I think you are applying a type of mis-logic that I see all too often. The
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — A Night to Remember
efs2 — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 02:09 PM)
I think you are applying a type of mis-logic that I see all too often. The
Californian
lived, and the
Titanic
died. Therefore, Lord was entirely right and Smith was entirely wrong.
It is of course true that the safe course of action for the
Titanic
would have been to stop for the night. That would have saved the
Titanic
and precluded the possibility that any other actions could be called into question. All of that is a given. So, at least for the sake of argument, we can conclude that Smith was negligent. But that is not the same as concluding that Lord was not negligent
after
the
Titanic
was spotted.
Sarcasm is intellect on the offensive. -
hachmom-1 — 15 years ago(April 18, 2010 05:58 PM)
The fact remains that rockets were sighted and he didnt even wake his radio operator up to see what was going on which could have been done with out endangeing anyone at all.
But this is one of those marvellous debates that endlessly moves back and forth betw the 2 sides which why Walter Lord said in "the night lives on" that if he could travel to any time and place in history it would be not the titanic, but the californian to find out what really happened that night
It is not our abilities that make us who we areit is our choices -
TorontoJediMaster — 15 years ago(April 20, 2010 09:25 PM)
I wouldn't necessarily call Captain Lord incompetent. I would describe him as complacent and
SERIOUSLY
lacking in initiative.
Hindsight is irrelevant. I would think that if a captain is notified of a ship sending up rockets, in the open sea, at night (in the vicinity of a known icefield), he would at least get his wireless operator to turn on his set find out what is going on. If it's nothing, then all that's happened is the wireless man gets an apology and is told to sleep in a half-hour the next morning. But if it IS something.
I think another thing that must have eaten at Lord was -as his career was derailed- he knew that Captain Rostron was becoming one of the most well-regarded captains on the Atlantic. Rostron commanded all the major Cunard vessels and went on to become Commodore of the Cunard Line. (Ironically, he held the position with Cunard that Captain Smith held with White Star.) As he was relegated to increasingly insignificant vessels, he must have wondered at what his career would have been had he ordered Cyril Evans to try and find out why rockets were being fired.
During Lord's testimony at the American Inquiry, Senator William A. Smith listened to Lord try to explain his relative inaction. He found himself mentally wondering what Arthur Rostron would have done if he had been in command of the
Californian
instead of the
Carpathia
. -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(October 21, 2011 01:31 AM)
Suppose we zero in on one moment of time.
The Titanic is sinking. The Californian is a few miles away. Captain Lord is sitting on the bench in the chart room. (Contrary to what is shown in the movie, Lord was not in his bed. He was probably snoozing as he sat there, and may well have intended to remain there for the rest of the night. But he wasnt in his bed.) Suddenly the officers standing watch on the bridge call him up on the voice tube to inform him that a ship in the distance is firing rockets.
Now at this moment, there was something Lord had no way of knowing. He didnt know that what was happening out there was an event of such historical magnitude that it would be extensively investigated. And that he, Lord, would be put under a microscope and called to answer some very tough questions concerning what he did and did not do.
If Lord had known that this was about to come down on him, his actions would certainly have been different.
But given what he did know at that moment, he chose to take virtually no action. Why did he make that choice? Theres always a danger in trying to read another persons mind, but in this case one explanation stands out as logical and reasonable.
Lords ship was safe. He had encountered a hazardous condition at sea a few hours earlier, and he had taken proper steps to safeguard his ship. Lord had no previous experience operating in ice, and the last thing he wanted to do was try to sail through an ice field during the night. His decision was to heave to until morning came when he would once again be operating in daylight. And having made that decision his ship was now in no danger as long as he remained stationary. Having taken these precautions Lord did not want to be forced out of his safe condition because of some other persons stupidity.
If some other ship was in trouble because its captain had not acted prudently, as Lord had, then Lord did not want to know about it. Because if he had knowledge of that other ships predicament then he would be obligated to get under way and attempt to go to its assistance. In doing so he would give up his safe position and be in the very jeopardy that he had tried to avoid.
But on the other hand, if he had no knowledge of that other ships situation then he would have no obligation to do anything. So Lord told his bridge officers to try calling the other ship with the hand held Morse lamp. And with that, as far as Lord and his men were concerned, yes he had done something. He had attempted to contact the other ship. But Lord had deliberately chosen the most ineffectual method available to him of doing it. He had deliberately chosen the method that was least likely to establish contact with that other ship and was therefore least likely to provide him with the information that he didnt want to have.
Did Lord realize at the time that what he was doing was wrong? Im sure he did. But he didnt care, and he undoubtedly expected things would never go any farther than that. He didnt suspect there would be investigations or that he would have to explain his actions.
He made his choice and it came back on him with a vengeance. -
Cairo-5 — 14 years ago(October 22, 2011 12:37 PM)
"Of making many books there is no end." Ecc. 12:12
And a good thing too, I would say. Especially on subjects that deserve to be exhaustively explored in the search for the truth.
Since I advanced the hypothesis that Lord's actions were motivated by a desire to not know if another ship was calling for help, you can probably deduce from that what other source material has influenced me.
To me the question of whether the Californian could have steamed to the Titanic's location and arrived in time to save many more lives is incidental to the real issue. This being, what did Lord, Stone and Gibson observe and/or know; when did they observe and/or know it; and did they do what they should have done based on what they observed and/or knew?
Anyone can offer an opinion as to whether Lord acted properly. What kind of credentials that person has that qualify him to sit in judgment on Lord is another matter.
Rostron was qualified, and from what I've read he was of the emphatic opinion that Lord should have roused his wireless operator.
As for whether Californian could have reached the Titanic in time, no reasonable person would expect Lord to do the impossible.