Reviews & Ratings for
Titanic More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

34 reviews in total

---

34 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
A Dramatic, Effective Telling of the Titanic Story - From Nazi Germany, 20 July 2004

Author: Ralph Michael Stein (riglltesobxs@mailinator.com) from New York, N.Y.

It's not that common in movie history that a director angers the producer/distributor of his movie so much that the latter has the former murdered. That's what happened to co-director Herbert Selpin in 1942 before the release of Germany's film contribution to the Titanic saga. Dr. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister and self-anointed arbiter of culture in the Third Reich, had the Gestapo arrest Selpin who was reported dead in his cell the day after. Suicide? Ridiculous.

The Titanic story has been told many times on film, both as documentary and as drama. Interest currently appears to intensify with the same speed as the over-visited wreck rapidly succumbs to a final ballet of disintegration.

Years ago The Film Society of Lincoln Center ran a retrospective of movies produced during the Third Reich. For most attendees it was a revelation, and a disturbing one at that. Many are familiar with the late Leni Reifenstahl's documentary paean to the Olympics (propaganda aside, one of the greatest films of that genre) and the odious "Jude Suss" is the iconographic movie symbolism of Nazi antisemitism. Few were aware how much genuine creativity, free of obvious dogmatism, emerged from that twelve-year period of German darkness and depravity. The retrospective made many think about the complexity of life in 1933-1945 Germany.

One of the films I saw was the 1943 "Titanic" which had a small premiere followed by an order from Goebbels pulling the movie. Ostensibly, Germans were not to be exposed to seeing the panic on the great liner as it foundered (actually most Germans, especially those in urban areas, had more visible frequent reasons to panic by 1943.

Selpin (with co-director Werner Klingler) turned out a sumptuous, ornate and dramatically compelling movie. Largely using the known facts, "Titanic" tells the well worn tale of a ship driven to unreasonable and dangerous speeds in order to set a record. There are some significant deviations. Here, the English first officer - seized with some malady - is replaced by a German seaman named Petersen, a model of experience and rectitude. J. Bruce Ismay, whose social life was justifiably ruined because of his escaping the sinking behemoth, is unrealistically portrayed as a grasping cad whose crudity was not found in the self-absorbed, rich and supinely confident real shipping magnate. The vessel's master, Captain Smith, is overly subservient to Ismay but he responds well to the disaster.

This movie wasn't made on the cheap. Given the deteriorating wartime situation, a lot of marks were expended for terrific sets and fine attire.

There's no real Nazi propaganda. The movie ends with a comment that English greed occasioned the loss of so many lives but very many books and articles from Old Blighty and the U.S. echo that view.

Because of its anti-British utterances, the Allies banned the movie in their sectors in Germany at first while it was freely available in the Soviet zone. Hardly a surprise-that movie maven, Stalin, probably loved this capitalist-bashing film.

KINO VIDEO has performed a real service by releasing the film on DVD. There are two versions-this release is the shorter one without the trial scene in which survivor Petersen rails against the British in court. Actually the movie is stronger for that omission. After she goes down, what else is there really to say?

There are some interesting special features on the disc including an early commercial short made by the White Star Line showing the amenities of RMS Olympic, another luxury liner built before Titanic (technically, Olympic wasn't a sister ship of its more famous and briefly triumphant successor but the differences aren't important).

This is an important release for Titanic buffs but also for those interested in film-making in Nazi Germany. There were movies made that deserve current viewing for reasons apart from their historic association with a barbaric regime.

7/10

---

28 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
PROPAGANDA-EFFECTIVE DRAMA, 18 June 1999

Author: jan onderwater from Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Most articles on this film tend to overlook the intrinsic qualities of the film as film, though of course these are connected with the propaganda aspect. The opening scenes (the board meeting and subsequent meeting) are strong and the key to the propaganda: in a very short time it is effectively made clear what the point of view of this film is and what follows is an entertaining and propaganda-effective film. From the moment we are on the ship until the collision the film is drama routine, but one of the better sort. Really exiting is the film from collision till sinking, i.e. when the real drama emerges and the splendid special effects do their jobs; not one aspect of the outlined drama is forgotten, it is fast-paced and very well directed.

Of the cast it is Sybille Schmitz who excels, while other members also do a very good job; they must have done so otherwise the whole propaganda aspect would not have come across. There is one exception here: it seems that Hans Neilsen (playing the German officer) is very good, but he is not. It is often said that he speaks his lines as a Wehrmacht officer on duty, but for me his machine gun like delivered lines sound more like the staccato of the regular commentator of the Deutsche Wochenschau (compare this, when you have the possibility).

Though this film is obviously anti-British, it is rather anti English capitalist establishment and their decadence than anti-British per se *; an anti-capitalism not so much based on (to generalize) theoretical arguments, but (as most of fascist ideas) on the petty bourgeois middle class mentality and jealousy towards others who are better off. The crux for this is in the strong opening: it is here when Ismay remarks that he cannot take into account the interests of the small investors, they must bend to his need and of course greed. As such the focus of the propaganda is established; on the ship we meet very wealthy people playing with money (e.g. the gamblers) and people preferring money above people (Lord Astor, well played by Schönbock), these being decorum for the propaganda and an elaboration of the already established focus. Money (large sums bidden for almost everything) plays the major part in this film (it should have received first credit). Lord Astor even worries about stolen jewelry while the ship is sinking: money makes decadent. Compare for instance the cynic way of life upper deck and the more natural and spontaneous life lower deck.

[* Noteworthy is that after its re-release in 1950 it was quickly banned again in the Western zones, while in the Soviet zone it was screened without a problem; the anti-capitalism might have done the trick.]

The pro-German aspect and the answer to everything is German officer Petersen. He not almost single handedly saves a part of the passengers, he also shows the right spirit when it comes to human feelings. Only when the Baltic countess says she has no money anymore, he gives room for his feelings towards her; what a fine chap, he is! And it is from that point on that she does her duty as a human being and starts helping out with the rescue: money makes cynic.

There is also a hint of Durchhaltefilm here. Take for instance that schematic and ideological German rural couple; not a couple of flesh and blood, they seem to have walked straight out of a Nazi rural painting. Men and women are separated for the rescue, but this couple stays together: in an almost religious shot they hold hands expressing that nothing can separate them. They are separated by force of the panic, but reconciled again in the end. No catastrophe can undermine the simple German life.

This Titanic has its influence on film history as well. It has been ripped off at least twice, first in 1958 for A Night to Remember (a story widely known) and recently by James Cameron who for his Titanic but boring endeavour stole quite some story ideas and complete scenes; check this when you have the opportunity.

It is often written that this film was not released in Germany cause of the death (suicide, murder?) of its first director Selpin. Wetzel & Hagemann in their survey of censorship in Nazi Germany (book, 1978) claim that this is not so. It had its unnoticed premiere in 1943 in unimportant cinemas, only to be banned in December 1944 for the well-known reason: the audience was not to be confronted with catastrophes.

Beware which version you see; as I understand it there are 2 versions. The longer one (the one I saw) includes a final scene in court; Petersen is the German J'accuse of Bruce Ismay, but there appears to be no British justice.

---

25 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
A film that should be seen before it's judged., 8 May 2002

Author: (jef29bow@yahoo.com) from Terre Haute, Indiana

Too many just dismiss this film outright as Nazi propaganda, and don't examine the film as a film. Certainly when compared to the 1953 Hollywood TITANIC it's a far better made and less sappy piece of drama. And if it has a lot to be desired as history -- well then so did the Hollywood film. The performances, direction, and special effects are all excellent for the time. In fact, it's very surprising that the German film industry was able to mount such a first class production as this in the midst of the war.

Which brings me around to the propaganda aspect of the film: to my mind it's been very much over stated in accounts on the film that I've read. Apparently, the most vicious part of the film's propaganda content, a trial scene and end title which condemned Britain as a country driven by greed, have been omitted from all current prints. Still, were it the "Hate the British" film it's often dismissed as, it's truly amazing to see the propaganda aspects in the film that are missed. The Third Class are never shown being locked below decks as the ship sinks (indeed, when the ship's engines stop, they march up to First Class to demand an explanation from the Captain), and the crew and officers to a man are shown being skilled, efficient, and brave. How could the Nazi's miss so many easy targets, and ones that have been included in almost every Titanic film to this day? And while it is true that Bruce Ismay is turned into a first class villain, driving his ship without regard for safety straight into the iceberg -- it's also been that way in every other Titanic film in which he's been portrayed (for example, the recent TV mini-series TITANIC -- which shows Ismay down in the boiler room screaming at the stokers to make the ship go faster -- like that really happened!). It's all just a question of degree. And if the film portrays the rich millionaires like John Jacob Astor as people who will use money, class, and power to achieve anything -- well, it's no worse than some of the stories -- printed amid all the bravery and self-sacrifice slop -- that appeared in 1912 newspapers. Remember, after the disaster Ismay and the White Star Line were acquitted, people were led to believe all the First Class men died bravely, Captain Smith was blamed for everything, and the poor souls who lost everything when the ship went down never got a penny in restitution. Thus, in the end, considering all the un-truths and legends that have sprung up around the Titanic story, I believe this film plays a lot less like a Nazi film and more like an anti-capitalist one. Little wonder it played in East Germany after the war with no problem. There's certainly enough "Hate the Rich" sentiment here to have warmed Stalin's heart.

So, to me anyway, it's almost refreshing to see a Titanic film that treats the whole affair as the monument to stupidity that it was. Since it has nothing to do with history, one must examine it as the first example of film makers trying to come to grips with the "Titanic Legend". (One could also award that place to the 1929 British film ATLANTIC -- but for some unknown reason that film tried to pretend it was fiction.) Looked at from that prospective, it's a fascinating piece of film making (and history) that deserves to be seen without the vicious "Nazi film" tag hanging over it. Certainly James Cameron must have seen a lot to admire in it; why else would he have copied shots and plot ideas un-masse. (He also coped shots and dialogue from every other Titanic film ever made.) Thankfully, he didn't copy the film's greatest (abet fictional) moment: wireless operator Phillips releasing his pet canary into the night as "Nearer My God to Thee" plays in the background. Did director Herbert Selpin crib this bit from von Stroheim's GREED? We'll never know, as it's said he was murdered by the Nazi's before the film was completed. So much for the benefits of creating a "Nazi film".

---

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Despite the anti-wealth propaganda this is a good movie, 7 August 2004

Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York

This is Titanic as you've probably never seen it before. One would think it was more a communist propaganda film than a Nazi one, since all of the villains of the piece are the rich while the poor workers are the heroes. Its a film that has a definite point of view, and right or wrong, is certainly one that keeps things interesting to watch.

Centering on the rich owners of the White Star Line and the rich passengers on the ship, this film is in large part about how the greed of the rich led to the destruction of "society". A large portion of the early part of this film has to do with manipulating stock before the Titanic breaks a speed record allowing the owners to get even richer. The plan seems to backfire and as the rich try to pick up the pieces the ship hits an iceberg. There are also several other story lines running through this film, including a healthy dose of romance, so don't think its all business.

While some of the interior model shots of the sinking are obviously models, the scenes of panic and the real human drama makes this a film to watch. Its understandable why the Nazi's banned this film as upsetting, these people are in panic mode. I read somewhere that this film showed the ship breaking in half. Kino's DVD doesn't appear to show that, although the final slide under the waves is really too dark to see.

While not a perfect film its a good one. Certainly its one with enough talking points that you could very well talk about the film on every level for many hours after its finished running. Frankly There is so much to discuss that I'm having a hard time keeping this entry brief.

If you love film, if you love Titanic stories, if you love seeing something different then see this movie.

7 out of 10, but you'll be talking about so much more than most other movies you've seen in years.

---

19 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Titanic drama executed with style, 4 July 2005

Author: Niels Solberg (nielspe@online.no) from Norway

This German Titanic of a film is a definite "must" to see for anyone interested in the fascinating and tragic story. Almost unbelievable that Germany could produce such lavish and expensive film in the middle of the war. TITANIC is a well executed film with excellent acting skills from the actors involved. Director Herbert Selpin and Werner Klingler made an European classic with this film vehicle. Forced to include some unnecessary propaganda, which the film could do without, this does not overshadow the artistic merits of the film. The special effects are so so, but the filmmakers do make you believe you are on-board a sinking ship. Everybody on the screen pulled off a gripping and believable story in glorious black and white. See it if you have a chance, The European film version of The Titanic story, not to be missed.

---

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as expected, 18 March 1999

Author: J.Christian Hörnla from Münster, Germany

Look out for the scene when Petersen forces his Ex to enter the lifeboat and then guess who watched this movie quite carefully...James Cameron maybe? To put it short, if you are able to substract the propaganda and the resulting errors, it is better than the 1953-US version, especially regarding the special effects. Could anyone check out which ship "doubled" the Titanic? If it really is the "Gustloff" then we have a case of very bitter irony here...

---

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Gilding The Propaganda Lily, 15 January 2007
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

Titanic must have been the great cause for discussion at the Propaganda Ministry in 1943. Ostensibly put out to show the kind of materialistic greedy people the Germans were fighting back then, it seems as though Joseph Goebbels felt the wrong message might still go out. The original director, Herbert Spelvin, was arrested mid production by the Gestapo and found hanging in his cell the next day. Of course suicide was the official reason given and ostensibly Goebbels was mighty put out about the scenes of panic shown on film. Yet there are certainly enough of them left in the product I saw.

What's showed here is nothing new. But that's the difference between a free society and Nazi Germany. The story has been told a whole lot in both British and American productions. What the Nazis did in this film was to create a wholly fictional second officer named Peterson who serves as the voice of conscience in the film. The villain of course is Ismay the head of the British White Star Line who is looking for the stock in White Star to go up if the much ballyhooed Titanic makes a record crossing in its maiden voyage. Peterson as portrayed by Hans Nielsson is as Aryan as they come, while Ismay looks vaguely like those people we're eliminating as played by E.F.Fuhwanger.

John Jacob Astor is here to represent American capitalism. Such folks as Captain Harry Guggenheim and Mr.&Mrs. Isidor Straus who died in the sinking are eliminated from the story. So is the plucky Denver millionairess Molly Brown.

For a movie that's supposed to show and criticize the British class distinction, very little time is spent on the huddled masses in steerage who were the bulk of the people killed. James Cameron in the recent Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet spent more time with them than this production.

I do however wish that more films of the Nazi era would become available now to view and study. If this one is available on DVD and VHS than this must be mild as compared to others.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Decent Titanic flick, but stiff and pale. As German propaganda it's good for some laughs., 5 April 2010

Author: secondtake from United States

Titanic (1943)

Goebbels takes on the Titanic. And loses. In fact, the movie languished in hiding or in bad t.v. versions until 2005.

This is the most expensive German film to date, and its technical competence pales next to American films of the same period. It uses the sinking of the Titanic as a vehicle to criticize the avarice of capitalist England, their enemy at the time. So along with the usual drama of love and chivalry and overconfidence, there is a story of stock trading and of racing the ship at top speed in order to break the record and raise the company's value per share.

All of which isn't totally improbable, and as a weird Nazi view of the world it's pretty fascinating. In truth, it's not a bad film. But in truth, it's not something you need to bother with unless the political propaganda aspects sound appealing. Or unless you are just curious about different film versions of the events. The effects here are vivid and often very realistic until they show the ship from the water. The interpersonal acting is uneven and a bit stiff going, usually, with some caricaturing used as a way to avoid character development.

If you want a classic older Titanic film for the pure drama of the disaster, I suggest the 1958 A Night to Remember (a British production) over the American 1953 Titanic which has star power but is boring by comparison. Of course, there is the 1997 version, in color, which has its own problems and dazzlements. But stop to at least imagine what the Nazi regime could possibly have been thinking, spending a ton of money on an unlikely movie just as the tide is turning against them in the war. And watch how terrific they paint the one German officer on the ship, telling the truth and saving lives like no one else. Propaganda, for sure, but not a horrible movie, as a movie, either.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
The Devil Mingles Truth And Lies!, 15 January 2007

Author: theowinthrop from United States

Slowly some of the Nazi film industry's work product is becoming available by video and by DVD. Not everything (except if you deal with extreme - right wing groups) but some of their material. TITANIC is one of the few acceptable films.

I think the reason it is acceptable is that we are aware of social inequalities in the disaster that were not officially noted in 1912. The treatment of steerage passengers for example (more first and second class men survived than third class women). The misappropriation of an entire lifeboat by Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon and their small party was another. So was the survival of the President of the White Star Line, J. Bruce Ismay (not Sir Bruce Ismay - he was never knighted before 1912, and he was a social pariah after 1912). But that's just it - Ismay and the Duff Gordons were socially ruined by their survival and the attending circumstances. The British Inquiry of Lord Mersey was not too harsh on them, but the American Inquiry of Senator William Alden Smith certainly was. Ismay was all too happy to leave New York City after Smith got through with him.

So, yes, the story is truthfully full of social unfairness and bigotry and selfishness. But there is also heroism and self sacrifice, and the Goebbels' "Ministry of Information and Propaganda" overlooked that part. Molly Brown, Isidor and Ida Strauss, Benjamin Guggenheim, Thomas Andrews, Lightoller, Philips and Bride, are not mentioned - why should they be. Goebbels wanted to use the disaster as a weapon to poison German and Axis audiences against Britain, America, and Jews. Why honor Americans like Brown, Britains like Andrews, Lightoller, Philips and Bride, and Jews like the Strausses and Guggenheim? So he jettisoned them.

From a technical standpoint TITANIC was an amazing film for 1943 - in fact the British film A NIGHT TO REMEMBER supposedly used some of the scenes of the sinking liner from TITANIC. But the propaganda is always there.

Curiously, the British and Americans did not think of using the war to make a film called LUSITANIA. It might have been a sufficiently more honest answer to Goebbels lies and half-truths. The closest I have seen to that (aside from brief mentions of the Lusitania in FOR ME AND MY GAL, 'TIL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY, and NIGHT AND DAY) was a sequence in the Mitchel Leisin film ARISE MY LOVE about the sinking of the steamer Athenia in September 1939 (when it was sunk by a U-boat without warning - Goebbels and Hitler caused an information freeze on that incident). Now, perhaps, we can do films about the Lancastria disaster (bombing and strafing fleeing refugees from Dunkirk with glee - and costing 3,000 - 4,000 lives) or the Cap Ancona massacre of concentration camp victims (about 6,000 lives or more). They show, in my opinion, the selfishness, greed, and class distinctions practiced by Nazis.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Remarkable Similarities to Titanic (1997), 10 September 2005

Author: rtmdoctrine from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just saw this film on TCM. It is clearly a propaganda film, no one can debate that.

The fun of this film is seeing just how much of it is incorporated into the later Titanic Movies, namely "A Night to Remember" and James Cameron's "Titanic"

I reference this entry from Wikipedia.org:

"Several commentators have observed archly their conviction that James Cameron must have been very familiar with the 1943 Nazi propaganda film when writing and filming his own Titanic. Several story aspects are in both films but not in any other Titanic version: e.g., the salt of the earth non-British Hero orders his girlfriend into the lifeboat, she hesitantly complies and watches her love disappear behind the railing as the lifeboat is lowered (though she doesn't jump out in the 1943 film); a young, dashing man coaches the girl he loves that she should not marry the man she does not love just because her parents ordered her so; a stolen jewelry subplot; a man is accused of a jewel theft (including a blue diamond) he did not commit; a main character gets locked up in a flooding cabin as the other character (male in this version) rescues him with an axe; etc. Additionally many of the scene compositions and camera angles are uncannily similar." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%281943_film%29

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history