User Reviews

Released in 1965 at the height of the cold-war, this movie takes us on that one extra step.

Richard Widmark plays the commander of an American surface warship out hunting for commie subs. He's the sort of maniac-in-authority who epitomised the worst nuclear nightmares. He's a hunter with a hunter's instinct. He would love to chalk-up a kill. And he hates the communists. It's a lethal psychology.

Sydney Poitier is a visiting journalist. He's sailing with the ship at the navy's discretion, not at the captain's invitation. It's pretty evident that second only to commies, Widmark's character despises pacifist desk-jockeys.

Theirs is an intimate and uncomfortable relationship.

Eventually, they find a Russian submarine. They're in international waters so technically each is free to go where and as they please. Even if that means inconveniencing the other. A cat and mouse chase ensues. As time passes, the dangerous cocktail of the American commander's psychology tilts towards hunting rather than military discretion. His is the absolute right to command, and he gives the enemy no latitude.

In his wildest imagination, the journalist can see where this must lead, but things can surely never arrive at that point - can they? These are war games, and he's bluffing - right? He's the commander, with absolute power, but naval authorities don't give a maniac that much authority - do they? No they don't. But appointments can never ultimately evaluate psychology. People change over time. And they react to the moment.

A point is reached when the hunting instinct takes precedence over all else. An emotional switch that was never anticipated or it was always supposed would yield to discretion and responsible command is thrown in the single-minded resolve to beat the enemy.

It's a nice tense thriller after the fashion of 'The Enemy Below' but without the Russian perspective. For that, Poitier is obliged to act as devil's advocate, which makes him even less endearing to the commander. Widmark does the 'unhinged' thing so well it is surprising that he didn't feature as a really bad guy more often. Poitier is still at his strongest and makes a very commanding if thoughtful presence. One or two other stalwarts also catch the eye, like Martin Balsam. Some of the location shots are showing their age a bit now, but the drama and antagonism keep the movie running at flank speed.

Despite their colossal budgets, special-effects, and greater attention to detail, modern cold-war dramas never seem to capture that essential paranoia of the time. Perhaps economy of scale suits the genre best. I recently watched 'Crimson Tide', and although it contained a number of similarities - not least of which were black and white antagonists in the leading roles, and a do-or-die commander just itching for a scrap - I couldn't help but feel that whereas Widmark and Poitier were starring actors selected to tell a story; Crimson Tide was as much a vehicle to advertise Denzel Washington's and Gene Hackman's stellar status. It's a small shift in emphasis, but that's how it seemed to me.

Watch 'The Bedford Incident' if you get the chance. It may not be the best cold-war movie, but it'll hold you attention right readily.

SPOILERS. This is an above average doomsday movie, starting with the effective model work and special effects. The destroyer Bedford looks real against its background of sea and ice bergs. They couldn't use a real destroyer because the U. S. Navy would not lend its cooperation to a film in which an American skipper is a bloodthirsty cold warrior. The story is compelling and I won't bother outlining it here. If there is a problem with the script it's a minor one. The dialog is occasionally klutzy. A character is described by another as having spoken "laconically," without having actually done so. It's as if someone had stuck the word "laconically" into the script hoping it would somehow fit. And why would a journalist use a word like "commendatory" when he means "commendable." And there is an awkward confrontation between Poitier and Widmark in the latter's cabin. Poitier, the journalist, seems to be trying to draw Widmark into making a fascist speech, and Widmark argues that the press is always putting words in his mouth and "interpreting." It's clumsily done. They say things like, "You're interpreting again!" and "That's YOUR interpretation." Widmark was producer on this and his wife Jean, a writer, was called in to add some uncredited gloss to the script but who knows?

The acting is about what you'd expect from pros. The film was made in England and some of the actors do a reasonably good job of disguising their British accents. Poitier -- I can't remember a film in which he did a bad job, though his range was limited. Widmark is subtly nuts. We can sense pretty much from the beginning what he is about. But he's human too. His condescending affection towards Wally Cox (as a mere seaman who is the best sonarman on the ship!) is nice. And when he has an argument with Poitier and Poitier gets in the last logical word, Widmark assumes a hurt expression before abruptly turning away. (I'm not so sure that's proper in the sort of authoritarian that Widmark represents.) Martin Balsam is his reliable self as a recycled doctor who is routinely humiliated by the captain.

So much technology is involved in the story that it seems at times as if it's science fiction. Some of the procedures shown are a little sloppy. Hospitalmen having a smoke in sick bay? During General Quarters? Men saluting officers indoors? (I had to live with that chicken**** for four years, and in the movies they throw it out the porthole!)

Yet incidents involving confrontations, I understand, do happen. An American and a Soviet submarine went through an underwater collision at the height of the cold war while playing games with one another. And as for violating territorial waters, a Soviet boat found itself trapped in a Norwegian fjord some years ago, if I remember.

Holy mackerel, I'm glad that whole period is behind us, when a few screwballs or screwups here and there could begin a nuclear exchange. I am in hopes that it stays behind us but I'm not certain we have more control over our nature than the skipper had over the antisubmarine device once it was launched.

This is an excellent cold war thriller,(in fact some might say horror) about a US destroyer pursuing a Soviet submarine in the Greenland/Arctic region. I say pursuing, it's not done anything wrong other than veer into US territorial waters, whether it was deliberate or accidental nobody is really sure? The USS Bedfords skipper is Capt Finlander played by Richard Widmark who is very believable and just as dislike able as an obsessive control freak, probably with a chip on his shoulder who decides to teach the Soviet sub a lesson. Under such circumstances the strong arm tactics used requires the use of in your face tracking and aggressive screening of the Russian sub with the intention of eventually forcing the submarine to surface when the batteries need recharging. This type of brinkmanship is designed to show whose boss!

It's typical cold war because the US and the USSR often played this sort of cat and mouse game shadowing each others ships, aircraft or sailing/flying into each others territorial waters/air space were part and parcel of the cold war shenanigans. The rules of engagement were simple, harass the enemy and try to get one up on them, but under no circumstances be the first one to fire! It's a British made film which is done in black and white. I don't know if this was deliberate or a cost-cutting measure but it creates an oppressive and distinctively chilly atmosphere throughout which also makes the models and fake Arctic scenes to be less obvious. It's just a typical cold and gray overcast conditions for this region. However, effects and exterior shots are not an important part of the film. It's the dialog, tension, camera angles and back ground noise which creates the atmosphere.

Another important observation is, and again I don't know if it was deliberate but you don't see this from the Russian perspective. This decision is interesting it neither humanizes them which would allow sympathy, nor does it allow the Soviets to appear as crazed fanatics; they are simply there! I would have to say that this decision would probably lead the viewer to feel sorry for the Soviets, then again back in 1965 maybe not. In addition, I've never been in submarine but I would have thought that being in a submarine would have given you an edge. From this movie's perspective not only are the Americans perceived as being the aggressors but also having the upper hand. Once a submarine has lost the element of surprise perhaps the surface ship does have the advantage. I always thought that being in a submarine, although very claustrophobic would probably be an advantage! I don't know how realistic this is and would like to know the answer to that? In a none combat environment a surface ship probably can hold out for longer, although why one sub couldn't give one ship the slip is a mystery to me, I'd like to know the answer to that too?

Sydney Poitier is a journalist who has landed on the ship by helicopter to observe, take photos and interview the captain and certain members of the crew for a magazine article. Martin Balsam is the ships physician who is disliked by Finlander and the feeling is mutual. The doctor is intimidated by his skipper which is crucial as the movie unfolds. Support actors are James MacArther who Finlander singles out as a slacker, Eric Portman who plays a former U-boat commander and now a West German naval adviser for NATO who trys to help Finlander get an insight into the thinking of the Russian captain. And lastly there is the sonar genius played by Wally Cox. However, Poiter and Richard Widmark are the main actors and Widmark is totally believable as the captain who works his crew hard, keeps them on edge and goes about his duties with relish and glee! It's important to note that Finlander is not mad or insane, nor should he be compared to a captain Blythe or captain Queeg. He is a committed patriot, perhaps too sure of himself and simply enjoys this type of confrontation. He'll push his men as far as he has to, because he comes from the school that believes that his actions and methods can be justified by the fact he is saving American lives.

When this was made the fear of all out nuclear war was very much on every bodies mind, particularly after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. In the 60's there were a lot of doomsday movies made which included the likes of Fail Safe and later in the 70's there were movies like TWILIGHTS LAST GLEAMING and by the early 80's WORLD WAR III and THE DAY AFTER. However, the cold war ended and none of these grim events occurred, so perhaps the alarm created by these movies were grossly overstated. Maybe our political masters knew what they were doing all along and the nightmare scenarios were peddled for political purposes by left wing trouble makers! But then again, in the light of recent international events being so badly judged and managed, perhaps it was just luck all along! I don't know the answer to that either?

What I do know is that this film is a treat, it drags a bit in a couple of scenes but the tension builds as it moves to a climax. In particular, is the effective use of the sonar becoming louder and quicker the nearer the USS Bedford gets to the Soviet sub, this is very gripping and certainly keeps your attention. You know something is going to happen, but you are not sure what? The ending is shocking and spectacular and you can see why Hollywood couldn't make such a film. I would highly recommend this movie!

During the cold War between democracies and communists, suspicions breeded distrust, and distrust caused some to shoot first and ask questions later. The captain of the Bedford (Richard Widmark) is a loose cannon who could make a rash decision at any moment, especially since the presence of a nearby Russian submarine indicates that both water vessels are being stalked like wild animals waiting to see who's the strongest to pounce first.

This certainly has some great dangerous looking far northern sets, complete with icebergs in the endless mass of water. Sidney Poitier once again brings consciousness to the film as a photojournalist who questions Widmark's every move, citing recent incidents in Widmark's past as concern over what he might do. There's also Eric Portman as a German commodore aboard the ship, Martin Balsam as the doctor, and Wally Cox as the radio operator.

The excellent cast truly helps this subtle film where it needs it the most, as the film takes some time before it really becomes intense. Definitely, the second half is much more intriguing than the first, and that requires the viewer to be patient as everything builds up. Even though Widmark's character is ruthless, he shows the desperation building up in him that fleshes him out. Poitier is barely recognizable in one scene where he's in the shower covered with soap, and only his voice indicates who he is. I wouldn't put this on my list of 60's classics, but it's a must see for film historians.

I served for six years as a destroyer sonarman in the early to late 70's hunting the Great Steel Whales and actually found seven confirmed Soviet subs in a time when most ping-jockeys like me never found any. My list of confirmed subs were 2 Foxtrot-class diesel boats, 1 November SSN, 2 Echo II SSGNs, 1 Victor I SSN and 1 Yankee SSBN. I just watched this film on TCM for the first time in many years and was struck by how realistic and relevant it still is. As one reviewer pointed out, the film echoes a true incident involving a US Diesel sub trapped in Soviet territorial waters in 1958 that is also spotlighted in the book, "Blind Man's Bluff". My watch station was similar to Wally Cox's character standing sonar watches and my battle station was firing the Underwater Weapons Battery like James McArthur's character. So I'm VERY familiar with both the attraction AND danger of the Ultimate Hunt of the Leviathan.

Many comparisons have been made of this film to Moby Dick and Widmark's Capt. Finlander to Ahab, including how Finlander, like Ahab, inspired his crew to go along with his doomed hunt. For me, I compare Finlander to Robert Mitchum's Destroyer captain in "The Enemy Below". Both are tough, tenacious captains who drive their crews to the limit of endurance in pursuit of their submerged adversaries. Both have compelling reasons for engaging in that behavior. The difference is Finlander's ultimate obsession with the hunt dooms him and his ship like Ahab, while Mitchum's captain is ultimately redeemed by his rescue of his enemies' lives even while his ship is destroyed in destroying the submarine.

The other compelling character for me is the former U-boat Captain who corrects Poitier's reporter that it was Admiral Doenitz's Navy, not Hitler's. This I find especially relevant since Doenitz actually had Admiral Lockwood, commander of the US submarine force in the Pacific during WW2, testify in his defense during Doenitz's war crimes trial since Lockwood used the exact same strategy to defeat Japan that Doenitz used against the Allies. To me, he also presages Jurgen Prochnow's U-Boat captain in "Das Boot".

Add in a great supporting cast that includes Martin Balsam and a young Donald Sutherland as one of the Corpsmen working under Balsam, the use of a Farragut-class DLG model and special effects that recreate the North Atlantic coast of Greenland quite effectively for it's time, and the constant drumbeat of the sonar transmission and echo that serves to heighten the tension even more and you have a great yarn. I've know many sub sailors who've had to endure being lashed with that sonar for hours to days at a time and told me how maddening that can get.

Strangely enough, I ran into one of the crewmen from one of the Foxtrot subs I found and tracked over 20 years later when he towed my car home from Burbank Airport to Pasadena. At that time, they had just brought another Foxtrot sub called the Scorpion and had her on display next to the Queen Mary in Long Beach. I asked him if he'd ever been down there to go aboard for old times sake. his answer was No because he LIVED it for three years and had his bellyfull of it THEN.

Sidney Poitier's role here as the journalist doesn't have the usual racial component attached to it. Unfortunately, this is not a very good film, even with Richard Widmark and Martin Balsam headlining it.

Widmark plays a tyrannical captain of an American vessel searching for Soviet submarines in a post-war submarine. Widmark, as always, gives it his all playing a Captain Bligh or Queeg like figure. The man acts as if we're at war and he will hold the crew, not only to the highest standards, he is ready to blame them for anything that may go amiss.

The film begins where Balsam and Poitier come on board the ship as the doctor and journalist, respectively.

The film falls into the problem of being scenery stagnant. All of the action is on deck and you never see anything else. There is an interesting interview between Poitier and Widmark, where the former reveals his real reason for wanting to interview the Captain.

The film's tragic ending can easily be predicted as it essentially goes nowhere.