Titanic in 3D
Posted Apr 28, 2012 @ 10:46 PM
Posted May 2, 2012 @ 3:33 AM
Posted May 8, 2012 @ 5:30 PM
I wonder because when he has a fit and knocks the table over, he tells her she is his wife "in practice, if not by law". Also, the look on his face when he gives her the diamond necklace, but maybe I'm reading too much into that moment.
Posted May 14, 2012 @ 9:43 AM
Posted May 16, 2012 @ 8:59 PM
Something I've always wondered: Did Rose sleep with Cal on the ship, or maybe even before that?
I wonder because when he has a fit and knocks the table over, he tells her she is his wife "in practice, if not by law".
Reading some of the other posts, I'm shocked that people thought Rose and Cal were NOT already sleeping together. It seemed obvious (to me!) that they had been sleeping together for a long time and mom knew about it; anything was okay as long as it kept Cal interested! Rose and Cal only had separate cabins for propriety's sake. The "in practice" really cemented that for me.
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 12:27 AM
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 6:27 PM
But Rose clearly didn't want him and she was so rebellious so why would she sleep with him without even bring married? It's not like it would have been expected of her back then.
I agree that Rose did not want to be with Cal in any form, and that society would have expected her to remain chaste until marriage. But there are a couple of lines that hint that perhaps they have been intimate. There is that line about her being Cal's wife "in practice, if not law", and there is another line, earlier in the film, where Cal tells Rose that he had "hoped you'd come to me last night", the implication clearly being sleeping together. And the way Cal said it, it didn't sound as if that would have been the first time, at least that is how it sounded to me. Cal is certainly no romantic, but I gotta think even Cal would find it rather gauche to bed his fiance for the first time on a cruise ship. That seems hamfisted even for Cal. They are coming back from a trip to Europe, if she wasn't in the mood during that, I don't see where being on a ship, even one as grand as Titanic, would change her mind.
Personally, I think we are meant to think Rose is a virgin, but the poor dialogue in the script causes confusion.
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 7:18 PM
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 9:57 PM
But Rose clearly didn't want him and she was so rebellious so why would she sleep with him without even bring married?
Rose would sleep with him because she needed to keep Cal happy. Rose's mom pretty much sold her to Cal for money and status, a plan that Rose was following because she felt she had no other options. Her mom was more than willing to barter Rose's virtue for a guaranteed name and bank account while turning a blind eye to any sexual shenanigans. Rose's acting out was pretty petty stuff, but she hadn't told her mother "no" regarding any of her future plans. She was acting like the teenager she was - rebel in the little ways you can (smoke, read Freud), even if you can't fight the big stuff (marrying a rich jackass). Cal was perfectly aware he had Rose in a weakened position, and I have no doubt there would be subtle pressure to reward him for his understanding. He was marrying a girl with a name, but no money. Rose had no power, while Cal had everything she/her mother thought she/they needed.
I think if they had slept together it wouldn't have been a matter of Rose coming to him.
Cal was also conceited. I'm sure he liked to think that there was some actual attraction toward him on Rose's part. Plus, it was a facade of being a gentleman by giving her the illusion of having a choice in the matter.
Edited by Zanne, May 17, 2012 @ 9:59 PM.
Posted May 18, 2012 @ 2:12 PM
Posted May 19, 2012 @ 2:32 PM
Posted May 21, 2012 @ 4:19 PM
Posted May 21, 2012 @ 4:39 PM
Posted May 23, 2012 @ 5:33 AM
I can imagine him being conceited enough to expect her to come to him willingly and that could be the meaning behind the "I had hoped you would come to me last night" but it could also mean the opposite. It is all very confusing.
Posted May 27, 2012 @ 6:43 PM
It is funny though, that particular line made me realize something when I saw it last week. When she says she is going to get off with Jack, the ship was still a few days away from New York. What was Rose going to do during that time?. She had made her decision to go with Jack, so staying with Cal and her mother didn't seem feasible. Was she going to stay with Jack in his steerage cabin, alongside Fabrizio and the two Swedes? Of course the iceberg rendered the situation moot, but I am curious as to what she was going to do. That would have been an awkward couple of days.
Hmm, I remember noticing that Rose told Cal she was going to leave him and go off with Jack. I can't remember if she told him that before or after she knew the ship was sinking for sure, but either way, I remember thinking that if she just hadn't told him, they all probably would have lived. I might be wrong on the timeline but I think that if she had just kept her mouth shut, no one would have had a motive to handcuff Jack belowdecks, and they could all have gotten on lifeboats and then she could have left Cal once they got on land. Much easier to escape once you're not on a ship, anyway. And I know it would have been repugnant to stay with Cal those last few days, but since they were only engaged, its not like she was expected to sleep with him. She'd just have to keep up a polite face for a few days, sit quietly at dinner, and then disappear once they were on land.
"To me it was a slave ship, taking me back to America in chains." Yes. Because imprisonment, rape, and unpaid forced labor are just like having to marry Billy Zane and live in a fur-lined bon-bon palace for-literally-ever.
Its not the same as a slave ship, for sure. But throwing the word rape in there just made me think that actually, being forced to marry a violent man that you hate IS pretty much going to lead to being raped. Even if they wouldn't have called it rape in that era. So I think both sides are wrong here - its not right to say that its the same as a slave ship, but its also not right to say that she was being taken to the lap of luxury. She was being taken to a gilded cage where she would be emotionally and physically abused by her husband.
Posted Dec 18, 2012 @ 4:13 PM
A good movie can be made strictly on the strength of a good villain or an interesting protagonist and that's something pretty much all of Cameron's movies lack, relying instead on plot and action to pull things through. Apart from the guy himself being an arrogant prick, he always forces his characters into categories and restricts them that way. Law enforcement and the military are always stupid and/or evil, those the rich are pompous assholes, the poor are perfect. Multifaceted characters don't exist in anything he has a hand in. I think the closest we got was the re-programed Terminator in T2 making him the most interesting character in that movie! This is exactly what chaps my hide about Cameron's movies, so thank you Red Letter for pointing that out to me! It explains why I find his stuff unsatisfying or just annoying.
Edited by Tableau, Dec 18, 2012 @ 4:20 PM.