What's the Titanic?

            What more is there to know about the Titanic? Don’t you feel as if you have heard everything about that tragic day, and tear jerking movie? Well, have you ever considered why you know as much as you do? This article attempts to explain this idea…

            While starting this article I didn’t have high hopes. I figured it would be about the ship, and maybe there would be a couple of interesting details that I hadn’t heard of. I was however pleasantly surprised. In an interesting turn of events I finished the article not with new information, but rather a completely new perspective on the story of the Titanic. This article takes you through the media coverage of the Titanic in history. From the very first newspaper headlines in 1912 to the plays in the 1930’s, to the movie in 1953, and of course 1999, as well as the numerous books written about the voyage.

            The common trend I learned about in all of these forms of coverage of the Titanic is the symbolism that lies within the story. Whether it is the divided class system on the ship, the love stories, the chivalrous time period, or the villain rescue boat that didn’t come to the rescue. All of these traits are used in fiction to create a great story. In this case however, the Titanic was real. The most powerful message I got from this article was the possible answer as to why the Titanic haunts us to this day. The article proposes, “This is another reason we can’t get the story out of our heads. If the Titanic has sunk on her twenty-seventh voyage, it wouldn’t haunt us in the same way. It’s the incompleteness that never stops tantalizing us, tempting us to fill in the blanks with more narrative” (The New Yorker, Mendelsohn). This excerpt to me is the best theory the author has as to why the Titanic hasn’t left our minds.

            In my opinion it is important for someone to be documenting these ideas because it is shared knowledge that the Titanic is something that everyone has thought of before. It’s captivating in every way, and to consider why it is captivating makes the story that much more interesting. I’m not going to lie, the fact that the article was about the Titanic in general had me hooked right away.  

Three Kinds

            I started this blog post with the notion that I could think of a topic that I believe is worthy enough to be documented. I soon became stumped, and have now decided that it would be more beneficial to analyze the documents I have seen, and consider the reasons why they were successful to me.

            From the documentaries I have seen, there seems to be certain kinds that make the “real world” stories stand out. To consider this I first looked at the documentaries Supersize Me, and The Cove. Both of these revolve around topics I was not familiar with. This fact alone won me over as a viewer. I immediately became interested in these stories because they were new to me. The “real world” stories of dolphin slaughtering and over consumption of McDonalds stand out because as a viewer you feel like you are discovering this topic by yourself. It’s new to you, and you know it’s real. This gives you almost a sense of ownership.

             Another kind of documentaries that I have found makes them stand out is the idea that you have seen this “real world” story in a Hollywood movie. The one documentary I have seen that really exemplifies this is Buck. It is about Buck Brannaman and his successful career at training and taming horses. The connection I made to this was with the move Seabiscuit. The one thing that stuck with me from the movie was of course the relationship between Tobey McGuire’s character, Red and Seabiscuit. It made me happy, and sad, and most of all hopeful that there are real horse owners/jockeys that care as much as Red did. The reason why I think Buck stood out so much is because it was taking the drama and Hollywood spin of the relationship of a horse and it’s owner, and making it real. Buck provided me with proof. In my experience, when I can relate the “real world” stories I have seen to a fiction version of that story in a Hollywood movie I end up taking more out of that particular story. The fact that the documentary is making the Hollywood movie more believable makes it stand out more.

            The final kind of “real stories” that stand out most in my opinion, are the ones that re-live an event. An example of this is the sports documentary Dare to Dream. This was the story of the U.S Women’s soccer team. The documentary revolved around the evolution of the team, it’s three all stars, and specifically their gold medal win in 2004. What made this documentary stand out was that it was undeniably real. There was no acting and the footage was raw.

            From these examples I have realized the “real world” stories that demonstrate new topics, or prove a fictional Hollywood movie right, or re-live an even seem to stand out to me the most. These types seem to be the most straightforward. They aren't trying to persuade you or win your vote over an issue. They are simply telling a story.  

Accusations

                        All four of these films we have watched in class have obvious connections to sight and morality. However I decided to look specifically at Rear Window and Doubt because of their very blunt similarities. What I mean by this is that in both of these films there is a character that is singled out as the potential villain. Along with this, the main character in both of these films is in a sense, portrayed as a hero. These similar plots are ideal at analyzing morality because the theme of accusation plays a very prominent role in the movie. The way both Hitchcock and Shanley go about accusing the certain characters come alive in the following stills.

           The first still above is from Rear Window. As you can see the shot is a medium shot of Thorwald. You can see him from waste up, but also have a good view of his face, and his actions. In the shot Thorwald is gathering newspaper in the kitchen. While looking at the context of the shot, you realize that this is when Thorwald was packing up his alleged murder weapon. He is in the middle of hastily covering up his crimes with numerous tasks. In my opinion, the most important thing about this shot is the framing. You can see that the frame is a dark circle. This circle represents the camera lens, which the main character, Jefferies is looking through to spy on Thorwald. The framing contributes to the shot in such a strong way that it clearly points out the moral uncertainty within it. As a viewer, we see the shot through Jefferies eyes, however they are magnified because of the camera lens. That fact alone tells me as the viewer that it this is wrong, and I’m clearly spying. It is interesting how this shot gives the viewer insight of the villain, however because it is through a lens it makes you feel as though you are accusing Thorwald. This leads to the moral uncertainty. The way Hitchcock enables his viewers to see the villain and uncover his secrets are entirely immoral which is why the movie is so thrilling. Not only is Jefferies spying on Thorwald, but so am I.

           The still I choose from Doubt is similar to that of Thorwald, because like Hitchcock, Shanley frames the shot in such a way that it makes the viewer feel as though they are accusing the character in the frame. In this specific medium shot, Father Flynn and Donald Miller are embracing one another in the middle of the hallway. I think this was a very intentional choice Shanley made. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s face is so strong and expressive that it isn’t necessary for Shanley to zoom in on him. Instead, Shanley choose to incorporate Sister James in the background of the shot. This little decision ended up turning the shot upside down. The shot also includes fellow students, however not only are they not in focus, but they seem to be walking out of way of the two, almost in a way that a bubble is formed around Donald and Father Flynn. In context, Father Flynn witnessed a bullying act made upon Donald in which his books were knocked from his arms. He offers Donald his hand to help him from the floor, and then proceeds to pull him into his chest for a hug. The embrace itself sounds an alarm in the viewer’s head. Father Flynn is cradling, and resting his face on Donald’s head. Donald in return is burying his face in the Father’s chest. It is quite obvious this hug isn’t average. However what really shakes the shot up is the black figure of Sister James in the background. Blurry, or not, her presence is immense, and causes the shot to scream moral uncertainty. With Sister James looking at the two hugging, you as the viewer immediately feel as though this embrace is wrong. You are now uncertain about the relationship between the Father and the boy. However, just like Jefferies, you are watching this happen from the outside perspective. Through the camera lens, and through the ironically crowded yet intimate hallway, you end up accusing these potential villains with the smart directing of both Hitchcock and Shanley. 

In both of these stills, through the specific framing of the shots you end up accusing the potential villains with the smart directing of both Hitchcock and Shanley. They also both have an element of moral uncertainty made by both Jefferies and Sister James, by seeing a specific action being made by the villain. In my opinion these two shots were the best at representing the film, and the directors goal.