An Open Letter to All Self-Proclaimed Filmmakers, Concerning Depictions of the Night of April 14-15, 1912

It has come to our attention that there exist numerous films centered around the infamous sinking of the RMS Titanic, much to our combined chagrin. Some of these movies, like A Night To Remember, are noteworthy and deserving of praise, while others, like SOS Titanic, leave much to be desired. Our intention therefore being to comment upon these productions, we have taken it upon ourselves to pen this open letter as frank and unvarnished assessment of four such films which we have recently viewed.

Part the First: Titanic (1997)

James Cameron's wildly popular and much-maligned blockbuster may be a technical achievement - the soundtrack is and the recreation of our original hull and interiors masterfully brings us back to life on the silver screen for all those who never lived to set foot on board - but we feel compelled to register our complaints against numerous inaccuracies and artistic liberties that detract from the general excellence of the rest of the film.

Firstly, the subplot concerning the search for the Heart of the Ocean could easily have been done away with. Are there not numerous real life artifacts salvaged from our wreck that could have served this role - Adolphe Saalfeld's perfume vials, Wally Hartley's violin, John Jacob Astor's pocket watch, among others? Could not the 1912 Renault, or the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, have made better things to treasure hunt for than a fictional blue diamond? Never mind the fact that it was never explained how small ROVs could lift a heavy safe out of one of our staterooms... And Rose just tosses the priceless necklace overboard, never mind the fact that she could have given it to her granddaughter for an heirloom and inheritance. Speaking of Rose…

The entire existence of the fictional characters gives us great reason to protest with vehemence. Two thousand and two hundred souls made their way on the maiden voyage, and Mr. Cameron could choose none of them as the leads in his story, instead having to cut his main cast out of whole metaphorical cloth? For chrisakes, A Night To Remember (1958) outstrips this film far and wide in this regard in its focus on Charles Lightoller's perspective - and if Cameron was afraid of the backlash that ended up hounding him with respect to Will Murdoch, let it be known that Lightoller's family made no such waves concerning the older movie.

The depictions of the true to life characters and operation of the ship leave much to be desired. Passengers were not allowed onto the forward well deck, so no King of the World shot for you Mr Dawson. The engines were stopped, not reversed, during the collision. Thomas Andrews was roused to action some time after his sighting in the smoking room and was last seen on deck throwing chairs into the water, for crying out loud! The man went down trying to save others, not in catatonic contemplation! Third class passengers were not deliberately locked behind grille gates, how dare this accusation be made! Charles Joughin was nowhere near that drunk! And do not get us started on your treatment of William Murdoch, Mr Cameron!

We will forgive the inaccuracies of the final breakup and turn our attention to the most controversial aspect of the fictional romance: the idea that there was room on that board for Jack. One of us has insistently maintained this to be true, and can back up his assertions with the Mythbusters episode concerning the matter, and while his death was narratively necessary it has to be said that there were less contrived ways of killing Jack off than him not getting onto a board that would have fit him and Rose.

Lastly, why is it Jack who Rose reunites with in the afterlife and not her husband of who knows how many years? The man's been with her all her life, for all we know, and ends up playing second fiddle to a man she knew for all of a few days? While we do subscribe to the view that after death neque nubent, we still find that Mrs Calvert's nameless husband got short shrift in being essentially passed over as a mere rebound. Our final verdict: this entire film could have been written better, but otherwise is a technical masterpiece.

Part the Second: Titanic (1943)

Where the 1997 film was a work of art impaired by questionable writing choices and artistic licenses, the 1943 film is plain and simple an unadulterated piece of Nazi anti-British propaganda. That alone should be enough for us to raise objections to its very existence, but in the interest of thoroughly dismembering its long-dead carcass we are compelled to point out major sticking points that get on our nerves after viewing the horrendous piece of work.

Where do we even begin with this shoddily written tragedy of errors? The fact that the White Star Line did not offer stock, meaning that the film's premise of stock manipulation is dead in the water? Or the idea that Bruce Ismay wanted us to capture the Blue Riband, pushing us at 26.5 knots when in truth our top speed of 24 knots was slower than Cunard's greyhounds' usual pace? Whoever wrote this screenplay quite eminently did not do their research, or more bluntly in our view decided not to let the truth get in the way of raw propaganda.

Second Officer Will Murdoch gets short shrift in this film again: they don't even bother to get his name or rank right, calling him Chief Officer Morlok and portraying him quite crudely, in contrast to the obviously heroic German protagonist, 1st Officer Petersen. Here we go again with unnecessary fictional protagonists, and a Gary Stu to boot! Chief Officer Wilde is written out entirely with Murdoch a.k.a. Morlok in his position, and the heavyhanded screenwriter shows his poor chops once again by portraying all the crew except Petersen in the worst light possible. Captain Smith, taking bribes from Ismay? Utter tripe and hogwash, and quoth we the apocryphal lines, "we are not amused"!

Propagandistic and fictional elements aside, the film is more heavily laced with historical inaccuracies than a bishop's rochet. Firstly, the Cap Arcona (may she rest in peace) hardly had the right profile to play our part, with a different kind of stern and more visible vents. While Liverpool was engraved on our stern, we sailed from Southampton instead due to the deeper waters of the harbour there. The dining saloon did not extend over two decks - in fact the interiors have been gotten all wrong! The Astors were nothing like what we see in that movie! Would it have killed the filmmakers to get their nationality right even? We could go on and on but in the interest of decreasing our blood pressure we will desist at this point.

Part the Third: The Legend of the Titanic

Italy, oh Italy, why must you defame our memory with such a horrible animated retelling of what happened on that night? Viewing this travesty of a work roused the ire of all 1500 souls who perished, and honestly an argument can be made that the film studio owes them compensation for defamation in claiming that nobody actually died during the sinking! For making us put up with a thousand and a half angry ghosts screaming for restitution, something we would not even wish on our worst enemies, we lay our grievances out in the open to let it be known how displeased we and our dead are.

The 'legend' of the Titanic? What happened to us was hardly legendary or fictional! With all the information and documentation on the incident, how could anybody ever imagine that the 1912 incident qualifies as a 'legend'? Are you trying to say it never really happened? Oh wait, it would appear that the whole incident as reported in the papers and the inquiries was a, and we quote, 'misunderstanding'! Who would have thought! What temerity and audacity, to claim that this is what really happened! It's on par with all manner of ludicrous and sordid conspiracy theories, except this one trends more towards sickeningly sweet glurge instead of sinister shadowy dealings!

Now how exactly is this a misunderstanding? It is our understanding that the premise of the film is as follows: that we were sunk by an iceberg thrown by an octopus tricked by a gang of ex-convict sharks who were in cahoots with a whaler who wanted to gain worldwide whaling rights by marrying the daughter of a rich duke, who instead falls in love with a classy gypsy (on behalf of all Romani, we apologize for having to use this word) named Don Juan. And apparently everybody can talk to animals! Forget the inaccuracies in depicting the layout of our interiors and even the exteriors, they pale in comparison to this egregious stain on animation history!

It's clear as day that this is a cheap ripoff of the James Cameron film, right down to being able to pinpoint who among the protagonists and antagonists stand in for Jack, Rose, Cal, and Ruth, but the repeated overuse of an instrumental leitmotif possibly meant to ape My Heart Will Go On (or Southampton) only adds the half-rotten cherry on this steaming pile of excrement. It's an affront, an insult of the highest order to everybody who perished that night, to their families, and to us as well, and we will not stand for it!

Part the Fourth: In Search of the Titanic / Tentacolino

The fact that a sequel to the aforementioned affront exists is like rubbing salt into a wound for us, and is seriously making us consider personally signing off on all future proposals for films centered on the sinking to clamp down on errors creeping into the telling. At least it would, if it weren't for the fact that the Abyssal War is still ongoing. Nevertheless, to close out this open letter we press on to the bitter end, laying out our objections to this film even if it barely even counts as a Titanic movie.

Honestly, if this movie had been based on Robert Ballard's expeditions it would have made for a much better and more gripping tale, but then that would have to be live action and apparently would have been too much effort. Instead watching this is a visual assault that only furthers the nonsensical premises of the previous film and in some cases even contradicts previously-established plot points! In the first movie, the story is told from the point of view of an elderly mouse who survived the sinking when he was younger, but in the sequel it is found out that three years after the sinking, he ended up stranded on a secret island unable to return to civilization due to having imbibed the elixir of life! Consistency, have they heard of it?

The plot goes hither and thither, the protagonists make no sense in their reactions to anything (looking at you Don Juan!), and what starts off as a search for our wreck soon gets sidetracked into an apparently drug-fueled fantasy romp through Atlantis! We have serious difficulty believing this film was made by people who weren't ten sheets to the wind or under the influence of the hard stuff because of how little sense anything makes in this one! Not to mention the godawful excuses for antagonists from the first film making their comeback in this film, or the horrendous ear-grating soundtrack from hell!

In Conclusion

We will keep this brief, for the sake of not blowing a metaphorical or literal gasket thanks to how utterly incensed our brief dive into the genre of Titanic films has made us. For our sake, for the sake of the dead, and their families, for history's sake, do your goddamn research!

Signed,

RMS Titanic and RMS Titanic