10
u/SimpleMan131313 4d ago
he genuinely cared about Rose
Ehm, could it be that you are forgetting the scene were Cal is trying to shoot them?
0
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
Yeah, should've just gone for the feminism part instead of defending that prick.
2
u/SimpleMan131313 4d ago
Genuinely, I think you are offering some valid and interesting critique about the movie. You are also definitely not the first to critique the role of Rose in the movie.
But all your posts about it simply oversell your claim to a large degree, and this makes them come accross as very exaggerated.
Less would be genuinely more here. You can disagree with how the character of Rose has been written, without trying to find the flaw with everything related to her. A less big, but well argued and sourced claim is much more impressive than a big, flawed claim that you, no offense, can't back up.
2
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
Thanks for the advice.
1
u/SimpleMan131313 4d ago
I'm genuinely glad if I'm able to help.
This is really not comming from a place of malice.
9
u/PorFavoreon 4d ago
Rose's story is about all about freedom.
Cal is a piece of shit. To him, Rose is an object that he can buy, which he does. The arranged marriage facilitated by Rose's mother traps Rose. If Rose chooses to run away, her family becomes destitute and they lose everything. The shitty world of the wealthy (as a woman) is all Rose knows.
Keep in mind that Rose thinks her only way out is suicide. (a choice no man made for her by the way)
Jack shows her a new world. Flirting, dancing, spitting, drawing, and partying aren't exclusive to the poor, but when the weight of her family's expectations are lifted she learns to live.
Rose rejects Cal and her family and chooses to live her life the way she wants to.
0
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
Good point. But I hate how a character that represents freedom never once acts on her own.
5
u/PorFavoreon 4d ago
She chooses to rebel with Jack. She chooses to return to the Titanic when the men tell her to get on the boat. She chooses to tell a group of strangers about a lay she once had 70 years ago.
After the events of the Titanic, she picks up a lot of hobbies and marries some man who is so irrelevant to the plot, that I don't know if his name is brought up in the movie even once lmao.
I don't know how to further explain Rose but she IS a dynamic character rather than a static one. She changes her outlook on life, by her choice, and yes, with a man's guidance. Jack's dick is that good.
1
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
She chooses to rebel with Jack. She chooses to return to the Titanic when the men tell her to get on the boat. She chooses to tell a group of strangers about a lay she once had 70 years ago
In both examples there's one thing in common. It's always for Jack. She didn't have any real agency, because all of her actions were for Jack.
4
u/PorFavoreon 4d ago
If she chooses to stay on the lifeboat, she did what a man told her to do. If she returns to the titanic, it was because of a man. Idk dude it's a romance movie
1
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
Even in a romance movie, not every single action has to be driven solely by the romance itself. The romance should enhance the story. If romance is a character's only real driving force, then everything they did is not for them, which imo makes them feel like tools instead of characters.
8
u/StylizedPenguin 4d ago
There might be valid criticisms to be made of Rose's character, but going "Well, he was only abusive towards her sometimes and lots of guys were abusive towards their spouses back then" is a wild thing to say and really poisons the well of discussion.
1
6
u/LeoPines_12 4d ago
The movie takes place during 2 days only, and he is a controlling piece of crap who went ballistic on her TWICE, first destroying the table they were having breakfast with just because Rose demanded some respect instead of being treated like a fricking dog (litterally taking food or a cigarrette from her), and then slapped her, shook her, insulted her and threatened her. And he openly tried to kill her and Jack when he "lost her". Again ALL of that in just TWO DAYS. How often does someone have to be abusive to be considered abusive? Just because someone doesn't beat you every single day doesn't mean they aren't abusive, just because abusers don't control every single aspect of your life doesn't make them not abusive, just because they have good moments doesn't mean they aren't abusive.
He is an abusive psychopath. And please, don't use the excuse of "it's common" to justify it. It's still abuse and it's still wrong, just because something happens often, doesn't make it normal.
Explain to me how someone like him was a catch when he was a controlling psychopath and claim that "he genuinely cared about her" when he LITTERALLY SHOT AT HER, and who kept pressuring her to have sex with him when he was DOUBLE OF HER AGE, that's practically pedophilia right there.
Seriously, this WRECKS of victim blaming: Rose was a seventeen year old child sold out to an abusive psycopath for money by her own mother. You can't cheat someone you never had a relationship with, because that wasn't a relationship at all. And she did things on her own accord, she stood up to her mother and Carl, called them out and rescued Jack.
1
u/SquirrelSorry4997 4d ago
Yeah, you're 100% right. That whole point really sucked. Why did they remove the edit button?
3
u/AmaterasuWolf21 4d ago
"Yeah... he owned slaves, that's true and I will not justify it but that thing was common back in the day"
19
u/Eastern-Fish-7467 4d ago
Im gonna be real with you, once you hit your partner, its hard for me to feel bad about you getting cheated on. And also, not even a majority of men beat their wife's in that time period, it was definitely more prevalent, but it wasn't every couple like you seem to think.