throwing the necklace off the ship

Kevin M. Wittrock

unread,

Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98

to

I thought Titanic was a great film but I can't figure out why would Rose
throw the necklace away. What is the point? Did she feel it was so
important that the most valuable piece of jewely known to mankind never be
found?

Daniel T.

unread,

Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98

to

In article <01bd389a$ecc08180$5b45...@wittrock.netins.net>, "Kevin M.
Wittrock" <witt...@netins.net> wrote:

I had some doubt as to her intentions... Did she throw it away, or maybe
she just dropped it. She didn't "throw" it, that's for sure and the sound
she made just as the necklace was leaving her fingers makes me think that
it was unintentional.

My wife though she was dropping it on purpose. She saw it as Rose
"returning it to the sea" because there weren't good intentions involved
in the receiving of the necklace or in the attempt to retrieve it. Also,
she could have thrown it away in defiance of her fiancee, her way of
spitting in his face.

Donald Dube

unread,

Feb 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/13/98

to

She was finally putting the whole expierience behind her... after that she
died happy...

Kevin M. Wittrock wrote:

> I thought Titanic was a great film but I can't figure out why would Rose
> throw the necklace away. What is the point? Did she feel it was so
> important that the most valuable piece of jewely known to mankind never be
> found?

--
PS. You could hit your reply button, or visit my WEB Page...
http://www.javanet.com/~dondube

LuckyAt101

unread,

Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98

to

>> I thought Titanic was a great film but I can't figure out why would Rose
>> throw the necklace away. What is the point? Did she feel it was so
>> important that the most valuable piece of jewely known to mankind never be
>> found?

Well, remember in the movie, old Rose was saying that the necklace was always
reminding her of 'him' (Cal). Whenever she had financial problems, she thought
of selling it. But, she never did because she didn't want to rely on Cal to
help her out (cause the necklace was worth moola).

A thought...

-Lucky

^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^
That's the problem with doing the right thing...sometimes you do it alone.
-Genie

^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^ * ^

WildBlueC

unread,

Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98

to

In article <19980214040...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, lucky...@aol.com
(LuckyAt101) writes:

>Well, remember in the movie, old Rose was saying that the necklace was always
>reminding her of 'him' (Cal). Whenever she had financial problems, she
>thought
>of selling it. But, she never did because she didn't want to rely on Cal to
>help her out (cause the necklace was worth moola).

Wasn't that in the script, but never made it into the film? I don't remember
her ever discussing the necklace with anyone AFTER the sinking.

LuckyAt101

unread,

Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98

to

>Wasn't that in the script, but never made it into the film? I don't
>remember
>her ever discussing the necklace with anyone AFTER the sinking.

I remember it in the movie (never read the script). I could be totally wrong
and getting facts messed up and combined and all that fun stuff...

Mai-Linh

unread,

Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98

to

I think the necklace held more significance for Rose than just being a
piece of jewelry. It *almost* tied her to Cal for a lifetime. Some would
debate that it killed Jack, since Lovejoy and Cal had him arrested for
stealing it. It was Rose's only reminder of her past life and of what
happened w/Jack. When she threw it overboard, she was finally letting go of
the ties that were binding her. She was finally free.

Kevin M. Wittrock <witt...@netins.net> wrote in article
<01bd389a$ecc08180$5b45...@wittrock.netins.net>...

KATARINA JELIC

unread,

Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98

to

Kevin,
I believe her throwing the necklace away is not about its monetary value.
The scene is to be read symbolically: Throwing it into the ocean, back to
Titanic, back were it belongs. To Rose it was a symbol of a life she never
wanted to live - the one with Cal. Her journey on the Titanic came to a
closure that evening. Just my opinion.
Kata

Kevin M. Wittrock skrev i meddelelsen

ten killer

unread,

Feb 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/15/98

to

Why did she keep it if it wasn't for love of Cal? Everytime that she
would've looked at it she would have thought of him and not Jack.

sam...@teleport.com

unread,

Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98

to

In article <6c8cbt$nil$1...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
tenk...@webtv.net (ten killer) wrote:

> Why did she keep it if it wasn't for love of Cal? Everytime that she
> would've looked at it she would have thought of him and not Jack.

I disagree. I think she would have thought of her experience with Jack, of
him drawing her, and then their steamy time in the car in the ship's hold.

Canman23

unread,

Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98

to

Rose kept the diamond becaue the only time she wore it that had any meaning to
her was when Jack drew the pic of her. Since she didnt have the pic all she had
was the Diamond. So at the end she threw it back into the ocean with Jack. I
hope this helps you .

Mike

Mai-Linh

unread,

Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98

to

I think the necklace was also a reminder of the life she was almost trapped
in, before Jack saved her. In the original script Old Rose says something
along the lines of, it was hard being so poor knowing she had the necklace
that was worth so much. But by selling the necklace to support herself, Cal
would have ended up helping her. And she didn't want his help.

sam...@teleport.com; Sam Vigil Jr. <sam...@pogo.wv.tek.com> wrote in
article <samvjr-1602...@ip-pdx42-15.teleport.com>...