eing, imagine the effect it would havern1 millions less warped. The resultingrniritual rejuvenation would bankruptrne sex-and-violence business overnight.”rnOther people will remember thern1958 film A Night to Rememher (basedrnon Walter Lord’s historical report andrnanalysis) in which the ship is the wholernstory, and nothing is lost by the absencernof a subplot. These were movies of anotherrnage, if not another planet.rnThe excuse usually offered for a degradingrnmovie re-make is that it is a morernaccurate description of the historicalrnevents. Although this lie is less harmfulrnthan philosophical dishonesty, it must berndealt with at the outset lest one be accusedrnof seeking to perpetuate prettyrnmyths. The errors in this movie rangernfrom anachronistic howlers to blindrnmodern hubris. A few of the former:rnOnly two classes—first class (bad), steeragern(good); second class must havernplayed hooky. The obligatory (if cynical)rnchurch service with the old Episcopalianrnhymn for protection from “peril on thernsea,” strangely includes the entire versernadded in 1937 (25 years after the Titanicrnsank) about “peril in the air.” {The FlyingrnTitanic?) The prologue of modernrndivers resurrects the old debate amongrnsurvivors concerning whether the shiprnbroke in half while upended and trots itrnout as a “new discovery” revealed byrncomputer graphics (if it’s on the monitor,rnit must be true). Yet there is no mentionrnof the new discovery—that the Titanic’srnsteel was sulfuric and inferior, makingrnthe hull as brittle as glass in icy water.rnSlightly more serious is the film’s suspensionrnof the laws of physics: the suctionrnfrom the huge, vanishing ship onlyrnmildly tumbles those people (includingrnour lead couple) hanging onto the stern.rnAll the floating survivors are thickly coatedrnwith glittering ice in 40 degree waterrnand calm, 60 degree air. Earlier, however,rnour leads swim throughout the interiorrnof the sinking ship, in their skivvies,rnwith no apparent discomfort. Interestingly,rnthe higher the deck, the deeper thernwater. Stacked dishes start to slip onlyrnwhen the ship is nearly vertical. The passengersrnon the outside decks are slidingrn(tobogganing?) down the entire, steeprnlength of the ship, while those inside arernstill ambling along horizontal passageways.rnThe next step down, for the show asrnwell as society, is the vulgarity cheeredrnthroughout. It could thrill only thosernteenagers who think that “hawking” ontornwell-dressed matrons and other strangersrnis the height of wit. The bratty leads delightrnin it.rnSince the weak “love” plot—boyrnmeets betrothed girl, they copulate inrnthe backseat of an auto stored in thernhold, then devote themselves to insultingrneveryone else on board —can’t fill outrnthe film, scraps must do: an evil andrncuckolded villain who would have beenrnan embarrassment in a 1912 music hall;rna motionless 20-minute death scene,rnwith mumbling; a ubiquitous, pricelessrnnavy blue “diamond” with nary a sparklern(perhaps plastic was expensive in 1912).rnThe “best friend” of the male lead is finagledrnon board by him, then forgottenrn15 minutes from port, never to be seen orrnheard from again. The Second Officer,rnguilt-ridden from having to protect arnlifeboat with a firearm, blows his brainsrnout. The villain shoots at the fleeing fornicatorsrnuntil he’s out of ammo, but herncan’t seem to hit anything, howeverrnclose. (His butier also is armed and incompetent.)rnAnd here we thought therncold water was the real threat.rnNow we come to the danger of thisrnmovie as cultural icon, the reason forrnproducing it and for its critical acclaim:rnthe total deconstruction of history,rnvirtue, society, and taste. Some of thisrnjust shows off the filmmaker’s attitudernproblem: Picasso’s and other modernrnartists’ canvasses are dragged in merely tornoffend the rich philistines and to bernpraised by the oh-so-hip “hero”/artistrn(whose charcoal sketch of his nude lover,rna tiresomely repeated plot device, revealsrnthat his own style runs more to old VargasrnPlayboy nudes, or the Betty Grablesrnon World War II fuselages, sans swimsuit).rnThe female lead is, of course, the onlyrnperson to count the lifeboats and passengersrnand discover the discrepancy, asrnsoon as the Titanic is at sea. Says our sensitivernhero, “You’re the finest girl . . .rnuh . . . woman I’ve ever known.” Quotesrnattributed to Freud are used to bludgeonrnmale passengers. A major theme is thatrnin the bad old days women could advancernonly by marrying rich husbands,rnwhile men had it made. The historicalrnfact is that up until the “greedy” Victoriansrnalmost all European and Americanrnsuper-rich, male and female, got thatrnway by marriage or inheritance, at leastrnsince William the Conqueror. Even today,rnambitious male executives mustrncourt their superiors as assiduously as anyrndesperate spinster. The heroine of thisrnmovie scorns the rich men as “Mastersrnof the Universe”; perhaps she read TomrnWolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities. In thernepilogue, framed photographs show thatrnthis female survivor, formerly a betrothedrnbride cruelly oppressed byrnthoughts of future wealth and “cotillions,”rnbecomes a penniless but liberatedrnaviatrix, horse-master (-mistress?), and,rnjudging by one fuzzy pictiire, head of arntop law firm. But that’s to be expectedrnfrom a finishing-school girl who decksrnburly sailors on the Titanic and canrncut handcuffs off with one blow of arnfire-ax.rnAdd to this mess slanders against thernindividuals whom history and survivorsrnrecorded as acting heroically: Guggenheimrnis shown as a selfish stuffed-shirt forrndying with dignity; the officers take cashrnbribes from the “Masters of the Universe”rnfor berths on lifeboats; the “Unsinkable”rnMolly Brown is a useless cowardrn(bullied and defeated by a male, ofrncourse); Captain Smith is a buffoon,rnbrow-beaten into dangerous speed by therngreedy rich; John Jacob Astor is a cardboardrnfop; and the Strauses, who in realrnlife deliberately chose to die together, arernshown only silently stuck in a floatingrnbed. The orchestra members who gaverntheir lives to calm the passengers are portrayedrnas fools who actually increase thernpanic. The sop to religion is in the personrnof a droning priest, who, in skillfulrncloseups, shows us more of his tonsilsrnand fillings than of his faith.rnIt would be forgivable to turn the sinkingrnof the Titanic into a mere misfortunernrather than a tragedy, but to make itrntrashy is not. The overall theme of thisrnmovie is the negation not only of thosernvalues illustrated in history and in previousrnfilms, but of virtue itself, and any humanrncapacity for it.rnThe characters, from leads to bit-partsrnto extras, without even one exception,rnare so repulsive or irritating that one feelsrnlike cheering their deaths, if not actuallyrnthrotding them. But that would be arnwaste of energy, because during the epiloguernthe passengers are resurrected intornthe ship’s grand hall to applaud deliriouslyrnthe reunion of the iceberg-crossedrnlovers in the afterlife, 80 years later.rnAnd this movie cost a mere $200 millionrnto make—the most expensive in history.rnTruly a film for our time and culture.rnShufQeboard, anyone?rnEgon Richard Tausch is an attorney inrnSan Antonio, Texas.rn50/CHRONICLESrnrnrn