We knew that finding fault with a cultural phenomenon (“The leaks in `Titanic,’ ” March 1) wouldn’t go unnoticed. We weren’t, however, prepared for the torrent of e-mail, letters, phone calls and dirty looks. Many readers took the time to refute our 20 leaks one by one; some anonymously scrawled invectives on school notebook paper. Others wrote to thank us and included their own lists.
Here, then, is a sampling of what our readers had to say:
BEECHER– I think your article is an example of what’s wrong with our culture today: jealousy of each other’s accomplishments.
– Annabelle Janota
NAPERVILLE–I can summarize the movie in 25 words or less: Romeo and Juliet meet the “Poseidon Adventure,” with a little “Star Wars” special effects thrown in for good measure.
– Fred Spitzzeri
INDIANAPOLIS– Amen to the contributors of “The Leaks in `Titanic’ “! Although “Titanic” was a good film, it hardly qualifies as an epic for our time. The special effects are surely that: special. However, the plot and subplots are weak and overdone, and the flaws that the Tribune critics pointed out are astute and well-deserved.
I have been wondering when members of the media would have courage enough to voice opinions differing from the masses. This lighthearted poke at “Titanic” is right on the mark.
– Adrienne M. Szabo
SANTA CRUZ, Calif.–What on earth do you have against a little suspension of disbelief? Your little “contributing” group sounds like they didn’t eat their bran one morning. I had an argument for all 20 of your so-called “problems” (although I suspect you had to narrow your list down from 100 for space constriction) but, unlike you, I’m not going to sit down and list the top 20 leaks in your good judgment.
– Angie Bennet
BARRINGTON–Thanks for the great article. I have been voicing my opinion about these very things ever since I saw the movie and have met with nothing but disgust.
Everyone seems to have loved this movie so much that they can’t handle the slightest criticism.
– Kathy Johnson
ELK GROVE–You admitted that when you see something over and over again “the cracks start to show.” Well, you should have viewed the movie one time and taken it for what it was worth, a great movie.
Although this was a true story, it was also a movie. Obviously there are going to be things that were not true to the time, but to most people, that does not matter.
– H. Dawson
CHICAGO–20 problems? Is that ALL you could find? For the above-average movie, that’s very few, particularly if you have to see it again and again in order to take notice.
– Peter Novota
PALATINE–Bravo to your “Titanic Leaks” article in yesterday’s paper. As a longtime Titanic history buff, it makes me wince to hear of the millions of fans with a new sudden interest in the great liner–all basing their passion for the story on Cameron’s movie.
Am I the only one who thinks Cameron told the story of the Titanic with a 1990s slant, as if the behavior and dialogue of a passenger in 1912 wasn’t going to do well at the box office?
Here are a few more leaks for your list:
– The pandemonium Cameron shows as passengers take to the lifeboats simply did not exist. Survivor after survivor gave accounts of the quiet and orderly fashion in which passengers behaved during loading of the boats. The small proportion of acts of cowardice were overblown to give viewers the impression of utter chaos. In truth, it was the amazing atmosphere of relative calm that makes the story of the Titanic so intriguing.
– How about Rose giving the “finger” to one of Hockley’s cohorts? I may be wrong, but I doubt that expression was part of the vernacular in 1912.
Very few dramatic liberties have to be taken when telling the story of the Titanic.
– Ann Franczak
SYCAMORE–Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro” could have been edited too. (The recent performance of Lyric Opera’s was great but also long.) If “Titanic” had added some of your suggested improvements, I don’t see how it comes in under 4 hours. Seeing such a magnificent ship sink takes longer than the actual sinking.
Did you escape to the washroom and miss the horror I saw–of the hundreds in the water, struggling, crying out, freezing, and then dead?
And the real Molly Brown is no doubt looking down in gratitude to Kathy Bates for clearing away the insulting Debbie Reynolds portrayal.
– John F. Biver
CHICAGO–You have just created the Nitpickers Guide to “Titanic.”
– Adam Weiss
CHICAGO–Luckily, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and those that feel differently than you do have already had their say. Hooray for “Titanic” being the first $1 billion film in the history of the movies. A well-deserved honor I hope stands for a long, long time.
– Susan Rawlish
CHICAGO–In the biggest grossing movie of all time there are ZERO memorable lines. While drowning at the end Jack goes on and on, paragraph after paragraph. We can’t wait for him to drown already.
Every state of the art special effect was used, whether they were needed or not. The water rushing down the hall, the strobe light while they battled the locked door, the water bursting into the bridge and killing the captain.
Jack Dawson also looked like he was 12 years old and Rose looked like she was 30.
– Brian Pete
CHICAGO–Thanks for the truth. It’s so refreshing.
– Vivian Levin
CHICAGO–I saw the film six days before I saw the Broadway musical version (in December), and I found the Broadway show to be much more satisfying, primarily for two reasons: (1) infinitely better music, and (2) an accurate historical approach to presenting the story line.
Your article mentioned Isador and Ida Strauss and how they were depicted only briefly in the film. I am glad you identified them since I could only guess that those two people in that cabin were supposed to be the Strausses. The Broadway show presented them in several scenes and focused a whole scene on their relationship by even giving them a love duet to sing, which I found to be one of the most beautiful moments in the entire show.
I also loved the movie for what it was–but I was hoping for something a little more believable. Americans do like their special effects. And if the story is full of loopholes, they either don’t care, or they’re too stupid to figure it out. Unfortunately, they are all too willing to pay high prices for entertainment which is based solely on spectacle and effects and which sorely lacks any enrichment for the mind.
P. T. Barnum’s voice still rings loud and clear.
– Frank Ferko
ELMHURST–What I cannot forgive any of you for is what you did to my grandson. He is 14 years old and all his life has only wanted to see movies with machine-gunning, violence and sci-fi films where ray guns make everyone disappear. I finally talked him into seeing “Titanic” and he loved it! He loved everything about it, and didn’t even mind when the necklace was thrown overboard. He won’t tell any of his friends what happened at the end, he wanted them to be surprised, just as he was. Now he’s afraid they will read your article and not want to see the picture.
I have always been a reader of film, theater and music reviews but I can guarantee you that I will never, I repeat, NEVER, ever read a review in the Tribune again!
– Dorothy Sandstrom
CHICAGO–Thanks for starting the list. As good as the movie was, it’s not perfect for everyone. I really didn’t like it for a number of similar reasons to your lists. I vote for “Good Will Hunting.”
Another stupid inclusion: Rose giving the finger. Not likely in 1912.
– Ned Robinson
CHICAGO–Got any criticisms about the Sistine Chapel while you’re at it?
– Kara Raymond
ST. CHARLES–Rose is completely out of place in 1912, especially as a debutante. I am 53 years old and never saw a girl flip the finger at someone until 1961. And that was no debutante. And, in 1912 with just a high school education at best, how did Rose get to be so versed on Picasso and Freud? No, at best in 1912, Rose was an anachronism. Had she gone down with the Titanic, the world would have suffered no loss.
– Jim Recchia
ELMWOOD PARK–Obviously your lack of knowledge for making movies is only exceeded by your ignorance to what the viewing public expects from a good movie.
Twelve minnows (the contributors to the article) who couldn’t even exist in the sea; are you jealous of the success of the film? It’s also notable that none of your names end in a vowel. That’s your first leak.
– JoAnn Serpico
VALPARAISO, Ind.–The whole story starts out with a crew trying to find the huge blue diamond in the wreckage of the sunken ship. After what must have been an incredible expense, effort and finally frustration, they all learn, when the audience did, that the diamond was in the pocket of the coat she still wore when rescued. Yet, no one asked her what had happened to it after that. Duh!
– Patty Wilkins
CHICAGO–Now come on. Aren’t we getting a little nitpicky!!?? For the average “non-movie critic,” “Titanic” is an awesome movie!!! Nothing we ever see will be absolutely, perfectly flawless!! Who is really going to see this movie and say “Hey, that `Les Desmoiselles’ painting by Picasso is supposed to be horizontal, not vertical!! That’s it, I’m walking out of here!!”
– Danielle Ludolph
PORTLAND, ORE.–You guys are ignoramus butt heads.
– Titanic Lover Holly
CHICAGO–I think I may have found one more chunk of ice to add to your list.
Moments after the look-outs in the crow’s nest spot the iceberg they radio down to notify the bridge. The second in command immediately rushes in, demanding that the ship be turned “hard to starboard,” or to the right. Reacting to the command, the person driving the ship frantically turns the wheel to the left, or port side.
So maybe the real reason the Titanic sunk wasn’t because it hit an iceberg. Maybe it was because Gilligan was driving the thing.
– Don Dunbar, Cramer Krasselt
GLENDALE HEIGHTS–I have seen Titanic twice and both times I have been sincerely touched by this compelling love story. I think it’s about time that people stop trying to find its faults and just enjoy the movie.
Maybe instead of writing ridiculous articles which contain nothing but pointless criticism, you should try writing about something interesting that hasn’t been written about over and over again.
– Kerry Will
PALATINE–I thought I was the only person who saw THE film and was disappointed. Your article in today’s Trib hit the bullseye. Give me less of the love story and more of the many subplots that actually happened which make the whole story so tragic and unique.
I spoiled myself by renting the 1958 movie “A Night to Remember,” based on Walter Lord’s book of the same title, prior to seeing Titanic. “A Night to Remember” showed many actual events, such as the ship, The Californian, which was within sight and did not come to the Titanic’s aid; its wireless operator was asleep and regulations did not require 24-hour wireless operations; its officers saw the distress rockets, but did not respond!
As your article says, don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good film. But the greatest ever? Not for me. Tell your readers to check out “A Night to Remember.”
– George R. Hyland
EVANSTON–I am 10 years old. I think that the average kid who noticed your “leaks” wouldn’t care, or even notice them. I mean, who really cares that the movie is sort of fake? I’ll bet that half the grownups didn’t notice some of those things.
– Sarah Guzy
WHEELING–My reaction to “Titanic” was that I hadn’t felt that manipulated since the time one of my sons brought me a bunch of flowers before telling me he had flunked math!
I am often accused of being the only one to tell the emperor that he has no clothes on; thanks for your supporting my beliefs in the case of “Titanic”!
– Sandee Holleb
HIGHLAND PARK–The only thing you left out is the uncanny resemblance between the love plot in Titanic and that in the last 47 Disney movies: rich, powerful and consistently evil bad guy, who wants to possess the young, beautiful, anachronistically liberated heroine, who instead jousts with and then comes to love the young, handsome, poor, mischievous, but good hearted hero. I think I’m going to be sick.
– Dale Nance
EVANSTON–Finally, someone has taken off their blinders and seen the movie “Titanic” in all its flawed glory. I feel the same way as you. I loved the film, but I also failed to be completely swept away by it because of the pathetic script, the anachronisms and the other discrepancies you mentioned.
I don’t mean to sound insulting, but the fact is that this film is nothing but a beautiful icon of pop culture, albeit pop culture at its best and most persuasive. Thanks for standing up to the gigantic myth that has made “Titanic” a cult with a more loyal following than most religions.
– Laura Leichum
OAK PARK–Problem 5. “A better tribute would have been to sell it (the necklace) for millions . . .”
Lame idea.
If Rose sold it before Hockley died in ’29, Cal would have been after the diamond like a lecher after a nubile intern. And, he’d probably slap Rose up the side of the head just for old times sake.
If she tried to sell it after ’29, it’s probably insurance fraud. Lawyers for the insurer who paid Cal’s claim would be all over it. And if the litigation were still ongoing (not improbable with our legal system), Kenneth Starr would probably subpoena the White House staff to see if Clinton had anything to do with it.
– Jim Peters
CHICAGO–Thanks for the article. I thought I might be the only one thinking all the things you brought up.
No. 18 is your one big mistake: How can you find the most talented cast member annoying? Kathy Bates was underwritten as Molly, but never annoying.
You missed another dumb “Titanic” moment by failing to point out the incredible journey the necklace took in Rose’s pocket. Remember the beating Rose took during the sinking of the ship and her time spent in the water? Remember how big Rose’s coat pocket was when she discovered the necklace was still in her pocket!?
– Wendy Lueker
DOWNERS GROVE–And I thought I was crazy. It’s hard to be critical of a movie this big.
My criticisms fell roughly into three categories–Length, Sex and one I’ll call Die Already (related, again, to length). And why the contrived necklace subplot? A sinking ship isn’t compelling enough?
“Titanic” was Kate Winslet’s movie. But a woman still can’t carry action/epic. No, she’s got to share her glory with water, computers and one-dimensional men.
– Carol Ann Kania
CHICAGO–A good list of leaks, but you missed some real gushers.
A real Rose would never have given a fellow passenger the finger. If the gesture even existed then, a girl of her protected upbringing would never have run across it, much less used it–no matter how feisty and dissatisfied with her lot she was. It draws easy laughs from audiences who want characters like themselves, but it’s evidence of a complete tin ear for period.
A couple of the exterior shots of the ship at night seem to show a boat ablaze with halogen-like light on all its decks–as bright inside as any modern supermarket. But no public space in 1912 was illumined that brilliantly. A warmer, softer glow would have been more persuasive.
– George Paterson
ST. CHARLES–The bright red modern lipstick on all the women, especially the leading lady, was totally out of place in this period movie. Particularly one that prided itself on its accurate representation of details such as shipboard china, etc. The leading lady’s flowing locks were almost as jolting a note.
– Judy Isely
EVANSTON–Please don’t try to save face with the real fans by saying you love the movie right before you start picking it apart. We aren’t fooled. Finally, try to remember that movies are meant to be fantasy, not reality. If you want complete accuracy, no love story, details about death, and more individual stories than I suggest a documentary.
– Abigail Hazlett
RIVERSIDE–What struck me was how Jack, who neither showed respect nor civility toward Molly Brown, was considered to be her student. Amazing, I’ve had to use a paper clip as a substitute for a misplaced cuff link, and she just happened to have a tux from her son for Jack to wear. Shoes and all!!!
Also, why so much luggage for Rose’s trip on the helicopter?
And, my question to you, did she (Rose) die in her bed?
– John Lukasik
WANATAH, Ind.–I disagree. Billy Zane did a terrific job. Men have always had trouble showing their feelings, or so we are supposed to believe and he is bound to suffer in comparison with Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is winning and winsome and light and young and free. Zane is dark and pretty. He cares deeply for Rose but he just doesn’t know how to show it.
– Terence McManus
ST. CHARLES–1. What the heck was the color of Rose’s eyes? Brown, green or blue? It seemed to change with every scene, though the older Rose always had vivid blue eyes.
2. How was it that one moment the frozen and wet Rose had purple lips, while the next they were a lovely rose shade?
3. How did Rose and Jack manage to dry off so quickly after swimming for their lives through the flooded lower decks?
4. Why did no one lose their lunch during this whole affair? Wasn’t that boat tossing in a big way as it went down? Or weren’t they scared enough to lose it? Seems the director missed his chance for another touch of “realism.”
– Carol Leonard
LISLE–I found your article to be a blatant effort at headline stealing without much substance. Yes, we have been told how much the director was true to historic fact, but come now, can there not be a little bit of embellishment?
You take exception to everything from the love-making to the length of the film. Most of your problems with the film seem transparent. Apparently, from the great numbers of people who are seeing and re-seeing this great movie, the “leaks” you have pointed out do not amount to enough water to fill a mud puddle!
P.S. I was surprised that you and your group of writers missed, to me, the one strange part of the story. Why was Molly Brown carrying a tuxedo for her son on a voyage she was making alone? Remember, she said that Jack was the same size as her son when she loaned the outfit to him?
– H. M. Lamarre
———-
Send letters to Arts & Entertainment, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago 60611. Or e-mail to tbannon@tribune.com. Please include your name, address and phone number.
