MovieChat Forums > The Hunt for Red October (1990) Discussion > Dumb question but I'll ask anyway

Dumb question but I'll ask anyway


I've seen the movie many times but I'm still unclear about something that's probably plainly obvious to everyone but me. Why did the "cook" intend to sabotage the Red October in the first place? Did the Russian government suspect that Ramius was going to defect and planted the "cook" there to prevent it? Was the "cook" an anti-nuclear activist who was determined to take a stand and figured that killing the entire crew of a sub was the best way to do that?

I love this movie but I've never been able to figure this out even though the answer is probably a very simple one. Thanks to anyone who helps me out. (And I won't be offended if I get called out for being a moron for not knowing this ).

reply

Yes it is a simple answer and the answer is IN the film and apparently you missed it every single one of those "many times" that you watched the film.

The Cook was not just a cook but was also a planted GRU Operative trained in how to destroy the ship just in case the vessel fell into the wrong hands either by action of the enemy or by treason (as in Ramius' defection)

This was made clear in the film.
It was far more clear however and gone into much greater detail in the novel.
If you like the movie, you do yourself a disservice in never having read the novel.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Thanks.

reply

the Novel involves discussions with the Soviet command discussing having the GRU Agent in place, his cover, and his orders.

They were also partially convinced the Red October was destroyed because there was unknown to the Soviets until later... a third sub that was lost. This one due to a reactor accident and the only survivor was a cook with radiation sickness. They mistakenly thought the cook was the agent off Red October, but it wasn't.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

apparently you missed it every single one of those "many times" that you watched the film.


Just couldn't post an answer without getting your snide, sarcastic, *beep* dig in while you were at it. You can't just post answers to questions. You always have to include your little comments to show your true character.

At least you are consistent, consistently an *beep*

Lamar Jackson for Heisman!

reply

And your true character is to be a complete *beep* that stalks everything I post on here with negative comments. you're a fraking troll who got butthurt when I corrected your ignorance once and you just can't let it go.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Really? That's your response? By the way, follow my posting history, "stalking" you is not part of it. You'll also notice I don't just act rude to everyone I respond to. Fail. Nice try....not.

Lamar Jackson for Heisman!

reply

Nor do I act rude to everyone I respond to.

You however are butthurt and attack me every single time you come across my posts. All because in the past, I called you out on sone really stupid crap you posted.



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Dude, just own up to it already and quit trying to deflect with some "post from the past". You couldn't just answer a question without some petty little dig while you were doing it. Own up to it and quit all of your spin. You're acting like a lib. You're trying to spin and deflect like they do. I know you're not a lib so quit trying to change the subject like one.

Lamar Jackson for Heisman!

reply

There's no petty little dig.
He asked about something that he missed and stated that he had seen the film many times, so apparenttly he missed it every one of those many times.

That's not a dig, but an observation of fact.

YOU CHOOSE to see every post of mine in the worst possible interpretation. YOU DO.
You are seriously mental and have a disproportionate fixation on me.

Yes. I admit I get gruff and rough on certain individuals espousing absolute ignorance and bullsh!t.

But I dont do that to everyone, and I didn't do it here. You and your abnormal fixation on me can step off.







I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Oh and btw. The OP didn't take it as an attack, nir was it intended as an attack or a "dig" or whatever else tou want to falsely characterize me as doing.

Get the frak over yourself asshat.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

At the beginning of the film, Ramius kills the "political officer." This was the Soviet government's plant aboard the ship to ensure the crew/officers were behaving appropriately. The cook was an undercover back up political officer. He was privy to the ship's original orders and was the captain changed the plan, he would have swung into action to stop the ship.

reply

Actually, you're completely wrong.

The GRU agent was not privy to the original orders. But he was trained to watch and spy on the officers and he suspected that something was wrong. This was confirmed when he hid and remained behind when the crew was "evacuated" and then saw Ramius and Officers admit the Americans aboard.


Nor is the GRU agent a "Backup political officer" That's absurd and cannot be done "undercover".

He was an undercover agent of the GRU (Sorta like Naval Intelligence). A political Officer is like a training officer but his instructions are on political ideology, not naval tactics.
The two positions are completely different.

Besides, The Political Officer would be equally spied on by the GRU agent as much as the reat of the Officers.

FYI... In the real life situation that inspired the novel, the mutiny was lead by the political officer.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[deleted]