MovieChat Forums > Crimson Tide (1995) Discussion > The racial subtext, was it necessary?

The racial subtext, was it necessary?

posted 14 years ago by ronin1138
52 replies | jump to latest

I like this movie a lot and it has stood the test of time well but what almost ruins the entire film was near the end when they both sit down facing each other at the com and Hackman brings up the horse discussion from earlier. Implying that the horses are the best because they are white, it just felt like it was a deciding factor in his hostility towards Washington's character, and therefor undermined his entire standing as Captain.

Don't be afraid to dream a little bigger darling...

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lawdog1527 10 years ago

I think many here, including the OP, missed the point and would have fallen right into Ramsey's trap.

Ramesy was beaten. He knew it and was angry. Hunter however was cool as a cucumber waiting to proven right. Ramsey's only way of getting under Hunter's skin by this point was to play the race card, hoping Hunter would lose his composure. It wasn't that Ramsey was a racist, it's that he was needling Hunter. And Hunter saw through it.

Many posters here wouldn't have and would have taken the bait.

[–] black-hood 10 years ago

Actually Ramsey wasn't beaten at that point. They were waiting for the EAM which could have validated Ramsey's position.

Agree Ramsey was trying to push Hunter's buttons. His remarks about the colour of the horses was alluding to race. Even here he was upstaged by Hunter's response.

Regarding the OP question, no it wasn't necessary. Up to that point there wasn't any racist subtext. Ramsey may or may not be racist but he was captain of a nuclear sub, a professional, so unlikely to allow feelings of race to become an issue.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

I love this film (Tony Scott's best by far) and I adore Tarantino, but in this instance all the worst material came service of the latter (the meandering discussions about the Silver Surfer and the Lipizanner stallions stood out like a sore thumb) and I was reminded why I don't especially care for 'True Romance' which is entirely scripted by Tarantino. Tarantino's idiosyncratic, pop-culture and arcane fact referencing dialogue are a delight in an Indie context but have no place in a more straightforward high-octane action flick.

As someone who is Portuguese I also took offence at this pointless exchange. Was Tarantino trying to associate the black hero with the Spaniards and my Lusitanic forebearers with the racist antagonist (despite the fact that it has always been the Spanish who have oppressed the Portuguese and not the other way around)?

[–] Mandingo609 10 years ago

Totally agree. Race talk should only be discussed when it's about what's wrong with black folks.

[–] Judge-Dredd 10 years ago

I think the film would have been better off without that scene. It made Hackman seem even more like a villain than he already did. I think the film would have been somewhat better if both of the main characters were easy to sympathize with. It would make it more difficult for the viewer to decide who was right and who was wrong given the circumstances taking place on the boat. Instead, Washington was clearly the "good guy" and Hackman was the "bad guy". Amazing movie nonetheless.

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

Implying that the horses are the best because they are white

No, he didn't imply that their abilities had anything to do with their colour. The point of the conversation was to show how intolerant they both were of each other.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] manarchon 9 years ago

Totally unnecessary which-ever the way you look at it. You can look it at Ramsay's final stand to assert he's dominance and authority. But still doing it that way make's him seem extremely weak and dishonorable overall.

It was the U.S.S. Alamaba afterall. Ramsay was a bit portrayed as a bit of cowboy type of old school guy. Yes there were black officer's and crew members but a *beep* as as a captain? Hell no Sir!. That was what I picked up intentional or not.

It was also 1995, the main theme of the film should not have been race, this was a political action-thriller (A Tony Scott one but still :D) not some Tarantino pulp film. Washington was just fresh from his role as Malcolm X. U.S. was living in the aftermath of the L.A. riots. You can see it whichever way, but poor decision on part the the film-makers

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

poor decision on part the the film-makers

I honestly don't understand the fuss here.

Hackman's character didn't even know they were born black, until Washington's character stated it. The disagreement was about their country of origin, not some mythical "race" of horses, and Hackman's character raised the subject in the first place in reference to training, and making a horse do what you want whether it wants to or not.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Scaar_Alexander 9 years ago

I agree. It didn't ruin much for me, I'm still very fond of this movie, but the fact that until then they hadn't mentioned once single time the skin color or the protagonists was one of the many things I found clever in a movie full of clever elements (minus the Star Trek thing)... and that little chat about the horses was totally unnecessary. Tarantino, who wrote many lines for the movie, could be behind it...

___________
- Booker, are you afraid of God ?
- No. But I'm afraid of you.