Titanic

Look out for the scene when Petersen forces his Ex to enter the lifeboat and then guess who watched this movie quite carefully...James Cameron maybe? To put it short, if you are able to substract the propaganda and the resulting errors, it is better than the 1953-US version, especially regarding the special effects. Could anyone check out which ship "doubled" the Titanic? If it really is the "Gustloff" then we have a case of very bitter irony here...

This is Titanic as you've probably never seen it before. One would think it was more a communist propaganda film than a Nazi one, since all of the villains of the piece are the rich while the poor workers are the heroes. Its a film that has a definite point of view, and right or wrong, is certainly one that keeps things interesting to watch.

Centering on the rich owners of the White Star Line and the rich passengers on the ship, this film is in large part about how the greed of the rich led to the destruction of "society". A large portion of the early part of this film has to do with manipulating stock before the Titanic breaks a speed record allowing the owners to get even richer. The plan seems to backfire and as the rich try to pick up the pieces the ship hits an iceberg. There are also several other story lines running through this film, including a healthy dose of romance, so don't think its all business.

While some of the interior model shots of the sinking are obviously models, the scenes of panic and the real human drama makes this a film to watch. Its understandable why the Nazi's banned this film as upsetting, these people are in panic mode. I read somewhere that this film showed the ship breaking in half. Kino's DVD doesn't appear to show that, although the final slide under the waves is really too dark to see.

While not a perfect film its a good one. Certainly its one with enough talking points that you could very well talk about the film on every level for many hours after its finished running. Frankly There is so much to discuss that I'm having a hard time keeping this entry brief.

If you love film, if you love Titanic stories, if you love seeing something different then see this movie.

7 out of 10, but you'll be talking about so much more than most other movies you've seen in years.

Too many just dismiss this film outright as Nazi propaganda, and don't examine the film as a film. Certainly when compared to the 1953 Hollywood TITANIC it's a far better made and less sappy piece of drama. And if it has a lot to be desired as history -- well then so did the Hollywood film. The performances, direction, and special effects are all excellent for the time. In fact, it's very surprising that the German film industry was able to mount such a first class production as this in the midst of the war.

Which brings me around to the propaganda aspect of the film: to my mind it's been very much over stated in accounts on the film that I've read. Apparently, the most vicious part of the film's propaganda content, a trial scene and end title which condemned Britain as a country driven by greed, have been omitted from all current prints. Still, were it the "Hate the British" film it's often dismissed as, it's truly amazing to see the propaganda aspects in the film that are missed. The Third Class are never shown being locked below decks as the ship sinks (indeed, when the ship's engines stop, they march up to First Class to demand an explanation from the Captain), and the crew and officers to a man are shown being skilled, efficient, and brave. How could the Nazi's miss so many easy targets, and ones that have been included in almost every Titanic film to this day? And while it is true that Bruce Ismay is turned into a first class villain, driving his ship without regard for safety straight into the iceberg -- it's also been that way in every other Titanic film in which he's been portrayed (for example, the recent TV mini-series TITANIC -- which shows Ismay down in the boiler room screaming at the stokers to make the ship go faster -- like that really happened!). It's all just a question of degree. And if the film portrays the rich millionaires like John Jacob Astor as people who will use money, class, and power to achieve anything -- well, it's no worse than some of the stories -- printed amid all the bravery and self-sacrifice slop -- that appeared in 1912 newspapers. Remember, after the disaster Ismay and the White Star Line were acquitted, people were led to believe all the First Class men died bravely, Captain Smith was blamed for everything, and the poor souls who lost everything when the ship went down never got a penny in restitution. Thus, in the end, considering all the un-truths and legends that have sprung up around the Titanic story, I believe this film plays a lot less like a Nazi film and more like an anti-capitalist one. Little wonder it played in East Germany after the war with no problem. There's certainly enough "Hate the Rich" sentiment here to have warmed Stalin's heart.

So, to me anyway, it's almost refreshing to see a Titanic film that treats the whole affair as the monument to stupidity that it was. Since it has nothing to do with history, one must examine it as the first example of film makers trying to come to grips with the "Titanic Legend". (One could also award that place to the 1929 British film ATLANTIC -- but for some unknown reason that film tried to pretend it was fiction.) Looked at from that prospective, it's a fascinating piece of film making (and history) that deserves to be seen without the vicious "Nazi film" tag hanging over it. Certainly James Cameron must have seen a lot to admire in it; why else would he have copied shots and plot ideas un-masse. (He also coped shots and dialogue from every other Titanic film ever made.) Thankfully, he didn't copy the film's greatest (abet fictional) moment: wireless operator Phillips releasing his pet canary into the night as "Nearer My God to Thee" plays in the background. Did director Herbert Selpin crib this bit from von Stroheim's GREED? We'll never know, as it's said he was murdered by the Nazi's before the film was completed. So much for the benefits of creating a "Nazi film".

Right off the bat, no, I don't speak German, but I wanted to see this depiction of the Titanic. I am truly puzzled by why a German studio and German performers (okay, they were just enjoying the work) would portray what had been English and American characters in such a sensitive and thoughtful light.

I have heard the first officer is a fictional German character, but hey, they were ALL speaking German!

Did this thing do like the English comedy "Allo, Allo" and have the rest of the cast speak German but with American and English accents? That would have been fun to hear.

I got a copy of "Lady and the Tramp" in Spanish and it is delightful to hear the Italian butchers sing their priceless song in Spanish, but now with Italian accents! It actually worked!

But I digress.

I recognize the dropped names, Ismay and Astor, but it seems the majority of the rest of the cast have undergone name changes. Whatever. The captain seems more like der Burgermeister than he does the ted-dibly English Captain E.J. Smith actually was. I was amused by the crewman bringing the captain his jacket on deck and slipping it on him. I thought to myself, an actual English captain would not have appeared on deck unadorned like that.

Our man Ismay here doesn't look at all as he did in real life, which I thought was puzzling. Ismay in this film is slightly grey and no moustache.

I wondered if the nose was striving for some Jewish look, or was it shooting for the English look. About the last time we see Ismay in this thing, he is shrieking like Adolf, so any stereotype either way was done away with.

Wallace Hartley's band on the Titanic consisted of eight members. In this German version, it would be a large oompah oompah band. In the 1929-30 "Atlantic" film, we hear a Charlston band.

As I watched this film, I looked at the extravagance and thought "are they trying to mimick Hollywood?"

The fashion sense to 1912 didn't connect, it was more "buy war bonds" to me.

Everytime the film would be mucking up for me (that German couple) there would be a saving grace (the wireless operator setting the bird free, while not true, was intriguing to observe).

That the racy steerage woman would survive I found interesting. The tenderness extended in these directions, with what was going on in the world at that time, is bewildering and if this film wasn't released back then after completion, I think that was a terrible shame.

Still, this film just stands as one more film version of the Titanic that is perplexing to watch for historical reasons if nothing else.

Not as bad as the 1929 version, and possesses more dimension than the '53 one.

Slowly some of the Nazi film industry's work product is becoming available by video and by DVD. Not everything (except if you deal with extreme - right wing groups) but some of their material. TITANIC is one of the few acceptable films.

I think the reason it is acceptable is that we are aware of social inequalities in the disaster that were not officially noted in 1912. The treatment of steerage passengers for example (more first and second class men survived than third class women). The misappropriation of an entire lifeboat by Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon and their small party was another. So was the survival of the President of the White Star Line, J. Bruce Ismay (not Sir Bruce Ismay - he was never knighted before 1912, and he was a social pariah after 1912). But that's just it - Ismay and the Duff Gordons were socially ruined by their survival and the attending circumstances. The British Inquiry of Lord Mersey was not too harsh on them, but the American Inquiry of Senator William Alden Smith certainly was. Ismay was all too happy to leave New York City after Smith got through with him.

So, yes, the story is truthfully full of social unfairness and bigotry and selfishness. But there is also heroism and self sacrifice, and the Goebbels' "Ministry of Information and Propaganda" overlooked that part. Molly Brown, Isidor and Ida Strauss, Benjamin Guggenheim, Thomas Andrews, Lightoller, Philips and Bride, are not mentioned - why should they be. Goebbels wanted to use the disaster as a weapon to poison German and Axis audiences against Britain, America, and Jews. Why honor Americans like Brown, Britains like Andrews, Lightoller, Philips and Bride, and Jews like the Strausses and Guggenheim? So he jettisoned them.

From a technical standpoint TITANIC was an amazing film for 1943 - in fact the British film A NIGHT TO REMEMBER supposedly used some of the scenes of the sinking liner from TITANIC. But the propaganda is always there.

Curiously, the British and Americans did not think of using the war to make a film called LUSITANIA. It might have been a sufficiently more honest answer to Goebbels lies and half-truths. The closest I have seen to that (aside from brief mentions of the Lusitania in FOR ME AND MY GAL, 'TIL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY, and NIGHT AND DAY) was a sequence in the Mitchel Leisin film ARISE MY LOVE about the sinking of the steamer Athenia in September 1939 (when it was sunk by a U-boat without warning - Goebbels and Hitler caused an information freeze on that incident). Now, perhaps, we can do films about the Lancastria disaster (bombing and strafing fleeing refugees from Dunkirk with glee - and costing 3,000 - 4,000 lives) or the Cap Ancona massacre of concentration camp victims (about 6,000 lives or more). They show, in my opinion, the selfishness, greed, and class distinctions practiced by Nazis.