Skip to main content

We're talking about several billion dollars of Soviet state property. And they're going to want it back.

The Hunt for Red October
(1990)

(SPOILERS) I’ve always wondered why The Hunt for Red October became such a big hit (sixth of the year in the US, eleventh worldwide), when it seems to function antithetically to the presumed goal of a tense, claustrophobic submarine thriller. Instead, it’s a highly glossy affair, courtesy of at-peak-cachet director John McTiernan and cinematographer Jan de Bont; not for them the gloomy, dank interiors associated with the sub subgenre. Perhaps audiences flocked to it because, with its 1984 setting (the year of Tom Clancy’s novel of the same name), it represented the first opportunity to be nostalgic about the Cold War, safe in the knowledge of who had “won”.

Skip Tyler: Well, this thing could park a couple of hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it until it was all over.

Certainly, there’s no doubt about the movie’s sympathies, as you’d expect from the staunchly right-wing Clancy (this was his first published novel, which became a bestseller after Reagan vouched for it). Indeed, you’re much more likely to find self-interrogatory pictures concerning East-West ethics made during the Cold War than retrospectively. We don’t need an explanation for Soviet sub captain Marko Ramius (Sean Connery) defecting. He does so simply because the Soviets are bad guys, so anyone with an ounce of moral decency would by necessity betray their country.

All we need to know is that he captains “a ship which had but one use” (apparently, Ramius had few qualms prior to commandeering this particular stealth sub) and so feels compelled to turn it over to the good guys, good guys offering the honourable Soviets farms in Montana, in their dreams. Indeed, Ramius has no compunction in killing Peter Firth’s political officer Putin(!) in an early scene, following a frosty exchange (“How many agents did the KGB put aboard my boat?” – it turns out several, as he forgot about the cook, not, on this occasion, played by Steven Seagal).

General: Oh, come on. You’re just an analyst. What can you know what possibly goes on in his mind?

The Americans – the principal Soviets are played by British or Australian actors – are an entirely decent bunch, guided, of course, by Alec Baldwin’s original incarnation of Jack Ryan. Ryan’s only an analyst because he spent ten months in traction following a helicopter crash; he’s a true hero underneath, despite his bookish exterior, and ready to prove it by plunging from an entirely different helicopter into a freezing ocean to test his theory (“Somebody must really have a burr up his ass – not a Scottish one, presumably – to go for a stunt like this!”)

Baldwin inhabits the role more convincingly than any subsequent Ryans, but there’s a pervading sense that his shrewdness and intuitive leaps are smoke and mirrors and not that impressive really; we’re steered to think so because he shouts “Son of a bitch!” with conviction during a top brass meeting, and because others seems so determined to do him down. As Vincent Canby observed of the plot, it “seems to be a lot more complex than it really is”.

Indeed, while critics were generally kind to The Hunt for Red October, a number took issue with the picture’s limited vision. Rolling Stone’s Pete Travers succeeded in summing up both its politics and cinematic deficits, asking – anecdotally – in his opening paragraph “how does a book that has readers checking their pulses become a movie that has audiences checking their watches?” Kim Newman, meanwhile, called it an “overlong, humourless suspense picture”.

McTiernan was fresh off back-to-back hits Predator and Die Hard, and it appeared he could do no wrong. Maybe he thought this was his version of a prestige picture (one certainly got that sense from his subsequent reteaming with Connery, the flop Medicine Man), eschewing as it did gratuitous gunfire and proving he could handle a lower octane, more sedate thriller. Coincidentally or not, its notable that, as in Die Hard, protagonist and “antagonist” “spar” from a distance, guessing their opponent’s moves; unfortunately, there’s a sense here that they respect each other’s keen intelligence because that’s what the script says, rather than anything intrinsic to the characters or their behaviour.

The “mature” thriller, of calculation and conversation, is certainly an attractive garland to wear, if you can pull it off; Clancy’s work is praised for technical accuracy (his studied inventiveness was the cause, as he told it, of the then Navy Secretary asking “Who the hell cleared it?”) The movie has the confident bearing of such authenticity, of the procedural format adopted the following year by another best seller adaptation, The Silence of the Lambs (both featuring Scott Glenn), even if the fine print is entirely less persuasive.

Borodin: And I will have a pickup truck. Or even, possibly, a recreational vehicle. And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?

As a result, there are times when The Hunt for Red October feels like one long longueur. Indeed, it’s largely the cast who keep things watchable. Sam Neill’s especially good value as the tempered, reflective Captain Borodin, able to engage in some enjoyable interplay with Connery. Richard Jordan makes for a memorably self-aware National Security Advisor, on team Ryan, and there’s an early Hollywood role for Stellan Skarsgård. Tim Curry’s a soviet doctor, and James Earl Jones and Joss Ackland play exactly the kind of roles they usually play.

Ramius: Once more we play our dangerous game.

This is a very handsome production, then, although some of its conceits end up on the wrong side of laughable – having Russian spoken early on leads to some slightly risible repeated phrases such as “It is time”; “Yes, it is time”. Although, there’s a certain dubious pleasure in hearing Connery announce “We shail into hishtory”. He boasts the kind of Scottish burr only a Lithuanian can and also one of his very best rugs: dirt cheap, apparently, but owing to his starting filming with a ponytail, it was effectively $20k’s worth after aghast producers order reshoots of the offending scenes.

Ryan: I'm not field personnel. I'm only an analyst.

It seems Harrison Ford turned the Ryan role down on this occasion because he thought the character was second fiddle to Ramius. Which he is, but a bigger issue with The Hunt for Red October is that – however his novels actually read – Clancy on screen is a combination of the vanilla and the preposterous that doesn’t tend to work very well. Hollywood is still trying to make hay from Jack Ryan, most recently on Amazon Prime and with an upcoming Paramount adaptation of Without Remorse focussing on spinoff character John Clark. But unlike Bond, Ryan’s a blank, only ever as interesting as the actor who plays him. As he says at one point, “I just write books for the CIA”. He never really convinces you otherwise.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.