Titanic

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.

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.

Most articles on this film tend to overlook the intrinsic qualities of the film as film, though of course these are connected with the propaganda aspect. The opening scenes (the board meeting and subsequent meeting) are strong and the key to the propaganda: in a very short time it is effectively made clear what the point of view of this film is and what follows is an entertaining and propaganda-effective film. From the moment we are on the ship until the collision the film is drama routine, but one of the better sort. Really exiting is the film from collision till sinking, i.e. when the real drama emerges and the splendid special effects do their jobs; not one aspect of the outlined drama is forgotten, it is fast-paced and very well directed.

Of the cast it is Sybille Schmitz who excels, while other members also do a very good job; they must have done so otherwise the whole propaganda aspect would not have come across. There is one exception here: it seems that Hans Neilsen (playing the German officer) is very good, but he is not. It is often said that he speaks his lines as a Wehrmacht officer on duty, but for me his machine gun like delivered lines sound more like the staccato of the regular commentator of the Deutsche Wochenschau (compare this, when you have the possibility).

Though this film is obviously anti-British, it is rather anti English capitalist establishment and their decadence than anti-British per se *; an anti-capitalism not so much based on (to generalize) theoretical arguments, but (as most of fascist ideas) on the petty bourgeois middle class mentality and jealousy towards others who are better off. The crux for this is in the strong opening: it is here when Ismay remarks that he cannot take into account the interests of the small investors, they must bend to his need and of course greed. As such the focus of the propaganda is established; on the ship we meet very wealthy people playing with money (e.g. the gamblers) and people preferring money above people (Lord Astor, well played by Schönbock), these being decorum for the propaganda and an elaboration of the already established focus. Money (large sums bidden for almost everything) plays the major part in this film (it should have received first credit). Lord Astor even worries about stolen jewelry while the ship is sinking: money makes decadent. Compare for instance the cynic way of life upper deck and the more natural and spontaneous life lower deck.

[* Noteworthy is that after its re-release in 1950 it was quickly banned again in the Western zones, while in the Soviet zone it was screened without a problem; the anti-capitalism might have done the trick.]

The pro-German aspect and the answer to everything is German officer Petersen. He not almost single handedly saves a part of the passengers, he also shows the right spirit when it comes to human feelings. Only when the Baltic countess says she has no money anymore, he gives room for his feelings towards her; what a fine chap, he is! And it is from that point on that she does her duty as a human being and starts helping out with the rescue: money makes cynic.

There is also a hint of Durchhaltefilm here. Take for instance that schematic and ideological German rural couple; not a couple of flesh and blood, they seem to have walked straight out of a Nazi rural painting. Men and women are separated for the rescue, but this couple stays together: in an almost religious shot they hold hands expressing that nothing can separate them. They are separated by force of the panic, but reconciled again in the end. No catastrophe can undermine the simple German life.

This Titanic has its influence on film history as well. It has been ripped off at least twice, first in 1958 for A Night to Remember (a story widely known) and recently by James Cameron who for his Titanic but boring endeavour stole quite some story ideas and complete scenes; check this when you have the opportunity.

It is often written that this film was not released in Germany cause of the death (suicide, murder?) of its first director Selpin. Wetzel & Hagemann in their survey of censorship in Nazi Germany (book, 1978) claim that this is not so. It had its unnoticed premiere in 1943 in unimportant cinemas, only to be banned in December 1944 for the well-known reason: the audience was not to be confronted with catastrophes.

Beware which version you see; as I understand it there are 2 versions. The longer one (the one I saw) includes a final scene in court; Petersen is the German J'accuse of Bruce Ismay, but there appears to be no British justice.

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".

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.