 |
| Yeah, this is a thing apparently. |
Well at the time of this writing there was nothing more to add than what we already knew from research and recreations of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Speaking of recreations, the people above know of the Titanic as a movie, a movie of which the general consensus is a great love story. Well I'm here to say otherwise.
If you're still with me, then I thank you for keeping an open mind. So the movie starts off *SPOILER ALERT (In case you're one of the five people in the world who hasn't seen it)* with a dive team retrieving a safe and finding a drawing which leads a very old lady back into the waters where the Titanic sank. She is not only a survivor but the very person in the drawing.
She begins to tell her story, which, afterwards, she explicitly says she never even mentioned it to her late husband, of herself as a rich 20-something year old boarding the RMS Titanic on its one and only voyage. She mentions how horrid her life is and how broke her family is, so her mother is making her marry a rich man to keep their family's status.
First impression I get of her: Rich and spoiled and crying "woe is me" for having to marry someone she wouldn't have otherwise. A practice that was very common at the time, mind you. Then we are introduced to a lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it) poor man named Jack Dawson who won his ticket to go on board at a game of cards.
The two meet each other in a most cliche manner and spend the rest of the time on the ship "falling in love." Now, how much time was that exactly? Four days. Yeah, this "great love story" unfolds in less time than a full work week of a government employee. I get the fact that she left the rich A-hole she was going to marry, sure. But what about the man she DID marry? We never even find out his name. At the end of the movie she dies and who does she go to? A man she met for a few days, not the man she chose to spend the rest of her life with. In what way is that romantic? Unjust, deceiving and just plain cold-hearted are more like it.
If you recall she said she never even mentioned him to anyone before telling the story at the beginning of the movie. You might argue that her past is just that, her past and she doesn't need to disclose every part of herself to him. Sure, but in all the years she loved her husband and raised a family with him (her grand-daughter was with her in the movie) she never thought to mention the "great love of her life?" I mean she goes to Jack at the end of the movie when she dies, not the unnamed husband. And what's her excuse? "A woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets." What kind of crap is that? What if a man had said that? This line of thinking is, to say the least, frustrating.
Don't even get me started on how she flung the priceless diamond into the ocean. How much good could've come of the money from it. Charities: diseases, starving children and endangered species, not to mention her own family could have benefited greatly from it, but I digress.
So now you know, this amazing "love story" is nothing but a pile of romanticized crap. How can you love someone you knew only a few days? I think she was in love with what might have been not the reality of it. They never really knew each others tiny flaws or bad habits anything that constitutes a real relationship. For all we know their marriage would have ended in a bitter divorce once they got to really know each other. It's just as when you find out Juliet was 13 and Romeo was but a few years older, kind of give it a whole other perspective. At least it's something to think about next time, if there's a next time, you watch this movie.
Until next time
No comments:
Post a Comment