Titanic fans only just realising Rose is the 'real villain' of the movie
Was there really room on that plank of wood?
Featured Image Credit: Paramount Pictures
Topics: Social Media, Titanic, TV And Film
Lauren Lees
Topics: Social Media, Titanic, TV And Film
Titanic has won a whopping 11 Academy Awards and has broken the record for the most Oscars for a single film. However, it has recently become the talk of social media as people have branded Rose the ‘real villain’ of the movie.
Yep. Kate Winslet’s iconic, incredibly quotable romantic heroine.
Released in 1998, the James Cameron-directed flick depicts the infamous 1912 sinking of the ship of the same name and follows the love story of Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose DeWitt Bukater (Winslet).
Fans have been raving about the film for years, and not just for its heartbreaking ending, but recently some have theorised that Rose might just be the 'villain' of Titanic.
Advert
Confused? Let's break down why...
Okay, her fiancé Cal Hockley, (Billy Zane), is an awful guy, let’s not get it twisted. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and running away from him on a ship, getting drawn like one of Jack's ‘French girls’ before having sex with him in the back of a car is kind of wild.
In the present day of 1996 during the film, Rose sets a team of scientists on a mission - to find the 'Heart of the Ocean', a lost pendant from the Titanic.
Rose, and let’s be clear, a very wealthy elderly woman, lets them focus all of their time and resources into the hunt and just drops the necklace (said to be worth $250 million) into the water at the end!
It seems that this is one of the worst things for many fans. A real scream at the TV moment. Instead of 'Oh, let me move up a little bit on this bit of wood that there is definitely room for two people on', she just let Jack freeze and die.
One X user claimed: “Growing up is realising that in Titanic, Rose decides to throw away a $250 million pendant in memory of an unemployed man with whom she had sex one time.
“Meanwhile, her husband worked hard all his life to maintain her and give her and her children a life of luxury, and he would surely have also appreciated the inheritance and lived peacefully.
“She could have also given the pendant to her granddaughter, who took care of her her whole life. The real villain of the movie was Rose.”
This sparked keen debate in the comments section. One user agreed, stating: “I was gonna say he also saved her life, but if the dumb b**** just got on the life boat she wouldn’t need saving either. And then the door coulda fit just him and he’d live.”
Another added: “Why did she take that boat and he didn’t? He could’ve fit too.”
Someone else penned: “Don’t forget she also let that homeless guy drown rather than moving over a few inches so he could climb up as well.”
Another viewer claimed that it’s 'kinda crazy to think that a random man could have such an impact on Rose’s life that she threw away heritage for it'.
However, some people disagreed. Defending Rose, one user argued: “You have obviously never been in love.”
A second wrote: “Focusing on Rose’s choice misses the broader narrative about loss and freedom, not just material value.”
Somebody else defended her further, claiming that 'breaking free from an abusive narcissist is a big win... She wanted nothing to do with the man and anything attached to him'.
And one viewer noted: “Bro, her husband straight up slapped her and she was forced into the marriage. She didn’t want him.”
Meanwhile, another commented: “People love calling Rose the villain but that take ignores the point of the story. The necklace was never about money. It was about control, trauma, and a life chosen for her. Letting it go was her final act of agency, not a betrayal of her family. We seem comfortable judging women harshly when they choose meaning, freedom, or healing over wealth and practicality. Why does choosing purpose over profit make someone a villain?”
What do you think?