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time where even the survivors were casualties in their own right who had to face an uncertain future minus the breadwinners of their families.
 
I think that while Richard goes over the top in a lot of areas, I belong to the group of people who do regard Cameron's work as more of a travesty than something positive. Yes, the sets were accurate, but I prefer a movie that is more true to the events of what happened than a movie that gets the settings right and the atmosphere so wrong as Cameron's awful story of 1990s teenagers in heat with 1990s attitudes did.
 
And I belong to a group of people who believe that each telling of the Titanic disaster has always and always will reflect the morals, values and attitudes of the time period in which it is told. Therefore, each telling of the story has and will inherently distort the true facts and environment of the disaster. In addition, let's not forget that every popular incarnation of the story has as its driving motivation the need to return a profit. Even supposedly-factual documentaries on the subject are not immune from the distorting influence from financial backers. I challenge any one of you with deep grievances to stop whining uselessly and instead expend your energies to raise the money needed to tell the story the way you feel it should be told. That's what the producers of past Titanic-related productions did.

So, pick and choose what you will for your personal favourite interpretation, but please don't flaunt your naivety by throwing around generalised claims and insulting assumptions about peoples' character or motivations. You serve no other purpose than to make our discussion group lose credibility in the eyes of those who come to this site in search of some maturity and enlightenment.

Parks
 
I don't agree with the premise that "each telling of the Titanic reflects more about the time it was made" because that can not be said about "A Night To Remember" where even Marschall and Lynch said on the commentary track that the film does not reveal itself to be a product of the 1950s when you watch it. Nor does "SOS Titanic" immediately betray itself as a product of the 1970s. The reasons for this is that when the story is depicted in those productions an attempt is made to be true to the spirit of the era being depicted, and that is what Cameron did not do. Only a person of bizarre 1990s Hollywood values would think that a story about "true love" set aboard Titanic should involve teenagers in heat rather than focus on something genuine to the time period like a young newly married couple that was parted forever by the tragedy (as happened to so many in all classes).
 
Eric,

You and I see things differently then. I do see both of the films that you mention being reflective of their respective time periods, despite your protestations. Steven Biel said much the same in a recent documentary (I don't remember which one, off the top of my head), so I know I'm not alone in my belief.

I assume that you won't be going to see the documentary "Ghosts of the Abyss" then, because it's another product from the same "person of bizarre 1990s Hollywood values" that you accuse so self-righteously of "travesty." Or, maybe you will, just to get angry all over again.

Parks
 
Whether I choose to see "Ghosts" or not, I will be evaluating it on its own merits, and I will thank you not to make sweeping assumptions about myself merely because I express an opinion contrary to your own. I have had no trouble in the past separating Cameron the explorer of Titanic from Cameron the bad filmmaker (IMO) when I bought his CD-ROM (which thankfully has none of the movie intruding on the product except for the trailer) and I can easily do the same in this instance, just as I have no problem in the past sepearating my distaste for Robert Ballard the man and what he says about salvage from my admiration for Robert Ballard the explorer.

Your characterization of me as "self-righteous" for calling Cameron's movie a travesty is unjust because I don't try to present my view of Cameron's movie as anything more than my own subjective impression, and not as an objective fact of life. This is why we have debates over the subject, and in this instance I merely felt the need to say after several negative posts, that while Richard's tone is a bit excessive, I can relate to much of what he said.

Steven Biel is entitled to his opinion. but I think he's wrong with regard to the better Titanic dramas that don't betray the aura of the time they were made in the program content (and I am not referring to technological production limitations of the time, which are prevalent in *any* film of a given era).
 
Eric, I see your point about Cameron's Titanic not being a true period piece. but he wasn't trying to film a period piece. he wanted to film a Titanic story that a late 20th century audience could relate to and appreciate. I'm not sure it is fair to damn the man because he didn't tell the story the way you wanted it to be told.

another part of this issue is never stated in so many words, but what it boils down to is that a lot of the complaints about Titanic movies is that they are not focused on the story of the disaster. in most films the disaster is used as the backdrop to another story entirely. of all the Titanic movies made, just about the only one that is a movie about the disaster itself is A Night to Remember, and that is why quite a number of people still consider it to be the definitive Titanic film.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 
Michael, I appreciate your reply. I would argue though that *any* film about the Titanic, even ones that focus on fictional characters must ultimately be true "period pieces" in the sense that fictional characters must (unless they're time travelers from the future deposited on the Titanic like in the pilot episode of Irwin Allen's "Time Tunnel" TV series) be true to the kind of people who would have been aboard the Titanic, or else the end result is a historical event being exploited IMO. That is simply bad storytelling from my standpoint. If Jack were a steerage immigrant out to make a fortune in America, then that I could accept because we know that the typical steerage passenger who crossed the Atlantic wasn't the kind of person like the film's Jack, but someone who would have hoped to be part of the First Class world some day. Would that have been a concept impossible for modern audiences to appreciate? I doubt that very much. In Cameron's case though, a proletariat style message of noble poor and evil rich needed to carry the day, so that meant that we had to be served a false picture of what the people aboard Titanic were like in order to lend a fake credence to the idea of these 1990s characters existing in a universe that only exists in James Cameron's imagination and has little resemblance to the real world of 1912 beyond the superficial set recreations.
 
I sincerely apologise for insulting you, Eric. Given the adjectives you used to describe Cameron and his work in your initial post, I was under the impression that you preferred to talk in terms of insult. I didn't intend insult just because we share differing views, but rather in a like response to the type of post you had offered. If you would like to debate the issue without offering insult, direct or insinuated, to any individual (especially those who are not even present to defend themselves), then I would be more than willing to respond in kind.

Parks
 
Well Parks, if you will reread my initial post, I said that Cameron's *work* was a travesty and that he wrote a bad story. There was no personal insult in that posting whatsoever and what I said was perfectly fair game in a debate over the merits of his movie, which for me personally was a travesty and remains a travesty.

In my second post, I referred to Cameron's Hollywood values which is not a personal comment on him as an individual but a description of what I feel is a general trend in Hollywood circles when it comes to their depictions of romance on-screen and that Cameron has clearly put himself in that same camp, which I personally find to be a bizarre set of values. But criticizing a filmmaker for putting out something that in my genuine opinion was a bad end-product is fair game in any discussion. Personal insults as a concern only come into play if I am attacking the character of those who liked Cameron's movie, which I did not and never have done. If for instance, I made personal insults at *you* for liking Cameron's film then it would be fair game for you to respond in kind. But when the remarks are not aimed at you, then I think we're talking about something else completely.
 
"I think that while Richard goes over the top in a lot of areas"..."while Richard's tone is a bit excessive"
Eric, why did you say those things? I take cool, calm issue with what I wrote being called an "over the top" and "excessive" way in expressing my views (as well as the above, I also read what you said about my views being similar to yours, btw, so I know you weren't being unfair to me in your posts.)
What I wrote was done in "straight talk"-style, a la Harry Truman. No more "over the top" than some of the writings I've read by those who like the Cameron movie (not including yours, mind. You are fair in your appraisials.)
Lets keep cool here. What I wrote was my opinion, and I stand by it 100%. Just as you stand by yours 100%.
More later.

Richard
 
Trying to capture a historic event on film is risky business be it big screen or television. I remember being impressed by the Ken Burns series on the Civil War-maybe because it used real letters and diaries and photographs of real people. Seems like anybody I ever meet with a real love for this ship yearns to know all that really happened and want to see a portrayal of the real deal on film. Of course there is so much we don't know or may never know about that night- so often the gaps get filled in by one man's vision of what or how it might have happened. No film on the topic has ever been wasted on me-each one reveals some new dimension of possibilities- I have said before , there aren't any bad Titanic movies, only different. Cameron is successful because he reads the visions a great many people can relate to and can project them on film. Studios aren't in business to lose money. Like many, I was disappointed there was so much focus on fictional characters when there are myriad real ones far more interesting. Just as a small aside here: in my reading of things Edwardian, let me assure you there were PLENTY of teens in heat in 1912 and redhot passions even in Victorian days. The Jack and Rose story could have happened -but it is not what we like to think about. It seems shallow compared to acts of heroism and gallantry- but don't we all tend to glamourize the past and gloss over the gritty commonplace aspects?. One must approach films with the view that this is one person's impression and interpretation- one vehicle to take one into the past. On many levels the 1997 effort was a success. I am still waiting for the ultimate version to be made- until then I watch them all.
 
Back
Top