Accuracy

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

This film is universally heralded as the most accurate depiction of the disaster. However, I've just rewatched it and wondered if it IS all that accurate.

1) The Lucases. I don't see a Lucas family on the passenger list. Am I wrong here? If this is a fictional family, how can we fault other Titanic films for using fictional characters?

2) The Clarkes. Again. Fictional, right?

3) The enormous orchestra. The Titanic's band was not very large. But, the one depicted in this film seems to be about 10 members strong and sounds larger.

Don't get me wrong. I love this film and always have. But I'm wondering if it might be wrongly held as the standard.

Yes, Cameron's is schmaltzy and we all hate the love story. We're upset about the Murdoch suicide. The huge wave after the breakup is wrong. The fictional characters are annoying and insipid. But, there have been fictional characters is every Titanic film that are unlikeable (the entire cast of 43, Annette in 53, everyone in 97). There are mistakes in every Titanic film...even ANTR.

Why hold this one up on such a pedestal?

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>But I'm wondering if it might be wrongly held as the standard.<<

I'd never say that any one film set the standard. For special effects and an externally accurate portrayal of the ship, Cameron's Titanic is a tough act to beat. For a scripting closer to the historical reality, ANTR is still ahead of the pack.

Which doesn't mean it was perfect.

 

[Dave Gittins]

I'm with Jeremy. ANTR is much over-rated. Maybe the fictional characters were used to spare the feelings of survivors and the relatives of the lost. At the time, many were still around. All the same, I don't like the gratuitous introduction of things that were known at the time to be incorrect, such as the launching scene. The band is another example.

ANTR is one of a large group of British movies that were based on fact. They appeared in the 1950s and 60s, often in black and white. Quite a number depict British military triumphs and disasters. They present simplified versions of the facts and cannot be taken as history. I think ANTR is particularly over-rated by American Titanic fans who are unfamiliar with the genre. ANTR is OK, but it could have been better, given the facts known at the time.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

One inaccuracy that stands out in my mind that didn't seem to have any other purpose than to build Kenneth More's character was his cutting Ismay down for interfering. As we all know, Lowe was guilty of that charge.

There are others, which I will post periodically. This was one that jumped out at me in the time being.

As for ANTR being the standard for Titanic accuracy, I think, in large part, the status came by way of the notion that Walter Lord had done research and gathered testimony to compose the draft of the story. Well, didn't the other filmmakers do that, too? Well, perhaps, but the difference is that Lord was known to have hit the primary sources--and he was the only one to facilitate the use of eyewitness testimony, which could be deemed as primary sources, in a way. Still, Cameron supposedly gathered updated information that was obviously unknown at the time Lord wrote his book and McQuitty produced the corresponding movie. Perhaps this falls in line with Dave's assessment regarding simplicity of depiction. When something is watered down, its color fades, its taste becomes more blande, and it loses some of its bite. BUT . . . it is easier to grasp. As complex a story as Titanic is, too much involvement of different theings would create convolution.

Take for example the point I made about the cutting down of Ismay. By having one character cover more things, other characters can then fall into the background, and the focus becomes tighter. Notice, too, how this comes about through identifying one passenger or group of passenger from each class? Of course, this seems to unravel as the story progresses with more characters, at least as far as 1c is concerned: Sir Richard and his wife (The Gordons), The Lucases (The Allisons?), Maude Adams (Molly Brown), the Colonel (Colonel Gracie) and the yachtsman (Major Peuchen) emerge from 1C alone. Yet, these characters are composites of many others. Again: focus. Each of these represents a type of 1C passenger: the rich and haughty, the eccentric, the traveling family, and the courageous loners. These represent the real people of the Titanic, so, at least in a way, accuracy is conveyed through the symbolic.

 

[Martin Williams]

But, surely, the director assigned 'fictional' identities to various 'real-life' characters so that he could do PRECISELY what he liked with those characters, without people like you and I jumping up and down in outrage. The episode with Honor Blackman and her husband (I don't know the name of the actor) is clearly derived from the experience of Eloise and Lucian Smith but by no means sticks to the facts in a literal or pedantic manner. Eloise Smith conceived at some point during her honeymoon or the voyage but she certainly didn't have three children sleeping in a next-door cabin. Still less were she and Lucian English! Likewise, 'Sir Richard' and 'Her Ladyship' are obviously inspired by Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon. Crucially, however, they are not meant to BE Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon. If they were, I'd have something to say about the representation, since I am one of the Duff Gordons' staunchest supporters. As it is, I accept that they are essentially fictional constructs who cannot be positively identified with real-life individuals.

There are many other examples throughout 'A Night to Remember' where facts have been bent or otherwise played with. Anyone seeking a LITERAL retelling of the 'Titanic' story should look elsewhere. In essence, though, and most definitely in feeling, this production captures the spirit of that night, and of 1912, far more thoroughly than Cameron's 'Titanic' which is, as has been pointed out on another thread, a wholly inaccurate and jarring tale about two American mall-rats, dressed in period clothing and set on an ocean liner. This is perhaps what offended so many 'Titanic' buffs. Cameron made all the noises about accuracy and verisimilitude but, when it came down to it, he positively identified his 'real-life' characters as such and then had them act in HIGHLY debatable and controversial ways. The portrayal of Murdoch would be a case in point.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Martin,

No argument from me on your first statement. What I was pointing out was that McQuitty was apparently trying to convey a sense of accuracy, not exactness in detail and action. In this way, he would, as you've said, have the freedom to move around and explore different possibilities while still recognizing and pledging an allegiance to feel and spirit of the time, which both allude to the character of both the Titanic and her legend.

In Focus, too, I am referring to starting off with the specific and then broadening off into the general by ignoring details and capturing the big picture. We certainly couldn't argue that the drama in ANTR was among the most intense in any of the Titanic movies. The one momentary scene in the 1C dining saloon with the food cart rolling forward shouts impending doom that really grabs you. This scene is slight, but it is provocative just the same.

Don't get me wrong. I am not insisting that ANTR is 100% accurate in every way--I'll be the first, and was the third or fourth above, to say so--but I am saying that due to the Titanic story's level of complexity, the importance of accuracy is expressed through style and feeling rather than physical depiction.

Even you said that this movie felt more real than Cameron's:

>>In essence, though, and most definitely in feeling, this production captures the spirit of that night, and of 1912, far more thoroughly than Cameron's 'Titanic'<<

Perhaps that was McQuitty's intention. Haven't you noticed that all other movies are/have been compared to this one? I wonder . . . Why is that?

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

I had assumed that what Martin Williams calls "the tale about two American mall-rats, dressed in period clothing" was based upon the professional gamblers who were supposed to have been aboard the Titanic at the time of its demise. Whether true or not, this story appeared in the 1912 press reports (one of which I have added to this site). As such, it was clearly legitimate for "the gamblers" to feature in A Night To Remember.

 

[Martin Williams]

Mark

You've made some interesting points. I'll come back at them in greater length when I have more time.

Stanley

'I had assumed that what Martin Williams calls "the tale about two American mall-rats, dressed in period clothing" was based upon the professional gamblers who were supposed to have been aboard the Titanic at the time of its demise.'

I'm sorry - I don't follow you. In my earlier post, I was referring to the story at the heart of Cameron's 'Titanic' which, in my opinion, is nothing more than a wholly anachronistic tale of two late twentieth century American teens, acting in a late twentieth century manner, aboard an Edwardian ocean liner. Their relationship, and their interaction with the men and women around them, feels totally wrong for 1912. Likewise, the evocation of the period in general, its issues and tensions (between genders, nationalities, social groups etc), was simplistic and naive at best and downright offensive at worst. I'm not sure where the professional gamblers in 'A Night to Remember' come in...

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

Martin,

Yes, I have entirely mis-read your post, for which I apologise - I have just re-read it and you are clearly referring the Titantic (1997). The only feeble point I can make in defence of my stupid mistake is that I do not see Kate Winslett’s character as a particularly convincing “American”. I think that she starts off well enough but, as the film progresses, the accent seems to lapse. Not that this matters overmuch, as those watching the film soon become so interested in the story that they rapidly forget the slightly jarring non-American accent (or are we supposed to think that Kate has spent so long in England that her accent is fluctuating?)

 

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

>> the tale about two American mall-rats, dressed
>> in period clothing

And a tale of a two-dimensional newlywed couple or a fictional upper-class family that no one can identify with aren't anything to quibble about?

>> The only feeble point I can make in defence of
>> my stupid mistake is that I do not see Kate
>> Winslett’s character as a particularly convincing
>> “American”.

That's fine, Stanley. She's got a wavering accent. I'd agree. But what about ANTR...as that's the subject of this thread located in this folder.

>> For a scripting closer to the historical reality, ANTR
>> is still ahead of the pack.

But, my question still isn't answered here. *Why* is it considered so much more the historical reality? Do people mean events or atmosphere?

If we're talking atmosphere, I notice many errors in the sets. The women's costumes are clearly influenced by the 1950s. Mrs. Lucas sounds like a sex kitten.

If we're talking events, there are a lot of things that happen in this film that I don't recall reading about. Who is the woman that dangles between the Titanic and the lifeboat...did that happen? Etc. etc.

>> By having one character cover more things,
>> other characters can then fall into the background,
>> and the focus becomes tighter.

But this has been done by other Titanic films and the practice has been criticized on this board. It still muddies the question...why do people 'oo' and 'ah' about ANTR when there are as many historical errors in that film as others?

 

[Martin Williams]

'...and a tale of a two-dimensional newlywed couple or a fictional upper-class family that no one can identify with aren't anything to quibble about?'

Respectfully...why do you assume that 'nobody' can identify with the so-called 'two-dimensional' or 'upper class' characters of 'A Night to Remember'? Isn't that presupposing that viewers are so lacking in intelligence and sensitivity that they can only 'identify' with characters exactly like themselves? If so, I'm no nearer to 'identifying' with Jack 'n' Rose than I am to identifying with - say - the aliens in 'Indepedence Day'.

Between them, the first-class 'Smiths' and the second-class newly-weds of 'A Night to Remember' occupy no more than about twenty minutes of screen time. Yet, in that short period, the actors and the script-writers manage to imbue those characters with more dignity, emotion and feeling than Jack 'n' Rose manage in over three hours. Which is not, I think, the fault of either Leonardo DiCaprio or Kate Winslet. Both are superb actors and it is a tragedy of nearly 'Titanic' proportions that they weren't offered a better script and story-line to showcase their talents.

'If we're talking atmosphere, I notice many errors in the sets. The women's costumes are clearly influenced by the 1950s. Mrs. Lucas sounds like a sex kitten.'

Yes, I'd argue that 'A Night to Remember' DOES indeed capture the 'atmosphere' of that night, and indeed the nuances of the entire period, infinitely better than 'Titanic'. I say that as somebody who has spent literally years studying both the 'Titanic' and the Edwardian Era as a whole. We can nit-pick the minor details until the cows come home (and Cameron's film isn't irreproachable in that respect either. Carpet in the first-class dining saloon...?) The success or failure of either film isn't simply a matter of sets and costumes and strict historical accuracy. It is also about the special and unquantifiable magic that makes a 'great' film or, indeed, any good piece of art. This is, of course, a wildly subjective theme and one which I haven't the time to explore here as thoroughly as I would like (besides, many board members could do it much better than I). If, Jeremy, you're criticising 'A Night to Remember' for not being strictly, absolutely and factually 'accurate', then I'd quite agree with you. But I would also suggest that, in preferring this film to Cameron's effort, most intelligent audience members (whether 'Titanic' buffs or not) are simply responding to the BETTER work of art.

At any rate, the more grown-up one.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I think, in large part, the status came by way of the notion that Walter Lord had done research and gathered testimony to compose the draft of the story. Well, didn't the other filmmakers do that, too? <<

Some do. Unfortunately, some would hold to the notion that whatever virtues the book has regarding historical accuracy will carry over to the film as well. The reality is that film makers take quite a bit of dramatic license with just about everything they touch. Even the best do that.

If you want entertainment, by all means, go to the movies.

If you want historical accuracy, you'll just have to do your homework with the actual source material.

 

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

Okay, Martin seems to be pretty upset with me about this thread even though I clearly stated at the beginning:

>>Don't get me wrong. I love this film and always have. But I'm wondering if it
>> might be wrongly held as the standard.

So, to avoid any nastiness, maybe it's best to shift to something that's not opinion.

What ARE some of the inaccuracies or what are some of the people that are represented but renamed?

 

[Stanley C Jenkins]

It seems grossly unfair to look for inaccuracies in A Night to Remember, which is generally regarded as the most accurate film ever made about the Titanic disaster. However, since the question has been raised, the bits that annoy me (albeit very slightly) are the use of a bottle of champagne during the launching ceremony, which would not normally have happened with a White Star ship, and the so-called “Irish” village at the start of the film, which is clearly somewhere in England, most likely in or around the Buckinghamshire Chilterns (Denham?). In view of the large amount of money spent on this film it seems odd that the film makers could not have found a better “Irish” style cottage — if they did no want to go all the way to Ireland they could surely have found some suitable single-storey thatched dwellings in Wales.

As pointed out earlier, the female costumes are also something of a disappointment insofar as they look like something from the 1950s. This scene (taken from a promotional jig-saw puzzle) is, in effect, a coloured scene from A Night to Remember, and it clearly shows the anachronistic costumes.

 

[Jeremy Aufderheide]

Stanley - The inaccuracies of Cameron's film are picked apart on this board to the point of nausea. There is a thread called "Cameron's Stupid Film" that is over 100 posts long.

It's only fair that we take a look at this film from an historical perspective. It's not diminishing ANTR in the way that the Cameron-bashing threads do his film. It's also not diminishing your or my feelings about its quality as a film. But, if we can talk about SOS Titanic heralding the disaster as April 12, the iceberg ripping open the port side of the ship in '53, and Murdoch's suicide in '97...we can surely have a pleasant discussion about the ladies fashions or the champagne bottle with regard to ANTR.

It's not the Bible. And I really don't understand your apparent hostility here.