A Clash of Practical and Theoretical Wisdom, Essay Example

Set amidst the apocalyptic tension of a potential nuclear war between Russia and the United States, Tony Scott’s 1995 film Crimson Tide simultaneously portrays a further tension of personalities between the characters portrayed by the two lead actors Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington. These two characters symbolize two radically different worldviews in the form of a duel between practical and theoretical knowledge during the time of a crisis. Hackman’s role symbolizes this practical wisdom as a knowledge rooted in experience and intuition, whereas Washington’s role represents a scientific, distanced and theoretical form of knowledge. Accordingly, the story can be viewed as a simultaneous analysis of which of these two approaches proves most capable of handling crises. The film, in demonstrating both of these characters in a strong and compelling light, suggests that both worldviews possess their own intrinsic worth.

These two worldviews are made clear in the biographies of the characters. Gene Hackman portrays a veteran commanding officer of the submarine, Frank Ramsey, whereas Ron Hunter is the character of Washington, a young new executive officer. While geopolitical antagonism arises because of the actions of a rogue Russian nuclear submarine commander who seeks to incite a nuclear conflict, Ramsey and Hunter reveal their own subjective worldviews during this crisis situation, worldviews which are in conflict with each other. Ramsey’s older character symbolizes the figure of an intuitive and experienced warrior, convinced in his own abilities honed during his years of experience in combat. As Lipschutz notes, Ramsey “is an old submariner….Ramsey operates under the old rules.” (2) Hence, Ramsey’s character is fundamentally conservative in his approach: he is confident in the didactic lessons he has gained from experience and is wary of innovation. This establishes one form of subjective knowledge in the film, as Ramsey symbolizes an empirical form of intelligence that is rooted in practice.

On the other hand, Hunter represents a new generation, analytic, stoic, and conservative, whose military education is not based on experience, but rather on thorough learning. What Hunter lacks in terms of such experiences is made up for with his intensive study of military history and texts. Hunter is a methodical thinker and essentially a scientific thinker, who does not view intuition and feeling as significant cognitive skills. While Hunter’s disregard for the value of experience could be explained in terms of his own lack of experience, at the same time his approach during the crisis of the film is indicative of a theoretical as opposed to practical form of knowledge.

Thus, the narrative of the story unfolds in terms of the tension between these two archetypical figures: the older experienced veteran, confident that his experiences and practical wisdom are sufficient to resolve problems, while the young apprentice, although lacking experience, is convinced in his own learning and his theoretical and analytic approach. Insofar as the film ends with both officers under a military court examination that eventually reaches the verdict that both officers were equally correct and equally incorrect, it can be stated that the film recognizes the value of both of these viewpoints. Knowledge can come in both practical and theoretical forms: what is arguably the best approach is a balance of both.

Hackman and Washington’s characters thus symbolize two extremities in subjectivity. Such extremities are accentuated by the overall extremity of the narrative itself, as Shapiro notes that in the film the “characters…exist under very oppressive conditions.” (35) Such oppression arguably forces the individual characters to rely on what is most familiar to them in order to resolve the crisis. Yet since these views are opposed in terms of the value of practice versus the value of theory, the characters become embroiled in conflict. That the film concludes with an acknowledgment of the validity of both viewpoints therefore suggests that extremism in either direction is undesirable: what is rather required is an equilibrium, such that both practical and theoretical wisdom possess their own distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Works Cited

Lipschutz, R.D: Cold War Fantasies: Film, Fiction and Foreign Policy. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

Shapiro, J.F. Atomic Bomb Cinema. New York: Routledge, 2002.