Please explain.... Why did the elderly Rose throw the necklace into the sea? Why didn't she give it to Mr. Lovett? That is what he had been searching for for many years. I would have been the ultimate statement of love for Jack, not to mention the revenge against Cal.

-- Lisa Lewis (blewis@rollanet.com), October 18, 1998

Answers

Response to The Heart of the Ocean

A few threads here addressed that. Definitely see "the movie itself" and under it "Heart of the Ocean (Why did Rose throw it in the sea?)".

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), October 18, 1998.

Response to The Heart of the Ocean

Lisa,

In the original script she gave the necklace to Brock, but the movie changed it. I'm happy with the final as it was made. When I saw the movie the first time I made a bet with myself that she will have to throw the necklace in the water. And I won... I was so happy to see old Rose returning the Heart of the Ocean to where it belonged. It's probably hard to explain why she did it, although one can write a lot about it, but I believe you should look for the real answer in your heart. And start from old Rose's line: "I was wondering if you have found the heart of the ocean, Mr. Lovett?" and wrap it up with her other line: "A woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets." The truth should be somewhere in between, as "an absolution that would never come."

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), October 18, 1998.

I think that throwing it away was definetly not the right thing to do. To some poeple, it might have been romantic, but think of the things she could have done with it: Make an art school in Jack's name, donate some of the money to charity, or secretly make an arrangment to give it back to Cal and his investors. She had kept it since 1912 - 1997 , and that is a lot of money put on it, considering the claim for insurance money that was filed back when the ship sank. To be logical, though this is simply just a movie, people's money was spent looking for the lost diamond. And by throwing it away, money will continue to be spent. And to tease the man looking for it by claiming she knew where it was, was just not right. If I were writing the script, giving it to him in his memory would be the right thing to do. And flying a helicopter out to the middle of the Atlantic costs even more money! I think that it was quite selfish. But considering what she had gone through; losing her love, living in secrecy, and actually going on after the whole tragedy in itself, maybe she knew she was going to die. Still, I would have written a note or something.... I have to say that I totally agree with Lisa!

No use considering the possible outcomes of a movie already made, though. Just thought I'd share my thoughts with you! Kelly :-)

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), October 24, 1998.

Why was Mr. Lovett, or anyone else searching, entitled to it? If I go looking for gold, I am not entitled to it anymore than someone who accidentally stumbles upon it. If people want to devote their lives to greed (face it, that's what it is), let them. She could not have done anything charitable with proceeds from the diamond because eventually its rightful owners (insurance company or Cal's family) would learn about and claim it. Why should she have given it back to Cal? The guy almost killed her and Jack! The diamond meant nothing to her materially but did emotionally (arrogance, greed, or the lives of the 1500). She was not teasing Lovett: she gave him something better than the diamond - an understanding of what was REALLY lost in the sinking. And he got it, finally, as he states at the end. And so did we (or most of us). It also looked like he was going to get Lizzy.

-- BobG (bob@bob.bob), October 24, 1998.

Here is how it is: to throw the diamond into the ocean was her personal absolution...her final farewell to the old life she once lead, her final letting go. I believe she only kept it all those years as a reminder of where she came from and to never take her new happiness for granted. The diamond was just money, which she never gave a crap about in the first place. So I say, buh-bye, Le Couer de la Mer. I'd have done it too. After all, it's just a thing, not somebody's heart.

-- Gilded Age Junkie (gildedagejunkie@yahoo.com), October 24, 1998.

I didn't mean that she would give it back to Cal. He almost killed her - he deserved to live like he did after that. I think that she could have given it to Lizzy, if that was an alternative to throwing it into the water. Lizzy probably would have known what to do. I have to say that I agree with Bob G. for the most part. Lovett did get something better than the diamond - as Bob said, an understanding that love is better than money. He realized what really happened that night, that her story changed his views on his greed for the diamond. I think that she knew she was going to die, that is why she threw it back to Jack.

Of course, this is just a movie. The end has already been finished, so there is no point in arguing over something that is over and done with. This is just my opinion. Once again, just thought I'd share my thoughts with you!

Kelly :-)

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), October 24, 1998.

Another reason that should be considered here is the curse involved in all major diamonds. If you read the story of the Hope Diamond you get the urge to get rid of it ASAP and not pass it on to any relatives or loved ones.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), October 24, 1998.

Look, I know I'm crass at times. But that ending was perfect. It made the film the success that it was, rather than the flop the critics who hadn't seen the film, and anticipated a remake of "A Night To Remember" or "Poseidon Adventure" (that is, a straight ship disaster film), had predicted. After all, the point James Cameron was trying to prove was that true love is more important than money. And he made over a billion dollars proving it, as well as meeting the next Mrs. Cameron during the production. Cameron is a genius!

-- Dalton (foo@bar.com), October 25, 1998.

in the script she explains why she does it. so read the script.

-- liz may (lizmay@vms.cis.pitt.edu), October 25, 1998.

hi, reading this got me thinking. if I HAD the necklace, i too would throw it in the water.. its not a question of why didnt she give it to brock, i think she did it because she wanted to..remember it was her last link of jack and she thought that she would do the honour of giving it to him in his memory. i thought it was a good ending...it would of been somewhat different just giving it away...it means too much..

-- jessica ruxton (jruxton21@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

BECAUSE SHE WAS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Miss Wilborn (misswilborn@hotmail.com), November 07, 2002.

i always wondered if she didn't pry a few diamonds out of the 'necklace' part of it, just to cover her in the hard times of the following years ... ;-)

-- Nightfire (summerrose34@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.