Movie Review: Titanic (1953)

I actually thought I had seen this film before this weekend, but I hadn't. Believe me, I would have remembered it.

Before I get started, let me just say that the film is lovely in its own way, full of wonderful Hollywood stars and lots of talent. There's no denying the skill of Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, or a frighteningly young Robert Wagner. They're all actors of the highest caliber and I respect each of them individually and jointly for the performances they gave in Titanic.

However, what the audience experiences in this 1953 film called Titanic is not a true representation of the sinking. Oh, maybe it's faithful enough, but it's hard to tell from the bare bones we see of the actual sinking of the ship. I realized afterward that Titanic from 1953 is very like Titanic from 1997 in some aspects. It tells you a story that takes place on board Titanic, but it is not the story of the sinking of Titanic. I never thought to differentiate between the two things before, but I have now, and it's true.

Go to my Classic Hollywood page to find all my Classic Hollywood reviews!

So, really, this film delivers depending on what the audience wants. The James Cameron film from 1997 and the 1953 Titanic both have merit. They've woven a story of individuals and relationships and tales told about people that may or may not have been on the ship. It's A Night to Remember from 1958 that gives the audience a mostly faithful rendering of what actually happened without flowery relational drama, and I will discuss that film in another post in a couple of days.

For now, we will stick to Titanic from 1953, what worked, what didn't work, and why I cried at the end.

The film opens with an iceberg breaking off and heading out to the open sea. A spine-tingling way to begin.

The first meal the Sturgis family shares aboard Titanic.

Passengers swarm aboard Titanic from what is likely Cherbourgh, France. Julia Sturgis (Stanwyck), her daughter Annette (Audrey Dalton) and son Norman (Harper Carter) all appear to board the ship at this particular stop before Titanic steams its way across the Atlantic, heading for New York, conveniently leaving out the stop in Ireland. Julia's husband, Richard (Webb), barters third-class passage off an immigrant husband, paying the family a hefty sum that would give them a solid start in America, which is the only reason why the wife agrees to be parted from her husband. As the story progresses, it becomes obvious that Richard and Julia are emotionally estranged from each other and have been for years. A wealthy man, Richard drags his family behind him all over Europe so they can be at the important locations at just the right time to hobnob with all of the other upper-class folk. Julie, an American from a small town, wearied by the constant entertaining and snobbery, convinces her children that there is a family reunion in her hometown in America and that's why they're leaving. Only she intends the leaving to be far more permanent which is why Richard has obtained passage to chase them.

A family argument ensues as to whether the children will live in America or not.

The daughter, Annette, is an undeniable snob at the start of the voyage, but after speaking harsh words to her mother and declaring she absolutely refuses to live in America on a permanent basis, she feels guilt for her coldness. Attempting to make amends, she agrees to dance with a nice young college boy named Gifford Rogers (Wagner) that her mother met and likes a great deal since he has very little artifice. As the story progresses, Annette and Giff grow closer together, as he teaches her a modern dance she'd never tried, and they have a sing-along with a variety of other young people in first class. Julia and Richard snap and snarl like two cats in a sack, and she lets slip a secret from her past that throws him for a loop.

Titanic hits the iceberg and the Sturgis family realizes they must part.

And of course, as always, on the night of April 14th, 1912, Titanic hits an iceberg. As the ship's crew spring into action and start loading lifeboats, Julia and Richard realize how very much time they have wasted not knowing one another, and regret their mutual loss bitterly. After all, as we know, it was women and children first so Richard does the honorable thing and places his family on a lifeboat, staying behind as would have been deemed proper. 

Annette and Giff say a tearful farewell as he makes sure her lifevest is securely fastened.

Despite Giff's humble and slightly obnoxious start as a character in this film, he's really a rather nice young man, bearing a certain striking resemblance to another rather nice young man from a different Titanic film nearly 45 years later. Fancy that!  Before the end, Giff proves himself quite heroic, enthusiastic and generous of heart and willing to help whenever and wherever needed. And Annette, as befits a young woman of the Edwardian era (or should I say the 1950s?) is docile at the end of the tale and is loaded humbly and meekly into a lifeboat where she STAYS, unlike a certain other Titanic heroine who I won't name.

What didn't work in Titanic 1953

Despite the massive amount of funding and the incredible set (which it is truly incredible, staircase repro and all), the costume designer let the entire film down by not clothing the characters in Edwardian garb. Or at least giving it the old school try. After all, it was only 40 years since the Edwardian era when this film was made, so surely they could have put in some effort. But alas, no. As you can tell, the necklines are all wrong, the fitting of the gowns are all wrong, there are no hats anywhere for outdoor scenes, and there is entirely too much chiffon head-coverings throughout the entire film. The film worked with 1950s clothing, trying to masquerade it as being Edwardian, and it failed miserably. It's just an unfortunate choice made by the people in charge that they funded such a magnificent film, but didn't take their effort all the way to the costuming.

Thelma Ritter as Maude Young

I will also say that for a 90-minute film, it's additionally unfortunate that the audience only spends perhaps 20 minutes with the actual sinking of the Titanic. Since the crew doesn't play a large part in the story, the audience has no idea who anyone is apart from the captain and a one-time mention of a man named Murdoch. Lightoller and Thomas Andrews are both non-existent, and both of these men played highly influential roles that night. Also, they were unable to obtain the rights to include Margaret Brown as a character (not sure how that's even possible), so instead, we have the truly brilliant Thelma Ritter playing a woman named Maude Young from Texas who made her fortune in oil. She's the best they could do without rights to the correct name.

What did work in Titanic 1953

Robert Wagner as Gifford Rogers

The entire cast performed magnificently. In fact, had the costumes been set in the appropriate era, then I really would have loved it.

But for me, it was most thrilling to see Robert Wagner in such a young role. I love him in Prince Valiant and It Takes a Thief and pretty much everything I've ever seen him in, but I never expected to see him so young. And while the story goes that James Cameron based the character of Jack Dawson off a character in A Night to Remember, I have to disagree. I just watched that film too, and there is no one even remotely matching Jack Dawson. But if you watch Titanic from 1953, the comparisons between Jack and Giff are all over the place. Not so much in social standing, but in the personality and mannerisms.

Young Harper Carter as Normas Sturgis

Then you have the youngest star, Harper Carter, who plays Norman Sturgis. A remarkable child actor, Harper impress me immensely. He was a delight to watch, especially his interactions with Clifton Webb in the role of his father. You know how sometimes actors just sell their role? That's what Harper did, and I absolutely adore him. 

Titanic sinking

The special effects were marvelous for the era. They had a terrific model for the sinking that just sold the entire night. Even though the sinking was relegated to the final 20 minutes of the film, for the era in which it was filmed, the special effects worked solidly. At least they didn't try to fake the sinking in a way that didn't work. A model is an entirely respectable means of getting the point across, especially if you use clever camera angles, and it made the sinking of the ship a success. You also have the decor, the rooms, the set-dressing, all of it felt very like Titanic. Especially the grand staircase that is easily recognizable by anyone familiar with the layout and design of the ship. They went to great efforts on the set, utilizing their 1.8 million budget wisely. It sounds like nothing, but in 1953, 1.8 million was a lot of money. To me, it still is.

The reason why Titanic 1953 made me cry

As much as I whined about the relationships earlier, it is the relationships of the film that tug on the heartstrings. The Sturgis family does not emerge whole from the sinking. Like so many families who suffered through that terrible night. The realism of the sinking, and emotions of the women in the lifeboats and the men on Titanic just brought on the waterworks. The band plays at the end, as we all know, and led by Captain Smith, the rest of the passengers sing Nearer My God to Thee, which I don't believe happened in real life, but was a lovely sentiment. How could I not cry?

Is Titanic from 1953 worth watching? Absolutely. In fact, I encourage it. Is it entirely accurate to the events of that night? No, but so far, none of the Titanic films made are 100% accurate to the events of that night. But that's okay. The heart and spirit of the tragedy is present, and the actors gave it their all. Titanic from 1953 is a film worth experiencing, and the flaws can take a back seat to the art of Old Hollywood.