The Britannic's tragic story will never generate the same interest or emotion as that of her more famous sister ship. Still, the Britannic met an even more mysterious fate and does constitute the world's largest shipwreck (the Britannic having been 20 feet longer than Titanic).
This brings us to the 2000 made-for-TV movie. Overall, it provided an enjoyable evening's entertainment. It wasn't until near the climax that some disturbing anachronisms and very unlikely character behaviors began to seriously take away from my enjoyment.
The film features Amanda Ryan as governess/British intelligence agent Vera Campbell, along with would-be chaplain/German intelligence agent/saboteur Father Reynolds (Edward Atterton). Jacqueline Bisset, as an aging and infirm aristocratic English matron, is the only big name in the cast-and her role is somewhat small. The cast is solid, though, also including John Rhys-Davies as Captain Barrett and Ben Daniels as First Officer Townsend.
SPOILERS
There is certainly plenty of room for speculation with the Britannic story. Did it hit a mine? Was it torpedoed? Was an internal explosion the primary (or a secondary) cause of the sinking? If so, was it intentional? Was the hospital ship carrying contraband troops (as the real-life Germans seemed to believe) or a cache of weapons (as the movie Germans rightly believed)? These are all fair questions and any halfway feasible explanation is about as good as another. Therefore I had no trouble with the basic premise of a German spy on board and a German U-boat being involved-although the film shows the U-boat failing to sink the ship and then being destroyed by a British warship-something that did not happen.
Other than the tiresome, ever-present presence of a 1990s feminist, EXPECTING 1990s treatment (and thoroughly surprised and outraged when her male antagonists act basically as they would have in 1916 instead of 2000), the film has a few other anachronisms. For one, Atterton and Major Baker (Bruce Payne), the ship's doctor, glibly discuss the explosive dangers of coal dust in the bunkers. I could be wrong, but hasn't this phenomenon been discovered only in the past 25 or so years? Secondly, this IS 1916. Whatever Vera Campbell's morals, her sudden and uninvited (at least expressly uninvited) return to Reynold's cabin where she immediately began disrobing without a word is quite a stretch! Not having figured out his ulterior plans, she still thought he was a minister. True, they were beginning to be very attracted to each other. Yes, they had shared a steamy kiss a short while before. In 2000, perhaps the woman returning and diving into the man's bed would be a feasible occurrence. But with a MINISTER, in 1916? Not that the two of them COULDN'T have gotten together during the movie but, my gosh if nothing else, her assuming that he would welcome her advances was a clear lack of respect for the man and his principals! I would have to believe that 85% of REAL ministers in 1916 would have been both flabbergasted and offended (if titillated ) by a young women bursting into his room (even after sharing an earlier kiss) and disrobing.
This pales in comparison, though, with Agent Baker's suicidal desire to rescue Reynolds-AFTER she knew he was responsible for sinking the ship! Her being hesitant to leave him trapped in the sinking ship I can understand. But running back onto the ship to miraculously (love the length of time TV shipwreckees can hold their breath!) save a man who undoubtedly WOULD HANG within a few weeks' time is preposterous. What's more, despite her feminine racing heart (funny how these 1990s feminists are somehow too `feminine' to make a logical decision in movieland!), as a trained operative, she would KNOW that by aiding and abetting the enemy, she would be facing a REAL danger of being hanged, herself! This is where I felt cheated. A pre-flapper female charging around the decks of a ship, firing a pistol OK I can buy that within this context. There WERE female operatives throughout history. Yet, in making the character feminine and human enough to be liked, why does she have to make a mockery of the training she supposedly had received? My only possible explanation for this apparent plot hole is that only the two of them and the now-dead doctor (Payne) knew Reynold's identity. Perhaps Vera hoped they could just pretend he really WAS an innocent minister and forge a life together. This, too, sounds outrageous-although, under the stress and passion of the moment, perhaps such muddled thoughts COULD have been running through her mind.
In any case, Britannic is an intriguing little film, but one which leaves the viewer with more questions about the characters' bizarre actions than about the mystery of the ship's actual sinking.
This brings us to the 2000 made-for-TV movie. Overall, it provided an enjoyable evening's entertainment. It wasn't until near the climax that some disturbing anachronisms and very unlikely character behaviors began to seriously take away from my enjoyment.
The film features Amanda Ryan as governess/British intelligence agent Vera Campbell, along with would-be chaplain/German intelligence agent/saboteur Father Reynolds (Edward Atterton). Jacqueline Bisset, as an aging and infirm aristocratic English matron, is the only big name in the cast-and her role is somewhat small. The cast is solid, though, also including John Rhys-Davies as Captain Barrett and Ben Daniels as First Officer Townsend.
SPOILERS
There is certainly plenty of room for speculation with the Britannic story. Did it hit a mine? Was it torpedoed? Was an internal explosion the primary (or a secondary) cause of the sinking? If so, was it intentional? Was the hospital ship carrying contraband troops (as the real-life Germans seemed to believe) or a cache of weapons (as the movie Germans rightly believed)? These are all fair questions and any halfway feasible explanation is about as good as another. Therefore I had no trouble with the basic premise of a German spy on board and a German U-boat being involved-although the film shows the U-boat failing to sink the ship and then being destroyed by a British warship-something that did not happen.
Other than the tiresome, ever-present presence of a 1990s feminist, EXPECTING 1990s treatment (and thoroughly surprised and outraged when her male antagonists act basically as they would have in 1916 instead of 2000), the film has a few other anachronisms. For one, Atterton and Major Baker (Bruce Payne), the ship's doctor, glibly discuss the explosive dangers of coal dust in the bunkers. I could be wrong, but hasn't this phenomenon been discovered only in the past 25 or so years? Secondly, this IS 1916. Whatever Vera Campbell's morals, her sudden and uninvited (at least expressly uninvited) return to Reynold's cabin where she immediately began disrobing without a word is quite a stretch! Not having figured out his ulterior plans, she still thought he was a minister. True, they were beginning to be very attracted to each other. Yes, they had shared a steamy kiss a short while before. In 2000, perhaps the woman returning and diving into the man's bed would be a feasible occurrence. But with a MINISTER, in 1916? Not that the two of them COULDN'T have gotten together during the movie but, my gosh if nothing else, her assuming that he would welcome her advances was a clear lack of respect for the man and his principals! I would have to believe that 85% of REAL ministers in 1916 would have been both flabbergasted and offended (if titillated ) by a young women bursting into his room (even after sharing an earlier kiss) and disrobing.
This pales in comparison, though, with Agent Baker's suicidal desire to rescue Reynolds-AFTER she knew he was responsible for sinking the ship! Her being hesitant to leave him trapped in the sinking ship I can understand. But running back onto the ship to miraculously (love the length of time TV shipwreckees can hold their breath!) save a man who undoubtedly WOULD HANG within a few weeks' time is preposterous. What's more, despite her feminine racing heart (funny how these 1990s feminists are somehow too `feminine' to make a logical decision in movieland!), as a trained operative, she would KNOW that by aiding and abetting the enemy, she would be facing a REAL danger of being hanged, herself! This is where I felt cheated. A pre-flapper female charging around the decks of a ship, firing a pistol OK I can buy that within this context. There WERE female operatives throughout history. Yet, in making the character feminine and human enough to be liked, why does she have to make a mockery of the training she supposedly had received? My only possible explanation for this apparent plot hole is that only the two of them and the now-dead doctor (Payne) knew Reynold's identity. Perhaps Vera hoped they could just pretend he really WAS an innocent minister and forge a life together. This, too, sounds outrageous-although, under the stress and passion of the moment, perhaps such muddled thoughts COULD have been running through her mind.
In any case, Britannic is an intriguing little film, but one which leaves the viewer with more questions about the characters' bizarre actions than about the mystery of the ship's actual sinking.