> How the Titanic Film has a Serious Philosophical Flaw




How the Titanic Film has a Serious Philosophical Flaw

How the Titanic Film has a Serious Philosophical Flaw

I want to show you (using the example of the film ‘Titanic’) how this form of entertainment can be dangerous in that it can attempt to sneak incorrect ideas into your brain. I’m not saying you shouldn’t see such films. I’m just asking you to become more aware of the hidden agenda the filmmakers have, and how they seek to influence your beliefs.

I want to make a serious point about the flaw in an otherwise brilliant film.

The flaw is a philosophical one. I want to explain how your world view and opinions are subtly shaped by films like Titanic, and countless other messages you receive throughout your life which sabotage your efforts at success.

Let me tell you straight out that you cannot succeed with your subconscious mind working against you – striving to sabotage your efforts from behind the scenes. This is why you must be careful what you expose yourself to, what you read, what you view and who you mix with.

But first let me explain something about film directors.

They are artists. Most artists (of all persuasions) have strong left wing neo-communist leanings. Okay, there are exceptions – but this is the rule.

Now the backers and the sponsors of this film are hard-nosed businessmen and women with their eye firmly on the ‘Bath-time Fun Accessory Titanic With Real Screaming Figurines’ merchandising angle. This is a strictly commercial enterprise (as it should be, of course) with the emphasis on the bottom line. However… the trouble is they have to employ those damned artist chappies to create and direct it for them, and they are a bunch of socially aware, community-minded, idealists who are often impassioned in their commitment to the cause…

These are the people who write the scripts, create the screenplays and produce and direct the films you see.

The result is… philosophically flawed story lines and screenplays – all (surprise, surprise) with a strong neo-communist or left-wing bias.

As an exercise, when you next watch a film, TV drama or (in particular) soap opera, see how many of them have one of the following messages:

1. Life is a hopeless struggle. No matter what you do, you just can’t get ahead.

2. Being poor is good. Although it might be ‘nice’ to have a little more money, we’re happy because we’re poor. “We’ve got each other and this nice little house. “ Etc. Poor people are decent through to the core.

3. Being rich is awful. It causes misery, despair and upset. Rich people are cold, uncaring and greedy. Rich people are corrupt through to the core.

Or features one of these story lines:

1. The life of a depraved/wasted/diseased person or an alcoholic, drug addict, rape victim, AIDS sufferer, battered wife, criminal, murderer, victim, psychopath or mentally ill person.

2. Death, disease, murder, mayhem, destruction, crime, rape, drugs, war, failure.

I would estimate that fully 90% of all dramas you see on the big screen or TV will be concerned with one of those themes, and this has an effect on your subconscious.

The film ‘Titanic’ is no exception. It majored on the following entirely incorrect (but typically collectivist) philosophical ideas, and hammered them mercilessly into the audience:

Being rich is bad. It is a worthless thing. All rich people are evil. They are either crooks or snooty aristocrats who inherited their money.

This film was teeming with wealthy people and, under the producer’s instruction, we are assured that not a single one of them was worth saving. They are bad through and through – totally corrupt and downright evil or even psychopathic in the case of Rose’s fiancé. His overriding preoccupations are extortion, rape, violence towards women and cheating in the most caddish fashion. He is the stereotype of the ‘evil millionaire’ without a single redeeming feature. He is the melodrama sawmill owner, twirling his moustache in glee as the helpless girl inches closer to the spinning blade…

Scene of rich man trying to buy a place on a lifeboat with a wedge of money. Cash flung back in his face by noble, poor and decent sailor: “Your money’s no good here, mister!”

Another message is: Rich people are devoid of compassion or decency. They are bent solely on saving their own skins.

Scenes of struggling poor people locked behind doors by the cigar-chewing evil rich as the waters slowly rise… “Let the scum drown! First Class passengers only if you please, this way for the lifeboats ladies. Back you filth! We’ll get to you when all the first class passengers have been seated…if there are any places left… nyahahaha!!”

The film promotes the lie that rich people always come to a sticky end or die miserable, unhappy, alone and unfulfilled.

Immortal line: “He hung himself after the 1929 stock-market crash.”

Also that: Being rich is no fun. In fact it is a crashing bore. The rich are incapable of enjoying themselves. They sit around with broomsticks up their bottoms, sipping Champers with their fingers cocked at just the right angle, talking trivia and trying to outdo each other. Children are stilted and restricted by having to learn ritualistic table manners.

Scene of lead female looking horror-stricken towards upper class little girl at dinner learning how to sit properly. Thinking “Oh no! This is just too, too awful. How can we torture our children like this? What monsters have we become with our money and fine ways? There must be something better. Oh how I long to be poor and free. If only I could find a quaint poor person to sweep me off my feet and teach me the true meaning of life. Those poor folk are so wise and so happy…”

Meanwhile, back in third class we are regaled with the message that:

Being poor is good. To be poor is to be happy. Poor people are noble, brave and wise. They think not of themselves but of others. Sacrifice and self-immolation are good, lofty standards to hold.

Scenes of noble poor folk sacrificing their place on the lifeboat to other, more deserving people whilst the evil rich men are trying to sneak onto boats reserved for women and children, even grabbing spare children in an attempt to cheat their way to safety at the expense of others.

The film continues to assure us that: The poor are good through and through. Decent to a man. There is not an evil person amongst them. The poor suitor (Jack) would sacrifice his life so that his love (Rose) might live. The rich suitor would abandon his love so that he might live.

Also, we are assured that: Being poor is tremendous fun. Really terrific. An absolute riot. A jolly jape right to the end. Poor people really know how to enjoy themselves whilst the rich just pretend.

Scenes of quaint ‘character’ Irish folk dancing wildly on the tables below decks and knocking back the Guinness, whilst russet-haired Irish beauties lift their skirts in time with the joyful beat of the Gaelic drum. Beaming ragged children are whirled into the frantic dance, careless of the fact that they haven’t eaten for two days. Compare with any scene of ‘poor people enjoying themselves’ from Oliver or Mary Poppins, for that matter – they’re all the same. Meanwhile, in first class, in what can only be described as a funereal atmosphere, women are dabbing their sated mouths with delicate silk handkerchiefs, unable to cram down another morsel of caviar, whilst the men politely suggest that they leave the ladies and step outside for a cigar and fine brandy. See! Those rich bastards don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘fun’, do they?

The director/screenplay writer even changed history by implying (strongly) that it was rich people’s greed which caused the disaster. Apparently it wasn’t caused by the captain’s ineptitude or the inattention of the lookouts (they were humble, common sailors, so they can’t possibly be to blame if you’re a collectivist by inclination).

These things are relegated to mere contributory factors. The main cause (according to the writer) was the fact that the ship was going too fast. And WHY was it going too fast? Because the greedy capitalistic owners wanted to set a record and arrive earlier than expected. You know, I hadn’t realized that…

Finally I want to ask a question.

Why are we obsessed with this nearly 100 year old story? Of course it was a terrible disaster and 1500 people were killed, but millions have died since in a variety of nasty ways and so it is not the number of souls lost which ensures that this story will never die.

I suggest the reason for its fascination stems from exactly the same anti-progress, collectivist philosophy which skewed the film so far to the left. The message (and the fascination) is this:

“Man is an impotent worm. He is arrogant. He thinks he can fly in the face of nature. His so-called ‘marvelous’ machines and inventions are so much match wood and tin in the face of nature. How dare he think that he can cross the Atlantic and conquer God’s oceans? Hah! Look what happens to those upstarts. One iceberg and their plans and dreams are smashed. Such is the fate of all men who fly, Icarus-like towards the sun. Their wings will melt and they will crash to earth. Let this be a lesson to all who might strive to conquer, to fight, to dare and to win.”

The story of Titanic is a story of failure – man’s arrogant attempt to try to dare and to win only to receive a well-deserved slap down from old Ma Nature. This is the sole reason for its longevity. And why do people like to watch failure? Because, sad to say, many people are failures and watching other people fail makes them feel safe – not alone.

That is the sad truth, I’m afraid.

To me, the story of the Titanic is one of success. In any great endeavor there will be ‘failures’ that is, stepping stones on the road to success. The bigger the disaster, the more it means we are striving for something big. Small minds set small targets with vast safety margins – accidents are rare, progress is minuscule. Big minds have big ideas with huge agendas. Large scale projects involving the unknown (e.g. crossing the world’s oceans, exploring space) carry the risk of setbacks and disaster.

The purpose of art should be to show mankind what he is capable of becoming; to reflect back his image in full, shining glory. It should be heroic and visionary, not a crawl in the sewer.

The selected philosophical message of the film (art is always a process of selection by the artist, just like the news stories are selected by the paper) should have been an heroic one; that is the Titanic disaster in the context of man’s eventual mastery of the oceans. Instead, this awesome event was corrupted and used as a platform for socialists to distribute their poisonous and anti-life propaganda.

Of course the film is making an historical point and the society of 1910 was class-ridden and elitist. Many third-class passengers were trapped below decks and proportionately more rich made it than poor. We know all that. But the fact that in this film the rich are so irredeemably and uniformly evil, and the poor so uniformly good and decent leaves no room for surmise regarding the director’s political leanings. Also, the last scene is entirely fictitious, not historical. The fact that the entire film leads up to and culminates in the final gesture of the old lady (I’m trying not to give the ending away) confirms my worst suspicions. The deliberate subliminal message implanted in the film is:

“Money is worthless trash to be flung away by the million. It is worth less than an eighty year old memory of a chance encounter on a ship. Get rid of it. It is a dead weight around your neck. Only evil can come from it. Toss it into the ocean. It belongs there, at the bottom of the sea where no man can be corrupted or tainted by its evil influence.”

That is the message in the film. That is the theme which ran centrally throughout the plot. This is the ideology which the scriptwriter and director selected for our special attention. Worse, this is the entirely fictitious story line, invented especially to run alongside the factually accurate historical details.

- Inner Circle Philosophy (Stuart Goldsmith)