Not being a fan of the movie Titanic, I was unaware of this anecdote. I ran into it reading Franco Moretti’s The Bourgeois. Between History and Literature. It seems to me a clear example of that “anti-capitalist mentality” we often talk about, and particularly of its prominence among “second-hand dealers in ideas”, Hayek’s term for intellectuals.
On 14 April 1912, Benjamin Guggenheim, Solomon’s younger brother, found himself on board the Titanic, and, as the ship started sinking, he was one of those who helped women and children onto the lifeboats, withstanding the frenzy, and at times the brutality, of other male passengers. Then, when his steward was ordered to man one of the boats, Guggenheim took his leave, and asked him to tell his wife that ‘no woman was left on board because Ben Guggenheim was a coward’. And that was it. His words may have been a little less resonant, but it really doesn’t matter; he did the right, very difficult thing to do. And so, when a researcher for Cameron’s 1997 Titanic unearthed the anecdote, he immediately brought it to the scriptwriters’ attention: what a scene. But he was flatly turned down: too unrealistic. The rich don’t die for abstract principles like cowardice and the like. And indeed, the film’s vaguely Guggenheim-like figure tries to force his way onto a lifeboat with a gun.
Now, here come the interesting questions. When the scriptwriters did rule out the inclusion of this scene, did they do so because they thought the audience would consider it implausible? Because they themselves despised the rich so much that they did not want to concede even one of them the moral high ground? Because they feared their movie would be considered capitalist propaganda, if they included Ben Guggenheim as a hero?
READER COMMENTS
Brian Walsh
Jul 5 2020 at 12:06pm
Hmmm. While the “I’m not a coward” line wasn’t in the movie, it does have Guggenheim (and Guggenheim is in the movie, not some substitute) claim, when offered a life jacket, “no thank you, we’ve dressed in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen…but I would like a brandy!” which I do think captures the sort of courage of this character you say the movie omits.
There was a cowardly rich guy as the antagonist but it was a fictional character; most of the real-life wealthy in the movie (Guggenheim, Astor, Molly Brown) were, I thought, portrayed rather sympathetically.
Jon Murphy
Jul 5 2020 at 4:56pm
Good questions. I’d want a little more information, though. Do we know when in the production process this anecdote was discovered? If it was late in the scriptwriting process, then perhaps finding some way to fit it in would have felt unnatural in the flow of the story.
Alex
Jul 5 2020 at 5:18pm
Some part of this is included in the film, with Guggenheim identified by name as a high-class passengers who decided “to go down like gentlemen”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUrJ_Huk5so
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 5 2020 at 6:19pm
I think you should distinguish a possible “anti-capitalist” bias from an anti-rich person (or pro poor) bias. The latter has a long history (OT prophets, Diogenes, Jesus); the former if it exists is much more recent.
I suspect that much of what passes for “anti-capitalist” or anti-market bias is just ignorance of how useful capitalism coupled with distribution can be for the poor.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 5 2020 at 7:51pm
I think you should distinguish a possible “anti-capitalist” bias from an anti-rich person (or pro poor) bias. The latter has a long history (OT prophets, Diogenes, Jesus); the former if it exists is much more recent.
I suspect that much of what passes for “anti-capitalist” or anti-market bias is just ignorance of how useful capitalism coupled with distribution can be for the poor.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 5 2020 at 9:41pm
I think you should distinguish a possible “anti-capitalist” bias from an anti-rich person (or pro poor) bias. The latter has a long history (OT prophets, Diogenes, Jesus); the former if it exists is much more recent.
I suspect that much of what passes for “anti-capitalist” or anti-market bias is just ignorance of how useful capitalism coupled with distribution can be for the poor.
John Preston
Jul 6 2020 at 3:18am
or is it because the image, prior to laws like the Sherman Act, that people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt only did things in a ruthless and greedy way.. against the workers.
it took teddy Roosevelt and the antitrust laws to break things up.
only after they were in their twilight did they take a turn toward philanthropy…
so in many ways it’s seen as a “I’m going to die I’ve got to buy my way into heaven”
and not ” well some of those filthy rich guys who created/owned monopolies, they had a noble soul ”
usually in the movies that was used when in the time line was about knights of the round, not knights of the industrial age
robc
Jul 6 2020 at 9:11am
Vanderbilt is a bad example as he was breaking monopolies well before Teddy R. Gibbons v Ogden.
Jon Murphy
Jul 6 2020 at 11:43am
All of those guys were. They also pioneered things like the weekend, worker-safety, limited workdays, eliminating child labor, etc.
Mark Brady
Jul 11 2020 at 2:50pm
Two thoughts.
Businessmen who pioneered those measures did so in response to market forces that raised real wages, and workers’ preferences for non-pecuniary benefits.
Businessmen often pushed for these non-pecuniary benefits to be mandatory because they could afford the cost and their competitors could not.
Jon Murphy
Jul 6 2020 at 11:42am
Let’s grant your story that, prior to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, capitalists only “did things in a ruthless and greedy way.. against the workers.”
Why would the Sherman Antitrust Act suddenly make people like Ben Guggenheim so noble as they would die to save others?
I can see a possible line of reasoning where high-profile charitable donations like Carnegie Hall or the universities help boost the industrialists’ image for PR reasons. But why, then, would Ben Guggenheim sacrifice himself? PR doesn’t do a doomed man much good. Especially since he would have no way of knowing whether his act would ever be known.
Daniel Klein
Jul 6 2020 at 5:38am
Thanks.
Just wondering, is the Moretti book good?
BTW, I like the film Titanic.
George Otto
Jul 6 2020 at 10:51am
Isidor Sraus, then the co-owner of Macy’s, also refused consideration for a spot on a life boat. His wife Ida chose to remain by his side, reportedly saying “As we have lived, so we will die, together.” Ida gave her fur coat to the family’s maid as she boarded a life boat (she survived).
Henry
Jul 6 2020 at 3:09pm
I always thought that it was a pre-capitalist notion of noblesse oblige that motivated Guggenheim’s actions. I don’t think that Ayn Rand thought much of giving up lifeboat seats.
Danno
Jul 11 2020 at 11:40am
An anecdote, a high school buddy now lives and works in Hollywood. Someone replied to a Facebook post of his with this comment (so the disclaimer, I don’t know if it’s true but they say it is something Cameron would do.) Cameron arrived at a restaurant, parked his expensive imported sports car horizontally across several handicapped spaces, got out and walked in. When someone complained they said Cameron replied, “I’m rich enough to pay the fine.”
Mm
Jul 12 2020 at 8:28am
The movie slandered actual men & grossly misrepresented the courage of many. The highest death rate on the ship was for post pubescent males- because you were treated like a man & not given preference for a spot on a life boat. Since you were not full grown (and back then likely skinny) you didn’t last long in the frigid water.
Comments are closed.