A Night To Remember (1958)....

[Warped9]

I haven't seen this for several years so it is with something of a fresh perspective that I revisited this film about the Titanic disaster.

It's a shame that James Cameron's 1997 epic Titanic eclipses this film in contemporary memory because A Night To Remember is an excellent film in its own right. I wouldn't say this is better than Titanic, but it's just as good in a different way.

A Night To Remember was the definitive film before Titanic and it still does a damn fine job of chronicling the event even without the personal drama of Titanic's two main characters. In some respects ANTR feels more matter-of-fact even though it does get some things wrong (which weren't really proven until decades later when the wreck was found). It succeeds because it captures the minutae and detail of the period. It also accomplishes a great deal with effective use of subtlety and nuance without overt dramatization. It's also helped because many, if not all, of the cast would be complete unknowns to most younger contemporary viewers.

For those who have never seen A Night To Remember, or those who haven't seen it for quite awhile, I highly recommend this film classic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Greg Cox]

Great movie. And much better than 1953 version of TITANIC which came by a few years later. That version, with Clifton Webb, gets bogged down with too much soapy melodrama before the they hit the iceberg.

 

[Christopher]

I saw footage from both the aforementioned films recently, in the pilot episode of The Time Tunnel -- an Irwin Allen show about a time machine that always sent its travelers to places and times that could be represented by stock footage from old movies.

 

[RandyS]

A Night to Remember is THE definitive Titanic movie for me.

Of course the others are good too in their own way.

 

[MacLeod]

Well up until Titanic", this was the movie about the Tianic disaster.

 

[Warped9]

Well up until Titanic", this was the movie about the Tianic disaster.

Indeed.

I first encountered A Night To Remember on television in the early 1970s. My recollections were dim, but I did eventually (some years later) read Walter Lord's book upon which the film was based. But I would not see the film again until decades later in the early to mid 2000s when I saw it again in its entirety on the TCM channel. I recall being quite impressed while watching it with a now adult perspective. I picked up on a lot if things I didn't recall (or missed entirely) from when I had seen it as a teenager.

I have it amongst my DVD collection.

The 1953 film Titanic is pretty much a waste of time.

 

[LJones41]

The 1958 movie is great as a docudrama. But it still had a few aspects that I found questionable.

 

[Warped9]

The 1958 movie is great as a docudrama. But it still had a few aspects that I found questionable.

There are always creative deviations.

In fairness, though, much of what we now know was learned since the wreck was found in 1985. Prior to that there was disagreement about whether the ship actually broke up before the final plunge. And the White Star Line also disputed the ship breaking up. The fact the filmmakers went with the ship sinking intact counter to the reality discovered nearly thirty years later doesn't invalidate the rest if the film.

And for the resources of the time it was probably simpler to film the model sinking intact rather than breaking up and not lose any of the film's effectiveness.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

A Night to Remember pisses all over Cameron's Titanic. From a great height. It's about the real human drama, and there's more than enough of that without the need to invent a trite melodrama to foreground the story. Whether or not the ship broke up upon sinking is an incidental detail.

 

[Christopher]

Whether or not the ship broke up upon sinking is an incidental detail.

To those who are interested in the human story, yes; to those who are interested in the authentic recreation of a historical event, no, it's not incidental. Different people have different priorities.

 

[Starhawk]

This flick is better than Titanic in my opinion.

 

[J.T.B.]

I first encountered A Night To Remember on television in the early 1970s.

Me too. I tried to catch in on TV whenever I could when I was a kid, and was familiar enough with it to recognize pieces of it that James Cameron had lifted directly for the 1997 movie.

A Night to Remember pisses all over Cameron's Titanic. From a great height. It's about the real human drama, and there's more than enough of that without the need to invent a trite melodrama to foreground the story.

Agreed completely.

To those who are interested in the human story, yes; to those who are interested in the authentic recreation of a historical event, no, it's not incidental.

Though, as Warped9 said, the breaking of the hull was not known at the time. OTOH, Titanic 1997 had the completely made-up and sensationalized event of William Murdoch shooting a passenger and himself. Not to mention the simply impossible, like remaining physically functional after slogging around in 30-degree water for half an hour.

The Criterion blu-ray of A Night to Remember is an excellent edition BTW.

 

[Christopher]

Though, as Warped9 said, the breaking of the hull was not known at the time.

Of course not. That's the advantage of doing new versions of historical stories -- they can benefit from subsequent research. For instance, the recent Roots remake was able to portray Kunta Kinte's Mandinka homeland and culture much more accurately than the original miniseries due to all that's been learned about West African history in the interim. There's always more to learn.

 

[J.T.B.]

Of course not. That's the advantage of doing new versions of historical stories -- they can benefit from subsequent research.

Sure. My point is, if it's a question of historical inaccuracy, A Night to Remember's is more inadvertent, the 1997 film's more the reverse.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Still holds up as a fine piece of British filmmaking. Recommended.

 

[DonIago]

I have the Criterion Collection Blu ray but haven't seen it yet. I know, I'm horrible...

I've been a fan of Cameron's film since my first viewing, but I was also a Titanic buff for ten years before the film was released, and when I watch it I'm watching it for the history and the relatively accurate recreation of events based on our current understanding. The love story is...something that happens.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Cameron's film is fine for dramatization and recreation of certain documented events; the compelling love story brought in audiences.

 

[MacLeod]

Cameron's film is fine for dramatization and recreation of certain documented events; the compelling love story brought in audiences.

Yes and No, the question is would people have gone to see a film about the Titanic disaster anyway, I think they would have but perhaps it wouldn't have been the success it was without the love story.

 

[DonIago]

^That seems reasonable, if somewhat disheartening. Nothing about the love story in "Titanic" struck me as particularly standing out. At best it's a good choice for a window into the differences between the wealthy and the poor in that era.

 

[J.T.B.]

Yes and No, the question is would people have gone to see a film about the Titanic disaster anyway, I think they would have but perhaps it wouldn't have been the success it was without the love story.

The movie was so expensive to make, it had to be pretty much a blockbuster. If it had just done OK, that still might have been considered a failure. They had to come up with a formula that would maximize box office appeal, and they did. It didn't make for a better movie IMO, but I understand it.