raywest

26th Nov 2021

Titanic (1997)

Question: Pardon me for asking a "what if" question, but this confuses me: what did Rose intend to do *before* the ship sunk? She had changed her mind about Jack, choosing him instead of Cal. However, she and her mother needed the security from Cal. They were in debt. Jack was poor. If Rose married Jack, Cal and his family would be offended by the broken engagement. They would not help Rose's mother. Would Rose just marry Jack and abandon her financially-burdened mother in New York?

Answer: Rose was strong-minded and determined but was thinking "in the moment" and had no real plan or idea about what to do if she'd left with Jack, had he survived. It's unknown if they would have stayed together and married. Rose had only told Jack she was going with him. At some point she might reconnect with her mother. Cal Hoxley probably would be so humiliated by Rose deserting him for a penniless artist, that he would have hushed it up and invented some story about the broken engagement. He likely had already paid off the DeWitt Bukater debts to clean-up any lingering complications or embarrassments before marrying Rose. He probably would also have made some minimal financial arrangement for Ruth, not from compassion but for appearances sake. As we saw, Rose faired quite well on her own once she did escape Cal and her mother.

raywest

Answer: Due to historical times, the "love birds" may have lucked out (had they survived). They would not have known WWI would start in 1914 (two years after the Titanic sank), but they would have hoped that their financial situation improved. Women were needed in the labor force.

KeyZOid

Answer: That was her plan, assuming she would have been able to follow through with it. This would have left her mother high and dry, but that didn't seem to be a very big concern for her. However, in reality, between Cal, Lovejoy, and Ruth, Rose would find it very hard to even see Jack, much less marry him, if the Titanic had made it to New York in one piece. Women had very few legal rights in 1912, so once the marriage was performed, Cal could pretty much keep her imprisoned, for all intents and purposes, and Jack could do nothing about it, even if he wasn't a penniless vagrant...which he was.

Your last statement about Cal pretty much being able to keep Rose imprisoned has no factual basis. Women still had many legal rights, and while some states had more liberal divorce laws, by 1915, 1 in 7 marriages ended in divorce. By the 1920's, it had risen to 15%. Not to mention that in 1917, New York had given women full suffrage.

Bishop73

"Imprisonment" might be too strong of a word to use, but cultural norms at the time (such as those regarding marriage, the role of the wife/ homemaker, and divorce - taboo) didn't give women much freedom. Divorce statistics are notoriously inaccurate and, depending on the method used to calculate the number, percent, or rate, different figures are derived. Instead of 15%, the RATE of divorce (per 1000 PEOPLE) was 1.7 in the 1920s. Women's suffrage is hardly an indication of freedom, rights, or equality. [Just think how "effective" the 14th Amendment (1868) was in granting equal legal and civil rights.].

KeyZOid

Regardless of any restrictions on "married" women, Rose was not yet wed to Cal. They were only engaged, and he had no legal right to impose anything on her at that point. If Rose wanted to walk off the ship with Jack, there was nothing Cal or her mother could legally do to stop her. If they tried to interfere, Rose could have the ship's officers or the White Star Line's personnel intervene.

raywest

I won't disagree with that. But I was responding to the question "would Rose just marry Jack", and then other responses switched to Rose being married to Cal.

KeyZOid

15th Nov 2017

Titanic (1997)

Question: If Rose is recalling her story on the Titanic to everyone, it's one thing where the scenes involving Rose herself or anything she witnessed could be retold... but how is it all the rest of the scenes (not involving Rose) be shown accurately in her story when she was not there (other passengers, crewmen conversations, etc.)?

Answer: Of course, Rose couldn't possibly relate incidents and conversations that she didn't personally witness. Rose's story merely serves as a dramatic conduit by which the audience is transported back in time to experience the last days of the Titanic.

Charles Austin Miller

I read somewhere that the scenes that Rose didn't specifically witness may have been filled by other eye witnesses and recorded in the inquiry after the sinking. Eg: when the Captain is told by Ismay to light the remaining boilers to get into New York on Tuesday and surprise the press there is a women in the background drinking tea who glances up and towards the Captain and Ismay apparently over hearing the conversation. She could have survived and told the inquiry what she overheard.

Answer: While we can accept that the scenes involving Rose are accurate (or as accurate as can be after 85 years) the rest is just shown to be for entertainment purposes.

Ssiscool

While parts are fictionalized, much of what was depicted in the movie was based on the recorded narratives of the Titanic survivors, both crew and passengers.

raywest

And some of what was fictionalized was done so in bad taste. Mr. Murdoch's passing is one such example. To the point James Cameron made a donation to the foundation set up by Murdoch's family.

Ssiscool

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.