Just to point out a few of these glaring inaccuracies:
-The figures of who lived/perished are woefully out of date. Based on the best research available, there were 2,208 people aboard Titanic (passengers and crew). Of which, 712 survived while 1,496 lives were lost.
-Captain Smith did order a "Half Speed Ahead," but not for 20 minutes as the documentary claims. The engines were operating from 11:43-11:46 PM. The engines were stopped as the 5° starboard list was observed and just prior to Bruce Ismay's arrival on the bridge. While it's debatable whether the forward motion drove more water into Titanic's bow, the bottom line is that too many compartments were breached by the iceberg to maintain sustainable buoyancy.
-The claim that Titanic's estimated position was off due to an error made by 2nd Officer Lightoller's stellar observations at 7:30 PM, April 14th, 1912. It's far more likely to be the result of 4th Officer Boxhall's assumption that Titanic turned "The Corner" (located at 42° N, 47° W) twenty minutes late. We now know that Titanic travelled along it's original route and altered course within 2 or 3 miles of "The Corner."
-The "Weak Captain" Narrative. While it can be heavily implied, there's no solid proof that Captain Smith was severely compromised in his chain of command. Given his actions, he did a lot more than what most people can give him credit. He ordered the lifeboats to be prepared and have passengers put on their lifebelts long before receiving the grim assessment given by Thomas Andrews. He helped loading passengers into Lifeboats 2, 4, 6, and 8 and gave orders to crew members left and right. He checked in with Officer Boxhall as he fired off distress rockets in addition to checking in with the wireless operators in the radio to see how things were going. Given the amount of ground to cover aboard a large ship the size of Titanic, Captain Smith is sure putting himself through a lot of physical exertion for someone whose 62 years of age. In short, he did whatever he could to help wherever the opportunities arose.
-The Duff Gordon Controversy. The alleged accusation for which Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon bribed the crew to not go back and rescue people despite the fact their lifeboat had enough room for another 53 individuals. There was a legitimate fear that the panicking masses could swamp their boat, rendering the potential rescuers to become victims. It's perhaps likely the Duff Gordons gave the crew money as an act of generosity since their pay is cut the moment the ship sinks. Whichever the case may be, this act didn't look good for their image and the press certainly had a field day with it. It's also culturally frowned upon for any man to survive from the Titanic disaster whilst hundreds of people (women and children included) were killed, which certainly didn't help matters.
-Some of the sinking scenes. There was one part where the documentary claims two engine rooms and three cargo holds were taking on water after striking the iceberg and shows the reciprocating engine room flooding. I don't know whether they had confused boiler rooms with engine rooms or if they simply didn't bother checking their resources, but it's well-known that the reciprocating engine room DIDN'T flood at that point. It did so after the Titanic broke in two at approximately 2:17 AM, three minutes before the ship disappears. There was another scene where 20 minutes after the collision, the bow was depicted as being so low into the water, the forward well deck is about to be awash. This event didn't happen until sometime around 2 AM.
-It was claimed that the iceberg was "about 60 feet high, just level with the crow's nest." Not even close. The crow's nest was positioned 85-90 feet above the waterline.
-J. Bruce Ismay, the "nefarious" businessman supervillain we all love to hate. Referring to how it's considered to be a cowardly act for any man to survive this disaster (as mentioned in the case of the Duff Gordons), Bruce Ismay bore the brunt of criticisms and wild accusations out of anyone. There's no conclusive proof that he had any influence on Captain Smith's actions. He was a paying passenger who was taking notes about how things were going aboard his brand new ship. Ismay and Captain Smith did sail together on maiden voyages of previous ships, so this arrangement was nothing new when it came to Titanic's voyage. If Ismay had stayed aboard Titanic, he would have been the 1,497th victim added to the statistics. We would have never have known the conversations he's been involved in, and gaps in the story would've remained unfilled to this day.
Rather than trying to utilize the best research available within the Titanic community, the producers instead decided to take shortcuts by way of recycling myths that had long since been debunked countless times. While it's marginally better when one compares it to another documentary "Titanic: The New Evidence" (aka "Titanic's Fatal Fire" on the Smithsonian Channel), it's a squandered opportunity for this program to stand out amidst others. I'm balancing out the rating by way of expressing the pros of the program: good interviews with notable historical consultants (i.e. Mark Chirnside, Craig Sopin, and Charles Haas), decent CGI animations, good imagery, Laurence Fishburne's epic voiceover, and a nice glimpse of seeing Lord Mersey's personal notes in his journal.
As a Titanic enthusiast and aspiring researcher, it's a huge letdown with the glaring inaccuracies as I've mentioned. It's not the best documentary on the subject, I would rank it as somewhat above average. As fascinating as it was seeing Lord Mersey's thoughts in his journal, that's pretty much all that would be considered fresh material. The fact that a lot of the myths presented in the episode is done with such emphasis makes me question the quality of all the other programs under the guise of the so-called 'History Channel.' For someone who's new to Titanic, it may be compelling to watch as long as you don't point out the discrepancies after doing research of your own. I understand that the network has to cater to its wide audience and get good ratings out of this, but if they're not invested to update themselves on the subject and present it in a educational way, why should I be invested in it?
Sources Used:
-"On A Sea of Glass: The LIfe & Loss of the RMS Titanic" by Tad Fitch, J. Kent Layton, and Bill Wormstedt
-"Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal" by Samuel Halpern, Cathy Akers-Jordan, George Behe, Bruce Beveridge, Mark Chirnside, Tad Fitch, Dave Gittins, Steve Hall, Lester J. Mitcham, Captain Charles Weeks, and Bill Wormstedt
5 out of 6 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
