I didn't like the idea of Rose throwing the diamond away.

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Alexander

unread,
Feb 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/7/98
to

I didn't like the idea of Rose throwing the diamond away. I think that some
writers watch too many movies. From time to time I see scenes that would
make sense to people who watch lots of movies, but they make no sense to me.
It looks like a scene that was stolen from another movie and doesn't fit in
with this movie.

Tod

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Michael Alexander wrote in message <6bjla3$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

Michael,

I completely agree with this post. I cringed and said to myself "Oh no!"
when I saw that scene. IMO, her action would never have occurred in real
life. There is no way someone would voluntarily let something so valuable
and treasured just vanish. Yeah, you can draw the analogy to the Titanic
disappearing, but that ship going down was anything but a voluntary action.
A real person would have kept the diamond as a keepsake, or would've passed
it onto the next generation(s) to appreciate. Just another example of
Hollywood being "Hollywood-ish".

Tod

Mai K Strauch

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

I think that scene was explained better in the original script. But most of
it was cut. In the original, she's not alone when she throws it over (Lizzy
and Brock and other crew members are there too).

Michael Alexander <kest...@idt.net> wrote in article

Jako

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Personally, I think your feelings betray more about our materialistic
society than anything else. The whole point of the movie, IMO, is that
objects, no matter how valuable they are to society, really don't amount to
squat when you consider the really important things in life, such as love
and happiness. The fact that you cringed when she threw the diamond away
simply to me is an indication of how far down the road of "Cal Hockley"
mentality we as a society have come.

PS. You really don't believe that people have sacrificed objects that were
so called "valuable" for the sake of happiness and/or love? I know many
people who have sacrificed their careers and finances for the sake of love
and happiness. What is the difference between that sacrifice and throwing
the diamond? It is merely a matter of scale, and if scale matters that much
to you, I believe you have more of Cal in you than you would admit.
Remember, the value of an object such as a diamond is merely an illusion. A
lot of good that "value" is going to do you if you're stranded on a desert
island or dead. I think that is one of the lessons of this movie, and in
fact many other stories and movies. Objects hold no value compared to the
value of life, love and happiness, cause we all die, and those objects
aren't going to do anything for us at all at that point.

ShadowStar

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

>I didn't like the idea of Rose throwing the diamond away. I think that
some
>writers watch too many movies. From time to time I see scenes that would
>make sense to people who watch lots of movies, but they make no sense to
me.
>It looks like a scene that was stolen from another movie and doesn't fit in
>with this movie.


Yes, this is an instrument which has been used before, but you need to
develop a stronger understanding of symbolism and instead of looking at it
and saying, "I've seen this before. What a ripoff!" you need to ask why
THIS particular character used this instrument. So let's think about that:
What did the diamond represent to Rose? Why did she hold on to it all those
years and then throw it into the ocean?

Well, it represented two things: First, it represented Cal. It represented
his vain attempt to buy her affections and to puff himself up. It also
represented his vain attempt to turn her from her true love.

Second, it represented Jack. "I want you to draw me...wearing this...and
ONLY this." It represented the most erotic moment in her life and it was
for both of these reasons that she held on to the diamond all those years.
She could have sold it and lived comfortably for the rest of her life
(there's an interesting line from Old Rose in the script about "being so
poor, yet being so rich" or something like that), but she chose to live in
poverty for quite some time because it was a chronicle of her life; where
she came from and how she had been saved, "in every way a person can be
saved." She never even spoke of being on Titanic until 84 years later when
she saw her own face on T.V. Telling the story gave her the closure that
she needed in her life to be able to finally rest in peace (and the more I
think about the ending, the more I believe that Rose did die at the end).
And because she now had that closure, she no longer needed the symbol. She
throws it into the ocean because she didn't want the chronicle of her life
prostituted out to a man who had no comprehension of its significance.

I hope this helps... (and the way things have been going, I hope it posts!
I'll e-mail this to you, too just to be sure you get it.)

Seriesbook

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

>I didn't like the idea of Rose throwing the diamond away.


The diamond was used as a romantic object in the story to add depth and mystery
and intrigue. To Rose, it was symbol of Cal's domination and abuse. As
wonderful as it was, she had no use for it. But when Jack sketched her wearing
the diamond, it became a symbol to her of their relationship and love, and now
it had great meaning to her.

The entire story pivoted around the diamond. In any well-written story there
must be a resolution about such a major plot accessory. Rose's throwing the
diamond into the sea to Jack is the only possible resolution: it had no value
to her other than it was an object that literally brought them together and
almost tore them apart - when Lovejoy slipped it in Jack's pocket.

Cameron not only knows how to make movies, he knows how to write a story. The
diamond had to go back to Jack for all he had given to Rose.

mike

Jennifer Swearingen

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Okay...I love this discussion.
Why would Rose keep the diamond in the first place? Cal gave it to her. She
wasn't particularly fond of Cal. (Understatement, eh?!) It would remind her of
him and all of his evil deeds everytime she looked at it. True...she had Jack
draw her while wearing it...but the diamond didn't really have anything to do
with Jack. They had something deeper than a materialistic love.

That's my shortened version. :-)

~Jen

--A woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets. ~Rose--Titanic


Krysta

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

The conmparison of Rose's feelings about the diamond to Madame Bijou is an
excellent analogy. I also feel the diamond represented Cal who represented a
period of confusion and unhappiness in her life (before Jack came along, that
is) and Rose wanted to free herself of all those feelings tying her down before
returning to the one place where she was happiest.....the Titanic, with Jack.

~Krysta
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing".
Shakespeare /Macbeth

Olivia

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Oh, come on. Every movie, no matter how awesome and original, always has
to have some type of classical superficial symbolism. So it wasn't the
most brilliant stroke of genius. But it signified her sealing the final
chapter of her life.

Liv
oXlXi...@nXeXoXsXoXfXt.com
-remove x's.-

GMccus1019

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

That gut, (Paxton) was a jerk. He did not see titanic as a tradgedy. He thought
of it as a science fair project. If you were Rose, would you rather let in
R.I.P. Where it should have been 84 years earlier or give it to a complete
jackass?

(ILoveNY24 and ConAir064 on another screenname)

Michael Alexander

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In real life, does anyone care what an object symbolizes. An object might
remind me of something or be useful to me, but I don't pay any attention to
whether or not the pen on my desk is a plot accessory. When you get tired
of a car, do you sell it or throw it in the ocean? A character is supposed
to think like a real life person. Characters are supposed to take
precedence over objects in movies. A real life person might theoretically
do that, but I would think that they're stupid. What's this about returning
the diamond to Jack? Jack wasn't in the Titanic at the end, so it could
land miles from Jack.

Seriesbook wrote in message
<19980208165...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

ErinMC3

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

I couldn't have said it better myself!!! I agree with you 100%!!!

uh..Clem

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Comes now Jako, d/b/a jak...@hotmail.com, who submitted the following in
article <6bkm1o$7...@newsops.execpc.com>:

|PS. You really don't believe that people have sacrificed objects that were
|so called "valuable" for the sake of happiness and/or love? I know many
|people who have sacrificed their careers and finances for the sake of love
|and happiness. What is the difference between that sacrifice and throwing
|the diamond?

How about the obvious -- that in the case of the diamond, there
was no "...for the sake of ...". It was a purely empty gesture.

If Rose had cured world hunger, or prevented the Titanic tragedy,
or caused anything good to happen by throwing the diamond away, that would
meet your test of sacrificing something base and material for the sake of
something nobler and higher.

She didn't accomplish anything of the sort, except to provide a
quirky resolution to one of the extraneous subthemes of the movie -- the
illusion of a romantic gesture.

--

Gordy Thompson -=0=- some days you're the pigeon,
go...@panix.com some days you're the statue.

Taxidermista de Phobos

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

> precedence over objects in movies. A real life person might
theoretically
> do that, but I would think that they're stupid. What's this about
returning
> the diamond to Jack? Jack wasn't in the Titanic at the end, so it could
> land miles from Jack.

:-O

I'm sorry, milord. Your life seems so bored... :-(

Taxidermista de Phobos
ama...@maptel.es
Somewhere in Spain...

Here2Fore

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

Le Coeur de la Mer (The Heart of the Ocean) suggests it belongs IN the
ocean. No other ending would have been acceptable to me.

Besides, if Lovett got the diamond, we would have to put up with "Titanic
2--Flaw in the Diamond"

Michael Alexander wrote in message <6bjla3$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I didn't like the idea of Rose throwing the diamond away. I think that
some

Mary D. Brown

unread,
Feb 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/8/98
to

In article <01bd342f$2dd3bb80$529b48a6@default>, "Mai K Strauch"
<MAI...@prodigy.net> wrote:

> I think that scene was explained better in the original script. But most of
> it was cut. In the original, she's not alone when she throws it over (Lizzy
> and Brock and other crew members are there too).

I agree. Old Rose says, "You look for treasures in the wrong place, Mr.
Lovett. Only life is priceless, and making each day count."

Then she tosses it.

I know I'm in the minority, but I like the scripted ending better. Don't
know if it was ever filmed, but sure would like to see it an an out-takes
section of the Special Edition.

--
Mary D. Brown
ma...@wolfenet.com, ma...@eskimo.com
Check out my Home Page at http://www.eskimo.com/~maryb

Keith L. Krinn

unread,
Feb 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/9/98
to

The Heart of the Ocean belonged in the Ocean.......It was an act of
finality, as Rose's life ended. Besides, legally the diamond belonged
to the insurance company, or its successor, that paid the claim back
in 1912. Consequently, anyone who ended up with it, if it became
public, would have to give it up.

Elmo123455

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Okay, I could agree that throwing the diamond would be something I would do IF
Jack had given me the diamond, but Cal gave Rose the Diamond. What sentimental
value did she attach to it having to do with Jack. All he had to do with it
was that Cal accused him of stealing it.

Tom Pappas

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

Had I written the script, I would have used the necklace in a different
way. We got a hint that Rose's story really affected Lovett profoundly. He
went to plunder the wreck without giving the slightest thought to all the
hopes and dreams and tragedy and triumph that it represented. But there is
a suggestion in the script that, having lived Rose's story through her
telling, he "got it"; that he truly discovered that only life is precious,
that the necklace was just a pretty trinket. I would have amplified that
theme (maybe have him discuss with Rose how her story had changed him),
then

[LIZZY] He came out here looking for treasure, nanna. But all he found was
ghosts. Maybe he found Titanic's real treasure, after all.

[ROSE] I know he did, dear. That's why I want him to have this. [Reaches
into the pocket of her nightgown, pulls out the necklace.] Would you see to
it that he gets it? I'm going to sleep now.


asch...@mailexcite.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/10/98
to

On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 16:12:42 GMT, es...@juno.com (Nick Esposito)
wrote:

>I left with the impression that Rose had kept in mind "Madame Bijoux."
>Poor woman, kept this jewelry as a talisman of a better life, not
>realizing how pathetic she looked, clinging to vestiges of her past
>and unable to let anything go.

That was a good point. She was also "waiting for her long lost love"
to return to her while she sat there wearing all the jewelry she
owned. Jack said this to Rose (or something to the effect - ) on the
deck while they were looking at the drawings.


>
>Rose wanted to avoid that fate.
>
>At the risk of overanalyzing this -- I mean, it's a MOVIE, for God's
>sake -- I could see how Rose may have originally planned to donate the
>diamond to Lovett, but in relating her tale, she was reminded of
>Madame Bijoux -- and changed her mind.
>
>Maybe. Who knows. As I said, it's just a movie.
>
>

Alas, it is just a movie...that we can all form our own opinions on.

Lisa

Ten Penny

unread,
Feb 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/14/98
to

Keith L. Krinn wrote in message <34de9482...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...


>The Heart of the Ocean belonged in the Ocean.

Are we the only two who have figured this out? Why would Cameron name it
"The HEART of the Ocean?" I think she tossed it because she wanted to bury
any links to Cal in order to meet Jack more purely. She also wanted to
prevent any future conflicts the diamond might cause. Just my opinion,

-Michael


Wolfie =^..^=

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to

I think she kept the necklace all those years because it was the only
thing she had to conect herself to Jack. True, Cal gave it to her, but I
don't think that really mattered..I think she associated it with Jack,
not Cal. I also believe she had to keep it a secret because #1 it wasn't
even hers and an insurance claim had been made on it and #2 it would
identify who she was! You can't keep a necklace like that a secret if
other people know about it, even if they are family. BTW, did anyone
notice the necklace the old Rose was wearing?? It was the same shape and
size as the one Cal gave her, only it looked like she managed to
disguise it somehow (with beads covering it or something).

Wolfie

--

Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this.
|\_/|
/ר ר\ _
=\_¥_/= ((
/ ^ \ ))
/| | |\ //
( | | | )/
`"" ""`

Wolfie =^..^=

unread,
Feb 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/16/98
to


Mai-Linh wrote:

> >
> > --
> >
>
> How was the necklace not Rose's? Cal gave it to her. And she didn't know
> that a claim had been made on the necklace since she didn't have any
> contact w/Cal after Titanic sank. And the claim was settled under terms of
> absolute secrecy, so she wouldn't have known there had been a claim.

But he took the necklace back and her ending up with it was only an accident.
Plus, she may not know for sure there was a claim made, but she knows Cal! He
definitely would be predictable and he would definitely want to be reimbursed
for the loss.

Mai-Linh

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to


Wolfie =^..^= <tymbe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6cadlt$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...


> I also believe she had to keep it a secret because #1 it wasn't

> even hers and an insurance claim had been made on it and
>
Wolfie

Brian Goff

unread,
Feb 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/17/98
to

i though it was a very good thing to do.. throwing it into the ocean.
Reminds me of John Stienbekcs "The Peral".

Mai-Linh wrote in message <01bd3b05$b5ce18a0$ca9b48a6@MAILINH>...

Tom Pappas

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

The Unsinkable Mary Brown <ma...@wolfenet.com> wrote in article
<maryb-08029...@sea-ts1-p06.wolfenet.com>...


> In article <01bd342f$2dd3bb80$529b48a6@default>, "Mai K Strauch"
> <MAI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > I think that scene was explained better in the original script. But
most of
> > it was cut. In the original, she's not alone when she throws it over
(Lizzy
> > and Brock and other crew members are there too).
>
> I agree. Old Rose says, "You look for treasures in the wrong place, Mr.
> Lovett. Only life is priceless, and making each day count."
>
> Then she tosses it.
>
> I know I'm in the minority, but I like the scripted ending better. Don't
> know if it was ever filmed, but sure would like to see it an an out-takes
> section of the Special Edition.
>

I think she had to be alone. If the treasure hunters had been there, they'd
have had a sub in the water faster than you could say 'GPS transponder'.

My ending to the movie has Rose rewarding Lovett for "getting it."
Remember, he says "I've been out here for three years. Three years. And I
never let it in."

(Later, in Rose's room)
[LIZZY]
You know, nana, Mr. Lovett came out here looking for jewels. But all he
found was ghosts. Maybe he found the real treasure of the Titanic, after
all.
[ROSE]
I know he did, dear. That's why I want him to have this [pulls the necklace
out of her nightdress pocket]. See to it that he gets it, will you please?


I'm going to sleep now.

--
Tom Pappas

"But this ship can't sink!"

"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will."

{:oş


Denise

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

Oh, yes, I like this ending much better.

Denise <tril...@navix.net>

Bobby Dragulescu

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

I disagree. That ending in the original script was waaay too sitcom.
Everything ends with a bittersweet chuckle and they dance?? Too much
resolved. Not to mention - the crew had been going down there for over a
week to explore the Titanic. What was to stop them from going down once
more to pick up the stone? With the movie ending they'd never know.
Tom Pappas wrote in message <01bd3f0b$1eaa9d90$22a02bce@www>...

>
>The Unsinkable Mary Brown <ma...@wolfenet.com> wrote in article
><maryb-08029...@sea-ts1-p06.wolfenet.com>...
>> In article <01bd342f$2dd3bb80$529b48a6@default>, "Mai K Strauch"
>> <MAI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I think that scene was explained better in the original script. But
>most of
>> > it was cut. In the original, she's not alone when she throws it over
>(Lizzy
>> > and Brock and other crew members are there too).
>>
>> I agree. Old Rose says, "You look for treasures in the wrong place, Mr.
>> Lovett. Only life is priceless, and making each day count."
>>
>> Then she tosses it.
>>
>> I know I'm in the minority, but I like the scripted ending better. Don't
>> know if it was ever filmed, but sure would like to see it an an out-takes
>> section of the Special Edition.
>>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages