Faith Can Move Mountains... But Dynamite Works Better
Showing posts with label maritime disasters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maritime disasters. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2013

The Hell With Women And Children First! Get Out Of My Way!


"You get back on board! That is an order! There is nothing else for you to consider. You have sounded the “Abandon Ship.” Now I am giving the orders. Get back on board. Is that clear? Don’t you hear me?" ~ Gregorio De Falco, Italian Coast Guard, 13th January, 2012

"I am so totally screwed." ~ personal thoughts of Captain Francesco "I Didn't Mean To Fall Into The Lifeboat" Schettino, 13th January, 2012.



Last week, salvage teams finally managed to right the wreck of the Costa Concordia off the coast of the Italian island of Giglio. I have written of this before (just click on Italy or maritime disasters in the tags below). The damage that has been done to the submerged ship after all that time in the water is painfully obvious. The ship is being prepped to withstand another winter before it can be moved away to be dismantled.

Captain Francesco "Please Stop Making Fun Of My Cowardice" Schettino is currently standing trial for the events of that night, in which he courageously and selflessly (this being Opposite Day) cast himself overboard in a lifeboat long before most of the cruise liner's crew and passengers even got off, and then got his manhood ripped apart by a very annoyed Coast Guard officer (I'd still like to buy De Falco a beer.) Rumour has it Schettino asked to go aboard and get his wallet.

Thirty two people died that night. And Costa and its parent company Carnival Cruises have done everything possible to shield themselves and deflect blame.


At the time of the disaster, editorial cartoonists employed the story in various ways in their work. Last week, a couple of Canadian artists did the same in papers here, in regards to the incompetent alcoholic rage machine Mayor Rob Ford and to our nefarious Senate, which has been having problems of its own in the last few months...



I'm sure the people of Giglio would love to see this entire chapter put behind them once and for all, to be rid of that ship entirely. I'm sure Francesco "I Was Not Distracted That Night" Schettino wishes he had been doing anything else that night instead of entertaining a lady friend, showing off, being reckless with a very big ship... whatever you want to call it.


Francesco, Francesco, you've gone down in history. Your face belongs in the Oxford Dictionary. Alongside the definition for incompetence or stupidity.

Maybe we can make a new word to define catastrophic screwups. 

"Hey, I totally Schettionoed my testimony in court."

"Have I mentioned how badly I Schettinoed things with the in-laws?"

"What do you mean, my tax audit got Schettinoed?"


Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Stop The Titanic, I Want To Get Off



"No, really, I've got a bad feeling about this voyage. Look, the coast is just two miles over there, we've only just left port, and I've swum in the Channel plenty of times. Hell, I'll jump overboard, you don't even have to lower me down. Cheerio, old chap!" ~ Charlie O'Dowd, the first survivor of the Titanic, 1912


"I'm not sure if I should go with the star crossed lovers angle for the film, or with plan B, where I retcon the whole tragedy by revealing that a Terminator from the future has been sent back in time to kill Sarah Conner's grandmother, who just happens to be on the Titanic on its maiden voyage. What to do, what to do..." ~ James Cameron, in personal journals, 1994


How does one review a film that was released fifteen years ago? Well, if the film gets re-released to theatres in glossy 3D fashion, that's all the excuse one needs. And this is actually the second of two reviews. Check out our joint blog Basking In The Afterglow, where our alter egos are getting a bit frisky whilst reviewing the film.

 Titanic is back in theatres, of course. In 1997, the film was released, thought to be James Cameron's folly after the director spent two hundred million dollars on making it. Instead, the film took in nearly two billion dollars in repeat business, winning a whole mess of Oscars, and becoming a classic. I first saw it a few days after its release, on the last day of the year, with my dad, who's a Titanic nut. He stayed awake through the whole film (he does tend to have a problem with falling asleep through a film, but not this one). And obviously it was a bit awkward sitting through a certain scene or two with him right there. I'll let you guess which one.


Well, just in time for the hundredth anniversary of the sinking of the ship itself, the film is back in theatres, and in 3D. As mentioned before, I hate 3D, but there was no alternative venue, so I went in fully expecting to get a headache out of the experience. Fortunately I had tylenol close at hand.

The film retells the story of the sinking, which we all know how it ends (spoiler alert if you're one of the six people on the planet who have never heard about the incident: the ship sank. Lots of people met a bad end. Edwardian-era hubris took a big hit). It superimposes a love story against the sinking, a meeting of two people across class lines, both heading home to America. And the film makes use of CGI, elaborate sets, fine details, and spares no expense in bringing us back in time to a tragedy that still draws our attention. 


The film begins in the present day, with Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton), a somewhat disreputable deep sea salvage expert who's busy searching the legendary wreck for a safe that is thought to contain a priceless necklace that once belonged to a passenger. He finds it, but not the necklace, and his work draws in a survivor (Gloria Stuart), who comes out to the site and begins to tell him, his team, and her granddaughter a story she's kept to herself all these years.

The young Rose (Kate Winslet) is on her way home to America with her mother (Frances Fisher) and her fiancee Cal (Billy Zane). Cal seems to be charming and ideal, but we the audience quickly get to see things about him that start setting off alarm bells. He's condescending, possessive, and arrogant. Rose herself comes across as trapped by circumstance into an impending marriage. She seems, at first, to be detached, almost as if she's withdrawn into herself, dreading the fate that awaits her.


The other lead character, of course, is Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio), an American who's been wandering Europe for awhile, drawing pictures of naked Frenchwomen in his spare time (yes, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it). He and a friend win a game of cards that includes third class tickets on the Titanic, and off they go, boarding the ship. One of the things that I often think about with this film is that you could have easily told a story about the people who, by chance of fate, didn't get onto the ship. Lucky sods, though they might not have thought it...


Jack and Rose are from two worlds, and the social class rigidity of the time means that they're not meant to associate. Cameron works that side of things early on, clearly sympathizing with the third class passengers over the snooty wealthy first class passengers (despite the fact that he's filthy rich himself). Still, fate intervenes when Jack saves Rose's life as she tries to end it. The two get to know each other. Things get more complicated as they start to fall for each other. Rose's mother disapproves of the disreputable boy. Cal sneers at Jack, continues to affirm the audience's general opinion of him, and twirls his invisible mustache (Zane is channeling his inner Snidely Whiplash in this role), and plotting with his valet and personal muscle Lovejoy (the always interesting David Warner). Oh, and then there's a pesky iceberg that decides to go out of its way to hit the ship. Or is it the other way around?


The entire sequence from the iceberg to the final sinking is very well done; you can certainly see that the entire budget of the film was well used. It's dramatic, frightening, and conveys the differences and similarities in reactions to the sinking. There are tidbits of historic fact that are followed through on; we know that society barons like John Jacob Astor and Benjamin Guggenheim stayed on board and went down as gentlemen. We know that ship's owner Bruce Ismay (Jonathan Hyde) got onto a lifeboat, sealing his fate as a coward. We know that the ship designer Thomas Andrews (Victor Garber) quickly understood the magnitude of the situation, explaining it to Ismay and Captain Smith (Bernard Hill) and accepted his own fate, going down with the ship. The distinctions between classes is stark in its treatment; steerage class passengers are locked below decks waiting while first class passengers are boarding under-capacity lifeboats. Panic builds on itself as the situation worsens. And through all of this, there's Jack and Rose, who, after a bout of backseat sex in a car in the cargo hold, find themselves promising to get off the ship together. At least until that evil iceberg changes everything. They spend the sinking dashing about through the ship, occasionally in freezing cold water (hypothermia, anyone?), and in regular outbursts of danger, before the ship itself plunges into the Atlantic.


Yes, the ship sinks. If I've ruined the ending of the film you've been avoiding seeing for the last fifteen years, well, I'm sorry. You can take out your frustration on my idiot ex-brother-in-law.

Obviously Rose survives. Jack doesn't. She goes on to live a very full life, free of the expectations and demands she would have been living under. She marries a decent guy, has children and grandchildren, and gets to be a centenarian who dies quietly in her sleep after getting rid of a certain priceless artifact (Lovett would be shocked, shocked I say!). The film is very much her story. Jack saves her life, and saves her capacity for living.

Now then, to my opinions. First, the two leads. Kate Winslet is fine as Rose, and shows real spark as the film goes on and the character breaks out of the mold she's been cast into. She takes fate into her hands, becomes bold, decisive, and courageous. The direction she ultimately goes in makes entire sense for the person she becomes as the film progresses.

I can't say quite the same for DiCaprio, and allow me to explain. I've got a rather longstanding dislike of him as an actor, and it goes back to Romeo and Juliet, which I find an abominable adaptation of the Bard's work (strangely, the same dislike does not apply to his Juliet, Claire Danes). It was all too fresh when Titanic came out, and so I went in with a general hostility to the actor. That impression has never really improved, and in fact, the only film I've seen him in that didn't leave me feeling the same was Inception, which would have been improved somewhat with a different lead actor (not that I'm saying that's a bad movie). His Jack Dawson seems to be a modern character thrown back in time. I still find the character distracting.



The supporting cast tends to be more hit then miss. The dastardly Cal seems too one-note, too much of a caricature. His right hand man Lovejoy is much more interesting, I think. David Warner plays him as contemptuous and suspicious, but at the same time, as someone who holds much of what he thinks in reserve. He's an enigma, and as such, I found him much more compelling then Cal.

Frances Fisher serves the role well as a mother who has little regard for what her daughter is going through, only for her place in society and securing her status. She conveys an arrogance in her performance. This is a contrast to Kathy Bates, playing Molly Brown, a wealthy woman who's nonetheless salt of the earth, the sort of no nonsense, likeable person who the real Molly Brown might well have been like. It's easy to like her, and Bates does a fine job with the role. Paxton, always a good Everyman, plays the cocky, fortune and glory seeking Lovett well as he gradually becomes humbled by Rose's story, making a connection with the human scale of the disaster for the first time in his life. Gloria Stuart, playing the elderly Rose, has a quiet strength and spirit, weaving the story and reflecting on the past as she does so. It's a fine late-career role for her.


Jonathan Hyde has been playing character roles for years, and he plays Ismay to perfection, giving the audience a sneering, arrogant man who defies the heavens and ultimately turns out to be a very small, cowardly man. Bernard Hill, one of my favourite actors, plays the doomed captain with grace- and ultimately in the end, indecision. True to history, he still goes down with the ship (Captain Schettino, you could have learned a thing or two about seamanship from Captain Smith). And Victor Garber, another favourite actor of mine, plays Andrews very sympathetically. I found his performance to be one of the true gems of the film; Andrews has none of the arrogance of Ismay, is direct and matter of fact when the disaster begins, and as his fate is certain, there's a sad resignation about him. I would have liked to see the film from his point of view.


The production values, filming, and so on are top notch, of course. Cameron got the right people together in the crew, and the end result is a film that conveys the painstaking fine details of the time, the class struggles, and the sheer panic that must have grown that night a century ago (no masses of doomed men singing Nearer My God To Thee in this version). I don't really think the 3D makeover was needed; personally, it gives me a headache, and I find the format to be little more then a gimmick. The film remains as fresh and crisp as it was when it was first released, even if we have to put up with Celine Dion breaking wine glasses over the end credits. I swear, the woman has never heard of singing in an understated way.



On a closing note, three complete asides. First, if Stephanie Meyer wrote the screenplay, Jack Dawson would have lived. This despite the fact that any logical person seeing the film for the first time knows he's doomed. No, in the world of She Who Created The Twilight Menace, we can't have a little thing like death come between two star crossed lovers, can we? Second, there's that scene that always intrigued me, with the elderly Rose telling the group about the final fate of Cal. He puts a gun to his head when his business interests went south after the stock market crash... "Or so I heard." That look in her eyes at that moment suggests to me that we could have had a Rose kills Cal and makes it look like a suicide for revenge thing going on.

You'll never look at that scene quite the same again, will you?

Finally, coming in 2014, from director Michael Bay, the true story of what happened that fateful night...

Godzilla Versus The Titanic!!!


Saturday, January 21, 2012

How To Totally Screw Up Your Life With One Colossal Blunder

Okay, so maybe you had a bad week. Maybe you got passed over for that promotion. Perhaps your significant other broke up with you. There might be a relative staying with you that you really do not care for at all (I can think of two of mine that would qualify). Well, my friends, it could be worse.

Your name could be Francesco Schettino, for instance.



It's been a few days now since the cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground just off the island of Giglio in the Tuscan area of Italy. The story has caught the attention of the world's media, of course. Not because of a high death toll; of the thousands on board, most are safe and alive, and only a handful died or remain missing. Realistically, more people die in a day's worth of sectarian violence in Kabul or Nigeria. No, the attention is because of the strange nature of the accident, the location it happened in, and the contrasting tales emerging out of it. That, and this year is the centennial of the Titanic disaster. Some troubling parallels between the two are being made, and with good reason.

 Captain Francesco Schettino (who's probably having the worst week of his life... it's rather difficult to top this) is facing some serious charges, including manslaughter and abandoning his ship, after a wee bit of a mishap. It turns out that he didn't seem to understand the notion that it's a really bad idea to bring something that big so close into shore, and, well... you can see the rest.


The general rules of the sea have it that ships are supposed to pass by the area several kilometres offshore. Instead, Schettino deviated from course, apparently to send out a hail to a local, knocked the ship into a submerged rock or reef (which he claims his charts didn't show, a surprise to any other mariner and all of the locals, who knew well that it was out there). The ship listed, keeled over, and capsized. Of course, by then, Schettino was well off the ship, having had, it seems, scarpered early on in the evacuation for a lifeboat (he claims he fell into a lifeboat, and couldn't bring himself to get back on board. He claims a lot, even that his maneuver saved thousands of lives). This is a very bad thing for ship's captains, who in such an instance are supposed to stay calm, keep good order, and ensure that all surviving passengers are off the ship and accounted for before even thinking of leaving.


By all accounts, many of his officers and crew followed their captain's less then sterling example, though there were exceptions. The passengers themselves got off either in lifeboats or by swimming ashore, or were taken off by arriving Coast Guard units or locals. It's bloody fortunate, in a way, that the incident happened so close to shore; too much time spent in the water this time of year is certain death.

The population of the island itself is small, just some 1500 souls, so you can imagine they were quickly overcome with four thousand harried survivors arriving on shore, but it seems they responded as people do in these cases: with the utmost speed, hospitality, and organization, helping out, doing all they could. Now they get to play host to the world's media. From what I've seen, the island looks like a nice spot. It's just not the sort of way the locals would have liked to get the world's attention, is it?


Schettino himself has claimed the title of the most hated man in Italy for his foolishness, incompetence, and cowardice, and odds are he won't be the only one facing charges. Costa and its parent company Carnival Cruise Lines are hanging him out to dry, casting the blame for this debacle on him. And from his inconsistent stories, it's pretty clear the captain panicked, did pretty much everything wrong that he could have, and one single bad decision has now ruined the rest of his life forever. I'll say this: when he screws up, he does a thorough job of it.


I do think the cruise ship industry, however, shoulders some of the blame. Some of the commentary since this all started points out how these gigantic monstrosities are being built more as floating lavish hotels, complete with social directors to take care of every bit of the passenger's vacations. The industry builds these things without real consideration of how safe these things are (shades of Titanic all over again). Their prime consideration is how much money they can make out of the ships. Most of the crew are there for the entertainment of or the taking care of passengers, and seafaring skills are irrelevant. The cruise lines pay their people little and house them poorly onboard, compared to the amount of work they do (one of the many reasons I'd find cruise ships to be a horrible vacation idea).

From the reports, it seems there was little organization and no sign that the passengers had been given instructions on safety procedures (which is supposed to happen soon after a ship is launched). And serious questions are being raised about the stability, engineering, and crews of these behemoths. These ships don't maneuver particularly well with rough seas, and unlike decades ago- or in the Navy, Coast Guard, and merchent ships elsewhere today- seem to have officers and crew who aren't at all mariners. They rely far too much on automation and computers to do the work for them. And when you have a fool and a daredevil in command, you have a recipe for disaster.


There are, of course, superstitions about the sea, old traditions. One involves the christening of a ship with a bottle of champagne. I've heard that when the Concordia was christened, the bottle didn't break. An omen of things to come, perhaps? For some reason, I find myself picturing the inevitable movie (James Cameron is probably already planning it), with Kevin R. McNally playing yet another crusty old sea dog, muttering under his breath through the whole film. "Bad luck, the bottle not breaking. Bad luck, the captain being a coward and a drunkard. Bad luck, going into shore like that in a panic..."


Not that Italy has to be entirely ashamed of its seafaring captains. Where Schettino has been raked over the coals for his cowardice, Coast Guard Captain Gregorio De Falco is being lauded for his decisiveness, his work in managing the evacuation, and his verbal blasting the hell out of the wayward captain. The transcripts that have been released speak volumes, and I certainly wouldn't want to get Captain De Falco mad at me. I would, however, like to shake his hand and buy him a beer. Italians are proud of him, and in fact, a rather derogatory term he used against Schettino during that taped conversation is now being printed on T-shirts: vada a bordo, cazzo. Translated, it means "get on board, you cock!" I told you it was derogatory! (Note to self: never name an Italian character cazzo. Second note to childless aunts and uncles among my readers who like teasing their siblings: teach your nephews and nieces that word just to annoy their parents)



The story continues to unfold as of this writing. Schettino has singlehandedly destroyed his own life through his own foolishness. Lives have been lost. The status of the ship has yet to be determined, as dive teams work to search for the remaining missing, and the salvage teams stand by to work. An environmental headache may ensue, given that fuel is still on board, and the area it's in happens to be a national park. And last and certainly least, the cruise ship industry stands to lose a lot of money this year because of the bad publicity. There are people who think cruise ships are an ideal vacation. I would consider them cruel and unusual punishment, particularly being at the mercy of an overly cheerful social director who has every second of my vacation planned out. I'd much rather be climbing a rock face or hiking in some grand scenic vista, thank you very much.



As you might expect, editorial cartoonists around the world have had a field day with this one...


I'll leave you then with this thought: one of the columnists in a paper I read noted that if this had happened further off shore, if the ship had sunk outright, and quickly, you would have had a disaster on the scale of a 9/11. As writers, we can take inspiration for ideas in current events, and as such, I've had something of an idea for the opening of a novel. In my writings, concerned as they are with terrorism, espionage, and the bad side of life, a cruise ships represents a rather tempting target for a terrorist group. Everything about it- maximum casualties, considerable vulnerabilities, and softness as a target- practically cries out as a terrorist opportunity. I've got an anarchist group as antagonists idea down the line, and somehow having them go after a cruise ship as the opening salvo in a book sounds like a hell of an idea....

Obviously the cruise ship industry would not approve.

Postscript: to the Schettino family: you may want to consider changing your last name. Word has it that the dictionaries plan to have a picture of Francesco Schettino right next to the words gutless coward and incompetence.