It seems they made an effort to make him look like a bad guy.
He did care for Rose deeply. He was generous.
He was going to marry her. He bought first class tickets for Rose and her mother. Rose's mother was very aware what a great catch he was as a husband.
Not likeable perhaps. But was he a bad guy?
It is clear that he was not as bad as the movie tries to portray him.
It was the beginning of the 1900s. He was rich. He was engaged.
His fiancé is fat, spoiled, selfish, suicidal and treats him like an enemy.
Plus, she is a cheater.
These are all facts.
I don't think any sane man would look much better considering the situation.
But he manages to get rid of her, so she could kill her lover.
Too bad for the diamond though...
Huh?
Even if you were right about everything else, Rose was never fat!
But anyway, you have to understand that she as forced into this engagement.
That she would rather commit suicide than marry Cal makes her and not him sympathetic.
Who forced her? Him?
Nope, her mother.
Was it such an outlandish proposition?
Nope, if anything it was quite common and normal then, she should have taken a good look in the mirror and understood how incredibly lucky she was .
Suicide in such a situation makes me see her as spoiled, selfish, overly dramatic, out of touch with the world and with real suffering, and makes me sympathize with him for enduring such a brat.
Rose was only seventeen years old if I remember correctly.
But still, her mother was already pressuring her into a marriage that she didn't want.
Cal was maybe not the one to force Rose.
But he still showed signs that he only saw her as a possession and could be violent towards her.
Why should we think that anybody should be happy with that, even 110 years ago?
Cal may have been rich and able to give Rose and her mother financial security.
But spending a whole life with him wasn't what Rose wanted, and it would have been a disastrous marriage.
And it's hardly fair to call a suicidal teenager "spoiled and selfish and overly dramatic".
Shouldn't you rather want to help her, so she won't do such a thing?
Besides, it is not up to you to decide what "real suffering" is...
Yes, that diamond was beautiful.
What does Rose do? She put it in a drawer for decades. The magnificent necklace was hidden.
Then she throws it in the ocean. They were in very deep water so the necklace was probably never found.
Cal certainly meant well when he gave it to her as a gift. Would a bad guy give her such a necklace?
Would a good guy become violent and turn over a table in front of her?
shareAnd an abusive partner can give you expensive gifts and still be abusive.
That is really a very common way to give the victim a sense of false security.
"That is really a very common way to give the victim a sense of false security."
Did you see that diamond necklace?! It was most uncommon. Very few women would ever receive such a gift in their lifetime.
Rose was given first class treatment. Her mother was appreciative and grateful.
Cal wasn't perfect. Nobody is perfect.
Was he a bad guy?
But it doesn’t matter if Cal was the richest man in the world.
It is clear that Rose still didn't want him or whatever diamonds he could give her.
And that gives her every right to reject him, especially after we see him turn a table over in front of her.
She would have seen him as he truly was in that moment and known that he would hurt her soon.
"It is clear that he was not as bad as the movie tries to portray him."
How the movie portrays him is all we have to go on. "Not as bad as the movie tries to portray him" insinuates that there was a real Cal outside of the film for comparison.
"His fiancé is fat, spoiled, selfish, suicidal and treats him like an enemy. Plus she is a cheater."
What does any of that have to do with the question of whether or not Cal was a bad person? Sounds like a ham fisted attempt to excuse him for actually being a bad person. But perhaps I've misread your meaning and intention?
Pretty sure my post is self explanatory.
Just a tip: don't take sentences out of the context, they might have more meaning for you if you don't.
In return, here's a tip for you: respond to a post instead of getting snarky about it.
Cal is a fictional character. If he's "not as bad as the movie portrays him," what does that imply? Answer: that we have a another source for Cal from which to draw a comparison.
Which we don't.
So if I'm missing some profound point on your part, then here's your chance to elucidate that point.
I am not snarky, you are being dense.
It is clear that he was not as bad as the movie tries to portray him====> :
1 it was the beginning of the 1900s.
2 he was rich.
3 he was engaged.
4 his fiancé is fat, spoiled, selfish, suicidal and treats him like an enemy.
5 plus, she is a cheater.
I don't think any sane man would look much better considering the situation.
Which part is too difficult to understand?
The movie paints him as "the bad guy", while all these facts, of which we see only a glimpse on the few days on Titanic, are all there all the time. Hence, he is NOT that bad afterall, being the good looking, rich fiancee in 1912 of a fat, spoiled, selfish, suicidal, belligerant cheater. That is my point, as explained in my post.
What is implied? That he is not that bad a person afterall, and behaved quite allright up to that moment, and the situation in the movie he is put through (lots of it coming from his own fiancee) just pushed him to the edge.
Have you ever made an effort to write above a middle school level?
You begin with your mantra: "It is clear that he was not as bad as the movie tries to portray him"
Jesus Christ.
The way the movie portrays him is all we have to go on since he is a fictional character. The fact that you acknowledge that he is presented as bad in the film is therefore proof that his character IS bad.
I can keep explaining this to you but I can't understand it for you.
What it appears you mean to say is "by comparison with wealthy tycoons/businessmen from that time period he was not a bad guy."
But that's more than lame. That argument is denser than dense.
There are good people who are rich and there are bad people who are rich. Your comparison means nothing.
And everything else you said is trashing Rose as if that in and of itself proves that Cal was a good person.
You can reply with whatever boneheaded response you'd like, we're finished. I'll respond to the original poster later as to why clearly Cal was not a good person but, in fact, a very bad person.
I got what you said.
Clearly you cannot get what I say.
I have not compared Cal to any other wealthy tycoons/businessmen.
Of course I am contrasting him with Rose, since he is a bad guy because of her.
How about, Rose didn't try to kill herself, Rose wasn't a selfish spoiled brat, Rose didn't cheat on him with the first bum she met on the bridge...
In your imagination, would the "bad" Cal turn out to be that bad afterall?
I mean, he is a bad person, the events in the movie show that. But it's easy to be the "good guy" when nobody cheats on you, or treats you like an enemy for no reason, and thinks all your worth (which for those time is quite a lot: he is young, good looking, rich, and faithful) is zero, all this while you are not in a desperate situation like the sinking of the Titanic.
I was just reading a Reddit discussion and Billy Zane's name was mentioned:
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/yecnkh/comment/ityh0zr/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Titanic seems to really hurt Billy Zane's career or at least his chances at being an A-lister because he was so good (maybe too good) at playing such a detestable character. What's ironically, is that The Phantom proved that Zane was definitely capable of playing more heroic, "good guy" characters.
https://lebeauleblog.com/2014/06/28/what-the-hell-happened-to-billy-zane/
Not saying you're (or Reddit) is wrong, but I don't think playing a detestable role well hurts actors anymore. I think in the early years of entertainment, many actors carried the burden of a character with them. I can't recall who, but I remember one actor saying in an interview that women used to see him in public and kick him in the shins for being so mean to another character.
Today's audiences can completely separate actors from their roles.
Take a show like Yellowstone (for instance), most people absolutely HATE Beth, but think the actress is doing an amazing job. I would be more likely to watch a show that Beth is in because she was so good as a truly detestable character.
Billy Zane reveals 'Titanic' role meant he was typecast as a villain and says he's STILL shouted at in the street - after playing Rose's controlling fiancé
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11420479/Billy-Zane-reveals-Titanic-role-meant-typecast-villain.html
He was a 30-year-old guy marrying a 17-year-old girl. And she was going to commit suicide because of him. Yeah, he was a bad guy. Jack was perfect for her.
shareCal is easily the best thing about Titanic, he’s hilarious! His subtle digs at Jack always have me rolling - ‘Mr Dawson you could almost pass for a gentleman!… extraordinary…’ 🤣🤣🤣
Is he a bad guy? Yeah, but he got screwed over by Rose, I’d be mad if my fiancée started balling some twink while we’re on a cruise, and then the boat sinks. The whole situation doesn’t bring out his best qualities, but he’s not an evil man.
I’m glad he survived.
Yep. A lot of people seem to forget that Rose was sneaking around on Cal with a guy she just met and then played Italian Deli with that guy in the back of a Renault - while she was engaged to marry Cal.
People also forget that they were both a product of their times. 99.9% of hetero women would have been thrilled to lead such a sheltered and controlled life in the early part of the 20th century America. With any such willing wife, Cal would have been a great husband to her (again, for the times).
True. Cal was a catch, and it’s not just Rose who would be set up for life, but her mother too. If Rose got with Jack the mom would be breaking her back as a seamstress while Rose was getting porked by a penniless man-child.
I can't see why Rose's mother couldn't find a rich widower to marry.
Jack was maybe penniless when he met Rose, but in what way was he a manchild?
Rose’s mom was the one obsessed with Rose bagging Cal, I guess ageing women struggled to attract a mate. Is a rich widower going to want Rose’s mom… or Rose? I think we know the answer.
Jack’s manchild quality comes both from his Leo DiCaprio physiognomy (he always looks 12) and his ungrounded free spiritedness. Once Jack had to get a job to provide for his kids and battle-axe wife, do you think he’d stick around, or go off on another adventure where he can meet a fresh new rose..?
I can't see why Rose's mother couldn't find a rich widower to marry.
He framed Jack. As not-so-bad guys do.🙄
share
Cal absolutely went over the top to defeat Jack, but we are seeing this story from Jack and Rose's perspective. If the story revolved around Cal, we would see him discovering his fiancee running around without Cal's knowledge then getting boned in the cargo hold. We, like Cal,, would be furious and would be rooting him on to see this young prick get his due even by nefarious means.
But we see this from Jack and Rose's perspective and hate Cal for his underhanded tricks.
It's how movie story telling goes, but Cal did have a legitimate beef.
Even if Cal had been the protagonist, would we not get a scene where he turned over a table in front of Rose?
Do you think that that was an acceptable thing to do?
And also, she had been forced into the engagement and almost commited suicide rather than marrying Cal.
Sure, it is true that her unhappiness wasn't only his fault.
But he didn't come across as some unappreciated nice guy at all, but rather as an entitled would-be abuser.
So I don't feel any sympathy for him...
Even if Cal had been the protagonist, would we not get a scene where he turned over a table in front of Rose?
Do you think that that was an acceptable thing to do?
And also, she had been forced into the engagement ..
But he didn't come across as some unappreciated nice guy at all, but rather as an entitled would-be abuser.
So I don't feel any sympathy for him...
"Many might say that merely overturning the table and then excusing himself might be a measured response."
Really?
Because I can't see that as anything but the first sign that he would be abusive towards her.
"Cal wasn't forcing her to marry him. Her mother was pushing her hard, true, but her situation was of her and her mother's making, not Cal's."
The problem is that Cal wasn't making the situation better at all.
He only saw Rose as a piece of property and showed toxic behavior towards her.
"Let's not forget the times in which they lived. The prospects of a young woman weren't that many back then. Most women got married and raised families, and face it, Cal was a catch. He was rich, he was handsome, and he was quite solicitous to Rose until the moment she ran around behind his back. Was he condescending to Rose? Sure, but again, back then, women were more meant to be seen and not heard. We can't judge people by their times any more than we would gladly accept being judged a hundred years hence by a society who might judge us."
Rose became an actress and didn’t need Cal to get what she wanted.
"I don't either and nor am I expecting anyone to do so. He went over the top at the end when he tried to kill Jack, but Rose did push him over the edge by cheating on her fiance."
Again, Rose was close to commiting suicide until Jack stopped her.
She wouldn't have been that unhappy if Cal hadn't been wrong for her even before Jack came along.
Considering that Rose spent an evening with a man, then lied about it, then tried to turn it back on her fiance by accusing him of having the nerve to find out about it, she should be glad that he only turned over the table.
Cal didn't *only* see Rose as property (he did some yes), he also cared about her. He begged her to open her heart to him. If he had only considered Rose his property, he would have married her as a showpiece and had some side candy like most rich successful men did in the early part of the last century. He did care for her.
Rose became an actress only after meeting Jack and becoming enamored with his stories of traveling without a plan and living off his wits, something that wouldn't have happened without meeting him. She acquired the courage to live her life her own way because of Jack.
Rose attempted suicide (she probably wouldn't have as Jack said) had nothing to do with Cal, but with the rich lifestyle she felt was stifling her. She freaked out after watching that very young girl having tea with her mother wearing white lace gloves and folding her napkin like a princess. Most women liked cotillions, Rose didn't.
99.9 percent of women in Rose's position in 1912 would have been thrilled to marry a rich handsome man like Cal, even if he's a dick by today's standards. Rose wanted more with her life than just the endless parade of parties and cotillions, yachts and polo matches (the horrors!!) and that's fair because it was her life and it wasn't what she wanted, but Rose could have handled leaving Cal differently. Still, this all about Cal being a villain or not, and he simply wasn't. Arrogant prick? Absolutely.
Was Cal a bad person?
Yes. Most definitely. He is portrayed as the ultimate narcissist. He considers the “better half” the only people worth saving when the ship is sinking. He thinks that a handful of cash not only can – but should - buy anything (e.g., a spot on a rescue boat at the expense of a woman or child). He certainly has no problem with lying, whether it’s using a child to get himself on a rescue boat, or lie about Jack’s chances. He violent reaction to Rose at the breakfast table, coupled with a veiled threat, only to finally slap Rose later on is evidence of what is lurking underneath. And of course, he grabs a gun and attempts to murder the both of them. The only example really needed.
It’s not to say that Rose is perfect. But whatever Rose is and isn’t is no excuse for the person that is Cal. No, Cal is not Jeffery Dahmer, but he doesn’t have to be to qualify as bad. That same child he took on the boat undoubtedly died with no effort on his part to save her. As he so clearly stated to Jack “I always win – one way or the other.” It’s all a game to him and winning is all that matters. Especially in his social circles. Rose is a prize, a means for him to inherit his millions.
He and Rose could have had an adult conversation on the matter. Perhaps that would have worked. I doubt it. Rose was on the verge of suicide. As she later said of Jack: “he saved me in every way a person can be saved.” He saved her life and he saved a life worth living. No wonder she was drawn to an impromptu dance session below deck. Was it honorable? No. But even Jack called her a “spoiled brat.” However, she was trapped and needed an out. All people are flawed one way or another. None of these characters were any different. But people who choose to kill someone (or attempt to kill them) because they no longer want to continue a relationship with that person is not only bad, but vile.
Anyone who wants to point to any aspect of Rose’s behavior as an excuse for Cal is a lost cause.
[deleted]