How does one make a Cold War thriller now that the Cold War is over? One way of doing this would be simply to make the film as a historical period piece, and this was the solution adopted in another submarine drama, the more recent "K-19 The Widowmaker". Political thrillers however, are at their most effective when they confront us with a scenario that could happen today, or in the near future, and lose some of their impact when they deal with something that might have happened- but didn't- in the past. "The Crimson Tide" deals essentially with something that might have happened in the sixties or seventies, but in order to maintain its immediacy it is set in the nineties, with a group of nationalist Russian rebels playing the part that the Soviet government might have played in an earlier film. A similar device was used in "Air Force One", another political thriller from the mid-nineties.
The action mostly takes place on board an American nuclear submarine, the USS Alabama, against the background of a revolt in the Russian Far East against the Russian Government. The rebels have seized control of the Vladivostok naval base and are threatening to launch nuclear missiles against America should government forces attempt to retake the area. The American Government are considering launching a pre-emptive strike against the rebels, and the crew of the Alabama await their orders.
At the heart of the drama on board the Alabama are two very different officers, the submarine's aggressive commander, Captain Ramsey, and his more cautious, liberal second-in-command, Lieutenant-Commander Hunter. After an order is received to launch a strike against the rebels, the ship is attacked by a Russian submarine. A second message starts to come in, but because communication is lost during the engagement, it is incomplete. Hunter believes that the second message may be a recall of the earlier order to launch missiles, and refuses to concur with Ramsey's command to launch. When Ramsey orders the crew to proceed without Hunter's concurrence, Hunter attempts to take over command of the ship in a plot development reminiscent of "The Caine Mutiny".
Both Ramsey and Hunter are convinced that they are in the right. Ramsey fears that any delay in launching will leave America vulnerable to a first strike by the rebels. Hunter fears that launching the ship's missiles without waiting for clarification of the second message will lead to full-scale nuclear war. There is, however, little doubt that the film's sympathies lie with Hunter. Technically, he may have been in breach of naval regulations in refusing, on the basis of an ambiguous message which lacked the vital confirmation codes, to confirm his captain's order, but it would be a strange film which made a character who wants to initiate a nuclear exchange more sympathetic than a character who wishes to prevent one.
A submarine is a hermetic and claustrophobic environment, and makes an excellent setting for a thriller. Director Tony Scott develops the tension very well, with some very effective scenes, especially the duel between the Alabama and the Russian sub and the scenes where Ramsey and Hunter and their respective supporters among the crew battle one another for control of the ship. We are never allowed to forget that very big issues- perhaps nothing less than the future of the world itself- are at stake. Both Gene Hackman as Ramsey and Denzel Washington as Hunter play their parts very well, bringing out the contrasting characters of the two men. I would agree with the reviewer who complained that the ending, with its implausible reconciliation between Ramsey and Hunter, was unconvincing, but that apart I found this a highly effective, edge-of-your-seat action thriller. 7/10
The action mostly takes place on board an American nuclear submarine, the USS Alabama, against the background of a revolt in the Russian Far East against the Russian Government. The rebels have seized control of the Vladivostok naval base and are threatening to launch nuclear missiles against America should government forces attempt to retake the area. The American Government are considering launching a pre-emptive strike against the rebels, and the crew of the Alabama await their orders.
At the heart of the drama on board the Alabama are two very different officers, the submarine's aggressive commander, Captain Ramsey, and his more cautious, liberal second-in-command, Lieutenant-Commander Hunter. After an order is received to launch a strike against the rebels, the ship is attacked by a Russian submarine. A second message starts to come in, but because communication is lost during the engagement, it is incomplete. Hunter believes that the second message may be a recall of the earlier order to launch missiles, and refuses to concur with Ramsey's command to launch. When Ramsey orders the crew to proceed without Hunter's concurrence, Hunter attempts to take over command of the ship in a plot development reminiscent of "The Caine Mutiny".
Both Ramsey and Hunter are convinced that they are in the right. Ramsey fears that any delay in launching will leave America vulnerable to a first strike by the rebels. Hunter fears that launching the ship's missiles without waiting for clarification of the second message will lead to full-scale nuclear war. There is, however, little doubt that the film's sympathies lie with Hunter. Technically, he may have been in breach of naval regulations in refusing, on the basis of an ambiguous message which lacked the vital confirmation codes, to confirm his captain's order, but it would be a strange film which made a character who wants to initiate a nuclear exchange more sympathetic than a character who wishes to prevent one.
A submarine is a hermetic and claustrophobic environment, and makes an excellent setting for a thriller. Director Tony Scott develops the tension very well, with some very effective scenes, especially the duel between the Alabama and the Russian sub and the scenes where Ramsey and Hunter and their respective supporters among the crew battle one another for control of the ship. We are never allowed to forget that very big issues- perhaps nothing less than the future of the world itself- are at stake. Both Gene Hackman as Ramsey and Denzel Washington as Hunter play their parts very well, bringing out the contrasting characters of the two men. I would agree with the reviewer who complained that the ending, with its implausible reconciliation between Ramsey and Hunter, was unconvincing, but that apart I found this a highly effective, edge-of-your-seat action thriller. 7/10