What was the moral of this story?

The scenario is not that horrible because I would just work for a living, like I do now, instead of homosex.
It would be nice to know that if all went wrong I could sell my holes for a life of unimaginable comfort, though.

I don't hate them; but, I don't weep for them, either.

This whole line of discussion has been about whether or not her lot in life was "unfair" i.e. whether or not to weep for her

Poor woman was paired up with a tall, powerful, billionaire.

People who think she was dealt a shit hand in life never even seen how shit real life can be. What a fricking joke.
She should have been grateful for not ha ing to work a single day in her privileged life. Ungrateful c**t

Just accept that she doesn't want to be with him regardless of him being tall, powerful and a billionaire. Complain about women being shallow gold diggers all the time yet here you get a film about one not being a shallow gold digger and you all sperg out.

t. Gold digger

It’s a depiction of the Bohemian concept of love you sperg. It’s moving because it tosses all of these stark realities to the wind in favor of impulse and excitement.

Where was Rose’s role model for a successful woman? Her mother? When they have no one to emulate, they rebel.

>This is touched on in the movie. Rose's mom "did her duty" and expects Rose to do the same. Her mom is also not exactly complimentary towards her father if memory serves. She comes across as very cold.

This intentionally gives the audience the idea that she is facing a lifetime of bullshit and sets up her desire to seek an outlet as entirely relatable and believable. Her fricking mom is essentially pawning her off and suggesting she buckle for the ride. It’s unfortunate that a seething poor person would be unable to relate to Rose’s fear of being like her mom and instead only think she’s a moron for purposefully choosing to throw it all away in favor of being a hood rat.

Is a gift forced on someone? Is she being forced if she can choose Jack?
You say rebellion, I say petulance, a tantrum from a petty emotional tyrant.

Yes, plenty of people would happily marry into wealth— especially those who don’t have it. But from what we can tell she was already a part of the gentry so it’s not like the “good life” was unusual for her, and she was now being “persuaded” into accepting a marriage with a presumably older man who was portrayed as being kind of a prick by her useless mother for reasons that Rose doesn’t fully understand.

Also, this movie is a goddamn fantasy with characters that barely go any deeper than tropes and cliches. Treating it like propaganda or bullshit for inaccurately depicting reality is just bizarre.

There’s a difference between entertainment and propaganda, anon. There is no government agenda being pushed by movies like Titanic or Toy Story.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but you’re wrong. What you’re describing is not the same thing as propaganda.

The crucial bit there being “to influence public opinion.” Nobody’s public opinions are built around the events being depicted in Titanic. At least not anybody whose voice is influential in any meaningful way. May as well consider Aesop’s Fables to be propaganda.

I can agree with this. I would also argue that the difference is significant enough to be meaningful. Human beings are influenced by their environments and the media they consume is certainly a critical part of that influence. But that’s on a largely individual scale whereas propaganda is built and propagated for the express purpose of changing and controlling public opinion.

Pop culture is something that the public champions on its own whereas propaganda is something that government agencies champion instead. They are similar, but they are not the same.

Yeah I guess these are pretty fair points. The line is much thinner than I admitted in my previous post. I guess since I associate propaganda with a negative connotation I don’t like to associate it with anything that can be considered “art,” but art certainly is the vehicle to which propaganda is given life. I guess I’m better off not judging it as negative but rather seeing it for what it is.

>Rose is an evil person for dozens of different reasons
Would you care to list them?

>It's part of a trope of presenting anti-social, amoral losers (like Rose and Jack) as morally superior to pro-social, responsible winners
I’ll admit that the movie does depict the rich as straight up buttholes who thought little of the poor, but that’s not exactly far from the truth. The poor aren’t always poor because they are shitty people (although often times they are). Are we even told how Rose’s husband came into his wealth? Does his wealth automatically make him a morally superior choice to Jack? The movie takes a humanist stance and tries to argue that no— he is not better because of his wealth. Also, tropes aren’t propaganda.

>Here, the most obvious behaviour being championed is not marrying
Doesn’t Rose end up getting married? I don’t remember there being a clear “anti-marriage” message. If anything it was anti-arranged-marriage, which already aligns with American values anyway. All it depicts is the passion of youth winning over the stark realities of adulthood, which is why it is entertainment.

Nothing about what is depicted in Titanic is controversial in any way whatsoever. The fact that it’s as beloved of a movie as it is despite how insanely cliche it is really says a lot about how little you understand about people.

Lol. The fantasy of a young handsome passionate guy saving you from the icky controlling Billy Zane is still just as relevant. The only thing that has changed is Jack would be a POC today.

Fine, but being “pressured” by everyone you care about isn’t much of a choice, anon. The fear of being ostracized has a tendency to override much of a well-socialized person’s behavioral choices.

No, but you did try to imply that her being “pressured” is somehow any different than her being “forced,” which it really wasn’t.

If that mild social pressure is the most uncomfortable concern, then any other problems must logically be smaller than it. So none of them could be anything worth complaining about.
In traditionalist cultures, your family will literally kill you for defying it, and people will still defy their families. Anyone complaining about these mild social pressures as if they are anything but trivial is pathetic and disgusting.

yeah, congratulations on being extremely stupid. we're all very impressed.

The point is that your wealth really doesn't have anything to do with how much being alive sucks

yeah it does

She is wrong for not wanting to be with him. That’s the point.
There’s no moral argument for her lack of responsibility, it’s just childish prostitutedom

nah. that's taking it too far

marriage isn't a job, as you know. Rose and her mother can get proper jobs to support themselves/each other.

>Nonargument
lol you're such a homosexual. of course it's an argument, which is why you've had to counter it with an argument.

She shouldn't have married him in the first place. It is perfectly legitimate to reject a marriage proposal, even if accepting it would prevent your upper-class mum from having to get a job like working-class women.

>Not really
Yes really, and there is no danger of Rose or her mother having to operate a wheat thresher. You're being overly dramatic.
I don't think you need to get offended at the thought of a woman rejecting a marriage proposal from a rich man she didn't like.

*also the Titanic sank in 1912, not the 1920s

>Who’s offended?
You, clearly. The idea of a woman rejecting a man you self-insert as enrages you.

It's not wrong. The idea of Rose rejecting someone like Calvert actually angers you.

You boss comes to you and offers you a large amount of money to let him frick you in the butthole. Taking the money could help your mother who is a widower. Are you going to take it?

>just become a prostitute bro
no

yeah nah I'd rather not be a prostitute thanks. self-respect and all that. Maybe this is the issue? You find it hard to believe other people wouldn't want to do things you'd be happy to do.

>She’d be sharing a bedroom with a man actual prostitute who gives it up to 100 men for pennies
this is your bizzare headcanon. And for the second time, the Titanic sank in 1912.

>so what I’m fricked in the ass by my boss every day
more strange fantasies. Rose going to work as a typist and later marrying a middle-class man she actually loves is hardly bum-rape. People did have normal jobs in 1912, anon. It wasn't all Dickensian slave-labor.

>So she winds up lower status
Yes, that has been my point all along - Rose and her mother are upper-class about to fall down the class ladder somewhat (either to the middle-class or even working-class) but it isn't quite the life or death situation some anons are making out. Some anons are acting like if she rejected Calvert's marriage proposal her mum would starve to death and Rose would fall into a combine harvester. In reality, Rose would most like marry someone else with slightly less money than Calvert (but who she actually liked) possibly after a period of working as a seamstress or typist or something, while her mother would have to take on boarders in their home, or work as a nanny/cleaner, or something else of that nature.
Falling down the social ladder a bit may be a blow to the ego, but it isn't the end of the world. It happened to many families, and still does.

She's 17 and can easily learn to type or weave or any of the other jobs working and middle-class women did at the time. And she's young enough to marry, not to mention pretty.

>her family from risking a life of misery
it's just her and her mother. her mother still has the house, which she can rent out to lodgers. The film makes clear the mother is mainly motivated by a desire not to lose her high social status, not that they're seriously facing a life or death situation.

>She was essentially being forced into this arrangement, anon. Unless you are genuinely emotionally moronic I don’t see how you could argue otherwise in good faith. People, especially young people who have become wary of authority, have a tendency to rebel. They do this as a way to form an identity for themselves. Jack was Rose’s chance at experiencing the freedom of rebellion.
>She isn’t a tragic figure for that reason. She was just dealing with what all young people usually deal with in the face of the tyranny of adult society.
Finally, high IQ post

Yes, I'm well aware Rose and her mother were upper class people worried about falling down the social ladder into the middle class. I've seen the movie.
Most women in society worked, and always have. Rose would have had to become one of them (as would her mother, unless she could marry again). That would certainly be an unwelcome development for them, but by no means impossible. It happened a lot - widows would have to become nannies or house-cleaners, families fall down the social ladder, etc...

If you're trying to argue there were no jobs available for women (even unskilled ones) in the early 20th century you'd be wrong.

Exactly.

Uh sweety, 40,000 years of arranged marriage says otherwise
Only poors marry for “love” (hormones)

Yes, I arranged it by seducing my wife