Awhile back, I wrote a defense of one of cinema's most over hated characters, Jenny (Robin Wright) from Forrest Gump (1994). Although I understand why she's hated, I saw the value in her both as a foil for Forrest (Tom Hanks) and a complex representation of a fractured human. You can read the rest of that article here.
After I finished that analysis though, I assumed that I'd never really have to write another fictional character defense. However, the other day, I came across a post on Instagram (where all scholars study cinema) that was completely full of misguided hatred. I won't name anyone, but this post took enormous grievance with the character Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) from Titanic (1997).
Basically, this post detests Rose as a character, expounding upon her selfishness and idiotic character decisions. One quick scroll through the comments later, and I realized that Rose has become a hated figure in a similar vein to Jenny.
Now, I must admit that it's pretty easy to hate Titanic. I hated it for a good many years before I saw it, mostly due to its incredible popularity. Also, James Cameron, despite his directorial talents, can be a pretentious pill to swallow occasionally.
Of course, I now love the film and see it as the groundbreaking cinematic achievement it is. From the production design to the stunt work, there's so much raw entertainment before you even get to Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose's iconic romance.
Still, I understand that the film has its faults. With a long runtime, it's not an easy watch. The story also feels quite simple, and even though it's told effectively, the plot itself falls short of the tremendous attention it warrants.
However, for all of the film's flaws, Rose isn't one of them. She's certainly a divisive figure, garnering both fans and haters alike. To me though, she has an impressive arch, one that feels all the more powerful thanks to Kate Winslet.
As for the haters, Rose encapsulates why you should skip Cameron's epic. Although I feel that many Titanic haters have never given the film a fair chance, there's an undeniable many that detest this film and its lead character. Those Rose haters though tend to teeter around the same four arguments for why she's an unlikable figure.
First off, Rose is an unfaithful cheater. She's supposed to marry Cal Hockley (Billy Zane), but ends up falling for Jack instead, which leads to her infidelity. As such, Rose evokes ire with many arguing that her character glamorizes cheating.
Second, Rose's obsession with Jack comes off as weird given how brief their relationship was. Despite only being with Jack for a few days eighty years ago, Rose considers him to be the love of her life. Although Rose had a husband after, it's Jack she sees in the dream sequence at the end of the film, showing that she's still an unfaithful spouse.
Third, Rose takes a lot of the blame for the door debacle in the film's climax. Now, this is really a complaint with the film itself, but many still lump it in with their Rose hatred.
For those who don't know, after the Titanic sinks, Rose survives on a buoyant door as Jack freezes to death in the water. However, quickly after the film's phenomenal success, debates raged on the internet over whether Jack could have also fit on the door, which looked quite spacious. Although this is obviously a problem with Cameron's storytelling, many hold it as another example of Rose being selfish.
Lastly, many people dismay at Rose's final action, throwing the Heart of the Ocean into the sea. Despite being a fictional diamond, the Heart is estimated to be worth at least two hundred million dollars. With grandkids to look after, Rose's decision feels stupid to many viewers, cementing her selfishness and rash thinking.
Because of these four reasons, Rose has garnered great disdain in recent years. Many view her as selfish, promiscuous, and unreasonably emotional. However, I intend to refute every single one of these reasons. Using examples from Cameron's film, I will show that she's a more complex and relatable character than she gets credit for.
Before I start dismantling each argument, I want to remind people that in 1912 Rose is only seventeen years old. Also, she's on a sinking boat, so some of her choices are not made under normal circumstances. I think most of her choices make perfect sense, but if you don't, remember that she's a teenager trying to navigate one of the biggest disasters of all time and show a bit of grace.
Anyways, on to the arguments, starting with the first point, Rose is a cheater. Yes, in the film Rose does cheat on Cal. However, it's not exactly under the same context as it would be if it happened today.
See, Rose never actually commits herself to Cal out of love. As the film explains, Rose is being married off to Cal so that her family can retain their wealthy status. Her mom, Ruth DeWitt Bukater (Frances Fisher), tells her this explicitly, stating that the family has run out of money and marrying Cal is their only way to survive.
As such, Rose's unfaithfulness comes directly from her reluctancy to be married off for money. Rose isn't just a girl cheating on her fiancée because she wants to, she's fighting back against a business deal that never should've happened. Even if Cal wasn't an abusive elitist, she would have no real moral obligation to stay with him.
Also, Cal is thirty years old, while Rose is still a teenager. Although that was more common in 1912, it's gross for today's standards. If anything, Cal and Ruth are at fault here, not Rose.
Next, we arrive at Rose's unwarranted obsession with Jack. As the film shows, Rose pontificates about her relationship with Jack, even though it was only a fling. Except, it was so much more.
Although Rose and Jack only spend a few days together, this relationship is the turning point in Rose's life. Jack does a lot for Rose throughout the film, but most of all, he saves her multiples times.
This first happens at the beginning of their journey when Rose contemplates suicide. Dismayed by the prospect of marrying Cal, Rose climbs over the stern of the boat and prepares to jump. But Jack intervenes, talking her out of it and then catching her as she slips.
Then, Jack saves Rose again by helping her survive the Titanic's sinking. Of course, he gets her on the door, but even before then Jack goes through considerable measures to ensure her survival. They flee from Cal's homicidal lackey, navigate flooding corridors, and then put themselves in the best position as the ship goes under. This culminates in his selfless sacrifice, giving Rose the door so that she can survive.
Physically, Rose wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for Jack. However, Jack's most important act is being the impetus for Rose's character growth. Before meeting Jack, Rose was timid, unwilling to stand up for herself and leave Cal. She contemplates suicide because it's the only way she can ever see herself becoming free.
However, meeting Jack spurns a new fire within Rose, one that compels her to truly live. That girl, who was ready to jump off the Titanic, soon turns into a rebellious, independent woman, who leaves her domineering fiancé and mother. Even after she survives the sinking, Rose carries this newfound spirit with her becoming an adventurer who lives her life to the fullest.
Rose ends up leading a meaningful life, but only because of Jack. While she does remarry, she never would have had the chance to do so if Jack hadn't saved her. It makes perfect sense then that Rose sees Jack at the film's end, as he's responsible for nearly every aspect of her life. Sure, they only knew each other for a few days, but being saved three times is something you'd carry for the rest of your life.
On to the next point, which is the iconic door debate. Again, I don't believe this to be a reflection of Rose's character in any way, but I'll refute it while I'm here.
So, in the film, Jack and Rose struggle to survive in the water after the Titanic has sunk. They find a door, and Jack helps Rose get on, but when he tries to join her, the door falters and he falls off. By the film's logic, both Jack and Rose cannot fit on the door.
Now, some people say that the film is wrong and that the door should have been able to support them both. These people often point to a MythBusters episode that even disproves this. Well, that's sorta right.
In the MythBusters episode "Titanic Survival," their tests show that both Jack and Rose could have survived if they had tied Rose's life jacket underneath the door, amplifying its buoyancy. It's a smart engineering move, but the feasibility of performing such a maneuver in an actual survival situation is doubtful. To accomplish this, both Jack and Rose would have had to swim in the water, further increasing their susceptibility to hypothermia. Being able to remain calm, think of a such an idea, and then implement it in freezing water seems unlikely. Therefore, according to MythBusters at least, the door was not enough on its own to support both Jack and Rose, meaning any blame towards Rose should cease.
Finally, we arrive at the last point of contention, Rose tossing the Heart of the Ocean into the sea. This point seems to evoke the most anger, as Rose could have done so much with the money from the diamond like take care of her grandkids. However, selling the diamond completely misses the point of Titanic, as well as Rose's arc.
Throughout Titanic, James Cameron clearly draws a line between the ship's wealthy and destitute passengers. He doesn't do this to inherently condemn the rich, as we meet fantastic wealthy passengers like Molly Brown (Kathy Bates) and Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber) who prove themselves to be tremendous people.
Rather, Cameron shows us that there is a clear distinction between the classes and the wealthy, obviously, find the most favor. Their rooms are nicer, they can go wherever they want on the ship, and they're the first evacuated after the iceberg is struck. Life is simply better for the haves than the havenots, especially if you're on the Titanic.
For Rose though, she's on the borderline of being poor and rich. Although her family comes from money, she's nearly broke, hence her engagement to Cal. But thanks to Jack, she becomes initiated with the poorer class mostly made of Irish immigrants. Here, Rose learns how to enjoy life, joining an Irish party complete with better music and spirits than the upper class.
But knowing Jack doesn't just show Rose that poor people have more fun. By choosing Jack, Rose also chooses a life without money. While her mother insists that money matters more than anything else, Rose chooses to be with someone who genuinely cares for her. The movie demonstrates this by juxtaposing Jack's gentle, but firm care of Rose with Cal's abusive ownership of her. If Jack and Rose did survive the sinking together, they'd surely be poor, but a life without money is better than being owned by Cal.
In fact, the movie attests to this by showing how Rose and Cal continue their lives after the ship's sinking. Rose arrives in New York with no money, but makes a great life for herself, becoming an actress and touring the globe. Cal goes back to his riches, but eventually kills himself after the stock market crash of 1929. For Cal, meaning in life comes from money, so when he loses it, he commits suicide. Although they both have no money, Rose takes control of her life, while Cal's superficial greed leads to death.
Lastly, the film attests to the dangers of greed through the character Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). A treasure hunter, Brock has spent a lot of time looking for the Heart of the Ocean. He ignores the overarching tragedy of the Titanic so that he can focus on becoming rich. It's not until an elderly Rose (Gloria Stuart) gives her testimony that Brock realizes that the diamond doesn't matter as much as the real people who suffered through this tragedy. Consequently, Brock gives up his search, leaving the wreckage be.
In a way, both Brock and Rose give up the Hear of the Ocean because they've learned that money doesn't make a person great. Wealthy people like Cal can be despicable people, while lower class people like Jack can be genuine heroes.
As such, Rose has no reason to keep the diamond. Her family doesn't need the money, as it won't make them better people. Without a cent to her name, Rose was able to do everything she wanted in her life, so there's no reason her grandkids can't do the same.
The only valid argument I could see is if Rose was going to sell the diamond and then give the money to a charity. Still, that ending would undermine the dramatic impact of the story, as well as its message. Instead, Rose lets the diamond rest with the Titanic, a fitting end to her story.
Now, having given my defense of Rose, I must admit that she isn't a perfect character. I find myself getting frustrated with her a few times like when she jumps back onto the Titanic for seemingly no reason.
Also, her arch is pretty straightforward and perhaps even predictable. That's fine though, as it's still well developed and delivered with passion and excitement.
Most of all though, Rose represents a growing human. Sure, she's flawed, but she's also compassionate, resilient, and dedicated to those she loves. She changes when she needs to, even if those around her would prefer to sink in their own misguided values.
Overall, Rose earns her status as an icon of cinema, not just because she's in a popular romantic movie, but because her character attests to the power of a passionate relationship. While it may not be entirely realistic, Rose's relationship with Jack remains an emotionally endearing story even after twenty five years of undeserving criticism.
