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

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983)
(SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bonds in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball, but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again, despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…