The Bright Side of Hollywood: 'Titanic' Helps Last Survivor
Filed under: Newsstand
Accountability has been the watchword in Hollywood lately, especially after all the mess that followed Slumdog Millionaire. But just sometimes, a nice story comes out of Tinseltown, so why not celebrate it?The BBC reports that the big names behind Titanic, Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, and James Cameron, have pulled together $30,000 to help Millvina Dean, a 97-year-old woman who just so happens to be the last living survivor of the Titanic disaster. The woman, who has been struggling with steep monthly bills at her nursing home, had begun to auction personal belongings and Titanic memorabilia to make ends meet. Now a fund has been set up for her, and the Titanic trio pitched in. Fund creator Don Mullan said: "I laid down the challenge to the Titanic actors and directors to support the Millvina Fund and I was delighted with the generosity they have shown in meeting that challenge."
Remember that whole "women and children" first thing? When the lifeboats had to be rationed? She was one of those children, saved along with her mother and sibling by her dad, who then perished when the ship sunk.
Now if only those who are accountable for people's hardships could be as generous...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-12-2009 @ 8:41PM
jeff said...
"Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, and James Cameron, have pulled together $30,000 to help Millvina Dean"
Really, no one of them could handle it themselves?
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 8:53PM
chuck said...
$30k is tip money to James Cameron. Pulled together! Thats a weird way of saying it. Like Slim Pickens said in Beyond the Poseidon Adventure " that's not generous it's just decent"
In this case I would agree with that.
chuck
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 8:51PM
Dez said...
thats it? 30 gran? fuck it im about to get evicted but i'll donate to her got a link?
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 9:36PM
Julie said...
While this is appears a sweet story at first glance, it's actually quite sad. I'm thrilled the poor woman got 30,000, but I have to agree with the above comments. That's the best they could do? How much did that film gross? How much did each actor get paid? How many millions is each worth on their own? Good heavens. Give me that link and I'll donate as well. And how about getting the poor woman's memorabilia back as well?
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 10:00PM
Monika said...
Are we really going to chastise celebrities for making a big contribution to a good cause? We're not talking about a Slumdog case where they money should equal the responsibility, but simply celebrities giving a good chunk of change to a struggling woman.
Could they have given more? Sure. But chastising $30,000 fails to take into account how much each person donates each year. I can't say much about Winslet and Cameron's donation practices, but DiCaprio's contributions to worthy causes has been well-covered.
Reply
5-12-2009 @ 11:36PM
Dan said...
I guess this is going to put me in the corner to most everyone else, but I'm with you, Monika. I was pretty moved by the fact that they contributed money. Y'all are tough, I get that 30K doesn't seem like a lot and it may be chump change to them, but you gotta remember, they didn't have to do shit. They don't owe this woman anything, yet they pulled together a considerable amount of money--more than I got in my bank account. I guess it's just me (evidently) but I don't expect every celebrity to give enough money to save anybody, nor do I think they neccessarily have to have the inclination to do so, because at the end of the day they're people too. While I understand the gripes with the amount, why don't we offer that same challenge to regular folks who can donate other things-like their time? Before people go criticising others for the good they're doing not being enough, I implore you to make sure you're doing YOUR part.
5-12-2009 @ 10:35PM
joi said...
You are all correct. $30,000.00 will maybe take care of her there for 1 year. That doesn't count medicine,..shame on them with all the millions they make plus what they made from the movie alone.
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 2:00AM
LordPaul said...
Why shame on them???
Why not shame on the welfare system that can't look after an elderly citizen?
They made a film about a ship sinking.
Should every actor who's played a soldier pay for the welfare of veterans?
They did a nice thing, and still people on the internet find a way to turn it around - people, seriously!
And to the people who say they'll contribute something - nice, but she's not a starving African child or a lost pet or whatever the latest thing on my telly trying to part us with our money. She probably thought that the assets she had (from something that happened when she was 9 weeks old, hardly a veteran rather a lucky bonus) would pay for her twilight years so what's the point in them not being sold
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 2:54AM
LordPaul said...
Why shame on them???
Why not shame on the welfare system that can't look after an elderly citizen?
They made a film about a ship sinking.
Should every actor who's played a soldier pay for the welfare of veterans?
They did a nice thing, and still people on the internet find a way to turn it around - people, seriously!
And to the people who say they'll contribute something - nice, but she's not a starving African child or a lost pet or whatever the latest thing on my telly trying to part us with our money. She probably thought that the assets she had (from something that happened when she was 9 weeks old, hardly a veteran rather a lucky bonus) would pay for her twilight years so what's the point in them not being sold
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 9:04AM
Robin said...
Let no good deed go unpunished, I guess.
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 9:58AM
Astin said...
How much WOULD be enough for the people complaining here? $100k? $1 million?
By contributing any money, Cameron, Leo, and Winslet have raised more awarness for this than would have otherwise occured, and that will mean donations from regular people will increase as well. It's not their responsibility to cover the entire cost of her care or the rest of her life. And let's be honest here, she's 97. She's also only 1 person. Wouldn't their money be better donated to a broader cause?
So if 3 people covered what "will maybe take care of her there for 1 year", that means 1 year less that everyone else has to cover.
Reply
5-13-2009 @ 12:43PM
Me said...
Well it's the UK-- and their WONDERFUL socialized healthcare system.. right? Oh yeah.. guess that's not all it's cracked up to be, huh?
Reply
5-14-2009 @ 4:16PM
LordPaul said...
Our health care system is just fine, thank you very much.
That's NOt what this is about at all. She's in a home that she has to pay for. She could live in a state home but obviously chooses not to, the same, I guess, as anywhere else.
Whilst the NHS isn't the utopian dream that Michael Moore suggests (by a LONG way) it's still possible to get treatment for free.