An early scene in “Crimson Tide” features supporting characters quizzing each other on submarine movies just before boarding their own submarine. It's interesting how the submarine movie seems to be its own genre. Sure, it tends to be a subcategory of war movies (usually World War II), but still – you don't often hear “plane movies” or “tank movies” as classifications of their own under the subject of war or military flicks. I suppose that's because a submarine is a unique setting (claustrophobic and unscenic, without even any windows) and thus a tougher film to make. As an action movie (like most war movies are), setting it in a submarine relies on dialogue and tension and most of the literal “action” is basically in slow-motion with metallic behemoths trying to dodge each other's torpedoes.
Tony Scott's “Crimson Tide,” of course, has its share of scenes like that (and done well), but the real action of the picture has to do with the exchange of words and more the threat of violence than the actual act. It's more philosophical than most submarine movies and a great deal of its appeal is based on the powerhouse performances of Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington (in his first of five leading roles in Tony Scott's remaining nine feature films) playing their parts like a tennis match that gradually escalates from friendly to cataclysmic. It's a smarter film than one would expect and challenges the audience to a certain extent in regards to questions of morality, duty, and even existentialism.
Tony Scott employs his usual tactics of sweat, smoke, and combining hot and cold lighting, but it doesn't feel redundant or derivative here. I don't know if the set actually moved or the camera work makes it seem like its moving, but the viewer never doubts the characters are in a working submarine and, when they're in trouble, you really feel it. When they're sinking, you feel the pressure. When they're evading, you feel the tension. When they're cut off, you feel the isolation. This is another case of the talent of the director being integral to the final product and, indeed, the film was nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Editing” (and rightfully so). It was beaten by “Apollo 13,” which is interesting considering a space capsule movie is not too far removed from a submarine movie, conceptually.
Ironically, I think the only reason “Crimson Tide” didn't receive higher accolades is because it was made after the Cold War was over. Not only were the Russians not scary adversaries in 1995, but nuclear war was a very unrealistic threat. Thus “Crimson Tide” felt about as escapist as Science Fiction. Had this film been made 30 years earlier (and made the way it is by Mr. Scott), it would've terrified audiences, gotten under their skin, and been a must-see for anyone who could stomach it. In other words, “Crimson Tide” would've been the kind of classic submarine film mentioned alongside the films the supporting characters reference in it.
