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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism