Poor Billy Zane - Titanic (1997) Discussion

[–] Keelai (34856) 3 months ago

Rose was a free-spirit. Her mother was forcing her to marry a man whom she didn't love for money. Neither had anything in common.

Cal was a sociopath who didn't care if hundreds of poor died. He didn't really love Rose. She was a possession like a prized race horse. He was arrogant, selfish and exploitative. He was dishonest when he had Jack falsely arrested by placing a stolen item in his pocket and was fine with allowing an innocent man die.

Cal was "buying" Rose when she didn't want to be bought.

Mr. Strauss was an old-fashioned, rich, white gentleman, but unlike Cal, Strauss was decent. He decided to give up a seat on a lifeboat until after all women and children were first rescued.

Guggenheim was onboard with his mistress. Astor dumped his first wife for a younger one creating a huge scandal. They both belong in the Cal category of dishonorable men.

reply

[–] Lancecam88 (82) 2 months ago

Ah, bless your simple-minded heart.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

You clearly support honor killings. How misogynistic of you.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

Yet you have no problem with "women and children first".. how misandrist of you..

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Children always!!!

Actually I thought Strauss and his wife should've went on the lifeboat.

And I also believe boys who were adolescents should've been allowed on lifeboats, too. I read 13-year- old boys were considered men and being turned away.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

It would be interesting if a modern tragedy would happen where there would be enough time to select who would go and who would stay.

Personally, I'm an old dude and our generation of men would never take a lifeboat seat as long as a single woman or child was still in danger. Today? Not sure how things would go.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

"Today? Not sure how things would go."

Funny you should say that. Perhaps we are the same generation? I watched a rerun of Time Tunnel's episode about the Titanic as a very young kid and my older sibling said the men were from an older era and mainly British so they were more polite by insisting women and children go first. If it happened now (decades ago), men would be fighting them for a seat on a lifeboat.

The truth is that it depended on income. Scores of poor women and children died. The middle-class and especially the rich had a much higher survival rate.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

I'm 67, but I'm probably an "older" 67.

I wouldn't pass judgement on anyone who would do otherwise, but I couldn't take a seat in a lifeboat if there was a woman left behind (assuming children go first of course).

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

We're both Baby Boomers. The problem is that most of the earlier lifeboats went out only a third and half full because it was cold and many didn't believe the ship would really sink.

Another issue is that most people didn't know how to row so they allowed men with that skill.

1. Lucky me knows how to row.
2. If I see a boat leaving half empty with women refusing to go on it, I'm taking a seat. (I would've showed up early.)
3. Realistically, we would've both been allowed a seat on the lifeboat as seniors.

Some of those men died for nothing since some lifeboats had plenty of room.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

Correct, that was a weird circumstance. Most people did not want to get off the nice warm luxury liner for a tipsy cold lifeboat and lowered 100' or more by ropes. The half filled lifeboats was a variable that made this situation unique.

I've done rowing on a machine, does that count? I think at my age I could probably out row guys half my age, but that's a different issue.

But senior or no, I would not take a seat if every seat was taken and there were still women on board - unless they were feminazis.. LOL

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

It must have been around 30 degrees since there were icebergs. That's cold especially on the water at night.

In 1912, knowledge about rowing was unfamiliar to most people. Chances are I would've known rowing since boating is one of my favorite hobbies and would likely be even in 1912.

There weren't enough lifeboats for all the women and children, therefore you'd likely die. I'm getting on a lifeboat. They need someone who knows how to row the lifeboat away from the ship. Even most crew members didn't know how to row.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 3 months ago

He was an evil son of a bitch and got everything he deserved, including losing Rose, his money in the Crash of '29, and putting a pistol in his mouth.

Just because he didn't abuse her at the start, doesn't mean it wasn't eventually gonna happen. Cal had it within him to get nasty all along, he just needed a trigger, whether it be Jack, or something happening after his wedding to Rose. Sooner or later, he was gonna treat her badly. My money would have been on her giving him at least one son as an heir before he started showing his true nature.

All you were looking at was the "love bombing stage" of their relationship before the mask came off (and even then, you could tell that Rose wasn't falling for it and was already uncomfortable with him). The love-bombing was just cut off prematurely when Jack came into the picture.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Very well written. Cal's attempt to kill Rose shows his true colors.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 3 months ago

So you were okay with him stealing a gun and trying to shoot the man who was treating his fiance better than he was?

reply

[–] Lancecam88 (82) 2 months ago

I was certainly cool with it. She was cheating on him and she didn't even try to break with him is a decent manner. She wanted to rub his face in it. I was glad Jack died and they didn't get to be together.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 2 months ago

She was being forced into the marriage. His issue shouldn't be with her.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

"Forced" was Rose's description, and it was based on her realization that marriage to Cal would save her family's reputation and ensure their survival. As far as Cal was concerned, what he was offering Rose was a pretty good deal - it wasn't like marrying Cal would mean she would need to work in a coal mine.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Money isn't everything. She would have been trapped in a loveless marriage to a controlling abusive husband.

Jack warned her the marriage would eventually destroy her soul. Notice how she lived a full active and happy life by not marrying Cal.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

I'm not saying that Rose didn't make the right choice about not marrying Cal (it would appear she did and I agree with you on this point), but the subject of this thread is Cal himself and how much of a crud he was or was not. Despite his antagonist position in this film and his general misogyny (a man of his times), what Cal offered to Rose was a comfortable way of life that most women would have killed to have. It wasn't for Rose, but he wasn't trying to enslave her either.

"Endless cotillions"? Terrible.. Vacations to Europe, summer and winter homes, parties? Jewels, luxury motor cars, servants, and a rich handsome man who would cater to her every whim? The crud.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Agreed that we're discussing Cal's character.

I agree with Amerigirl26's post farther up about Cal which I believe is a perfect assessment. Most men in 1912 weren't violent nor abusive. But, Cal was prone to both which he showed by slapping, grabbing and eventually attempting to kill Rose. Cal's violence and control would have escalated over time during their marriage as it did during the film. Abusers find excuses to abuse since that's their true nature.

Cal wouldn't cater to Rose's every whim. He would only follow protocol of high society which was about showing off with parties, vacations, jewelry, etc..

He would find reasons to beat her and then apologize by giving her an expensive necklace and then beat her again and offer an apology with a vacation.

There was no kindness in him. He was a sociopath and narcissist with no empathy. He had zero problem framing Jack and exploiting a crying toddler.

"he wasn't trying to enslave her either."

Cal knew Rose didn't want him so he framed Jack and then tried to kill both of them. That's enslaving. He can't have her, therefore no one can.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

Just have to disagree with you. Cal wasn't violent or abusive until Rose cheated, lied about it, and then flaunted the affair.

He would find reasons to beat her and then apologize by giving her an expensive necklace and then beat her again and offer an apology with a vacation.

We don't know that at all. If Cal was predisposed to beating Rose, it would seem he would have done it the morning he confronted her with Lovejoy's evidence she spent the evening with Jack and then lied about it. Instead of apologizing, she turned it back on him by accusing him of having Lovejoy spy on her. And even then, he only turned over the breakfast table - then politely excused himself.

Yes, there's no doubt he snapped at the end when Rose spit in his face and told Cal she was leaving him for a homeless dude. Evidence we see (the script) tells us that Cal would have been very good to Rose (if a bit controlling, distracted, and distant) if she only met him half way.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

You're blaming Rose, the victim of abuse.

Abusers justify their abuse by blaming the victim. The justification can be trivial or made-up by the abuser.

Abusers start off by being controlling, isolating the victim from family and friends, belittling them and eventual escalating physical violence which is what Cal displayed.

Anyway, discussion was about Cal's overall character - not just abusive personality. Cal framed an innocent guy, didn't care if hundreds of passengers died, used a toddler, lied, and bribed an officer to secure a seat for himself on a lifeboat. Cal is a cad.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

Anyway, discussion was about Cal's overall character -

As it pertained to Rose specifically. I've known a few scoundrels in the business world you wouldn't want to tangle with, but were good to their own families.

Rose is hardly an innocent party. Maybe Cal was like the way he was because of the way Rose was? Let's recap some of the things our miss Rose did, shall we?

For instance, when Cal and Rose differed on the quality of the paintings, Cal insulted the artist, Rose insulted Cal:

The difference between Cal's taste in art and mine is that I have some. Verbal abuse there...

She also sneaked off to a party with a young man, lied about it, then turned it back on Cal by accusing him of spying on her nocturnal activities. Cal (her fiance!!) asked her not to see him again, but she did. Rose is a cad.

She also got a good jolly rogering by said young man in the cargo hold of the ship. She then had the young man draw a nude picture of her and left it to him with a note just to rub his face in the fact she got laid with someone else. "Cad" doesn't describe Rose here.

When Cal (her fiance) tried to stop her from running off with the gutter rat as the ship sank, she hawk tuah'd on him (and not in the good way!) - what a cad.

Cal did some despicable things, but these things came after his fiance cheated and left him. Up until that time, Cal was good to Rose. Cal was rotten to Jack who he treated like a lot of men who found out their fiances cheated on them. The way Cal treated Jack was on a different level than how he was with Rose - up until she pushed him over the edge anyway.

Finally, let's not forget Rose's rationale for leaving Cal: "I saw my whole life as if I'd already lived it. An endless parade of parties and cotillions, yachts and polo matches. Always the same narrow people, the same mindless chatter."

She wasn't leaving Cal for being abusive, she was leaving because that wonderful life of parties, polo matches, vacations, yachts, etc. wasn't what she wanted.

My final comment on this is that a million women would have killed to be offered what Cal offered Rose.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Your comment:
"I'm not saying that Rose didn't make the right choice about not marrying Cal (it would appear she did and I agree with you on this point), but the subject of this thread is Cal himself and how much of a crud he was or was not."

My reply:
"Agreed that we're discussing Cal's character."

I say he had no character:

"Cal framed an innocent guy, didn't care if hundreds of passengers died, used a toddler, lied, and bribed an officer to secure a seat for himself on a lifeboat. Cal is a crud."

And we both agree Cad and Rose as a couple was a bad idea.

Yes, there are plenty of women who would marry a man for his money.

reply

[–] Callahan7 (1155) 2 months ago

https://moviechat.org/tt0120338/Titanic/634bed68e665e45ff28bd61a/Was-Cal-Hockley-a-bad-guy

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2399) 2 months ago

Lol at treating his fiancé better than he was. You mean committing adultery and fucking her in the back of a car? Give me your wife's number, i'll treat her better too.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 2 months ago

You seem to be forgetting that she was being forced into marriage and her husband was abusive. He also wasn't aware that they fucked in the back of the car.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

He also wasn't aware that they fucked in the back of the car.

I don't think the actual location of the fucking was all that important to Cal, only that she did fuck a stranger.. :>)

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56645) 2 months ago

It actually kind of does because he could have walked in on them.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

I think if Cal walked in on the middle of Jack plucking Rose, I would like to think he might have said something like -

"Hmm, Rose is cheating on me, what to do? Rose, you've thoroughly debased yourself and you've embarrassed me by engaging in amorous congress with this.. this guttersnipe. Good God Jack, would you please dismount my fiancé while I'm talking to her please? I'll have Lovejoy move your things to Jack's meager third class cabin, and when we arrive in New York, you and your mother of course will be on your own. Is this in anyway unclear?"

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1360) 2 months ago

Yeah, Rose knobbing a guy she barely knew just because he tricked her into going starkers for an "artistic drawing" ? So naive.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

It was Rose's idea to go starkers.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

He had plain and decent intentions when it came to her. And was willing to go forward with their engagement, marriage and resulting financial rescue for Rose and her mother.

Something happened between the original story board and the movie - Cal wasn't really shown to be that bad of a guy until he finally became unhinged.

But he's an evil guy based on today's more enlightened sensibilities. Back in the early 20th century, what he was offering Rose was something most women of the day would have given nearly anything to have - a rich, handsome, solicitous man who would provide for his wife pretty much whatever she wanted - other than a good rogering by a starving artist in the back of a Renault town car in a dark cargo hold of a ship.

Poor Rose worried that by marrying Cal, her life was going to be nothing but a parade of endless cotillions and other high snoot activities that rich white folks enjoyed at that time. White gloves, pearls, fancy restaurants, formal wear, luxurious vacations around the world? The bastard.

Certainly Cal did become unhinged finally and tried to kill them both, but he endured a *lot* up to that breaking point - he knew by the naked sketch of Rose that she was playing hide the salami with the kid, and yet still would have taken her back. How many young, handsome, rich men would have done as much?

Billy Zane was great in this, but maybe his own personality made Cal a bit too human and even somewhat sympathetic and likable until he snapped. They certainly could have written Cal to be more of a Cad than they did.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

"Cal wasn't really shown to be that bad of a guy until he finally became unhinged."

That's how women become trapped in abusive relationships. The abuser is kind at the beginning. But, some of his real personality shows if you know what to look for like controlling or possessiveness which can be falsely interpreted as caring. I had a neighbor who was charming and pleasant to women in public, but repeatedly beat his girlfriend landing her in the hospital even when she was pregnant. Abusers are nice most of the time.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

You're accusing Cal of something for which there is no evidence. He was good to Rose even if a bit distracted and controlling, but a lot of men and women are that way without being abusive. He *might* have become abusive is the most you can say about him.

If Rose had simply left Cal he wouldn't have become unhinged, but she screwed a stranger and then rubbed his nose in it - that's what caused him to become unhinged. I suspect a lot of men might act the same way if finding out their fiances screwed a stranger on the ship they were travelling on. To Cal, that was a direct challenge that had to be met.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Cal could've simply left Rose when he found out she was interested in another guy instead of all the unnecessary drama. (But, then the movie would be boring.)

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

He could have, but what if he loved her?

Personally, I would have thrown her and Ruth out of her suite and told them to go stay with the gutter rat, but some guys take it like a challenge when another guy moves in on his wife or fiance. In any case, I wouldn't fault any man who fought for his fiance when some other guy porked her on the cruise he paid for.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Rose's family name had social standing which could help Cal with business networking and social climbing, too.

Rose says his affection for her is similar to his affection for attaining a prized horse. Rose's mom wanted money, but Cal likely wanted more business opportunities which comes with marrying Rose and gets her family's connections and social standing.

"Cal made fun of Rose's taste in art, ironically criticizing the artwork of Monet and Picasso. Despite his negative comments, Rose ignored him and continued talking to her maid Trudy.

"At lunch, Cal undermined Rose further by ordering her food for her and confiscating her cigarette and stubbing it out. After a barbed remark from Rose to Bruce Ismay, Rose left the table and went onto the deck, where Jack first spotted her. Cal came outside to scold her, but she rebuked him."

"Cal threatened Rose, throwing their breakfast table and stating that she was his "wife in practice, if not yet by law", and demanded that she honor him "the way a wife is required to honor a husband". He ordered her to stay away from Jack and left Rose visibly distressed and frightened."

None of that is love. He cared for her in his toxic, controlling and abusive way.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

Rose's family name had social standing which could help Cal with business networking and social climbing, too.

Yeah, no. Cal was already rich and successful he didn't need Rose or her name.

"Cal made fun of Rose's taste in art, ironically criticizing the artwork of Monet and Picasso. Despite his negative comments, Rose ignored him and continued talking to her maid Trudy.

Thanks for helping me on that point. She wasn't very nice to Cal was she. BTW, Cal was right about Picasso. He's a hack and always has been. Monet was decent.

"At lunch, Cal undermined Rose further by ordering her food for her and confiscating her cigarette..

Were you Googling then cutting/pasting from a site that was picking on Cal? Anyway, back then, gentleman always ordered for both. As for the cigarette, he was doing her a favor although he was brusque in doing so publicly. Refined young ladies didn't smoke in 1912. She was only smoking publicly to emasculate Cal.

"Cal threatened Rose, throwing their breakfast table and stating that she was his "wife in practice, if not yet by law",He ordered her to stay away from Jack and left Rose visibly distressed and frightened."

But why did Cal do such a horrible thing? Here it is: his fiance sneaked out with a single man she just met and then lied about it. Yes, poor Rose was visibly distressed and frightened because she got caught, got caught lying about it, then got caught trying to turn it back on Cal because he found out about it. Imagine his nerve ordering his fiance not to meet with another man..

He cared for her in his toxic, controlling and abusive way.

He became toxic when Rose porked a strange man and then rubbed his nose in it with the nude portrait done by the guy who porked her.

The more we discuss this, the more it's clear Rose is the toxic one that blew up the relationship.

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

Rich people always want more money and status. Ruth discussed the family name so they were from very old money and blue bloods. Rose would add more status and prestige for Cal. They would be a power couple. His money and her higher social standing.

LOL! You're gaslighting and/or know zip about art. Rose had an exceptional eye to up and coming artists since she was right about both Monet and Picasso. Cal wishes he had one of their paintings to sell when he became flat broke.

You're making Cal sound like an insecure loser. No wonder Rose dumped him for a real man.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

You're gaslighting and/or know zip about art.

Picasso was a hack. https://images.masterworksfineart.com/product/pablo-picasso/pablo-picasso-thumbnail.webp

You aren't looking at this from a neutral standpoint. This is Rose's story, so you're rooting for her. Nothing unusual in that - often the protagonist is deeply flawed. One of my favorite films is Unforgiven, where the protagonist William Munny is a known murderer and thief. He indiscriminately blew up a train killing women and children. Because it's his story, we root for him and against the sheriff and his deputies.

If they filmed this story from Cal's standpoint, you would see the same but different story about a man whose fiancé cheated on him on while they were on a cruise together, she dumps him and rubs his nose in the fact she was screwing the guy.

Ever watch Hangover? Stu's fiancé Melissa screwed the bartender on a cruise. She also snapped back at him when he brought it up. Why is no once cheering Melissa??

Oh yeah, in case I didn't say it already, Picasso was a hack..

https://i0.wp.com/www.montview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/8.17.21.png?fit=750%2C1024&ssl=1

https://dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net/2023/07/25/202331Picasso.jpg

reply

[–] Keelai (34856) 2 months ago

You just proved you know zip about art. Picasso mastered realism when he was young. He was only 14 when he painted these:
http://www.trinidadartresellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/628EBD28-027F-448E-B4F5-A6B46C15EE36.jpeg
http://www.trinidadartresellers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3C7A11A5-DB82-4386-BFB0-9B381038534A-1080x1375.jpeg
He was good enough that he would finish his artist dad's commissioned artwork.

Still young:
https://www.pablopicasso.org/assets/img/paintings/science-and-charity.jpg

He moved past realism and created or helped create not one, but several new artforms/styles including Abstract, Cubism, his Blue period, his Rose period, his African period, Surrealism and his Civil War period.

You don't understand modern art nor what goes into creating it. I doubt that you a chance to see a Picasso exhibit in person like I did.

You and Cal don't know art. You also relate to a man who hits women.

Titanic was about Titanic. The movie was extremely detailed from the exact pen brand used, song sung during mass, meals served, what actual person's said, furniture and items including plates, how people died/lived, etc. Ex. French Chef survived because he drank alcohol so he didn't freeze in the water. You can see him drinking in the film before the ship sinks. That's detail!

Jack and Rose were only used as a device to illicit audience emotion. Cameron explained that 1,000+ people dying won't elicit an emotional response. But, focusing on one or two characters will. I saw it in the theater twice and I heard the audience crying when Jack died.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 2 months ago

There's no such thing as "a tad abusive" and he viewed Rose as property, so no his intentions weren't good and it's fitting that the term gentleman is in quotations here coz he wasn't one except on paper.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

In what way do you think he viewed Rose as property?

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 2 months ago

Because of his abuse, how he addresses her, even the purchase of the heart of the ocean as a way to buy her, and because it's in line with the way that men of his position treated women at the time. Remember she wasn't wealthy, so he already considered her beneath him and therefore easily obtained, and his pursuit of her was entirely ego-driven rather than romantic because she should have been fighting for his affections, not the other way around, but she was entirely disinterested.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

and his pursuit of her was entirely ego-driven rather than romantic

He clearly was egotistical, no one would say he wasn't, but Cal seemed sincere when he was concerned about her being "melancholy" and expressed frustration about not knowing why she was. He also asked her to open her heart to him. I think an awful lot of women back in 1912 would have fallen over for someone like Cal.

because she should have been fighting for his affections, not the other way around, but she was entirely disinterested.

Yeah, but that's a different subject. No one can make someone love you, but Rose's disinterest didn't mean Cal didn't love her.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 2 months ago

Abusers aren't abusive 24/7, they can have nice moments. It's why wives don't just leave their husbands at the first sign of danger. They're deceived into staying. Doesn't make him a nice person. Also, you can't essentially buy someone and then tell them to "open your heart to me", like you couldn't tell a slave that they're really just your best friend while working them as a slave and maintaining ownership of them.

But I agree, a lot of women could've been fooled into thinking Cal was a decent guy when he wasn't, but that's actually further proof he isn't - he wants someone unattainable because it's again about ego, not love. Pursuing someone who doesn't want you and repeatedly rebuffs you is borderline menacing, not romantic. He didn't have to do anything to actually win her over, he got her because of her financial situation and he only ever focuses on trying to win her over via finances, not actual concerted effort personality-wise because his personality is rotten.

reply

[–] strntz (12224) 2 months ago

and his pursuit of her was entirely ego-driven rather than romantic

He clearly was egotistical, no one would say he wasn't, but Cal seemed sincere when he was concerned about her being "melancholy" and expressed frustration about not knowing why she was. He also asked her to open her heart to him. I think an awful lot of women back in 1912 would have fallen over for someone like Cal.

because she should have been fighting for his affections, not the other way around, but she was entirely disinterested.

Yeah, but that's a different subject. No one can make someone love you, but Rose's disinterest didn't mean Cal didn't love her.

reply