MovieChat Forums > Titanic (1997) Discussion > Cal and the gun

Cal and the gun

posted 8 years ago by ctaylor-65092
22 replies | jump to latest

Cal firing the gun on Jack and Rose on the grand staircase, always seemed shocking to me. I know this is a plot device used to get Jack and Rose to go back down inside the sinking ship so we can see more interior flooding, but it just seems like such a startling, shocking scene. The scene works as an action piece unquestionably, but I can't help thinking that this is a real life tragedy where 1,500 people died. There is so much emotional drama going on, did we need a gun chase, shoot um up scene? And is it respectful to the tradgedy and the ship itself? As an enthusiast of the ship for many years prior to the film, it seemed rather shocking to see the grand staircase taking a bullet and the windows shot in the reception room/dining room!

My biggest dilemma I guess is the fictional elements mixed with actual true life events and if it is being respectful to the real passengers and crew and the victims. I know not everyone was a hero that night, but seeing stewards and a passenger getting punched and given a bloody nose and pushed around etc combined with the shoot out seems a bit over the line.

Cameron has said something along the lines of, ok that may have been how it was, now I'm going to make it exciting!

So yes it makes for an exciting movie, but did the depiction of the worlds most famous maritime tradgedy, costing the lives of 1,500 people that destroyed both victims and survivors lives really need that fictional gun shooting scene?

Not trying to sound like I'm bashing, Titanic is one of my all time favorite movies, just wanting to see people's thoughts and reactions.

[–] Gubbio 8 years ago

I'm not one who harbors tremendous hate for the character of Cal, but his shooting rampage made him look completely deranged.

Maybe that's what Cameron was going for: Cal, who always seemed staid and in control, being pushed over the edge by the Rose/Jack situation. 

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

Maybe that's what Cameron was going for: Cal, who always seemed staid and in control, being pushed over the edge by the Rose/Jack situation.

I think he might've come off as stable in the beginning, but then old Rose mentioned that he killed himself after the economic crash. So maybe he was unstable all along. It just never really showed until then.

[–] Murphed87 8 years ago

A good number of people killed themselves after the crash of 29! That doesnt imply he was always unstable.

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

Sorry but if someone is willing to kill themselves regardless of an economic crash, they're still mentally unstable. I could understand the financial pressure it impacted on people, but still. Especially if he inherited millions before. It might have hit his interests hard like Rose explained, but that's still no reason to kill yourself. He just couldn't handle being in a lower class.

Btw, you need to chill out. Because I'm saying Cal was mentally unstable, doesn't mean it's an insult. I have severe anxiety/depression, which is also a mental illness. Don't take what I say about a fictional character being mentally unstable, personally.

[–] ctaylor-65092 8 years ago

Regardless of his stability, do you think the scene was a little disrespectful or over the top for a historical drama

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

Imo, not really.

I think it would only be disrespectful if Cal actually existed and he didn't try to kill anyone like the movie depicts.

Cameron has said something along the lines of, ok that may have been how it was, now I'm going to make it exciting!

Him shooting a gun did add more intensity, no doubt, but I do feel like it was to help move the plot along as well. It made it so that Jack and Rose ran to the lower levels of the ship and it made it harder for them to get back up to the top. I don't think the director only did that just to make it more "exciting" and be disrespectful.

I do understand what you're point is, though. There is already enough tragic events going on that a gun chase scene makes it even more tragic. I didn't find it unnecessary, but I can see why some people would.

[–] Murphed87 8 years ago

What? Perhaps your mental illness is distorting you perception as nothing in my post warrants a suggestion of me chilling.

[–] flowerchild-15037 8 years ago

Mmm, not exactly. It doesn't take anxiety/depression to understand when someone is getting defensive in a comment. Every single time I comment in regards to something about Cal, you are extremely confrontational about it. Even now when I say something about him that isn't even insulting. You are never "chill" about it.

[–] Murphed87 8 years ago

No, exactly. There was absolutely nothing in my post to suggest any type of emotions on my end. It was merely a post stating a truth that had no underlying defensiveness, simple as that. You'll know when I'm defensive.

[–] sbrooks839 8 years ago

flowerchild, I think you're the one who needs to "chill out". Your reply to someone who posted a simple polite two sentence comment with this two paragraph defensive reply is completely unnecessary - and adding "Btw, you need to chill out" makes you sound deranged, just saying. Have a nice day.

[–] liscarkat (18489) 3 months ago

Suicide is not necessarily the result of mental instability. Sometimes it's a rational decision. A relative of mine, confronted with only a few weeks to live, during which doctors told him he would rapidly become unable to attend to his own functions and experience continuous agonizing pain, decided to shoot himself in the head and get it over instantly, on his own terms. His action was an indication of mental stability.

Killing yourself over a financial setback, however, is a different story.

[–] Callahan7 (1163) a year ago

Rose said she heard he killed himself. She sounded uncertain. He may not have killed himself.

Cal's character is discussed in this thread-

https://moviechat.org/tt0120338/Titanic/634bed68e665e45ff28bd61a/Was-Cal-Hockley-a-bad-guy

[–] andyroo54 8 years ago

I don't think he appears deranged, I think given the chaotic circumstances and his previously demonstrated jealous and irrational temper, I think it's totally within character for him to try and kill the man who has stolen his fiance.

[–] Murphed87 8 years ago

When did he display irrational temper before in the film?

[–] Victoriavixen 8 years ago

Cal showed his quick temper when he got angry at Rose at breakfast for going down to steerage the previous night.

[–] Murphed87 8 years ago

So, adding to her being in a foul mood the entire time adding to this, he was quick tempered? She went around being rude to people for no apparent reason. He tried to make her feel better he gives her a rare diamond while asking that she open up. Then she pals around with a virtual stranger who she nor Cal knew art a time it would have been scandalous and disrespectful to hris honor, he was being quick tempered? Then to add insult to injury she throws it back in his face declaring she would do what she wants regardless of how it reflects on her or Cal? I think his reaction was understandable.

[–] Trackmaster 8 years ago

I mean the movie is the 2nd highest grossing film of all time, was a Best Picture winner, and tied the records for Oscar wins and nominations. So I think that whatever Cameron decided to do was the right call. Maybe you write a movie that wins Best Picture and sets a record for box office and you can question his decision.

[–] sbrooks839 8 years ago

Such an obvious "troll" reply. Hope it makes you feel proud, SMH, lol.

[–] Tealeaf400 8 years ago

It makes sense in context of the scene as the guy is clearly the flashy 'look at me' type with no internal substance. They always get violent, jealous, and irrational on an emotional whim.

I saw it as a historical gesture to gun culture and a nod to ridiculous privileged culture so evident in the movie. You've got the Colt 1911, already in Europe 1912, silver plated with a custom grip.... That gun would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars in today's dollars.

Also that douchebag playing around with a stray bullet on the table is odd given he's got the first signature magazine fed handgun. THAT implies some odd sadistic stuff as he'd have to unload and then re-snap the bullet into the mag to make any use of it just to play around.

[–] redban (6243) a year ago

I could have done without the Cal, Rose, and Jack love triangle story. The movie did really well with the sinking, the ship, the costumes etc. The love story and the Celine Dion music sucked

[–] Melton (4600) a year ago

I liked it. Cal going nuts and firing at them fit with the lawlessness and breakdown of civility as the ship sank. Cal was prone to temper tantrums and I totally bought that he would seize the opportunity to kill the little shit who stole his fiancée.

Cameron was right, however, to remove the scene of him killing Fabrizio by cracking his skull with an oar. Originally Fab was not killed by the falling chimney, it narrowly missed him and he tried climbing onto Cal’s lifeboat. There are pictures of the deleted scene online. It would have turned Cal into a cartoon villain.

[–] strntz (12352) a year ago

I liked it. Cal going nuts and firing at them fit with the lawlessness and breakdown of civility as the ship sank.

Agree. It also sets up one of my favorite Lovejoy moments - when he comes upon Cal standing in ocean water inside the Titanic and Cal laughing as he remembered that he inadvertently gave Rose the diamond in his coat, and Lovejoy surveying the mayhem and asking "what could possibly be funny".