This guy is someone Gilded and I have chatted with before. I don't think he knows about this site, but I can tell him. Let me warn you ahead of time his outlook may seem stranger than fiction, I kid you not. Dalton especially is going to have a field day. Gilded, I already know you don't want me to invite him, but I'm excluding your vote (haha). Quickly submit your reply!

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 10, 1998

Answers

Sure, why not?

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 10, 1998.

I love making Dalton happy, so bring him on over! :-)

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 10, 1998.

I'd like to hear (rather, read) what he has to say!

-- Courtney (greenlane@sprint.ca), August 10, 1998.

Oh, husband...you've really crossed the line now! You really must be my "Jack" for me to not divorce you after this!!! Okay...on ONE condition: all the animal cracker tricks my little heart desires...

One thing you must know, however...His Royal Uppity-ness is in London getting his autumn wardrobe tailored (tra-la-freakin-da) for at least another week. Just so you know if he doesn't reply when you e-mail him.

Phew. I need a drink.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 10, 1998.

Darn, I was afraid he might still be away. Thanks for your responses, Dan, Emma, Courtney, Gilded. I can almost guarantee that he'll be on here as soon as he gets back. Gilded, remember what I emailed you (clean slate!). Do your husband proud.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 10, 1998.

Clean slate for you and ME or me and GEORGE? Do you want me to be NICE to him??? I think I'm hyperventilating...oh, God...where's my inhaler?

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 10, 1998.

Okay...my husband wants me to play nice, so I will. You're all gonna enjoy this boy immensely. Really. :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 11, 1998.

Okay Gilded and BobG, fess up. What's this guy done to make Gilded not want him to come over here except under duress? You've got me really curious.

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 11, 1998.

To all, I have come here by invitation from Mr. Gregorio (BobG). He asked me to introduce myself. Having read the other contributions to this tangent, I am not quite certain how well-received I will be, Nevertheless, I am obliged do what Mr. Gregorio asks. My name is George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (you may certainly refer to me as "George" or "G.P."), I am seventeen years of age, I live in New York, NY, and, as Mr. Gregorio stated, I am a relative of Col. John Jacob Astor IV (he was my great-great-great-uncle: my great-great-grandmother was his sister). Mr. Gregorio also asked me to express my view that the pinnacle of greatness in western history was the Edwardian age (1900-1913). Having introduced myself, I await your replies.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 11, 1998.

George, welcome. I hope BobG warned you that this site is for those who loved this movie...just so you're not surprised.:)

How was your trip to London?

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 11, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Yes, BobG certainly warned me - not that I mind at all. As long as the people within are decent, it shan't play into my opinion. Actually, I am not quite certain why he invited me.

Since you asked, the voyage was wonderful. I adore London, and, since the measurements and choosing for tailoring only took one and one half days, my father and I were free to enjoy the city for the rest of the time (the tailoring only being one reason for the visit - pleasure was another). We met my Uncle Julian one day for tea, whom we had not seen since Christmas (Julian is my father's youngest brother, and is quite an amusing fellow - he has lived in England since 1984; he renounced his U.S. citizenship and fought for the Royal Army in the Persian Gulf War). On Sunday, my mother and sister met us (having come from Paris), and we all flew home together. It was all very relaxing and enjoyable (I always adore travel - especially transatlantic - as it is so relaxing and stress-free).

I am anxious to meet all the other denizens of this board (it seems much larger than that of P.A.T.H.). My one objection is that one must double-space one's paragraphs to make them discernable.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 11, 1998.

Well...dig in and start posting your thoughts! There's lots of interesting stuff on this particular site, I'm sure you'll agree.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 11, 1998.

George, welcome. You're not the guy they based Alfalfa from The Little Rascals on, are you? ;-)

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 11, 1998.

Miss Emma,

I'm sorry, but I have no idea about what you speak. What are "the little rascals"?

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 11, 1998.

George, firstly let me say that I'll have to smack you around a bit if you insist on calling me Miss Emma. That's a no-can-do. Just Emma is fine.

And The Little Rascals was a cartoon I used to love watching when I was a wee young'un.

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 11, 1998.

George, please accept my apologies for the above entry. That was out of line.

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 11, 1998.

Welcome to the Shack, George.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 11, 1998.

Emma, I duly accept your apology, although I really know not why you would not wish me to call you by your title: such is merely a matter of correct propriety. Nevertheless, I shall honour your wishes.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 11, 1998.

George, you've really got me curious. Why do you speak the way you do? Not even people back in your favourite Edwardian era (1900-1913) spoke that way.

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 11, 1998.

George, did you like the movie Titanic? If so, which parts, if not, why not?

-- Emma (foo@bar.com.au), August 12, 1998.

Welcome to the Shack, George! Just call me Dan, but if you prefer otherwise, feel free. Whatever makes you happy. I do have a question, though I do not want to open a Pandora's box: did you like the movie, honestly? Or what did you like and what not (I'll avoid the word "hate") in "Titanic" (1997)? I was born in Romania where I lived for 25 years before 'moving around'. This movie has caught me in the middle of my immigration procedures to Canada and all my fellow companions here know about the many coincidences I had with this movie. At a certain point it even became eerie. What I do want to imply is the fact that now I have so much in common with this movie. I even found there was a third class passenger on Titanic who came from Romania and died in 1912. And my second question would be: Do you get some hype around being yourself a relative of the "richest man on board of Titanic?" Especially after this movie...On the side, I've never been to England yet, though I have a good friend in Sommerset. It's on my priority list.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 12, 1998.

Emma,

What, prithee, do you mean by "different speech"? I speak English, as do you and all the others here. What exactly do you find strange about my "facon de parler"? I am quite curious. Also, you might be interested to know that in the Edwardian age, they spoke just as we do today (of course, with a different accent).

Dan,

I have no qualms about referring to you by your first name. Apparently, you and quite a few others wish to know my opinion on the film, "Titanic". Sadly, unlike you, I did not enjoy it whatsoever - in fact, I detested it (I, too, shall refrain from using the word "hate"). Its trivialisation of the facts at hand, along with its portrayal of propriety as "wrong" and with the immense historial inncuracy (not in set design, but in happenstance) made for quite the dislikeable film. Cinematically, I found the screenplay wretchedly simple, the acting belaboured, and the cinematography (not that which was computer-generated, however) quite bland. Agreed, it was a very visually-stimulating film, but such does not make for good cinema - especially for a film which had such potential. Lastly, I am angered and upset at Mr. Cameron's profiting off the deaths of others - none of his proceeds (sans a "pay-off" to Mr. Murdoch's family) were given to maritime charities, let alone charities of any sort. 1958's "A Night To Remember" donated 75% of proceeds to survivors and victims' families. I do hope I haven't sounded too harsh in all this - I was merely exposing my actual opinions and views.

Dan, you asked "Do you get some hype around being yourself a relative of the "richest man on board of Titanic?" Especially after this movie..." The answer is, most assuredly (and thankfully) "no." We prefer not to be present in the media, and have nothing to do with the film at all. Actually, it is not my decision. My great-grandfather (not I or anyone else) is the executor of the Astor estate, as he is the closest living relative to Col. Astor (he is Col. Astor's nephew). Hence, all items to this end are under his control. I hope this answer has sufficed.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 12, 1998.

Welcome George, Since we all loved Titanic, and you obviously didn't, please do give us an example of a film you consider to be superior to Titanic and tell us why. Looking forward to your response.

-- Courtney (greenlane@sprint.ca), August 12, 1998.

George, thanks for your sincere answers. I appreciate your comments, too.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 13, 1998.

George,

What, prithee, do you mean by "prithee"? I have never heard that word before.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 13, 1998.

BTW George, may I just say that my mother loves the guy they had playing JJ Astor in the movie Titanic. She's a big fan of The Young And The Restless. Does the actor they had play him bear any resemblance to the real JJ Astor though? I've never seen an actual picture of him.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 13, 1998.

Okay, I just looked up "prithee" in the Collins Australian Gem English Dictionary and no such word exists. Therefore, what DOES it mean?

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 13, 1998.

Emma, "prithee" is a form of the old, "pray thee" you might have heard in Shakespeare or in some versions of the Bible. It means sort of, "I ask you...". I'm sure George has a more eloquent definition, however.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 13, 1998.

Thanks GAJ, I'll have to run out and grab a dictionary containing "ye olde English" text.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 13, 1998.

Emma,

"Gilded Age Junkie" is essentially correct. I know not about so-called "Australian English", or even "American English" (although "prithee" does appear in Webster's American-English Dictionary), but "prithee" most certainly is a word (do look at the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language - I consider it to be the only true authority). Literally, "prithee" means "I pray thee", which can be used as a synonym to "pray-tell", or "I ask thee". Since you live in Australia, and, having never been there, I do not know much about the dialect at hand - such is, perhaps, why you would never have heard of prithee.

"Gilded Age Junkie", "Prithee" isn't exactly "Old-English". I hear it almost daily. Only here on the internet have I ever seen anyone act surprised at its usage.

Miss Courtney, Since you requested a film that I consider superior to "Titanic" (there are many more than three-hundred), I will state my most favoured film of all: "The Last Emperor" (1987). My second most favoured film is "Out of Africa" (1985), my third is "Amadeus" (1984), and my fourth is "Gone With The Wind" (1939). I consider all these films superior to "Titanic" in virtually every way - from production values to acting, writing, and cinematography.

Emma,

The man who played Col. Astor in "Titanic" does look somewhat like the real man, although he was a bit taller than he should have been, and had a fuller figure. Col. Astor was quite a thin man, and was slightly less than six feet in height. I do not think, though, that the film presented him in good esteem. He was an amazing man, having been head of all artillery in the Spanish-American War, invented the bicycle hand-brake (which is still used to-day), and wrote an amazing "romance of the future" (science fiction), entitled "A Journey In Other Worlds". Contrary to what the film presents, he was an honourable man, whose second marriage did not exactly cause the "immense social scandal" that Mr. Cameron would have you believe. Indeed, Madeleine was eighteen years of age, and Col. Astor 45, but this was accepted in an age where most people did not live past 50. The only real objection that others had was that Miss Madeleine did not have a true univeristy education. However, she was enrolled in Vassar at the time of the Titanic's sinking, and could have continued her education after the voyage. Perhaps I've said too much - I answered your question many lines hence.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 13, 1998.

As you and I have discussed before, George, don't forget that the circle in which you travel is a great deal smaller than the rest of the English-speaking population. There's nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" about the way you and yours speak; but is IS different than 99% of the rest of us. This would account for the surprised reactions you receive when using words like "prithee" while online.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 13, 1998.

George, you say "I am angered and upset at Mr. Cameron's profiting off the deaths of others". Does that mean that you disapprove of any film that depicts an historical event in which one or more figures die? Should we never have made any war films?? Like...oh, I don't know...Schindler's List?? I don't think that James Cameron actually set out to grab all the money he could. He just wanted to tell the story. Is that so bad??

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 13, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Indeed. I'm afraid that I just have trouble discerning how my speech (or in this situation, writing) is so markedly different from that of, say, yourself.

Miss Allison,

I do believe that if one makes a film portraying modern historical events, one ought to contribute to those who made such events possible - especially those who endured (or even perished from) such hardships. When speaking of "Schindler's List" (which, incidentially, I have never seen, and do not wish to, as it portrays items too grusome, even though they are real and realistic, to portray on film within the bounds of propriety), I do know that Mr. Spielberg contributed most of his gains to various charities that deal with the Holocaust, and subjects related thereto. I have no qualms with historical films and so-called "docu-dramas" - I merely believe that a filmmaker should not, in the interest of morality, keep all his proceeds.

You stated that Mr. Cameron "just wanted to tell the story". If so, why, if I might ask, did he trivialise the matter by using fictional characters? Of course, this is not my sole reason for detesting "Titanic" - the cinematic reasons that I have listed above comprise the major part of my dislike. I do hope that this answer has sufficed.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 13, 1998.

George...can you REALLY AND TRULY not tell the difference between how I write and you write? It's glaringly obvious to me. I am not trying to cause trouble, I just find it fascinating if you can't see the differences.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 13, 1998.

George, I recommend that you watch Schindler's List. While it is gruesome, it is still a fantastic movie, although it really is quite sad.

And I think that James Cameron wrote Titanic using fictional characters so we could all "feel" what they were feeling, so to speak. If he had just made a documentary like "A Night to Remember" for example, we weren't getting a human perspective, so to speak. When I first watched Titanic, I literally felt like my heart was being torn out when Rose had to let Jack go into the water. If he hadn't created those two fictional characters, I might not have appreciated what it actually felt like.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 13, 1998.

Just Allison is fine, George.

I don't believe Cameron "trivialized" the matter at all. What brought you to that conclusion?? He used fictional characters with good purpose. He wanted us to feel what Jack and Rose were going through. He couldn't very well have done that with real people, could he?? He's not a mind reader. Using fictional characters, we are able to experience exactly what happened.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 13, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Certainly, you and I have different personal styles (one always has one's own personal style), but, as I find your postings quite readable, and replete with plain, ordinary speech (again - writing, in this case), I must confess that I really cannot find a substantial difference between your writing and that of myself. However, I would be quite intrigued to read your perception.

Emma,

I am afraid that, despite your suggestion, I shan't watch "Schindler's List". Whilst the Holocaust is a historical and saddening subject, its details remain too gruesome to be placed on film and still be within the bounds of propriety. I thank you for your suggestion, but I'm afraid such would not be possible.

You may not be aware, but "A Night To Remember" was not at all a documentary. Rather, it was a "docu-drama". Of course, it explores the human side (is there any other?) to the Titanic disaster. There were plenty of other, factual romances aboard the Titanic (many couples, husbands and wives included). Realise that Miss Rose was not an accurate example of an Aristocratic young woman from the time. Mr. Cameron compromised factuality and accuracy for the sake of melodrama. I cannot forgive him for this.

Allison,

I find, here, that women wish not to be referred to by their title. However, I am obliged to do as you wish in this manner.

The characters of "Jack" and "Rose" were quite one-sided - such contributes to the awful screenplay. As I stated above, Mr. Cameron merely used the characters as tools for his petty melodrama. They have nothing, albeit nothing to do with the RMS Titanic which sank in April of 1912. To me, the film is complete fiction, as, except for set-design, Mr. Cameron knew naught of his project - this is prevalent in the film. Again, I use a previous reference of mine: Miss Rose would not have acted the way she did - no young Aristocratic lady of that day would have. I relayed some of her actions to my great-grandfather (who was raised in this age, and shortly thereafter), and he discounted them as "pure rubbish" - certainly, I found Mr. Cameron's incorrect portrayal quite amusing.

I am quite sorry, but I cannot and shall not find "Titanic" a "good" film for, if such were a criterion for a good film, every commonplace cinematic escapade would win the Academys Best Picture award. I see Titanic as nothing more than a fictional, blasi, childish Love Story.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 14, 1998.

Hey George! How have you been doing? Anyway, since you said you would not watch Schindlers List, another good film dealing with that subject is "Au Revior Les Enfants"(I'll bet I spelled that wrong, oh well.) It's about a Catholic boys' school in France during WW2. It has the emotional impact of the persecution of Jews, without the intensity I've heard is in Schindler's List(I haven't seen Schindler's List). It's in French, with English subtitles. I must warn you, there is a bit of profanity, but nothing too much. It's meant to be a realistic portrayal, not a censored one. But it still shouldn't be too much of a problem. Anyway, I hope you'll go find it and watch it. It's really good.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 14, 1998.

George,

Hello, my name is Michael, and I've been following this thread closely, as your views fascinate and (at times) perplex me.

Quick question: You said the character of Rose was not an accurate depiction of an aristocratic young woman of those times. Can you be more specific? I know you mentioned that a woman would have not acted the way she did. However, the foundation of Rose's character was that she had no desire for the aristocratic lifestyle. In fact, she found it quite suffocating, which is why she found Jack's character so appealing. Is it impossible to believe that a woman might have existed back then that felt "propriety" was beginning to be a bit suffocating?

-- Michael (foo@bar.com), August 14, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I am pleased to hear from you once again. I am quite well, as I hope you are. I do believe I have heard of "Au Revoir Les Enfants", and I shall endeavour to watch it, as it sounds quite intriguing. I thank you for your suggestion.

Michael,

I agree - there were most certainly women at the time who rejected correct propriety (Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Ms. Emma Goldman, and Miss Margaret Sanger come to mind), but these women were not of Miss Rose's background. A girl raised like Miss Rose, in a good Aristocratic family (in Philadelphia, if I remember correctly) and in the manner of the day would certainly not act as she. First and foremost, she would not have the knowledge of the vulgar gesture that I recall her using on the lift toward the film's end. The mere fact that she possessed "no desire for the Aristocratic lifestyle" is impossible - American Aristocratic women and girls of the time had no reason to feel this. I have consulted my great-grandfather and grandparents in this matter; they neither know of such an instance as this occurring, nor can possibly think of a reason why this situation would ever occur - especially in 1912. It quite seems to me that Mr. Cameron has no understanding of the American Aristocracy. Miss Rose's character was one-dimensional and not well-thought. I appreciate your question, and hope that my answer has sufficed.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 14, 1998.

George,

I'm glad you're going to check out that movie, it's really good. I have a question: When, if ever, are you going to go back and visit the P.A.T.H. message board? Just curious.

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 14, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I'm afraid that you may not like my answer. I do not plan to return to the "P.A.T.H." board for quite some time (i.e. months), if at all. I do not mean to dishearten you, but such is the case.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 14, 1998.

That's too bad. But it's your decision to make. I assume you'll be hanging around this board though?

-- Kat (jumpingjellyfish@hotmail.com), August 14, 1998.

George, this question is a little late in coming; but in regards to your opinion that some of the proceeds from this film should go to the victims' families or charities, did your family receive part of the proceeds from "A Night To Remember"?

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 14, 1998.

Miss Kat,

I assume that "hanging out" is slang for "contributing". Yes, I do plan on contributing to this board (at least until school begins for me on the first of September). I have yet to encounter impropriety here.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

No Haverstroms received any proceeds from "A Night To Remember," as closer relatives to Col. Astor were living at that time. If memory serves me correctly, the executor of the Astor estate in 1958 was Col. Astor's son, John Jacob Astor V. You see, my great-grandfather has only been the Astor executor since 1992, after the death of the Colonel's son. Very few people with the name "Astor" are still alive, and their relation to the original Astors (John Jacob Sr., William Waldorf, John Jacob IV, etc.) are quite strained. My great-grandfather was the Colonel's nephew, as his mother, Alice Astor, was the Colonel's youngest sister (he had another, Helen Astor). I hope this answer has been sufficient.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 14, 1998.

Okay...then did the Astor estate receive any proceeds back then? Do you feel your family or other relatives should receive proceeds from Cameron's version by default, should they decided to do so?

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 14, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Yes, the Astor estate did receive a small portion of the proceeds from "A Night To Remember" in 1958 (I was correct - Col. Astor's son was the executor; my father confirmed this). I wish not to seem or be immodest (as immodesty is one of the worst items one can show), but I do believe that, just as all the other survivors and victims' families should receive proceeds, my great-grandfather should receive such as well. I quite apologise if this seem somewhat immodest, but I wish for it not to be so. For you see, such would be merely just. Victims' families only received grief from the Titanic disaster. One of my great-grandfather's first memories is of his mother crying for days at her brother's tragic death, and that nothing seemed to be able to comfort her. The RMS Titanic disaster was not merely a "thing" that occurred eighty years ago, which one studies to-day; it was one of the most tragic and horrible losses of human life in western history. No one feels this more than the survivors and victims' families.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 15, 1998.

George, if Cameron's film didn't do well and didn't come close to breaking even, as many predicted, should the survivors and their descendants have had to chip in to recover the loss? Recall that no one, not the Astor descendants, not the Titanic Historical Society, was asked to help fund the production. I think charity is up to the individual(s); it is not an obligation, moral or otherwise. Also keep in mind that it is the studios who dictate where proceeds will go, not directors. That 80 years passed since the event is significant. Although your (living) great grandfather saw his mother's pain over the death of her brother, that does not mean he himself was traumatized or should receive some of the docu-drama's proceeds.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 15, 1998.

Whether RMS Titanic itself should have had to pay more to the survivors and victims' families is a completely different story. I think it is discussed in the second "A Night to Remember" book and in a thread under "historical."

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 15, 1998.

"BobG",

Certainly, if the film had not succeeded, the survivors and victims' families should not have been enlisted to recover the losses. We owe nothing to Mr. Cameron or the cinema studios - it is they who owe we (or, more specifically, not I, but my great-grandfather). As I have stated, families received nothing but grief from the disaster, and, as Mr. Cameron is using the pain of the grieving and the tragedy of the deceased (as was done in "A Night To Remember"), the survivors and victims' families deserve a portion of the proceeds.

Indeed, eighty years have most certainly passed - this means nothing. Graverobbing still occurs. There are still living survivors, and living close relatives of the victims. Eighty years really isn't that long of a time - especially in modern society. Many people live past the age of eighty (my great-grandfather comes specifically to mind). Mr. Cameron does not honour the deceased - he trivialises them (I believe I have already explained this to the greatest length). If anyone deserves anything from this film, it is the survivors and victims' families. Anything else is purely un-just. Mr. Spielberg was kind enough to give the majority of the proceeds from "Schindler's List" to Holocaust organisations and charities; at the very least, Mr. Cameron should do the same for the Titanic (or, rather, the cinema studios should do so). If you were related to a victim, or closely knew someone who is, your outlook would most decidedly be the same as mine.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 15, 1998.

George, if the grief you claim this film has caused resulted from libel, it can be addressed through a lawsuit. Until that happens, the studios don't owe the descendants and less than 7 survivors anything, morally or legally. (A court of law is more objective than you or I.) If the grief resulted from realization that there was/is "impropriety" among all classes, it's probably not a bad thing.

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 15, 1998.

"BobG",

I assure you that the portrayal of the Aristocracy via Miss Rose and Mr. Hockley (not to mention all the others) was quite incorrect - impropriety is neither respected nor allowed (at any time, ever). Nevertheless, "grief" is not the chief reason for compensation (I do not think that this goes so far as "libel", either). The producers of "A Night To Remember" realised why: they were, in fact, profiting off the death and misery of others. Mr. Cameron and the cinema studios have done the same, hence, the survivors and victims' families deserve direct compensation thereof. I can see that we are not going to agree on this matter, so there really isn't much sense in further arguing. I certainly agree, however, that there is no legal matter at hand - purely moral.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 15, 1998.

Everyone will decide for him or herself what is a moral obligation, and when a large enough number of people agree, a law is made.

Your fourth favorite film, GWTW, also was made 80 years after the war depicted. Did proceeds go toward the survivors and descendants?

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 15, 1998.

"BobG",

I agree with your summary of the legal process. Such matters not in regard to the issue at hand. As neither of us will most likely agree with the other (and you cannot understand my viewpoint, as you have no Titanic-victim relatives), I do not think that we should further debate this issue.

You asked about "Gone With The Wind"; I do not know very much about the history or the making of this film. Although it did depict the American Civil War, it did not use any factual persons. Nevertheless, I personally believe that some contribution should have been made by the producers to a charity (the Daughters of the South, the Society for Our Fallen, &c.) dealing with the issue. The Civil War was a great tragedy, and should also be treated as such. However, I know not what happened to the proceeds from "Gone With The Wind."

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

PS: About the proceeds from "Gone With The Wind" - an interesting bit of trivia is that if one translates the dollar-value of the proceeds from "Gone With The Wind" (original 1939) into current American dollars, one can see that it grossed far more than "Titanic" during its initial release. In today's currency, "Gone With The Wind" grossed about $2.5 billion. This makes it the highest-grossing film of all time. I found this fact quite intriguing.

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 15, 1998.

George, though I understand your viewpoint as a relative of a Titanic victim, I don't really see how it's exactly fair. I think it would be a nice gesture for the studios involved in making this film to forward some monies to the remaining survivors or their families, or at least donate some money to ensure the preservation of the items brought up from the wreck site or whatever. However, as you mentioned Mr. Spielberg donating proceeds to survivors of the Holocaust, you must also remember that he himself is Jewish and that project was born out of a situation you and I can never understand (and hopefully we never will). His people were nearly extinguished, which in the scope of things makes it an altogether different situation than "Titanic" (not that I am trying to downplay HER trajedy, please do not misunderstand). If I am not mistaken (and someone please correct me if I am), Mr. Spielberg has his own company and runs the show. I do not know if Mr. Cameron can as yet wield the same kind of powere in Hollywood. As well, and this may sound stereotypical, but the fact is that the majority of the filmmaking industry is run by Jewish men and women; I'm sure they were much more willing to donate proceeds on that particular movie since it was something personal to all of them and/or their families.

One other point I'd like to make is that there are hundreds of films made about real historical tragedies and events every year; I suppose Hollywood has to draw the line somewhere. It is a business, after all, and it exists to make money. Every single movie one sees, whether based on fact OR completely fictional, has the potential to remind someone on the planet of some horrific even they've been through. Can you imagine if the studios had to donate proceeds to everyone offended by a film? Yikes! Just a thought...

Well...I've rambled long enough, and I'm still not sure I made myself clear in the least!:)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 15, 1998.

Welcome, George! Hello everyone else. I am sorry that I have missed you all lately.

George, I don't know if you have seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan" yet, or not, but do you think the production company should make contributions to the families of all the people who served, or were affected by WWII? I have seen that movie, and from what I can tell, it is a very accurate portrayal of what truly happened. However, there are people still alive who served there, or had close family members who served and possible died there. Should contributions be made to all of them?? I don't see how, logistically, it could be done in either case. You are, of course, a relative of J. J. Astor, but I think it would be difficult to not only find relatives of the people who died with the Titanic, but it would also be difficult to weed out all of the phony requests.

Just curious on your thoughts,

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 16, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

Indeed, the thought of studios giving proceeds to everyone offended by a film is quite frightful. However, such is not at what I am driving. I will say this one last time: Mr. Cameron (who, incidentally, was a producer of "Titanic") and the cinema studios involved are profiting off the horrible deaths of one-thousand, five-hundred and twenty-three men, women, and children. "Titanic" received $1.7 billion dollars in box-office proceeds, making $1.5 billion in profit. 'Tis only fair, just, and right that the survivors, victims' families, or at the very least charities receive a fair portion of this profit, as to profit immensely off the deaths of innocents is immodest, greedy, and unrighteous. Sadly, this is what today's cinema industry has become - something completely based on money-making, and not art.

You mention that Mr. Spielberg himself is a Jew, and such is the reason for his donations of the proceeds from "Schindler's List". However, to the best of my ability, I cannot link any of the producers or crew of "A Night To Remember" to Titanic survivors or victims - they donated such proceeds out of the kindness of their hearts. Lastly, I really do not think we should proceed on this tangent any further, as it has become quite clear that we are never going to agree. I propose that we "agree to disagree."

"Misty",

First, allow me to thank you for your kind welcome. I am afraid that I have not yet seen "Saving Private Ryan", and hence do not know the particulars of the film. However, I do know that much of it focuses on a portrayal of the Normandy invasion. Certainly, there were many more victims of this battle than victims of the Titanic, and this makes it quite hard to find all the survivors, soldiers, and victims' families. So, in this case, I feel that a charity dealing with the subject (i.e. the upkeep of Normandy graves, the World War II memorial in Washington, Arlington National Cemetary, the Veterans Administration, &c.) is better suited. I know not if such has been done as of yet, but I doubt it will be long before proceeds from "Saving Private Ryan" are donated to said charities.

You state that, "I think it would be difficult to not only find relatives of the people who died with the Titanic, but it would also be difficult to weed out all of the phony requests." I quite disagree. All the living survivors are known, and families aren't that hard to find. My proposal would be the same as the donations from "A Night To Remember" - that the executors (or executrixes, as some cases may present) of the victims' estates be given the proceeds in question. This only requires a bit of record-hunting, most of which can be made via computer.

The only logistical problem would most likely be the families of third-class victims, and those of some crew members, as they may not have such records. Hence, I propose that in such cases as a valid executor or executrix not be found, the amount thereof be donated to charities and non-profit organisations dealing with the RMS Titanic and other maritime issues (i.e. the Titanic Historical Society, the International Ice Patrol, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the National Geographic Society, &c.).

To all,

As of this coming Tuesday, I will not be able to contribute for a few days, as my family and I are traveling to Newport, RI, to stay with my grandparents and great-grandfather at their cottage. However, until that time, I will continue contributing to this board as I see fit.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 16, 1998.

George, no need to get angry, because in doing so you make ME angry, and we both know where that will lead us. I think it's great that the people involved in "A Night To Remember" donated proceeds to charity. I think it would be great of the people involved in "Titanic" to do so as well. But what's good for the goose must also be good for the gander, and we simply cannot rope off this particular film and demand it pay money to charities or victims families without also demanding it of every film abour war, the IRA, the Holocaust, "cowboys and Indians", slavery, child abuse, etc. It MUST remain something done out of the kindness of hearts, otherwise what's to gain from it?

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 16, 1998.

off the subject, George, but I'm wondering why you haven't checked out any of the other threads on this site. I am interested in your feedback on some of them.:)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 16, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

I quite apologise for causing your perception of my anger, as I did not mean to convey anger at all - I was not upset at all. I am merely quite tired of this tangent, as it is quite clear that neither you, nor I, nor "BobG" are about to agree on this subject.

I did not mean to convey, at any time, that I felt a law should be made on this matter - such would be quite mad. I agree - such should be done out of the kindness of one's heart, and, if one does not do so, one is not kind. Personally, I believe (and I hope you can understand my viewpoint) that the producers of any film on such tragic subjects ("cowboys and Indians" isn't exactly something I would consider relevant here) should donate a fair portion of their proceeds to charities or other relevant causes (i.e. the persons or relatives of persons involved).

You state "child abuse" among these different subjects. A film of a few years hence, entitled "Radio Flyer" donated seventy-five per-cent of its gross proceeds to charities dealing with this topic. It is quite easy to recognise filmmakers' motives via their handling of the profits received. Again, I must state: I wish not to discuss this tangent any further as, at some point, one must "agree to disagree". I do hope you will agree to this (no humour intended).

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 16, 1998.

Sorry I mistook your anger. If you don't check out any of the other threads, though, this tangent may go on forever!:)

I saw "Radio Flyer" myself. It's a great little picture. I have been following Joseph Mazzello's work ever since (looks wise, he reminded me of my little brother at that age). I also recommend "The Cure", which stars him; but be prepared for some serious boo-hooing! If no one knows who I am talking about, he is the little boy in "Jurassic Park".

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 16, 1998.

George, hi again!

I would like to shift a little bit the discussion from proceedings to the movie itself. We know the main reasons why you and your family do not like "Titanic" (1997). I am sure that there might be some problems in depicting real characters from Titanic. But I do believe that Cameron's initial intention was only to use the drama as a background for his love story, fictional, yet somewhat possible. When Cameron made the first dives to the Titanic wreck he recalls being 'hit' by the real drama and from that point he decided to respect the history as much as possible and to 'live up to the highest level of autenticity.' I was impressed to see many later documentaries presenting photos of some of the most famous people aboard Titanic. The actors in the movie came pretty close to the real passengers. They even ordered buttons from 1912 etc. I also believe that the movie should be understood as a fairy tale, more with an open heart than open mind. I would draw a paralel, if I might be allowed, with the core teachings of Christianity: to believe in the Bible without trying to find Noah' Ark or the Holly Grail. I think the story of this movie should simply be viewed as understood more in terms of the love story developed between Rose and Jack than a pure recollection of the 1912 drama. Cameron was often telling that the movie is not about Titanic, but rather about the fictional Rose and Jack. Therefore, because the movie was not simply about the Titanic disaster, Cameron should be allowed to improvise as he might have done. In order to depict those real Titanic passengers in a very accurate way, a movie as such should require many more hours, which is not only costly but quite inappropriate. Yes, Jack and Rose, as well as others, could have been depicted as one-sided. We could have known them better, perhaps. Jack was no saint, while Rose was "no picnic." Cal is not necessarily a bad man for he paid the trip for Rose and her mother and was ready to offer Rose a 'royal' gift. And yet, the events of that April 14 night could have distorted the behavior of many passengers and crew. I know this because I can recollect some of my own memories from my army days, when people (including myself) can act differently than they would otherwise do in more normal situations. Under stress people act differently. But before I'm accused of rambling too much, my qestion is: Why all the success of this movie? People were mesmerized by this movie and continue to be so. Irrespective of age, nationality, gender etc. And it's not the first movie 'about' Titanic. George, even though you dislike the movie, how can you explain the success? I would appreciate if you could answer this question after you return from your trip. You might have a talk with your family on this issue, albeit you might have already done this before. I'm curious what they think about this and I'm sure your answer would be much appreciated by other people who regularly check this board. Finally, have a nice trip, George! All my best regards to your family!

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 16, 1998.

"Gilded Age Junkie",

You are quite correct - I ought to begin contributing to other "topics". However, I find it difficult to interest myself in the other topics. Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so.

Dan,

First, I must thank you for your kind wishes. However, I shan't be leaving until Tuesday morning. I shall contribute until that time. Again, though, I quite thank you for your words.

Sir, there was a very accurate (via the knowledge of the time) film about the Titanic, and I have mentioned its title many times: "A Night To Remember". It needed not be longer than "Titanic", but was nevertheless accurate to the "nth" degree. I find it difficult to view "Titanic" as a fable, as the RMS Titanic disaster was and is most certainly not a fable - your view of the film as such merely proves my statement that Mr. Cameron trivialised the disaster to the fullest.

On an earlier post, I stated that "Titanic" was not historically inaccurate not in production values (which includes costuming, set-design, &c.), as these were quite correct. However, it is most inaccurate and incorrect in much happenstance, and almost completely incorrect in its portrayal of the different character types of the period. As I have previously stated, no young lady of the American Aristocracy would ever have acted like Miss Rose, or had her personality - especially in 1912.

The rest of the first-class passengers, save for Mrs. Brown (also incorrectly portrayed), were one-dimensional, brash, haughty, and snobbish - both a direct insult to the American Aristocracy and completely inaccurate. Of course, all of the steerage passengers portrayed are righteous, good individuals - full of charm, wit, and innocence. Mr. Cameron's mere character types are complete rubbish.

I have pondered your question previously, as the success of "Titanic" astounded me, being second in profit only to "Gone With The Wind". I believe I have arrived at the answer to this question, however, I must first state that I wish not offend anyone through it. It has the potential to be quite offensive to those who enjoyed the film, although I do not mean it so, as I do not blame any of you for it - it is Mr. Cameron's fault. Simply put, "Titanic" fooled you - that is, you and all the others who enjoyed it. Via its spectacle, hype, and production values, it fooled you. In reality, the acting is belaboured and wooden, the live cinematography pedestrian, and the writing simple, cliche-ridden, and repetitive. "Cinema" and "spectacle" are not analagous; "good" acting, writing, cinematography, editing, and production values all form a "good" film. Do notice that "Titanic" did not receive any acting or writing awards. I believe I have answered your question.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

PS: I ought to inform you that I am a student of film, being a sold-yet-unproduced screenwriter. Lastly, to all who read my posts, the main portion of my dislike of "Titanic" stems not from my feelings toward Mr. Cameron or his handling of the film's profit, but from my cinematic observations about the film.

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 16, 1998.

"Simply put, "Titanic" fooled you - that is, you and all the others who enjoyed it. Via its spectacle, hype, and production values, it fooled you."

I have to say that you are very, very WRONG about that. Not everyone got sucked into the hype of Titanic. I went to see Titanic only a few days after it came out, and I hadn't heard a thing about it. I had no clue as to what it was about, except that it took place on the Titanic (yes, I'm a genius!). A friend asked me to go with her, and I went. And I loved it. It had nothing to do with the hype. I didn't know how much it cost to make. I loved it for what it was.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 16, 1998.

George, please do elaborate a little on the ways Cameron fooled the fans. Being a student in cinematography you could give us some technicalities that might escape us. I saw the repetitions rather as symmetry, sometimes quite ironic. One reason why I fell in love with the movie was the cornucopia of symbols and symmetry all over the movie. I did not catch many of them until my repeated views. And I thought that other movies did not have these things to offer.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 17, 1998.

George, just quickly, what did you mean by "I have yet to encounter impropriety here.". Why do you think you would encounter impropriety here?

Also, how do you know just how a lady from the American Aristocracy would have acted in 1912 unless you were a lady from 1912? In all generations, there are "good girls" and "bad girls". I assume that your mother was a good girl and while I'm not implying that Rose was a "bad girl" you cannot judge her like that.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 17, 1998.

Allison,

Do forgive me - I did not state my message well enough. Not everyone was "fooled" by each article of trickery. For example, as you so profoundly stated, you were not influenced by the hype. I respect that, and meant no offense. However, you appear to have been "fooled" by the spectacle of it all, as I suspect was the cause of most people's trickery. I do believe Mrs. Pauline Kael, the esteemed cinema critic, stated it best. When asked almost the same question as was I herein, Mrs. Kael stated, "What has happened to the American film industry is saddening. 'Titanic' was not the finest movie ever made, and I wouldn't even list it among the 100 best - however, it may be the finest film that many viewers have ever seen. That is what I find appalling and sad. 'Titanic' was not another 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Ben-Hur'. Cameron might have wanted it to be, but it lacks overall substance."

Dan,

First, let me elaborate that I am not a student of cinematography (cinematography being defined as "camera work") - I am a screenwriter, although I do have some knowledge on the subject of cinematography. In studying cinema, one learns that the finest writing and story-line contain hidden symbolism: something that one must study in depth to comprehend. The finest symbolism argues a philosophical case (which may be whatever the director or writer wishes). In my opinion, the best creator of fine cinematic symbolism is Mr. Stanley Kubrick (i.e. his films Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, 2001, &c.). Mr. Kubrick possesses true cinematic genius - he is regarded by cinema historians as a genius among the likes of Mr. D.W. Griffith, Sir David Lean, Mr. Bernardo Bertolucci, and Mr. Federico Fellini. "Titanic", especially when compared to the films of Kubrick, Griffith, Lean, Bertolucci, and Fellini, is a very common, ordinary, simple, and pedestrian film. Its symbolism (however little there actually is), is plainly viewable, and takes no study to uncover (for example, the scene in which Mrs. Dewitt-Bukater laces Miss Rose's corset - such speaks for itself).

You stated that, "other films do not have these things to offer". Sir, I would suggest you study the following films, as they have much more to offer in the way of cinematic symbolism than "Titanic": "Intolerance", "2001: A Space Odyssey" (spend quite a while on this one, as it quite possibly possesses the most hidden symbolism of any film in cinema history), "Lawrence of Arabia", "8 1/2" (perhaps the runner-up to "2001" in terms of hidden symbolism), and, of course, my personal favourite, "The Last Emperor" - one of two films to sweep the Academy Awards (the other being "Gigi" - they were both nominated for nine awards, including all major categories, and won them all). After viewing and/or studying these films, I am quite certain that you view of "Titanic" will be quite changed.

Emma,

As a member of the American Aristocracy, and as one who has studied this subject for quite some time, I do know of what I speak. I quite agree - in all generations there are "good" girls and "bad" girls, but as I have observed, and as all my family members, relations, friends, and peers know, no young lady among us is insolent, insubordinate to her circle, and improper. "Bad" girls amongst the Aristocracy are those whose performance is less than desired, and who posess several mean qualities. I know how young Aristocratic ladies of the Edwardian period acted - such is quite simple. They acted properly, and none were raised in a manner that could result in their being like Miss Rose. Verily, Mr. Cameron did not research the Aristocracy.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

PS: My statement about finding impropriety here was due to the fact that I recently left a message board, due to the overwhelming content of impropriety and prejudice against me.

PPS: This will be my final message before we leave for Newport. Our train departs at 10:00 AM today, EST.

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 18, 1998.

George,

First, I want to wish you a safe trip. I am sure you will not see this message until after you have returned, but I wish it anyway.

Second, movie-making is part of the entertainment industry. Obviously, there were millions upon millions of people who were entertained by this movie. That can be proven by the ticket sales. Whether the movie was "good" or "bad", or had all of the elements people look for in critiquing a movie or not, that is a matter of opinion. I feel that more importantly than critics opinions of movies, peoples opinions of movies should be taken into consideration. The symbolism and the symmetry of this movie were discussed in detail many times. The enjoyment of this movie went far beyond how first class passengers acted or didn't act. James Cameron made it widely known that he DID NOT want to make another documentary. I do not think he did any injustice to the victims or the survivors of the disaster. His movie made people more aware of the tragedy, and for those who did not have family or friends on the Titanic, the emotions of the event never really hit us until now. Only now were we able to say "Oh my God, how horrible this must have been". The book "A Night To Remember" was back on the best seller's list, museums devoted to Titanic were being poured into, and the documentarys were bein shown again. all because people wanted to know as much as they could about this event.

There were historical inaccuracies, no one is debating that. However, the important thing this movie did, was take Titanic out of history books and make it human again.

That is my opinion. Sorry for rambling on like that.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 18, 1998.

That was very well said, Misty.

And I agree with you. I don't think that we can listen only to the critic's opinions. Whether or not it's a good movie depends on YOU. When Pauline Kael says "What has happened to the American film industry is saddening. 'Titanic' was not the finest movie ever made, and I wouldn't even list it among the 100 best....'Titanic' was not another 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'Ben-Hur'.", that isn't necessarily true. Maybe she doesn't believe it's the finest movie ever made, but others may think so, as she stated. It all depends on the viewer and there's no right or wrong answer. They know what they like and just because a critic says it wasn't on their "100 best" list, doesn't mean that it's a bad movie. To be honest, I couldn't care less where it lands on her list or anyone else's for that matter. With every movie, there will always be some who loved it, some who couldn't care less either way, and some who hated it.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 18, 1998.

George...though you won't get this till you come back...I must address your statement regarding the "other message board". I have been ludicrously nice to you thus far; but I have to say that you don't understand the meaning of the word "prejudice". I wish you wouldn't mislead these fine people in such a way. I'll consent to "rudeness", "gross misconduct", or even the all too familiar "impropriety", but it was never, ever "prejudice".

And that's hopefully the only time I will lose my temper here.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 19, 1998.

George, I hope you're having a nice trip to RI right now when I'm posting my answer here.

I did see most of the movies you were indicating in your answer for me. Indeed, Kubrick is a genius and I love his "2001: A Space Odissey." I also liked "The Last Emperor," "Dr. Strangelove," and many movies of Fellini, Bertolucci etc. Films like "Ben-Hur," "Spartacus" and others are forever. Like diamonds... Same goes for "Gone With the Wind." And yet none of them has stuck so much in my mind and heart as "Titanic." As others have said it here, its intensity made many people who did not care so much for the disaster to search for the history of this tragedy. It was very humanized, and it is not only the humanization of the drama, but also the way it portrays a lost period, the Edwardian era. An era when man was supreme, almost "flying in the face of God," as one passanger put it when she referred to the grandious and 'unsinkable' ship. While you believe that this movie faulted in presenting the true American Aristocracy of the time, which I may not disapprove for I know not that period in any realistic and personal way, I believe that in some ways, people like the movie today because they also see some of the good things of the period that are lost today. What I do want to say is that self sacrifice and family bonds were much stronger at that time. In addition, the general behavior of the men, quite irrespective of class, showed maturity and sacrificial acceptance. To die as a gentleman was the rule back then, as well as to protect the women and children. I know from my grandfather how much importance society had given to honour and duty. Personal life was circumscribed to those two. Even after the Edwardian era. When people watch this movie they surely ask themselves how they would react today in these circumstances. They might find out that this Edwardian spirit of sacrifice might not be so strong today, to say the least. Families are not so strong today as they were before, and I believe the story of Jack and Rose, albeit fictional, came only to empower the reality of the time and be brought closer to the viewer aside the historical and real characters. It shows some of the real values of the time, people giving their lives for one another, even crossing social barriers. As I said before, the characters could have been too simplified, but let's not forget that the events happen to be on a ship, and not on "solid ground." These people were travellers. When you are taking the best cruise of your life (thought so) you are somewhat different than in your hometown or workplace. It is almost like being on vacation, when you act a little bit different than in your 'normal' society. Movies like "Ben-Hur" or "The Last Emperor" are located in deep history and it is easy to put them in the real historical context. But to put history on a ship cruising in the middle of the Atlantic, with all the joy associated with the first trip of this grandious ship, becomes more difficult.

Finally, I would not care too much what critics have to say about this movie. They usually don't go in the same direction as the masses. They want to be different and non-gregarious. They did not like the movie from the start, made fun of the cost of the movie and wished that it would not recover financially. In reaction, people flocked to the movies, probably trying to prove the critics were wrong. I would rather hate the media for all the hype generated after the release of the movie, because this made many people not want to see the movie. Many articles or reports were not professional and they diverted the meaning of the movie to what it was not meant to. Instead of the real "Titanic," we heard of the drama itself, Leonardo DiCaprio etc. Yet, many of those anti-hype reactions were overturned after a first view of the movie. I recall that a friend of mine who did not want to see it because she hated the hype around the movie, but once she saw the movie she became speechless for about an hour. I don't know if this movie was bad or good, of high quality or low quality, if it can be put among the first 100 movies of all time or not, but I know that my heart and soul have reacted in a way they never did before. This movie will always be there on my soul's chart and nobody could persuade me to change my feelings. The pictures, the astounding music, the many lines that stuck to my mind, the band returning to sing during the fatal hours, the facial expressions, symbols and motives etc, they all synergically combined in a way that made this movie something to remember. Something that makes you admit, as Molly Brown said about the sinking ship: "Now that's something you don't get to see every day."

In the end, it is the message that really counts. The movie made people more open-hearted, more receptive to the Titanic tragedy and the human tragedy in general, they learned 'to make time count' in their life and relationships, be aware of falling into technological traps and even more religious in way. But of course, de gustibus non disputandum... Some will like the movie, some not. Yet, if you open your heart and follow the story and less the full historical details, the movie becomes a show of pleasure, a biblical chapter, in a way... It changes forever the young generation, that usually is reluctant to take advice or understand the stories told by older people. This movie becomes a commendable medium to link the older and younger generations, to make the teenagers of today understand the past in a way they would probably not care or be affected from history books. If this would be the only accomplishment of the movie, it would be good enough...

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 19, 1998.

I have to agree with Gilded. A 17 yr old "American Aristocrat" who writes at a dizzying height of pedantry and ostentation that would leave William F. Buckley, Jr. gasping for breath should expect an occasional derisive response. If it's a form of prejudice, it's easily overcome. George would do well to adopt a more casual writing style here. Could it be that George is afraid that his comments, distilled of archaism, would seem to carry less weight? (This comment, of course, is coming from someone who used the word "dramaturgy" in a previous posting.)

I appreciate Dan's defense of "Titanic". Along with "Titanic", "2001: A Space Odyssey" is also one of my favorite movies. It's interesting that so many people have these two favorites in common. The two movies are almost totally opposite in tone; they're like yin and yang. "2001" is as coldly intellectual and remote as "Titanic" is sentimental and emotional. But both films share similar views of man vs. technology.

I agree with George's artistic views on "Titanic"."Titanic" is not an art film, and Cameron had no avant-garde aspirations. So what? Appreciate the film for what it is, and what it does achieve rather than for what it could have been. It took me a long time to get to this conclusion, but better late than never. If George is being truthful regarding his relation to the Astor family, I can see how he might have problems with the films depiction of the upper classes, especially JJ Astor. I suppose my impression of "Citizen Kane" differs from that of relatives of W.R. Hearst. In short, George, we'll take your thoughts on this matter under proper advisement....

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 19, 1998.

Please forgive me, but my history is not very good. Wasn't Patty Hearst from a well-to-do family? Didn't she fake her kidnapping? Perhaps someone can let me know for sure. If she did, wouldn't that be an example of a "bad" girl as was stated earlier? I believe that even in the "Aristocracy" there is/was the possibility that one or two people may go against the "norm" It is a little presumptuous to say the a young girl would NEVER act in that manner, particularly for a time when you were not alive. Granted, I was not alive in that time either, but I believe that people need to accept the possibility that things happen in life that they have no knowledge or control of.

George, what exactly was it that offended you and your family about the way the upper class was portrayed. Please enlighten us.

Misty

-- Misty Chacon (whatever@something.net), August 19, 1998.

George, maybe you should tell us how you would have changed the movie had Cameron asked for your advise. That might help more the discussion if we become more detailed than defending or accusing the movie in general.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 19, 1998.

Dan Draghici: that was great! It's the best defense I've heard yet of this film!

Mr. Dalton, welcome to our discussion. We've been anxiously awaiting your arrival, and I must say it was just what I expected!:)

Misty...since George isn't here (and I can't remember if and when he told us he'd return), please allow me to draw upon my numerous conversations with George to attempt an explanation. From what he has told me, there is a VAST difference between what is labeled the "American Aristocracy" and the "well-to-do" (he would in fact call the latter the "nouveau-riche"). One difference is that the aristocracy is old money. REALLY old money. Generations of it. The well-to-do is relatively new money (as Ruth called Molly). The aristocracy HATES the nouveau-riche. They believe they are "awful", "deplorable" people (I am directly quoting George, here) because they are nothing more than proletarians with some cash (that's my paraphrase). I would have to agree with him in some aspects (like certain pro-sportsmen who would've ended up in jail if not for their skill at a GAME). However, George claims that money is not the issue in the Aristocracy (take that as you will), but rather if propriety is something you live and breathe and center your life around. It goes beyond etiquette and table manners. It's a way of life for them, and anyone within the aristocracy who rebels is in some serious trouble, perhaps disowned. But then, George says there is no reason to rebel, they are all happy with their lives and such is simply not done or even considered. All that to say, if Ms. Hearst WAS a member of the aristocracy (and I don't know), she is certainly frowned upon now for behaving in such a manner (is she still alive? I can't recall...). If she WASN'T a member of that group, then her actions are not surprising for one of the "nouveau-riche".

I hope I have helped out a little. I don't know...

Here's what I think regarding George's statements that Rose would never behave that way back then: Some woman, somewhere, of good social standing MUST have been disheartened enough with her life at that time to start and/or join the sufferage movement. According to George, the women of today's American aristocracy conduct themselves by the same rules and regulations as did the ladies of the Edwardian Era (minus the corsets...though they still don't wear slacks). I say that "Rose" was real, alive and kicking back then. If not, where would women of today be? I dare say in an aristocratic household, serving a husband and children and stifling our dreams. It is not only possible that someone like Rose has behaved that way, but it is also most likely.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 19, 1998.

It's understandable that George views Rose's "improprieties" as rebellion against the aristocracy given his background. Sure, there was some of that. But he should realize that the vast majority of viewers of "Titanic" respond to Rose, as Gilded said above, as a proto-feminist, not a socialist despite Cameron's quip, "We're holding just short of Marxist dogma." (or something to that effect). The feminism thing is what I believe Cameron intended to convey. And feminist principles originated in the upper classes, not from the bottom up. So the character of Rose is somewhat realistic in that respect (forgetting the poor dialogue, contrived prescience, etc.) I don't think it's coincidence that the majority of repeat-viewers of Titanic are female (part of this is, of course, was the "Leo-luver" contingent which we can dismiss; male viewers respond more to the history of the Titanic tragedy itself than Rose's struggle.)

If the movie argued against "propriety", it argued that it constrained ALL classes, and particularly the upper class. Was Jack more comfortable at the first class dinner, or was Rose freer at the steerage dance? I hope that George does not confuse propriety with moral behavior (although I have previously argued that Rose's behavior was the essence of selfishness).

As for woman's suffrage, I have a two-word argument against it : Bill Clinton.

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 20, 1998.

Hhhmm, anyone else find it strange that Dalton appears just as George goes on holiday? ;-)

-- Innocent Bystander (foo@bar.com), August 20, 1998.

Yes, it is weird... I do hope they're different persons. But in any case, there's a debate going on which is good.

-- Observer (obs@foo.bar), August 20, 1998.

Believe me when I say that Dan could not possibly be George. Not in a million years.

Dan, if I had voted for Clinton, I would certainly have taken offense to your statement. Since I didn't, I won't take blame for that waste of space being in office. Regarding my comments on sufferage, to me it represents the beginning of all movements feminist. Though I do not consider myself one (and am often disgusted by some of the actions of today's "feminists"), I can look back and see that the freedoms I enjoy today came from some unbelievably "ballsy" women who came forward during a time when it was still frowned upon for a woman to be seen in public while pregnant. I was less speaking specifically of the right to vote than the beginnings of the rights women enjoy today in general. And I'm glad you brought up the fact that the women who started all these things were from the upper classes! They were the ones with the social power; how much good would it have done from someone of the lower class? Sad, yet true...

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 20, 1998.

What, prithee, gave one the idea that George and I might be one and the same? OK, I SWEAR I will never use the word "dramaturgy" again!

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 20, 1998.

P.S. : Isn't it strange that "Innocent Bystander" is here while "Emma" is in Australia? An eerie coincindence? No, just the stuff of dramaturg.... d'oh!

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 20, 1998.

Hey, where's Bob G been lately????

-- Curious (foo@bar.com), August 21, 1998.

D'oh!!! Okay Dan you found me out. I was Innocent Bystander and a little bird pointed out that you may be George which I didn't go for so I thought I'd just post the above entry and see what response I got.

As they say, small things . . .

-- Innocent Bystander aka Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 21, 1998.

DID I MISS SOMETHING??? How on earth, Dan, did you figure that Innocent Bystander was Emma??? Wow. I hope there's a logical explanation. Maybe the "accident" gave you psychic powers or something...

(*giggle*snort*)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 21, 1998.

You did miss something Gilded, Dalton and I "go way back" at the Mr Showbiz room you're always hearing about. I used to use the name "Innocent Bystander" over there and I'm guessing that's how he figured out it was me.

PS. Dan, if you can, please email me.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 21, 1998.

BobG is right here, Emma! Silent, but observing. Near far wherever I am...*gag* I assure everyone that George is not a creation of any of this site's regulars. Guilded and I met him on another site, and while a couple times I've wondered if he's who he claims he is, Guilded and I have agreed his story has been consistent and he has remarkable detailed knowledge of the "American Aristocracy" and Astor family (though none of it has been verified by either of us). Unrelatedly, George, once you return..doesn't Clinton bring new meaning to "impropriety"?

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 21, 1998.

Getting further off the subject...ah, hell, who cares, the friggin movie came out 8 months ago...Emma, I didn't mean to assume you were "Curious" (though you are quite the impersonator). There was a "Curious" from Mr. Showbiz chat site months ago...Curious, are you the same one? If so, I loved your anti-Titanic rantings. BTW, I recently remembered that I was the one who brought over several of the current contributors to TitanicShack from Mr. Showbiz, among them Dalton, Draghici, Emma, Misty ("Mystified"), and probably Allison (another impersonator...no offense, Allison, I used to be a major impesonator). Thank you, thank you. *sound of applause, as Guilded walks up the staircase to meet me* *smooch* *more applause* *camera pans into white heaven*

-- BobG (rgregorio@ibm.net), August 21, 1998.

*bows down and kisses BobG's feet for bringing her to the TitanicShack* Hey what's this, I never impersonated anyone, I just went under a "nom de plume". Is that so wrong??!! =)

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 21, 1998.

OK, "moment of truth ... somebody's life's going to change..."

Ha-ha! Well, Emma was not the only "innocent" to believe that Dan Dalton = George. I emailed her some time ago asking her this question. The only basis for the assumption was the conspicuous absence of any comments coming from Dan on this thread for a long time. I assumed he only tried one of his many tricks to get people talk... So mea culpa, Dan, mea culpa, George :-)

And the clouds vanished and the sun spoiled us again with thousands of warm and delicate arrays... "And there was a new heaven and a new earth (at the Shack)... for the former earth (suspicion) has passed away..."

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), August 21, 1998.

Emma: Thanks for blowing the brief illusion of my godlike omniscience. But at least I'm proven to have a long memory. I would email if I knew my email address. I'm on sprynet, my user name is SPRY836657. But if I try to use that as an email address here, it's not accepted as a valid address. When I log on I go straight to the Packard Bell site (God knows why). I've given up trying to figure it out. Maybe I'll just change servers sometime.

Dan: Sorry if I confused you. But my writing, while as ludicrously ponderous in style as George's, is usually accompanied by what George would consider "gross impropriety", or "humour". Also his grammar is more precise and contains very few mispellings.

Bubba: Thanks for delivering us here from Mr. Showbiz, where "I luv Leo." passed as intelligent commentary (at least when you, Dan, Emma, Misty, or getreal weren't there). Also thanks for never using a nom de plume. Your friend, Dalton (aka Die Titanic Die, Homer Simpson, Chauncy Gardiner, Forrest Gump, Mindless L. Creature, to lanD, etc.).

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 21, 1998.

Oops! I didn't mean to leave Allison as one of the upper class at Mr. Showbiz. But we didn't get along after I teased her about Winnipeg, failed to comment intelligently on the German Unification, and found out that she doesn't like to play the piano. Also, I suspect that she was "Michelle Kwan". (hahaha)

-- Dan Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 21, 1998.

Ha ha ha, you don't know how long I laughed at your entry, Dalton. Didn't mean to leave me out!!! HA HA HA!!! That's a good one. =) Anyway, just to let you know, I did try to get along with you but you always seemed to have something else to do rather than talk to me. *sob*! And sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't "Michelle Kwan". Just out of curiosity, what made you think that? Or are you just bugging me, as always?? =)

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 21, 1998.

Okay, all you Mr. Showbiz people. I'm feeling severely confused and neglected. :( I WANT TO PLAY NOW, TOO!

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 21, 1998.

Okay, guys and gals, sorry for whining (long, tiring week). My cyberhusband just "spanked" me for it.

Not that I particularly MINDED it, however...:)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 22, 1998.

BobG, to answer your query about my names over at Mr Showbiz, I never did go by the name "Curious". I never bagged Titanic. Some of my other names at Mr Showbiz were El Barto, Dilemma, Dundee, Emmy Lou, Chucky, Innocent Bystander and that's all I can remember. Can anyone else recall any of my other pseudonyms, I know I had more than those.

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 23, 1998.

I can't believe you forgot "Aussie Hick"!! =)

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 23, 1998.

Well...you're just a barrel of laughs, aren't you Allison? Stop being so mean...

-- Gilded Age Junkie (GildedAgeJunkie@yahoo.com), August 23, 1998.

Hooly Dooly! Great doogely woogely! I can't believe I forgot Aussie Hick either. D'oh! Thanks for reminding me. I know there are a couple of others but they escape me for the time being :-)

-- Emma (dilemma76@hotmail.com), August 23, 1998.

I wasn't being mean, Gilded, she really used that name.

-- Allison (allisonelizabeth@mb.sympatico.ca), August 23, 1998.

I suggest we close this thread until (or unless) George returns....

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), August 24, 1998.

To all,

I have just returned from a wonderful vacation in Newport, to find an amazing amount of contributions to this section of the message board. I will attempt to answer as many posts as possible, and not be confusing.

Misty,

Yes, cinema is a part of the entertainment industry. However, one must draw a line between entertainment and art. A good film should be Art. Titanic was not art  it was spectacle. When rating it cinematically, I dub it rubbish. Only true art (and good art at that) should win the Academys Best Picture award. There are finer films, even on the subject of the RMS Titanic, than the film at hand.

Dan,

I am afraid I wholly disagree with you. Titanic did not show the Edwardian age in any good light whatsoever. In fact, one of the points of the film was exactly the opposite  Edwardian propriety was awful, stuffy, constraining, and even evil. Of course, this is not true. However, one need only look at one scene to discern this, viz. the scene in which Miss Rose scowls at a mother teaching her daughter the proper feminine way to place a napkin on ones lap.

You state that one should not look at critics opinions of Titanic, as they wish to go against the masses. The actuality is quite the contrary. I can only think of two major film critics who panned Titanic  Mr. Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, and Mrs. Pauline Kael.

Mr. Dalton,

I welcome you to this topic. You seem to have made several strong statements against me, which is strange, seeing that you do not know me in the least. Interestingly, you seem to dislike my writing style. I assure you that I am writing casually, as the internet is quite a casual affair. You state, George would do well to adopt a more casual writing style here. Could it be that George is afraid that his comments, distilled of archaism, would seem to carry less weight? What, sir, would you consider to be a more casual writing style. I have not used a formal or analytical style whatsoever here. I write as I speak, and I assume that such is not very different from your method of speech. As I stated to Gilded Age Junkie, I really cannot see the difference between, say, your writing and mine. Please enlighten me as to what you have noticed.

You state that I have written in a pedantic and ostentatious manner. This is quite insulting, and quite incorrect. What, sir, do you have against me? How have I ever harmed you? Again, I write as I speak, and I speak quite normally. What would be the sense otherwise? Lastly, how is my writing archaic? I have only written in modern English here (what would be the sense otherwise?). You havent made the nicest first impression upon me.

Misty,

I do not know of Miss Hearst. However, if she is of any relation to Mr. William Randolph Hearst, I assure you that she was not a member of the Aristocracy. I know of no Hearsts among the Aristocracy, and neither do my parents. My statement was not presumptuous in the least. Amongst the Aristocracy, one has no reason to do what Miss Rose did. My statement is not presumptuous in the least. Verily, such never occurred (especially during that period). I have studied the Edwardian period in detail, and know of no instance of an Aristocratic young lady acting like Miss Rose. Such would have been a full-blown social scandal.

Dan,

Your question is quite interesting, and quite difficult to answer. However, I can say that, had I made Titanic (not that I would have made such a film in the first place), I would have done the following: omitted each fictional character (and placed another, real couple in the place of Miss Bukater and Mr. Dawson), hired accent coaches for the cast, re-written the dialogue, so as to be free of clichis, omitted the historical inaccuracies from the screenplay, given more than one dimension to each major character, presented each group in their actual light, chosen a score of period music, not spent the annual budget of a small country (Mr. Camerons style could be dubbed Reagan-esque filmmaking), given seventy-five percent of the films proceeds (split equally) to survivors and victims families, placed the ships second class somewhere in the film (Mr. Cameron completely omitted them), and changed the films message, so as to be pro-Edwardian and pro-propriety. Certainly, I would have done much more than I have stated here, but your question deserves much thought and much time.

Gilded Age Junkie,

I thank you for your explanation of the Aristocracy, as it was mostly correct. Of course, one must realise that there is yet another portion of the American upper-class that you have forgotten, viz. the bourgeoisie. These are individuals who arent as deplorable or uncaring as the nouveau-riche, but arent quite the Aristocracy. On the whole, I have found these people quite charming.

You state that, Rose was real, alive and kicking back then. If not, where would women of today be? I dare say in an aristocratic household, serving a husband and children and stifling our dreams. Certainly, there were women at that time who rebelled against correct feminine propriety (Ms. Emma Goldman, Miss Margaret Sanger, and all the suffragettes come to mind). However, none of these women was of the Aristocracy. A woman of the Aristocracy need not stifle her dreams (what would be the sense therein?). However, an Aristocratic young lady does not dream of impropriety. There may have been Rose-esque women amongst the American society at the time (although they had not done much good during the Edwardian period  mainly after the First World War), but they were most certainly not amongst the American Aristocracy. Also, you state that if these rabble-rousers had not been around, the women of today would be in an Aristocratic household. It is quite impossible for women of the masses to live an Aristocratic lifestyle  you might have stated proper household.

Mr. Dalton,

Feminism, in its essence, is impropriety. Certainly, men and women are equal. However, they should maintain separate duties, as is natural. We are not an androgynous species. Our roles should also not be as such. The duties of women and of men should be separate, but equal in importance. In Titanic, propriety cannot have constrained all classes, as what one views at the steerage party was quite improper. Freedom is chaos  our nation was not founded upon freedom. Rather, it was founded upon the principle of liberty, and, as Voltaire stated (and both Presidents Jefferson and Madison acknowledged), Liberty is freedom within correct boundaries. Propriety is not constraining, stifling, disheartening, or even boring. It maintains a standard of excellence, dictating what is proper and correct. It walks hand-in-hand with morality.

I agree with your argument against womens suffrage. President Clinton is an awful person. One hundred years hence, he would have been impeached for this, without quibbling or question. If, in the election of 1992, women had not voted, President Bush would have remained in office.

Gilded Age Junkie,

The women of the Edwardian American Aristocracy did not condone or aid in the suffrage movement. Any women of the upper class who did thereby damaged their social standing, and all became members of the nouveau-riche. To this day, Aristocratic women do not vote, as such is improper.

BobG,

Agreed  our current President does bring new meaning to the word impropriety. He spoke of intimacy during a nationally televised address. Such a man is not fit to govern our nation, and should be impeached, court-martialed (as he is the commander-in-chief of the American armed-forces), tried for, and convicted of adultery, perjury, and treason. One hundred years hence, such would have already been accomplished. This is what happens when women are allowed to vote, and impropriety is condoned in popular culture. Had Mrs. Susan B. Anthony known what would occur due to her suffragette movement, she would have ceased such nonsense.

----------

I hope that I have adequately responded to the enormous volume of posts to this thread. I thank you for your patience.

George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III

New York, NY

-- George Percival-Symington Haverstrom III (Emma81@wans.net), August 24, 1998.

My God!This is certainly a very interesting site. I found it by mistake and I have to say I deffinitely learned a few things. Mr. Haverstrom is really the most learned 17 year old I have ever read about. Is he still about? By the way I never knew there was such a difference between the American Aristocracy and the upper class. I have known a few things here and there about the Astors, and I know their wealth was inmense, also their luxurious lifestyle. I would like to know examples, in detail perhaps, how?

-- Marina Abarca-Hislop (Elvenbane@aol.com), May 31, 2004.