To my knowledge, this was the first modern Titanic movie. A silent version came out soon after the disaster. In 1929 there was a version called "Atlantic." Given that it was just a couple years after "talkies" dawned, it looks crude in some ways. Still, all three of these movies can probably be judged as good by the standards of their times.
You're wondering about the "notorious" one? Have you not heard of the "Nazi" Titanic movie? I had heard some references through the years. I was left wondering if a completed version would ever be made available for viewing.
The historical accounts suggest there was extreme turbulence during its making. What? Turbulence in 1943 Germany? Well very much so. Seems miraculous the movie even reached completion. And today, thanks to the almost boundless reach of the Internet, it can be examined in full. So I availed myself last week.
Quite quickly I wondered: Is it even a moral thing to watch this movie? Moral debate has been vigorous over using Nazi scientific research.
The movie might just as well be examined as part of understanding the whole Nazi propaganda thing. The movie was overtly a part of that. Wait, how could a seemingly basic Titanic movie possibly fit in with Nazi propaganda with Joseph Goebbels? It did! This requires an explanation: The 1943 "Titanic" argued that American and British capitalism, i.e. naked greed, led to the disaster in the north Atlantic.
Goebbels himself commissioned the movie. He also wanted to show the prowess of German filmmaking.
All of the standard Titanic movies weave in some fictional characters with the well-known events of what happened. "Iceberg dead ahead" et al. The German version gives us a most sympathetic German character, an officer on the ship who embodied bravery and selflessness. The latter quality is ironic, n'est-ce pas?
Turbulence in the making of the movie? It was quite Nazi-esque turbulence, as original director Herbert Selpin was arrested after giving some skeptical thoughts about the Nazi regime. Keep in mind that the Nazis were a death cult rather than pure Fascism. Selpin was imprisoned where he was hanged. End of project? No. The fellow who completed it was not even credited.
The finished film had a dodgy roll-out. It made it onto the screens through Nazi-occupied Europe but not in Germany itself. Goebbels had done a reversal of attitude toward the flick. He suddenly felt the movie might run counter to morale.
Not entirely out of left field
So, the propaganda message was about greed? We might smile about this because frankly, there is a grain of truth to the suspicion about capitalism and greed as bedfellows, eh? The 1943 "Titanic" shows the movers behind the Titanic seeking a speed record for the vessel, the idea being to inflate stock price. My first reaction: why would speed be so important anyway? This was an incredibly luxurious vessel. Why wouldn't the passengers want to spend an extra day or two on it?
The infamous Bruce Ismay and his White Star Line board plan stock manipulation: sell their own stock "short" so to buy it back at a lower price just before the news about the speed record. Doesn't stuff like this happen right up to the present day?
We know how the whole venture turns out of course. It is the fictional German officer, "Petersen," who pleads for more caution in the run. Ismay instead pressures Captain Smith to go full-throttle. You might say "damn the torpedoes" but instead we're talking icebergs. The ship had its appointment with fate, it starts to go down, and it's Petersen and several German passengers who show the most bravery and dignity.
The shorthand is like the U.S. Civil War movies, with the Northern officers exuding the primary virtue and valor. An asterisk: U.S. Civil War movies do in fact show Southern officers with great fighting spirit but behind a shroud of going against the grain of history. The moral lesson is clear.
Nothing wrong with showing a group of German souls behaving with gallantry during the Titanic incident - we can always forgive some parochialism of this type - and there's no suggestion of any of the real Nazi horrors, genocide being primary. None of that, so my conscience was not tugging at me as I watched the fully colorized version of the 1943 "Titanic" on YouTube last week.
Goebbels eventually decided that a movie about mass death and panic would not be healthy for the German populace that was subjected to Allied bombing raids. Oh, another problem: the heroic Petersen committed the faux pas of questioning his superiors on the boat. The Nazi scheme was to defer to higher authorities always. (Sort of my experience in the U.S. public schools, LOL.)
The movie continued its dodgy and inevitably controversial course after the war. Art is hard to hold down, though. Though the movie had a propaganda aim, at least at the start, the aim strikes me as wholly benign now. Greed in capitalist countries? Is the Pope Catholic? We must always strive to do what's right: the impulse tugs at us, but surely we must not be naive and think that greed is not always lurking out there.
Really, was greed an element that contributed to the Titanic's sinking? We can surely wonder. But I'll repeat: why should speed of the crossing be deemed to important?
Immoral to view this movie? What about to pilfer from, for subsequent Titanic movies? Charles Murray the great sociologist has been controversial partly through perusing Nazi or neo-Nazi research, and in the case of "Titanic," four scenes were re-used for the 1958 "A Night to Remember." The 1958 movie was critically acclaimed. I've always thought of it as "The David McCallum Titanic movie." It shows the then-quite young actor.
We learn that the uncut version of the "Nazi" Titanic movie was restored in 2005 and released on DVD and VHS, then came Blu-Ray in 2017. The uncut version wasn't available in North America until 2019. So now it's on YouTube, colorized and free to watch, in all its real splendor. And I must say, as art it is excellent, better than I expected. Amazing that Goebbels initially saw it as furthering his purposes.
The James Cameron Titanic movie was probably the last word for such undertakings. Or was it? Who knows what Hollywood might plan?
Perhaps the whole template for these films will someday be applied to 9/11: fictional characters and scenes amidst the actual disaster. I do not feel we have yet gotten a full-blown 9/11 representation on the big screen, not on the scale of the Cameron effort. Perhaps the U.S. has not achieved enough emotional distance from the 2001 disaster.
But the time will come, I predict. Let's sign up David McCallum for it. He played the assistant wireless operator in the 1958 Titanic movie. Wireless operators were the "geeks" of their time.
Addendum: Donald Trump has used propaganda in contemporary America. It is ripe. It is also very easy to explain. I think his supporters like things that are easy to explain. Trump's propaganda works thusly: although the policies he engineers do not help his followers - arguably they run counter - his rhetoric is an "us against them" thing in which "them" is the "expert class."
The followers get the psychological satisfaction of venting and mounting force against the "expert class." No wonder the followers have to be so out front with manifestations like signs and flags professing love of their leader, their surrogate Fuhrer in effect. So, we see signs like "Biden, stick your unity up your (blank)." That's right here in our Morris MN. It's across the street from a public park where kids play.
Many such vulgar examples have been reported. And why? Merely to express a political preference? No, the reason has to go beyond that, into the aggrieved psyche of all these folks. Trump's propaganda has impact and is profoundly dangerous. "Hang Mike Pence?"
I'll repeat this firebell in the night: Cult leaders are known to take their followers down with them.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment