Why did Rose throw the necklace into the ocean?
George Costanza
Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
What was the significance of that?
It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack. If
so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all those
years?
HotdogLoui
I believe it was her last tie to the Titanic, regardless of who it was from.
It was the only thing she had left from that experience except for her
memories. And remember, she did have Jack draw her with the jewel on, so it
did remind her of him as well as Cal. I also feel that Rose died at the end
and returning the jewel to the ocean was her way of coming full circle in her
life, when it truly began at the Titanic and ended there.
Kristen
"It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man!"
niky
this is just my personal thought but i think that rose held on to the
necklace because it took her back to the time when she and jack were
together and he was painting her. it doesn't matter who gave it to her,
what matters is the emotions she experienced wearing it. she throws it
into the ocean because she is returningit to jack. i have always thought
that it would be an interesting thing to do that to show jack under
water and have the necklace kand at his feet. it's not impossible, after
all they were right above the ship and he was frozen almost solid.
she throws it into the ocean to return it to him so that they can have
it when she dies. i think she knows that she is going to die now,
because she has told her story and kept her promise. in that scene, i
think she is dead. she looks happy too, if you notice, because she is
setuning to her true love and this time, nothing can get in the way of
their love.
niky
Here2Fore
Its hard to comment on a fictional plot, since no answer will be
satisfactory, but two theories come to mind:
(1) Life had come full-circle for Rose, and she knew that holding onto
memories was more important than an object that reminded her more of an
abuser than Jack. She said she didn't even have a picture of him (Jack),
that he existed only in her memory. She never mentioned Cal in that
statement....did not want to think about him, and did not want to go to her
grave possessing anything he had given her. Throwing it into the ocean was
a sign of RESPECT for Jack...proof that she made it on her own without help
from Cal, and proof that she DID survive.
(2) The other theory is that she only threw a replica of the diamond into
the ocean, that the real one was safe and sound in her safe-deposit box, and
that she went to bed hoping Jack wouldn't notice the difference.
I like the first answer better !!
George Costanza wrote in message <6dpu7r$2rj$1...@aurora.ns.net>...
Norm
Hmmm, interesting. But that would not explain why Rose would hold onto that
necklace for so long, especially since she had no reasonable hope that
Titanic would ever be found and that she would have an opportunity to do
that.
Also, I don't think she died in the end. Rather just dreaming. She looked to
healthy to die. Although that foreshadowing about Rose dying an old warm in
bed is something to think about.
niky wrote in message <6dq6pm$76q$3...@earth.superlink.net>...
>George Costanza wrote:
>>
>> Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's
end?
>> What was the significance of that?
>>
>> It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack.
If
>> so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all
those
>> years?
>
ElRoi1811
My take on it is that her throwing the necklace into the ocean symbolized the
relationship she had on the ship with Jack as being held deep in the heart of
her as a woman....there was a line to that effect earlier in film... the
necklace was always used as a symbol in the movie, an illustration of several
things tho, Hockley's riches and power over Rose and her family and then it
went on to symbolize trust between Rose & Jack. The word trust came up a lot in
their short time together... the fact that she had Jack put the necklace in
the safe after the drawing of her (nude, another aspect of trust and
vulnerablility) illustrated the shift in the necklace as a symbol...
Just my two cents worth.....would love to hear what others think about this
interpretation....makes sense to me but I am open to others views
LRR
T Bills
>Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
>What was the significance of that?
>
>It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack. If
>so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all those
>years?
>
>
>
Because it was the only thing she had to remind her of Jack. If you
will remember he was fascinated by it when she first showed it to him,
and then she had him draw her with it on. It symbolized her love for
Jack and the experiences, love, passion, and intimacy that they shared
i.e. Heart of the Ocean.
If anyone disagrees please tell me your opinion.
Play as hard as you work,
Dance as though nobody is around,
and Love as though you have never been hurt!!
"The heart perceives information the eye can't see..."
Trent
Serenleono
"George Costanza" <gcos...@vandelay.com> scripsit:
>Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at
>movie's end? What was the significance of that?
I thought all along that Rose's choice not to give the diamond
necklace to the salvage team, or even to her own daughter -- but
instead to return it to the deep, -- was actually a message from
writer James Cameron, expressing his view of the sanctity of the wreck
site and all the relics associated with the disaster.
Perhaps he/Rose felt, as many do, that such items belong to the
graveyard of the deep and shouldn't benefit the living. Certainly she
never benefited from its considerable monetary value during her
lifetime.
Seren
(Charter member of the official alt.movies.titanic cult.)
Here2Fore
I think you're reading too much into it. The "sanctity" refers to what went
down with the ship. If we adopted your theory, (old) Rose should have
jumped over the rail and gone to Jack (and Titanic) personally, rather than
send a messanger.
There is something to say about one of Gloria Stuart's final lines in the
movie: "A woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets." To keep the diamond
would mean (1) never letting go of CAL, since it is a reminder of him;
(2) not to throw the diamond away, but to put it in a safe, deep, resting
place, is a peaceful solution and a sign of respect for a lost, loved one;
(3) to never have to "pass on" the only material connection she had with
CAL, a man who was nothing more than a classic chauvinist abuser, and (4)
she could die knowing that she had done with the diamond as Jack would have
done under the same circumstances (since material objects meant little to
him..."live from day to day...clothes on my back...etc").
Serenleono wrote in message <3506f45f...@news.mindspring.com>...
Lungshot1
>Subject: Re: Why did Rose throw the necklace into the ocean?
Rose had seen first hand how wealth had corrupted life. Her mother had no other
concern for her daughter than for her to marry for money and thus save her from
"selling off her possesions". Shouldn't her daughter's life been of greater
importance? Or look at Cal who only wished to marry a name that could advance
his position in society and business.
Rose was wise to the ways of the world having lived a full life. She knew why
the salvage ship was at the wreck site.....it was the continual search for
wealth over and above the true wealth that one can obtain in life.....that
being love, respect, and goodness. Rose manipulated the salvage crew and
allowed them to find a treasure that was infinitely greater than the jewel that
they were searching for.
Wasn't it ironic that the men of the salvage ship who listened to her story
were moved to tears? Rose in her long life probably gave to others a greater
gift than what could have been obtained from the necklace. While we watched the
movie and listened to her story we shed tears also.
The necklace had served its true purpose, a gift of love that had finally done
what it should have done all along. Now that it had served its purpose, it like
a life must return to the sea....the place from which all life came from....the
place that gave Rose her life and touched the lives of so many.
ED
glamsmit
maybe cause it reminds her of titanic the most like when she got her photo
taken
George Costanza <gcos...@vandelay.com> wrote in article
<6dpu7r$2rj$1...@aurora.ns.net>...
Michael Alexander
George Costanza wrote in message <6dpu7r$2rj$1...@aurora.ns.net>...
>Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
She threw it in the water because she was stupid and evil. When she threw
it in the water, somebody somewhere lost a million dollars. The money could
have been split between the insurance company, Cal's relatives and Rose's
descendents. Am I the only person who thinks that defrauding an insurance
company is a crime? The salvage guy had no claim on the diamond, because it
was not in the Titanic when he got there. Not telling her children and
grandchildren about the Titanic also seems a tad evil.
MFLuder848
>>(1) Life had come full-circle for Rose, and she knew that holding onto
memories was more important than an object that reminded her more of an
abuser than Jack. She said she didn't even have a picture of him (Jack),
that he existed only in her memory. She never mentioned Cal in that
statement....did not want to think about him, and did not want to go to her
grave possessing anything he had given her. Throwing it into the ocean was
a sign of RESPECT for Jack...proof that she made it on her own without help
from Cal, and proof that she DID survive.>>
I agree with your analysis. Just to add: I think it was a showing of respect
mostly for Jack but also for all those who died that night. Rose explored her
life, and lived it to the fullest, honoring those whose life was cut short.
After telling her deep secret, humanizing the story of the Titanic, and
reaching an absolution by throwing the necklace into the ocean (the grave of
the Titanic) , a tribute in a sense, she was ready to die.
Pure poetry.
--Scott
mbaur
was there and everybody from titanic. I think rose throw the
neckless into the ocean because it was too much pain to think
about jack and the titanic going down. will that's what i think.
got go bye
anna
gisela
I think it was because that's what she wore when Jack drawed her... In spite
of being given to her by Cal, I think it reminded her more of Jack, and
thought that she should give it to him. Or something like that.
~ gisela
George Costanza wrote in message <6dpu7r$2rj$1...@aurora.ns.net>...
>Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
>What was the significance of that?
>
Miyu
In my opinion, Rose threw the necklace overboard...to return it to its
rightful place. She could have sold that necklace years ago and be
rich..but she wanted to get through life without the help of Cal or her
mother. Maybe she kept it near as a momentum or souvenir from when Jack
drew her. When she did throw it overboard..perhaps she knew her time had
come. Maybe she just didn't want it falling into the hands of others..
--
Miyu
mi...@earthlink.net
http://www.pdsnorth.com/~miyu
mbaur <mba...@home.com> wrote in article <35019D48...@home.com>...
Arkady Teplinsky
I have a Titanic web page at http://www.angelfire.com/wi/Elnrahome
On this page, I am conducting a poll whether you think Rose died or didn't
die at the end? Please answer this poll. Thank you.
Eleonora
George Costanza <gcos...@vandelay.com> wrote in article
ElRoi1811
The name of the necklace was "The heart of the ocean"
Rose said towards the end that "A womans heart is a deep ocean of secrets"
The"heart of the ocean" necklace was tossed into a deep ocean..
Put these pieces of the puzzle together and it offers food for thought.
LRR
mike
i have always thought
>that it would be an interesting thing to do that to show jack under
>water and have the necklace kand at his feet. it's not impossible, after
>all they were right above the ship and he was frozen almost solid.
many many of the bodies of the people that didnt survive the accident
were recovered. true he didnt have a life jacket on, but a body
unless weighted down will eventually float back to the surface.
(or)
maybe she threw it overboard because she knew the character
played by bill paxton might eventually find it. it was after all
the object for which he searched.
Gloria
Hi this is my first post here. I must say that Rose kept the diamond
because <hello!> if she'd ever tried to hock it (pun intended) red flags
would have went up everywhere. And she certainly didn't want to give Cal
any hints that she was still alive. Secondly I think Old Rose threw the
necklace overboard simply because she didn't want Brock to get it. After
all he was opportunistic SOB up to this point. Why let him have the
satisfaction of getting it?
Gloria
end?
>> What was the significance of that?
>>
>> It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack.
If
>> so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all
those
>> years?
>
>necklace because it took her back to the time when she and jack were
>together and he was painting her. it doesn't matter who gave it to her,
>what matters is the emotions she experienced wearing it. she throws it
>that it would be an interesting thing to do that to show jack under
>water and have the necklace kand at his feet. it's not impossible, after
>all they were right above the ship and he was frozen almost solid.
>
KAI
hey ! well said !
But seriously, you can come up maybe hundard or maybe thousands of
reasons why Rose throw the necklace into the ocean, but why is that
so hard to understand ? people asking this question is because they
think she's stupid old fool ?? C'mon ! get over it.
Claire
I think the reason why she threw the necklace was because after all this
year, she finally forgive herself for surviving.
She promised Jack she would live, the necklace reminded her of that promise,
as she only worn it during the drawing by Jack.
Secondly the necklace reminded her of the time when everything changes on
the ship. When Jack was framed, leading to his demise. She could not let go
of the past. The throwing of the necklace show that she has come to terms
with her past, and is ready to go on.
Just my two cent worth
Claire
Colin Teo
It was also to show that after all these years, she didn't have to rely on it to survive through the
hard times (if any) in her long life after Titanic. She lived in a simple house, had a few gold
fishes, a small television set and content with her pottery.
I'd add that it was like saying, "Whoops, there goes Cal's insurance all for nothing."
Colin Teo
Carol & Joe
My sister suggested that Rose threw the necklace in the ocean because she
was "giving it to Jack." I think Jack would not want the necklace.
I think Rose threw the necklace back into the ocean because that is where
it is supposed to have been lost.
The only reason I can think of why she held onto the necklace all those is
years because giving it to or exchanging it with another person would bring
lots of money to someone who did not earn it.
-Carol
George Costanza <gcos...@vandelay.com> wrote in article
<6dpu7r$2rj$1...@aurora.ns.net>...
J. Weber
Heres my 2 cents. After Rose finishs telling the story she says that she
never told anyone about jack, ever. So i think things had finally coem
full circle for her and she had some closure in her life. Now that they
were over the wreck of Titanic and she was fiannly able to tell her
story she didn't need to hold on to the necklace anymore and she could
leave it where it belonged, in a final resting place with Jack and the
rest of Titanic
Devon
Tom Pappas
Gloria <low...@netsites.net> wrote in article <35018...@207.2.194.133>...
> Hi this is my first post here. I must say that Rose kept the diamond
> because <hello!> if she'd ever tried to hock it (pun intended) red flags
> would have went up everywhere. And she certainly didn't want to give Cal
> any hints that she was still alive. Secondly I think Old Rose threw the
> necklace overboard simply because she didn't want Brock to get it. After
> all he was opportunistic SOB up to this point. Why let him have the
> satisfaction of getting it?
> Gloria
"Up to this point..."
I thought about that a lot. I think Cameron missed an opportunity when he
didn't develop Lovett's change of attitude. He says "three years out here,
and I never let it in." And then Rose's story makes the tragedy real for
him, and he is transfigured. In the end, he gets it. Here's my ending:
[LIZZY]
Mr. Lovett came out here looking for jewelry, nanna. But all he found is
ghosts. Maybe he discovered Titanic's real treasure, after all.
[ROSE]
I know he did, dear. And that's why I want him to have this (produces the
necklace from her nightdress). Will you please see to it that he gets it?
I'm going to sleep now.
Tom Pappas {:oş http://home.att.net/~tompappas
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will."
sharon cullars
Here's my thought: having finally told her story, which she had kept
deep within her heart for so long, knowing that her story could now go
on through her granddaughter and et al, she no longer needed to hold on
to the only tangible reminder of that night and her brief time with Jack
- the necklace. Jack's name would now be known through her story,
through the recovered picture. And since maybe she had never gotten an
opportunity to be in the exact place where Titanic had gone down, she
saw that as an opportunity to give back to the ocean that which should
have gone down in the first place.
see my poem page at http://www.inergy.com/scullars/welcome.html
Also check out samples of other poems, stories and my novel excerpt at:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5771/slcpage.html
theace
Uh, I'm not trying to get off track here, but has anyone considered the
fact that this was the first time ever that Rose had been back to the
Titanic? What I'm saying is, she didn't find the necklace till she got to
port. Then, as it is put in the original script, she wrestles with herself
on what to do with it. It would seem theat she decides to return it to it's
rightful place. The place where her dreams were made. And to return her only
physical connection to that place.
JMHO
theace
Here2Fore
I'm pretty safe in assuming that almost everyone believes Cameron intended
on conveying the theory that this was the first time Rose had returned to
the site (after all, it was almost 75 years until it was found.
But about the "physical connection" theory, Cameron (in his script) intended
the act to be to end the connection with Cal. Those not reading the script
could also conclude that to hold onto the diamond any longer, especially now
that Rose knew precisely where Jack died, would be to cherish a material
object that can only be associated with evil and greed, and that Jack would
have wanted her to dispose of it, to continue to "break free" of the "hold"
Cal and her mother had over her.
theace wrote in message <6e049s$oqq$1...@news3.alpha.net>...
J. Weber
I assume it has to be the first time she was back..none of her family
ever knew she was on Titanic
Devon
heace wrote:
>
> Uh, I'm not trying to get off track here, but has anyone considered the
> fact that this was the first time ever that Rose had been back to the
> Titanic? What I'm saying is, she didn't find the necklace till she got to
> port. Then, as it is put in the original script, she wrestles with herself
> on what to do with it. It would seem theat she decides to return it to it's
> rightful place. The place where her dreams were made. And to return her only
> physical connection to that place.
>
> JMHO
> theace
Serenleono
"Tom Pappas" <TomPa...@AMworldnet.att.net> scripsit:
>Here's my ending:
>[LIZZY]
>Mr. Lovett came out here looking for jewelry, nanna. But all he found is
>ghosts. Maybe he discovered Titanic's real treasure, after all.
>
>[ROSE]
>I know he did, dear. And that's why I want him to have this (produces the
>necklace from her nightdress). Will you please see to it that he gets it?
>I'm going to sleep now.
She'd have to say "I'm going to sleep now, or perhaps something else."
<grin>
I still hold that the subtext of the elderly Rose's action (tossing
the diamond overboard) was James Cameron's feelings toward profiting
from the sale of TITANIC relics -- or, forget Cameron (since I don't
know his attitude toward salvaging): Rose's *own* feelings about who
should benefit monetarily from anything from that disaster. I think
she threw the necklace overboard for the same reason she never sold it
during her lifetime -- she didn't really have a right to it, and nor
does anyone else. At any rate, I don't think Lovett's receiving the
stone would have strengthened the ending, nor do I think an
explanation of Lovett's admission was at all necessary. Just as a
blunt statement, it has stood out in my mind above almost all of the
other lines in the film.
Shane
Sikel and Ebert asked the same thing. They said she should have gave it to
charity
Serenleono
"Here2Fore" <Here2Fore@J椢.kom> scripsit:
>I think you're reading too much into it. The "sanctity" refers to what went
>down with the ship. If we adopted your theory, (old) Rose should have
>jumped over the rail and gone to Jack (and Titanic) personally, rather than
>send a messanger.
Whether personally or in spirit (death *or* dream), she did return. I
don't think considering the action as subtext is reading too much into
the film's screenplay, but that's simply my interpretation.
Natasha
My thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace overboard.
To me it was an act of love of finally burying the Titanic......she said in
the movie that she had never shared her experiences with anyone...so she
said her piece and buried the last physical memory of the ship. She
looked happy when she threw it over and it was very significant that she
threw it over the resting spot of the ship..
It is an act of love...in every way.
Natasha
Prncsschik
I think she threw it into the ocean because it was closure for her. She had
come around full circle, once she had told her story. Remember how she told
the crew that she never told anybody about Jack ? "not even your grandfather"
she says to her granddaughter. After that, she gets into her warm bed, where
there she dies. Remember how Jack told her "you will die and old lady, in a
warm bed..."
Rufie710
In article <19980310232...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
prncs...@aol.com (Prncsschik) wrote:
and because she , in her 101 year old wisdom ,knew that money is worthless
in the great scheme of things...this is what her life had taught her ,
this is what her love of Jack had taught her , ( and my daughter would
like to add because Rose thought it was the ugliest thing in the world and
she couldn't stand looking at it ....my daughter is 8 )...............and
I love the irony of the scence ...almost as much as I love when she talks
about Cal putting a pistol in his mouth because he lost his fortune in
1929. She knew that she had the real treasure of the Titanic.......she
survived and went on to fully realize and love what life has to offer.
Ruth ,. who is 46 , *has a life * and has seen Titanic 6 times.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
achefan...@gmail.com
> Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
> What was the significance of that?
>
> It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack. If
> so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all those
> years?
year_2014
Very surprised to find in 2014 a Google group with comments written as far back in time as 1998. Did Google copy these comments from a different website that existed in 1998 or did these people actually make these comments in Google itself? I assume that since Google itself as established in 1998, people didn't know much about it to log into it and post comments and that is even before coming to the fact that logging into web portals and posting itself must have been such a rare activity back in the '98.
rosta...@yahoo.com
josephdom...@gmail.com
> Any thoughts on why Rose threw the necklace into the ocean at movie's end?
> What was the significance of that?
>
> It seems peculiar to me that it was given to her by her fiance, NOT Jack. If
> so, why would there any sentimental value in holding onto it for all those
> years?