Bruce Ismay
He's not in this surprisingly!
"Did you think that I would harm her?"-The Phantom
I don't think the film's very conservative writer-producer, Charles Brackett, wanted anyone to think there was such a thing as an ignoble, cowardly rich man aboard the Titanic. So Ismay was conveniently dropped from history.
shareIn the case of Ismay, not depicting him as a coward would have simply reflected the accurate reality of what happened. Ismay was able to board a lifeboat on the starboard side at Collapsible C where First Officer Murdoch as a general rule would allow men in the lifeboats if there was room after women and children had been loaded in predmoinantly at first. Murdoch's policy was far better than that of Second Officer Lightoller on the port side whose rigidity on women and children first were making him deny spaces to teenaged boys who regarded as "men" (as was the case with Jack Ryerson at Collapsible D, which necessitated a strong argument from his father Arthur Ryerson to get young Jack into the boat).
The worst depiction of Ismay was the 1982 "Voyagers" episode which went so far as to have Ismay getting off the ship in women's clothes. This was utterly libelous. Ismay was not particularly heroic that night (though in his own way he did try to be helpful during the loading process) but he was made to suffer in excess for things that were ultimately not his fault.
"Coward" may be a bit strong, but only a bit. The fact is that Ismay dropped into a seat in the lifeboat even as hundreds of others were denied precious space. Most First Class men went down with the ship, voluntarily -- not because they had a death wish, but because they had a sense of honor and duty and believed that women and children should be saved first. Ismay should not have gotten into a boat while his passengers were left unprotected. He acquitted himself disgracefully that night and deserved the opprobrium that was subsequently heaped upon him. Whatever he "suffered" he had coming. His last 25 years were spent in sublime material comfort on his estate in Ireland, hardly "suffering".
As far as being helpful in loading the lifeboats, he was regarded as far more of a hindrance than a help. Officer Murdoch, I believe (or was it Boxhall or Lowe?), had to tell him to stay the hell out of the way because he was interfering so much. As for Lightoller's insistence on enforcing the women-and-children-first rule, it may have been rigid, but those were his orders, and the traditional rule of the sea.
In any case, none of this excuses Ismay, who throughout the voyage used his position as Chairman of the line to extract privileged treatment and thought he was entitled to a spot in a lifeboat when others were sacrificed.
I'm afraid I can't agree, Hob. There is no evidence that Ismay took up a space in Collapsible C that could have been given to a nearby passenger. There *is* in fact, some evidence to suggest that Ismay was in fact *ordered* into a lifeboat by Chief Office Wilde, who was also taking part in the loading of boats on the starboard side. The Titanic's barber, August Weikman, stated in a sworn affidavit on April 24, 1912 that Ismay had been ordered into the boat and this is also what Ismay later told his sister-in-law privately. His last 25 years were also not that of a man enjoying total comfort but one who had been personally shattered by the ordeal and the backlash, when frankly there were others who were more responsible for the higher death toll that took place that night. Lightoller's rigidity resulted in a number of lifeboats not being lowered to capacity and you had at least in excess of a hundred to two hundred more lives that could have been saved had there been better procedures for lowering the lifeboats. The less rigid interpretation utilized by Murdoch and evidently Wilde as well on the starboard side was the more correct procedure.
I'm not sure I get what you mean by Ismay's "privileged treatment" throughout the voyage. There is no evidence he interfered with the running of operations during the voyage or that he pushed Captain Smith into going too fast (White Star was not interested in speed records; Titanic and Olympic had been purposefully built to go slower than the Cunard superliners).
Ismay's greatest failing took place after the sinking when he attempted to duck facing inquiries from American authorities and tried to make arrangements to sail back to England immediately after the Carpathia's arrival. I would note he was attempting to get Titanic's crew also back at the same time so it wasn't just covering his own tracks but all of White Star from having to face an American inquiry. I find that to be the worst thing he did overall when judging the totality of his actions.
Eric, I can't agree with your interpretation. There is evidence that Ismay did get in the boat of his own accord; none that he was "ordered" into it; and in any case, ultimately he was responsible for his own actions. He could as easily have refused to go.
Ismay repeatedly asked for cables concerning other ships and navigational matters, including ice warnings, that he often kept for hours, even waving them around to other First Class passengers to impress them. He interfered with lifeboat operations until he was told off. He acted the role of "Chairman" when and as it suited him.
You're correct about his dishonest actions in New York to avoid having to testify before Congress, but these clearly show a calculating, guilty mind bent on cover-up (which we know White Star flagrantly engaged in at both the US and British inquiries). Ismay himself lied frequently in his testimony before both Congress and the Board of Trade. The fact that the ship's barber swore to the tale of Ismay's being ordered off is so self-serving as to be worthless: he was worried about his job (White Star, after all, stopped paying its employees as soon as the ship sank, and sent the families of the eight drowned band members bills for their lost equipment). Obviously, he would have every incentive to depict the chairman of the company as heroic, and many officers and crewmen were caught in repeated lies.
I never said Ismay didn't "suffer": he was emotionally shattered, not so much by the disaster as by the general public odium that deservedly settled upon him. Too damn bad. He got away with his life; what more could he want? My comment specifically dealt solely with his material comfort, which he did not lack. I'm sure had his phony story of being a selfless, concerned hero been accepted, his "suffering" would have been much alleviated and short-lived.
Other people's actions that night are of course open to criticism. But what others did has nothing whatsoever to do with Ismay's behavior. His, as others', stands alone in judgment. There's no such thing as a comparative saint.
Mind you, I am no defender of Ismay as a somehow virtuous man. I'm more concerned with refuting the notion of him as the singular villain of the tale which is an interpretation that's been used too often and I think seriously exaggerates matters.
I'd point out that Ismay's own testimony before the Inquiries contradicted Weikman's account of him being ordered because being ordered into a boat by the Chief Officer in effect would have made him seem *less* heroic than he tried to make himself out to be before the Inquiries (this was noted in the recent book "Shadow Of The Titanic" by Andrew Wilson) and in the end gives it greater credence IMO.
There was also nothing interfering about Ismay having the Baltic's ice warning and his showing it to passengers later. Captain Smith got the warning first and then presented it to him as a matter of courtesy later, and it was ultimately the Captain's failure to heed the seriousness of the ice warnings that was the greater wrong committed that night. Of course there was also the problem caused by the fact that the Marconi operators, like in all ships of the day, came under the direct authority of the Purser's department and not the Bridge officers, which meant there was a slower chain of command in important wireless messages getting to the Captain than we would ordinarily presume.
Ismay was no great hero but my view of him is based more on the fact that many people that night made decisions that on some level caused some to die (including some who had their own moments of heroism like Lightoller. ANTR the movie had to basically sanitize his initial refusal to let Jack Ryerson board Collapsible D or else it would have made audiences hate the film's protagonist), and ultimately I don't feel comfortable singling anyone out for greater blame than the other. Even someone who acted more dishonorably like Captain Lord of the Californian, should hardly get any lion's share of blame for the death toll even though he failed miserably to do what he should have done.
Well, I agree that Ismay should not be singled out for responsibility for the disaster (with which he had nothing to do), nor for any of the aspects of the evacuation of the ship (again, for which he bore no responsbility). My sole concern is how he comported himself, and in this I find nothing exculpatory, let alone admirable.
During the voyage, Ismay was accorded privileges by Smith and the crew that even regular First Class passengers wouldn't have received. Certainly Smith and his officers bore the responsibility for such deferential treatment; on the other hand, even today, would any subordinate employee (even the captain of a ship) disregard the wishes of his boss?
And of course Ismay liked playing the role of insider to his fellow passengers, hence his repeated demands to be handed ship's messages and the like, which it's doubtful he'd legitimately be entitled to, even given his corporate position. This carried over for a time during the ship's abandonment, with him rushing around giving orders and interfering with getting people into the boats...until he suddenly chose to get into one and save himself.
Everything you say about the failures of others, or of the structures of command, is accurate, but as it pertains to Ismay, irrelevant. Again, I completely agree that he can't be held liable for the problems and actions that actually resulted in the collision, or of actions or decisions taken afterward. But these aren't at issue. Our only concern is Ismay and his actions, before, during and after the sinking. His bumptious behavior prior to and during the sinking, his skulking attitudes afterward and attempts to get away to evade testimony or accountability, speak loudly about his selfishness, greed and overall mindset. Smith, Murdoch, Andrews, the band, the doctor, most of the crew went down with the ship, because they had a sense of duty and didn't want to take advantage of their position to save their own lives. Ismay had no such compunction. (Granted, he was technically only a passenger, but he never let that stand in his way when he wanted to be treated as an owner, and besides, Andrews also was technically only a passenger, and he made no effort to escape...or to be afforded special treatment during the trip.)
The wireless operators may have come under the immediate authority of the Purser's office aboard ship, but of course they weren't employees of White Star anyway, but of the Marconi Company, which "leased" the services of its operators to the lines back then. I've sometimes wondered whether that set-up ever caused any issues aboard ship -- not the Titanic specifically, but just in general.
I think the relevance of the failure of others, structures of command etc. comes into play for me strictly in regard to whether the fact Ismay survived arouses any kind of indignation in me. The thing is, if I chose to take that attitude I'd have to also wonder about the actions of say, Hugh Woolner and his friend Stefansson jumping into Collapsible D even after one deck above them a woman passenger, Edith Evans, was turned away from the boat. Should I view them as villains? It raises all kinds of questions on what we think about the value of human life. It is very hard I must confess to relate to the notion of an era that some men had a "duty" to die when confronted with a scenario such as this. Maybe if Ismay had stepped into the first lifeboat to be lowered instead of one that left twenty minutes before the final plunge and when the situation was growing more chaotic, the cowardice issue would stand out more in my mind. To me though, it's too much of a gray zone. Ismay's faults in the attempted cover-up afterward stand out worse for me than any of his actions aboard ship.
Would Ismay have been pilloried if he'd been among the survivors who clung to Collapsible B perhaps? The thing to remember though is that those who found refuge on Collapsible B were mostly men who had been situated on the *port* side of Titanic, the one where Lightoller (who of course also found refuge on it) had his strict policy on women and children first in contrast to Murdoch and Wilde on the starboard side. Perhaps it ultimately just came down to the matter of where the fates determined where Ismay was at that moment. If he'd been on the port side at 2:00 instead of the starboard, do you think he protests if Lightoller doesn't let him in? Or would Lightoller have done as Wilde did possibly? We'll never know. But all of it in the end collectively factors in to why there's not going to be any sense of moral injustice in me caused by Ismay surviving. And all of that, I freely admit, is based on the purest of subjective reasonings.
You're right that there were many instances of cowardice, or less-than-honorable behavior, among many that night. (It wasn't exactly a case of all the passengers standing stoically on the deck of a suddenly, and cooperatively, stable if sinking vessel, nobly singing "Nearer My God to Thee" instead of doing anything to save themselves, as this film preposterously shows.) I guess the question is, as you say, were Ismay's actions somehow "worse" than others' equally ignoble behavior.
In the abstract, perhaps not. On a purely human level, I can't fault someone for wanting to save his own life. But the fact is that Ismay did bail out as soon as he decently [sic] could, in contrast to every other White Star personnel (excluding, of course, men manning the boats). He had a corporate ethic, if you will, to assume responsibility for his customers and property and see the crisis through without thought to himself. Yes, I do think his circumstances demanded more of him than of ordinary passengers.
Now, had he survived the way Lightoller and some others did -- swept off the sinking ship, clinging to an overturned collapsible or swimming to a lifeboat -- there would have been no fault in that. It's his taking a seat, unchallenged (and surely, whatever Murdoch's policies, he knew no one would dare toss the chairman of the line out of the boat) while he could that rankles.
Further, he holed himself up in his cabin aboard the Carpathia, then hid out in New York, so in nothing subsequent to his taking a seat in that lifeboat did Ismay do anything to help save others during the sinking, or tend to others afterward. No more hobnobbing with the passengers, flouting his position with the company. Plus we agree on his reprehensible behavior in trying to evade questioning by Congress, as well as his efforts to suborn perjury at both inquiries.
Knowing the social, class and corporate sensibilities of the time, I'm surprised he wasn't simply cleared of any wrong-doing by White Star and kept in his position.
Eric:
I agree with you, these people who forever keep attacking Ismay, for no normal reason, are simply looking for a scapegoat to the tragedy . . . Ismay helped load the collapsible, it was being lowered, there were seats available, and he got in . . . which most of us would do . . . he did nothing wrong . . . Captain Smith and the officers, of course, were soon canonized, so no criticism was allowed, indeed, Smith had a statue erected in his honor (why, I'm still not able to understand, the guy should've been dragged over burning coals!) . . . yet Ismay comes in for all sorts of unneccessary and meaningless attacks . . . the Captain had command of the vessel, and he had a trained staff . . . if something went wrong, and it did, so be it . . . attacking Ismay is nonsense . . . his conduct was of the highest order, and one more point: males were allowed entree into the starboard boats . . .
hisgrandmogulhighness,
May I ask, what do you mean about people who keep attacking Ismay "for no normal reason". What's a "normal" reason for attacking Ismay?
You make some good points about people like Smith, but I think you're not very current on modern attitudes about him. Yes, in his day, he was lionized, seen as a hero, and he didn't deserve any of it. The statue to him was built a century ago, not last month. The basic ethos in Britain at that time was to glorify self-sacrifice and dying as somehow noble or great, which is ridiculous, self-negating claptrap. But it's one reason why Smith became a hero (just as did another overhyped British incompetent, Captain Robert Falcon Scott, who had died just a couple of weeks before Smith, though no one knew it then). Not to forget he was cleared and praised by the British Board of Trade's whitewashed "inquiry", which also reinforced public opion at the time.
But a lot more has become known since 1912, and today any Titanic scholar or casual reader knows that Smith was out of his depth (so to speak) in helming such huge vessels, whose power he really did not comprehend. He had gotten into accidents with the Olympic. He was a classic case of an old timer who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. These days he comes in for much criticism for his shortcomings, poor decisions and arrogance.
But the popular treatment or opinion of others (deserved or not) has no bearing on what's said about Ismay. The bottom line is that Ismay liked throwing his weight around on board, and whatever help he offered in evacuating the ship (and he was yelled at by Murdoch or whichever officer for getting in the way), that didn't entitle him to a place in a lifeboat.
However, even if you overlook his saving his own life (knowing no one would stop him from jumping in a boat) while most of his employees and passengers lost theirs, none of this explains away or justifies his post-sinking behavior. Even Eric agrees that Ismay's actions afterward -- staying holed up in his cabin aboard the Carpathia, trying to get himself and all White Star Line crewmen out of New York within hours of landing so as to avoid having to testify before Congress, his suborning perjury and encouraging WSL people to lie, his own falsifications of facts -- all show him to be a dishonorable, deceitful, conniving man (my words).
I can't fathom how anyone can insist that Ismay was an honorable man who didn't deserve any of the disregard leveled at him. You can argue that some of it was misplaced, or that he should have been attacked for other reasons, but he was not some kind of hero or selfless individual trying only to help people or reveal the facts about the disaster. In truth, he was an arrogant egoist whose behavior was prompted by self-serving reasons. His actions were of "the highest order"? That's an insult to the true heroes -- and the 1500 victims -- of the Titanic tragedy.
I'm not aware of Ismay "throwing his weight around" . . . how, in what way? As a passenger he was simply observing a new vessel, which is quite normal for a CEO . . . the mighty vessel was making record speed because of the delightful weather (clear skies, calm seas), not because he had anything to do with it . . . the Captain was in command, everything was his resposibility . . . frustrated, with no one else to blame or attack for the disaster, they jump all over Ismay (another unnecessary scapegoat is Capt. Lord, as if he too was to blame) . . . no, Ismay did nothing wrong, and what he did do most of us would've done . . .
Granted, I agree with you on the mystery of why he isn't depicted in the 1953 film--I've seen it many times and no Ismay anywhere, at least not that I can spot anywhere . . . there is this Mr. Sanderson early on, but no Ismay . . .
What I mean is that, though technically only a passenger, Ismay liked playing The Chairman when it suited him, routinely asking for (and being given) what should have been confidential communications such as ice reports, showing them to other passengers, and in general glorying in his position and the extra perks and prestige it brought him aboard ship.
I don't know how much he pushed for greater speed or an earlier arrival in New York. Titanic was not built to be a record-breaker for speed, an attribute White Star ceded to Cunard, whose ships were advertised for the swiftness of their transatlantic crossings. I've never put much blame on Ismay about the speed or other issues pertaining to the navigation of the ship. He may have played some role in urging as fast a crossing as possible but of course ultimately everything that happened is Smith's, not Ismay's or anyone else's, responsibility -- one reason I agree with you about Smith and the unjust way in which he was made a selfless martyr.
The fact that Ismay survived made him an easy target, but considering that no blame was officially attached to White Star, Smith or anyone else, I believe most people turned on him not because of any supposed role in the disaster but because he saved his own life when so many others in authority lost theirs (or survived only by luck, as with Lightoller) -- plus his dispicable post-sinking behavior in trying to evade any inquiry. I suspect that if Ismay had gotten out front and made a show (however insincere) of wanting to assist an inquiry in every way he would not have encountered the wave of hostility he (rightly) received. But the fact that he jumped into a boat and saved himself when others in his position did no such thing also counts heavily against him.
Would you or I have done the same? Maybe, maybe not. I honestly don't know what I would have done in such circumstances. But I'd like to think I'd try to save my own life by some less blatant means...especially since Ismay didn't save himself for some greater purpose like making sure the truth got out so that such disasters were avoided in the future, but only to save his own life.
Yes, I've thought "Mr. Sanderson" at the beginning of the film was a sort of truncated Ismay. He does have that line about how, while they expect the Captain to act with all prudence, the company wouldn't be disappointed with a "record run". I suspect the filmmakers didn't put in Ismay because doing so would inflict damage to the movie's effort to portray all the rich and famous aboard as noble and self-sacrificing, with the exception of the fictitious "Mr. Meeker", depicted as a social-climbing coward...the sort of cartoonish villain (albeit with different characteristics) Billy Zane played in the 1997 mess (except I enjoyed "Meeker" much more).
Ismay liked playing The Chairman when it suited him
How does that impact him being branded a "coward"? It means that he liked playing the role and being elitist. Most people would enjoy puffing themselves up in the presence of millionaires.
As far as him surviving, both Ismay and W.H. Carter, the other first class man that entered the lifeboat, are on record as saying that Wilde offered them seats provided they row. Other occupants of the lifeboat were vocal about the fact that he was genuinely concerned about their comfort prior to rescue.
That seems helpful and not cowardly to me.
He's not innocent in this situation. But he's more innocent than others. For example, someone who misinterpreted "women and children first" costing hundreds of people their lives... share
hobnob:
Yes, I too, as well as many others, have wondered what Ismay was doing with that critically important Baltic ice warning . . . bizarre---what possible reason would Smith have had for giving him that important communique? And why did Ismay keep it on his person for endless hours?
A mystery that has never been solved (and his answers at the hearings don't answer anything---slippery as an eel!) . . .
However, Master Mariner Smith gave it to him, he must've known what he was doing . . . though, again, no rational explanation . . . why? What was Ismay to do with it? It needed to be posted on the bridge--period!
Well, Ismay stated the boat was fairly full, with some empty seats, and the collapsible was now being lowered and he got in . . . and, yes, 1st-class passenger Carter soon followed . . . we'd probably all do the same . . .
Aside of the Baltic warning, and his weak explanations, I see Ismay as having done nothing wrong . . .
And yes, all those wealthy passengers are all so wonderful . . . don't get me wrong, I like the movie a lot, have seen it countless times, and it is a more mature rendering than the 1997 teenage hodgepodge . . . however, all these people were well established in society, and comfortable in their position and rank, that may be what the film was indicating . . .
hgmh (hope you don't mind the easier abbreviation!),
I pretty much restated my views on Ismay in my reply to TheGuyWithTheFeet, so no need to go into much here. I actually think we agree on more than we disagree, and much is a matter of interpretation.
As I noted before, I really don't know what I'd do in Ismay's shoes. But I honestly feel that, had I been chairman of the WSL, I could not have in conscience taken a place in the lifeboat, even if offered, simply because I was chairman. But this is a difficult question to assess, we all have an understandable will to live, and we have to recognize that in the tide of events (pardon) we make judgments under pressing conditions and clouded judgment.
So while I don't hold Ismay in any regard for saving himself, which I think he planned to manage one way or another from the start, I agree the circumstances were a bit murky and upset.
That said, I certainly can (and do) brand him a coward for his subsequent actions, which we've discussed and where I believe you also find him at great fault. His behavior on the Carpathia, prior to landing in New York, at the hearings he tried to dodge, and so on, all speak ill of him and do evoke cowardice. That he made such a show of trying to explain away his escape by inventing tales of having been ordered into the lifeboat shows both cowardice and guilt.
Ismay knew what he was doing, and there was nothing noble, helpful or even innocent about it. He may have succumbed to a human impulse or human weakness but most other men of his class resisted doing the same that night. Let's just say that at some point during or after the disaster he crossed the line from being weak to being cowardly.
Oh, as to the portrayal of the upper class in the '53 and '97 movies, basically they're mirror-images of one another: the one all noble and gallant, the other ranging from clueless to condescending to evil. Both are cartoonish visions. Of course, having great wealth and the deference it brought then even more than today can make one comfortable in dealing with others (at least when the others treat you with that deference), but neither characterization is really fitting. Reality is always more complex. I think the makers of the 1953 film simply preferred showing their lead characters (who were all First Class, outside of the ship's officers) in the best possible light, in part for dramatic purposes and in part because of their own social biases. I object less to that than to the depiction of Third Class as simple sheep who won't even try to escape until Sturges and Sandy go down to fetch them. And of course there's no hint of any class discrimination, of any kind at any time (except for the "villain" Mr. Meeker, when he tries to stop Sturges from entering First Class, which is seen as more comical than sinister).
I didn't say his puffing himself up before millionaires -- of which he was one -- made him a coward. It was a reference to his inflated character, of wanting to have it both ways, being pampered like a passenger when it suited him, and acting as the man in the know and boss of the company when that image suited him. That was immature, not cowardly.
As to what Ismay and Carter said about their getting their seats in the lifeboat, their stories are utterly self-serving and cannot be taken at face value. Even if this is true, it's far more likely it was a case of Wilde making the best of an uneasy situation concerning the Chairman of the Board of his own company and one of Ismay's friends. He probably rationalized the "requirement" that they row as a means of justifying allowing them to get into the lifeboat. Under the prevailing social and, in Ismay's case, corporate circumstances of the time, Wilde might have felt he was cornered and extracted the best deal he could for everyone to save face.
The ship's barber claimed he overheard Wilde insisting that Ismay get into the boat, which contradicts Ismay's and Carter's own tales. And as this is also an uncorroborated story from another WSL employee who dared not risk the wrath of his superiors (and loss of his livelihood), it sounds nothing more than conveniently self-serving.
The fact that Ismay evinced concern about the others in the lifeboat prior to their being picked up is utterly irrelevant and has nothing to do with heroism or cowardice. He was safely in the boat and knew he'd be rescued. What does his basically perfunctory (since there was nothing at all he could do) concern for his fellow survivors in this one boat matter? If you want to go that route you should ask where Ismay was after the Carpathia picked them up. He kept to himself aboard that ship the entire trip back to New York, seeing no one and not doing a thing for any of the Titanic's passengers. And, of course, before landing he made arrangements to try to escape U.S. jurisdiction by getting himself and the entire Titanic crew on a ship back to England -- and again, doing nothing for any of the passengers. This alone is an act of blatant cowardice, especially since it was premeditated and well thought-out, and Ismay disembarked trying to conceal his identity. Fortunately, subpoenas had been issued and he was served before he could get away. Cowardice was almost the least of his transgressions.
Ismay made sure to save his own life when others connected with the company made no such effort, including Thomas Andrews, the ship's designer. Those who survived did so by luck and after doing their duty. Ismay clearly used his status in the company to get his way unchallenged. He didn't save himself for some noble purpose but simply to live. If he wanted to play the White Star insider and go about trying to help others (the degree to which he did this and how helpfully is highly debatable), he should not then have taken advantage of his position and jumped into a lifeboat while others didn't have the same opportunity. Characteristically, Ismay was trying to have it both ways, and yes, under the circumstances, that is cowardly...though this pales in contemptibility with his subsequent acts, where there's not even the pretense of some phony "concern for others".
As to "women and children first", I don't see how this order could be "misinterpreted". It was the common rule of the sea, and plain enough. You can argue, with much justice, how well or justly it was applied on Titanic, whether it was a stupid rule, and so forth, but I can't fault an officer who followed his commands. The real problems were that many boats were launched only partially filled, and hundreds of women and children did drown because of the inability of Third Class passengers (and some Second) to get to the boat decks until almost too late. Instead of lamenting the fact that men should have been allowed on the lifeboats, you should be more upset at the way in which so many women and children were denied access in the first place. When you had space for barely half the people on board, priority should have been given to carrying out the order and getting as many women and children into the lifeboats as possible.
There's a great deal to criticize about the way Titanic was abandoned but singling out "women and children first", as if this was ignoble or dishonest, is ridiculous. The real problems were not enough lifeboats, the class discrimination that cost so many women and children their lives, and the timing and manner in which some boats were launched. Not allowing men on board -- which, in the circumstances, mainly means First Class male passengers -- is well down on the list of issues.
Ok. So, according to hobknob everyone lied.
shareAs opposed to GuyWithTheFeet's swallowing everything everybody said without question.
In fact, if you'd read what I wrote more carefully, I did not categorically state that anyone "lied"...though in my view they did precisely that. (I did not dispute the basically unimportant testimony of his fellow survivors about Ismay's alleged behavior in their lifeboat, though that should be examined too. Class biases usually work to put one's peer in a more favorable light, and I'm sure many of them were friends of Ismay's and wanted to help him.)
What I said was that the testimony of Ismay and Carter that they were ordered into the lifeboat on condition they row, made with no corroboration, and while they were being subjected to much criticism for having boarded the boat, is entirely self-serving and therefore meaningless, as is the barber's story that Ismay was forced to board the lifeboat.
Ismay's credibility is shattered even more by his heated efforts to escape the U.S. Senate's inquiry by getting himself and his crew out of America immediately after landing in New York. Luckily, Senator Smith realized what Ismay was up to and raced to New York with subpoenas before Ismay could escape. These are not the actions of an innocent man who genuinely wants to help find the cause of the disaster, or who has nothing to hide.
In any court of law, a person's background, demeanor and actions can be used in weighing the credibility of his testimony. On that basis, Ismay's credibility was near zero, as was Carter's and the barber's. Put another way, no impartial witness supported his testimony or claims. Why do you simply accept what they said at face value?
** In any court of law, a person's background, demeanor and actions can be used in weighing the credibility of his testimony. **
Herbert Pitman's credibility should have been evaluated as such. Maybe it was.
Well, I see nothing "cowardly" in anything Ismay did . . . as to his getting into the lifeboat, he stated at the hearings that the boat was being lowered, there were seats empty, and he simply got in . . . something anyone of us would've done . . . most of his testimony I take as the truth . . . I see no reason for him having to lie about anything . . . I really do believe that the tragedy unhinged many, and they took it out on him . . . as stated earlier, the Captain was canonized, so who else could you blame?
shareYou can uncritically take his testimony as the truth if you wish, but that doesn't make it so.
As for his having no reason to lie about anything, the fact that he attempted to spirit the entire Titanic crew away from the U.S. before they could be compelled to testify certainly indicates a desire to hide the truth.
In fact, there were many reasons for Ismay to lie or conceal the facts: a need to explain how he survived while most First Class men and most WSL employees died; why he attempted to flee American jurisdiction; why he remained incommunicado in his cabin aboard the Carpathia while everyone else was pitching in to help (in contrast to his ostentatious in-charge manner aboard Titanic); the desperate attempt to make sure his company wasn't held responsible for the disaster; an almost laughable effort to insist that the ship was sound and its seamanship impeccable.
To say he had no reason to lie is preposterous. Even on this thread, entirely different tales have been related about why he got in the lifeboat: he saw some empty seats and "simply got in"; or the Officer ordered him in; or he had to make sure the survivors were seen to. Take your pick of phony reasons. Ismay jumped in a boat because he was frightened and wanted to save his own skin. Period.
The self-serving testimony from White Star employees, including Ismay, casting themselves, the Captain, and above all the White Star Line as innocent parties helpless before an act of God, was intended to put them all in a heroic light and obfuscate or deceive about what happened that night...right down to their insistence that the ship couldn't possibly have broken in two, and that those who insisted it had were not mariners and therefore couldn't be expected to have the knowledge to tell when a ship split in half. (A point rightly ridiculed by one of the Senate committee's members.) Ismay and the rest got away with this before the sympathetic and dishonest British Board of Trade; not so much with the U.S. Congress.
Was Ismay a coward? He certainly wasn't a hero, selfless and brave. Would we have jumped into that lifeboat? Perhaps. I'd have liked to survive as much as anyone. But could you or I do that in good conscience when women and children remained aboard and other men were passing up a chance to grab a seat? Whether out of cowardice, fear or pure self-preservation, Ismay seized an option to live most others didn't have. He enjoyed playing the "Big Man" aboard ship when things were good. He didn't have the guts to live up to that image when it counted. He deserved all the scorn he incurred.
I wouldn't blame them on the matter of how the ship went down, intact or broken in two. It was really the testimony of Lightoller that was the selling point on that, and Lightoller seemingly had the best possible vantage point, and it was also the belief of Colonel Gracie as well, who I don't think was looking out for White Star's interests first and foremost when he wrote his account (nor Lawrence Beesley for that matter in his book, where he too sided with those who did not think it had broken in two).
Ismay deserved some scorn for the reasons where I feel has no defense, but it is very hard for me to agree with the notion that he deserved all the scorn he got.
I wouldn't blame them for how the ship went down either, but apparently it was a matter of great sensitivity and concern to Ismay and the WSL. Evidently they thought that any suggestion that the ship had spilt in two would reflect badly on its construction and design, hence on its builders and architects, and thereby not only undermine confidence in the Olympic and other vessels, but expose the line to lawsuits or criminal penalties for having built an unsound ship that couldn't take even extraordinary stresses.
Whatever the merits of such beliefs, this apparently was their fear. This is why Ismay, Lightoller and every other major WSL officer or official insisted that the ship had sunk intact, and contrary witnesses discredited. For whatever reasons sinking in one piece was considered acceptable, but splitting in two due to structural failure, even during a sinking, was not.
In fact, they may have had a point, though it's doubtful anyone would have sued over it in 1912. The Olympic-class ships were flawed, in their design but structurally as well, in the quality of their steel and in the use of expansion joints, which actually exacerbated the problems of the ship's stability. These joints may have been modified for the Brittanic (the erstwhile Gigantic) before it went to sea in 1914, though it never saw service as a passenger liner, sunk while being used as a hospital ship in 1916.
As for Ismay, the level of scorn he deserved vs. what he received is entirely subjective and not really quantifiable or even measureable. What's the appropriate amount of public revilement? I think we've pretty much exhausted this subject, so we'll all just have to agree to disagree on what Ismay deserved in terms of public censure. The one thing I do not hold with is the opinion that he did nothing wrong and acted entirely appropriately at all times. This is demonstably false.
Well, at the time of the loading, a point came when there were no more women and children to place into the collapsible, at least not in that area . . . the boat was ordered lowered, probably by Wilde . . . as there were seats still available, Ismay, Carter, perhaps others (and, again, please remember--men were being allowed into the boats on the starboard side), got in . . . just as all of us would've done . . .
He didn't deserve any scorn--none at all! As stated--Capt. Smith had achieved the dubious honor of sainthood, and who else was there to dump on? Well, Ismay! And this has been going on to this very day . . . there's nobody else, the crew was also canonized, and as such, were off limits . . . Capt. Lord, another bystander, also got dumped-on . . .
For me, I'll state it one more time: Ismay possessing the Baltic ice message is still a mystery? What was he to do with it? Why did Capt. Smith ever give it to him? Of course the Capt. knew the contents, could always get a copy . . . I'm assuming the Captain simply wanted the CEO to know . . . period!
Well, I guess I have to state one more time that I do not disagree with any criticism of Smith. Many if not most of his decisions and actions were flawed and had more to do with accommodating the company Chairman (Ismay), a lack of understanding about the nature of his ship, and a general air of arrogant self-confidence. It's also true that the WSL, in an era where British public opinion admired dead "heroes" over competent people who had the misfortune to survive, had a vested interest in playing upon that mind-set, so that no criticism of Smith was brooked. Got it?
None of which has a single thing to do with Ismay.
You can argue that Ismay was made a scapegoat in the absence of Smith, but there is actually no proof of that, although the fact that Smith died and Ismay lived didn't help Ismay's reputation, given the prevailing attitudes. White Star certainly didn't set out to scapegoat its Chairman, which could only reflect poorly upon itself.
Ismay became an object of scorn because he had made sure to save himself when so many others died; because he had holed himself up on Carpathia, avoiding fellow passengers while frantically making arrangements to have the entire Titanic crew spirited out of New York back to England as soon as they made port, in order to elude what he knew would be a more objective and less compliant American inquiry; because he worked with the WSL lawyers to suborn perjury, not only about the nature of the sinking but about how he came to get into a lifeboat (he was ordered in by an officer -- no! -- he saw there was room and got in just like anyone else -- no! -- he got in to make sure the survivors were taken care of -- etc., etc., etc.). Ismay was a liar, evasive, dishonest, and gutless -- even if you discount his actions aboard Titanic. Leave all that aside, and he still deserves scorn. "He didn't deserve any scorn--none at all!"? What did he deserve? Congratulations for lying and trying to evade his responsibilities?
As to his behavior on Titanic, you keep repeating that he got into a boat (you've changed your assertions as to how that happened, from his just getting in because there were seats available, now to his being ordered in) "just as all of us would've done." In the first place, none of us was the Chairman of the line. That carries some responsibility beyond getting a seat at the Captain's table and demanding ice reports. In the second place, I'm not sure that's true. Maybe, under the circumstances, some of us wouldn't have gotten into a boat while women and children remained aboard. I really don't know what I would have done. From your statements, I'm sure you would have taken the seat.
But you miss the point: even if everybody else would have done the same, that doesn't mean it isn't an act of selfishness, and perhaps cowardice. The fact that other people might have done the same thing doesn't render what Ismay did a run-of-the-mill act beyond criticism. Numbers don't create morality or bravery.
As I've said, this topic seems exhausted. We're all just going around in circles making basically the same arguments. For whatever reasons, you prefer to take Ismay at his word about all his actions, or ignore those that don't suit the semi-heroic mold you for some reason are so intent on placing him in. But blaming Smith for his mistakes, or saying that "everybody would have done it" -- whatever the truth behind those statements -- doesn't excuse Ismay. He was an arrogant and self-centered man who made sure to save himself, took advantage of his position whenever he could, and tried to evade justice. Even if you swallow the unsubstantiated claims that his actions in getting into a lifeboat were somehow justified or permitted, no objective observer can excuse his subsequent actions, the nature of which -- unlike his actions during the sinking -- are substantiated...and indefensible.
I don't know how you feel about James Cameron's film and am almost loathe to ask. I cannot think of a Best Picture Oscar winner that is despised by more people than Titanic.
I really liked the film and the depiction of Ismay pressuring Captain Smith to go faster and then later getting into a lifeboat with women and children still aboard is almost certainly accurate.
There was also panic and chaos at the lifeboats and some of the boats were not full. More passengers could have been saved had there been more time and better coordination between the passengers and crew who controlled the lifeboats.
Ismay was a cowardly opportunist. I agree with most of what you have written here. However this statement is not accurate imo-
"Well, I guess I have to state one more time that I do not disagree with any criticism of Smith. Many if not most of his decisions and actions were flawed and had more to do with accommodating the company Chairman (Ismay), a lack of understanding about the nature of his ship, and a general air of arrogant self-confidence."
First Captain Smith at age 62 was planning to retire. This would be one of his last voyages and I do not think he would take unnecessary chances. His actual plans for retirement are a matter of some disagreement among historians. At his age though this would be one of his last commands.
I don't think he had a lack of understanding about the nature of the ship. An air of arrogant self-confidence? I don't believe so.
H.M.S. Titanic was an engineering marvel. Unparalleled in size, design, luxury and safety. The chances of an iceberg breaching 5 compartments by striking the ship were very remote. This is explained in an excellent 2012 documentary "Titanic: The Final Word with James Cameron".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2132504/
Captain Smith and the top maritime engineers in the world at that time thought Titanic was nearly unsinkable. Had the ship rammed the iceberg head-on there would have been casualties near the bow and the ship would have been badly damaged but she would have remained afloat.
Captain Smith (and the passengers and crew) had very bad luck. It is that simple.
I liked this 1953 film also although I haven't seen it in a long time.
Okay, as to Captain Smith, there are several reasons for my criticisms. And to understand them, it's necessary to understand that Smith, like the captain of any major ocean liner of that time -- or ours, for that matter -- was a seaman, but he was almost equally a social ornament and a corporate representative. All these aspects play interlocking parts in assessing Smith.
First, large portions of his duties involved schmoozing with the passengers (in his time, that meant strictly First Class), a point raised as far back as 1955 in Walter Lord's book, where he wrote, "It was the custom to travel with certain captains rather than on particular ships," and Smith was the most popular transatlantic captain then in service. (I'm quoting the book from memory, so the actual wording may be slightly different.) This meant that he left many matters to his junior officers and may not have been devoting quite as much attention to the minutiae of command (like paying enough heed to ice warnings) as he might have.
Second, Smith was also a company man. This explained why he gave confidential reports (on ice and other things) to Ismay and was often deferential to him in what were, strictly speaking, improper ways at sea. It also means that Smith was concerned about the White Star image and, had he lived, would certainly have joined in the kind of obfuscating testimony offered by Ismay, Lightoller and the other employees -- all of whom, of course, were also trying to excuse themselves of any responsibility.
But third and most critically, Smith was not a good choice for skippering a vessel as huge as Titanic. He was 60, meaning he had grown up in and literally learned the ropes during the late era of sail, making the transition to steam-powered vessels later on. But the explosion in the size and power of ocean liners in the first decade of the 20th century was beyond the ability of most people -- even the engineers and designers, let alone a 60-year-old, overconfident, veteran captain -- to fully grasp. In 1899, WSL's new liner Oceanic was 704 feet and the largest passenger vessel afloat, but weighed only about 17,000 tons. Within five or six years it was dwarfed by ships longer, larger and much heavier (Olympic and Titanic at over 45,000 tons, with 52,000 tons displacement), and with engines far more than proportionally stronger. The power of these ships was enormous -- and not fully understood or realized. And at least two instances involving Smith himself provide excellent examples.
In 1911, Smith was Captain of Olympic, Titanic's older sister, when she was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy warship Hawke off the Isle of Wight. Thousands of witnesses insisted the naval vessel had abrutply turned and slammed into the liner's stern, and White Star seemed to be in the clear. But the Navy refused to accept what seemed obvious, and hired a hydrographer who analyzed the accident and presented conclusive proof that the suction of the Olympic's propellers due to her enormous displacement was so great they had pulled the smaller warship into the liner. The investigation sided with the Navy and blamed Olympic and Smith for the incident, at great expense and embarrassment to White Star. Yet the fact that Olympic survived the collision, while Hawke nearly capsized, paradoxically reenforced the fallacy of these ships being "unsinkable".
The next year, Titanic itself was nearly involved in a collision when departing Southampton, when the pull of her props tore the ocean liner New York out of its moorings and toward Titanic. A collision seemed imminent, until at the last moment a tug darted out and pushed the New York away -- thereby, as one historian has put it, saving Titanic and dooming her at the same time.
In both cases it was clear that Smith simply had no clue about the power of the ships he was handling. As in the old phrase, he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. By 1912 he was already a relic of a bygone era, out of touch with the rapid and dramatic advances in technology in his own field. Yet neither he nor his employers realized this, or would have admitted the possibility of any such thing. To them both, a ship was a ship, period. You can captain one, you can captain any one. Smith never truly educated himself about the very real differences between these new behemoths and the smaller vessels he had learned on and served aboard until well into his 50s. He marveled at the greatness of the Olympic and Titanic without understanding what they were capable of, or more catastrophically, what their flaws were. Instead, he succumbed to the conventional wisdom, shallow as it was, that such ships were so advanced that they were surer and safer means of travel. Remember that not long before Titanic was completed Smith had told an interviewer, "I cannot imagine any circumstances today under which a vessel could founder. Modern shipbuilding has progressed beyond that." (Again, from memory, so there may be a small variation.) This was in line with the kind of thinking prevalent in the early part of the century (affecting many fields), and even a professional like Smith had neither the thought nor imagination to think beyond superficialities.
Smith was not only ignorant of the potential problems of his later commands -- even after his experiences with them -- he was blank to the notion that there was even anything new he needed to learn about them. He was not given to introspection, about himself or about his ships. He saw himself as the dean of the WSL, an honored figure, skilled in the ways of the sea, and after many decades of striving to attain that elevated level saw no reason to doubt his knowledge or abilities. He was not alone in such views, which is a good example of the collective myopia of the period, and of White Star in particular. But Smith's willful unconcern about the realities of these ships, a dangerous and foolhardy (especially for a lifelong seaman) faith that such ships really were "unsinkable", and his supreme self-confidence that there was nothing he had to learn and could handle any problem, all combined to make him not only unfit but a dangerous person to have in command of such a vessel as Titanic.
You're right that had the Titanic hit the berg straight on, or had not five of her watertight compartments been completely flooded (a sixth was also opened to the sea but the pumps were able to keep the water down in that one), it would have stayed afloat -- probably; other factors might have combined to sink her if the damage had still been severe enough. But you don't have to cite Cameron's film to know that; Lord wrote the same thing in his book "A Night to Remember" 58 years ago.
As to Titanic (1997)....
My views about this movie litter various "Titanic" boards. Basically, I find its visuals stunning and involving -- not just the use of technological advances in cinema to depict the ship and events, but Cameron's repeatedly "going into" so many parts of the ship, showing its interiors before and, better yet, during the sinking. (I also like the shots of the ship from far off, a tiny pinprick of light in a vast ocean.) You almost literally feel as though you were aboard her, and no other film has ever conveyed the real terror of the sinking even remotely as well, not even the best Titanic movie, A Night to Remember. I have to compliment Cameron on getting the complexities of this project and the sinking itself down so well...not to mention constructing a replica 9/10 the size of the actual ship!
That said, dramatically, the film is an air-headed mess. Except for the character of old Rose, the movie is loaded down with one-dimensional saps adrift in a sea of babbling bilge. With its either clueless or wicked upper class, rich and uncaring and out of it when not downright evil, vs. its sweet and generous lower class, kind, fun-loving, salt-of-the Earth innocents, the picture is as bad as the "reverse" depictions in the 1953 film (of a kindly and noble upper class and simple, decent if dirty, but essentially dunderheaded Third-Class yokels too stupid and terrified to save themselves until directed to do so by their betters). These characters are cartoons, caricatures, not people.
Most obnoxious is young Rose, the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise girl living in the future -- why, she's even able to divine the greatness of this unknown artist named Picas-something! Of course, the bubble-brained teenagers who swooned over the Jack-and-Rose love story, who wouldn't know a Picasso if they fell over one, have just a vague enough idea about him being a painter or something that they get a cheap, "knowing" laugh...though apparently even Cameron, no great intellect himself, believed that Picasso was actually still unknown in 1912, when he was in fact even then a world-famous artist. But Rose also sees there aren't enough lifeboats ("Nothing escapes your young eyes, does it?" asks a fatherly Thomas Andrews when she does the math during their tour of the boat): Oh my God! She sees it coming! And on and on and on...and on. (Of course, she's also an emotional basket case who tries to kill herself, but then these all-seeing intellects have a lot to deal with.) Then there's just-plain Jack, who's learned the secret to life (being a bum, evidently); and supercilious, villainous Cal, lacking only a handlebar mustache to twirl menacingly to give the full effect of being the bad guy in a clown show; and the contingent of foul-mouthed, smarmy treasure-hunting slobs aboard the search vessel in modern times, as large a grouping of asses as has been afloat since...well, since the Titanic -- the Titanic of this movie, at least.
No better comment on the execrable nature of Cameron's plot and writing is found than in the fact that, in a film which received 14 Oscar nominations and won 11, the one major award the film wasn't even nominated for was Best Original Screenplay. Hollywood's writers knew a lousy, inane script when they saw it. I can't remember the last time a Best Picture winner's screenplay wasn't at least nominated for an Oscar. But when Cameron inserts 1990s-speak in the mouths of his 1912 characters (the worst being Rose's characterization of the First Class rich as "masters of the universe", though she's so farsighted I guess she knows the name of a moronic video game made eighty years hence), you know you've got an inept screenwriter. One reason Gloria Stuart comes across so well is that, after reading the dialogue Cameron had written for her, she sought and got permission from the director to change much of it so that it sounded authentic, as though said by a woman of her age who grew up in an earlier era, instead of Cameron's clueless 90s-babble. Yet another sign of Cameron's fundamental illiteracy (or, perhaps, contempt for his audience), though I guess I should credit him with allowing Stuart to change his incompetent writing to something realistic and heartfelt. If only she'd done the same to the rest of the movie!
I don't "despise" the movie but have no regard for it dramatically, though a very high regard for it technically, and for the imagination of its shots. In my view the Best Picture that year should have been L.A. Confidential, but given all Cameron (whom I find an intensely arrogant and unpleasant man) went through to get the film done, and its epic proportions, I can see why Titanic was chosen instead. But in giving it 11 awards I think the Academy did go, well, overboard. However, one Oscar it was nominated for and should have won was for Gloria Stuart as Supporting Actress. Her perfomance was the only good one in the film, and she was much better than Kim Basinger in L.A. Confidential, who beat her. Still, at least they had the sense to snub Cameron for his dreadful script!
Incidentally, I do like Cameron's documentaries on the real ship, which are exceptionally well produced.
I agree completely with your critique of Smith . . . my description of Ismay getting into the lifeboat is from the U. S. Senate inquiry, where he gave testimony . . . he was never ordered into the boat, he got in as stated . . . Cameron's travesty is a teen girl's fantasy . . . yes, the visuals are great, costumes, soundtrack, there is much to admire, though the screenplay is awful (again, remember, it didn't win an academy award for screenplay---good!
shareGood to know we're in total agreement about all this. I believe the story about how Ismay got into a boat changed between the US and UK inquiries, or maybe in subsequent tellings. The statements are conflicting and the exact truth will never be known.
I've wondered how Smith and his reputation would have fared had he survived. Of course, he wouldn't have jumped into a lifeboat as Ismay did; he could only have lived had he been found swimming after the sinking and been pulled into a boat, so his reputation wouldn't have suffered on that point.
On the one hand, White Star could never have allowed him to be blamed for the sinking, since that would have undermined their argument that this was an act of God and opened them to lawsuits. They'd be held liable for putting a man of limited qualifications in command of such a ship, a public relations as well as legal disaster.
On the other, it's a ironclad rule of the sea that the captain is always responsible for his ship, even if some extraordinary event occurs that mitigates his culpability. It's hard to see how Smith could have escaped all blame. The fact of his surviving would have hurt him too -- not because the circumstances of his survival were suspicious, but simply that in the public mind of the period it was considered somehow ignoble for a leader to live rather than die heroically, and besides, a captain is supposed to go down with his ship, especially when so many others died. Good thing he was retiring anyway. White Star would have done its best to exonerate him (read: themselves), then quickly and with relief shoved him off into an anonymous retirement. Smith would never have become a living hero, or, in such circumstances, a posthumous one.
It's hard to say---he may have been dragged across burning coals if he had survived . . . one can't say for sure . . . as with airline pilots, everybody focuses on the pilot immediately when anything wrong happens . . . in Smith's case he was deified . . .
shareI think he would have been shamed, though WSL couldn't have completely thrown him to the wolves, for their own protection. But I suspect by living he'd have violated that cardinal if unwritten rule so prevalent in the Britain of the period: that the only true heroes are dead men.
The parallel to "Scott of the Antarctic" is there. Had he lived and come back a loser in the race to the South Pole, with all the evidence of incompetence and mismanagement and loss of life on his expedition, he would have been relegated to the background, fobbed off to a state that might be called "pitiable contempt": not attacked, but regarded as someone best left ignored and unmentioned. I think such a fate would have befallen Smith had he lived. Dying was both men's salvation. Deification indeed. Typical of the time. But the truth will come out, even if it takes a century.
Yes, let us hope the real truth of what happened that night will be revealed--and soon! . . . in the meantime we're forced to put up with the fantasy they concocted . . .
Regardless, the 1953 version of Titanic is still a good movie, and far superior to Cameron's junk . . . his film was junvenile . . .
I enjoyed both the 1953 version and Cameron's, even though the script writers in both employed a lot of poetic license.
Ismay's character appears in the beginning of the 1953 version, when Capt.Smith is presented with the ensign flag from the Star of Madagascar, but he's quickly put ashore. Hollywood was under fire in the 1950s during the Red Scare and it just wouldn't do to have a captain of industry serve as a villain, so we get slimey Mr. Meeker.
And while the writers of both movies and the historical record show Capt. Smith did issue a "women and children first" order, it's clear from the survivor list that his order was not carried out, which was Smith's responsibility as captain. Smith has two hours to do his duty and he didn't. (Capt. Turner of Lusitania had 15 minutes and he can be excused, but then he survived his sinking.)
The myth of brave and noble captains and crews -- and brave men in general -- giving their lives to save the weak, is a myth today as it was in 1912. The Costa Concordia, where the captain was one of the first to jump ship in 2012, is just a recent example, and it's not the only one.
The low-paid coal stokers were the real heroes and were portrayed as such in both Titanic films. They were doomed and they knew it, yet they stayed at their stations and kept the lights on.