# Titanic : Propaganda for infidelity?



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

Think about one of the biggest movies of all time, think of the audience it reached - impressionable teenage girls with crushes on Leo.

Now think objectively about the theme of the film. Its a love story right? Wrong, its a lust story.

Woman in a relationship, a bad relationship granted, yet in the space of days she basically meets someone else, gets drunk, parties and then has sex with them. This woman is then supposedly thinking for the rest of her life about her 'true love'.

Think about the following:
- she was in a committed relationship
- she was unhappy
- he was a 'rebel/bad boy' while she was prim and proper
- was their relationship based on anything substantial?

If the boat hadn't sunk would they have gone on to live happily ever after or would reality have hit? Was it really necessary to have sex within hours of meeting each other? Does sex = love? Can you really love someone that quickly?

Its this kind off sappy movie that basically says that infidelity is OK if justified. 

It doesn't take much imagination to draw parallels to your own life, tone down the ridiculous stereotype of the 'bad guy' in the movie, change the setting and suddenly its just your normal, everyday affair. He didn't treat me properly, I didn't really love him, it would never have lasted etc. These points may all be valid but is bedding some other attractive guy the only answer?

James Cameron who wrote and directed the film also had an affair. It may be subtle but just think how something like this alters people's thinking. All those teenage girls are now women potentially in relationships and this film not only says infidelity under the right circumstances is OK but it is to be celebrated!


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

If the boat hadn't sunk, I wouldn't have watched the film 

But, yes, it's not love, it's lust.


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

Rose would've packed on the pounds from her misery and guilt of being a complete tart and giving it up to some boy she just met.Jack would've given up drawing and taken up drinking n gambling to be able to buy spoiled high class Rose all the things she couldn't live without. They would end up unhappy and depressed wishing the whole time that the boat would have sunk.

That's my cynical,snarky overview of how I think it would have gone down.


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

I officially want to join the WhiteRabbit Fan Club


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

I feel the same way about 'sleepless in Seattle.'


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

I believe she was bethrothed against her will. Didn't her parents choose the dude for her to marry? She did not love him and he was a total d!ck to her from what I remember. He wanted her $. He didn't care about her.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

yes, it seemed that way, didn't it?

I think if the writers had come up with a more complex and nuanced situation, it would have detracted from the main point of the movie, which is building an amazing replica of the Titanic and then sinking it!


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

nader said:


> it would have detracted from the main point of the movie, which is building an amazing replica of the Titanic and then sinking it!


LOL. The sinking was pretty epic. It took about 2 hours to happen!


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

nader said:


> I think if the writers had come up with a more complex and nuanced situation...


Yes like the Titanic suddenly being warped into TellyTubby land


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Seems like most romance/romantic comedies encourage women to be discontent an unfaithful. Eat Pray Love is another one. 

Is this life imitating art or art imitating life?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Jellybeans said:


> I believe she was bethrothed against her will. Didn't her parents choose the dude for her to marry? She did not love him and he was a total d!ck to her from what I remember. He wanted her $. He didn't care about her.


Very close, although your point still stands. Rose's mother did indeed arrange her marriage to Cal. But it wasn't Cal who wanted Rose's family money...it was Rose's mother who wanted Cal's family's money and prestige, as all of their own money had dried up since Rose's father died.

No, I will NOT give up my man card, thank you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch Glee.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Very close, although your point still stands. Rose's mother did indeed arrange her marriage to Cal. But it wasn't Cal who wanted Rose's family money...it was Rose's mother who wanted Cal's family's money and prestige, as all of their own money had dried up since Rose's father died.
> 
> No, I will NOT give up my man card, thank you.
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch Glee.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I love Mr. Shue!


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

Or does it stem from ages old fairy tales where a beautiful woman is trapped by a nasty witch/dragon/wizard, but a mysterious stranger enters her life, saves her from her entrapment and whisks her away to her happy ever after.

Yet, as we get older, we stop thinking of macigal creatures, so the witch, dragon or wizard become the controlling, miserable, rude or evil husband/wife.

Just a thought.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

So you're saying the witch represents the husband, the tower is a metaphor for marriage and feeling trapped and the handsome stranger is the OM? Ever notice how quickly they get married too? Marriage=sex
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Numb-badger (May 18, 2011)

I've put no meaning to it, other than the similar story style. One seems to be for kids, the other for adults. One in a magical world, the other set on a more realistic world.

You're right about the speed of marriage thought. There is never a relationship building session of months or even years. They just 'love' each other as if some magical 'fog' has swept over them.

Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Jellybeans said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> I love Mr. Shue!


I'm a Brittany S. Pierce man, myself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

my head hurts and I feel slightly sick to my stomach.

I think im angry too, but only a little. Thats probably just a result of my spirit being extiguished.

Wanna join me? Just google the "greastest romance movies" of all time... Read the list, see how many of the greatest romances involve some sort of infidelity... Almost all of them :-( It's really sick.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

This is why I watch Vince Vaughn movies.  His always show that love is not about lust but about being committed, making your marriage better, and okay being silly along the way. 

BUT this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that "Hollywood" portraits adultery/infidelity/unfaithfulness as a "love story" and it is NOT A LOVE STORY. It's portrayed like this: "Poor (or pitiful) but amazingly beautiful girl is in an abusive relationship, meets her destined soul mate (who also happens to be stunningly handsome) and against all odds Fate brings them together and they live happily ever after." The Other Person intuitively knows and meets their every need, there is a passionate flame between them that never dwindles, and no effort is required on her part at all. She is unfaithful...but she 'trades up.' " 

In real life, a decent looking woman is too tired to have sex with or dress up for her husband (who works a few too many hours), so her eye wanders to the toad who can sweet-talk her because he doesn't have a job at all. She chooses to disregard her commitments, she harms her own children but justifies it, and she behaves like a spiteful witch. She ditches her destroyed husband and children 'to find herself' and the toad moves in to live off her good job. By the time she realizes he's a toad, her decent husband is so mad at being treated like mud that he doesn't WANT her back anymore! She loses her nice home, lives in poverty, and the kids suffer...and she is stuck with a toad. 

One of the main things we try to do at Affaircare is spread that message: *Adultery IS NOT A LOVE STORY!!!!*


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

But Leo wasn't the bad boy.

Her fiance was.

Leo was the loving, romantic nice guy.

That's what attracted her to him and what repeled her from her fiance.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> But Leo wasn't the bad boy.
> 
> Her fiance was.
> 
> ...


He was a bad boy in a sense he wasn't educated, refined, etc. In other words the opposite of who she was with, sound familiar?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Definitely agree about the message that it sends to a whole generation that if you're unhappy in your relationship, it's ok to have a fling if you find your true love.


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

Indy Nial said:


> He was a bad boy in a sense he wasn't educated, refined, etc. In other words the opposite of who she was with, sound familiar?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you are forgetting that Rose's future husband HIT HER.

Physical abuse is one of the few cases where, in my mind, you _are_ justified in getting the hell out of Dodge with no questions asked.

Rose wasn't just "unhappy," she was in physical danger.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Also possibly worth consideration, she did, after all, leave Cal a "Dear John" letter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

One movie that shows the ugly side of an affair is Unfaithful I believe. It's all beautiful,raising hearts,and steamy sex...then she realizes what she has done.
Her husband was amazing...warm,kind,caring,attentive.

That movie makes my heart hurt,I watched it once and barely got through it.


----------



## HurtinginTN (Feb 22, 2011)

Affaircare said:


> In real life, a decent looking woman is too tired to have sex with or dress up for her husband (who works a few too many hours), so her eye wanders to the toad *who can sweet-talk her because he doesn't have a job at all.* She chooses to disregard her commitments, she harms her own children but justifies it, and she behaves like a spiteful witch. She ditches her destroyed husband and children 'to find herself' and the toad moves in to live off her good job. By the time she realizes he's a toad, her decent husband is so mad at being treated like mud that he doesn't WANT her back anymore! She loses her nice home, lives in poverty, and the kids suffer...and she is stuck with a toad.


Wow, doesn't that hit the nail on the head. Similar premise to the "Affair Down" thread. The OM has all the time in the world because he is a piece of **** with no responsibilities.


----------



## Saffron (Mar 7, 2010)

WR- Was that the one with Richard Gere and Diane Lane? That movie shows you the ugly underbelly of infidelity. I've been meaning to make my H watch it sometime... and maybe Fatal Attraction. 

Hope the thread keeps going, it's interesting and entertaining.


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

Saffron said:


> WR- Was that the one with Richard Gere and Diane Lane? That movie shows you the ugly underbelly of infidelity. I've been meaning to make my H watch it sometime... and maybe Fatal Attraction.
> 
> Hope the thread keeps going, it's interesting and entertaining.


yup that's the one. Wasn't that haunting? I thought about it for days.

oh goodness EVERY man should watch the bunny boiler movie. if that doesn't scare a person nothing will!


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Richard Gere is the quintessential Other Man in movies. I think that's why I can't stand him!


----------



## HurtinginTN (Feb 22, 2011)

Indy Nial said:


> Woman in a relationship, a bad relationship granted, yet in the space of days she basically meets someone else, gets drunk, parties and then has sex with them. This woman is then supposedly thinking for the rest of her life about her 'true love'.
> 
> Think about the following:
> - she was in a committed relationship
> ...



This thread hit a nerve. At the time it came out, I was engaged. She had just had an affair with an old boyfriend. We were just starting to reconcile. We went to see it in the theater. At the car scene, I had all I could take and said I had to go to the bathroom. I couldn't bare to watch it at that point. I agree fully that it celebrates infidelity. 

Her mother was pushing her to marry a man she didn't love for his money. Just look at that huge diamond he was giving her. However, she could have told her mother where she could go. I forget, was the "Dear John" letter written before or after the sex?


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

WhiteRabbit said:


> oh goodness EVERY man should watch the bunny boiler movie. if that doesn't scare a person nothing will!


No kidding. I think oaksthorne is dealing with a bunny boiler herself right now.


----------



## Shooboomafoo (Mar 30, 2011)

Maybe its just a character flaw, all too easily chalked up to my own self-esteem being too low by those saying these things, but
Why was it ever necessary for my wife to post "Watching Johnny Depp" on her FB page, which would then be followed by a string of "woo-hoos", etc.
I guess if things were alright at the time between us, I wouldnt have minded so much, but 5 years of no intimacy, but then hearing these kinds of remarks made for much confusion.
If it wasnt him it was some other fool on television, or in music. I began to cringe when my wife would begin to like any certain "Band", or when the next Pirates of the Carribean was due to come out. I could almost pick out the person in the band that my wife was wetting herself over, and aside from thinking the movies were great, knowing she had alternate reasons for watching them , sorta took the enjoyment out of it.
Sure I understand fantasy, but isnt there a certain level of class one maintains to keep from "second-besting" their spouse? 
I could have turned that around a hundred times, knowing what my wife's self-concious issues were. Wow! Shes got a great bod! or, Man, look at her skin...
But I dont, and could never understand being told I was silly or had esteem issues, in lieu of simple consideration for me from her.

I used to think Fireproof was a good movie. But not at this stage in the game....


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Shooboomafoo said:


> I used to think Fireproof was a good movie. But not at this stage in the game....


Fireproof was not a good movie in the sense that it totally ignored the wife's EA with the doctor. And since I first watched that movie so soon after my DDay, it triggered me pretty badly.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

HurtinginTN said:


> Her mother was pushing her to marry a man she didn't love for his money. Just look at that huge diamond he was giving her. However, she could have told her mother where she could go. I forget, was the "Dear John" letter written before or after the sex?


While we don't know what conversations about the arranged marriage may have occured before we joined the characters, we did see Rose voice complaints about it to her mother, and was basically told to shut up and deal with it...if you want to eat, you will because our money's gone. Recall, also, that when she met Jack, she was so repulsed and despondent about the situation that she was about to toss herself from the back of the ship.

As for the "Dear John" letter...it was written after she posed for the portrait, but before the sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

LOL, I just watched some of that bunny boiler stuff on youtube!

Hilarious.


----------



## WhiteRabbit (May 11, 2011)

lordmayhem said:


> No kidding. I think oaksthorne is dealing with a bunny boiler herself right now.


i'm not a violent girl but we all know the only cure for psycho bunny boilers...if the bullet between the eyes doesn't work you can always drown them in your bathtub

kidding...maybe...:bunny:


----------



## Saffron (Mar 7, 2010)

LOL...Bunny Boiler... BB a new term for a crazy OW. Terrifying and funny all at the same time!

That movie scared the $#!+ out of me and I even brought it up to my H right after d-day. Not only was I angry about the A, but furious at the possibility he brought psychotic people into our lives. I realize the OW or OW's H could still comeback and do something freakish, so I find myself hoping the OW quickly focuses on her H or moves onto someone new. Hopefully not another married man, but I tend to doubt it. I doubt even more that she'll learn from this and be faithful to her H.

Unfaithful is the one movie where Richard Gere is NOT the OM. He's the LS and it is haunting. I should watch it again with my new perspective, but I don't want to trigger. Since it's the wife being unfaithful, I should be able to handle it.

Sleepless in Seattle is the movie that's more dubious about living the fog, although I still enjoy the movie. Very unrealistic. Breaking off an engagement because you have feelings for another man you've only ever heard on the radio? Pfffffffffft. Silly really. At least she did the right thing and broke off the engagement before she actually met Tom Hanks. Sooooooooo not what would happen in real life, but it was made before FB.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno (Jan 18, 2011)

I didn't watch it. I saw the preview with the chick standing up on the railing and thought, wow, too histrionic. I definitely will barf if I watch this movie or at least throw popcorn at the screen. So, I never watched it. I prefer movies like "The Painted Veil", that give a more realistic version of what happens when lust happens. Or, without the nice scenery, "Dreaming of Joseph Lees". If you like sing-alongs and Johhny Depp, try "Sweeney Todd". Love, lust, greed, deceit... Fatal Attraction is really high up there. I should add it to my collection just for good measure (when H needs reminding of why there are such things as boundaries...)


----------



## Shooboomafoo (Mar 30, 2011)

"The Stepfather" comes to mind too.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

hypatia said:


> I think you are forgetting that Rose's future husband HIT HER.
> 
> Physical abuse is one of the few cases where, in my mind, you _are_ justified in getting the hell out of Dodge with no questions asked.
> 
> Rose wasn't just "unhappy," she was in physical danger.


You must keep the historical context in mind. Women did not even have the right to vote in 1912 America. Physical abuse was seen as a way to "keep a woman in line," especially in affluent circles.


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

Mrs.G said:


> You must keep the historical context in mind. Women did not even have the right to vote in 1912 America. Physical abuse was seen as a way to "keep a woman in line," especially in affluent circles.


Forgive me, but I'm not sure what point you're making here? :scratchhead:

If anything, the acceptability of hitting women gave Rose even MORE justification for leaving. She would have had no help and no recourse if she married Cal. No marriage conseling, no women's shelters - nothing except a life of being hit every time her rageaholic husband felt like it. To claim that Cal was somehow her "victim" is laughable.

Not that you were doing this *MrsG*, but I think it's kind of offensive to dismiss this as her being "unhappy." It's not like Cal wasn't snuggling her often enough or played too much World of Warcraft. He was abusive.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

I think all MrsG was trying to say was that, as bad as it may be by our standards 100 years later, in the societal context of the time, it was considered the norm. As such, Rose had been raised with the conditioning to expect being "corrected" in such a manner. No judgment call being made on that societal standard...just putting the events in their context.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> One movie that shows the ugly side of an affair is Unfaithful I believe. It's all beautiful,raising hearts,and steamy sex...then she realizes what she has done.
> Her husband was amazing...warm,kind,caring,attentive.
> 
> That movie makes my heart hurt,I watched it once and barely got through it.


:iagree: Richard Gere looks HOT in my that movie though; a silver fox.:smthumbup:


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

hypatia said:


> Forgive me, but I'm not sure what point you're making here? :scratchhead:The point I'm making is that during that time, people did not view a man beating his wife as abuse. We need to be aware of how different the sociey was back then, not with 2011 morals and laws.
> 
> If anything, the acceptability of hitting women gave Rose even MORE justification for leaving. She would have had no help and no recourse if she married Cal. No marriage conseling, no women's shelters - nothing except a life of being hit every time her rageaholic husband felt like it. To claim that Cal was somehow her "victim" is laughable. When did I claim that? :scratchhead: Rose was the victim and we weren't discussing whether or not she was justified. You seem very aggressive for some reason...please work that out on your own; I have done nothing to provoke you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pit-of-my-stomach (Nov 2, 2010)

Mrs.G said:


> Physical abuse was seen as a way to "keep a woman in line," especially in affluent circles.


Q: What do you tell a women with 2 black eyes?

A: Nothing, she's already been told twice.

BOOM, BOOM, CHING!!!!!!

:rofl:

kidding ladies! kidding!

no flaming. lol.


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

Grayson said:


> I think all MrsG was trying to say was that, as bad as it may be by our standards 100 years later, in the societal context of the time, it was considered the norm. As such, Rose had been raised with the conditioning to expect being "corrected" in such a manner. No judgment call being made on that societal standard...just putting the events in their context.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm aware of the social context.

I'm saying that "context" doesn't make it any more physically or psychologically tolerable for the victim.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Grayson said:


> *I think all MrsG was trying to say was that, as bad as it may be by our standards 100 years later, in the societal context of the time, it was considered the norm. As such, Rose had been raised with the conditioning to expect being "corrected" in such a manner. No judgment call being made on that societal standard...just putting the events in their context.*_Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree::iagree: Thank you, my dear Grayson. I don't understand what the attack was for. :scratchhead:


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Pit-of-my-stomach said:


> Q: What do you tell a women with 2 black eyes?
> 
> A: Nothing, she's already been told twice.
> 
> ...


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

*Mrs.G:*



> The point I'm making is that during that time, people did not view a man beating his wife as abuse. We need to be aware of how different the sociey was back then, not with 2011 morals and laws.


Sure. As I said to *Grayson*, I'm well aware that it was not considered abuse at the time. But I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not it actually WAS abuse. I think you and I are on the same page with this, I'm just trying to be clear.



> When did I claim that?


Sorry! I totally did not mean to attribute that to you and I apologize. Some of the comments on this thread minimized or seemingly forgot that Rose was in an abusive situation. I was getting frustrated with that and I let that spill over into my response to you. I should have been clearer that I did not read that into your post at all.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

I think the writers framed the story in such a way as to provide an impossible situation for Rose in order to heighten her romance w/ Leo and thus glamorize infidelity. Most men of Cal's stature would probably have _some_ redeemable qualities. Cal was definitely a toad, but a 1 dimensional toad. The scenario is highly melodramatic and not very realistic or nuanced. In real life, Cal would probably not have been abusive and boorish. He probably would have been a kind man but also meh. Rose would have been content to bear him several children, but there would have been no spark.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

hypatia said:


> I'm aware of the social context.
> 
> I'm saying that "context" doesn't make it any more physically or psychologically tolerable for the victim.


Physically? Of course, mental conditioning doesn't alter the human body's capacity for injury.

Psychologically? A strong argument can certainly be made on both sides. If taught all her life, "Make your husband mad, and he'll hit you...and rightfully so!" would certainly condition a young woman of the time to either stay "in line" or expect physical punishment. It's all right there in her mother's line: "Of course it's unfair. We're women. Our choices are never easy."

Now, in the story at hand, Rose was presented as being unconventional for "old money" of the time, but still trying to follow the rules of that world. Her suicidal moment and introduction to free-spirited Jack challenged those rules more blatantly than anything that had come before.

At the end of the day, though, the story is a melodrama, which has to have (figuratively speaking) a mustache-twirling villain. So, Cal, acting perfectly in context for the early 1900's, hitting Rose in a story presented to a late 1990's audience, twirls that mustache.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saffron (Mar 7, 2010)

What if they portrayed Cal as just a nice dull guy. The audience would've probably still preferred Leo, but it actually might have felt wrong. Look at Sleepless in Seattle when Meg tells her finance and his reaction. Oooops, no big! Don't want your audience to feel bad for him getting dumped, so let's make sure he has an emotionaless response.


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

nader said:


> In real life, Cal would probably not have been abusive and boorish.


I agree that Rose's dire circumstances were heightened by the need to tell an interesting story. I write stories myself. One of the cardinal rules of an interesting story, in _any_ genre, is to always make things worse for your protagonist 

Unfortunately, "abusive and boorish" IS real life for a lot of people. 

Statistics from emedicinehealth, a pretty neutral website:



> Women in the U.S. are more likely to have been injured, raped, or murdered by a male partner than by all other types of attackers.
> 
> One in seven women going to the doctor's office have a history of partner abuse.
> 
> ...


That's how it is _today_, even with social awareness being what it is. Imagine the stats for a time when domestic violence was considered acceptable. Cal was definitely a bit of a cartoon villain, but his use of physical violence was pretty realistic. Unfortunately, it would still be realistic even in our modern times.

Sorry to bang on about this, but I really never got the sense of "glamorizing infidelity" from _Titanic_. To me, it's like saying that _Star Wars_ glamorizes terrorism because they blew up the Death Star. Or that _Jaws_ glamorizes cruelty to marine life. Good drama inherently involves difficult situations. Although you can argue whether or not _Titanic_ deserves the label "good drama" of course, lol. 

*Grayson:*



> Psychologically? A strong argument can certainly be made on both sides.


Not in the individual case of _Titanic_. Rose was ready to commit suicide over her forced marriage.



> If taught all her life, "Make your husband mad, and he'll hit you...and rightfully so!" would certainly condition a young woman of the time to either stay "in line" or expect physical punishment.


...And you think this type of conditioning _doesn't_ take a psychological toll? Or that it makes abuse any easier when it actually does occur?

Our modern society tells men that if they go to prison, they should expect another man to rape them. Do you think this makes the experience of rape any less psychologically damaging in these cases, because the victim has been "conditioned" to expect it?


----------



## Saffron (Mar 7, 2010)

I'd have to go back and watch the movie to remember it correctly, but was Cal being an @$$ to Rose before she met Leo or after? 

One could make an arguement that she didn't really know either man. She fell into lust with Leo, but was it love? Who's to say Leo wouldn't have been abusive too. She knew him less than a week. Of course it's a romance and a fantasy, so Leo was her soulmate and didn't have a bad bone in his body. 

I don't take any of it seriously. The true danger is having people believe that they can meet someone and "fall in love" overnight. It's how EA's get started. You meet someone new and that instant zing makes you start living the fantasy. The OW was telling my H within 2 wks (only 2 in person meetings, 1 with a group and 1 for a solo lunch) that she was falling in love with him. WTH? You watched him eat a sub and got drunk with him one night and now you're in love? Such a crock-o-$#!+ and he totally ate it up.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

> Sorry to bang on about this, but I really never got the sense of "glamorizing infidelity" from Titanic. To me, it's like saying that Star Wars glamorizes terrorism because they blew up the Death Star. Or that Jaws glamorizes cruelty to marine life. Good drama inherently involves difficult situations. Although you can argue whether or not Titanic deserves the label "good drama" of course, lol.


Rose had an EA, she stripped naked for another man and then spread her legs shortly after. It doesn't matter how bad her relationship was, getting involved with another man is infidelity. Now if jack had zero romantic interest in her and simply opened her eyes so she could act for herself then great. But that isn't what happened is it?

This is just your standard situation exaggerated so that the love affair can be justified. How can you say that isn't infidelity?

PS - blowing up the death star was about saving an entire planet from imminent destruction - that's not terrorism. And killing a serial man eating shark is self defence.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Indy Nial said:


> Rose had an EA, she stripped naked for another man and then spread her legs shortly after. It doesn't matter how bad her relationship was, getting involved with another man is infidelity. Now if jack had zero romantic interest in her and simply opened her eyes so she could act for herself then great. But that isn't what happened is it?
> 
> This is just your standard situation exaggerated so that the love affair can be justified. How can you say that isn't infidelity?
> 
> ...


:iagree:

And domestic abuse isn't grounds for cheating, it's grounds for ending the relationship. Titanic does glamorize infidelity. Two soulmate shmoopies.

Soul Mate Shmoopies


----------



## hypatia (May 30, 2011)

Indy Nial said:


> PS - blowing up the death star was about saving an entire planet from imminent destruction - that's not terrorism. And killing a serial man eating shark is self defence.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is exactly what I'm getting at. They didn't blow up the Death Star because they just "felt like it," they were reacting to dire circumstances. The guys in _Jaws_ didn't just kill a shark because they were bored one day, they were reacting to dire circumstances. 

Rose didn't ditch Cal on a whim or out of boredom, she was reacting to dire (abusive) circumstances and an engagement her mother was forcing upon her. Not saying it's the greatest reaction, but I don't think that sends the message "infidelity is always justified and awesome!" 

*lordmayhem*:



> And domestic abuse isn't grounds for cheating, it's grounds for ending the relationship.


But in the historical context of the movie, "just end the relationship" wasn't an option for Rose.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

You sound like every other DS, trying to justify her infidelity. You can't. If she had just run off with Leo, no sex, no romance then ok but she got involved with someone else BEFORE she ended her current relationship.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ninja1980 (May 23, 2011)

hypatia said:


> To me, it's like saying that _Star Wars_ glamorizes terrorism because they blew up the Death Star. Or that _Jaws_ glamorizes cruelty to marine life. Good drama inherently involves difficult situations. Although you can argue whether or not _Titanic_ deserves the label "good drama" of course, lol.


:rofl:

This cracks me up because that actually is the reason my father hates _Star Wars_ - he says it "glamorizes genocide."  If only I were kidding.

I love Titanic. (Not as much as Grayson, maybe... ) But I hadn't thought of it in terms of glamorizing infidelity, and I can see now how it does. Billy Zane's an a$$ in that film (although more attractive than Leo, IMO), sure, but like everyone's saying from the standpoint of 1912, he wasn't really that out of line. We're looking at it (as was James Cameron) through the lens of 1998-2011. That's why the scene where he hits her is even a big deal - in the time, it wouldn't have been, but the moviemakers know we'll be like, "MY GOD! He smacked her! She should sleep with Leo, she'll feel better." They invite us to be complicit in rooting for the infidelity. Same with _Sleepless In Seattle_ (which I also love, btw - crap, what am I going to watch now that both of these have been ruined by this thread??? ) - we root for the infidelity because it's "true love." You could make the same argument about _You've Got Mail_, - those two have a total EA while they're both involved with other people.

This is all probably part of why my H doesn't seem to think marriage should involve any work. We should just be happy, and if we're not: abandon ship! Stupid Hollywood, ruining my marriage.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

It's the 'true love' bit that really annoys me, society has no idea what it really is - Titanic is a classic example. We are basically encouraged to seek out true love and it has no boundaries, including marriage.

One of the things my wife asked early on was if 2 people fall out of love then maybe the marriage is over. I can clearly remember the point at which she stopped loving me and showing affection yet the story my wife peddles is that we drifted apart and she found someone she did love. Awww, poor wife, no wonder it just happened. She should go after what makes her happy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Indy Nial said:


> Rose had an EA, she stripped naked for another man and then spread her legs shortly after. It doesn't matter how bad her relationship was, getting involved with another man is infidelity. Now if jack had zero romantic interest in her and simply opened her eyes so she could act for herself then great. But that isn't what happened is it?
> 
> This is just your standard situation exaggerated so that the love affair can be justified. How can you say that isn't infidelity?


Without a doubt, Rose posed for Jack both because she was attracted to him and to push Cal's buttons by leaving him the portrait (hence making a point of wearing the Heart of the Ocean while posing). But, are we saying that posing nude for an artist in and of itself constitutes infidelity. As for "spreading her legs shortly after," recall again the "Dear John" letter she left Cal before doing so. As I see it, that isn't a "well, our relationship is nonexistent anyway" rationalization...she'd ended the relationship and broken the engagement.



> PS - blowing up the death star was about saving an entire planet from imminent destruction - that's not terrorism.


I beg of you...PLEASE don't make this Jedi-lovin' Star Wars fan agree with that talentless hack Kevin Smith, but....

Yeah, the Rebel Alliance performed terrorist acts, in a movement to overthrow the legal government of the galaxy. That planet (a moon, actually...Yavin 4) was being targeted because it housed a Rebel base. Said Rebel base was harboring a leader of the Rebellion who had recently been held prisoner on the Death Star, as well as the criminals who had evaded an Imperial blockade and killed Imperial soldiers while breaking that prisoner out of custody. In a station the size of the Death Star, there were almost certainly civilian employees of the Imperial Navy who were de facto targeted by the Rebel Alliance. And that's not even taking into account the destruction of the second Death Star, which was incomplete, and thus would be employing either civilian contractors or (as most "expanded universe" materials state) slave labor.

So...Rebel Alliance: freedom fighters or terrorists? As Obi-Wan would say, it depends greatly on your point of view. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

Since when does genocide become a point of view? The death star had already destroyed Alderan. Millions of innocents with no rebel involvement being snuffed out. It's not like a few casualties of war type thing, even if you are rooting for Darth and co. I doubt you will find the moral justification for the annihilation of entire planets!

Rose started the relationship before she have ended it with cal. You cannot argue that the intent and beginning of a romance have started long before she got her baps out for horny Leo.

Also, as for viewpoints don't forget this is rose's version of what happened. Maybe cal was actually a decent guy and rose distorted the truth to justify her infidelity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Indy Nial said:


> Since when does genocide become a point of view? The death star had already destroyed Alderan. Millions of innocents with no rebel involvement being snuffed out. It's not like a few casualties of war type thing, even if you are rooting for Darth and co. I doubt you will find the moral justification for the annihilation of entire planets!


Never said the destruction of Alderaan was justified, now, did I? Your defense for destroying the Death Star was that the destruction of Yavin 4 (and thus the base the Rebels were at) was imminent. Let's add Alderaan's destruction in as a motivation, as well. All "expanded universe" information indicates that the crew compliment of the Death Star was roughly 1 million. Most of that 1 million would be civilian and rank-and-file personnel just doing their jobs, as opposed to those like Tarkin or Vader who were fully invested in the Imperial policy of oppression. (In fact, the EU information refers to the Empire's policy of ruling through fear as the "Tarkin Doctrine.") Let's still take out military personnel, whether they were complicit with Imperial policy or not. That still leaves civilians on board, that the Rebels determined were "acceptable losses."

In the case of the Death Star II, the Alliance opted to strike while it was under construction (unknowingly taking Palpatine's bait). As such, they willingly chose to sacrifice the lives of any and all aboard, including non-military personnel, civilian contractors and/or slave labor. And that's even if we don't take into account Dr. Curtis Saxton's well-stated theory that the destruction of the Death Star II would result in a "nuclear winter" on Endor, sacrificing all life on the forest moon.

Now, undoubtedly, the Rebels were The Good Guys and the Empire were The Bad Guys. But, the Rebels were, strictly speaking, terrorists. They were attempting to violently overthrow the legitimate government of the galaxy. For that matter, during the American Revolution, the Continental Army were effectively terrorists, as well.



> Rose started the relationship before she have ended it with cal. You cannot argue that the intent and beginning of a romance have started long before she got her baps out for horny Leo.


Here's where I think we enter a gray area, and I say this as a betrayed spouse, too. Rose didn't begin spending time with Jack as a romance. ("We're just friends.") Most certainly, though, one did begin to develop. To her credit, unlike most disloyal spouses, she recognized what was going on, and made the decision to end the relationship with Cal (which she didn't want in the first place) before proceeding with Jack. One might make the argument that the relationship wasn't ended until Cal actually read the "Dear John" letter, but again...gray area.



> Also, as for viewpoints don't forget this is rose's version of what happened. Maybe cal was actually a decent guy and rose distorted the truth to justify her infidelity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


While the device to go to flashback is indeed Rose relating her story, we must also remember that those flashbacks relate information that she wasn't present for nor could she have been informed of at any later point, as those involved died before having any opportunity to pass that information on to her. As such, we have to take the flashback narrative as being reliable.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Now, undoubtedly, the Rebels were The Good Guys and the Empire were The Bad Guys. But, the Rebels were, strictly speaking, terrorists. They were attempting to violently overthrow the legitimate government of the galaxy. For that matter, during the American Revolution, the Continental Army were effectively terrorists, as well.


Not even close. The Rebel Alliance were legitimate rebels according to all our laws of war. They were commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; had fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, carried arms openly, and attacked legitimate military targets. Same with the Continental Army, and yes, same with the Confederate Army. And if you were a contractor on the Death Star, you were on a legitimate military target which you could have left and therefore if you are killed while in a legitimate military target, you are simply a collateral casualty.

Terrorism is committing or threatening to commit acts of terror (hostage taking, suicide bombing, car bombing, etc) in order to achieve a political goal. They sometimes carry concealed arms, not under command by any government, they do not wear uniforms, they attack both legitimate targets and non combatants indiscriminately.

Gee, I actually learned something from having Law Of Armed Conflict training.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

lordmayhem said:


> Not even close. The Rebel Alliance were legitimate rebels according to all our laws of war. They were commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; had fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, carried arms openly, and attacked legitimate military targets. Same with the Continental Army, and yes, same with the Confederate Army.


It's likely that al Queda cells are commanded by a person responsible for subordinates.

If we compare the Hoth base personnel to the mish-mash of looks in the briefing aboard Home One in Return of the Jedi, I'm not so sure about "distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance." Meanwhile, much of the command personnel (Leia, Luke, Han, etc) wore civilian clothing with no markings. On Hoth, Captain Solo wore civilian clothing and cold weather gear unlike the other Rebel personnel. Commander Skywalker wore a nondescript civilian jumpsuit. In RoTJ, although his current rank is not explicitly stated, Luke wears black civilian clothing. Even in the operation on Endor, *General *Solo wore no uniform or insignia.

The vast majority of denizens of the Galaxy Far, Far Away seem to carry arms openly. Take a look at the Mos Eisley Cantina.



> And if you were a contractor on the Death Star, you were on a legitimate military target which you could have left and therefore if you are killed while in a legitimate military target, you are simply a collateral casualty.


I kept civilian contractors in there because some do make the argument that they were used, although I can't recall any of the "official" materials indicating such. Those materials, however, *do* state that the Empire used slave labor to construct both Death Stars. Those slaves couldn't "just leave."

Likewise, if we accept Dr. Saxton's "Endor holocaust" theory, the Rebels must have gone into the attack knowing that, if they succeeded, they would be responsible for wiping out the sentient species living on the planet (Ewoks, Duloks, Marauders, the Gorax, etc).



> Terrorism is committing or threatening to commit acts of terror (hostage taking, suicide bombing, car bombing, etc) in order to achieve a political goal. They sometimes carry concealed arms, not under command by any government, they do not wear uniforms, they attack both legitimate targets and non combatants indiscriminately.


The first definition of "terrorism" according to Websters is:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 
That sounds like the Alliance.
They were not under the command of any government.
As noted above, the key players that we saw (including Alliance leader Mon Mothma) wore no uniforms.

There's Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" philosophy again.


----------



## Indy Nial (Sep 26, 2010)

Lets take your definition...



> The first definition of "terrorism" according to Websters is:
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.


The rebels blowing up the Death Star neither *intimidated* or *coerced* the empire to do anything. They were protecting themselves from death. Was the emperor sitting there going "Oh no, I'm so scared and intimidated by the rebels I better call off my evil plans for galactic domination!"



> I'm not so sure about "distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance."


What are you saying? Are undercover cops terrorists? The SAS? No, of course not. A few people without badges doesn't denounce the entire Rebel Alliance.

There is another point - its called the Rebel Alliance because, guess what? Its an officially recognized alliance NOT and terrorist group.

The terrorist thing is a flawed anyway because what the original argument tried to imply was that extreme situations justified extreme actions. It was OK for Rose to jump Leo because of the situation. The problem is that there is nothing to justify the romance. Did Luke blow up the Death Star so he could have an incestuous romp with Leia? No. Did Rob Schnieder's character kill the shark so could have a great story to spin to the chicks? No.

In each case there was a life or death situation. How exactly does Leo plunging his pork sword into Rose's quivering love mound save lives? Did they cut a deal with the Sea gods that if they had a sex show more lives would be spared?

There is NO justification for the romance, if she wanted to leave she could have done at anytime. Waiting until there was another man there was not necessary. She was simply a horny woman, lets not forget the huge taboo of premarital sex at the time. She mixed classes (taboo), premarital sex (another taboo), rebelling against the arranged marriage (taboo).

This is all about lust and is basically a rose tinted portrayal of infidelity.

Lets not forget the scene at the dinner table she was clearly smitten at this point and had the nerve to deceitfully invite him along. They were both giving each other little glances, its just sick, I know because I was in a similar situation.

Make Leo into a middle aged balding loser. Make Rose into an unhappy housewife. Tone down Cal so he is just a bit of a d1ck and not violent. So basically, woman in an unhappy relationship starts another one before ending the current = infidelity.

Just because she wrote a 'Dear John' after she exposed her jugs does not undo all the previous flirting and seeds of lust that had been planted.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Indy Nial said:


> The rebels blowing up the Death Star neither *intimidated* or *coerced* the empire to do anything. They were protecting themselves from death. Was the emperor sitting there going "Oh no, I'm so scared and intimidated by the rebels I better call off my evil plans for galactic domination!"


I'd say that a lone pilot destroying the Empire's planet-destroying super-weapon would certainly qualify as intimidating. And we can presume that the Alliance intended to destroy the Death Star all along...after all, I doubt they stole the station's plans to provide interior decorating suggestions. The imminent attack on Yavin 4 merely accellerated the timetable for doing so. Regardless, their status as a terrorist organization does not hinge upon that one event, but on their ongoing attempt as an independent group to violently overthrow the standing government, which is clearly coercion.



> What are you saying? Are undercover cops terrorists? The SAS? No, of course not. A few people without badges doesn't denounce the entire Rebel Alliance.


What I'm saying is that, contrary to lordmayhem's assertion that the Rebels were a recognized military force due (in part) to having a codified and recognizable method of insignia and dress, that they don't, really. Also worth noting was that those "few people without badges" are the effective (and in the case of Mon Mothma, literal) leadership of te Rebel Alliance...the commander of the premiere fighter squadron, a "natural leader," and so forth. The Home One briefing also showed us that even personnel holding the same function (such as fighter pilots) didn't all have the same uniform, nor did all of the rank insignia displayed appear to have a common design or origin (see the "pattern of dots" rank insignia on General Rieken on Hoth vs the lack of similar insignia on General Madine or Lando in RotJ, for example). As for that lack of "badges," who assigns those badges, anyway? The Rebel Alliance does not answer to any planetary, system, sector or galactic government...they are a self-appointed militia that has dedicated itself to the overthrow of the galactic government.



> There is another point - its called the Rebel Alliance because, guess what? Its an officially recognized alliance NOT and terrorist group.


I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse here, but are you saying that, because the Alliance has a name, that in and of itself precludes them from being a terrorist organization? By that same logic, having names precludes al Queda and the IRA (just to name two) from being classified as terrorist organizations. (And, if I really wanted to get geeky, I could point out that, although I myself am calling it the "Rebel Alliance," only the Imperials used that specific term on screen. The good guys all said "the Rebellion" or "the Alliance," while expanded universe sources gave it the official name of "The Alliance to Restore the Republic.").



> There is NO justification for the romance, if she wanted to leave she could have done at anytime. Waiting until there was another man there was not necessary.


I don't think anyone said it was necessary. As stated upthread, Rose told her mother she wanted out and was rebuffed. Before meeting Jack, she was prepared to leave not just the relationship, but the world.



> She was simply a horny woman, lets not forget the huge taboo of premarital sex at the time. She mixed classes (taboo), premarital sex (another taboo), rebelling against the arranged marriage (taboo).


Prior to meeting Jack, she had her small, quiet rebellions, and was at the brink of suicide. The narrative gives us the impression that Jack introduced her to the idea that she had more choices than death or a marriage that may as well have been a death.



> Make Leo into a middle aged balding loser. Make Rose into an unhappy housewife. Tone down Cal so he is just a bit of a d1ck and not violent. So basically, woman in an unhappy relationship starts another one before ending the current = infidelity.


I'm sorry, I but I don't feel the logic tracks here. You're basically saying that, if we change the story, then the story's different. Well, sure, THAT logic tracks, but the scenario you suggest isn't the one in the story...we have to go by what WAS in the story.

Or, we can say (going back to the Star Wars example) that if we make Emperor Palpatine a benevolent, but misunderstood ruler, and Luke bent on galactic domination, you've got a different Star Wars trilogy, and you'd be right...but you wouldn't be talking about the Star Wars movies as they exist. Well...right now, anyway. If Lucas can go back and make it so Han shoots Greedo in self defense, and make Darth Vader a whiny teenager with abandonment and mommy issues, then ya never know....



> Just because she wrote a 'Dear John' after she exposed her jugs does not undo all the previous flirting and seeds of lust that had been planted.


Never said it "undid" anything. Of course an attraction grew between Rose and Jack. That's exactly why she wrote the "Dear John" letter and ended things with Cal before progressing with Jack. (Personally, I wouldn't say that posing nude for an artist in and of itself constitutes infidelity.) Recall also that, after the portrait, after the letter, they didn't leave the stateroom with the intention of taking a roll in the hay (or the back seat, as the case may be)that we're made aware of. They made their way to the hold after eluding Cal's valet. Rose did indeed make the first move, but she had broken off her engagement to Cal by that point, via the letter.

I just don't think the story, on its own, supports (or, at least, entirely supports...I allow for different people interpreting films different ways) your read of it.

But, like the tree on Dagobah, what you take in with you is what you find inside.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

For the record, let me just add that I think we're according BOTH Titanic and Star Wars (all of 'em, including ancillary materials) a LOT more subtext than they contain or are meant to contain.

And, I really do think that part of someone's interpretation of most any story will certainly be informed by their own experiences up to that point. Going back to Star Wars one more time, there's plenty of moments in the original film that, with knowledge of the subsequent movies, seems MUCH more significant than I really was. And contradictions, too. At the end of the day, tellin the most dramatic story is the filmmakers' top priority, and conflict makes for drama. If everyone in movies handled their lives by the book, those would be some pretty boring movies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

Grayson said:


> For the record, let me just add that I think we're according BOTH Titanic and Star Wars (all of 'em, including ancillary materials) a LOT more subtext than they contain or are meant to contain.


Gee, you think? :rofl:


----------

