“Ice Station Zebra” is a movie based on the novel by
Alistair MacLean. It was released in
1968 and was a box office hit. The film
was nominated for two Academy Awards: special effects and cinematography. It was directed by John Sturges (“The Great
Escape”). The U.S. Navy cooperated by
providing the nuclear sub USS Ronquil for interior shots and some underwater
footage. Too bad the Navy did not
mention that submarines are called boats, not ships.
The movie opens with a capsule landing in the
Arctic. Both the Americans and the
Soviets want it. The nuclear sub
Tigerfish commanded by Capt. Ferraday (Rock Hudson) is sent to Ice Station
Zebra to rescue the personnel at the weather station. The sub will carry some passengers including
the shady Mr. Jones (Patrick McGoohan) and an “anti-Russian Russian” named
Vaslov (Ernest Borgnine). The boat also
carries a unit of Marines led by the hard-ass Capt. Anders (Jim Brown). Ferraday wonders what these guests have to do
with the rescue of some nerds.
a black guy on a sub who is not the cook! |
“Ice Station Zebra” was meant to be the next “Guns of
Navarone”. It did do well in ticket
sales, but it is not on the same level as “Guns” and is much inferior to
another MacLean movie that came out in the same year – “Where Eagles
Dare”. The main problem is the movie’s
plot has enough holes in it to sink a battleship, much less a sub. The plot twists are ridiculous and several
key plot elements make little sense. You
know a movie has flaws when it has four screenwriters (including MacLean). The acting is average with Hudson ruggedly
handsome, but a bit wooden. McGoohan is
fine as the enigmatic Jones, but Borgnine chews the scenery. Although it seems the script reserved a spot
for Jim Brown, he is underused. The
movie is technically blah. The
underwater cinematography got good reviews, but seems quaint by today’s
standards. The opening special effect of
the capsule landing could not possibly have been what the film was nominated
for an Academy Award for! The Arctic
scenes were obviously filmed on a soundstage.
At no time do you think they are at the North Pole. The score is repetitive and thus boring. The editing is sloppy as evidenced by footage
of F-4s thrown in with the MIGs.
The story was supposedly based on two actual
incidents. In 1959, an American
surveillance satellite came down in the Arctic and was acquired by Soviet
agents. In 1962, the CIA in Operation
Coldfeet searched an abandoned Soviet weather station at the North Pole. The plot that evolved from these two boring
incidents makes the film a Cold War curio.
It does not hold up well and recent talk of a remake is a
head-scratcher. Is Hollywood that bereft
of originality? Never mind.
filmed on location at the North Pole (or on a sound stage) |
The movie is very different than the novel. First, all of the names (including the sub)
have been changed, for God knows what reason.
Second, several characters have been added. The book does not have Vaslov and Angers. Only Carpenter (as Jones is called in the
book) comes aboard. More importantly,
the novel is a standard mystery set in the Cold War, whereas the movie is a
Cold War espionage film. For this reason, the movie concentrates on events and
characters on the sub and only uses the station as a site for the final
military confrontation. A major part of
the book deals with the survivors of the fire at the station. There are no survivors in the movie. Speaking of pyrotechnics, the book has two
disaster scenes on the sub. The movie
deftly recreates the plunge to crush depth, but omits the later fire that
almost deprives the crew of its last vestiges of oxygen. The biggest difference is the movie branches
off into a trite Cold War confrontation for its climax. There are no Soviet paratroopers in the
novel. MacLean concentrates on the
who-dunit aspect of the story. We even
get the cliched gather-all-the-suspects-around-a-table scenario.
It is hard to choose between the book and the
movie. The novel is not MacLean at his
best and the movie is not one of the better MacLean adaptations. I definitely enjoyed the book more. As a fairly well done mystery, it does keep
you wondering who the villain is. And
the revelation is plausible, although MacLean has to back-fill sheepishly to
explain how two disasters (either of which would have sunk a real sub) weren’t
meant to be serious. There is also a lot
more cat and mouse in the book. The
characterizations are more developed and several crew members are
memorable. The movie only cares about
the main actors. In its attempts to be
an action/adventure tale, the movie has several laughable plot developments and
builds to a ridiculous conclusion. The
movie may have been Howard Hughes’ favorite, but he was nuts.
BOOK = C
MOVIE = D
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall ever hearing a submarine referred to as a ship except in this movie.
ReplyDeleteThe book did seem to me almost like an Agatha Christie murder mystery, the kind where Miss Marple gathers everyone in the drawing room and reveals that the butler did it. The movie needed a more spectacular climax, so I don't blame the film makers for making the changes that they did.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, it just wasn't done very well. The Arctic studio sets are not convincing, and the scenes of the fighter jets are even more obviously fake. To make it worse, the scenes of the approaching MIGs seem to go on forever.
Patrick McGoohan was familiar to American and British audiences for two TV series, "Danger Man" (US: "Secret Agent"), and "The Prisoner." In the book, the British spy was the protagonist who solved the case, while the American submarine captain was almost a clueless bystander. In the movie, it ends up closer to the other way around.
Well said. Thank you. It will be interesting to see if the remake is closer to the book.
DeleteI don't think this is for me. It sounded like an OK premise at first.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the new one will be good, but either one is probably not your cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed to learn that they used a real submarine interior? I had been sure that the spacious bridge was a set (though I suppose that the movie could have used a mix of real and mock locations for the interior).
ReplyDeleteThe book's ending was vastly more satisfying but otherwise the movie is superior. It has a sort of epic feel as the USSR and the West fight their cold war by exerting their mastery over the limits of the world (apparently using technology developed by German scientists) while keeping to the unwritten and sometimes confusing rules of engagement.
ReplyDelete