At least one the officers at that table was so impressed with the XO’s stance that he renounced his commission and went back to his hometown in New Jersey to start a waste management company.
Man, the shit you pick up on as an adult then you when you watched this stuff as a kid is crazy. The subtleties, the underlying messages, the little naunces etc. You back to some of these movies 20 plus years later after you've gotten a taste of the real world and you then start to appreciate these scenes and the commentary going on.
I agree. My dad showed me this when I was 11 or 12 and it was a fun romp. Rewatching at 30 it's a study on a clash of leadership styles/philosophy among many other things. The back and forth power-play between these two, particularly in this scene is superlative. I love the smoke plumes from the nose of Hackman like he's a restful dragon sizing up the new guy.
If you wanna know why a great many actors have said that Gene Hackman is the best actor they've ever worked with, it's the way he looks Denzel up and down after he says "The true enemy is war itself." You can read whatever you want into that look, but the fact that he does it gives his character an extra MILE of depth. Absolute god of acting.
The whole movie is just Hackman and Denzel facing off. And it was hard for the audience to pick a side, because they both had good points. A truly great film.
I love this film. Both Hackman and Washington did great jobs. The sarcasm of the Capt in this scene just shows how much he believes he is right in every situation. XO handled the passive aggressive criticism well. The Capt got an 'aha' when XO told him the real enemy was war itself and he was dead set on his belief that war was the best solution to gain one's ends. Shows the XO was not 'complicated' as the Capt called him, but a nuanced thinker. He admitted he was made capt in an era when the Navy wanted a button pusher who would follow orders and not ask why. The US Air Force did a simulated war game with it's officers who were in the missile silos that would push the button to launch all their ICBMs in a nuclear war. A high number of those officers did not agree to fire the missiles without question. That meant many of them knew that launching those ICBMs would probably end life as we know it on the surface of our planet. Does anyone have the right to make that decision for 7.8B people and all wildlife on this planet?
What if the question was 'Are we under nuclear attack?' and the answer 'Yes'? And then let's say you believe that in such a circumstance it is already pointless to fire, well that might lead you back to the question of why did the enemy fire? Perhaps they thought you wouldn't press the button to return fire or perhaps they knew they could counter your response? Whatever the mind games that go on, it also seems risky to lead your enemies into thinking that using nuclear weapons is not something you would ever have the stomach for in any circumstance. We can only wonder what subtle effects might have changed the cold war, negatively or positively if the second world war ended without nuclear weapons playing a role.
Considering that them being insubordinate would have actually resulted in a first strike against their country because of their lack of guts, tells me the answer.
When this movie was released in 1995, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington were the headline actors. Washington shot into recognition with 1989's Glory. Hackman had a long resume of roles in big movies. Prolific, well established. But looking back on these movies it's always interesting to see actors in them before they hit it big. Here we see James Gandolfini before the smash series The Sopranos began in 1999. Viggo Mortensen before being recognized in 2001's The Lord of the Rings. Lots of actors out there grinding it out trying to get the big break.
I think I recognized almost every face around that table, while not every single one is/been a headline actor, a lot of them had very succesful careers in tv roles or smaller movie parts.
@@chaoticiannunez2419o agree. And I doubt the OP would disagree with you. But the purpose of comments such as his are that it is remarkable that a movie such as this FAULS to resonate with certain people to the extent that it is overlooked.
I think the scene captures two facets, of a multi-faceted attitude, that Americans take to war. Our culture of war is cultivated early. It spans the spectrum of Hackman, “I don’t care who the enemy is - kill it.” That visceral amygdala hijack, like when someone sees a cockroach or a rat. To Washington’s “infinite game” explanation of war. The enemy is war itself. The players come and go, but war’s goal is to keep going. It’s a great film, a great scene, and two great actors.
I respectfully think you oversimplify the first and miss the point Washington’s character makes. We have elected representatives to determine where and for what reason we use our military, so we can hold them accountable. Soldiers of whatever rank neither can nor should make those decisions, only act on them. Hunter wasn’t saying war is innately the enemy. He was saying that when full scale war is likely to end human life no possible political or other goal could make it justified. A real general wrote a brilliant commentary on ‘compassionate’ war. Basically in his view it only extended the misery, death and destruction of war by enabling a longer fight instead of (as Machiavelli wrote) crushing your enemy as quickly as possible to compress the negatives into as short a time as possible. Just my opinion though.
@@JodyOwen-we6oo would you speculate on the General’s thoughts and tell me if you think that he would consider the Global War on Terror a compassionate war? Then, in a separate cogitation try to discern if the Ukrainian war is a executed in a compassionate way? I have fought on two continents myself, and while I have an opinion, it isn’t decisive.
I was a teenager when I first saw this movie. That statement about war being the true enemy when it comes to nuclear weapons really struck home with me. I think about it every time I hear a debate about nuclear disarmament.
Amazing dialogue 👏 Gandolfini was such an incredible nonverbal actor, his body language was incredible in this scene. Denzel and Gene knocked this one out of the park 👏
Two of my favourite actors. Denzil is always watchable and simply refuses to make a bad film or to be cowed away from the resoluteness of his values....not many actors, in fact I can't think of another, can weld their values into their acting roles and career so completely. Gene Hackman is just scary...when he retired cinema lost a master. He inhabited his roles with 100% conviction....this is a great film....
I love scenes like this. The dialogue is pretty good... but what brings it to life is fine acting and reacting. Hackman and Washington are fully engaged in their characters and it's the way they react to each other's lines that really slams the scene home. And props to writing too; Ramsey is written to basically spell out the conflict between the two characters in a nutshell here: Ramsey is the man who executes orders faithfully and Hunter is the man who wants to know why. It's simple, but it's this difference being exposed here that sets up the conflict for the rest of the film. Both men are intelligent, well-spoken, well-read and well-liked. They're both good soldiers. But the key difference is how they think about a problem and its solution, and you can see in this scene that both men are trying to figure the other out and how to deal with the way the other man thinks.
One of my favorite moments of attention to detail as that you have the two most senior officers on the boat, the Captain and the XO, verbally and philosophically jousting, and not one single junior officer is uttering a word. They laugh and acknowledge the points being made by their superiors, and you can kinda tell whose side each is on, but they're listening and learning. This is one of my favorite submarine movies, in part because it shows how command should work, and what happens when it doesn't. The captain makes a few very bad mistakes, but is otherwise a good captain. The XO makes a few very bad mistakes, but is otherwise a good XO. I think the biggest mistake started when the Captain assumed that his rank meant he had the XO's trust, and when the XO simultaneously felt he knew better than the Captain and showed that feeling to the officers and crew.
In my company, one of the maxims is deference not to title but to expertise. The truly great commander is the one who is not so amazed at his own position in the pecking order that he fails to make way for the greater knowledge available to him in those who might not be as high in that pecking order.
@@Gk2003mI heard many such maxims in the service. I think they were all true, but few survived long. The only maximum that stayed true was, "The wise do not stay long in the service of politicians".
I think the captain believed the XO's duty was to do as told and to support the captain unconditionally. The XO saw himself as more of a check and balance instead of a rubber stamp.
@catholicdad not just foreshadowing. The conversation itself describes the ideological disagreement between the captain and XO about nuclear weapons in general. Later in the film you see it play out but the conversation is symbolic of the tension throughout the movie.
This scene is so frigging important. We, in the audience should contemplate the conversation that takes place. Movies like this are not just entertaining but educational as well. Remember, war is hell!
Imagine sitting at this dinner table. Everyone there are so far from your average person, people with wild amounts of responsibility and a perspective on the world that so few people have. Nor would ever want. Imagine a person who potentially has the chance to press the nuclear button. And then sitting down and having a conversation with them, rather than just being like, "Oh, yes sir, of course sir." to anything they say. Because that's how 99% of the people they interact with behave.
Tell to me. Of ww1ww2 and korea war for survival of country never want you spoiled by technology think war is obsolete what’s fool go asking russsia invasion of Ukraine go xi invade Taiwan people don,t grow up and see the world as cruel and vicious and only the strong survive ?
I love that interaction. Two different philosophies of how a warrior interacts with the world. "The nature of our existence is to be so formidable, that we are never called to do our purpose" vs "Our purpose is only to defeat the enemy".
I like the duality of this, but more than that I like that the two philosophies are tied together. An ideal warrior is to be so formidable, they will never be challenged, and thus peace will reign. However, for that warrior to be outwardly considered fatally formidable, the warrior must consider themselves to be ruthless to an extreme. Hence, it’s only purpose is to defeat the enemy. The enemy won’t fear a visually terrifying warrior, it will only truly fear the warrior which seriously is dangerous.
The implicit point too is that Clausewitz would have changed his opinion if he could have conceived of guns destructive enough to destroy the planet with a single pull of the trigger.
A soldier’s job and duty is to execute orders. Not reason about the nature or purpose of the order. Of course, to be an effective leader one must have a powerful enough mental and moral character to adapt to changing conditions in the field as well, making the duty argument more complicated. It’s why I sympathized with Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men.” He wasn’t wrong that elitists in college offices had the luxury of contempt for soldiers precisely because those soldiers existed.
Served on a submarine for eight years, through three different COs and a handful of XOs. You don’t smoke on the sub, especially not in the wardroom. Doesn’t matter who you are
Let me guess. You were Captain of the ship. Oh wait. No, you were just another lowly officer scrubbing the toilets. If you wanted your opinion to be taken seriously. Don't make a fool of yourself. Captains and Generals get away with everything. Extreme nepotism.
@@internetenjoyer1044 A vape pen with sometimes questionable Lithium-Ion packs, that can rupture on impact when dropped in a sub marine... you must be out of your goddamn mind.
A friend of mine knows I am a huge James Gandolfini fan. He sent this to me randomly (never seen this movie) my ears perked up and I said “that sounds like Tony” to see him made my heart smile. James Gandolfini and Denzel Washington??? TALENT beyond TALENT.
Hackman's face gives off so much as he moves to draw from his cigar at the very end of this clip. Its like peering right into the writer's brain. Phenomenal.
Hackman and Washington are truly great actors and in this scene they show it, you totally believe in the characters. It's a great film with an outstanding supporting cast.
That's it, I'm watching this again tonight. Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington, two legends on scene together. Although a great story, these two are so good, it almost doesn't matter.
There’s another movie with a similar theme of nuclear warfare called “By Dawn’s Early Light” that expands on this position quite a bit. Even with millions dead from an initial nuclear strike from the Soviets and response from the US, the American protagonists are not trying to win a war, they are trying to prevent its further escalation.
Hackman is a great actor and I like Denzel even more in this movie. I saw agreed with his pov on war and the reasons for going to war. He showed that he had a more nuanced interpretation of Von Clauswitz while the Capt only repeated things that supported his beliefs. Which is what most people do in life. Very little reflection on "what does this really mean and do I agree with all of it?"
I see Denzel's character as filling out a quote from David Crockett: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead". While allowing that he can't have all the information all the time, Mr. Hunter is cautious and fact finding before a decision is made but when a decision is made he COMMITS.
People wanna be living the ends justify the means but what the hell is the ends in the case of nuclear combat? At that point all ends lead to nowhere and there is no justification in that.
Among the most interesting things about a world with nuclear weapons is that they’re been used once in battle. And despite what people say Harry Truman made the right decision based on what he knew and his duty as president at the time. It is NOT the job of the US president to safeguard enemy lives. It IS his job to maximize the outcome for Americans. Period. Yet, despite tensions and power hunger in leaders and on and on, no country or independent group has used a nuclear weapon in nearly 8 decades. In fact, in at least 2 documented incidents soldiers tasked with using them in what were later shown to be false alert situations refused to do so, seeking other reasons why the alert happened than enemy launches of missile prior to launching rheirs.
So if the Soviet are children starving under communism or Islamic radical in Iran want to rape your children murder atheist and Christine forced in religious slavery throw acid in woman face is not worth dying for die for happens the purpose of life is to die!
I just love how Hackman's attitude changed from when they were discussing war to when Washington said that war itself is the enemy. For his character war wasn't something bad in itself. He studied it and perfected, he wasn't afraid of it - "You win a war, by destroying your opponent". For Washington's character war was something awful, that should be avoided at all costs -"Today it's impossible to destroy your opponent, so you cannot win a war". He knew from the beginning that they were on the opposite sides (that's why he claimed that he's simple and Hunter is complicated). But now he realised that they didn't share a very core of his values.
Hackman's character seems threatened or at least irritated by Washington's character's ideals, while the XO is unintimidated and deftly defends his position without aggression. Each man demonstrates his attitude about war succinctly not just by what they say but how they say it.
The Most Dangerous Animal in the World was a 1963 exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. It featured a mirror and text describing the dangers humans pose to life on earth.
I have known a couple of intelligent men in life similar to that of Gene Hackman’s CO position. These men knew basic operations plus much more in their professions. My hat went off to their knowledge and experiences. But in a few instances they lacked wisdom in their over-confident decision making skills that cost them dearly in man power, use of resources and longevity of the project purpose. In these instances they failed miserably. I was younger by a generation in age but brought along some new helpful information with a new perspective that I take no credit of my own from some state of the art schooling and new experiences from those learning institutions. My take was to learn from my employer’s knowledge and experiences and combine that with new techniques/technology to improve the total quality of our projects. It was a difficult time, as a younger person, to go through the hardships of these older mentors but did learn a lot from them. I am in debt to them for what I learned. It’s too bad that these guys also suffered in a few ways with lost revenue, resources and lost personal. In fact, both of these men could not keep employees around long term because their egos, arrogance and loud talk was very condescending. As a military guy, I could handle a lot of it for years working for them until they would lose it altogether. Then it was time for me to leave. This is why this film resonates with me so well.
Gene Hackman is a serious force. “The French Connection” is one of my all-time favorite films. Hackman just *becomes* the character. He did it in this film too. Watch “The Conversation”, “Crimson Tide” and “The French Connection” back to back and you’ll see what I mean. Denzel Washington takes it up several levels with “…the true enemy is war itself” - not just what he says but the expression on his face and every other officer in the room as they observe him and Hackman “spar” (in jest, at first). A real turning point in an excellent film. “Crimson Tide” is up there with “Das Boot”, “Run Silent, Run Deep” and “The Hunt For Red October” as far as top shelf submarine films go.
*_"If only every military man and politician took that to heart..."_* You'll never get everyone to believe it, but so far the leadership has taken it to heart. If they hadn't taken it to heart, the period since the second world war wouldn't be known as "The Long Peace".
Once you have seen Gene Hackman as Capt. Ramsey, you cannot fn unsee it. He is the CAPTAIN. Definitely one of my top 5 actors of all time. Most natural man in front of camera ever. No effort at all… Amazing.
You're not even allowed to wear deodorant onboard because it will interfere with the oxygen scrubbers, yet the Captain can light up a cigar. Gotta love that.
The diaouge is really good. but what i keep thinking is that in the hands of 'lesser actors' it would have come across as a bit cheesy. Hackman and Washington though. Just knocked it out of the park!
I think the captain knew by Hunter’s answer at the end, that he made a mistake picking him as XO. Ramsey wanted an officer who had his own opinions, but would repeat his orders; to the captain, Hunter would flinch under the pressure of nuclear brinkmanship. Such a flaw could be catastrophic aboard a nuclear submarine. The problem was, he mistakenly took Hunter’s lack of experience for incompetence. Ramsey was a good captain, but had a narrow vision; he knew that about himself, but was too old to change. Hunter, however, could see things from multiple perspectives, which is a rare quality in a relatively new officer. He was the perfect officer for the captain’s chair, which is why Ramsey recommended him for command.
He was absolutely right too. The point of nuclear proliferation is to prevent war. This movie is both frustrating and entertaining. It's a dramatic situation to have argument.
