This is an excellent cold war thriller,(in fact some might say horror) about a US destroyer pursuing a Soviet submarine in the Greenland/Arctic region. I say pursuing, it's not done anything wrong other than veer into US territorial waters, whether it was deliberate or accidental nobody is really sure? The USS Bedfords skipper is Capt Finlander played by Richard Widmark who is very believable and just as dislike able as an obsessive control freak, probably with a chip on his shoulder who decides to teach the Soviet sub a lesson. Under such circumstances the strong arm tactics used requires the use of in your face tracking and aggressive screening of the Russian sub with the intention of eventually forcing the submarine to surface when the batteries need recharging. This type of brinkmanship is designed to show whose boss!
It's typical cold war because the US and the USSR often played this sort of cat and mouse game shadowing each others ships, aircraft or sailing/flying into each others territorial waters/air space were part and parcel of the cold war shenanigans. The rules of engagement were simple, harass the enemy and try to get one up on them, but under no circumstances be the first one to fire! It's a British made film which is done in black and white. I don't know if this was deliberate or a cost-cutting measure but it creates an oppressive and distinctively chilly atmosphere throughout which also makes the models and fake Arctic scenes to be less obvious. It's just a typical cold and gray overcast conditions for this region. However, effects and exterior shots are not an important part of the film. It's the dialog, tension, camera angles and back ground noise which creates the atmosphere.
Another important observation is, and again I don't know if it was deliberate but you don't see this from the Russian perspective. This decision is interesting it neither humanizes them which would allow sympathy, nor does it allow the Soviets to appear as crazed fanatics; they are simply there! I would have to say that this decision would probably lead the viewer to feel sorry for the Soviets, then again back in 1965 maybe not. In addition, I've never been in submarine but I would have thought that being in a submarine would have given you an edge. From this movie's perspective not only are the Americans perceived as being the aggressors but also having the upper hand. Once a submarine has lost the element of surprise perhaps the surface ship does have the advantage. I always thought that being in a submarine, although very claustrophobic would probably be an advantage! I don't know how realistic this is and would like to know the answer to that? In a none combat environment a surface ship probably can hold out for longer, although why one sub couldn't give one ship the slip is a mystery to me, I'd like to know the answer to that too?
Sydney Poitier is a journalist who has landed on the ship by helicopter to observe, take photos and interview the captain and certain members of the crew for a magazine article. Martin Balsam is the ships physician who is disliked by Finlander and the feeling is mutual. The doctor is intimidated by his skipper which is crucial as the movie unfolds. Support actors are James MacArther who Finlander singles out as a slacker, Eric Portman who plays a former U-boat commander and now a West German naval adviser for NATO who trys to help Finlander get an insight into the thinking of the Russian captain. And lastly there is the sonar genius played by Wally Cox. However, Poiter and Richard Widmark are the main actors and Widmark is totally believable as the captain who works his crew hard, keeps them on edge and goes about his duties with relish and glee! It's important to note that Finlander is not mad or insane, nor should he be compared to a captain Blythe or captain Queeg. He is a committed patriot, perhaps too sure of himself and simply enjoys this type of confrontation. He'll push his men as far as he has to, because he comes from the school that believes that his actions and methods can be justified by the fact he is saving American lives.
When this was made the fear of all out nuclear war was very much on every bodies mind, particularly after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. In the 60's there were a lot of doomsday movies made which included the likes of Fail Safe and later in the 70's there were movies like TWILIGHTS LAST GLEAMING and by the early 80's WORLD WAR III and THE DAY AFTER. However, the cold war ended and none of these grim events occurred, so perhaps the alarm created by these movies were grossly overstated. Maybe our political masters knew what they were doing all along and the nightmare scenarios were peddled for political purposes by left wing trouble makers! But then again, in the light of recent international events being so badly judged and managed, perhaps it was just luck all along! I don't know the answer to that either?
What I do know is that this film is a treat, it drags a bit in a couple of scenes but the tension builds as it moves to a climax. In particular, is the effective use of the sonar becoming louder and quicker the nearer the USS Bedford gets to the Soviet sub, this is very gripping and certainly keeps your attention. You know something is going to happen, but you are not sure what? The ending is shocking and spectacular and you can see why Hollywood couldn't make such a film. I would highly recommend this movie!
It's typical cold war because the US and the USSR often played this sort of cat and mouse game shadowing each others ships, aircraft or sailing/flying into each others territorial waters/air space were part and parcel of the cold war shenanigans. The rules of engagement were simple, harass the enemy and try to get one up on them, but under no circumstances be the first one to fire! It's a British made film which is done in black and white. I don't know if this was deliberate or a cost-cutting measure but it creates an oppressive and distinctively chilly atmosphere throughout which also makes the models and fake Arctic scenes to be less obvious. It's just a typical cold and gray overcast conditions for this region. However, effects and exterior shots are not an important part of the film. It's the dialog, tension, camera angles and back ground noise which creates the atmosphere.
Another important observation is, and again I don't know if it was deliberate but you don't see this from the Russian perspective. This decision is interesting it neither humanizes them which would allow sympathy, nor does it allow the Soviets to appear as crazed fanatics; they are simply there! I would have to say that this decision would probably lead the viewer to feel sorry for the Soviets, then again back in 1965 maybe not. In addition, I've never been in submarine but I would have thought that being in a submarine would have given you an edge. From this movie's perspective not only are the Americans perceived as being the aggressors but also having the upper hand. Once a submarine has lost the element of surprise perhaps the surface ship does have the advantage. I always thought that being in a submarine, although very claustrophobic would probably be an advantage! I don't know how realistic this is and would like to know the answer to that? In a none combat environment a surface ship probably can hold out for longer, although why one sub couldn't give one ship the slip is a mystery to me, I'd like to know the answer to that too?
Sydney Poitier is a journalist who has landed on the ship by helicopter to observe, take photos and interview the captain and certain members of the crew for a magazine article. Martin Balsam is the ships physician who is disliked by Finlander and the feeling is mutual. The doctor is intimidated by his skipper which is crucial as the movie unfolds. Support actors are James MacArther who Finlander singles out as a slacker, Eric Portman who plays a former U-boat commander and now a West German naval adviser for NATO who trys to help Finlander get an insight into the thinking of the Russian captain. And lastly there is the sonar genius played by Wally Cox. However, Poiter and Richard Widmark are the main actors and Widmark is totally believable as the captain who works his crew hard, keeps them on edge and goes about his duties with relish and glee! It's important to note that Finlander is not mad or insane, nor should he be compared to a captain Blythe or captain Queeg. He is a committed patriot, perhaps too sure of himself and simply enjoys this type of confrontation. He'll push his men as far as he has to, because he comes from the school that believes that his actions and methods can be justified by the fact he is saving American lives.
When this was made the fear of all out nuclear war was very much on every bodies mind, particularly after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. In the 60's there were a lot of doomsday movies made which included the likes of Fail Safe and later in the 70's there were movies like TWILIGHTS LAST GLEAMING and by the early 80's WORLD WAR III and THE DAY AFTER. However, the cold war ended and none of these grim events occurred, so perhaps the alarm created by these movies were grossly overstated. Maybe our political masters knew what they were doing all along and the nightmare scenarios were peddled for political purposes by left wing trouble makers! But then again, in the light of recent international events being so badly judged and managed, perhaps it was just luck all along! I don't know the answer to that either?
What I do know is that this film is a treat, it drags a bit in a couple of scenes but the tension builds as it moves to a climax. In particular, is the effective use of the sonar becoming louder and quicker the nearer the USS Bedford gets to the Soviet sub, this is very gripping and certainly keeps your attention. You know something is going to happen, but you are not sure what? The ending is shocking and spectacular and you can see why Hollywood couldn't make such a film. I would highly recommend this movie!