The Hunt For Red October Book and Movie Review

Tim Wick

As we have read books and watched movies for the book/movie club, we have found that most combinations fall into one of a few familiar categories (all examples are my own personal opinion):

1. Movies that do not live up to the book (Fahrenheit 451, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Starship Troopers).
2. Movies that are far superior to the source material (The Man Who Would be King, Field of Dreams).
3. Movies that are remarkably faithful adaptations of the source material (The Princess Bride, The Shawshank Redemption)

The Hunt For Red October belongs to a fourth category, one that I feel Blade Runner (based on Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) belongs to as well. I don't know how best to define the category except to say that it is a movie that adequately captures the flavor of the book despite changing all but the most basic of the central themes.

In the case of Blade Runner, the film deals with a man hunting down rogue replicants. Aside from that, there is very little to tie it to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The connection in The Hunt for Red October is not quite as flimsy, but the movie diverges dramatically from the novel. Oddly, both succeed on nearly equal footing.

Having watched U-571 last week - and having found it somewhat lacking - I was looking forward to re-watching Red October at the Book Movie meeting. I tried to avoid it during the movie, but I could not help comparing U-571 to it's older, and superior, brother. Red October developed characters, clearly defined their roles in the movie and still managed to sustain suspense for the majority of the film. In U-571, I didn't really know or care about the characters on the submarine and the suspense was choked into the last hour in a way that almost made me dizzy and gave me what I term the "Armageddon syndrome". In other words, I got the feeling the filmmakers needed to make the film a bit longer, so they had one more thing go wrong just to add another five minutes. I hate that kind of filmmaking. It's sloppy and tends to dissipate tension as the audience becomes attuned to it. Great suspense films build tension and then release it, like a steam valve on a radiator. You get that "Holy S**t! Whew! HOLY S**T! Whew! HOOOOOLLLLLYYYYY S**********TTTTT!" kind of feeling as you watch it. Hitchcock was the master of this, but a lot of good modern sci-fi pulls this off as well (The Abyss, The Matrix, Star Wars, etc.)

So my point (as I'm sure you were wondering when I would get to it) is this: Red October succeeds as a suspense film because it recognizes the need for a steam valve to keep the audience from becoming complacent. The book succeeds on the same level, but in a totally different way.

The book focuses a great deal more on the issues of espionage and tactical "non-warfare" that surround the hunt for the defecting submarine. This additional level adds a great deal of tension to the story as you are made to worry about the escalating military situation on the surface, the safety of US spies in Moscow AND how they are going to reach the Red October before the Russians do. Probably most difficult is keeping the characters straight as there are so many politicians, spies and military personnel that you can easily get lost trying to figure out who is doing what.

That is you could if Tom Clancy would let you. He has a deft touch for reminding you just enough about the last time you made contact with a specific character to get your memory juices flowing. He has a great head for military fiction, which is probably why his books sell so well.

The hard thing to get past in the book is the rabid anti-Soviet sentiment. One must remember that this novel was written in the mid-1980's, when Reagan era communist hatred was at it's peak. As such, parts of the book take on the curious aspect of being almost a museum piece. While the military technology sounds as current as cell phones and pagers, the political opinions voiced have fallen by the wayside (at least for the most part).

The interesting thing is that beyond the central theme (a Russian submarine trying to defect to the US) and some of the characters (Jack Ryan), much of the movie is completely different. The espionage angle is eliminated, and instead, we have a US sub tracking the Red October and preparing to sink it. The only moment in the movie that I have never liked is when Ryan predicts the direction the Red October will turn. For one and only time in the movie, success depends on blind luck. I feel that is a cop out by a weak script writer and I don't like it in this film.

In the book, there is no question about the Russians intent to defect. The President himself orders the recovery of the submarine with all members of the crew who want to defect. The question becomes how to keep the boat without the crew or the Russians noticing. The movie obviously takes a different tack on these details.

Is that good or bad? In the final analysis, it was the perfect decision. I found the book an interesting read and I find the movie a great suspense film. They are very different in feel and tone, but both are well worth the investment of time.

The interesting thing is that beyond the central theme (a Russian submarine trying to defect to the US) and some of the characters (Jack Ryan), much of the movie is completely different.