I won’t say how awesome Tom Clancy’s novel is in military terms. Numerous comments on the Internet are highly praised. Although I am military blind and have no idea about these praises, I can only agree that Tom Clancy is very professional in military affairs, but since everyone says so, his level should be able to withstand scrutiny. What I mean is that military details are not the main issue I am going to talk about in this article. The main problem is mentioned in the title, and it is about patriotism and treason.
The whole film is about the Soviet veteran captain Ramius (played by Sean Connery) during the Cold War with the most powerful new submarine, the Red October, intending to treason, in the second actor Ryan (forgot who played it)— -Of course, he is an American-with the help of a thrilling adventure after a successful treason. These "adventures" are divided into two parts. One part is the danger from the Soviet Union. After learning that Red October was going to betrayed, N submarines were sent to sink it. The threats in this regard were mainly solved by Ramius, who is good at knives and guns. Another part is the danger from the United States. The different interpretations of Red October’s motives, the false information of the Soviet diplomatic spokesperson, etc., must have been handled by Ryan, who is good at talking at the conference table, with the unique skills of civilians. It's really hard to say who is the protagonist of Ryan and Ramius. Of course, Ramius's name appeared on the staff list first, and Sean Connery's name is even more famous, so let's consider him the protagonist for the time being.
Tom Clancy is a patriot who betrayed the United States and went to the Soviet Union. I don't think he will become the protagonist in his works. He will never give him so many wonderful scenes and charms. As far as I know, Sean Connery has never played a negative role, so in this movie, although he is a traitor—traitor, traitor, dogleg, traitor, etc., you can’t call it an exaggeration—but he is in all aspects. In portraying his positive image, killing his own political commissar makes people feel very enjoyable. I don't know how the Soviets would feel when they saw it. Chinese, I guess no one can accept that a traitor can kill his regiment, commander, political commissar or something, right? The Russians should not accept it either. After all, the Russian Ramius was played by an American. After speaking a few words in Russian, all Russians began to speak English.
We can think that a patriot like Tom Clancy could not accept the American rebellion, but he could happily write the rebellious Russians tall and mighty. In fact, I wonder why no one on the Internet blames Captain Ramius for his treason. Someone who interviewed me commented on this film: It really is a film made by Americans. Are all film reviews written by Americans? This is no different from the Vietnam War or the War of Independence movies made by Americans who can be used as conscription advertisements. They are all so-called patriotic movies made by narrow-minded patriots, advocating the American soul. It is said online that Tom Clancy pays attention to ethics and is patriotic at the same time. Then, when one's camp and other camps are in a hostile state, is ethics more important or patriotism more important? If Tom Clancy saw a dying Soviet child, would he save him? It stands to reason that any upright person cannot accept a person like treason, but Tom Clancy can accept the opponent’s traitor, and at the same time he must not be able to tolerate his own traitor (I guess). If this is the case, then he is really narrow. Patriot. This patriotism to the extreme is nationalism. It is the kind of "Tears of the Sun" that can cut the breasts of civilian women from the enemy camp alive. The reason is that they can no longer nurture the next generation of nationalists. Understand some, that is, fanatical terrorists, for their own country or belief, they can trample on any ethics, can do any sensational evil. Tom Clancy made a large donation to the political party he supported, and he was able to accept and even create a positive image of a disgusting apostate from the opposing camp. This enthusiasm is evident. Ramius and the dying deputy captain talked on the water at night about how great the American style is. The two Americans played by the Russians looked extremely awkward at this time, and then the deputy captain’s death was probably Tom. Clancy wanted to give it a tragic atmosphere of "unfulfilled ambitions before death", and in my opinion, this is purely deserved. Even the so-called "different ideologies" in the film critics, this kind of works that belittle communism and promote the so-called free American spirit based on green paper money is very excessive. Fortunately, this kind of "American soul" is just writing novels, otherwise it would be really dangerous. He should be invited to an American university to talk about ideological and moral education.
Traitors usually end up like this-kill him after draining his usefulness. The reason is simple. He was able to betray his former master at the beginning, and he will certainly be able to betray the current master in the future. Pursuing the Russian submarine of the Red October, the diplomat of the Russian Embassy, the cook who wrecked the destruction in the Red October, anyway, all the Russians except Captain Ramius and his henchmen, these were originally the "justice" to pursue the traitors. "Persons, in the moral sentiment set by the director for us in this film, undoubtedly have become negative characters. In order to create suspense, the sabotage cook didn't even show up until he was finally killed. I was thinking, what would it be like if the Soviet Union made this movie? In fact, the chef can be the protagonist. Everyone should have heard that Stephen Siegel had a popular action movie in the 90s-"Under Siege" (Under Siege), in which he played a chef on a ship, and later the entire battleship was controlled by terrorists. Now, he is a story of manpower turning the tide and killing everyone. Think about it carefully, how similar this film is to Hunting Red October! It was also the cook lurking on the submarine. As a result, one was the protagonist, the incomparable IMBA, who killed everyone, and the other had an abominable face until he was beaten to death. It is also a movie made by Americans, it is also a cook, it is also in a boat, and it is also embarrassed on all sides. Why is the gap so big?
View more about The Hunt for Red October reviews
