Controversial directors

TWT, I've probably read the same accounts you have of the sinking. But think about it. Human nature being what it is, would a sailor or a passenger who survived the sinking by unsavory means (such as shooting another sailor or locking up steerage passengers) admit it to the media? I don't think so.

You saw treachery, murder and chaos in the picture. I also saw gallantry, and heroism. Why do you think that is? I thought Cameron showed equal treatment to both sides of our humanity.

Are we still talking about the HOLOCAUST or a horrific event in general? Or the hypothetical WWII role reversal movie?

If we were making up things--horrific or not--how could it be based on fact?

There's also a saying that History is FACT told from the viewpoint of the Victor. So, we might want to think about that fine line between what really happened and what the participants in said event would have wanted to happen.

NOTE: The last statement doesn't imply or suggest that I approve of how the HOLOCAUST (in hypothetical question) is presented in film. Although I'm sure I still didn't provide a satisfactory answer for TWT.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 09-02-2001]

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

The old memories a bit foggy but I seem to remember that the family of one of the characters (can't remember his name!) portrayed as a coward wanted to take Cameron to court for the false portrayl of their deceased family member, all accounts given on this mans conduct during the sinking highlight his bravery. Now I think that this is unacceptable tampering with the truth when it hurts people in this way. Creative license can be a bad thing in the wrong hands.

__________________
Personality goes a long way...

See, that's the problem: this is not about equal treatment. This is about the truth. I have not read "accounts" -- I've read a whole damn book on the subject (pardon my French). A fair number of people survived, and some accounts exist of cowardice (if someone saw a coward acting cowardly, THEY would say so...the coward isn't the only one with a tongue you know), but they are incredibly rare.

Bottom line: unless you believe an entire book full of documentation/accounts to be false, Cameron made up many, many things that were false to increase the drama in his movie. Is all of this documentation proof? No, but it's not lacking at all...and I think it's pretty convienent that you're willing to discount all of it.

We're talking about a horrific event. No movie can get it 100% correct...that's impossible. However, a movie can try to create a realistic recreation of things, seen through the eyes of some fictional characters, or something of the sort. My problem is with people making things up about historic events just to try to make their movie more dramatic.

As for the viewpoint: now we're grasping at odd possibilities which MAY or MAY NOT have any bearing here. The short of things here is that all the evidence we have (which is quite a bit) says that the Titanic was NOTHING like the chaotic environment that Cameron depicted it as. It's that simple. He made stuff up. He's not the devil...but he did do it.