Not wanting to be a source of misinformation about the objective truth
of the tragedy, I thought I should post this … and thank Steve and
Chris for their input.

I *am* disappointed that noone has asked about Churchill’s riposte to
Lady Astor. 🙂

Lou
Coatney, www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (Free model ship( plan)s)

Lou Coatney had written:
> >Also, I had thought CAPT. Smith survived the sinking, but he is shown
> > going down with his ship.

On Mon, Jan 5, 1998 at 11:03:28 PM, Steve Keifer wrote:
> The captain did go down with the ship. I saw the Titanic artifacts
> display at Memphis last year. They have brought up an incredible amount
> of stuff.
> It’s a very sobering exhibit to see all the little parts of these
> people’s lives that have been on the ocean bottom for 80 years.
> I bought one of those little pieces of the Titanic’s coal they sell for
> $30 imprisoned in clear plastic.
**********
There is an unverified account that Captain Smith was last seen swimming
around after helping a little girl into a lifeboat. This was detailed in a
Discovery or Learning Channel 4 hour documentary that I saw about a year or so
ago.

FYI, I remember reading back in the 70s that several witnesses reported that
the ship broke in two, but that most people discounted this theory.

chrisw
caw@wizard.net

DAS BOOT was too “poor us.” I question how many German Kapitains were
such demonstrative, soul-searching “Captain Kirk”s … and the scene
in which Herr Kapitain indignantly demanded to know why the *British*
hadn’t rescued/evacuated the crew of the tanker they were about to
polish off was downright enraging. ENEMY BELOW was similarly
questionable, although reasonably accurate, technically.

Yeah, soulless Nazi fighting machines, all of them.

Markus Stumptner

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Eric Bergerud wrote:
> I can top that one . Last night I watched Leslie Howard’s production of
> SPITFIRE the 1941 “docudrama” of RJ Mitchell and the development of the
> Spit. Howard and David Niven star. (Niven, already a famous actor, went out
> of his way to put his neck on the line in North Africa. Doesn’t fit the
> image really, but there you are.) The film is propaganda but good. Some
> marvelous footage of the Schneider Cup and some fine combat scenes from the
> Battle of Britain.

Agreed, but I’ve read little of Niven’s actual whereabouts during the
war.

What *did* he do, Eric? (… besides “Spitfire” and “Immortal Battalion.”
🙂 ) … and where has it been covered?

Lou
Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Eric Bergerud wrote:

> >
> >Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
> > film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
> > judgment.
> >
> I certainly agree that TITANIC is well worth seeing and, in many ways,
> is a
> very impressive film. I must quibble with Lou on a couple of points,
> however.
>
> 1. Director James Cameron, probably wisely, did not want to make a
> “docudrama” and a lot of good history is left out. Kind of funny when
> you
> think about it – what story has more REAL drama than the fate of the
> Titanic. Two things bugged me. First, there was not ONE mention of the
>
> CALIFORNIAN – a ship that probably could have been standing by before
> Titanic went down had luck been kinder. Carpathian is mentioned but
> nobody
> notes that had it not arrived when it did, those lifeboats might well
> have
> sailed off and casualties been 100%. Even in a lifeboat, hypothermia
> will
> kill quickly.

I was also surprised that the _Californian_ wasn’t mentioned. But, I
think I know what happened to her–she ended up on the cutting room
floor! There is a picture in the Jan.
issue of _Sea Classics_ on p. 46 that shows a set used in the movie with
the following caption: “A replicas of the wireless office used for
scenes featuring the SS _Californian_, the ship that did not respond to
_Titanic’s_ pleas for assistance. Catherine Lanzaro and her daughter
occupy the highly accurate rendition of the ship’s radio room.”

If you are interested in the making of the movie, there is a large
picture book, called _James
Cameron’s Titanic_ avaliable at most bookstores.
—

Steve Alvin
Dept. of Social Sciences
Illinois Valley Community College

salvin@ocslink.com

“I have snatched my share of joys from the grudging hand of fate
as I have jogged along, but never has life held for me anything
quite so entrancing as baseball.”–Clarence Darrow

>
>Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
> film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
> judgment.
>
I certainly agree that TITANIC is well worth seeing and, in many ways, is a
very impressive film. I must quibble with Lou on a couple of points, however.

1. Director James Cameron, probably wisely, did not want to make a
“docudrama” and a lot of good history is left out. Kind of funny when you
think about it – what story has more REAL drama than the fate of the
Titanic. Two things bugged me. First, there was not ONE mention of the
CALIFORNIAN – a ship that probably could have been standing by before
Titanic went down had luck been kinder. Carpathian is mentioned but nobody
notes that had it not arrived when it did, those lifeboats might well have
sailed off and casualties been 100%. Even in a lifeboat, hypothermia will
kill quickly.

2. The script was well acted, although not inspired. The vocabulary was NOT,
however, by any stretch of the imagination, true to the spirit of the
Edwardian age. The characters’ dialog sounds as though it comes from a
1990’s TV drama. Cameron obviously did this intentionally. I think he could
have been true to the period without driving away the audiance. Perhaps I am
wrong. Furthermore, although the ship’s “Britishness” is never hidden,
almost all of the major characters are American. One might have concluded
that it was the SS United States that hit the berg.

3. I don’t think the digital age is quite here yet. The limitiations
inherent in digital special effects were never better shown than in Titanic.
They were good, mind you, and far superior to the klutzy efforts in many
older war movies, but when they had wide angle scenes of Titanic cutting
through the Atlantic, I could tell it wasn’t “real.” (Computer graphics are
something I’ve beeing futzing with for a decade: maybe other viewers would
be more charitable.) The special effects that WERE impressive were
traditional. Cameron built a 750 foot model of the Titanic that served as an
numbing backdrop to the scenes of the ship’s sinking. In addition, the
attention given to recreating the interior shots are extremely impressive
and, as I understand it, incredibly expensive. Technically these scenes
could have been done 30 years ago – nobody had the money to try it.

That said, definite thumbs up.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Hi, all-

This week I’ve been re-reading all the messages sent to/from the Mahan list
since it started in December 1996.

Yes, I saved them all, originally, but my reason for reviewing them was to
delete the chaff and keep the “wheat”, so as to free up some hard drive
space.

For the record, we passed our 1-year mark in late December, and we still
owe a debt of gratitude to Dave Riddle for establishing the ListServ, and
to his Dad Bill for suggesting the name.

I’m terribly worried, however, that we have not yet assigned a list
administrator nor established any rules of etiquette. How can we possibly
continue to function without same? ;>)

And, without a doubt, the best one-liner of the year goes to Brooks Rowlett
for this groaner:
===========
“> The experts from the U.S. military looked at the frozen greenish*
> debris….and explained that the townspeople had been storing the jetisoned
> debris from an airplane sewage holding tank.
>snip< *The green is more usually described as blue, and arises from the antiseptic fluid used in the toilet system. This has happened more than once, and as recently as within the last two years: I remember a news report. If the plane's tank leaks, an accumulation on the side of the aircraft occurs, and is liable to fall off as the aircraft drops to lower altitudes and the temperature increases. The moral of the story, of course, is that just because the Cold War is over, the danger isn't: There is still the possibility that you can be hit by an icey BM." ========= I must thank all of you who joined and participated in the Mahan list, for I have learned a great deal in the past year, and I hope for continued enlightenment. Thanks, and keep it up. Tom Tom Robison Ossian, Indiana **Please Note NEW E-mail Address* tcrobi@adamswells.com

[Please forward to Sub-Arch-L]
Copyright 1997 Louis R. Coatney

Yesterday, my (19 yr old) son (Robert) and I took in the new
movie-spectacular “Titanic,” for the Saturday matinee, here
in land-locked Macomb, Illinois — not that the two of us
didn’t nearly die in 38-degree water after a sailboat overturn
on a nearby lake, about 6 years ago, … which made the movie
*uncomfortably* personal.

Overall, it is a stunning, beautiful, and educationally significant
film … despite some egregious errors of production/directiion
judgment.

The film proceeds from a modern deep-sea treasure hunter’s perspective
… to the “oral history” memories of an old woman survivor …
to the historical re-creation of the ship and society of that era
… and the sight of the woman in her young beauty … and the
filmgoer’s *feeling* of mortality and of the fleeting … *vital*
… opportunities … personal as well as material … of Life.

We are shown a computer animation of exactly how TITANIC is supposed
to have flooded, broken, and then taken her final plunge … with
2/3s of the 2,200 people aboard her … and then reminded that a
*human* remembrance is infinitely more and infinitely more
valuable.

Aesthetically, beauty is shown due reverence: A beautiful woman and
a beautiful ship … and the mystical relation of the two. TITANIC
herself is shown in proper, *dual* perspective: a huge, magnificent
creation of human engineering in port and a tiny, brightly lit jewel
on the bleak surface of the cold, dark, and (as we have already been
shown) DEEP ocean. The “photography” … on the wide screen … is
sometimes breath-taking.

The girl is portrayed by Kate Winslet, a young actress having red hair
and a full (and fully developed) figure — not necessarily pretty,
but certainly beautiful in the classical sense. And the importance of
RECORDING a(ny — nay, *every* –) woman’s natural/nude beauty is well-
“illustrated.”

(Winsley looks a *great* deal like a girl I met on Internet and once was
able to give a ride here to — to see a boyfriend 🙁 Last I heard,
she was expecting … the continuance of beauty being part of
“Titanic”‘s theme … but planning on marrying someone else she didn’t
love. Women can be as fascinating … and willful … as ships. 🙂 )

Some of the flaws include a clumsily overzealous demonization of Victorian
class society … which (especially in the context of the TITANIC
tragedy) is transparently damnable for us today enough in its own right.

After the “sitting,” the steamy “back-seat” scene … as artfully as the
beauty of a woman “afterwards” is portrayed … was superfluous, if
there wasn’t going to be any subsequent promise of biological
continuance/immortality, as there was so overtly in Michael Mann’s
“The Last of the Mohicans” masterpiece.

Besides the immediate characters … and the usual lively
anti-establishment portrayal of “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” … there
are not enough famous passengers represented. We see an ideal old
couple beatifically choosing to die together, embraced on their stateroom
bed, without learning anything about the self-sacrifice of Mr. and Mrs.
Isidor Strauss and their lifelong philanthropy. The scandal of Astor’s
very young and pregnant wife is mentioned, but not her survival … let
alone her subsequent rise to Parliament (to be the recipient of one of
Winston Churchill’s most immortal ripostes) … if that *was* the same
Lady Astor.

Also, I had thought CAPT. Smith survived the sinking, but he is shown
going down with his ship.

The silliest thing in the movie is the true-cad’s shoot-em-up
pursuit of the young-lovers-in-social-rebellion. It wasted time
and severely taxed film credibility for any sincere viewer of whatever
age. If the writer/director was responsible for this, he deserves
professional (and corporate) censure. If a producer insisted on it,
s/he should never be allowed *near* a film’s production again!

As long as the movie was, and as intent as the producers/director must
have been in making sure that their technical investment was on the
screen, too much content apparently died on the cutting room floor,
and I hope there is at least a director’s cut to recover some of
that even if only in video.

One other basic point any TITANIC movie should include … and which
this one missed … is that the tragedy epitomized the arrogance-
rooted “strategic” stupidity of Europe’s ruling classes at the
time … and how modern technology could magnify its cost … as
happened only a few years later in the First World War.

However, I believe the film is still a must-see … especially in its
wide-screen format … and will be of huge, positive benefit to
promoting interest in … and respect for … history, art, and
(marine) engineering and exploration … especially among the
young.

Considering its explicit “artistic content,” I’m not sure it is
something a teacher would want to risk recommending to under-18
students.

I might add that among other interesting TITANIC materials is the
Chatham River Press book MAKE A MODEL: TITANIC (ISBN 0-517-
68131-5) which actually contains *3 neat* models. The first is
a full-length half-model showing the ship’s exterior on
one side and a cross-section of the interior on the other.
The second model is of TITANIC stern-high, just before she took
her final plunge … and with a model of the suspect iceberg in
attendance. The final model is of the wreck on the sea floor,
with exploration vehicles about. This sequence of models in
their own way impart the historical process, of course.

Finally, I think we are at the point that computerized/composite footage
equal or even superior to archival documentary film footage may now
be possible. When I look at all the inaccuracies/absurdities in the
“Victory at Sea” series, for example, I yearn for something more balanced
and fully descriptive, graphically … although anything without
politically correct editorializing (like we see to some extent in
“Titanic”) may no longer be possible, I suppose.

Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu, ElCoat@Hotmail.com
www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (Free lunch-hour boardgame and
cardstock model ship plans to print off and assemble/play)

Recently, I managed to purchase a copy of Edward Von der Porten’s
_The German Navy in World War II_. One of the pictures is of the Type
IX C submarine U-537. On the front of the conning tower is a symbol
which looks for all the world like the Olympic rings. Can anyone on the
list tell me what is the significance of this symbol? Was in unique to
this particular boat, or was it a standard feature of this class of U-
boat? Thanks in advance, Ed.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

Hi everyone,

Our largest local newspaper, the DAILY PRESS, just began a
five-part series
on the MONITOR today, the 135th anniversary of the MONITOR’s sinking off Cape
Hatteras, NC.

The series will cover history, NOAA’s National Marine
Sanctuary Program, and
disucss NOAA’s efforts to preserve significant portions of the MONITOR before
its inevitable collapse.

Better yet, the whole series has been posted on the Internet at:

http://hamptonroads.digitalcity.com

NOAA’s draft preservation plan for the MONITOR is available
for comments and
can be found on the Web at:

www.nos.noaa.gov/nmsp/monitor/plan/

HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

John D. Broadwater, Manager
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
The Mariners’ Museum
100 Museum Drive
Newport News, VA 23606-3759
757-599-3122 (fax 591-7353)
jbroadwater@ocean.nos.noaa.gov
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/nmsp/monitor/